Secular historian Callum Brown investigated British Christian literature and found that around 1700 a new narrative appeared, where women were “the angel of the house”. As he explained in The Death of Christian Britain
…women’s spiritual destiny was virtually never portrayed as a battle with temptation or real sin; fallen women did not appear as central characters, and none of the usual temptations like drink or gambling ever seemed to be an issue with them. The problem is the man, sometimes the father, but more commonly the boyfriend, fiancé, or husband, who is a drinker, a gambler, keeps the ‘bad company’ of ‘rough lads’ and is commonly a womanizer. The man is the agency of the virtuous woman’s downfall; he does not make her bad, but does make her suffer and poor. She is not always portrayed as having undergone a major conversion experience, but to have emerged from childhood into a disciplined and natural ‘goodness.’
Brown explains that one of the most common literary structures regarding men was what he called “The Husband Structure”:
A. Husband lives with virtuous wife
B. Husband is a drunkard/gambler/wife-beater
C. Wife and children suffer in poverty
D. Chance event (often an accident to husband)
E. Wife nurses husband in Christian way.
F. Husband converts
G. Family happier, if not richer
This is of course the plot-line of pretty much all Kendrick brothers movies. But we can also see a modified version of this structure in movies that add on the fantasy of Christian women piously chasing after sexy bad boys:
Related:
H/T Nick Mgtow
I gotta read that book.
Pingback: She’s in love with a bad boy. | @the_arv
The last slogan at the end of the video is fast-food like. That’s why men don’t go to church any more…
As I was flying over Suzanne Venker’s Facebook page (damn, you wrote that article quickly Dalrock!) I noticed Prager U, tradcon feminist, at it again about good masculinity.
Missionary dating. That is likely to work well….
Maybe they can make a movie with big name stars glorifying women abandoning long term marriages next. Just talk about God’s forgiveness and freedom for the woman after that and it will all be great.
Note as well that women should love and care for the bad boy, but not their faithful already Christian husband.
So what man needs Jesus when we have all these holy women to save us?
So this ‘man bad, woman good’ narrative potentially started all the way back in the 1700s.
Just to get this straight…they are not portraying the woman influencing her husband to Christ (and thus his conversion)…but that she is his savior?
Obviously Vanessa is only dating the drug dealer because none of the guys in the church would man up and ask her out. What else is a virginal church girl supposed to do?
I wonder if the thought of a guy in the church actually asking her out mortifies her more than the prospect of an abusive relationship with Trayvon Drug-Dealer.
First, I’m just glad Ja Rule doesn’t have to eat out of a dumpster anymore.
Second, just to play Devil’s advocate, doesn’t this trope just go back to St. Paul and 1 Corinthians?
“If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.”
Doesn’t this story go back to at least St. Monica?
That was mother-son.
You are probably thinking of St. Rita.
@Damn Crackers
St. Paul wrote that it is ok for the believer to “consume” his or her unbelieving spouse.That statement means a believer married to an unbeliever is not an unclean arrangement, or an arrangement together of things that should be kept separate.
The actress in that “church girl” movie is currently married to a very well-known and well regarded gospel music artist named Israel Houghton.
The story is that he left his first wife as his career peaked and married this younger woman, Adrienne Baillon (now Adrienne Houghton). She was a Disney starlet, incidentally.
The stuff Christian culture comes up with and/or endorses is so twisted you couldn’t make it up if you tried.
@Earl – “You are probably thinking of St. Rita.”
Her too, but I thought St. Monica’s husband, Patricius, converted on his death bed. Maybe he didn’t. I don’t recall.
“We’ve been praying for a Godly man for Vanessa.”
But we haven’t been teaching her to dress modestly in public, because that would be “body shaming”, according to St. Sheila of the Concertina.
Side note: that trailer is cheesier than Chester Cheetah.
Well that’s not a good sign either. They groom those kids early.
Yeah if it is from Hollyweird…it’s going to be some inverted story.
She’s not dressing like that with the intention of luring men to sin. She’s only showing off her virtues.
Billys . I have some backshadowing about how missionary sex could end :
https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-murdered-his-wife-married-a-pastors-daughter-then-killed-his-own-kids
I checked it out…he did one year before his death.
Crime and Punishment (1866) came to mind as a novel that has the saintly Christian woman (prostitute) redeeming the bad boy. So it’s certainly an old trope.
I’m thinking it’s because the type actually does exist, but the thing is that it’s horribly over-used in modern fiction, like the Magical Negro.
This creates dissonance when the fiction always shows something that our experience says is otherwise.
Which is not a suggestion to create unequally yoked marriages, though some will rationalize them that way. It’s not forbidden, but it is unwise if there is a choice.
“We’ve been praying for a Godly man for Vanessa, for 35 years now…”
I’ve always been taught that that passage was directed towards Christians who became saved after marriage, thus finding themselves married to an unbeliever.
Reading the whole verse (context matters), I think the Apostle Paul was addressing a concern about the children of a marriage to a non-Christian. Note that he is referring to existing marriages. While some, primarily women, seem to want acceptance of “missionary dating”, it would require a willful misrepresentation of these verses to support it. “Missionary dating” would be inconsistent with Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians:
That trailer is both painful and hilarious to watch. Ooof.
Correct…it was in a time where Paul was preaching to pagans and some of the spouses were converting where the other spouse wasn’t. It was never meant to be a license to have a ‘Godly’ woman marry a heathen. That’s pretty much an unequal yoking.
https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/6-14.htm
Not to mention that some Christians were slaves, and a master might decide to marry a Christian slave to an unbelieving slave.
It may have started that early but it was the Victorian age (mid to late 1800’s) where this, “woman naturally good, man bad” trop really took off. Before that the general public and those in power had a generally realistic view of women’s flaws and short comings. A good example of that is John Adams (one of the founders of the US constitution) made the remake, “despotism of the petticoat” when pressed to include consideration for women’s rights. The progressives in the early 1900’s then took things to the next level by passing several constitutional amendments (their right to vote, prohibition and the income tax) that were all basically “women’s” issues and screwed men going forward. Have to say that allowing women to vote was the single most destructive idea of the 20th century. Of course that rot starts with the Church in all of this and as true belief and adherence to the word of God declines this starts to give rise to all these issues.
What caused a new narrative to appear in England at the beginning of the Eighteenth century? Some thoughts: the growth of towns and growing literacy fuelled a need for reading material. The Novel begins to get going at about that time – and Franco Moretti (if I recall correctly) says in one of his books that contrary to Feminist rhetoric about half the novels then written were penned by females. The reason you can only name male authors of the period such as Defoe is that they were better Novelists and not because of some plot to shaft women.
Is it really true that Christianity died in England after 1700 ( I put it that way as Wales, Ireland and Scotland are entirely different and take religion very seriously)? I have before on this blog listed and I missed some, all the churches in the town in which I live – far far more than cinemas but no one talks of the death of movies. Most schools too are Faith schools – Anglican. Then there are the Cathedrals with their centuries long Choral tradition, and indeed the State is a theocracy.
Oh cool, so all I need to do to get the local Christian daughter is to be the Kingpin gangster drug dealer.
Great!
Men will never be allowed to be men again as long as feminist are the ones telling men how to be men. The smart men will see through their duplicity and simply MGTOW or use Red Pill methods to become the local alpha and have their way with the local church girls….heck all the local girls.
The ones that listen to the feminist…..well, they will become increasing frustrated when sex bots can’t be made fast enough that riots will break out in major cities/urban areas, and soon chaos and civil unrest will be the day…kinda of like that Charleston Heston Movie from the 70’2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green.
I love our future….it will ensure mankind will meet his maker one way or another much sooner than anyone realizes
Opus:
Wales had a huge revival and great awakening back in the 1780’s, and again in 1859-1860 which swept the whole ‘kingdom’ by storm, and was even attended by William Booth, the future founder of The Salvation Army. This revival was even mentioned in The Boston Globe, and the New York Times. Even in Queen Victoria’s letters, she mentioned it to the Prime Minister, and was curious to know “what was happening over there?”
It was Welsh Methodism in particular. My mother once told me that her grandfather was “born again” as a Methodist because the Methodist ministers would come to the slate-pits and coal mines / shafts and preach in Welsh to the men after work. Something the COE, Catholics, Quakers, and Baptists would not do.
I read an account of the revival of 1859 online somewhere…..coal miners with coal smeared on their faces, and quarrymen covered in slate dust would come out of the mines, and stop by a church or choir hall….open the Bible and preached from where they opened from. All of them were not trained preachers…….it spread quickly and made something of a sensation for about a year.
@Seventiesjason – My great-grandfather was a Church of Wales minister for the slate miners of Eastern PA. Many of the town names there are Welsh. I don’t know if the Church of Wales is still a thing.
Pingback: She’s in love with a bad boy. | Reaction Times
@ Opus
the·oc·ra·cy
THēˈäkrəsē
noun
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
Which priests rule England? In the name of which god?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10828762/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Justin-Welby-says-gay-marriage-is-great.html
It’s not DC. There are a few Welsh Methodist Churches left in the USA. It was never its own “separate denom” it was usually in name only. Usually these churches had a sermon in Welsh.
In Vermont, where I went to college, there still was one Welsh Methodist Church. My college choir is the only “chorale” that performs Welsh music. St. David’s day at my college is still quite a party I am told……
Welsh settled mostly in northern New York State in Schenectady (working in the foundries for ALCO and GE) and Washington County / and Rutland County Vermont in the slate pit.
Also in eastern PA…..Bethlehem Steel, and in the coal pits of Frackville, Hazelton and McAdoo
All ready to tell men how to be men but never, never tell women how to be women, unless it is to tell them to be independent, know-it-all, go-getters who will never, ever submit or support her husband.
Divorced 3 times Prager, ‘as a rule, it is far better for society to have people marry and divorce than never to marry’, always willing to stick his nose in where men don’t want it. I despise them more than feminists.
Always find Cane Caldo’s comments informative and insightful – keep posting.
Because there is nobody better at explaining masculinity than a woman. Probably because they have no clue what femininity is anymore…that they just can’t stay in their lane.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to make a video telling women what they will experience in the third trimester of pregnancy.
Dear Fellas:
I just took time out to watch the entire video. I suspect you boys haven’t, only because you’re behaving like skank-ho Sheila and her damaged daughter Katie, in their histrionic attacks on Sister Lori Alexander.
Can you tell me exactly what part of that video triggered you guys? If anything, it looks like an accessible summary of Jack Donovan or Robert Bly. Not a big deal at all.
By that standard, you condemn a great many decent brothers in this very comment section.
Prager is an old man, who grew up in an insular community of patriotic, religious Jews and Protestants, during the 1950s. I’ll forgive him for not being entirely familiar with the amoral skanks that the 20-something crowd is forced to contend with.
Then you’re being shortsighted. Prager has done far more than anyone here to answer the looney feminists, and he does it better than nearly anyone, because he doesn’t stoop to fallacies. I’d criticize him for producing material that’s sorta dry, and doesn’t make use of edgy 4-chan memes, but again, he is a product of his time.
Boxer
Earl:
Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, what do you object to?
The fact that a (not unattractive) woman is reading a script is good salesmanship. Prager is trying to reach a mixed audience of baby boomers, and perhaps older GenXers. In that regard, he’s doing everything right.
Boxer
I agree here with Boxer. I’ve had to strain to not see the same offenses in every instance of someone deigning to wade into masculinity and/or man/woman. Not long ago I was worked up because my pastor simply took the biblical reference to wisdom as “she and her” and used it in his talk. Well that was me seeing him finally throwing in with the church feminists, after he’d crossed 40, i thought, he just couldn’t hold out any longer.
Nonsense. I was the problem in that mental exercise that left me annoyed. Similarly, yes it causes me to blanch hearing her cutesy nasally tone, but that’s just her tone. Her inflection was quite neutral or even tended to amplify the right parts and muffle that which should be muffled…..generally speaking.
Note: I’ve made no endorsement of Prager here nor have I set out to lambaste him regardless of the longevity of his marriages and his sometimes cliched take on gender dynamics. If this video, and similar, is a big problem, we have really small big problems.
The messenger. Perhaps she should take a page out of Lori Alexander’s book and instruct her sisters what they need to be.
Believing this is how young girls end up doing porn.
Not going to lie though, I am seeing a woman I intend to fuck the communism out of.
No. She didn’t start married to him. She should have nothing to do with him until he shows works of repentance and to not be yoked unequally with an unbeliever.
And guns are cool when they use them, but should be banned otherwise, especially for the law abiding.
Empath,
The question is how did your pastor respond when bringing up such concerns? I have either gotten “I didn’t see anything wrong with it” or “Men can’t teach women such things” responses which makes me think they are almost a worse threat because they are undermining the very thing they are claiming to support.
Earl,
The voice in an educational video is disconnected from who wrote the content. That may be somewhat true for others, but it is definitely true in this kind of case. It may or may not be a good decision, but attacking the narrator is not the point for something scripted.
But aren’t women sinners too in need of salvation?
Or are they more like goddesses, demanding to be worshiped by those evil men?
““You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the WOMAN. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
When the WOMAN saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. ”
Yep, being like God, knowing good and evil, was VERY desirable to her.
I have never condemned anyone, ever. Please use correct terms, the words would be ‘disagree with’ or ‘criticize’ or ‘dislike’ or something other than something I literally cannot do to them. I am not required to console them or mentor them or agree with them. He’s divorced three times, hence I cannot take him seriously in matters of marriage. That isn’t condemning him, making it out to be so is borderline dishonest.
Can you show me one Prager video that criticises women and tells them to be more feminine? One video that focuses on say… The Duluth Model or the divorce industry or the Family Courts or anything other than tradcon bull? They focus on men and what men have to do, men only, what men want is of little importance. Otherwise they would have realised that their questions have been answered already.
TFM made a response to these tradcons and they watched it and then wrote a Defcon 1 hit piece on it calling it a bunch of names and not taking one word of valid criticism that TFM gave them seriously, after that, they are my enemies, not my allies.
Therefore, obviously when they release their new video on what men should be, told by a woman no less, I will not endeavour to support it.
I don’t care.
Has it done anything to stop the madness? He supports the current family law regime and feminism 2.0. He is not my ally. He and others like him have made marriage a nightmare, it happened on their watch. Their fake conservatardism is a problem.
Jack Donovan would not assign the same cause to single-motherhood as the woman in the Prager U video. She says that 1 in 4 fathers live apart from their children immediately after saying “men run away from responsibilities” as if that is the reason. No-fault divorce, promiscuity and women living independently from their families apparently has nothing to do with it. The notion that single motherhood may be due to the choices women are making doesn’t occur to this person. If it does occur to her then she is dishonest.
Men could all enlist in the marines, learn ju jitsu and work dangerous jobs and it wouldn’t change a thing. As long as women are independent of their fathers, men can get sexual access to women by appealing to their preferences and sensibilities. Women would rather fuck Jeremy Meeks, an illiterate ex con with neck tattoos than a “boring” but responsible guy. The boring guy is the guy the girl’s father would choose for the girl if she was under his authority. That is why women were traditionally held as property, not as independent beings.
Dennis Prager is what I call a halfway house feminist. He insists that men fulfill their traditional roles come what may, but when it comes to the role of women he leaves it up to the individual woman to decide that for herself. Conservatives don’t believe that women have any specifically feminine obligations to fulfill, except maybe to nag and shame men who don’t want to take senseless risks on their behalf.
I’d love to see Prager U upload “Make Women Feminine Again” but I won’t hold my breath.
Well, this one, which you clearly didn’t watch, does that. Specifically it mocks single mothers and the dysfunction they promote.
No one has ever heard of “TFM”. Everyone’s heard of Dennis Prager.
Then why run interference for feminists, and work to undermine those who fight against them?
Okay, just want to clear-up one thing quickly. If by condemn, Boxer means criticise someone. Then sure, I will admit to that. I’m currently under the impression that it is meant in the manner of a ‘punishment’ which of course I cannot do to anyone.
It blames the “1-in-4” stat on men running from their responsibilities, not on women from shirking their responsibilities. The idea that women might have obligations (besides nagging “unmanly men”) is alien to conservatives. Most conservatives are halfway house feminists – men have traditional obligations and women don’t.
At no point does the video mock or criticize women. It comes close to mocking men when the narrator says “passive men” and the 3 cartoon women scowl.
That was a bit of unintentional equivocation on my part. Naturally I meant it in the first sense, but on the internet, definitions matter.
The day you or TFM troll feminists with this level of skill, let me know…
empath
Similarly, yes it causes me to blanch hearing her cutesy nasally tone, but that’s just her tone. Her inflection was quite neutral or even tended to amplify the right parts and muffle that which should be muffled…..generally speaking.
Who is the target for this video, in your opinion?
Note: I’ve made no endorsement of Prager here nor have I set out to lambaste him regardless of the longevity of his marriages and his sometimes cliched take on gender dynamics. If this video, and similar, is a big problem, we have really small big problems.
Prager’s marital failures make him questionable as a source of advice, for reasons that should be obvious. This video isn’t a big problem, because few people under the age of 45 with bother to watch more than a few seconds.
What is the target market for this thing?
HINT: Who now takes “You young men, manUP and marry those sluts!” as a serious argument anymore?
FSG
Dennis Prager is what I call a halfway house feminist. He insists that men fulfill their traditional roles come what may, but when it comes to the role of women he leaves it up to the individual woman to decide that for herself.
That’s just conservative feminism. It’s very common in a lot of churches. Young men are expected to build skills and prepare for marriage, while young women are allowed to run up debt, get tattoos (discrete ones, of course) and ride the carousel (again, discretely). This is “conserving” the “tradition” of the Clinton years. Depending, of course, on what the meaning of the word “is” happens to be.
Conservatives don’t believe that women have any specifically feminine obligations to fulfill, except maybe to nag and shame men who don’t want to take senseless risks on their behalf.
Adequate summary of Traditional Conservatism as practiced for at least a generation if not longer.
Pay attention to what they do, not what they say. For example, if a man is “traditional” and “conservative” but he urges young men to manUP and marry a babymomma, question what “tradition” he is trying to “conserve.
Conservatives couldn’t even conserve the lady’s bathroom…
It’s funny because she wants women to behave like men. She’s hoping that women will figure out totally on their own, without any input from society or their families, that spreading their legs for bad boys in their fertile years wasn’t such a hot idea. Women do not reflect on their errors so they won’t say “No” unless a respected male authority figure checks their impulses.
John Maynard Keynes once said that a remorseless logician who begins from a false premise will wind up in Bedlam. This lady winds up in Bedlam because she declares that (0:50) “feminism should always be about…” the privilege of a woman to freely choosing her own path in life. If women “freely choose their own path,” they’ll wind up behaving this way without male authority figures to guide them. She thinks women are fucking teenagers and bad boys because feminists told them to do it. No, they considered this behavior before the feminists provided the rationalizations for it.
Tammy Bruce, trailing edge of the Baby Boom, a lesbian / bisexual who divorced her husband…
https://infogalactic.com/info/Tammy_Bruce
…but a great TradCon role model, to be sure. Reminds me of Wendy McElroy and her “i-feminism”.
All y’all have heard of i-feminism, right? Right? Hmmmm…
Turd Flinging Monkey is crude and at times simplistic, but several of his points are accurate. TFM is most definately NSFW, and childish at times, but at least he knows about “hypergamy”, which puts him miles ahead of the ignorant, aging Boomers at PragerU.
In fact, quite a bit of the two vids linked above contain facts that are common knowledge in much of the androsphere. Some of these have been known for years. None of it should be news or controversial to any man here.
Wrong. This speech, delivered by a dissident apostate of N.O.W., is quite sophisticated. She’s pointing out the temporal disconsonance of feminist praxis, and she’s doing it perfectly.
Feminists did promise women that they could “have it all,” and the switch to feminists demanding that women become cubicle drones and whores is a recent innovation.
You’re not only wrong, but the opposite is true. In successful patriarchal societies, women largely police each other through shame. This is easily accessible in period literature. A good example is the Alice Munro short story, (published in 1974, about the 1940s) entitled How I Met My Husband. The women in that community never bothered their men. They simply identified a girl who was slutting it up, and shut her the fuck down, running the playa she was bedding out of town in the process. I’m told the New Testament approves of older women teaching younger women how to behave, so this shouldn’t be novel to the religious bros here.
FSG
It’s funny because she wants women to behave like men.
Nah, she wants women to have the option to behave like men when they want, but still to be wifed up as women when they wan that. Have Cake! Will Eat! It’s the same old game, “Can I Be One Of The Guys?” followed by “Don’t Hit Me, I’m A Girl!” every time.
It’s not totally her fault, an aging, childless lesbian is not likely to be aware of some aspects of female nature. Shows how clueless the old Boomers at PragerU are, that they paid money to make this vid in 2014. Not much money, though. I’ve seen better production values on college student projects.
At 3:31 in the Prager video “Women want men they count on and look up to” “Women want a strong responsible man” Do women look up to the Sociopathic bad boys they spend their youth on? Nope. Are they responsible men? Nope They want tingles and the chilvalrous guy working long hours doesn’t give tingles. They want the guy they can count on AFTER they have 2 or 3 kids with sociopaths. How can anyone on this site endorse that video? If Prager is going to give advice he has an obligation to learn what young men face today and he doesn’t have a clue.
BillyS
The voice in an educational video is disconnected from who wrote the content. That may be somewhat true for others, but it is definitely true in this kind of case. It may or may not be a good decision, but attacking the narrator is not the point for something scripted.
This vid is intended to persuade, right? The presenter is part of the package.
This woman’s voice is like:
A. Filing on a box of broken glass with a wood rasp.
B. Acrylic nails being dragged down an old chalkboard, repeatedly.
C. Someone feeding 3 meters of rusty rebar into an older woodchipper.
D. A bad imitation of the “Bueller?” scene from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”.
Bet that nobody can get actual people under 30 to sit still for it, unless they are obligated in some fashion. Dare y’all to actually try to do so.
I endorse the video wholeheartedly, because it brought me plenty of lulz to see kooky feminists in places like Jezebel frothing about it.
https://jezebel.com/5121123/dennis-prager-still-thinks-women-should-just-give-it-up-already
Contrast Dennis Prager, who regularly torments my enemies, with “Anonymous Reader” on Dalrock, who does absolutely nothing, and never has — except to snipe at the people who are actively engaging nutty feminists, and running interference for my deadly enemies.
I know which side I’d rather be on.
That’s fair to say; but, he’s addressing a different demographic: specifically, the one that funds feminist excesses. Judging from the reactions, he’s likely doing a much better job at defunding them than you realize.
Boxer
Regarding the trailer: Avoid like the plague. It isn’t what Christian women should be doing.
Regarding the article: Interesting, because it is the plot of many movies and ”romantic novels”. The first that comes to mind is John Ford’s ”Stagecoach” where Ringo (John Wayne) is in love with the heart-of-gold prostitute, Dallas (Claire Trevor). How she ended up as a hooker, or how she still has a heart of gold after being hired out in the Wild West is never explained. John Ford followed that up with ”Angel And the Badman”, where John Wayne (again) is converted by his Quaker love interest.
Novels by Barbara Cartland follow a similar theme, but with a twist: Father wants the heroine to marry Good Beta, but our heroine knows better, stows away in a ship and ends up in some remote place of the British Empire where she meets The Man. He’s bad, but it all ends happily, with Alpha Man having Alpha Wife.
While we’re on the subject of ”The Empire”, note that the ”Cult of the Boyfriend” became fashionable about that time. According to MRA ”No Ma ám”,improved living standards (for the rich!) and relaxing church strictures enabled women to have increasing choices in who they marry. Prior to that, the father was in charge and courtship occurred in the living room, after the father had thoroughly vetted the man involved and chased anyonr remotely resembling a ”Bad Boy”. Women’s choices led to increasingly higher rates of divorce until our present predicament.
All of them are a perversion of the Gospel. They are a perversion of the Gospel because women aren’t angels, and women don’t forgive sin. God alone does.
“Women want men they count on and look up to” “Women want a strong responsible man”
I have to laugh, because what they say they want NEVER matches what they take to bed with them.
The narrator should be honest and actually say those two sentences with the addition, ”After you’re done giving bad-boy sociopaths your sexual approval”.
She won’t say that of course, because the clip is ”family oriented”, and, well, men know the truth about women courtesy of the internet.
@Spike
A whole lot of
women’s pornromance novels are all about “Taming the Alpha”, including (or especially) the ones where the heroine is raped. The badboy alpha is tamed by the “love of a good woman”, in other words her magic vagina redeems the man. You’ve already hit on the theology of this, and it is a significant point.IMO romance novels are worth paying a bit of attention to for a couple of reasons. Not necessarily worth reading, mind you, but worth being aware of – because they are quite formulaic.
First, the female hindbrain is clearly on display in romfic. A married man who wants to be able to play with his wife, and play with his wife would be wise to know what’s bubbling in the back of her head. That’s where the desire for a safe rollercoaster, the desire to be “swept away” (but only by the right man), the need to be so wanted by (the right) man he cannot control himself, etc. and etc. lives. Rather that leave a wife on the couch (or worse yet, on the other side of the bed) paging through her Kindle with whatever she’s downloaded from Goodreads / Amazon recently, a married man should take come cues from romfic and sweep her away to the marriage bed. Or to the spare room, or to the roof, or to the weekend getaway. Etc. Literally pick her up and carry her away, no kidding.
Salesmanship requires understanding what the customer wants. Leadership requires knowing the strengths, weaknesses and needs of those placed under authority. Either way, romfic reveals some things about women’s unconscious.
The second reason is prosaic. Barbara Cartland, Georgette Heyer and other older rom-fic writers are dead and have been for some time. Modern rom-fic is more explicit in titillation (see definition of “pornography” beyond the level of “I know it when I see it”). A whole lot of modern romance fiction includes graphic, explicit sex scenes at regular intervals through the book. It is worth knowing what is right there in the Romance section of chain bookstores, where teenaged girls browse, in order to steer them in another direction.
AR,
I have no problems with criticizing the video. My point is that railing against the woman is not hitting the right target. I would almost bet that one or more men scripted the video and that she just read it. I could be wrong of course, but keeping fire on the appropriate target is much more effective in most military cases.
Ray6777
At 3:31 in the Prager video “Women want men they count on and look up to” “Women want a strong responsible man”
Eh, that’s just the Beta Bux stage, everyone knows that. But of course, clueless Boomer TradCons like Prager, Geraghty, etc. still believe in “provider game”, because Ward Cleaver was such a stud 60 years ago and nothing at all has changed — in their minds.
In the real world, where men and women are struggling, provider game largely fails – women are their own Betas, just for a start, because that’s what the standard track leads to.
We all know the standard track that is taught to women from mid high on is “high school, college, career THEN marriage”, which is part of the Carousel. A woman who meets her Alpha in her early 20’s and marries him will likely get both AF and BB from the same man, but that is very countercultural now.
Then they still don’t get it. We’ve had enough of women telling us what they want men to do whether it be scripted or from the depths of their heart and then their actions show they want completely the opposite. Women need to take a cue from Lori Alexander and start teaching the younger women how they need to act…not how men need to act.
I could at least in theory respect the guy who wrote the script and then he presented his own message.
BillyS
I have no problems with criticizing the video. My point is that railing against the woman is not hitting the right target. I would almost bet that one or more men scripted the video and that she just read it.
I’m sure one or more old men wrote the one-sided script. So? Whoever picked that woman to read it is stupid.
I could be wrong of course, but keeping fire on the appropriate target is much more effective in most military cases.
Who do you think the target audience is for that vid?
And men prefer debt free virgins with no tattoos. Which group is generally holding up the bargain here?
@ Spike
They appear to be frothing at the mouth because Prager had the gall to say a wife should submit to her husband sexually when he wants it. Well that’ll just stab at the heart of any rebellious female. It had nothing to do with the video we were talking about.
My lulz would come if the woman in the video were to teach basically the same thing to women who are wives and Jezebel or the Gregoire clan picked it up and cried crocodile tears over the fact a wife has to submit to their husband in anything. Don’t they know the verse in the New American Feminist Bible where they can get out of that?
FSG — “The boring guy is the guy the girl’s father would choose for the girl if she was under his authority. That is why women were traditionally held as property, not as independent beings.”
That is why. From a profane/practical, socio-cultural standpoint. Other reasons apply including the crucial issue of an UNBROKEN line of spiritual covering (birth to dad to husband), of which the intact hymen is physical signet.
Boxer — “Can you tell me exactly what part of that video triggered you guys? If anything, it looks like an accessible summary of Jack Donovan or Robert Bly.”
I will not be watching the video. But Donovan is a proud homo. Homos (and women) have no business teaching men how to be the men that they aren’t.
“Then you’re being shortsighted. Prager has done far more than anyone here to answer the looney feminists, and he does it better than nearly anyone, because he doesn’t stoop to fallacies.”
You can’t be serious. The site host alone here has done more to wound the enemy in one year– including the fem-horde element — than Mr. Prager University in his lifetime. The spirit alights where it will and it isn’t on Dennis.
This should be common sense…but we live in looney mixed up world now.
Of course you’d say that. You’re the guy who thinks Jack Donovan would endorse the other video’s analysis of single motherhood. Read his review of Men on Strike. He doesn’t think too much of boomer cons who expect men to carry on their traditional burdens for ungrateful cows.
On the contrary, she leaves a lot of loose threads hanging. She doesn’t make a connection between women freely choosing their own path, hypergamy, and the behavior she describes. Women are not going to choose the responsible, dependable guy if they are freely choosing their own path. Their fathers have to make that choice for them.
It goes back further than you think. Gloria Steinem, Germaine Greer and Helen Gurley Brown signed on to the 1960s Sexual Revolution.
Yes, in a patriarchal society, where the norms are established by the patriarchs. But she hopes that women will figure out they’ve been sold a shit sandwich. Women are not self reflective. They will not say “no” to whoring, they will whore until they hit the wall and then wonder where all the good men are to wife them up.
I’m told the New Testament approves of older women teaching younger women how to behave, so this shouldn’t be novel to the religious bros here.
I have a hard time getting my mind around what this would look like on a large scale today. Even more difficulty seeing how to get there from here.
Almost no man (or woman) alive today has seen this dynamic employed on a community-level scale effectively. And by effectively, of course, I mean “that does good.”
Small glimmers here and there, to be sure. I try to build up Mychael with the courage to fight this fight and it has a small magnitude of effect in our immediate circle. Not so much shaming and sneering, as that would be too obtuse for the sensibilities of most of our friends. Rather, a more positive approach to things like modesty and propriety when it comes to every day life.
Occasionally, some friend (a real friend who we know, not an online acquaintances) will write her and say “I would like to start being sweet to my husband, being more attentive to his needs, stop trashing him in front of other women, etc but literally don’t know how. I am afraid he will walk all over me as soon as I cook him a meal and let him put his feet up. But down deep inside its what I think I was built for.”
This may seem weird to men. For a man would write back with “just stop.” But that just doesn’t work within the complex social hierarchy of women, especially when they are together sans men.
Strawman. And with this looney constellation of fallacies, you’ve proven yourself just another lying Christian scumbag. Try again under another username.
I don’t see it as mixed up at all. Jack Donovan and Dennis Prager both get results. That’s really all that matters.
Man, that trailer is so hokey. Embarrassing, really. Evangelica Americana stands there, pleading, here we are now, entertain us!
Scott,
One thing I saw for a long time in my marriage was that my wife was afraid of becoming Edith Bunker (from All in the Family). She would never admit it, but I am convinced that kept her from being really nice to me because only ditz-brains were really nice, right?
I wonder how many Christians realize how this aspect of Norman Leer’s programming undermined marriage.
Dalrock
Back to your ongoing premise of guys not getting ready for marriage in their twenties to signal provider status in their thirties.
This was front page of the Globe and Mail, Canada’s major paper.
Delaying full time work until 40?? Don’t worry about establishing a career?
WTF is with the MSM?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-should-we-consider-delaying-full-time-work-until-40/
“. At the moment, many people feel that their jobs are at risk by the time that they hit their 50s and that their career prospects are on the decline thereafter. How then to construct a world where a worker of that age is barely getting started?”
The answer is Second Career. I just early retired after 30 years in management. Now going back to trade school at 55 because yes I have a good twenty years in me.
But I have been married 30 years and both my kids are over twenty and finished college. Why?
Because of my first career I started at 24!! Not 40!!
Scott
Occasionally, some friend (a real friend who we know, not an online acquaintances) will write her and say “I would like to start being sweet to my husband, being more attentive to his needs, stop trashing him in front of other women, etc but literally don’t know how. I am afraid he will walk all over me as soon as I cook him a meal and let him put his feet up. But down deep inside its what I think I was built for.”
People often learn these things by example, if there is no example then what? Mychael could ask back if there was any woman in the friend’s family who had ever been kind to a husband. If there was, then she could actively pattern herself on that person; “Aunt Sue was kind to Uncle George, I’m going to ask myself regularly “What would Aunt Sue do?”
If there isn’t a model, if the woman querying Mychael does not have any woman in her family or even social circle to pattern after, then another option would be to role play in her head. Women are quite capable of fantasy, put that to good use.
There is a neural-pathway issue here, Scott, and I don’t know what you’ll make of this, but here it is. In my opinion we all carry around in our heads various people and situations from the past. Call it some of our “mental furniture” since “baggage” has connotations. You may have seen the young couple that marries and in a matter of months or even weeks one or the other or both people seem to be acting differently: IMO they are unconsciously acting out what “married person” looked like in their past. They may be acting like a parent, for example. I’ve seen this happen with people after a child is born, in a short period of time the woman is acting like her mother, or the man is acting like his father. Someone who grew up in a high-conflict household with a lot of arguing, tension, even yelling might find himself or herself acting up in a way that makes no sense logically, but is none the less almost like a pre-programmed response emotionally.
With the high divorce rate, many men and women in their 20’s and 30’s have not seen an actual, functioning, married couple where each person is trying to “give 100%” to the other. There’s no template, there’s no pattern in the brain, to fall back on. Add the whole YouGoGirrl culture where a woman must be in charge, else she’s a doormat, and that real fear of him “walking all over him” shows up.
In a crisis people generally drop down to the level of their training, whatever it may be. A woman who grew up with a single mother or divorcee’ probably will find it difficult to just be kind, she will have to deliberately and purposefully learn to do so.
In a sense what these women are asking Mychael to explain is “girl game”. As with Game, it will require conscious effort on their part. For a man who is conflict-averse towards his woman, it is easiest to let the harsh words slide but he has to force himself to respond, perhaps running a “bratty little sister” or “agree and amplify” routine that he’s already thought out. For a modern woman the reverse: she needs to hold both her temper and her fear in check while saying words that bring harmony to the home.
When women are perpetually discontent and angry, men don’t want to be around them. Women who are pleasant are much more likely to keep a man’s interest. Really, It is that simple.
This may seem weird to men. For a man would write back with “just stop.”
Well…
BillyS
Maybe they can make a movie with big name stars glorifying women abandoning long term marriages next.
You mean like “Eat, Pray, Love”?
Ugh this is the same Adrienne Houghton on the dias of the daytime talkshow, The Real which only rivals The View in terms of daytime TV stage 4 anal cancer.
I am afraid he will walk all over me as soon as I cook him a meal and let him put his feet up.
Yet, in reality, women who cook meals and serve their husbands are the women who tend to be treated the best in their marriages… if they married good Christian men and didn’t rely on their tingles to make all their decisions for them.
Earl said: “This should be common sense…but we live in looney mixed up world now.”
+1
Ward was NOT a stud way back then. The studs were guys like James Dean and Elvis. Men like that gave respectable people conniptions because those men made their church going bobbysoxer daughter’s panties get wet.
My late mother told me that many of her friends and acquaintances rode the carousel back in the fifties, and they even bragged about it to her. The biggest difference was that they only did it for a few short years, were discrete about it and their N counts were lower than today’s riders. But they didn’t ride the carousel with the guys who would later become Ward clones.
AR
I’ve modeled my entire clinical practice after that one SNL skit.
Frank…….and a lot more women “waited” back then as well too!
They don’t know how?
How about start being sweet to their husband, be more attentive to his needs and stop trashing him? It’s not like we are asking women to construct a skyscraper or something…just a good home cooked meal. It’s amazing how much the rebellious spirit has taken over them that they have no idea how to treat their man with respect.
@ Frank K
Interesting comment about the cc in the 1950s.
Consider the popular female movie starlets from the 1950s: For every wholesome Doris Day (already 28 in 1950) and Lucille Ball (in her 40s during the 1950s), there were far more younger, well-endowed, voluptuous and libidinous competitors: Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Ann Margaret, Dorothy Dandridge, Jane Russell, Liz Taylor, Joan Collins, Jeane Crain, Bridget Bardot, Sophie Loren, Susan Hayward.
These were not simply “Hollywood actresses”. They were now unabashedly regarded as full blown, “hot” Hollywood “sex symbols”.
Counter to PragerU’s revisionism, marriage rates DECLINED during the 1950s, while divorce rates were more or less flat, but still higher in number and probability than ever before in American history.
http://www.randalolson.com/2015/06/15/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-1-chart/
Jason – That more waited, of that there is no doubt, But I suspect they waited in large part because:
1) Their parents has more control over them
2) Society still disapproved of the carousel, which is why those who did partake did so discretely. Many women knew that if they got knocked up it would be a disgrace for them and the family and they would be publicly known as damaged goods, hence the old stereotype of sending her away with relatives, having the baby and giving it up for adoption before coming home and hoping no one noticed she was gone.
3) Fewer went off to college and many stayed home until they married.
From the comments emerges an idea I’ve not thought of before: women don’t know how to be kind.
It that is true, then the flip-side must also be true: of those things women do, they don’t know which of them are unkind.
This is kind of an aha moment for me, if it is true.
Would women know how to interpret do unto others as you would have them do unto you in the same way that men interpret it?
There are some pretty serious implications for many things there if what women really want is for the bad boys to be mean to them. … and that’s what I’m supposed to do unto others … what the bad boys do to me …?
RichardP,
I think women definitely know how to be kind.
It’s just that their application of kindness is conditional and opportunistic, depending on her level of payoff.
The problem men have is that we are taught to believe that women should be kind unconditionally – just for the sake of it, because it is right and moral, and women should esteem our sacrificial love and service to them more highly. Women should be appreciative and grateful and kindness should be the reward. Men ponder why can’t women be kind like our mother’s were?
Women are kind to their children, and unconditionally so. Her Payoff? High. Genetic success, increased attention and social status (successful mom!) that stems from it, and validation.
They are kind to their alpha male breeding partner(s). Her payoff? High. Sexual attention, validation and exhilaration, plus genetic success.
They are kind to their beta male provider. Her payoff? Low to Moderate. Non-sexual attention, resource$, protection, security, assurance of long-term provisioning, increased social status, genetic success.
The reason her payoff is lower with her husband, and why women decide to be less kind to them, and why wives make rules for husbands instead of breaking rules for him, is because she withholding kindness and sex works well to control and punish. Also, she can quite easily and lucratively replace him via no fault divorce, government support and the complete absence of social stigma for her decision.
It is less easy for her to just replace and alpha seed man. Those dudes are in short supply, and female competitors are all over the place. So gotta be kind to him, even if he beats her up, or verbally abuses her, etc.
@RichardP:
I’m not sure about the kind part, but Women lack any innate understanding of Honor. It can be taught, but their ability to value things correctly is extremely limited. They are fairly black & white thinkers along the axis of “Is this good for me?”. That’s why feeding the Hamster a paradox sends it spinning.
Dennis Prager supports homosexuality, gay marriage, pedophilia, and men cutting off their dicks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01yQ30tRo-0
People should be thankful that the evil is so obvious. The wolves reveal themselves willingly.
Wow, I’ve been doing wrong. All this time I believed I needed to repent of my sins and believe in/ follow Christ. According to this film, all I needed to do is join Churchianity and find a good woman.
Enjoy!
Churchianity…a good woman.
Pretty much mutually exclusive
Pingback: Christian films show the feminist revolution’s victory - Fabius Maximus website
“The correct treatment of a girl does not always preclude courtesy and gentleness no more than it always involves them. There is a time for courtesy and gentleness, and a time for harshness. The master must remember that he owns the girl; if he keeps this in mind he will generally treat her correctly. He must be strong, and he must be capable of administering discipline if she is not pleasing. Sex in a woman, as in a man, is not only richly biological but psychological as well, and the words suggest a distinction which is somewhat misleading. We are psycho-physical organisms, or better perhaps, thinking, feeling organisms. Part of the correct treatment of a woman is treating her as you wish; she has genetic dispositions for submission bred into every cell of her body, a function of both natural and sexual selection. Accordingly, what might seem brutal or quick to a man can be taken by a woman in the dimensions of her sentience as irrefutable evidence of his domination of her, her being owned by him, which thrills her to the core for it touches the ancient biological meaning of her womanhood. He simply uses her for his pleasure, because he wished to do so. He is her master.”
John Norman
So sad when pagans make more sense than supposed Christians who never open a Bible .
Male dominance is central to female arousal but those wishy washy pastors just hide the truth and make marriage a thing of “courtesy and gentleness” only . No wonder why so many are totally turned off .
Isn’t it the right balance between female submission and male love and consideration that John Norman is stating here ? And this is exactly what the LORD advocates and commands !!
A woman who does not feel “under the joke” will never respond to a man afraid of himself and of his own sexual desires (like most of wimpy western men today ) .
Notice how he says ” her being owned by him”
Doesn’t the Bible say that the wife does not own her body but her husband does ?
The thrill lies in there . And even pagans get it better than dumb churchians who do not obey what the Lord says but rather listen to so called pastors who have been led them astray for decades .
Pingback: For the Love of the Game | Things that We have Heard and Known