As I’ve noted before chivalry is the mechanism that turns feminism (women’s complaints) into action. This is at times hard to observe because chivalry is most men’s default condition in our culture*. Most men don’t actively think of themselves as chivalrous, but at the same time they would be deeply troubled if accused of being unchivalrous.
But women aren’t expected to be chivalrous, so they often provide a window into how chivalry has warped most men’s thinking. For example, Yahoo has a new article up titled Thousands of girls joining boys as Cub Scouts. The article focuses on a little girl who is joining her brother’s Cub Scout pack. The boy understands that it would be unchivalrous to ask for a space he and his father can focus on manly things:
I was a little skeptical because it was me and my dad’s thing, but when Tatum got in it was even more fun
Since women don’t have to be chivalrous, the mothers of boys are the only ones who can point out that the girls are being petty by invading all male spaces. In the comments to the article single mother ClaireW laments what girls are taking away from her son:
This is heart breaking to me. As a single mom to a young boy I know he desperately needs strong male role models guiding him. He’s just turned 8, this is the time he needs these men most of all, but now it’s not going to happen. Why can’t the girls have these activities in Girl Scouts? Girls & boys are equal, but that doesn’t mean they are the same. And why would we all want to be?
Likewise, single mother Kasey Ferris at Huffington Post objects to the cartoonish chivalry of modern fathers in Please Don’t Threaten My Son For Dating Your Daughter:
It’s not “funny” to threaten my son. It’s not “cute” to treat your daughter as if she has zero common sense.
…
Above all, realize and come to terms with the fact that teenage sexuality is not a “boy thing”. Teenage sexuality is a teenage thing. Young men and young women alike are going to be curious, interested, and looking to learn more about sex. Your daughter is just as curious as my son, I can virtually guarantee it. Yet you don’t see me polishing a shotgun when she comes over to do homework. You don’t see me posting pictures on Facebook with watered-down threats about personal harm should I find out she gets handsy with my son.
The idea of threatening young women to keep their hands off young men is ludicrous, yet when roles are reversed it’s completely accepted and even encouraged. Why?
*This varies by race, and for white men at least has strong class implications. For white men not being called unchivalrous is the mark of a “gentleman”, which connotes both class and virtue.
I’ve been thinking on something along the lines of what the second lady was talking about as my son is engaged and (might be) getting married. No doubt I will hear from the brides family some threats about how my son had better not hurt their daughter, niece, friend, etc. under threat of bodily harm. I wonder if I should do the same and make sure the bride and her family know that if she cheats, steals or harms my son in any way she can expect to be put to rest under six feet of earth? No doubt the threats toward my son would be met with guffaws and “that’s right”, but how much you want to bet my threats would be “uncalled for” and probably start a riot?
Pingback: Visible in absence. | @the_arv
‘but when Tatum got in it {Cub Scouts} was even more fun”
That was a required quote. What are the odds it was manufactured by the journalist?
I’ve noticed how any large gathering of men, such as the Promise Keepers or the Million Man March, focuses in how men can do a better job of giving. Yet large gatherings of women, such as the Million Woman March or any NOW rally, to say nothing of the slut walks or pink pussy-hat parades, focuses on how women can get more.
I loved Bill Burr’s comedy routine where he said you can take the most manly feminist, and when they building is ablaze or the boat is sinking, their dike spike becomes pony tails and I they revert to “I’m just a girl” “it’s a man’s job” “ladies first”
Since every American teenager has an AR-15 per the usual sources, it sure would be funny – ha ha! or queer, you decide – for every threatened boy to explain how he’ll be glad to pop a round in daddy’s head so that he can just take daddy’s little girl. It would show daddy with the gun that the date is at least willing to be a real man, right?
As the father of sons and daughters, and having been a Cub, Boy Scout and AHG leader, this bothers me too. The group dynamics change once you introduce the other gender, and I feel that something is lost.
I don not want anything to do with the Girls Scouts anymore, they headed in a direction I do not wish to go, but AHG is a good program. Most of the problem with the girl groups is the leaders, they don’t want to do the more interesting and challenging activities.
I have the 13-14 year old girls and I offer to do the same activities with them that I do with the Boy Scouts. So we did winter camping, and we will be doing a fly fishing trip, and a backpacking trip this summer. I am also the only male leader I am aware of for the girls
Good piece. Interesting how it’s only mothers who are permitted to speak.
Very recently I attended a university engineering student contest, of which I was a judge in previous year, but this year served as an adviser to some teams so obviously couldn’t judge. But I was talking to the other judges, and one, an emeritus professor from one of the worlds top engineering universities claimed it was great to see so many women in the contest. (Quotes are really paraphrases from memory.)
I replied, “I would disagree.” He was shocked, so I asked him why it was so great.
Him: “They’re 50% of the population, and they have such good insights.”
Me: “Better than those they’re replacing?”
Him: “Well not really.”
Me: “Then why do we ‘need’ them here? Women perform a key function to the existence of a civilization.”
Him: “I thought that’s what you were getting at.”
Then the judge who replaced me joined in.
New: “I used to think women should have access to anything. Then I became the father to daughters, and I want to make sure they pursue do whatever they want.”
I didn’t know this guy, and obviously wasn’t going to win an argument w/ him, so I dropped it. But how telling, instead of being a leader in his family, like he was with his company, he took it as chivalrous to let his daughters do whatever they wanted.
While not a perfect analogy, I thought of how I pushed my son into wrestling. Like me, he doesn’t have outstanding athletic gifting, nor even a predilection towards this sport. But it’s important as a boy transition into a man to challenge himself. to be challenged by others, and to earn respect in something like combat. He liked it at times, hated it at others. Wanted to quit sometimes, but I found ways to encourage him to persist. And as a freshman he had a great varsity season, earning the respect of teammates and a whole lot of opponents. He walks with his back straight, his head up, and is confident enough to win an impromptu dance contest in the school cafeteria. Oh, and even while being at the lightest weight class, I see the girl student managers watch him out of the corner of their eye.
So why isn’t this father pushing his daughters into becoming outstanding wives and mothers? Maybe they currently have other interests, or aren’t overly gifted in this area. So what? Train them in the areas that aren’t instinctive. Teach them how to do things well. They’ll walk w/ their backs straight, except when holding little ones’ hands. They’re heads will be held high, except to dote on a smiling face that beams love at them. They’ll be confident b/c a husband cherishes such a wife, and motherhood is honored throughout the world. Oh, and they can even learn engineering or what not. There is life and opportunity for many pursuits after kids are grown.
You know who hates the Boy Scouts’ decision to admit girls? The Girl Scouts.
https://nypost.com/2017/10/12/girl-scouts-tear-into-boy-scouts-their-house-is-on-fire/
>>>What are the odds it was manufactured by the journalist?
More likely they interviewed a couple dozen boys and quoted the only one who approved of this change.
And maybe it is more fun for him to have Tatum around. Maybe they enjoy telling jokes or talking about music or trading Pokemon or whatever. But is that what the Boy Scouts is for?
“I was a little skeptical because it was me and my dad’s thing, but when Tatum got in it was even more fun”
It’s gonna get more “fun” in 5 years when sis starts going into puberty and all the male Scouts start hitting on her and she’s going to help them “pitch tents”, so to speak. Then bro will have to endure countless hours of “Dude, your sister’s hot! I totally want to bone her!”
Most men don’t actively think of themselves as chivalrous, but at the same time they would be deeply troubled if accused of being unchivalrous.
This is so deeply ingrained in Anglosphere men as to be borderline instinctual. It isn’t an instinct, but it is close in terms of “stimulus -> reaction” at the unthinking, irrational level. It can be seen in any European derived culture to some extent, but not nearly so much as in the Anglosphere. The further you go away from the Anglosphere the less of this you see.
This “don’t be unchivalrous” is doubly so in the churches, where the “weaker vessels” can turn on the waterworks on a moment’s notice to get a pity party started, because they are strong ‘n independent YouGoGirrls. The same emoting shown to get girls into the Cub Scouts applies to women in church offices, including as preachers, it is just dressed up in different words.
Of course the absolute worst example of an unchivalrous man would have to be that oaf so brutish as to assume he actually gets to be the head of his own household with some authority to match responsibility, when True Chivalry clearly demands he is at best a permanent guest…
in the comments to the article single mother ClaireW laments what girls are taking away from her son:
It’s past time that the term “single mother” becomes a flag that switches off any attention that would otherwise be paid to anything any woman has to say about anything pertaining to boys or masculinity.
How many of these “concerned” single mothers either nuked their marriages or produced their sons by getting horizontal with bad boys whom they KNEW weren’t going to commit to/marry them? (That is, of course, a rhetorical question, the answer being something north of “98 percent”).
In other words, all of these women need to STFU and let MEN raise their sons. The state of the scouts (and other traditionally all-boy organizations) is largely their own fault.
The father was unavailable for comment. Way to think things through Claire.
“This is heart breaking to me. As a single mom to a young boy I know he desperately needs strong male role models guiding him.”
I guess she means “any ‘strong male role role model’ but his FATHER.”
In the comments to the article single mother ClaireW laments what girls are taking away from her son:…
Obviously, she doesn’t care a hoot about boys or men; she only cares about herself, and whatever pertains to her. Flip the sex of her son, and she will be arguing that girls have a right to be in the Boys Scout!
How dare you tell a woman she can’t have a child by herself? A woman can do anything she wants to do. She doesn’t need a MAN to tell her she can have a child.
Pig.
Dr.Torch
But how telling, instead of being a leader in his family, like he was with his company, he took it as chivalrous to let his daughters do whatever they wanted.
Some of the biggest feminists are fathers of daughters, especially in cases where all his children are girls.
That was a required quote. What are the odds it was manufactured by the journalist?
It doesn’t mater who manufactured it. Its not something an eight year old boy would say without conditioning, coaching and prompting.
Doug Wilson on all those yearning virgins in his congregation:
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-economics-of-sexual-purity.html
Actually says a few countercultural things, then ruins everything with his last sentence.
“Tatum” -doesn’t anybody use girl names anymore?
I don’t quite see the cartoonish chivalry in threatening a boy who might want to have sex with your daughter. The man being the gate keeper to sex for the women in his household far pre-dates chivalry. Apologies if missing the point on that one.
The Boy Scouts are dead. They are attracting “thousands”? Big deal, they are losing so many more just to changing demography. They are dead and their continual embarrassing capitulations are sad. That article is mostly a puff piece for the Scouts to try to encourage families to join now that their daughters can as well.
The most cartoonish chivalry is from complementarian husbands….
Unless Women are seen as dominant or on top they will put down every other man.
One of them would readily insult men who did not help their wives get dinner sorted or cleaned more than 50% of the time….
I got attacked by a flock of these men when I stated a wife was to support her husband no matter how educated she was, or how much income she had, a man is a man and his career becomes the focus post marriage.
My salvation was questioned….
@Hmmm
I’m skeptical of his view of boatloads of unmarried virgins in church just waiting to be asked, but other than that, I think it’s pretty solid.
@bdash
For the record, my position is that she has a bunch of kids to help her with those chores. When she refused to utilize them appropriately because they needed time off, that’s when I washed my hands of the issue. Things eventually righted themselves.
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-economics-of-sexual-purity.html
But it would be equally foolish to deny that the sexual desire of men is ramped up well beyond the levels found in women.
And from this woeful oversimplification follows all of Doug Wilson’s mistakes. Yes female libido is on average much lower than men’s. But under the right circumstances, with the right men, it can ramp up to a level that’s as high or indeed higher than men’s, and this feels very good.
Of course that’s the redpill theory. But even without invoking this, Wilson’s ideas still don’t make much sense. If women really have such extremely low interest in sex, then why would they start giving it out willy-nilly when they could hold out for marriage?
I have talked to many pastors who have been confronted with the great pastoral challenge of having in their churches many more young women who are qualified for marriage, and who are interested in marrying, than they have young men in the same position.
All you need to be to be qualified for marriage is to be employed and be a believer, right? So it must be instead that that these young men aren’t interested in marriage. And why is that?
Today if a man wants to live a life of sexual rootlessness, he may do so without incurring widespread social disapproval.
They aren’t interested in marriage because they are all leading the life of Don Juan!
Someone needs to debate Wilson to try and convince him that rather than being the innocent victims of the sexual revolution, women are at least equally responsible for it.
It’s why promiscuous delusional single mothers are the bane of our existence. They don’t need a man until they need a male role model to raise their son. They don’t need a man until they need their taxes to raise the kid. Their short sighted emotions, delusional statements, and selfishness really represent that they don’t think things through or have any well being for the child.
As long as they keep taking the pill…they are equally willing participants in it.
“Tatum” more widely used than I expected. The girl probably woasn’t named after an asteroid or a town, though.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Tatum
Your salvation? Did anyone point out the verses in the bible that said part of gaining your salvation was keeping your wife happy and succumbing to her every wish? If so, post those here, as I don’t recall them!
Someone needs to debate Wilson to try and convince him that rather than being the innocent victims of the sexual revolution, women are at least equally responsible for it.
As long as they keep taking the pill…they are equally willing participants in it.
Yes that’s correct. Every time a woman makes life choices that were enabled by the sexual revolution, she is a willing participant in it to some degree as well. The entire life setup of almost all women, except for a few outliers to actively and deliberately choose another path, is entirely dependent on the sexual revolution. The reason is that women’s economic independence (which is the entire basis of the current life path for women 15-35) is directly related to their ability to have pregnancy be solely “opt in” and not a necessary consequence of sex. If most sex risks pregnancy, then women will either avoid sex (not likely well into the 30s) or have sex and get pregnant, in which case their economic independence is, at the very best, severely compromised. The entire current life script for women is entirely dependent on the sexual revolution, its permissive attitudes towards sex, and reproductive technology that makes pregnancy “opt in” after sex. Having these structures in place we see most women choose the path of independence, which then creates a life script, and the surrounding social supports for that script, such that women who want to follow this path will have a lot of social support in doing so — and that’s the case even for women who choose to opt out of sex –> that is, they still benefit from the entire social support for women’s empowerment and economic independence that itself is a product of the sexual revolution. There are virtually no women who are not compromised by this to some degree, again barring the few who intentionally choose to step out of the *entire* system, and not “do it halfway” by being economically independent and empowered but avoiding sex. The latter are still modern day beneficiaries of the sexual revolution and, therefore, willing participation in it to a significant degree, again even if they aren’t having sex.
Hmm:
Re the Doug Wilson article:
How many different ways can we say
“there are so many beautiful, beautiful, beautiful women in the pews in our church! My church is FULL of kind, nice, good, moral, Christian young women who are just DYING for nice, kind, good, moral Christian young men to ask them on dates and marry them! Where have all the good Christian men gone? Why are you not manning up and marrying these paragons of sweetness and virtue?”
Right.
Dollars to donuts they’re only seeing Sunday Morning girls. Quite a difference from the Saturday night version of those same girls, IYKWIM.
Something Wilson doesn’t know, or knows and won’t acknowledge, is that those girls are dating and having sex with men he’s never seen, whom he doesn’t know, and who are not Christians. Ninety percent plus of those women have had sex or are currently having sex. They are complaining they can’t get married, not that they can’t get guys to date/have sex with them. I also don’t believe they’re “pure” or that they’re “stranded”.
And as usual, the predicament these young women find themselves in is men’s fault. It’s society’s fault.
And also as usual, there is almost no thought or pixels given to how all this has affected men – Christian men, and the bottom 80% of men who aren’t players or otherwise acting immorally. In the last sentence, Wilson calls on these men to solve the problem for these women – Never mind how profoundly all this has affected men. Oh no, that doesn’t matter – it’s young Christian men’s job to fix this. It’s men’s job to snap to and ask these women out, risk getting nuked, risk the ire of the girls and the disapproving looks of everyone else.
@kevin
It’s equivalent to the yarking of a small dog. It signifies nothing and it equivalent to virtue signaling. If someone wants to enjoy a first degree murder rap for putting 2 into the chest of some teenager that banged your daughter with her consent, well, we don’t live in that world anymore.
@stephen
Don’t be alone with them, ever.
Wilson is of the school of “weak men screwing feminism up”.
“Tatum” -doesn’t anybody use girl names anymore?
Of course not. That’s sexist.
Look for a time in the near future where only unisex names will be allowed for government identification purposes.1
Slightly off topic:
I heard a song on the country station, on the way back from a MRI (just ruptured my Achilles tendon!) Have you ever heard a better White Knight anthem??? I was so shocked at the song, I couldn’t believe it, then I started laughing. That’s how you’ll know if your a “REAL MAN” and not “a boy”! I knew I had to share with y’all. —I am ashamed to admit, I was like this in college, and you can guess how many dates I got out of this sort of action. (But I made up for it by being captain-sav-a-ho)
“Drunk Girl” by Chris Janson.
Couple of cover charge stamps got her hand looking like a rainbow
In and out of every bar on a whim just like the wind blows
She’s either a bachelorette or coming off a breakup
Take a drunk girl home
She’s bouncing like a pinball
Singing every word she never knew
Dancing with her eyes closed like she’s the only one in the room
Her hairs a perfect mess, falling out of that dress
Take a drunk girl home
Take a drunk girl home
Let her sleep all alone
Leave her keys on the counter your number by her phone
Pick up her life she threw on the floor
Leave the hall lights on walk out and lock the door
That’s how she knows the difference between a boy and man
Take a drunk girl home
You leave her drive for a dive
You get something bad to eat
They’re singing closing time at that little bar across the street
Then two by two strangers and lovers headed for the covers hooking up
That TV in your two bedroom sounds turned off
Through the paper thin walls you can hear the neighbor’s cigarette cough
There’s a million things you could be doing, but there’s one thing you’re damn sure glad you did
Take a drunk girl home
Let her sleep all alone
Leave her keys on the counter your number by the phone
Pick up her life she threw on the floor
Leave the hall lights on walk out and lock the door
That’s how you know the difference in a boy and man
Take a drunk girl home
Took a drunk girl home
In the sober light of dawn
She left you a message she thanked you on the phone
Cause you picked up her life she threw on the floor
You left the hall lights on walked out and locked the door
That’s how she knows the difference between a boy and man
Take a drunk girl home
You took a drunk girl home
Take a drunk girl home
-I give you the White Knight anthem gents.
Pingback: Visible in absence. | Reaction Times
Yes they complain they can’t get married…but when the moment of truth happens they usually bail out too.
I don’t believe for an instant that any decent looking Christian woman with a good personality would have any trouble attracting a man. It’s usually on them rejecting the suitors that come as the reason why they are still single.
Country music is full of power chicks and white knights. Wait….MODERN country music is full of power chicks and white knights. And since they mention God every 10 songs it’s held near and dear by a lot of Christians. I hate the stuff and would ban it from my home if I could. Well, at least anything newer than the 80s. Maybe newer than the 90s…..
Hence why they at least understood fundamentally they did need a man. Now with the pill…it produces all sorts of delusions of grandeur in their heads. I still personally think the pill has done more to wreck western Civilization than anything else…that even includes Communism.
bdash 77 @ 2:39 pm:
“I got attacked by a flock of these men when I stated a wife was to support her husband no matter how educated she was, or how much income she had, a man is a man and his career becomes the focus post marriage.
“My salvation was questioned….”
They don’t attack if you aren’t a threat.
…
Kevin @ 2:14 pm:
“I don’t quite see the cartoonish chivalry in threatening a boy who might want to have sex with your daughter. The man being the gate keeper to sex for the women in his household far pre-dates chivalry. Apologies if missing the point on that one.”
The part you’re missing is that such men try to control the boys he isn’t in charge of instead of the daughter he IS in charge of.
The only way to keep a daughter chaste is telling her ‘no’. But Princess Daddy won’t do that so he points his shotgun at everybody except his twerking little snowflake. Cartoonish.
Perhaps when I was 16 threats by those type of dads would have worked…now at the age I am at…I’d just laugh at those buffoons. And it’s for the reason Gunner Q pointed out here.
There’s a 98% chance daddy’s little princess wasn’t an innocent victim in getting pregnant.
Sadly, this is painfully true. Other than Knights of Columbus sponsored packs and troops, there’s almost nothing left. The Mormons are getting ready to bail out and replacing it with their own LDS centric organization. When I was a kid Scouts were ubiquitous, now the only place I ever see them is at the grocery store selling fundraising popcorn, twice a year. Makes me wonder how long until the RCC pulls out (there is already talk of this) and forms their own Boy Scouts.
But even without invoking this, Wilson’s ideas still don’t make much sense. If women really have such extremely low interest in sex, then why would they start giving it out willy-nilly when they could hold out for marriage?
Indeed.
Wilson’s problem is that his view of women is simply wrong or, at the very least, rather out of date.
He consistently views the sexual revolution as being driven by the male libido and male sexual priorities. He refuses to understand that many women then, and before then, chafed under a regime which made them economically dependent upon specific men (fathers, brothers, husbands), and which confined their sexuality to “responsible men” rather than the sexy ones. Women wanted a regime where they could have sex without having to risk an unwanted pregnancy, and a regime where they didn’t have to be economically dependent on any one man, including men they wanted to have sex with (via getting pregnant). Women wanted this. In WilsonWorld all women want is a nice, honest, respectable, hard-working husband — a total fiction. Women want a very sexy man who also has those qualities and will settle for a less sexy or unsexy man who has some of those qualities only if they absolutely need to, when they are getting into bio-clock defcon situations. In WilsonWorld, women are still behaving as if they are economically dependent on men and cannot easily avoid pregnancy — WilsonWorld is a fiction, for the most part, outside a tiny number of outlier women. This problem of his — his unwillingness to see reality as it is — lies at the root of all of his misstatements, really. He doesn’t understand contemporary women, because he really doesn’t want to give women much sexual agency except in a very diluted, almost “pro forma”, sense — and therefore his picture is greatly distorted. In short, he doesn’t get women, at least not women under 50.
@GunnerQ
I can buy that. We don’t live in a world where you can carry out the threats, they are a vestige of when you could, so focus on who is under your control. Don’t let her go on dates with boys that look like trouble or are older, and so on.
Are women allowed to post here? I’ve been reading your posts and frankly find them very logical from a man’s point of view. But I don’t understand ( and I’m not trolling here) why women would enter marriages as most men have described them here ( ie lacking agency and subservient to another) Essentially, I understand why ‘modern marriage doesn’t serve the modern man. Would your ideal marriage be better than the current system because it would, unlike the current system, serve men and women? Or is it better just for men?
White Guy – is that really such a bad thing to do? I know, she’s being completely stupid and irresponsible getting so drunk, but young people often do stupid and irresponsible things.
I think if I saw even a young guy falling down drunk I’d see if he needed a lift, but then I live in a relatively peaceful place. A neighbour’s 17 year old son was killed ten years back, hit by a car while walking home drunk from a party, on dark country roads.
Boatloads of virgins ye say, matey? Would ye be having a map o’ where they be anchored?
The problem is, with women, you don’t know what your stepping into when you get involved. Lets say she had sex with some random dude in the bathroom earlier in the evening. She wakes up with the guilts and the only thing she remembers is YOU. Or lets say she tells her friends she thinks she was sexually assaulted and everyone at the bar remembers YOU were the person that left with her. Or maybe she just needs a scapegoat and you get to be the lucky guy! Probably wouldn’t have had to worry about that 20 years ago, but today its a real threat. Best to leave them to their own devices. The most I would do is call the police if she was on the side of the road or something, but I wouldn’t put my hands on such a person.
Likewise, single mother Kasey Ferris at Huffington Post objects to the cartoonish chivalry of modern fathers in Please Don’t Threaten My Son For Dating Your Daughter:
Cuckservatives have achieved the impossible :
Enabling single mothers to be in the right.
I hear this all the time
“We are different in our gifts and passions, but those differences compliment so well. It’s fun to play my part as a husband to help her succeed in using her God-given gifts to help us all know Jesus more! Love ya, babe!
This is what is preached to all men in comple mentwhatever churches
HELP your wife use her Gifts to achieve her goals….
This creates the Chivalrous mindset.
I ask
“Where do you get this from?”
Their reply
Jesus would have done this- sacrificed
Chivalry as well
they ultimate argument is
Jesus died for us so a man should be expected to do this…
How do we counter this?
https://www.facebook.com/benstuartbooks/?hc_ref=ARScN7RvJZRP5i6AiwMM03N-5jxc-JVJA3AYFnqrBL64jsAnaZzqbQQSI-HbxvvX6fg&fref=nf
.
>White Guy – is that really such a bad thing to do?
Yes its is. So she wakes up in your home, groggy headed with only dim memories of the past night. What is she going to think happened? And even if you only drive her home, people are still going to see you driving off with a drunk girl. This is how many false rape accusation get started.
The days of protecting random women from their dumb decisions are over since they seem to think that’s male oppression, evil Patriarchy, mansplaining and male privilege.
Stick to the women you know and who are under your care…family members
The church submits to Christ because of this…hence a wife submits to her husband.
Playing the chivalry game while she gets to be rebellious…doesn’t stop evil.
Novaseeker,
All true, but then why aren’t Wilson and his ilk destroyed by divorce? With that level of cartoonish cuckservatism, he should be in prison under the Bradley Amendment after failing to meet imputed income.
I continue to press this question : Why aren’t these cuckservatives already all twice-divorced and living in utter poverty?
Why aren’t these cuckservatives already all twice-divorced and living in utter poverty?
Wilson is 64 and a pastor. These guys have low divorce rates. They married under a different regime, and also married in a very small group (pastor dating), and they are also situational alphas due to being church leaders with many followers. All of that feeds the distortion.
As I’ve noted before
chivalryChristianity is the mechanism that turnsfeminism (women’s complaints)Socialism into action.Power. The position of pastors wife is queen bee. Was thinking about this dynamic over the weekend. Queen bee controls all the other ladies in the hive. If the pastor falls or gives up his pastorship his wife would probably be gone within a couple of years.
It’s Marxism that does that…not Christianity.
but you know a man must serve like Christ
men MUST be chivalrous…
men must apologize for being a man…
men must resign from their jobs and give it to women
bdash 77 @ 4:44 pm:
“[their] ultimate argument is “Jesus died for us so a man should be expected to do this…
“How do we counter this?”
Depending on who you’re talking to:
1. Jesus’ sacrifice applies only to those who respect and obey Him. Everybody else still goes to Hell.
2. Jesus was a merchant, not a martyr. He got something in return for His effort. The worker is worth his wages.
3. Have you ever ordered Jesus to do your errands? It don’t work on me neither, Barbie.
4. “Read the next verse.”
LOL…the Scripture might surprise them.
I think the time has come to stop preserving the virtue of women who clearly don’t want to preserve it themselves. Besides, if 90% of the men follow the way of Janson’s song, the woman will become confident that nothing will happen when she gets drunk, and make herself easier prey for the other 10% (“boys”).
Christianity is about universal redemption (of all freaks), prostelytizing (gradual mind-game) conquest, and the promise of redeeming all comers but especially the poor in the supposed next life. Rednecks love enlisting and dying for today’s fasces roman empire. Charity virtue signaling that helps all means help the orcs, their numbers grow, and no good deed unpunished. Preachers take hush money in form of excemption from income tax. Christians would be underground, you would be underground, if you meant business in this earthy life. Supposedly grassroots Republicans, TEA partiers, but you love to be fodder in this life. Modernity pushed Christianity aside for philosophy/science. Getting back to any cuck ideology is more middle-of-nowhere ages. You’ve already lost. This is circle jerk: 7X70, JUDEA-xian values of memorial Decalogue (not unamed two of Jesus). When does the rubber hit the road? When are Christian men functional defenders of the faith? You ain’t Muslim? It would be stupid to fight city hall at this point, but that is not my point. My point is that you Xians don’t want the law in your hands, are not kings of your castles, are happy drones. It’s always give, give, give. Socialists take, take, take. How can it be surprising you give up your earthy home? You put all chips on heaven but actually work assiduously in a lost earthly cause like you actually intend to win. lol I wish I could like either useful idiot side, but I can’t. Christianity was shaped by submission to the Roman Empire and Constantine, the greatest theologian of Xianity. Yet, the trinity is a too-late innovation. Study history ever? I respect Xians that believe and knowingly give up earthly treasures, but you folks pursue it without the necessary means as a virtue. Cucks you are. Socialists may be cucks to the state, but they don’t say thank you for your service or pride themselves on dying as used tools, Constracts better dead than red with Kathy Griffin video selfie. You want to eat hamburger without blood on your hands, for the Lord will provide. You don’t deserve a homeland. 50 years of losing is proof. What makes you men so spiritless where it counts? Fear. Life is scary, so believes in Jeezous. It’s too late to win back anything. Winning the next Western civilization will be with no thanks to Xians of today, that’s for sure. Your values are so intellectually dishonest about the dark side of natural life. You watch a nature show and accept such facts of life, but add ppl and skate on supernatural redemptions because such things are to you unthinkable. Why throw all that vitality down a well? Giving takes power, and having power takes taking. Clearly the act of giving requires taking by someone else. You serve Theodosius I well like the dinosaurs you are. With whites like you, who needs enemies?
bdash 77: men must resign from their jobs and give it to women
No, because women often can’t do the job. Instead, men must continue doing the work behind the scenes, while giving women cool job titles, and praise and promotion, and medals and uniforms. Women must be allowed to play dress up as Navy Seals, and fire fighters, and whatever else they fancy.
Christianity is about repentance from sin, accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and trying to live out the commands and examples He provided…which if you want to know what they are you read the Gospel.
Now what ethos do you ascribe to Doug?
Read all those lamentations about appeazing mean womynz not enough and ever more. Rhetorical question: Is it morally wrong–I’m not asking if legally wrong–is it morally wrong to hit a woman to repress her natural, liberated behavior? Feel the fear deep inside your cuck self. They taste your tears.
Novaseeker
Wilson’s problem is that his view of women is simply wrong or, at the very least, rather out of date.
It is both. It is out of date because his mental model of women was formed early in Feminism 2.0 when there was still cultural inertia. Behavior that was slutty back in the Disco era is rather normative now. For example, back in Wilson’s college days I’m sure only the very committed smuggled a girl into the men’s dorm or vice versa for sex. Nowadays, study groups in modern college dorms often use common areas because it’s too distracting to try to study in a dorm room when the bed in the next room won’t stop squeaking. I have too many reports like this from both college men and women to ignore or deny it. Sex in the dorms is normal. Totally normal.
It’s not 1975 anymore.
It is simply wrong first because he won’t look at all the counterexamples from history, from literature (Chaucer’s Canturbury Tales 14th century), and from the Bible itself (“My husband has gone to Egypt…”). Anglosphere feminism 1.0 is programmed deeply into his head via neo-Victorianism, frankly. The model in his head is just wrong.
Second, the modern counterarguments are easy. Moscow Idaho and Pullman, WA. are both college towns. It is certain that any 20-something Pick Up Artist could show Doug Wilson the carnal side of unleashed hypergamy with minimal effort on selected weekend nights. Bonus points if one of the Friday night party girls was also one of Wilson’s demure Sunday morning maidens….but I”m certain he would NAWALT himself out of that corner.
Anon
I continue to press this question : Why aren’t these cuckservatives already all twice-divorced and living in utter poverty?
Adding to what Novaseeker wrote about the cultural bubble of Wilson et al, from the cold, calculating side there’s not as much cash and prizes to be had in a grey divorce (zero child support for a start), plus in those circles the wife would lose a great deal of social standing by divorcing except for adultery / extreme abuse / something else (closeted homosexuality?) so the gain / loss ratio is clearly not in favor of frivorce anymore.
Of course as you surely recall from Anonymous Age 60+’s comments at Spearhead for years referrring to his work in the 80’s with divorced men, mid-level tradcons were divorced with regularity, and as he noted they were always astonished when it happened. Everyone else saw it coming but them, because of their model of women (outdated, wrong). But those frivorces would involve cash and prizes, starting with child support.
Now, the Baby Boomers are jacking up divorce rates in the over-60 crowd just as they have done every decade since the 70’s, so there are surely some tradcon men getting surprised with frivorce, just as there are some grey haired men deciding that 20+ years of being in the wrong is enough. But it is unlikely to see any of that happen to famous, public preachers like Wilson (either one), Keller, Piper, etc. because of the gain / loss involved. This should be obvious, really.
When reality does not match up with predictions from a model inside your head, which should you consider questioning: reality, or your model?
Shaking my head at Janson – “90% vs. 10%” – it’s hypergamy in action. Another manosphere reality proving out, again.
Drunk girl? Call an Uber or a cab. Any man driving a pickup truck should have the common sense to put drunk girls in the bed of the truck, not up front with them. Be a good witness, not a potential suspect. No joke. Because #MeToo isn’t even close to finished.
“Reality” Doug
Is it morally wrong–I’m not asking if legally wrong–is it morally wrong to hit a woman to repress her natural, liberated behavior?
Certainly it is childish and inane to troll this site with such obvious, stinky bait. Now, run along back to your fellow Manboobs and admit failure.
My ethos, Earl? That’s the problem, subscribing to ethos as if it is universal. I do not aid my enemy in my destruction. I am no fan of suffering, like Jesus or otherwise. I seek maximal self-expression, which for the civilized man is not hedonism or selfishness. One cannot be civilized alone, which is my pain. If cooperation is more, then do it, but if conflict is more for self, why not do that? You likely presume more is materialistic and are revolted. You get ‘more’ from self-sacrifice. You can’t do that fast enough or big enough. You are a robot, an organism, and time is linear like a line. In this moment you choice the best option per free will. What you really choose is your optimal. There is causality. Own up to it. Cucks defeat themselves for what optimal, for what psychological consistency. I would have cultural progress as if not the ultimate goal the ultimate symptom of ‘doing it right’? Civililzation is proof of high-quality cooperation. You presume cooperation and don’t get it. No good deed unpunished. Helping those that hurt you, I don’t see that ethos. I want the best I can be, and if I can’t join a team that lifts me up (and of course each individual would want the same in reciprocity), then there is no ethos, Earl. There really is not, unless Jesus save in the next life. You can justify anything, any sacrifice. It’s an open check for women, for socialism, for everything but a Christian homeland. Eurabia is not exactly the ethose legacy I would have. My ethos is being greater with those who can be true friends and at the expense of those who can’t or won’t and are firmly in my way. Nature and evolution require by the law of conservation something very unsettling: conflict. Any she is better than you at that so long as you are Christian. The empire has feed this way before. Good Christians long for death. Ask Pliny the Younger:
“Pliny states that he gives Christians multiple chances to affirm they are innocent and if they refuse three times, they are executed. Pliny states that his investigations have revealed nothing on the Christians’ part but harmless practices and “depraved, excessive superstition.” However, Pliny seems concerned about the rapid spread of this “superstition”; and views Christian gatherings as a potential starting point for sedition.”
“Therefore, Pliny’s view of Christians was not necessarily persecution but rather Christians were only executed when they were brought before him at trial and confessed; however, pardons were also given to those who denied such charges.”
I lack Chistian ethos, to be sure. I don’t like pain at the hands of others, or losing to them in this life. I have no ethical qualms about means justifying ends. The ends are the civilized displacing the uncivilized so that civilized happiness is possible rather than animal happiness that is fleeting relativism. These animals feast on the corpse of luxury and have happiness that the wilds cannot support. They would not be so happy if they got all of what they deserve, but that takes generations and someone else will conquer before hitting such an absolute bottom of herd animal existence. Ex-civilization dies for lack of the ‘ethos’ of discerning the seasons of cooperation, conflict, and indifference that makes human progress in this life possible. I presume it is the highest we can do. We can do nothing supernatural. You can no more deny me a supernatural benefice than can I give you one. What of supernatural things? Shall we fight over monophysitism vs. dyophysitism as if we can know? It is always about power here on earth. My ethos is intellectual integrity. Reality. Truth as it is in this our life, which is hard enough to ‘unearth’. You can ‘unheaven’ nothing.
Hey Doug…have you stopped beating your wife?
I should have put quotes around ethos, because my axiom is intellectual integrity, the primacy of my forebrain over by limbic system or instincts as the big-picture navigator of my life. They say the medium is the message sometimes. To accept the axiomatic requirement of ethos, of process, is to have alreadly recieved the message that you own others, that you need their forgiveness. What merits are most ppl? The laws of nature cannot be broken: they are your only true ‘ethos’. You presume some additional contraints on process. They conquer while you presume to govern. It is harder to govern because there must be some cooperation, usually out of stylized fear. It is not harder to conquer, and life has its court and its rules. Existential winning is proof of the ‘ethos’.
I read you Anonymous Reader. Your rationalization of The Fear, though palpably acute, is yet as pallid as your handle. You don’t want to feel the bully inside yourself, so blame the messager: “Milk toast is your breakfast bully.”
Earl, I am not married and like you not gonna be. I have no reason to fight with a woman if I can avoid it, and I can. There is nothing to save of the West, only what life I can enjoy in the decline (cf. Clarey). We know de facto agents of the state win politically every time. My question to you is: Have women stopped beating you? Judging from the predictable lamentations you guys make here over and over without end, as if surprised yet again, we know that answer to that. You have internalized the feminist beating process like good Christians. You would actually miss it. You can’t be heroes any other way.
OK. The benefits of being the pastor’s wife, or the lead hen, cannot be transferred the way alimony and assets can, so this saves the pastorbators from divorce.
‘Reality’ Doug
I read you Anonymous Reader. Your rationalization of The Fear…
Boring. Troll harder, this isn’t working.
How about some quotes from Ayn Rand or Freddie Nietzsche? No one has ever tried that before…
Probably been mentioned above, but to note:
More proof that the gun-polishing dads are the biggest frauds and punchlines to their own jokes. Their daughters think they’re pathetic. Daughters’ dates think they are pathetic. Parents of their daughters’ dates think they’re pathetic. How can they not see this?
My policy toward every female who’s not a traditional Christian homemaker that honors biblical patriarchy, as we enter the radical neo-feminism phase, can be summed up as follows:
Give them nothing, but take from them EVERYTHING!
You call exposing their hypocrisy and rebellion, lamentations? Ok. Good luck sliding down the decline.
A good recipient of beatings are the pastors who are FOR the feminist ethos. Go impress them with your intellectual integrity.
‘Reality’ Doug: Is it morally wrong–I’m not asking if legally wrong–is it morally wrong to hit a woman to repress her natural, liberated behavior?
I don’t think it’s ever morally wrong for a man to hit back on a woman. A man should never hit first. But if a woman strikes a man, he should (be legally allowed) to hit her back. Once. If she stops hitting, he should stop hitting. But she should continues hitting, so should he. And if he hits harder than her, well, that’s on her.
As recently as the 1970s, it was commonplace for the heroes in Italian films to hit a woman (e.g., Franco Nero in Street Law).
Some of the men in these clips are villains. But many of them are the films’ heroes:
Then there’s that notoriously abusive misogynist, James Bond:
One thing I never get about cuckservatives and white knights is that their wimminz worship takes out context when it comes to hitting a woman. They think a man hitting a woman for any reason is grounds for the guy’s life to get ruined and he must beg forgiveness for it for the rest of his life. I happen to think in the above case described…that’s self-defense. And I don’t subscribe to the fact that a woman can’t hit a man as hard or hurt him as bad…big deal, getting hit still hurts.
It’s really no wonder all the girls want to become Boy Scouts now. Girls HAD their own club in the Girl Scouts…then feminiazis took it over, turning it from an active outdoors and personal improvement organization to a coven devoted to selling cookies for the profit of Moloch.
The problem is…women who still don’t understand the damage they allowed to be wrought on their organization are now lining up to invade a still-functioning one. With them will come all the problems they allowed to fester in their midst.
Feminism is a curse of the unwary and foolish perpetrated by the evil.
Have you ever heard a better White Knight anthem
Changes by decade. Just hear this classic Elvis on the radio:
If you’ve got a problem, don’t care what it is
If you need a hand, I can assure you this
I can help, I’ve got two strong arms, I can help
It would sure do me good to do you good
Let me help
It’s a fact that people get lonely, ain’t nothing new
But a woman like you, babe, should never have the blues
Let me help, I’ve got two for me, let me help
It would sure do me good to do you good
Let me help
When I go to sleep at night, you’re always a part of my dreams
Holding me tight and telling me everything I want to hear
Don’t forget me, babe, all you gotta do is call
You know how I feel about you, I can do anything at all
Let me help if your child needs a Dad, I can help
It would sure do me good to do you good
Let me help
The worse part is…you just know the father won’t follow through on his threat and the boy knows it too and on a heart level, the father knows the boy knows.
So who is he lying to?
One thing I never get about cuckservatives and white knights is that their wimminz worship takes out context when it comes to hitting a woman. They think a man hitting a woman for any reason is grounds for the guy’s life to get ruined and he must beg forgiveness for it for the rest of his life. I happen to think in the above case described…that’s self-defense. And I don’t subscribe to the fact that a woman can’t hit a man as hard or hurt him as bad…big deal, getting hit still hurts.
Cuckservatives are instictively well aware that any random 90-pound weakling of a man (i.e., a typical one of their own) can still cripple or kill even the strongest woman with a single blow – and that the behavior of a great many of today’s women begs for that outcome. This terrifies them, because reality is veryclearly at odds with their conditioning, and yet they can’t bring themselves to adapt. Thus the urge to stifle natural self-defense mechanisms.
I got White Knighted the night before last night over the phone. The guy just could not imagine that my marriage problems weren’t all my fault. Women are responders, you’re the leader, so you’re responsible for everything wrong. Women shouldn’t have to stay if they feel uncomfortable. Blah Blah Blah… I told him that 1 Peter 2-3 says that all Christians are called to suffer for their beliefs, and Christ was our example for suffering unjustly, and that wives were likewise supposed to be subject to their husbands. I also got him to acknowledge that I was only the leader in as far as my wife was subjecting herself to my leadership, which is zero, as she is gone and in full rebellion. I was shocked at the crap that had been stuffed into this man’s head, and by the “church”, contrary to what the Bible actually teaches.
Some people get pretty bold when they’re talking to you from another county. But ultimately he couldn’t back up a single bit of his psychobabble from the Bible, it was just what he felt. The “church” is in sad state when every man does what is right in his own eyes, and they’ve all been hypnotized by goddess worship. And they don’t know the Bible. He had to get off the phone to finish preparing his Sunday School lesson that he would be teaching the next morning. Sad.
Off topic here but please be in prayer for Saeed Abedini. He was arrested again last month for violating a restraining order from that alienator Naghmeh and has been summarily abandoned by the churchian cucks who were all too happy to raise funds using his name while he was imprisoned for three years in Iran. Welcome home!
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article205819099.html
He has a hearing tomorrow in Boise (Ada County, Idaho) and is being represented by a public defender; he could use some divine intervention.
Idaho may be the nation’s toughest state on law enforcement. For example (and please note that I live a 100 percent sober life and am against all drug and alcohol use), a single marijuana plant is a felony punishable with up to five years in prison with a fine of up to $15,000 (Id. Code Ann. § 37-2732.). In fact, even being present on private property where a single marijuana plant exists without even knowing it is a misdemeanor punishable up to 90 days in jail and a $300 fine (Id. Code Ann. § 37-2732(b)).
I lived in Boise for a year once. They don’t play there. If found guilty, and sentenced, he would likely end up at one of the six facilities that make up the South Boise Prison Complex. Even the minimum security facility is a real work camp. Only three states in the U.S. require 100 percent of minimum sentencing requirement be met before possibility of parole/probation/release. They are Idaho, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Idaho is one of those states you don’t want to break the law and do time in.
If OJ had pulled that double murder in Idaho, they would have either given him life in prison (no early release) or given him the death penalty. Johnny Cocran’s song and dance worked in the uber-liberal heavily African-American city of Los Angeles but it would have been a fail from the start in conservative lily white Boise. OJ would have ended up making license plates for the rest of his natural life looking over his shoulder for the next attempt on his life by the Idaho Aryan Knights who are known to have a severe problem with black men in Idaho prisons that have murdered whites especially women.
The whole “real men don’t hit women” rule came about when women were 105 pounds. The image of a frustrated waif slapping a man’s chest in frustration until he gave her a good shake is from the 1920’s. Women are huge now. I’m a 5’9″ 185 pound weightlifter and I often come across women who are significantly larger than me. Being outweighed by a woman doesn’t even get my notice anymore. Getting clubbed by a 240 pounder would result in an immediate response of self defense. These aren’t waifs anymore.
From Idaho Statesman:
“In January 2016, a judge told Abedini that the only contact he was to have with his estranged wife, Naghmeh, was via text or email for matters concerning their two children. At Abedini’s court hearing on Monday, an Ada County prosecutor said Abedini violated the no-contact order by sending derogatory, name-calling text messages to Naghmeh. The context of the messages wasn’t clear, nor did prosecutors say when or from where the messages were sent”
That’s absolutely nothing. “I got your message, Nag-Me” *arrest for violating no-contact order* Something like that?
If found guilty, it’s a misdemeanor and Abedini will be sentenced (up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000).
One thing he has going for him, and this won’t factor into innocence or guilt imo but rather sentencing, is that Idaho is a deeply religious state with a deeply religious judiciary (unlike most states) with respect to Christianity. It’s very possible that Abedini will be given what amounts to a slap on the wrist in that state given his circumstance.
Idaho is so “Christian” (speaking in a general way) that even the state’s leading prison gang requires adherence to some form of Christianity in order to join it. Lol. You won’t find that in any other state, not even Utah.
@Novaseeker
Wilson’s problem is that his view of women is simply wrong or, at the very least, rather out of date.
Even this much is giving Wilson and pastors like him far more charity than they deserve. It would be ridiculous to pretend that women have no natural temptation for sexual sins even if you were just being informed by Biblical texts, but we also live in an age where women aren’t exactly ashamed to boast about their sluttery in public. Dalrock has pointed this out more than a few times; One occasion I remember was when he mocked pastors who claim that women who abort their children are victims themselves after linking to a piece by Amanda Marcotte in which she wrote that she’d feel as guilty about terminating a pregnancy as she would about having a tooth pulled. And there’s even more that you could add on top of that if you need examples that got more attention and were even more unapologetic. Just think of Lindy West’s #ShoutYourAbortion Twitter hashtag. Or Gillian Robespierre’s “Obvious Child” movie, which featured a feminist director teaming up with a feminist stand-up comic to make a self-described “abortion rom-com” where the female lead celebrates Valentine’s Day with a trip to Planned Parenthood.
There’s so much new stuff like this every day that no one can claim it’s the exception anymore. Even The Gospel Coalition website is now admitting that over a third of women who claim to be Christian and attend church regularly also admit to being pro-choice. Pastors who choose to shrug at this and make excuses aren’t just misinformed about the nature of women. They’ve crossed the line into lying to themselves about what is right in front of them and somehow never realizing that in doing so they’re recruiting their parishioners to join them in continuing the lie. Christian doctrine used to hold that all have sinned and fallen short. Modern church has amended that to read that men have sinned — and in doing so they sometimes get women to join them, which is why we must remember that when the ladies trespass it is through no fault of their own.
With regard to Saeed and Naghmeh Abedini,
We can’t know for sure what Saeed may have done, but we can see that his wife has persecuted him with our legal system, and public shaming.
Wherever you see persecution, there is more than a probability that truth lies on the persecuted side. ~Latimer
@Laura:
Your post must have gone into moderation for awhile. Either that, or folks just ignored you. Here are some answers:
>> Are women allowed to post here?
Certainly. But very few women post over the long haul. Either they come and say what they want and are done, or are driven off by answers they probably don’t want to hear, or they persist in on-line shouting and are banned.
>> I’ve been reading your posts and frankly find them very logical from a man’s point of view. But I don’t understand ( and I’m not trolling here) why women would enter marriages as most men have described them here ( ie lacking agency and subservient to another) Essentially, I understand why ‘modern marriage doesn’t serve the modern man. Would your ideal marriage be better than the current system because it would, unlike the current system, serve men and women? Or is it better just for men?
Most of us that haven’t written off women or marriage entirely believe that marriage is better for all parties if the woman doesn’t blow it up for reasons of greed, or vague unhappiness, or adulterous attraction. This is true of the children too, whose experience in divorce or marital unhappiness goes unconsidered, and especially of young boys.
Many of us have observed that the things that women say they are attracted to in men are in fact the things that bore them or drive them away. That’s why women blow up relationships or marriages to nice guys and go after bad boys. Many other sites will attribute that to evolutionary adaptations that don’t serve us well in modern life; here we more often think that it’s due to selfishness, conformity to world and rebellion against God’s order.
Those of us in the modern evangelical church believe that there’s a double standard in both the world and the church for human fallenness: men do evil, and women are forced or enticed into it against their better natures. This leads to a feminine-centric church that both drives men out (which is not healthy for the church) and systematically works to make the men there less attractive to the women.
There’s much more that could be said, and I’m sure you’ll get a wide variety of responses.
Kevin @ 2:14 pm:
“I don’t quite see the cartoonish chivalry in threatening a boy who might want to have sex with your daughter. The man being the gate keeper to sex for the women in his household far pre-dates chivalry. Apologies if missing the point on that one.”
The part you’re missing is that such men try to control the boys he isn’t in charge of instead of the daughter he IS in charge of.
The only way to keep a daughter chaste is telling her ‘no’. But Princess Daddy won’t do that so he points his shotgun at everybody except his twerking little snowflake. Cartoonish.
The following comment was recently posted in the slatestarcodex subreddit. It’s related to this very issue.
If you want to control sexuality, well, you cannot control top-ranking males practically by definition and low-ranking males don’t much need to be controlled as they don’t really attract women anyway.
So the textbook typical sire of a bastard son was someone of far higher status than the woman or her father or brothers. It was classically a nobleman vs. servant maid, daugther of a peasant type of situation.
How exactly is the peasant going to control the nobleman? So what he can do is control her daughter, tell her if she does not fight tooth and nail against both seducation and rape attempts, things gonna get bad on her.
Blame is not about some mystical sense of cosmic justice, OK? It is just controlling behavior and you control whoever you CAN control.
This was also the story about rape – it is easier to control women than rapists. Not cosmic justice, just whatever works.
Male adultery: that is mostly just one of the idiotic circles Christianity tends to tie itself by trying to justify a nonsensical view on sexuality. Christians try to have the same sexual morals for men and women which makes no sense at all from a reproductive advantage viewpoint. Sperm is cheap, there is absolutely no disadvantage for a wife if his man also has sex with other women PROVIDED that he does not spend much of his resources on them, nor commits to them. Hence prostitution: per definition a woman someone does not commit to. The way my uncle used to put it and my aunt accepted it: “getting a blowjob is no cheating”. On the other hand, female fidelity matters, as women can have far fewer biological children than men and once a man is committed to a woman and spends his resources on her and her kids, there is a reproductive advantage in ensuring the kids are his.
This was perfectly sensibly seen by pagans, say, Romans, that double standards make sense. Christianity tries to push female-type, full fidelity sexuality on men which is nonsense.
I think it is clear that power and responsibility was not divorced in any of these cases. All you need to do is to think in outcomes, and collective outcomes at that, not cosmic justice nor entirely individualistic fairness (why is it so hard to make SSCers think outside the box of individualism???):
Low-ranking fathers, collectively, wanted their daughters to not have bastards because it is worse both for them and their kids, they needed a man to provide resources and protection. Since they had no way to control high-ranking men who were spreading their seed left and right by either seduction or rape, all they could control was the girls. So they generated all kinds of bullshit like blaming girls for getting raped, and somehow controlling the sexual feelings of high-ranking men, to really really ensure the girls will fight tooth and nail against rape. And seduction. Not fair individually on the poor girl who got raped anyway. But better outcomes on the whole for most girls. Collectively, a responsible use of the power of low-ranking fathers.
You just shouldn’t take everything literally! This is another problem with SSCers, taking everything on face value. Like the idea that women control the sexual feelings of men, taking it as if it was a serious proposal to find out if true or not. Seriously stop this. Take stuff like these as simply software code to program human beings. This was just the code the low ranking fathers tried on their daughters to reduce the chance of them getting raped. The truth value is irrelevant. Try to see mostly everything as bullshit, but often well working bullshit! They had little influence over high ranking men.
By the way, maybe the inane Christian sexual morality was actually an attempt to control high ranking men! I mean, trying to push female type sexual fidelity on men. Of course the noble wife does not lose anything if the noble man screws some maids. But maybe trying to make the noble man feel sinful for this was the trick low ranking fathers tried play to protect their servant maid daughters. But because they also tried to control their daughters, see above, that was borrowed by the high ranking men as a justification: see, I could not help it, she seduced me.
By the way, the weekly discussions about the Culture War on that subreddit are pretty good.
It’s not “funny” to threaten my son. It’s not “cute” to treat your daughter as if she has zero common sense.
…
The idea of threatening young women to keep their hands off young men is ludicrous, yet when roles are reversed it’s completely accepted and even encouraged. Why?
1. Your son cannot get pregnant.
2. He doesn’t erode his status in the mating market by pursuing casual/premarital sex.
3. The man in question probably suspects that your son is either some omega loser or some alpha chad. After all, he’s the son of a single mom.
Aaand another father ejection seems to be in progress over at CAF; some commentary about MRA and Red Pill.
https://forums.catholic.com/t/overbearing-father-husband/482830/61
Laura-
I am allowed to comment unmoderated, so yes, women are allowed to comment here.
My husband has given me great guidance on when a comment would be good, and I have not gone wrong yet. In general, I comment very infrequently. Then I ask myself “does this hurt or help the men who read here?” If I can’t honestly see the value in it, I don’t make the comment.
When I spend too much time reading here, I get depressed. The disappointment and anger that men express brings out a mothering instinct in me. Although you can’t really know the person by am avatar and their carefully crafted words, I still get the sense that there are a lot of men who would make fine husbands. Men who would sacrifice, plan for the future, lead, save, adore their wives, and throw themselves in front of a train for their families, if only they had one.
The evolution of what has happened around this part of the internet has been interesting. I don’t happen to think that the biological/evolutionary explanations of human behavior are necessarily mutually exclusive the way Hmm describes it, but it doesn’t matter. We have, to a point of no return reversed and/or mutated all the incentives for men to marry and we all suffer now. I cannot speak to most of my friends about it–even in the most non-threatening posture–without all the usual hand wringing about how “it takes two” and “if only men would step up” or whatever.
So I try to offer an encouraging word once in a while, or a verification of something written here that I have seen in my own marriage. The I just leave. But mostly, I wish I could be a traditional match maker for the men here who despite all the odds still hold out hope for finding what they are looking for.
As for the OP? It’s already been said, but how far we have fallen when the people who have the most expertise on what young boys need to become men–fathers–are not even consulted on the subject anymore.
He is correct that women are responders…he is incorrect that men are responsible for everything wrong. Far from it.
I think a lot of white knights have forgot about the serpent. They don’t want to slay the dragon…they want to slay the other knights.
If ideal marriage is defined as Christ and the church model…then yes it serves both men and women. It takes out the selfish traits of both and transforms them into the best traits of both. That being the man sacrifices himself to present his wife without spot or blemish and the wife submits to her husband’s authority.
What we got now is rationalizing the fact the both sexes sin…and that should be grounds for divorce. There are many disguses behind this fact such as unhappiness, boredom, or irreconcilable differences. If sin is underlying reason why people shouldn’t be married or should not marry…then marriage would have been abolished right after the fall.
Learn to do a little leg work. I don’t think you should be able to post here. I don’t care what women think or say anymore. However, not my blog, so why don’t you go read instead?
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/comment-policy/
They would do so because it is necessary for their survival. Men lead, women follow. It has been this way for as long as the human species has been around. Doing it the other way for a mere one hundred years has turned Western Civilisation into a laughing stock. They would do so because they are Christian and it is what God provides as the template for marriage. If you’re not a Christian, you don’t need to adhere to these principles and can do whatever you want.
You don’t need to get married though so.. if you don’t understand it, don’t get married. Easy solution.
Men have to sacrifice more in a marriage than women do, women get protection, provision and status from marriage. Men get bills to pay and responsibility, they have to do the grunt work. Thus if you remove the authority that should go hand in hand with the responsibility of said marriage, it becomes a very poor deal for men, one that fewer and fewer will see the value of.
The traditional model for the family wasn’t ideal for either the man or the woman, it was fair. It provided benefits and responsibilities for both parties. The current modern day shit show that is marriage is a scam, a con. Not worth the paper it is written on, I despise it.
Is a Public Defender what I would call a Dock Brief? We all need a job.
In The Killers (1964) Ronald Reagan slaps Angie Dickinson’s face. Never confuse and actor with his role.
It never ceases to amaze me that our society constantly complains about the lack of masculine men, while aggressively undermining the path boys must take to become masculine men. Similarly, most “Christian” churches claim to believe in the sanctity of marriage and families, while actively undermining the very foundation upon families must stand. It has reached the point where it is simply impossible for most men to obtain and maintain a Christian marriage, even within the context of a church marriage. Our society has a terminal case of schizophrenia.
Aaand another father ejection seems to be in progress over at CAF; some commentary about MRA and Red Pill.
Disgusting and infuriating. All that psychobabble in lieu of actual scripture and Christianity.
But it’s another big piece of evidence that there is no shelter from feminism in the RCC…quite the opposite.
SnapperTrx,
Most likely, the threats will be said as quasi-jokes, which is why you’d need to watch your tone in particular. You should match their tone as close to 100% as possible, and be like “man, I hear ya, but remember folks, what’s good for the gander is good for the goose.” Don’t itemize the way she could hurt your son. A vague threat that makes it clear to them “if you’re joking, I’m joking; if you’re serious, well I am too” is the best way to go here.
If they get angry, that’s where you need to get a little scary to them and tell them bluntly that this is why we have courts, and if they don’t respect the courts you won’t hesitate to teach the family a lesson that will have them obeying the law for a dozen generations.
Re Saeed Abedini
If he’s been living in Virginia, why was he booked in Boise Idaho and why did he have to bond out? Was he in Idaho for visitation or something? The claim is violation of order of protection because he called Naghmeh names in an email or a text message. It wasn’t a phone call or an in person visit.
I imagine that’s probably what happened – he was in Idaho at the time. I hope. Unless our states have reached a new low, and are now extraditing men for violating protective orders, which in almost all states is a petty offense punishable by fine and maybe a week in the county jail, and then only for repeat offenders.
In almost all cases, you pay a fine for violating an order of protection. You’re certainly not extradited for it. I find it hard to believe we are now extraditing men across the country to respond to violations of orders of protection.
Saeed Abedini – from one prison to another. We in the USA deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.
@American
I neglected to post a very salient story from 2017 last night about Saeed: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article132687704.html
He plead guilty to the same offense and it was determined in a close doors session with Magistrate Steckel; of course there were no notes or recording. Since he was on five years probation this time I believe he’s looking at real jail time and they are going to throw him in an American Prison.
He’s certainly reacting to having his children stolen from him, his ability to provide stolen from him, being used and discarded by the Churchian Cucks and being cast into the wholly evil American ‘family court’ system where since he has few resources he has no chance.
Being in Idaho is unlikely to aid him, it’s 28% mormon and clearly – no surprise – his former congregation in Boise has abandoned him and sided with Nag Me and implement their Cuck the Fathers strategy. (otherwise he wouldn’t be represented by a public defender)
@thedeti
Saeed was in Boise visiting his two minor children. Nag Me has full custody and having been in similar situations I predict that he had spent the day with the now wholly alienated children and was texting her to condemn her for how they have been alienated. His ‘offense’ was Sunday night and likely at the end of a weekend visitation.
Condemning women for alienating you children is illegal in this country!
My prayer for our brother: Romans 4:20 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
@Red Pill Latecomer
That second video, the Bond one you posted at :22 and :55… made me laugh because I give my wife’s ass a slap like that from time to time. Always good for a grin from her.
For maximum effect, I give it a tap at Church between Bible study and the service every now and then. Highly recommended. Gotta lead by example you know…
Meanwhile… it’s back to reality after a week in the Caribbean celebrating our 30th anniversary. What an adventure we had. We both agreed: being empty nesters on vacation is good. Very good.
The first time I actually listened to the lyrics of this very popular (at the time) country music song:
I dug my key into the side
Of his pretty little souped-up four-wheel drive
Carved my name into his leather seats
I took a Louisville slugger to both head lights
I slashed a hole in all four tires
Maybe next time he’ll think before he cheats
I thought, “hm. I wonder what would happen if I acted like that after I was cheated on?”
Its just “righteous women’s anger” when they do it. If I did something like that I would be considered a very unstable and dangerous individual.
When I have brought it up in mixed company, things get really awkward.
I’ve also been guilty of committing the thought crime of believing that Lorena Bobbitt should have had the book thrown at her, because if a man cut off any part of his wife’s anatomy in anger that’s what would happen to him. Instead she used the insanity defense and was acquitted. She has not behaved like an insane person since the trial, so…
@Laura
‘ I’ve been reading your posts and frankly find them very logical from a man’s point of view.’
That’s quite funny troll bait. Women are not universally regarded for their understanding of logic and haven’t been for centuries. Only now, in upside down world do women own all th virtues. Good luck with that outcome!
“Are women allowed to post here?” [Are you men mean to women? Are you unfair to women? Am I the victim again? It was rhetorical because she kept up the psyops pressure with more commentary.] … “Or is it better just for men?” [This is the inverse of a $*** sandwich but without positive value anywhere.]
At least you guys did not go into white knight mode with its attendant emotional attachment, but remember that (complete) indifference can be more forceful than (the acknowledgement of) hate. Heastiste says indifference not hate is the opposite of love. The men’s responses invested more than I would have invested in trying to solve/mitigate a woman’s advertised problem. However, that first paragraph by femi-8ter was priceless (and self-contained IMO). I needed the chuckle.
And to be fair, in follow up to my previous comment–this song came out a few years back, and is just as stupid:
Gonna drive like hell through your neighbourhood
Park this Silverado on your front lawn
Crank up a little Hank
Sit on the hood and drink
I’m about to get my pissed off on
I’m gonna aim my headlights into your bedroom windows
Throw empty beer cans at both of your shadows
I didn’t come here to start a fight, but I’m up for anything tonight
You know you broke the wrong heart, baby
And drove me redneck crazy
Wish I knew how long it’s been going on
How long you’ve been getting some on the side
Nah, he can’t amount to much by the look of that little truck
Well, he won’t be getting any sleep tonight
I’m gonna aim my headlights into your bedroom windows
Throw empty beer cans at both of your shadows
I didn’t come here to start a fight, but I’m up for anything tonight
You know you broke the wrong heart, baby
And drove me redneck crazy
Redneck crazy
Did you think I’d wish you both the best
Endless love and happiness?
You know that’s just not the kind of man I am
Yeah, I’m the kind that shows up at your house at 3 A.M
I knew some people who behaved like this in high school.
@ Squid hunt
I did an extensive analysis of how many actual Christian virgins there are.
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/doom-and-gloom-and-the-amount-of-attractive-christian-virgins-part-3/
@Deep Strength
Christian virgins?
I was one of them.
I stayed a virgin until my wedding night. I was a couple of days into age 28. It can be done. You just have to decide to. I know how rare I am.
Honestly though, we’re pretty alone in that. And especially as a guy, I’m VERY alone in that.
It’s odd. It’s like in the Church, if you’ve sinned a lot before becoming a Christian, then you have a “testimony”. It’s like… your sin is credibility. I don’t have ANY of that. I stayed a virgin, I stayed out of trouble, I worked hard and saved my money. Bought a house (as did my wife before we met). Didn’t party and get drunk. Never did drugs. It’s like that Adam Ant song from the 80’s: “Don’t drink, don’t smoke, what do you do?” I literally got asked that when I was in my 20’s.
I hate that the Church treats previous sin like it makes you credible as a Christian. I mean after all, who’s going to listen to me? I don’t have a “story” to tell.
Having done it right is not very exciting to the Church.
@Joe
Blessings to you; be careful sharing that with fellow Christians, they will often despise and ridicule you for it.
… and then there is Elvis’ U.S.Male, which always sounds to me like fake posturing about someone who cannot control, whatever he may say, his straying wife or girlfriend. Those country songs which scan so poorly read to me with their appeal for motor-based belligerence as if they are indigenous to the southern part of America. I am somewhat more partial to these somewhat more laid-back lyrics about an over-paid pop-singer* moved into up-market Hampstead:
Wouldn’t it be nice to get on with me neighbours
But they make it very clear
They’ve got no room for Ravers
They stop me from grooving
They bang on me wall
They doing my crust in
Its no good atall
Lazy Sunday afternoon
I’ve got no mind to worry
I close my mind and drift away.
*Steve Marriott
“I, as his mother, take offense to the thought that he is some hormone-drunk sloppy boner-machine (man he’s going to hate me for writing that phrase in a public forum) who is completely blinded to good sense and morality.”
A Western woman suffered that not all of us think with the smaller of our heads? And MuffPo ran it? Is that a red horse I see in the sky?
Do not forget Douglas Wilson take on the impact of frivorce, which is one of the main drivers behind MGTOW (https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-economics-of-sexual-purity.html).
“where birth control devices have absolved men of any responsibility for children they might beget”
Absolved men?? Children have ALWAYS been the first responsibility of the woman who had to carry them for 9 months and care for them afterwards. Only women foolish enough to ignore that responsibility consented to unmarried sex. Most of these women were/are considered ‘damaged goods’ (one-flesh bound to other men), not suitable for marriage with men they were not previously involved with. The birth-control pill has been essential to the sexual revolution for WOMEN. Men always had the option to silently disappear when unmarried.
“So suppose you are a chaste young Christian woman in a culture like ours.”
Well, we all suspect there are not that many CHASTE young Christian women. The heralded ‘single mothers’ testify to this.
“By culture “like ours,” I mean one [..] where no fault divorce made it really easy to break your sexual word [..] and where marriage laws have been reconfigured to discriminate against men.”
I do not know what a ‘sexual word’ means, but here Wilson is complaining about ‘our culture’ which is driving men away from marriage. Well, so were most ancient cultures, and it was no excuse for Christians to not uphold the sanctity of marriage ’till death do us part’.
What Wilson fails to address is the response of the church towards (no fault) divorce. Most Protestant churches and their spiritual offspring do not speak out against divorce, and see it as a right conquered on the Roman Catholic Church by Martin Luther himself. Albert Mohler has rightly called divorce “The scandal of the Evangelical conscience”.
We know that 70% of no fault divorces are initiated by women, irregular of religious affiliation (most statistics on divorce show NO difference between religious and non-religious people!!). Still Wilson is telling a tale of innocent chaste young women who are being robbed of being married by these irresponsible foolish sex-mad unchaste immoral young men who do not even attend church as much as women do and are part of that notorious gang of ‘the neutered brethren of the limp-wrist’.
Not a word about the responsibility of women. Not a word.
@ Joe
Not frequently, but I wouldn’t say rare. If you sift through the study of the Southern Baptist Churches, 25% of the women and 30% of the men were virgins at marriage. Pretty dismal, but not as dismal as the 5% statistic of all people that were virgins at marriage. Which means about 97-98% of non-Christians have pre-marital sex so it’s pretty much standard for them.
“Well done good and faithful servant” is all you or I or any one of us need.
@Joe – Isn’t your pride as sinful as fornication?
Scott says:
I knew some people who behaved like this in high school.
Most American women’s mental age nowadays never progresses beyond 16 (you’re blessed by being married to an exception), so it comes as no surprise that songs like these by women are so enduringly popular among American women between the ages of 15 and 55.
Damn Crackers @ 10:44 am:
“@Joe – Isn’t your pride as sinful as fornication?”
It’s not pride. I get the same attitude.
“Gunner, what’s your testimony?”
“I followed Christ from childhood and never screwed up.”
“Oh… uh… praise God. Next!”
Inre Saeed Abedini, I honestly couldn’t blame the man one bit if he were to apostasize his Christianity and revert to the Islam of his birth. I feverishly hope and pray that his Christian faith is stronger than that, but to say that his fellow Christians have failed him is the understatement of the millennium. A pox and damnation upon all of them for their spinelessness hypocrisyand treachery!
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if raw bigotry didn’t play a hand in this. Evangelical “Christians” have a peculiar and particular hatred of Muslims, especially Muslim men. They would rather see them all eternally damned to Hell than saved.
The church is really making itself look ugly in this case.
@Laura: “But I don’t understand ( and I’m not trolling here) why women would enter marriages as most men have described them here ( ie lacking agency and subservient to another)”
From what point of view are you talking? And what marriage are you describing? I do not find people adhere to a single point of view on marriage here.
I can only say that personally I want to follow Christ and what he has instructed regarding marriage. And I would advise any Christian man to only marry a Christian woman who has the same desire. Even the apostle Paul recommended to stay single if you can control your sexual desire, so I do not question any objection by women to not marry as abnormal.
So to answer your question: sex.
@Gunner Q – No offense to Joe or anyone else here. But, it sounds like a lot of the commenters here remind me of the good son from the Prodigal Son parable.
Somewhat on topic, if you want to read about the state of hook-up culture yet lack of sexual encounters in the modern dating scene, here is a good link:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/04/23/generation-anhedonia/#comments
@Joe “Having done it right is not very exciting to the Church.”
It is to Christ
Also, expect a lot more beta rage and white vans taking revenge on women who reject advances from the incel crowd.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5650489/Who-Alek-Minassian-Toronto-van-attack-suspect.html
Maybe St. Augustine and St. Thomas were right, prostitution should be legal. “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” – St. Augustine [De ordine 2.4]:
@DS
Doesn’t scripture have a solution to premarital sex being a shotgun wedding unless the father absolutely refuses?
Laura,
My wife claimed to be a godly woman who put God first when we married. She managed to find an exception to allow for here divorce of me after 30 years and seems to attend church without any view of inconsistency. That is the base flaw Laura. She and her church contacts all agreed I was an abuser, based on her made up claims and misinterpretation of things that happened in the course of our marriage. She made herself unhappy and used that unhappiness as a reason to violate her vows. No church held her accountable.
How was I supposed to know that ahead of time Laura? It is what leads to MGTOW and other things like that today.
Hmm,
Wilson is idiotic if he really believes women really want to be chaste and only men push them otherwise. That is a flawed foundation in the article you noted.
@DrTorch
@Anonymous Reader
“Some of the biggest feminists are fathers of daughters, especially in cases where all his children are girls.”
That is the truth, and no mistake! I have four daughters. For several years for my coworkers and fellow members at Church routinely implied, whilst wearing that stupid grin I am sure we all know well, that the little girls could drive me like a horse hitched to a wagon. My coworkers stopped on their own; the Church members were much more thick. We left that Church because I did not want my daughters raised in that muck. The posture and attitude of the fathers in that congregation depressed me so badly.
New Church is better. It has real elders – you know, who are actual grandfathers – whose children were married early enough that I am confident I can without resistance work out my highest aspiration for my daughters: give them away to young men of godly character early enough so that the term “wife of your youth” actually applies and receive back from them grandchildren of my own before I reach age 45. And if any one of them and her husband decide they want to work together so that she can become an engineer, that is just fantastic; as long as she takes care of her husband and children first – diapers, runny noses, fears, sins, meals, clothes, and one-room classroom instruction in the Scriptures, reading, writing, and arithmetic. After all that, if she has time to “consider a field and buy it”, my hat is off to her.
@ info
I don’t think so.
Generally, if a man and woman are sleeping with each other they both wanted to do it. I don’t think there is anything wrong with shotgun weddings in particularly, but generally it seems that the participants in the shotgun wedding are woefully underprepared for marriage in general.
Most Christian families at least tend to ‘force’ the shotgun wedding without discipling and supporting the newlywed couple in various areas like adherence to biblical marriage and conflict management. Studies do show that shotgun weddings are very unstable and tend to lead to divorce much more often than sex and pregnancy after marriage.Generally, they’re more concerned about the ‘appearance’ of having a family and children in marriage than actually helping the couple succeed in having a biblical marriage. Shame is the concern.
Additionally, especially if they are coercing the two into marriage, is it even a biblical marriage anymore?
“Reality” Doug said:
These animals feast on the corpse of luxury and have happiness that the wilds cannot support.
Drops mic and walks away.
Cartoonish
http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/this-ex-nfl-player-posted-a-photo-holding-a-gun-with-his-daughter-at-prom-%e2%80%94-and-the-internet-is-not-having-it/ar-AAwf53K?ocid=ientp
> Additionally, especially if they are coercing the two into marriage, is it even a biblical marriage anymore?
Biblical in the sense of judicial precedent.
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, hen the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”
The localization adaptation if used for America is that “… and she may not divorce him, all her days” (not that she would have incentive to without alimony/child support) But the system we have is more concerned if individuals are happpppppy than what builds good community.
> @Gunner Q – No offense to Joe or anyone else here. But, it sounds like a lot of the commenters here remind me of the good son from the Prodigal Son parable.
What would you have those two do? Pretend they were not sexually pure? Stay silent? That is treating the honorable as shameful. (Related note, definition of virgin: A chaste or unmarried woman; a maiden.)
It is the impure who have done shameful things and who should be ashamed. Staying pure until marriage is right, and should not be treated as an unmentionable shame.
Doing right is not sexy, it is not well regarded, but it is right in the eyes of the Lord. Honor it and encourage it so that the Lord will see his servants doing right when he returns.
Scott-
Seems most of the objection was to the gun.
We’ve got a long way to go.
Sir Hamster, and others-
You are correct. It’s sorely not common, but virginity at marriage is obedience to God. I did not at all detect Phariseeism in Joe’s response. It’s unusual enough for a person to be like that in this current age that it comes off as haughty, but that is due to the times in which we live.
@Coloradomtnman, The percentage of Mormons in Idaho had fallen to 19% by 2014 (see Pew Research’s “Religious Landscape Study’), is less than that now, and continues to decline. In any event, the false religious cult of Mormonism is highly patriarchal.
Feeriker
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if raw bigotry didn’t play a hand in this. Evangelical “Christians” have a peculiar and particular hatred of Muslims, especially Muslim men. They would rather see them all eternally damned to Hell than saved.
Could you explain this? I thought evangelicals hated muslims due to political reasons (ie Israel) but not due to any deep seated personal animosity. Also, Pastor Saeed converted to Christianity, so why on earth would they hate him? I thought the prodigal son parable applies here.
@Dota, Feeriker is making a false assertion. Evangelicals hate Islam not Muslims. He may be conflating the two because evangelicals rightfully adhere to moral self-defense and just war theory and so are quite willing to war against Muslims who act on Islamic theology with respect to them, their progeny, and their civilization all of which are “kafir” to Islam. This manifests in violent and non-violent jihad, invasion/immigration, the formation of criminal gangs to exploit the kafir, rape and sexual grooming of kafir females for prostitution, attempts to subvert and ultimately overthrow institution and replace with Islamic institution, etc… and so forth). Read “Journey Inside The Mind Of an Islamic Terrorist” by former Muslims Mark A. Gabriel PhD to learn more about how this works.
It is for good reasons that many of us would amend our national constitutions to outlaw Islam and force the deportation of all Muslims from our countries; however, this doesn’t equate to “hating Muslims.” They represent a dangerous threat and liability to our societies and long-term to our civilization and we want to remove them from it.
earl says: He is correct that women are responders…he is incorrect that men are responsible for everything wrong. Far from it.
I thought Dalrock, and the rest of the Man-O-sphere had debunked the “women are responders” heresy.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/women-as-responders/
Anyhow, My wife has Intimacy Anorexia, an intimacy avoidant condition. So how she responds, is not congruent with normal psychology. For every nice thing I do to bring us closer together she has to do or say something evil to sabotage the relationship, and keep distancing herself from me.
Psalm 109:4-5
In return for my love they accuse me,
but I give myself to prayer.
So they reward me evil for good,
and hatred for my love.
So even if she is “responding” it is not how she should be responding. She has filed for divorce rather than submit to treatment. It is a shame the “church” is impotent in my situation, they’d rather believe I deserve, and caused every bit of unfaithful behavior my wife has done, than believe that a woman could foolishly be tearing her own house apart.
Proverbs 14:1 The wise woman builds her house, But the foolish tears it down with her own hands.
You don’t have to believe me, I’m getting used to it.
If I were to make up lies, they’d be far more believable, than the tale I have to tell.
The truth is stranger than fiction.
Pray for me, and my marriage, and for the debunking of unholy Feminism in the “church”.
Re: hitting
Seems to me that slapping a woman may be an appropriate response, in a different society, to her being disrespectful of a man, especially when a verbal response is insufficient.
Sharkly says:
April 24, 2018 at 11:28 pm
“Anyhow, My wife has Intimacy Anorexia, an intimacy avoidant condition.
For every nice thing I do to bring us closer together she has to do or say something evil to sabotage the relationship, and keep distancing herself from me.”
On manosphere sites, we call that being an Alpha widow.
If your wife has had so much as 2 sex partners before you, odds are you will never measure up to the better of them.
This classic graph shows just how hosed are the prospects for men marrying women with previous sexual experience:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman</img.
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman[/img]
Scott says:
April 24, 2018 at 9:16 am
“I’ve also been guilty of committing the thought crime of believing that Lorena Bobbitt should have had the book thrown at her, because if a man cut off any part of his wife’s anatomy in anger that’s what would happen to him. Instead she used the insanity defense and was acquitted. She has not behaved like an insane person since the trial, so…
I think that an appropriate sentence for Mrs. Bobbit would have been to have her boobs whacked off with a semi-sharp knife, then sewed back on with VERY coarse stitches. Had John’s schlong not been sewed back on with function restored, then I’d up it to twin radical masectomies + nationwide notice that any M.D. doing reconstructive surgery, e.g., giving her any kind of replacement boobs, would have been grounds for immediate and permanent license revocation.
@SirHamster – Fine. When, as with the early Church, your church going to throw parties and celebrate all the 30 and 40 yo virgins in your congregation? They among church laity are considered freaks by their own church.
As I said. You can’t square the circle on this. Expect more van attacks by crazed virgins.
DC-
Come on, you’re moving goal posts. First, you call a man who says he was a virgin at marriage “the older brother from the prodigal son.” Then, when several commenters say that Joe was not the older brother, and that how he lived his life was honorable, you respond with, “but your churches aren’t good enough.”
@ys – If you want me to stay on topic of @Joe, I will. His comment drips of resentment, which doesn’t seem too noble to me.
Damn Crackers,
As with others, I don’t see pride in Joe, suggesting your perception is somewhat flawed.
I get how you see resentment. It may well be a temptation for Joe. Try putting yourself in his place and ask how you would respond when others treat you like your good behavior is disappointing.
@OKRickety – Exactly. That was why I was concerned that churches don’t commend people like Joe and his eventual marriage. But, I was told I was moving the goal posts.
@DC
You are not making sense.
You are linked Joe’s story of sexual purity until marriage to “pride as sinful as fornication”. Then you treat the ones objecting to this comparison as acting like the older brother of the prodigal son who was too self-focused and bitter to celebrate his younger brother’s repentance and redemption.
It’s not self-focus and bitterness driving those objections.
Are you upset that Joe was married at 28?
@SirHamster – I answered in the post above yours. No. I am not mad at anyone here, including Joe. I just don’t think one should be resentful of those who don’t. The posters here don’t believe that was the intent; I do. Let’s leave it at that.
@ Hmmm
I agree. But for most of the issues MRAs have bought up, I don’t know what could tangibly be done about them.
For instance culture can do more to shame men/women who leave their spouse for another person or neglect their vows but none of the states seem willing to entertain the idea of repealing no fault divorce; and even so, such a repeal would probably just lead to women to falsely accuse their husbands of varying types of abuse, to get out of a marriage, which would adversely affect men.
Essentially what can tangibly be done to make the situation more equitable?
“Men have to sacrifice more in a marriage than women do, women get protection, provision and status from marriage. Men get bills to pay and responsibility, they have to do the grunt work. Thus if you remove the authority that should go hand in hand with the responsibility of said marriage, it becomes a very poor deal for men, one that fewer and fewer will see the value of.”
Meh, this was true before women’s lib. But American women in 2018 don’t need a husband for protection (America is pretty safe). Single childless women outearn single childless men, and marriage doesn’t give women status. Marriage to a man of status gives women status. So the vast majority of women don’t get any status from merely marrying. So the benefits you’ve outlined, aren’t realized in modern society.
The overarching problem seems to be that men and women don’t “need” marriage in the way our predecessors did. Men don’t need marriage to get sex. Women don’t need marriage to get resources. That lack of need is driving choice for both partners—leading to hyper-competitiveness and pushing a large swath of people off the marriage market
Meh, don’t get married then. Let society crumble. Don’t for a second believe that you provide those things yourself. Society that gives you all this was created and is sustained by men.
This attitude you’ve just outlined is why I’m a full MGTOW. I do not care anymore.
Go and do it all. Don’t complain.
The only answer a woman like you need to be given, Laura, is to fuck off. If you don’t need men then rejoice that men are walking away. Women can now do all the work, all the fighting and all the birthing. Just stop complaining, you have no right to do so anymore, you don’t need men so can expect nothing from men anymore.
There is no negotiation. Just leave.
I never said men don’t provide anything-men provide a great deal and marriage provides a great deal to society. But I would never pretend that men should marry because without it they won’t have sex. Its simply not true. Similarly, I would never suggest that women can’t get food/shelter without marriage. Because it’s simply not true.
None of this means men and women don’t have anything to offer each other. Of course, they have a great deal. I simply mean that women’s lib has shifted the value proposition.
No Laura, fuck off. No more negotiations, go and do it all yourself. Bye.
Men don’t need marriage to get sex.
Some men don’t need marriage to get sex.
Some men get married and still don’t get sex.
Deti,
“Some men don’t need marriage to get sex.
Some men get married and still don’t get sex”.
Yes.
And this is a sad reflection on the poor understanding of men’s needs in general, in ‘society’, which is controlled by…women.
Which takes us back to the point Laura was making – which is… Feminism (or, as she puts it, Womens Lib) has exerted a real, tangible grip on society, by pushing women’s unrestricted agenda over everyone else’s, notably men’s, but also including children’s, (not hard to understand that if you frivorce a man, you destroy also the children’s lives – we have all the demographic evidence of that across at least three generations now…).
In all fairness, I do not think Laura is celebrating Womens Lib, she is simply being the messenger of the ‘bad news’, who is likely to get shot (and I see she has already taken a few hits).
She is stating fact. Womens Lib HAS removed the financial dependence of women on men, and the ‘sex-positivity’/promiscuity aspect of feminism HAS removed the sexual dependence of men on women, mdeaning, a man does not have to get married to have sex with any women in particular, because he cn get a willing replacement (if he is attractive enough, of course). In this case however, marriage does not seem to rectify this problem for men, as you rightly point out. Beacuse marriage is devalued so much that a woman îs not forced to be bound by it as she would have been in the past. You are also being a messenger of a fact.
I read a lovely story of a woman who is a high flying CEO or something, married to a man who (I think is also high-flying man in his own right). They have NINE children. And it is the man who stays home to care for them. The woman goes out to work.
For some of you this is a ‘Horror story’. Granted. The two were interviewed. The woman said of the man: “without him, I could not do what I do, I am dependent on him”.
In this ‘weird’ set-up, the man is still the boss, and the woman a) recognises this, and b) gives him his due praise for it.
My take-home message from this story is that if a woman can find a way to be still ‘dependent’ on her man (even if ‘Womens Lib’ has removed this option), THAT is the key to the polarity that MUST exist to keep man and woman in relative harmony with each other.
“Find your own way”, is the key. Despite the odds against you.
But … alas I am preaching to the choir… 🙂
Really?! And that’s why she started her response to be with ‘meh’……. not a chance.
When women say they are independent and don’t need no man, it’s quite clear that men should respond ‘fine, there’s the door, good bye.’
That is the only response necessary for such flagrant disregard that women like Laura have. Did you miss that she acknowledges that if women don’t get their way with respect to ‘no fault’ divorce, they will simply get their way by lying instead and falsely accusing their husbands? Oh my, and we’re meant to negotiate with such people? Nope. Done. She got the response she deserved. End of.
Okay, you guys fix it then. Do the work. Else just shut the fuck up.
Essentially what can tangibly be done to make the situation more equitable?
European style child custody and support regimes (where there is presumed joint/shared physical custody and support amounts are calculated based on actual cost and not a percentage of income like they are in the US).
DC-
No biggie, we are allies here in the end.
But Nova, but Nova, that would make it very difficult for an unhaaaaapy woman to punish her ex and isn’t that the real purpose of anti-family court?
Seriously, Novaseeker’s off the cuff observation makes more sense than any pile of position papers that I’ve read / skimmed in the last 10 years. Much, much more sense than anything in the chin-stroking press (“Atlantic”, “City Journal”, etc.). Too much sense, really…
None of this means men and women don’t have anything to offer each other.
OK, entertain us: what positive benefit does any given woman today have to offer any given man that doesn’t make his life more of a burden and a struggle than it already is?
Okay, you guys fix it then. Do the work.
“Fix” what? As far as they’re concerned, not only is nothing broken, but things haven’t gone far enough in the feminization campaign. They’re still getting warmed up.
@ys – Thanks.
Laura says:
April 25, 2018 at 4:09 pm
“Men have to sacrifice more in a marriage than women do, women get protection, provision and status from marriage. Men get bills to pay and responsibility, they have to do the grunt work. Thus if you remove the authority that should go hand in hand with the responsibility of said marriage, it becomes a very poor deal for men, one that fewer and fewer will see the value of.”
“Meh, this was true before women’s lib. But American women in 2018 don’t need a husband for protection (America is pretty safe). Single childless women outearn single childless men, and marriage doesn’t give women status. Marriage to a man of status gives women status. So the vast majority of women don’t get any status from merely marrying.””
Marriage gives WAY more advantage to women than “status”, like near-guaranteed money taken by force from innocent men under false auspices for up to DECADES post-frivorce. Is this something of which you were flabbergastingly unaware, or are you mendacious?
Is this something of which you were flabbergastingly unaware, or are you mendacious?
Neither. She is just trolling for gina tingles.
“No Laura, fuck off. No more negotiations, go and do it all yourself. Bye.”
^ Cosigned! And end all public monies to female only social service programs too as that’s blatant misandry!
It doesn’t help to talk as if Laura is the one trying to negotiate anything. The negotiations have been carried out, the governments are enforcing them. At that level we cannot expect any change unless a major social force will trigger such change. What’s left for most individual men is to influence our own lives and our own environment to grow awareness for the negative aspects that feminism has imposed upon men. Don’t expect pity.
For a Christian there’s a different perspective: societies have always been hostile towards Christian values. But real change starts within the Church. We also all know all too well that in many instances churches are followers of culture instead of shapers of culture. We cannot avoid to suffer while we’re trying to influence the people around us.
@ Paul
yeah Churches love the culture
Our Prime Minister is soon going to have a baby and a house daddy boyfriend
Christian pastors are actively praising him as a role model for men to follow
real genuine sacrificial love and service to his wife…
what all men should aspire to
the thing is, the men in the church love it, and support it and shut down anyone who said that was role reversal
@bdash
New Zealand?
But real change starts within the Church.
Good luck with that. There is no “reforming” today’s established churches. They are not and never have been true New Testament churches. The ONLY effective way to combat the rot is to 1) seek out fellow true believers and establish your own church (“where two or more gather in my name…), and then 2) evangelize fervently, which is something that almost no churchian franchise does today (the Great Commission is just too much work and actually involves walking a talk that churchians don’t really believe). As Sipcode put it in a post from a year or so ago, the day of the professional pastor is over. They are compromised and co-opted and are responsible for much of the catastrophe that is today’s “church.”
Also, Christians in the West (especially North America) are going to come under direct and intense persecution in the not-very-distant future, something that will have the gloriously beneficial effect of revealing the 99 percent majority of self-described “Christians” as being the churchian frauds they’ve always been, people who will without hesitation join forces wholeheartedly with the World when things heat up. You will NOT want to be in any way associated with such people when it comes time to seriously walk the talk; they will be the first to betray you.
TL;DR version: the only way to “reform” the church is to go back to First-Century basics and realize that you cannot be of this world and be a Christ Follower. That will eliminate 99 percent of the current “Christian” population (i.e., the source of the current rot).
Marriage gives WAY more advantage to women than “status”, like near-guaranteed money taken by force from innocent men under false auspices for up to DECADES post-frivorce. Is this something of which you were flabbergastingly unaware, or are you mendacious?
I’m in my twenties and have practically zero knowledge of divorce as no one around me is divorced. I have a general understanding the child support exists of course but that’s about it.
It doesn’t help to talk as if Laura is the one trying to negotiate anything. The negotiations have been carried out, the governments are enforcing them. At that level we cannot expect any change unless a major social force will trigger such change. What’s left for most individual men is to influence our own lives and our own environment to grow awareness for the negative aspects that feminism has imposed upon men. Don’t expect pity.
I think you’re discounting what you can get from women on the legal front. The joint custody policy proposal someone suggested above seems like something that could indeed be passed without a major social force. It isn’t that you can’t ‘expect pity’ its that you’ve ( plural you) have assumed all women know what men are facing—we don’t–reading this site has been eye-opening for me. Furthermore, many people have said they don’t want women’s help/care what women think. This obviously makes things difficult as obviously women can’t give you help on a legal or social or even relationship front if you believe them to be useless.
I’m in my twenties and have practically zero knowledge of divorce as no one around me is divorced. I have a general understanding the child support exists of course but that’s about it.
Now we know you’re a troll. NO ONE can live in the English-speaking Western world and NOT know (not just “be around”) at least one person who is divorced and/or paying spousal or child support. It’s lke living in Hawaii for a lifetime and not knowing what rain or rainbows are. It’s simply impossible.
Now we know you’re a troll. NO ONE can live in the English-speaking Western world and NOT know (not just “be around”) at least one person who is divorced and/or paying spousal or child support. It’s lke living in Hawaii for a lifetime and not knowing what rain or rainbows are. It’s simply impossible.
Im in my twenties so my friends are just started to get married–so no one is divorced. My parents are married. My aunts and uncles are married. And all of my friends growing up had married parents. Certainly I have associates who may have divorced parents and I have worked with older people who I’m sure were divorced; but obviously, none of these people discussed their divorce with me and so I haven’t been close to it in any way. I also don’t have any male friends with children so no one I know of pays child support.
No one here cares. Go away.
@Laura: “I think you’re discounting what you can get from women on the legal front.”
I was talking about the social institution of marriage as dictated by the state. On the one hand women are complaining about not being treated equal, and demand special treatment enforced by the state to egalize perceived inequalities (positive discrimination/action). On the other hand women are seen as the weaker party, hence are by default not guilty of abuse, while men are, are given the assets at a divorce, without asking who was at fault (this will even work for a no-fault divorce initiated by women), are usually given custody over any children.
In both cases, men suffer, women gain. Feminism has not brought equality; it is rooted in marxist ideology targeted to destroy the family (that was surprising to me too), which uses state power to transfer wealth and power from a perceived privileged class to an unprivileged class. Somehow men are seen as the privileged class, women as the unprivileged class, whereas e.g. the life expectancy for men is significantly lower, the suicide rates for men are higher etc.
Again, feminism is NOT about equality. More and more men are beginning to understand this.
@Laura: “you’ve assumed all women know what men are facing—we don’t–reading this site has been eye-opening for me.”
Understand that this site is one of the few places where men gather and share their painful experiences with women and wives, trying to understand why things happened to them, and how society is working against them. Some try to pick up the pieces and plot a new course. Furthermore, it seems this is also one of the few sites where quite regularly these things are discussed from a Christian point of view. Please respect that.
Paul said, “We cannot avoid to suffer while we’re trying to influence the people around us.”
That is a championed virtue of Christianity and a profound point. Why is it correct to influence those around you to believe as you do? Because you have an agenda with absolute certainty that: (1) All are convertable, and (2) You are right in your cause. Not everyone is ‘redeemable’, probably most. If you help all be fruitful and multiply at the expense of your own reproduction, duh.
I think it’s insane to try one-size-fits-all culture/ideology/religion, with silk purse protocol for sow’s ear the inevitable result. Proselytizing for global control, whether or not via a prerequisite condition to trigger global control, is the point, but Christianity is not well-suited for that as I think history shows. Likewise, the other two major Abrahamic religions are designed for conquest. The muzzierecipe is more likely to work than your recipe, for the globalists that is. To suffer not only to reap pain but to lose–why can’t that be a clue that unqualified conversion of everyone to ‘your people/flock’ is wrong? Christians can’t have functional social standards on earth if everyone is to be redeemed/converted by the dent of endless human suffering. I remind you of the brash wisdom of Gen. Patton regarding no poor, dumb bastard.
You must at least concede my point about the merits of earthly redemption or reformation as far as women go, lulszlzluzlzlzlzluzlllzuzlzlzlz. To make them equal to men is to pedestalizing them and assist them to greater heights!
I am pleasantly shocked at the treatment of a poor, innocent women on this site by men of diligent virtue. The next step is DGAF. Your vitality will be yours if you don’t use it to dig a hole, heh. It is not wrong to live for yourself, even for the parasite. When a civilized man lives for himself, he gives civilization on earth a chance. IDK if that matters to you good men. Earthly treasure/power being of no value. But that’s not true if relief from pain in this life becomes imperative. If only the power to be left alone were available without conflict, but parasites be parasites, and it is wrong for the inveterate parasite to live in peaceful solitude. But humans are not parasites. All of us have the breathe of God within, defiled more or less I suppose, so keep going, and going, and going. It seems to me that that go is the essence of Christianity and Churchianity alike, with the example of Job and whatnot. I gave that pain up. I can’t buy into a God that expects seemingly infinite pain in this life or else actually infinite pain in the next, except as a con by ((those)) who started a movement within Judaism that never caught on within Judaism. I don’t think you can square the circle of nothing but endless pain for Christian men of great virtue. If Dalrock can expouse a credible out for Christian men, would it make a fine post? If suffering is the essence of moral purity, I don’t know why neither I nor your were beatified long ago. Wait, yes I can. We ain’t dead yet. Let the women win now. You will win later. Are most women destined for hell? Another post idea!
@RD: ” I can’t buy into a God that expects seemingly infinite pain in this life or else actually infinite pain in the next”
Read C.S. Lewis’ “The problem of pain”.
Laura says:
April 26, 2018 at 12:25 pm
“I’m in my twenties and have practically zero knowledge of divorce as no one around me is divorced”
What island with population under 7 do you live upon?
@RD: ” Let the women win now. You will win later. Are most women destined for hell? Another post idea!”
The same thing the blasphemer Mohammed wondered about:
“And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”
(Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3241; Muslim, 2737)
Scripture never talks like that. Both men and women are moral agents, live sinful lives, and will be judged by God.
.
@Luke: “What island with population under 7 do you live upon?”
Sri Lanka? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography#Divorce_statistics_by_country)
yes New Zealand
the church is so feminized here
they seem to have this big campaign to get women to be the breadwinner, the leader and men to support them
@bdash: “they seem to have this big campaign to get women to be the breadwinner, the leader and men to support them”
It almost makes me laugh if it were not sad: after 70 years of feminism we ended were we started, only with roles reversed. I wonder when men start to organize and cooperate to counter.
@Paul, I will NOT read C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (1940). I am sick of the faith-in-faith nonsense. You can’t make the argument yourself. It’s always study more, which is submission. The Infogalactic entry is spiritless. Wikipedia says: ‘Lewis does not claim to offer a complete “solution” to the problem of evil.’ We all would have heard the specific argument by now if he had something meaningful. A proof would not take 100+ pages.
What you are asking me to do is give up my mental agency to submit to yours in the safety of the herd that comforts you best. If your God is unable or unwillling to present to me a logical argument that fits philosophy, then he is not real. Philosophy -> science (Ph.D.) -> atom bomb real. You would have be deny the obvious for superstituous subjugation?
Paul said: “Both men and women are moral agents.” That is a fundamental and bold contradiction to Red Pill enlightenment, which is why Christianity and Red Pill can never actually adhere and integrate with each other. Your argurment is that someone you label as ‘evil’ (which is itself questionable) is always wrong, yet you are smart enough to know that the devil can cite scripture to suit his purposes. If you are smart enough to know that, you are lying in your arguments with me. If you are not smart enough to know that, you haven’t the insight to answer my concerns about the foibles of your beliefs. Your scripture supporst an elect, salvation by faith, and salvation by good works. Why not all the above and have no standards at all? Why would there be two stories about the birth of Jesus that puts Joseph and Mary in and also not in Nazareth just before His birth? The devil has lotsa room. Now I will quote and you can poo-poo natural selection or whatever.
Talmud, Fathers (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2165/jewish/Chapter-One.htm):
“5. Yossei the son of Yochanan of Jerusalem would say: Let your home be wide open, and let the poor be members of your household. And do not engage in excessive conversation with a woman. This is said even regarding one’s own wife—how much more so regarding the wife of another. Hence, the sages said: One who excessively converses with a woman causes evil to himself, neglects the study of Torah, and, in the end, inherits purgatory.”
I presume you can quote St. Paul about women’s inferiority, that women should ask their husbands not the priest and that women should be seen but not heard in church, thus castroti.
You must also know that in Islam the testimony of one man is preferable to that of two women and that the testimony of at least one man is required. I don’t recall the source.
There is no question that Abrahamic religion de facto questions the morality of women, or else let women be priests as much as men. If women are more morally pure, and to be pedestalized, let only women be priests. Not one apostle was a female. Jesus was not female. WTF? Where is the forethought of God to prove by example the equivalent moral agency of women to men. It is harder to assert on the Christian evidence that women have no moral agency, but having them shut up in church is pretty telling and damning. St. Paul said marriage is better than burning in hell: not exactly a recommendation to keep company with a woman for who a woman is as a person. It was justified by what she was as a piece of meat.
Your beliefs are full of logical holes because you rely on emotion and faith. To presume and assert a logical argument for your Christiain beliefs is to lie. The final piece of the logic puzzle is always just over the horizon. I am the prize. I don’t chase anymore.
@Paul
Your Q: “I wonder when men start to organize and cooperate to counter.”
My A: Never.
You presume an equivalence between men and women. High-culture men (ie. not savages) care about others and logic and so what shared words mean. Women care what words mean only insofar as suckers to be had care what words mean. Yin is not yang. If you are so educated, and you are, why can’t you get this? The rise and fall of humanity follows a saw-tooth pattern because the decline is slower and longer than the incline. Culture yields quickly to institution, because of men like you. Institution does not yield until total defeat and society fails utterly as a whole. Healthy culture requires individual accountability and so the failure and removal of garbage for the good of others who can cooperate at a high level as producers, i.e. natural selection is natural law, which contradicts redeeming all by the spread of the gospel. You redeem women and savages to my peril, which is to say you subsidize my pain and failure. Charity from Christians works just like charity from the government because you dare not oppose the government, and St. Paul says you should not oppose government. If you did oppose government with enough salience, government would crush you. The game of government whack-a-mole, the ponzi scheme, must exhaust us to complete collapse.
You did take the time to read and respond. Many others do not respond. Though we will never agree, I think more highly of you. You have specificity of what you believe and can articulate it.
P.S. There are the MRAs or MHRAs, who like the TEA party play by house rules and expect to win. Men have already organized and countered. It just is not and will not be effective. Yang defeats yin specifically how? By gentile psychological abuse?
” I can’t buy into a God that expects seemingly infinite pain in this life or else actually infinite pain in the next”
“Christians can’t have functional social standards on earth if everyone is to be redeemed/converted by the dent of endless human suffering.”
Suffering does not redeem or convert anybody in Christian theology. It’s the inevitable friction that results from being right in a world that insists upon being wrong. Nothing more, save that God will reward us for patiently enduring it.
If you honestly believe Christianity is incorrect then no Christian should continue trying to convert you. You’ve chosen your side and we’ll respect that. We have no duty to coerce belief upon anybody and the times we’re tried anyway have been unqualified failures.
For your part, please do not use the phrase “Abrahamic religion”. Abraham did not start a religion. He started an ethnic group to which almost none of us belong. It was Moses who introduced the Old Law and we Christians have replaced Moses with Christ… earning us the undying hatred of Jews and Muslims.
@RD: “What you are asking me to do is give up my mental agency to submit to yours”
Not at all. You’re free to do as you like. Reading Lewis has helped me to understand the problem of evil a bit better, it might help you too.
@RD: “To presume and assert a logical argument for your Christiain beliefs is to lie. The final piece of the logic puzzle is always just over the horizon.”
Christianity is not logical. But it is reasonable. In fact, of all the religions it gives you probably the most coherent view on reality. But it requires something beyond logic alone: faith, that is, trust in God. It has taken me many years to get answers to questions, and I still only know little, but my trust in God has increased, and so has the joy and peace in Him.
There are no shortcuts. But let me start by quoting what the person who hated Christianity more than anyone to the point he was murdering Christians and throwing them in jail:
“If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.”
This was written by a man who had a real-life encounter with Jesus Christ after He was crucified and died. It was the apostle Paul.
If you study the historic evidence, there is one question you should ask yourself: who is Jesus?
If you have specific questions I’ll try to answer them, or point you in the right direction.
@RD: “I am the prize. I don’t chase anymore.”
Heb 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
I surrendered to God even when I was doubting, God then entered my life, there was no denying. That was only the beginning of the journey to grow in understanding.
GunnerQ, you know what basket all of your eggs are in. That is a heck of a wager, but the evident meaninglessness of this life is the comparative bet. It will suffice for me to say about what wager is best that I know nothing but the fact of my ignorance. However, the afterlife bet abdicates earthy winning. Do you claim to fight with a chance at winning with such a handicap of Christian virtue? What I mean is do you presume to have agency enough on earth to make a positive difference in earthly affairs? Would it not be enough for this blog to say: keep the faith in this life and win in the next? Does fighting for earthly affairs and earthly outcomes taint the Christian fighter? I speak not of keeping the faith personally but keeping institutions of faith. I understand sacrifice, but arduous strategizing to win with a righteous handicap that guarantees losing until God intervenes whenever but only at the end–that I can’t comprehend by intellectual merits. It smacks to me as a lack of faith in righteous losing, or a faith in maximal misery. If one is a temple in body, and one is something meant to be meaningful and noble in mind–and I blather on. I really must stop this catharsis and face my meatspace (but below I already wrote). The dearth of inquisitive intellect around me is deafening.
I don’t see that you can say Moses rather than Abraham started a religion. Ur is the start and the Germans, who began their expert Biblical scholarship circa 1800, use Ur to generically mean a very beginning. The distinction of Christianity from Judaism and Islam is clear to me. I don’t think Moses or the replacement of Moses earned Christians undying hatred of earthly rivals. The direct competition in the mental marketplace for earthly conquest does that. The socialist/libtards hate you no less. I see that you also regard ((them)) as a race and I can infer what that means for your belief system. I will avoid the term here as you wish. Maybe instead use ‘Big 3’, which sounds too much lilke an NCAA conference. I can always enumerate. I’m not sure that Mosaic religions would work.
@RD: “My A: Never. You presume an equivalence between men and women.”
You might be right that it will never happen, that’s why I wonder. But I do not presume an equivalence, I think women are more naturally inclined to form social bonds, and men want to solve things by themselves. However men have been known to successfully organize and form highly effective institutions, so it is possible.
@RD: “Healthy culture requires individual accountability and so the failure and removal of garbage for the good of others who can cooperate at a high level as producers, i.e. natural selection is natural law, which contradicts redeeming all by the spread of the gospel.”
What you call garbage are people who do not contribute to some shared goal. You are unfortunately too optimistic about the nature of men. History has shown countless times that power corrupts and the innocent suffer for the benefit of some perceived greater good which in reality are to the benefit of a small minority in charge. The gospel goes beyond any such shared goal and sets a new goal: to serve God in love and in righteousness after we’ve come to realize that evil resides in ourselves from which we need redemption. And although God wants all to acknowledge the truth and be redeemed, we know for a fact that not all free-will agents will allow themselves to be redeemed. In that sense you’re misinformed on the content of the gospel.
@RD: If you did oppose government with enough salience, government would crush you.
Have you ever heard of persecution of Christians, both historically and at this very moment?
@RD: You redeem women and savages to my peril
Not really. I’ve yet to encounter one Christian command that is in principle not beneficial to society.
Paul says:
April 27, 2018 at 5:33 am
@Luke: “What island with population under 7 do you live upon?”
“Sri Lanka? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography#Divorce_statistics_by_country)”
I went to that link and saw the rock-bottom divorce statistics claimed there. I find that difficult to reconcile with this article:
http://www.dailynews.lk/2016/03/01/features/death-do-us-part
Before death do us part
When there are 400 divorces a day it must be declared as an extremely alarming social issue facing Sri Lanka at present. Especially in Asian countries such as Sri Lanka where marriage is considered as a lifelong commitment, the rising divorce rate makes one question how this unusual turn of events came about. A recent survey carried out by the health authorities has revealed that 54 percent of marriages in Sri Lanka end in divorce.
According to Anusha Gokula Fernando, Director, Social Services, Western Provincial Council, most of the divorces occur within a year of marriage and there are about 3,890 mothers who were under 18 years of age among them. It seems the situation is pretty bad.
So, if there is a non-Muslim country currently without a divorce holocaust from mens’ POV, I have yet to hear of it.
@Luke: if there is a non-Muslim country currently without a divorce holocaust from mens’ POV
If you browse through the sources the Wikipedia article uses, Sri Lanka was incorrect. However other UNESCO data did show that in 1988 divorce rates were 0.2, which is comparable, but might be too old.
As for non-muslim countries: look through the list and see for yourself. Columbia and Guatemala are listed at 0.2 and are non-muslim for example.
@Luke
But it is clear that divorce rates in USA are third-highest in the world. Only beaten by former USSR. Hah, the communists got their revenge!
Scripture says “Shew thyself a man.” The effeminate church has created ‘Gentlemen.’ There are no gentlemen in scripture. There are men who are gentle sometimes; that is clearly called for. And anger in men is clearly called for also. Men know the season for each. Gentlemen don’t. Gentlemen are ruled by women.
Fuck that shit, man.
Pingback: Chivalry | Spawny's Space
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2018/04/29) - Social Matter
Pingback: An easy fix to make marriages stronger and work better
Laura’s question is one of the most important every raised on this website. I do not believe anyone answered her. Here’s my attempt:
An easy fix to make marriages stronger and work better
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/05/04/an-easy-reform-to-marriage/