Will the real Sheila Gregoire Please Stand Up?

I’ve always assumed Sheila Gregoire was a naive, sheltered housewife who didn’t really understand that our society and the church is in the final throes of a massive culture war.  Almost all of her writings are from the frame that Christian women haven’t been tainted by feminism.  For example, commenter Jack wrote on her WACF blog post:

And let’s face it. Feminism has trained women to treat men like dirt, or like expendable appliances created only to please them.

Men respect the humanity of women.

Women duhumanize men far more often than the reverse. Feminism has made women childish and selfish, and many Christian women have fallen into this attitude as well.

Evidently this is something Sheila has never encountered, because she responded with (emphasis mine):

Jack, this was the point that I was making in the column, so I’m glad you agree. Feminism started the trend.

What I really don’t appreciate, though, is all of the comments today saying “many Christian women have fallen into this attitude as well.” How? What are we doing? What am I doing wrong? I write this blog specifically to help Christian women understand men, validate, support, and respect the men they are married to, and to think of those men’s needs and to try to meet them. I write a lot about understanding that men are different than we are, and that we are to respect and honour that difference. And what I write is really no different from what is preached in the pulpit and what is written in the women’s blogosphere that I am part of.

I just don’t want people slandering “Christian women”. If you want to say explicitly what you are upset about, then we can talk, but please do not slander those who come to this blog. :)

She makes a careful distinction between Christian women like herself and the women in her audience, and those awful nasty feminist women.  How dare Jack insinuate that Christian women are childish and feminist?  How dare he suggest that the Church and Christians in general give women a pass?  She had a similar exchange with Deti on the same thread, who wrote:

There is much talk of how men are to act honorably and respectfully. But there is no reciprocal expectation that women act similarly, with grace, humility and submission. At least that was not mentioned.

It pains me to say this as a Christian man, but the Christian church no longer dominates western culture. It’s been discarded in favor of secular feminism.

Sheila responded (emphasis mine):

Deti, I understand your point, but here’s the trouble I have with the way that it is often phrased: I often hear people in the “manosphere”, or whatever you want to call it, criticizing the church for not teaching women to be submissive or graceful or whatever. But they say “the church” does it. How? There’s a very large female Christian blogosphere, for instance, and Darlene Schacht from Time Warp Wife came out with an ebook this week doing exactly that. All of the women’s Bible studies that I’ve read focus on developing godly character. In my church, godly character development and humility are taught. At the marriage conferences where I teach, run by FamilyLife, one of the largest family ministries in North America, all of these things are taught explicitly.

So I guess I have to ask: who, exactly, are you criticizing? I think it’s an easy criticism to make, but I personally do not see it. I don’t see it in the women’s Bible studies that happen at churches all over the continent on Wednesday mornings, or Thursday mornings. I don’t see it in Christian books written for women. I don’t see it in the Christian blogosphere. But I do see the criticism often.

In another response to Deti, Sheila also wrote:

Of course feminism has eradicated that; no one is questioning that. But I fail to see why we should permit that to happen, or not stand up for honour, that’s all.

Poor sheltered Sheila has never seen the kinds of attitudes Deti and Jack describe in Christian women.  Perhaps it is because such attitudes are so foreign to her that she simply can’t imagine other Christian women holding them.  You know, her being a sheltered non feminist Traditional Christian woman and all.

Except I know for a fact that Shiela runs into the exact attitudes in Christian women and easy treatment of women by the church that Deti and Jack were describing.  How do I know?  Here is what Sheila tells us in her video log Should You Change to Improve Your Marriage? (emphasis mine):

I did one of these vlogs where I was talking about how it is important if you are upset in your marriage not to think about all of the stuff that he is doing wrong, but to look at what you can do to make the marriage better.  And I had a lot of emails after that from women saying:

“Thats telling women that they can’t be true to themselves.  If you say that you need to change in order to be happy in a marriage then you’re not being true to yourself and that is wrong.”

One of my readers pointed out this vlog and I wrote a post about it.  At the time I assumed that Sheila was treating this kind of attitude amongst Christian women so gently because she understood that anything but kid gloves would result in rebellion (emphasis added):

One thing which strikes me about Sheila’s work is how incredibly gentle she is in her pro marriage message to Christian women.  At first I thought she was only lukewarm on the topic of marriage, but after further consideration I am convinced that she is accurately assessing the nature of her audience.  What she considers “harsh” I would consider walking on eggshells.  But as I said I think she has accurately gaged her target audience.  Christian women as a group are not used to being told they have any obligations.  Ever.  Even obligations resulting from a sacred promise they made in the church in front of God and everyone they know.  This simply isn’t the way of the modern Christian church*.

Sheila referenced my blog post in a post of her own back in September.  Commenters Joy and Lori on Sheila’s blog both stated that the bolded part of my comments above were unfortunately all too accurate.  Sheila agreed:

Joy and Lori–I know. That is an OUCH comment, isn’t it? But I do think it’s true. In general, the church is very hard on men and very easy on women, and yet it is women who instigate most divorces. We need to get back to the message that we have a responsibility and an obligation to make our marriages work, even if those marriages do not make us happy. But that goes against conventional wisdom, and seems mean. We really are fighting upstream!

I know this is some heavy quoting to read through, but I wanted to show beyond question that Sheila absolutely has run into the kinds of things Deti and Jack were describing.  When she claims on the WACF post that she doesn’t run into childish entitled Christian women and that she doesn’t see the church giving women a pass, she is directly at odds with what she wrote and said previously.

But it gets worse.  Sheila isn’t the sheltered Traditional Christian woman I took her for.  Readers CL and Anonymous Reader brought to my attention that Sheila has a masters degree in women’s studies (emphasis mine):

I’ve had a ton of visitors from sites lately that have been mocking the Christian view of marriage, and that’s one of the primary lines of attack: I’m telling women it’s okay if their husbands rape them. Give. Me. A. Break. Now, I know where they’re coming from, since I’ve done a Masters in Sociology with an emphasis on Women’s Studies, too. I’ve read all that feminist literature that calls all sex rape, and while it totally messed up my sex life in the early part of my marriage, I’ve thankfully been able to leave it behind and realize how great sex in marriage is.

Unless she was a child prodigy, Sheila spent her mid twenties as a raving feminist.  Not only that, she only tepidly rejects the label feminist today.  We learn this from an exchange she had with commenter Rachel back in December.  Rachel wrote (emphasis mine):

One thing I don’t agree with you on is YOUR generalization of “feminists”. I am a feminist, meaning I believe I have equal rights to a man, I should have equal pay for equal work, I should have a choice about whether I want to have children or what religion I practice, I should be allowed to vote, I should be allowed to choose whether or not to work and in what field. That doesn’t mean I hate all men, think women’s “rights” trump men’s rights and it most certainly does not mean I think all sex is rape…

I don’t know how to determine if this Rachel is the same Rachel on Shiela’s WACF post who argued that women’s lives are worth more than men’s, but it doesn’t seem unlikely.  It would be more than a little ironic if this is the same Rachel on the WACF post Sheila was scolding commenters for implying that she might be a feminist and not a Traditional Christian woman.  At any rate, Sheila replied and clarified why she no longer calls herself a feminist (emphasis mine):

As for the feminist critique, I see your point. I have stopped calling myself a feminist, although I do believe in equality, because the term has become so tainted politically. I believe women should have opportunities and choices, but I do not believe that we are superior. And I was so poisoned in my postgraduate work that I have come to really hate the term. But perhaps I should have qualified that better.

She doesn’t call herself a feminist anymore because the word carries too much political baggage.

Hawaiian Libertarian had Sheila pegged for a feminist back in November with his post To Love, Honor & Vacuum…unless he looks at teh Pr0n!:

Sheila is a feminist….the worst kind. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Note:  Don’t be surprised if one or more of the pages on Sheila’s blog I link to above are scrubbed after I post this.  In my Warn Men post I quoted an exchange Sheila had with a woman on youtube who claimed she was emotionally abused.  Sheila responded to the woman on youtube as if emotional abuse was real abuse.  Some time after I wrote that post the comments were deleted from Sheila’s youtube page.  See for yourself.  Now see this google cache page of what the comments for that video looked like on November 10th, 2011, two days after I quoted them.  If you are interested in keeping a record for posterity, you can take a screenshot of the comments in the google cache page or print it to a pdf file.  At some point google is likely to update the cached version to the one with the comments deleted.

Edit 3-15-12:  Shortly after I posted this Google updated the cache of the page.  Here is a PDF copy I made of the previous cached version.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Feminists, Sheila Gregoire. Bookmark the permalink.

401 Responses to Will the real Sheila Gregoire Please Stand Up?

  1. Grit says:

    I can’t help but read your postings on the church’s apathy about divorce and try to imagine a hypothetical scenario that the church would be forced to take a hard line. Do you think that the church has always reflected a flavor-of-the-day type of morality? Has there always been a disconnect between practice and preaching?

    What would you predict if the church suddenly took a hard stance?

  2. Carnivore says:

    Keoni Galt had another good observation about Sheila and her blog:

    Let’s take the title of her blog – To Love, Honor & Vacuum.

    On the surface it appears to be a call for Christian women to be better housewives. But exactly what is that title really imply? It’s a distortion of the common Christian marriage vow a wife makes at the altar – Love, Honor and OBEY.

    Whether it was deliberate or subconscious, I still think it’s a subversive meme that aims at one of the Bible’s direct, unambiguous tenets regarding the institution of marriage…wives, submit to your husbands.

    Of course she’s a feminist. She has to cater to the majority of her audience and the majority in the pews – “Christian” women who are infused with feminism.

  3. deti says:

    This is really quite troubling. Gregoire claims to be a Christian housewife. She says she is teaching women about love, marriage, fidelity in marriage, sex within marriage, interaction with men and husbands, and interaction between the Christian woman and the world. On the surface, she gives good advice which is consistent with Christian tenets: No sex before marriage. Women have obligations to their husbands.

    But what Gregoire really appears to present is a thin veneer of Christian over a solid core of feminism. Porn is bad and sinful, and men must never, ever, ever view it. But as for women, whether Jane Austen novels and Janette Oke’s “Love Comes Softly” series are harmless or harmful depends on the particular woman, and she has to know herself (I paraphrase).

    A man has a moral obligation to put himself into harm’s way for a woman he does not even know. Gregoire says this is a matter of “honor” for men. But a woman has no obligation even to express gratitude to such a man.

    Gregoire exhibits fallacious argumentation technique.

    1. NAWALT and variations thereof:

    “I’m not like that!”
    “Not all Christian women are like that!”
    “The commenters on my blog are not like that!”
    “My church isn’t like that!”
    “The churches I know aren’t like that!”

    2. Strawmen arguments. Attribution to the opponent of arguments not made and positions not taken; then responding to and defeating the sham argument and position.

    3. Reframing the opponent’s argument from specific to sweepingly general. (Paraphrasing): “You think Austen and the “Love Comes Softly” series are deleterious to women. Therefore, your position is that women can never read any books or watch anything on TV.”

    4. Accusing the opponent of personal attack or ad hominem argument, or attribution of pejorative or unpopular position: (Paraphrasing):

    “What am I doing wrong!?”

    “How dare you bring up abortion! You’re accusing the commenters here of supporting abortion! This is a Christian blog and NO ONE here supports abortion!”

    The purpose of the response is to attempt to shut down debate: “How dare you attack lil ol’ me?! That’s not fair!”

    5. Objection to and irritation at opposing or challenging viewpoints:
    (Paraphrasing): “I won’t say anything more about this, and I’m deleting any further comments about this.”
    Disabling comments to posts when comments become controversial, or when debate/ disagreement become spirited.

  4. Keoni Galt says:

    I write this blog specifically to help Christian women understand men, validate, support, and respect the men they are married to, and to think of those men’s needs and to try to meet them.

    That’s only part of the story, Mz. Gregoire. Let me re-phrase it so that it more accurately reflects the truth:

    I write this blog specifically to help Christian women understand men, validate, support, and respect the men they are married to, and to think of those men’s needs and to try to meet them…and the only thing Christian women have to do is log on to my online store, enter their credit card number into my java script shopping cart, and I will be righteously re-numerated for my valuable work as an evangelical minister!

  5. UK Fred says:

    The problem with the Church, and many individual Christians is that the demands of the Bible and of Jesus himself are too difficult for them. Too many will allow divorce, and too many will avoid doing what they ought to do to bring about reconciliation between a husband and a wife as discussed in Matthew 15 vv 156-20. There is a sound argument that Christian marriage is a covenant and not a contract, but too many in the church treat it as a contract and do not understand the difference. The Church seems to be always trying to wriggle its way out of the difficulties imposed on it by Scriptural teaching. How many reformed churches hold to the view that remarriage, while a divorced person’s first spouse is still alive is not allowed? And yet the respected theologian John Piper has arrived at that conclusion after careful study of what the Bible says. I am not a theologian, but I find that there is not very much theology in the sermons in my local church, so it may be that the people are not being taught.

    In respect of this particulart post, I think Dalrock is being a little heavy on Sheila Gregoire, whose blog I read as well as this one. Can I remind everyone that there is a difference between a hypocrite (Don’t do what I do, do as I tell you) and a teacher from experience (Don’t do as I did, because …, please do as I tell you to avoid problems for yourself).

  6. Keoni Galt says:

    Just to put my main points for criticizing Sheila into this thread, I’ll reiterate my view of just exactly who and what Sheila really is:

    “She’s just tailoring her message to achieve maximum market share. She knows what notes to hit to appeal to the ladies who would buy her books, attend her seminars or urge their Church to bring her in for a guest “ministry.”

    In short, Sheila is merely marketing Cafeteria Christianity that appeals to female solipsism.

    It’s a profitable gig.”

  7. Clarence says:

    Dalrock:
    I really hate to get into this here with you because IF you’ve followed me or noticed me at any other place around the manosphere, you will note that I have often been very critical about overbroad definitions of abuse, false allegations, etc, but I do have to argue with you about emotional abuse. And in order to do so, I’m going to have to open up a part of my life I’ve never publically shared on the internet.

    My father emotionally abused my mom. Oh, sometimes it dripped down to me and my other brothers, but it was 90 percent plus of the time my mom. This wasn’t slamming a door, or a “bitc*” said in anger during an argument. This was cutting and biting remarks, almost always (until I was about 13 or so and she started becoming abusive back and would pick fights with him because even if he hit her he would often leave the house for days at a time) unearned for little or not fault on her part. He would have her crying, and me and my two brothers would have to listen to it. Long tirades often loud, often full of hate. It was the deliberate attempt at destruction of an ego, though for reasons I won’t get into it’s been obvious to me ever since I was about 15 or so that it was because he really hated himself. Now this was mostly back in the 1980′s before most of the modern DV laws had taken affect. And while physical violence was rare, it happened from time to time. He broke her nose once as an example, but by far the most damage he did was mental. Of course as we got older we defended her sometimes when it was necessary, but by that time he had *partly* mellowed out probably because of a combination of age and occasional therapy, and plus I guess its harder to push someone around if you are getting pushback yourself. I don’t know about you, but I do call deliberate hurtful words repeated again and again abuse. Would I allow divorce for it? Yes, provided:
    A. There were witnesses. In my case, charming as my dad could be , he couldn’t hide his true self from others that successfully. My mom would have had plenty of witnesses, not counting us kids.
    B. It was repeated and ongoing and some attempt at therapeutic intervention had been made. Trust me , when I was a younger child I hoped my parents would magically make up and I didn’t know why my father acted so cruel. By the time I was 12 or so (and its the same for my brothers) we almost started praying they would break up.

    Anyway, that’s my take on it.

  8. deti says:

    Keoni nails it.

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    UK Fred, I disagree that Dalrock is being too heavy handed. I will agree that Gregoire has likely come a long walk away from the positions she took in college – the quote I excerpted about sex when a woman isn’t interested shows that. I will agree that she at least does acknowledge that married women have some obligations to their husbands. I will agree that she has some advice that is good.

    But she is a hypocrite in some ways. Just look at her position on porn: a single exposure to porn is bad for a man and may affect his marriage, repeated use of porn is justification for his wife to stop sex with him and start acting like his own, personal morals cop, and if he won’t’ stop she’s justified in separating (this is an improvment over her previous position, i.e. use of porn is a “get out of marriage free” card – use porn, get divorce forced upon you). But women are free to judge for themselves what they should and should not read. Women are to be allowed to read “romance” novels with pornographic sections, but it’s ok, they’ll just skip over the porny parts. She clearly has set up different rules for herself and her sistahs, and predictably they are much, much more lax than the rules for men.

    Look, I’m not here to promote porn. I know of bloggers, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, and others, who condemn all porn use. But that’s the point – they condemn all porn use, by both men and women, and so there’s no double standard. I’m not here to even discuss porn, I’m here to discuss a double standard that I see on the web site in question.

    It is my opinion that feminism, being a gynocentric form of Marxism, is and always has been about the control of men. Sexuallity is a very strong drive in men, and accordingly feminism by and large seeks to control it. Even the sex positive feminists seek to control men’s sexuality, they just go about it differently. Gregoire on the one hand acknowledges men have a sex drive, in the majority of marriages the man wants sex more than the woman, and she does give good advice to women on this issue. But, but, but, even in that advice she does seek to have men controlled by women. And the whole “porn thing” is just one aspect of it.

    The entire article on the Titanic & “WACF” was just a mishmash of emotion with no thought at all. It was clearly a combination of her gynocentric feminist college education with white-knighting modern churchianity. The fact that most of her replies to comments consisted of logical fallacies such as strawman argumentation, sweeping generalization, bandwagon and so forth tells me she didn’t think through the issue at all. So we are back to a double standard: men have duties / responsibilities, women have choices. That is one of the fundamental premises of feminism.

    And yes, the entire posting reeked to high heaven of “men are inferiour to women”.

    One more time, UKFred, I’ll agree that she’s giving some good advice. But the bad advice taints the good badly.

  10. Lily says:

    It’s a distortion of the common Christian marriage vow a wife makes at the altar – Love, Honor and OBEY
    I would guess that there are more Catholics in the world than Protestants and as far as I know the word obey has never been in the Catholic vows. It wasn’t in all the Protestant ones either. So it’s arguable how ‘common’ it was in ‘Christian marriages’ even a 100 years ago. Happy to be proved wrong if I am.

  11. Badger says:

    “Sheila is a feminist….the worst kind. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

    Sally: “which am I?”

    Harry: “You’re the worst kind. You’re high-maintenance but you think you’re low-maintenance.”

  12. Badger says:

    “The entire article on the Titanic & “WACF” was just a mishmash of emotion with no thought at all. It was clearly a combination of her gynocentric feminist college education with white-knighting modern churchianity.”

    What pissed me off about all the CC wreck discussion was that all the criticism was just emotional rage from women (and whiteknights) that women weren’t pushed to the top of the priority list the moment the ship ran aground.

    Personally, I don’t understand why if they are so strong and independent they can’t just save themselves and need a man to do it for them. They just want special privileges, gussied up under the guise of “for the children” or their own narcissism.

    “One more time, UKFred, I’ll agree that she’s giving some good advice. But the bad advice taints the good badly.”

    The worst lies are 80% true.

  13. Carnivore says:

    @Lily
    I would guess that there are more Catholics in the world than Protestants and as far as I know the word obey has never been in the Catholic vows. It wasn’t in all the Protestant ones either. So it’s arguable how ‘common’ it was in ‘Christian marriages’ even a 100 years ago. Happy to be proved wrong if I am.

    You are correct regarding the traditional RC vows, which are the same for both bridegroom and bride:
    I, N., take thee, N., to my wedded wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part, and thereto I plight thee my troth.

    And yes, it is “to my wedded”, not “to be my wedded”.

    However, the point more importantly is that most could probably fill in the blank for a bride’s vows if given ” to love, honor and ___”. That it was deliberately changed to “love, honor and vacuum” is indicative.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @UK Fred

    In respect of this particulart post, I think Dalrock is being a little heavy on Sheila Gregoire, whose blog I read as well as this one. Can I remind everyone that there is a difference between a hypocrite (Don’t do what I do, do as I tell you) and a teacher from experience (Don’t do as I did, because …, please do as I tell you to avoid problems for yourself).

    You are mischaracterizing my argument. If Sheila presented herself as a reformed feminist who now rejects feminism outright, and actually walked the walk, then your statement would be relevant. Sheila feigns ignorance whenever men bring the issue of Christian feminist women up, even though as I proved this is just an act. Also, her statement that she stopped calling herself a feminist because the term is tainted politically is from December 14 of last year. It was only 6 weeks ago. If she had an epiphany and has repented against feminism since then, please kindly show me the post where she announced this. Otherwise, please point out which assertion I make in my post is incorrect (quoting the sentence or sentences where I am wrong) and explain why you think I’m wrong.

  15. Legion says:

    The Japanese have a saying: The paradoxes make the man.

    Since we’re talking about women, this rapper quote seems more appropriate: The b…

    Nevermind on that one.

  16. Keoni Galt says:

    I would guess that there are more Catholics in the world than Protestants and as far as I know the word obey has never been in the Catholic vows. It wasn’t in all the Protestant ones either. So it’s arguable how ‘common’ it was in ‘Christian marriages’ even a 100 years ago. Happy to be proved wrong if I am.

    Way to miss the point, Lily.

    But you did inspire me to actually bother and look up the origin of that particular line, which turns out can be traced back to the middle ages to the ‘Book of Common Prayer,’ published in 1549 by the Church of England.

    Interesting, but not relevant to the point.

    The criticism of Sheila subverting the WASP traditional common vow, coupled with her self-claimed credentials in Womyn’s Studies, are more than enough to deduce exactly what message she is marketing by replacing “Obey” in her clever little blog title.

    She’s just cashing in on the lucrative niche market of feminized, mass media Christianity in North America.

  17. Suz says:

    “She’s just cashing in on the lucrative niche market ….”

    So are most of the writers and “leaders” whose words are used in bibles studies all across this country. The people don’t follow the church, the church follows the people (and their money.)

  18. deti says:

    Anon Reader is on to something here with Gregoire’s advancing double standards.

    I went to a post at tolovehonorandvacuum.com on romance novels as potentially deleterious to marriage. Her position on porn and married men is that a wife is justified in confronting the husband, telling the pastor, and then separating.

    Her position on romance novels and married women is that such material is only inappropriate if the woman decides for herself that it is.

    I wrote a comment that stated if a husband felt his wife should not read or watch Austen novels or the “Love Comes Softly” series, he would be justified in forbidding her from reading or watching them. If she continued despite his forbiddance, he would be justified in confronting it, notifying their pastor, and then separating until the objectionable conduct ceased.

    Unfortunately, Gregoire deleted the comment.

  19. TFH says:

    In short, Sheila is merely marketing Cafeteria Christianity that appeals to female solipsism.

    I agree. That is no more evil than marketing cigarettes to children.

    I also marvel that that one Christo-misandric film raked in $40M from a $2M budget or something, just for portraying boilerplate misandry. That type of return would be considered stunningly profitable in the film industry.

  20. TFH says:

    In other news, a slut who says ‘My Husband Cockblocks Me” and that next time, she is hitting the bar without him :

    http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-01-26/girl-talk-my-husband-cockblocks-me/?obref=obinsite

  21. ybm says:

    ahh the brave new world of the next phase of male enslavement:

    “And I feel no guilt in flirting. As I wrote in 52 Weeks of Amazing Sex, an ebook I co-authored with sex counselor Ian Kerner, flirting with others can be a great way to keep the spark alive in an ongoing romantic relationship.”

    Has your wife taken a creampie from an alpha yet today? If not, why?

  22. TFH says:

    She makes a careful distinction between Christian women like herself and the women in her audience, and those awful nasty feminist women.

    Remember that Christian women consider themselves non-feminist ONLY based on their position on abortion. That is the SOLE criteria (even though both sides of the abortion debate are misandrist).

    Sheila ‘Woodchuck’ Gregoire has the intellect of a 10-year-old boy.

  23. ybm says:

    @TFH
    “Remember that Christian women consider themselves non-feminist ONLY based on their position on abortion. That is the SOLE criteria (even though both sides of the abortion debate are misandrist). ”

    Honestly, when the rubber hits the pavement, how many “christian women” would scream ‘Eww kill it kill it” if that child they carry was at an inopportune time, place etc. or worse yet, a male continuation of an alpha?

    Ever notice now many beta men only have daughters? Think that is a coincidence?

  24. ybm says:

    beta not alpha hahaha!

  25. Rmaxd says:

    @TFH

    Isnt the marriage & the ring supposed to be a cockblock? … Marriage socially acceptable cockblocking … Didnt know know cockblocking was an institution of holy sanctimony …

    Feminism the arch-nemesis of cock-blocking … & defender of coke blowing whores everywhere …

  26. joe says:

    The debate about whether or not Sheila is some form of feminist ended the second I clicked on her blog and saw her name prominently displayed: Sheila Wray Gregorie. For me the double surname or hyphenated surname or the continued use of only ones maiden name is a simple but effective litmus test as to what type of marriage commitment and sacrifice a woman is truly willing to make. Contract or Covenant? Feminist will enter into a contract and as such is more likely to hedge her bet by holding onto her maiden name in some fashion. And a Christian feminist will have a really good excuse for doing so. A true Christian wife will submit to her husband by taking his name and relinquishing her own. Thereby becoming one with her husband. After all, how can we be one if we are two? Right Mr. Gregoire and Mrs. Wray Gregoire?

  27. Rmaxd says:

    @ybm

    Yea its been proven the behaviour of betas, determines the bio-chemical makeup hormones of the pregnancy

    Diet also plays a major part, as women are essentially malformed males at birth

    Not enough nutrition, prevents the child from growing a penis & increased skeletal structure to support the muscular development of a man, hence clueless women …

    You could argue women are simply malformed from low amounts of nutrition at birth …

    Of course theres also the other factor of god wanting to piss off the father, for not repenting for masturbating when he was a kid … playing with your own body parts is a sin

    Someone should tell these sluts the bible says, Adam wants his gdmn ribs back or else …

    God gave his only son, adam gave his only rib, god obviously ran out of bbq sauce …

    Wait if god created adam, how come jesus is his only son … Was god two timing the bible with the holy ghost or something in genesis … or dont christians know how to count …

  28. SC says:

    I’m not really surprised by her reaction and her history. Christian or not, I find the way she dodges the hard truths to be the standard way that most women do. My personal observations have been that many women can’t see reality when it becomes uncomfortable. Reality to them is 10% what’s in front of them and 90% what they WANT to see. With most of their dialogue being geared towards treating that 90% as if it’s real.

    For example, I’ve always wondered how women initiated a divorce free-for-all in the 70s and 80s, but now that they are in their 40s and above, and chronically single, the dialogue seems to be shifting to how men are being childish for not marrying. Their reality is all about their comfort. What they want to see is men being there for them when they want it. So NOW, men are failing them (the 90% of their “truth”) and they are, by and large, completely unable to see that they created this paradigm. My theory is that women try to avoid anything approaching obligation, truth, reality, justice, logic, factual history or anything related to them. They will give these concepts lip service when they want a specific behavior from men but I’ve found it rare for women walk the talk. Some do, but they are the exception by far.

    I’m sorry to be so long-winded, I’m a long time reader and first-time responder but this whole WACF subject just brings out the worst in me lately and, adding religious hypocrites on top of that was the proverbial straw.

    Another great article Dalrock

  29. Zorro says:

    Brilliant takedown. If only we had journalists with your skills.

  30. Carnivore says:

    Their reality is all about their comfort. What they want to see is men being there for them when they want it.
    Almost as if on cue:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2089190/Why-women-like-cling-fantasy-swept-feet—-age-53.html#ixzz1knZEGHG4

  31. Ceer says:

    I think part of the naivete in sticking up for marriage comes from willful ignorance. Intelligent people can assume, not wrongly, that an individual couple CAN power through rough patches in marriage and come out happier as a couple. That sort of thinking goes, that they can just deny the problems until they disappear. My issue with this is that it’s not the way mature people work out problems, and it certainly doesn’t train people to properly take on feminism.

    I fully recognize that Sheila is a woman and hasn’t had the pleasure of being introduced to game by the hordes of women who think the frame “hi, I respect you. Would you like to chat and see if we like each other?” is absolutely repulsive. After a while, you get a clue and realize women prioritize something before respect.

    Sheila asks quite a few questions about how mannosphere arguments make sense. Somehow I don’t think she’s actually inviting conversation about this topic, but doing the woman arguing tactic, trying to provoke a highly emotional reaction. I still remember what happened last time a female blogger used guy language to call someone out, and reacted poorly to the guys using guy rules.

  32. ray says:

    joe — A true Christian wife will submit to her husband by taking his name and relinquishing her own. Thereby becoming one with her husband.

    thatd be a good start at expressing submission to her husband and respect for god

    instead, it expresses chic rebellion, I’m not a feminist but tee hee all the girls are a little feministic

    maiden surname = rebellion. upon marriage before god she is no longer a maiden, nor a free agent, but the helpmeet of her husband, whose authority she is expected to obey

    nothing to do w/the State

    womens’ studies education (but it’s only a minor, see?) = rebellion

    equality advocate = rebellion

    nothing in the bible about “equality” or anything even approximating it… it’s a post-Enlightenment, demonic doctrine

    if jesus had thought Equality was necessary or desirable for humans, think he’d have mentioned it?

    thus no legitimate reason for a Christian to be embracing or proselytizing Equality, much less coercing others under its cover

    cant be a christian and a feminist, Sheila, sorry. pick one

  33. Anonymous says:

    To the extreme… you go, girl!

    “I’ve slept with 1,000 men so far – I don’t care if people judge me!”
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2012/01/27/i-ve-slept-with-1-000-men-so-far-i-don-t-care-if-people-judge-me-115875-23721753/

  34. MW says:

    Feet to the fire, Dalrock! Feet to the fire! Good show, another outstanding analysis.

  35. greyghost says:

    Will the real Sheila Gregoire Please Stand Up
    As long as the hamster lives and is permitted by society to not have any leash laws apply to it the real Sheila is what ever the hell gets her what she thinks is the most status.

  36. an observer says:

    The point that strikes me is that the woman has dabbled in the ways of the world with her so-called ‘studies’. This would give her enormous cred amongst the sheep of the church. Wow, she has a masters in wimmins studies, but she’s a believer. She must know what she’s talking about.

    Sadly, no. My own experience is that many evangelicals are clueless about the true nature of feminism. Even her responses to Jack and Deti show the deception. Every possible statement is reframed out of context. I would suggest she’s ignorant of men’s perspectives. We should expect that kind of solipsism from a child of the revolution.

    If women wanted to respect men, they could try disowning nofault divorce laws. Or maybe having sex with their husband when they don’t feel like it. Or abandoning the belief that the world owes them, or giving up the fallacy that working less hours in comfortable office jobs makes them entitled to earning as much as higher skilled men doing longer hours in different industries.

    WACF is just another furphy, another falsehood and shaming tactic adopted by women who are milking the faux compassion of democracy based on imagined hurts from the past. Man up, you hypergamous cows, step AWAY from the bad boy, put down your iphone. You are entitled to nothing. Everything must be paid for,and many men are increasingly reluctant to pay for women’s princess fantasies with their time, money and blood.

  37. Elspeth says:

    I actually challenged Sheila on the romance novel issue. I do think they can be as damaging as porn. And I do think far more women read them for the titillation than will admit.

    However, I highly suggest that those of you who lump the classic English literature of Jane Austen into that category take the time to read at least one of her novels. It ain’t your typical romance novel. What’s more, she is brutally honest in her assessment of the character of women and of people in general.

    You guys should read one. Seriously. Try Pride and Prejudice.

  38. Opus says:

    I have taken the time to read some of Mrs Gregoire’s writings, which strike me as thinly disguised Divorce Porn, and without accountability; for whatever the woman wants, you can be sure – from the way she writes – that there will be something that Jesus will have said that will adequately fit her predicament and justify her actions, thus absolving her from any responsibility – one of the more obvious and frequently amusing failings of many women who come-out as Christian, I hasten to say. Then there are also vasts amounts of shaming language: The unfortunate Captain of The Concorida, who seems to have lost his nerve, not that by that time there was much he could do for his stricken ship as realisation dawned on him, as it must have done, of the enormity of the disaster and his subsequent life-changing Ignominy; The burly crew and inconsiderate men, who brushed past the poor, small, defenceless, women to reach the lifeboats, though she can hardly know their motivations; then the men, who, finding women attractive (the horror) have succumbed to what all men respond to (in varying degrees), Pornography, which she then (and on what medical evidence?) describes as Addiction – that apparently then being grounds for Divorce, but you really have to stretch her Saviour’s words to (and by the way Tolstoy thought that text corrupted) to extend adultery to include within it, looking at pixilated images. I also came across in her latest blog post an ‘I was more virginal than you when I wedded’ girlie fest). Frankly, I do not think reading such stuff is good for any man, and should itself be grounds for a man to proceed to divorce any wife of his who did likewise.

    My biggest gripe, however, against Mrs Gregoire is none of the above, nor her semi-detached Wyre-Gregoire status, or even her irritating high-pitched voice, but her Writing, which is generally sloppy. In particular this: Most people read for their Masters, or acknowledge having a Master’s Degree, but says she has ‘done a Masters’ much like one might do a line of coke or the washing. That really grates with me. She seems to be rather conflicted and rather desparate to find stability, having ditched feminism for entitlement – yet accompanied with an attitude of certainty. She wants male chivalry, faithfulness and self-sacrifice, but at the same time she wants all the advantages that feminism, which rides on the back of modern technology brings – an easy job; an easy life; protection from harm; and the ability to change her husband (should he fail in some way she thinks sufficient, for instant Divorce, which we all know will happen when she tires of him). This, is not, I think a circle she can ever square.

  39. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    You might be right about Austen. But be that as it may, Gregoire’s reframing, avoiding debate, deleting comments containing direct challenges, and taking everything personally, shows true feminist colors, I think.

  40. Opus says:

    Dear Elspeth

    I had the considerable, untimely misfortune to read one of Miss Austen’s novels (Persuasion) for what we call A’levels, and even at Seventeen I could not abide the book, however Miss Austen is the great untouchable of EngLit and has even male teachers rushing to her defence. I had no sympathy for the heroine and Miss Austen’s ability to write a male lead was embarrassing, as all she managed for Captain Wentworth was a cardboard-cut-out version of a man. It turns out however that her elegant prose is actually the work of her Male Editor – apparently.

    As a matter of curiosity I briefly worked in what had once been her Uncle’s house – and very nice it is too, especially the staircase. I do, however, rather like her ‘A young man in possession of a fortune must be in want of a wife’ which translates as ‘A woman wants a rich hunky man and men should man-up’.

  41. Rmaxd says:

    @Elspeth

    Thats probably because Jane Austen was most likely heavily written by a man …

    Pride & Prejudice still portrays women as victims mostly … Dickens did a much better job, ie The Mystery of Drood, portrays a womans hypergamy quite expertly

  42. Frank says:

    A Christian feminist, Exhibit A:

    twitter.com/jenmukes

    Just so there is no confusion out there as to whether or not they exist. I came across this woman from a feminist website.

  43. Lily says:

    @Keoni
    I just mentioned it as I’ve noticed that when someone says something in the ‘manosphere’ it then starts get getting referred to for ages to come as fact.Yes, the obey thing is mainly a C of E thing. The majority of Christians don’t have it in their vows and never did. The Episcopalians had it but stopped, I think in the 1920s.

    In regards to the subject, I suspect the issue is that a lot of the things which annoy men in this neck of the woods about ‘feminists’ are actually more linked to female nature than the feminism movement.

  44. Lily says:

    @Clarence
    Thank you for sharing and sorry to hear.

  45. Yep female nature. All ya gotta do is see it as corrupt AS male nature, and act accordingly. Period

  46. ruddyturnstone says:

    Same ole, same ole. The Bible says a wife must submit to her husband like the Church submits to Christ. Nothing, as Ray, notes, about equality, which is a post biblical, Enlightenment concept. But so called “Christian” women, even those who claim to not be feminists, or to have left their feminism behind, or to be “traditional” women, or to be in the business of helping other married women be good, Christian wives, simply can’t abide by that.

    No, they always have to gloss the hard truth….which is that their religion is patriarchal. God is the supposed ultimate author of the Bible. God tells them, in no uncertain terms, to shut up and obey their husbands. He doesn’t say anything about them being “second in command,” or “executve officers,” or “co pilots,” or “First officers” or the like. And all such metaphors to military hierarchy are totally inapposite. First of all, being in second in command, or first officer, or executive officer, and so on, necessarily implies that there are other persons subject to the orders of the person in question. But there are no enlisted men, no non commissioned officers, no inferor officers for the supposed “First officer” to be in charge of. Marriage is a two person deal. One, the husband, is in charge. The other, the wife, is subordinate. And that’s it. Secondly, military discipline and hierarchy, while severe and exacting, are none the less limited. A “First officer,” etc, has time when he is off duty. He has a personal life separate from the military. He is entitled to his own personal opinions, his own political views, his family life, and so on, all discrete from and not subject to military discipline. Not so a wife. She is to obey her husband as the Church obeys Christ. And so, unless I’m missing something that someone here can inform me of, the Chruch is to obey Christ at all times, in all things, and with absolute submission.

    Nor is the notion that a good commander at least listens to his EO and considers his opinion appropriate here. An executvie officer not only has the right, but the duty, to offer his opinions to the commanding officer. That’s part of his job, which is determined by the military as a whole and is not subject to the whims of the commanding officer. In general, there is a whole host of things which a commanding officer cannot order his EO, or anyone else under his command, to do. Military authority is based on a hierarchy and rules. It is codified as law. Any soldier has the right to appeal to his commander’s commander, or an Inspector General, or the like. And ultimately, even the top commander is subject to orders of the civilian government (except in military dictatorships). But a husband, according to the Bible, is under no such limitations, and his wife has none of the rights and duties mentioned above. Again, she is simply to obey him, to the best of her ability, the way the Church endeavors (one assumes) to obey Christ. That a good CO listens to his EO’s advice and delegates some authority to him is not relevant. Because a husband is not a like a CO, he is like Christ, and because a husband is a husband whether he does what is seen as “good” or not.

    Nor does the injunction of the Bible that a husband should love his wife as Christ loves the Church change any of the above. For starters, the two commands are not made conditional on the each other. The Bible does NOT say that a wife is to submit to her husband like the Church submits to Chirst, but only if her husband loves her like Christ loves the Church, and not otherwise. She is to obey him regardless. Secondly, “love” is a fairly protean word. What looks like “tyranny” to one person might seem to be love to another. Plenty of children with loving parents see them as tyrants. Plenty of would-be or nominal Christians see God, or Christ, as tyrannical.

    Thus, if these women took their own religion seriously, there would be no need for blogs or books or seminars and the like. They would simply do whatever their husband told them to do, and that would be the end of it. Their huband looks at pron? So what, submit to him like the Church submits to Christ. Their husband is a lay about who doesn’t earn money or do the housework? Too bad, obey him as the Church obeys Christ anyway.

    As I have mentioned before, I’m not a Christian, so none of this applies to me in a personal way. I’m enough of a product of the Enlightenment that I do believe that equality is an important value. But what I believe is neither here nor there, when it comes to so called “Christian” women. For years I have seen these women, supposedly traditional, Christian women, on the internet, in the manosphere, arguing with men. Arguing against the very words of the Bible, or, more frequently, trying to subvert the obvious and plain meaning of the words of the Bible. If a woman is a traditional Christian, and she is married, what is she doing on the internet, arguing with men? Shouldn’t she be cooking, cleaning, canning, gardening, raising children, etc? The only excuse, the only legitimate reason such women can have for being on the internet and arguing with men is that their husbands ordered them to do so. And I seriously doubt that is true in many, if any, instances. Go back to the kitchen, o traditional, Christian woman, and shut up.

  47. Miserman says:

    In all of these discussions, do we really know what a Christian woman who is not a feminist looks likes? If anyone knows where I can find one, let me know. To just read about a woman like that would be an experience.

  48. Joe Sheehy says:

    Wifely submission does not mean absolute unconditional obedience. But it does mean obedience. It means doing what you’re told unless it’s against the moral law or is simply beyond the pale of what is reasonable. No a husband doesn’t get to act like a sadistic drill sergeant. He does get to be the boss. I don’t understand what Lily’s quibbling about the vows supposedly only being for the Anglicans is about. What the Anglican vows stated explicitly are implicitly included in the other vows. Refuse the marriage debt without very specific, legitimate reasons? In traditional theology that is a damning sin, Is not refusing the marriage debt part of the vows? Implicitly, yes. Explicitly, no. The vows don’t say anything about how much money a husband makes. They don’t say anything about whether a wife is happy. Now unless a woman accepts these things she doesn’t accept Christian marriage. No matter what she claims, no matter how she “feels” about being a Christian, there are hard and fast traditional rules for the mutual obligations of husband and wife. Reject them and you reject marriage. Which of course is exactly what feminism and “Christian” feminism do. Shelia Gregoire’s blog title is an allusion to the old marriage vows that were common for Americans, and she does substitute vacuum for obey. Why? Who knows, but it’s not very classy or reverent allusion to the vows,that should be obvious to everyone,.

    Lily saying that men are wrongly blaming feminism for the way women are by default is quite wrong. Anyone who has ever had a lot of conversation with Muslim women living in Muslim countries, as I have, knows that the psychology of Western women has become perverted,. Sure women have bad tendencies that are part of their fallen nature. But the total perversion of values is recent and new. If you talk to Muslim women, and compare their way of talkng and thinking with older traditional women you know, you begin to understand just how radically affected western women are by today’s culture. The corruption of women is a long time project of the hidden rulers of society, in order to destroy our family life so as to make us more enslaved.

  49. Joe Sheehy says:

    correction: of course the vows do say “for richer or poorer” and “for better or worse” – so they do mention how much money and happiness: and of course the meaning is that the woman is promising that she will adhere to the vows regardless of whether her husband is poor or she is unhappy. So how many women really mean that, and more importantly, how many nominal Christians will excuse women for breaking their vows over flimsy pretexts when money and happiness are the real reason for her decision to break the vows.

  50. ybm says:

    “The corruption of women is a long time project of the hidden rulers of society, in order to destroy our family life so as to make us more enslaved.”

    I’m so tired of this conspiracy theory nonsense so prevalent in this corner of the internet. Again, we aren’t supposed to hold women accountable for their actions. After all, it was the fault of shadowy (men) Bohemian Grove/Jews/Reptile Aliens/Rothschilds, not those poor innocent white girls!

    Nobody made 50 million women vacuum out their children in the US alone
    Nobody made women pass laws against men that removed their complete agency
    Nobody made women completely abandon their ancestors in every way, shape and form for Raunch Feminism and promiscuity

    Hold women accountable for their actions.

  51. Joe Sheehy says:

    Well if you don’t think the elites in society are feminist and promoting feminism, then you’re the one who is delusional.

    Another things to remember is that it’s an old stand-by to brush off changes as though they aren’t happening. This is what Lily’s comment about men complaining about “feminism” is a variation of. We can see the changes in living memory – even in the living memory of relatively young people. Things are changing drastically. Does it mean women were ever so nice? No, of course not, but like I said, if you talk to Muslim women, you will realize they show tremendous tolerance and respect to “betas” When they think men, they think about marriage. That’s the way it is over there, and the way it used to be here.

  52. Joe Sheehy says:

    Don’t think I don’t hold blame women for what’s happening. But as Dalrock has said before – the white knights are the most serious problem. Churches could conceivably insulate themselves from the wider society, but white knight daddies, ministers and priests are there to enforce tolerance for feminist behavior in the name of male obligation and pretended female helplessness, lack of moral agency, etc.

  53. joe says:

    “Don’t think I don’t hold blame women for what’s happening. But as Dalrock has said before – the white knights are the most serious problem.”
    That is the heart of the matter. My personal interpretation of the story of eden reads like this:

    Women want everything, and because women cannot tell themselves no, the woman is damned.
    Men want women and because men cannot tell women no, the man is damned.

    Because men have chosen to follow women the lead of women we are once again being put out of the garden. Until men with the power to do so once again start telling women no, we are all damned.

  54. Robert in Arabia says:

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf

    “Murder in Families”

    By John M. Dawson
    and Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D.
    BJS Statisticians

    A survey of murder cases disposed
    in 1988 in the courts of large urban
    counties indicated that 16% of murder
    victims were members of the defendant’s
    family. The remainder were murdered by
    friends or acquaintances (64%) or by
    strangers (20%).

    A third of family murders involved
    a female as the killer. In sibling murders,
    females were 15% of killers, and in
    murders of parents, 18%. But in spouse
    murders, women represented 41% of
    killers. In murders of their offspring,
    women predominated, accounting for 55%
    of killers.

    When a mother killed her own child, the
    offspring she killed was more likely to be a
    son than a daughter: 64% sons versus
    36% daughters. But when a father killed
    his own child, the offspring he killed was
    about as likely to be a daughter as a son:
    52% daughters versus 48% sons.

    • When a son killed a parent, his victim
    was about as likely to be the mother as the
    father: 47% mothers versus 53% fathers.
    But when a daughter killed a parent, her
    victim was more likely to be the father than
    the mother: 81% fathers versus 19%
    mothers.

  55. Joe Sheehy says:

    There’s been a noticeable rise of feminist attitudes among traditional Catholic women. The priests of course here women confessing all the time so they don’t have illusions about women, but their popularity depends on feeding daddy’s delusions and keeping hens happy so they sometimes spitefully collaborate in shutting out men who are not favored.

    I wonder if Dalrock would investigate the ideas of Colleen Hammond, a traditional Catholic mother, former model and modesty advocate (and a fan of “Fireproof”) There are Trad Catholic women who I believe have a subconsciously subversive influence on traditionalism. Naivety about women’s nature is rife among Catholic fathers, and anyone scanning trad Catholic forums can see the rise of femitraditionalism. Which always seems to come marinated in Jane Austen. Dalrock says he’s looking for traditional churches that really believe in marriage. I’m guessing Traditional Catholic chapels are usually pretty close to what he’s been looking for, but that there are very serious problems that seem to be getting progressively worse. When you have alpha looks (at least in that small pond) and beta confidence with sheltered young women who are in a relatively controlling environment, it makes for some eye-opening displays of bad female behavior and deplorable white knighting. And the two things are very symbiotic..

  56. Jack Amok says:

    In regards to the subject, I suspect the issue is that a lot of the things which annoy men in this neck of the woods about ‘feminists’ are actually more linked to female nature than the feminism movement.

    Close, Lily. Actually, the problem is that feminism no longer expects women to control the baser parts of their nature. Men are still expected to control themselves. Violence, intimidation, polygamy and the like are tendencies men are supposed to suppress within themselves, and those who don’t are considered anti-social and dangerous. But women are supposed to be “true to themselves” as Shelia’s commenter’s put it:

    “Thats telling women that they can’t be true to themselves. If you say that you need to change in order to be happy in a marriage then you’re not being true to yourself and that is wrong.”

    So then it’s wrong to ask men not to rape, pillage, and beat the crap out of any woman who annoys them, because, well, that’s true to the basest parts of male nature. What sort of a society would we live in if men were given the same pass to indulge their baser natures as women are? Well, we are going to find out if women continue to express their uninhibited natures, because the dirtiest secret of women’s fallen nature is that it rewards the worst of male fallen nature.

  57. Doyourownresearch says:

    “I’m so tired of this conspiracy theory nonsense so prevalent in this corner of the internet.”

    Too bad so sad, get use to it. Are you another coincidence theorist?

    Do your own research or keep watching TV, your choice.

  58. Carnivore says:

    There are Trad Catholic women who I believe have a subconsciously subversive influence on traditionalism.

    Absolutely. And some Trad women are very good at compartmentalizing their traditionalism. They can be all modest, long skirts down to the ankle, chapel veils, etc., but once they step beyond the threshold of the chapel, watch out! Of course, it is difficult to live in the world and not be of the world, for both men and women.

  59. In my experience, Traditional Catholic priests don’t have too many illusions about women.

    The Catholic vows have never included the “obey” thing, but they used to always have the marriage teaching from Ephesians as a reading. And traditional Catholic teaching requires obedience to a husband’s authority. It can vary in precise form quite a bit, but the husband is always recognised as the head.

    I noticed Sheila Gregoire’s Love, Honor and Vacuum title for her blog and thought it was a cutesy and irritating way of ducking the point. It makes me think, to coin a phrase, “you can take the girl out of feminism but you can’t take feminism out of the girl”. I maintain that Protestants would be better off without these female pundits. It is not a normal role for women.

  60. Rmaxd says:

    @ybm

    Cant we do both?

    Hold women accountable, & blame social engineering? We all know its in a womans nature, but who created the system to allow the feminists to exploit in the first place?

    Who prevented men from having the vote & the political influence for so many centuries?

    How many men died fighting for our right to vote, & who did they fight?

    The aristocracy & the super rich, are anything but a conspiracy theory, weve been fighting them for centuries, feminism is just one more system set up by the same ppl, serfdom, feudalism, it just happens to include women …

    Nobodies denying its in a womans nature to embrace feminism, but real political power is always granted & paid out

    Who granted the feminists this much funding & social control? Women? lol …

  61. Samuel says:

    and here I thought the “Love, Honor, and Vacuum” was referring to teh vaccuumed fetuses.

  62. Rmaxd says:

    “The Catholic vows have never included the “obey” thing”

    Trust Lily to bring up a pointless point … the bible states to submit & obey your husband, if your a catholic or christian its the bible you follow, your vows are simply a declaration between the husband & wife to each other, nothing more

    Marriage is a social governmental construct anyway, throw your life away & your children to the government for a piece of paper …

  63. Rmaxd says:

    @Samuel

    Its probably more of a freudian feminist slip, a bit like ALL of her blog … lol

  64. ray says:

    ybm: I’m so tired of this conspiracy theory nonsense so prevalent in this corner of the internet. Again, we aren’t supposed to hold women accountable for their actions.

    those two propositions dont logically follow in exclusion

    collective manipulation by powerful individuals and groups — conspiracies — are factually proven far beyond doubt, particularly in the context under discussion, the well-funded and super-organized rise and spread of feminism/matriarchy

    research, e.g., the organizing of the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention (one of the lesser conpiracies, but instructive — nothing even vaguely grass-roots about it)

    the bible traces all evil and suffering on earth to a conspiracy of pre-terrestrial, fallen beings who rebel against god, and who guide human empires

    the evidence of conspiracy in the worldly systems (political, economic, ideolgical) of this planet is vast; pride, laziness, and fear keep many from acknowledging it

    none of the foregoing removes personal responsibility/accountability from women, or men, for actions — the bible also makes this clear, informing that god placed the knowledge of himself, and of his goodness, in the hearts of all of us, pagans included, and as such we are without excuse for rebellion

    joe’s summary of genesis (by far, the most condensed biblical book) grasps the gist:

    1) females want to eat fried ice while being seated as co-deities on God’s Throne, and they have a zillion fine-sounding concepts (Equality, Liberation, Egalitarianism, ad nauseum) to rationalize their willfullness, self-deification, and power-seeking

    2) males dont have the courage to tell females no, to stand up to them, individually or collectively — too dependant psychologically and sexually, and too costly in terms of real-world consequences

    so the human male –from the BEGINNING — chose to follow and obey Woman, rather than God, and here we are today, gone global gynogulag

    as we’ve seen w/the Gregoire posts, even for “Christians,” the true deity in practice is Woman — man obeys and seeks to please her, she obeys and seeks to please herself

    the Christian churches, like the secular State, likewise cleave to this model

    your leaders imagine theyll force heaven with spaceships and coerce WomanParadise into being with legislation, propaganda, male disenfranchisement, fatherlesness, and mancages

    human beings tossed themselves from paradise; all god did was lock the gate

    this is the hell you chose, this is the hell you get, eden is closed until this issue is permanently resolved

  65. greyghost says:

    Looks like snoop dogg is a better source for the truth than this educated christian women. Watch this and tell me who is a a better teacher for young women.
    http://www.hiphopstan.com/snoop-dogg-kim-kardashian-hoe-video/

  66. Anonymous says:

    Feminism and the Disposable Male… on YouTube.

    “What has feminism done to shatter the patriarchal “women and children first” mentality, and elevate men to status as full human beings deserving of empathy and human rights? What has it done to reinforce and legally entrench the mentality that everyone, including men themselves, should put men last?” writes the poster.

  67. Conflating a seminar or organized meeting with a conspiracy is a common mistake. The the evil “no-goods” in the Roger Ramjet cartoon profess to want to take over the world with their
    super-electrostatic-filament-fragmentizer, which by the way extinguishes the tiny light bulbs inside refrigerators and leaves people not knowing what to eat, then when they are weak from hunger the no-goods will TAKE OVER….its like a gang of elites with a set of ill intended speakers conniving. It IS technically a conspiracy…..but its efficacy may be similar to those no-goods in Roger Ramjet.

    George Soros does make a good go at it though, I gotta say.

    —–

    I cannot say all Christian women are feminists….I can say – to a degree – overtly, BUT, when push comes shove, the feminism flies off them.

    Paraphrase Ron Burgandy, “80% of the time they are feminists every time”

  68. joe says:

    After watching the above video I, for a brief moment, fell in love with the woman depicted. She goes by the moniker girlwriteswhat (and uses the word girl very very loosely). That was until I realized that she is also very much a feminist, just a different kind of feminist. She is an egalitarian, straight down the middle, 50/50 feminist. That’s the least offensive type. Along with being quite brilliant, she is also a little ahead of her time as she is ideologically where society will be 100 years from now once the dust from the ‘real’ battle of the sexes settles. Sorry for getting off topic.

  69. Anonymous says:

    It’s been a feast of misandry/hypergamy lately…

    Woman on The Frisky complains how her husband is a “cockblock”…
    http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-01-26/girl-talk-my-husband-cockblocks-me/

    Mother of four shacks up with new rich boyfriend while supported by husband…
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/double_wife_in_deep_do_do_i0T9zgl3Qtqhxc4Q74IkRK

    Woman accusing Greg Kelly of rape snuck out on her boyfriend, had six with Kelly on her boss’ desk and texted him before and after– before she found she was pregnant and it became “rape”…
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/29/woman-who-accuses-nypd-boss-son-greg-kelly-rape-exchanged-17-texts-following/

    Real-life cuckold abuse/pregancy scene by wife and her new boyfriend…
    http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1114925–man-brutally-tortured-by-his-wife-and-her-boyfriend-in-toronto-apartment

    Woman are not respectable any more… they lie and think with their crotch.

  70. Rmaxd says:

    @Greyghost

    So rappersve been right all this time? … Btw Rhianna went back to Chris Brown, proving bitchslap game works … the pimphand is awesome at greasing the hamster wheel …

    Spin hamster spin … slap … sex …

    Rappers figured out calling chicks by their correct term gets them laid more, then their real name … rap leading the way for mras everywhere …

  71. Eric says:

    Dalrock:

    There are two distinct issues with Sheila’s posts that need to be addressed here:

    1.) On the Italian ship disaster: what you saw there, mostly from passengers educated in the Anglosphere, was a lack of any inclination to ‘save the women children first.’ We have feminist ideology and education to thank for that.

    2.) On the link between Christianity and feminism: it makes no difference what an Anglo-American female’s religion is; she was educated under the same system as the feminists.

    Men are NOT going to sacrifice their lives for women in a disaster, any more than they will sacrifice themselves for marriage/family. Why should we? Women have been preaching to us that we are not necessary; have a steady track-record of returning abuse for any sacrifices men make for them; and have made it abundantly clear during the last several decades that they fundamentally hate us in general. We’re going to ‘man up’; get down on one knee; commit to marriage; or the supreme sacrifice for THAT?

    Christian women themselves, statistically have a 38% divorce rate in America. Tough. These bitches can go to the thugs they chase and let THEM make all the sacrifices. Real men are through with them!

  72. Jennifer says:

    Dalrock, emotional abuse is abuse, for men and women. Obviously it’s not a legal violation, but it can cause big rifts in a marriage. Have you seen “1,000 Ways to Die”? One episode showed a woman screeching at her husband how to mow the lawn, yelling, “What is WRONG with you, are you so damn stupid you can’t MOW in a straight line? Get the hell moving. And when you’re done, I want you to go to the store and get me some tampons. Extra-absorbent. Get some for yourself too, missy.” Barking at someone to do something for you isn’t abuse, but tearing down a guy’s manhood like that is; all her words were abusive. People abuse with words, as teens show, a lot more often than with violence.

  73. Jennifer says:

    I think Sheila dropped the label feminist for more than just the political taint, and that she’s now in denial about how many women are affected. But yes, it does matter what a girl’s upbringing is; many are homeschooled now, and because I was raised with a respectable family, I always got pissed at bitchy women in sitcoms.

  74. Cant we do both?

    Hold women accountable, & blame social engineering?

    No, you can’t because you make too many assumptions some of which are impossible. For starters, to blame social engineering requires the assumption that the social engineers had perfect knowledge of the future (when it comes to their social engineering strategies) and could implement a strategy with no side effects. If there were social engineers trying to implement feminism, and that’s a big if, there’s no guarantee there wouldn’t be side effects. For all we know the social engineers, if they were doing anything, were actually trying to do something else, and feminism was just one big side effect. The point of this is to blame social engineers requires us to assign them perfect knowledge of the future when it comes to their strategies. If we assume that they have perfect knowledge of the future, then you can’t hold women responsible for their actions since they were so perfectly manipulated. For that matter, you can’t know if you aren’t being manipulated by those same social engineers to oppose them. (This is related to the basis that some conspiracy theorists are using to claim the MRM is backed by the same people they believe created feminism.)

    Simply put, if social engineers are gods, which is what blaming social engineering would require, then no one is responsible for anything. Thus it can be only one or the other hold women accountable or blame social engineering.

  75. the bible traces all evil and suffering on earth to a conspiracy of pre-terrestrial, fallen beings who rebel against god, and who guide human empires

    All that’s been proven here is that conspiracy theory always ends up with either demons or reptile aliens. And demons and reptile aliens are more or less the same thing in this context.

  76. Jennifer says:

    You blame each individual, or even group, for their own actions. Social feminism, or any awful teaching, is responsible for its own part. Then ultimately, so are those who follow it. Even in groups like polygamous Mormons, the dangerous kind, I only have so much sympathy for the men and women who enforce it on their children because THEY were taught the same.

  77. TFH says:

    Jennifer,

    Perhaps you should explain again your previous claim that ‘men have to respect women’ and your corresponding condemnation of those men who ‘do not respect women’.

  78. Joe Sheehy says:

    Anyone who thinks the television doesn’t have a lot to do with the crass way women think and behave these days is daft. Anyone who thinks that the homosexual and non-Christian writers who put those shows on the air doesn’t want to promote feminism and political correctness is daft. Anyone who thinks that the ideas that aren’t being promoted haven’t been held implicitly and explicitly by social “reformers” over the past 200 years is not informed. Does that mean we can reverse course by getting rid of the cultural polluters? Not necessarily unfortunately. Damage is pretty hard to repair. It might take the organic growth of a new society to heal horrible ideas that have taken root. However the failure of feminist societies to maintain birth rates does give some slight hope for change.

  79. Joe Sheehy says:

    The fact that religious people believe in diabolical phenomena does not in any respect disprove the existence of conspiracy, which would exist whether or not demons exist. Secret societies exist, social revolutionaries exist, there are many non-religious people who take Lucifer or Satan as a model for behavior. After all what is “game” but acting like the serpent in the garden? Whether you believe in Genesis or not, the story is a reflection of human nature. The solution to our problems are going to be some angels with flaming swords – the very opposite of Quixotic white knights.

  80. Jennifer says:

    I think we should respect each other, TFH.

  81. Jennifer says:

    Joe: awesome, brother.

  82. Joe Sheehy says:

    I think in the old days “shotgun” marriages and duels were a way to force accountability on alphas, whose depredations could cause a huge amount of damage, at a time when illegitimacy and the loss of a woman’s honor had serious social consequences for women. What has happened now is that the “white knights” are serving as unconscious geriatric “beta blockers” for the Janeite girls. The sly alpha in a church is literally a fox in a henhouse, the honest beta sucker who thinks he’s finding romantic love with the young women is there to be bullied by “white knights” who can’t decide whether he’s a creep or a cad, but serves as a scape-goat for the reality that the men don’t have any control over their women.

  83. AmStrat says:

    Conspiracy theories almost always dwindle down to permanent contrarianism. No matter which way you choose or what happens “oh, the *fill in the blank* KNEW you would do that, it was part of their plan this whole time!”.

    Such a field of “study” is with even less definition and certainty than economics, weather, or dare I say theoretical physics. To accept this premise is to accept that the conspiracy theorist himself may be completely wrong and the *real* conspiracy theory is in a whole different light. In short, without clear reasoning I am likely better off writing off the entire conspiracy theory field.

    The reality of the illusion is yet another illusion.

  84. Joe Sheehy says:

    I would argue the fact that so-called “educated” people are apt to compare all conspiracy theory to UFO sightings etc is a good demonstration of the programming for historical ignorance. (see the results at Harvard for a multiple choice American history test a few years ago) It’s not an accident that the all-inclusive label “conspiracy theory” is at once ridiculed and exposed in Kubrick films, silly films like “National Treasure” and “The X-files” etc. As Wyndham Lewis pointed out a long time ago, the producers of the popular culture are the ones determining public opinion these days. He saw the writing on the wall for what we’re going through now, particulary about feminism, a long time ago. He has a great quote about “manning up” – he said he thinks Eve told Adam in the garden to “Be a Man.” Anyway, I’m not here to discuss conspiracy theory. I made a single off-hand comment about Marxists and elites wanting to get rid of the traditional family. If anyone thinks they want to preserve the traditional family and aren’t actively trying to get rid of it, well, you can mix and match your blue and red pills at leisure and compartmentalize.

  85. Rmaxd says:

    @PMAFT

    Nice try clutching at straws …

    It always cracks me up, how misinformed & ignorant, anti-conspiracists & anti-gamers are …

    You obviously dont understand social engineering, or how society runs …

    The whole point of social engineering IS to predict the behaviour & trends of a society

    Ever hear of market research, demographics, biometrics, neuromarketing, behavioural science, sociobiology, the list is endless

    Now apply all of the above sciences to the millions of cameras & your credit card & spending patterns, as well as ongoing psychological & dna profiling, & add them to the massive databases, admitted & well documented by your own government

    Now run those databases through massive simulations of possible future scenarios, AND you have social engineering

    lol PMAFT do you really think these fashions & trends, as well as feminism happen by mistake or chance?

    Do you really think feminism & liberalism came to power by chance or mistake?

    If so maybe you shld do something about your ignorance, before you start applyng aliens & reptiles to everything like some backward anti-gamer ie novy …

  86. Samuel says:

    well, boys, I spent some time looking around Sheila’s place, and read her stuff.

    Sheila says I can be healed of porn.

    hahahahaha

    healed of porn? Oh boy, where can I sign up? I need healing from teh pr0ns… helllllp meeeee

    man, her stuff is too easy.

    Hey Dalrock, you should look at doing some blogging on the “Every Man’s Battle” stuff. Widely held in Christian circles, but deeply flawed and feminist, much like ‘Fireproof’

  87. Dalrock says:

    @Joe Sheehy

    Anyone who thinks the television doesn’t have a lot to do with the crass way women think and behave these days is daft. Anyone who thinks that the homosexual and non-Christian writers who put those shows on the air doesn’t want to promote feminism and political correctness is daft.

    How do you explain Sherwood Baptist creating divorce porn when they set out to create a movie about Christian marriage? I’m not denying the power of the media or that many are intentionally poisoning the well, but sometimes the messages we see in the media reflect more the fact that the author unknowingly bought into the broken culture. Sherwood Baptist has taught many millions of Christian women that if she isn’t getting her way, if her husband isn’t following her leadership, if she wants the excitement of having multiple high status men fighting for her heart, file for divorce. At the same time it taught millions of Christian men that the way to “fireproof” his marriage from the threat of divorce is to follow her leadership and make her love him more than any other man she takes a fancy to. I can’t imagine a more destructive message, and no homosexuals or non Christians were needed to pump that toxic waste into our culture. Even worse, 99% of Christians watched that movie and didn’t see what was wrong with it, because their own discernment is as broken as the folks at Sherwood Baptist who made the movie in the first place.

  88. ybm says:

    Because of alien mind control that’s why Dalrock. A device given to the Rothschilds by Queen Elizabeth II the Reptoid emissary on planet Earth who approved its useage by the Bohemian Grove in 1971.

    Conspiracy Theorists and “Human Biodiversity” enthusiasts will marginalize any talk of men’s issues faster than a Rad-Fem ever could.

  89. Dalrock says:

    @ybm

    Because of alien mind control that’s why Dalrock. A device given to the Rothschilds by Queen Elizabeth II the Reptoid emissary on planet Earth who approved its useage by the Bohemian Grove in 1971.

    I agree that folks often get out of hand with this stuff, but the basic claim that marxists set out to destroy our culture is true. At one point in the 20s and 30s and probably to some degree throughout the cold war these messages were fairly well directed by the soviets. Most of the folks implementing this were “useful idiots”, who were influenced by a much smaller number of die hard marxists.

  90. What? Being an educated person sees conspiracy as UFO sightings? No way man, I saw one of them.

    See, we was all and camping camping and tell you what dude….

  91. Oh…anti-gamers AND anti conspiracy theorists.

    Sorry, If I’d known the holy grail had two pour spouts I’d have tasted from both sides

  92. Nick says:

    @ Lilly,

    Your an idiot. Look, it wasn’t just the 1500′s book of common prayer. The 1920′s had crazy stuff like:
    “WILT thou have this Man to thy wedded husband, to live together after [b]God’s ordinance[/b] in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love him, comfort him, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live? ”

    And

    “Bestow upon these thy servants, if it be thy will, the gift and heritage of children; ”

    And of course it also had the anti-feminist “Thanks-Giving for Childbirth”

    But wait! You want Rome. That place where up until the 60′s women were required to wear head-coverings (now it is sadly optional but not [b]forbidden[/b]) to symbolize their subjection to their husbands and their place within the church. Go ahead, live your anti-Christian fantasy.

  93. The Pope in the 1940s told newly-wed husbands to exercise “firm command” and wives to show “docile obedience”. Some women still cover their heads at the Latin Mass I often attend. My wife has done this when she has come with me.

  94. Joe Sheehy says:

    Dalrock said:

    “How do you explain Sherwood Baptist creating divorce porn when they set out to create a movie about Christian marriage? I’m not denying the power of the media or that many are intentionally poisoning the well, but sometimes the messages we see in the media reflect more the fact that the author unknowingly bought into the broken culture. ”

    There are doubtless many “well-intentioned” people who try to produce films that express moral values. Of course these people are also expressing the values they’ve internalized without much reflection. I would suggest that those who made “Fireproofed” have probably been far more influenced by Hollywood and TV, and the pervasive bias and willful blindness that exists in the culture at large than they themselves realize. They are also marketing to people who have have been heavily influenced by Hollywood and television and the churches where women rule the roost, so you can be sure you’re not going to see messages in stark opposition to what the intended audience has come to see as normal.

    I am coming to the conclusion that the moral “theology” of marriage has become the handmaid of the rationalization hamster. What’s happened to the Catholic Church is a great example of this. For example, John Paul II in his Mulieris Dignitatem claims that St. Paul’s injunction to wifely submission can be seen as a product of its time and should only be understood as mutual submission. That’s a blatant example of twisting words to mean what you want them to mean.

    Perhaps the most abused word is “maturity.” Lack of “maturity” has become the pretext for “Catholic divorce” – it was never a justification for annulments before Vatican II, now it is the main justification. If a young woman is very intelligent and ambitious and pursuing a career seriously she will be called “mature.” If a girl that age wants to marry though it will be considered “immaturity” She will be told she’s “too young.” In a man “maturity” means having money and wanting to marry a woman who is also “mature” – which means of course that she’s just been thrown off the carousel and is realizing she needs to be supported. The rationalization theology hamster has definitions for maturity that are premised on the importance of access to the carousel and a safe exit facilitated by a willing sap when the time comes. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say so. The beta white church knights have internalized the values that the rationalization theology hamster devised to enable carousel access (I doubt women themselves consciously realize that the reason they are so strongly against early marriage is because it means no admission to the carousel – the fathers delude themselves about their daughter’s nature and often see honorably intentioned men who overtly approach as a threat), frustrated old men practicing beta blocking, and of course, their favorite, the “man up” and marry spinster/sluts. Leave the young women to parties and pagans.

    The hoops a religious beta has to jump through in these Trad churches can be pretty severe. He will be told he must have the father’s permission to even speak to a girl. Of course the alpha has no such difficulty, he doesn’t feel any moral obligation to follow this rule. The religious beta is required to wait a minimum of six months after engagement to marry his sweetheart and consummate the relationship. Plenty of time for her to back out if she feels wistful for the carousel. (there was a case of a young woman backing out of her engagement at the last minute, after the reception had been booked, and flying to Italy with her little sister to hang out with strange Italian men in lieu of the honeymoon) He is treated as being bound by his betrothal promise. She is not. He is pushed to marry the older more desperate girls and to leave the young girls alone. He can easily find himself hated and branded as a “creep” or “pervert” and of course “immature” (not being able to deal with women his own age) if he reciprocates the advances of late teen women, and will be threatened with being thrown out of church if he doesn’t get the father’s permission to speak to them. The typical trad chapel is set up to block betas from denying carousel access to young women. Now I don’t think they consciously reason it out, but it can’t be a coincidence that the very definition of “maturity” shifts according to context, and low and behold it’s used for the purpose of carousel enabling, frivolous divorce enabling, and “man up” shaming.

    The bottom line is that the clergy try to please the women, and have internalized the idea that the damage caused to men is trumped by this requirement to please the women.

  95. Joe Sheehy says:

    I don’t want to leave the impression that there aren’t women marrying early and having big families in trad chapels. That would be an exaggeration. But the change in the attitudes of second generation trads is unmistakable. Liberalization is happening. The optimal strategy for raising money is to mouth traditional rhetoric, suitably softened so as not to be too extreme. while in practice acting to please the women and middle class fathers ambitious for their little girls. The change has become apparent since the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops.

  96. K_C says:

    “Even worse, 99% of Christians watched that movie and didn’t see what was wrong with it, because their own discernment is as broken as the folks at Sherwood Baptist who made the movie in the first place.”

    *Your* discernment, Dalrock, is the reason I keep coming back to you. Brilliant stuff; keep up the good work.

    K_C

  97. Jennifer says:

    For pete’s sake, Joe, if you think all those young men jumping through hoops to speak to a daughter are not wife-bosses-in-training, you’re wrong. And the women, longing for the carousel? Maybe your own experience was different, but as a whole you have no idea how those kinds of girls are raised. I’m talking seriously homeschooled girls, from the beginning. The idea that the husband in “Fireproof” followed his wife’s lead still amuses me, and Sherwood Baptist goes strongly against the Hollywood grain; even though they dipped pretty low in the apology scene from Cameron, I’m guessing in general they were more interested in showing the husband’s command to love than to exercise “firm command” and exact “docile obedience”.
    Bye now, Dalrock.

  98. Joe Sheehy says:

    Another film / miniseries you might want to look at, as an example of the grovelling married suitor giving his life to legitimize another man’s child, (while the the pregnant woman longs for the child’s alpha father) is called “The Magic of Ordinary Days”

  99. Joe, I think your reading of Mulieris Dignitatem is the feminist spin. Careful reading does not bear it out. The Pope did not dismiss the teaching as reflective of the time. He clearly believes it has eternal value, which is why he bothered to give it exegesis. Nor did he mean by mutual submission that the subjection of the husband is the same in kind as that of the wife. He and the then Cardinal Ratzinger stressed the headship of the husband.

    All the Pope meant was that a husband’s love for his wife has the character of Christian subjection. The wife’s part remains to obey.

    It is really important not to buy the feminist spin on Mulieris Dignitatem. The same pope wrote of the father’s special role in Familiaris Consortio.

  100. Jennifer says:

    “I’m guessing in general they were more interested in showing the husband’s command to love than to exercise “firm command” and exact “docile obedience””

    Which, of course, isn’t a command at all.

  101. Jennifer, love may be expressed as firm command.

  102. Jennifer says:

    That’s nice to know, David. See you elsewhere, perhaps.

  103. Jennifer says:

    Not the “love as a firm command”, I mean, but the part of Christian subjection. The husband is never commanded to command; submission is up to the wife to practice, not for him to extract. Now I really must go.

  104. Joe Sheehy says:

    No Jennifer, I’m quite certain these fathers did not have to jump through the hoops they’re imposing. I know all about the hard-core homeschooling. And the bottom line is that for many homeschooling merges with the college carousel track. I also know what these girls are willing to go behind their father’s back, but that everyone involved (priest, father, chapel hens) are committed to pretending that they never would. In the old days white knighting was about protecting their daughters from disgrace at the hands of alphas, and every father realized the importance of getting his daughter hitched early. Today the protective impulse has been corrupted by fathers deluding themselves as to their daughters natural behavior and to bullying easy target like: sincere betas.

  105. Joe Sheehy says:

    I’m sorry David, I completely understand your desire to defend what you believe to be authentic magisterium, but there are just too many examples of reversing traditional moral teachings since Vatican II for me to accept it anymore. St. Paul and St. Peter tell wives to obey their husbands. John Paul II says there is only “mutual submission” intended.

  106. Joe, read the document carefully. Don’t just listen to the feminist spin.

  107. Dalrock says:

    @Jennifer

    The idea that the husband in “Fireproof” followed his wife’s lead still amuses me, and Sherwood Baptist goes strongly against the Hollywood grain; even though they dipped pretty low in the apology scene from Cameron, I’m guessing in general they were more interested in showing the husband’s command to love than to exercise “firm command” and exact “docile obedience”.

    At the most basic level, if you want to know what any story is about look at the primary conflict and how it is resolved. The primary conflict is the wife’s decision to divorce and take up with another man. It is resolved when the husband makes her love him more than she loves the other man. It isn’t resolved when he stops viewing porn. It isn’t resolved when he commits to show his love for his wife by undertaking and completing the “love dare”, or even when she is presented with this information. Even after these two things are accomplished, she still doesn’t love him and is on her way to divorce and (according to Sheila G) biblically sanctioned remarriage. The movie grinds in that he has to make her love him. He has to fight for her heart. They even include this right in the script. Caleb tells the doctor that he is going to fight him for his own wife’s heart. Only when Caleb wins that fight by spending their entire savings exactly the way she demanded does she realize that she loves him and decide to honor her wedding vows. So the last part is a twofer, he submitted to her leadership and by doing so made her love him more than she loved the doctor she was tarting around with. Once he had accomplished those two things, his marriage was “fireproofed”.

    But you already know this, because I’ve explained it in great detail including links to all of the segments via youtube.

  108. slwerner says:

    Dalrock – “Once he had accomplished those two things, his marriage was “fireproofed”. “

    Not trying to disagree with the premise of your comment, and I know you are only stating the intended message of the movie, but…

    The idea that he had managed to “fireproof” his marriage is simply wishful thinking.

    Since he had “proven his love” by caving in to her demands, and demanded nothing in return from her, a precedent was set into their relationship, and he will have to continue to relent to her control over the relationship as she now knows that he fears her leaving him should he ever try to resist her authority.

    He has put out this fire, but the marriage is still anything but “fireproof”. More like “tinder-dry”, I’d say.

    [D: Agreed.]

  109. Joe Sheehy says:

    David you might want to check out this site since you’re a traditional Catholic:

    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=11731&min=0&num=10

  110. K_C says:

    “submission is up to the wife to practice, not for him to extract”

    Yes, I’ve heard this exact statement before, always accompanied by a refusal to submit. I believe it’s (partly) because of a simple lack of understanding of what submission actually is. Some of this has to do with ‘democratization’ and how far removed we are from such concepts. ‘Swearing fealty’ is something that would make most modern individualists head explode.

  111. ruddyturnstone says:

    It’s pointless, Dalrock. They will see what they want to see in the movie, just like they will “interpret” the Bible as they want to. Because they are, at bottom, all feminists, at the very least of the “First generation,” equity feminist school. They simply don’t believe that a wife should submit to her husband, and will twist and turn the simple words of the Bible to mean something different. EG:

    “The idea that the husband in “Fireproof” followed his wife’s lead still amuses me, and Sherwood Baptist goes strongly against the Hollywood grain; even though they dipped pretty low in the apology scene from Cameron, I’m guessing in general they were more interested in showing the husband’s command to love than to exercise “firm command” and exact “docile obedience”.”

    and

    “The husband is never commanded to command; submission is up to the wife to practice, not for him to extract.”

    All the focus is on the husband’s duty to love, which of course, leads to the non biblical notion of “mutual” whatever. There is NO “mutual.” Wives are commanded to submit. Husband to love. Period. Whether the husband loves or not makes no difference in terms of the wife’s obligation to submit. And while it is similarly true that whether the wife submits or not makes no difference in terms of the husband’s obligation to love, that isn’t the point.

    And even this, from a so called traditional, Christian man:

    “All the Pope meant was that a husband’s love for his wife has the character of Christian subjection.”

    which gets it exactly wrong. It is the wife who must submit to the husband, as the Church submits to Christ. THAT is where “Christian subjection” comes in. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church, not submit to her as the church submits to Christ.

    The relevant verses, KJV:

    22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

    23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

    24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

    26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

    27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

    28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

    29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

    30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

    31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

    32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

    33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

    Verse 21, which contains the only mention of anything that could be construed as “mutual” submission or “mutual” anything else, is as follows:

    21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

    But that is the end of a long list of things applicable to Christians in general, not hubands and wives specifically. This is where generlized “Christian subjection” comes in, NOT in the part about what wives and husbands, specifically, are to do. And it ends with a period. Verse 22 starts a new thought, namely, the duty that wives owe their husbands. Verses 22, 23 and 24 say the same thing three different ways, and that thing is that wives should obey their husband as they obey Christ. And verse 24 leaves no “wiggle room” whatsover:

    24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing

    In “EVERY THING” the wife is to be subject to her husband, as much as Christ’s church is to Christ. Nothing about there being “off duty” time, or any right to offer opinions, or “First officers,” or anything of the sort. Obey your husband as would obey God, that is the Biblical injunction.

    Verse 25, which begins the injunction to husbands, is the start of a new sentence. Nothing about the two injunctions are made conditional on the fulfillment of the other. Only at the end, in Verse 33, are the two commands ever mentioned together, and even there they are not made conditional upon each other.

    Getting back to the movie. Sure, one could read it as the movie makers simply being “more interested” in dealing with the husband’s obligation to love than with the wife’s obligation to obey, but that only pushes the question back another level. Why that focus? Why be “more interested” in the one than the other? But even that understates it, because there appears to be no interest whatsoever in exploring the wife’s duty to submit, and collosal, overwhelming interest in the husband’s duty to love. Bland statements to the effect of “well, that’s the story he chose to tell, you want him to have written a different story” don’t cut it. Making one movie rather than another is a choice, and there has be some reason for that choice, And the obvious reason is that the movie makers don’t really buy the notion that the woman owes her husband obediance. If she did, the conflict would never have arissen in the first place. As for who is leading who, Dalrock makes it perfectly clear that the husband, beyond doing everything else in his power to show his love for his wife, finally let’s her have her way. He does even more. He has to not only love her (which is all that the Bible commands), but he has an obligation to get her to love him back.

    But this completely subverts the plain meaning of the Biblical text, even including the part that is applicable to the husband. The husband is to love the wife as Christ loves the church, as he loves his body, himself, and so on. Well, love, in that context, doesn’t simply mean acquiescence. Parents love their children, but that doesn’t mean they simply do everything their children want, give them anything they want, etc. Far from it. God, in relation to his church, is, presumably, more like a parent to a child than that of a humble suitor to a high born lady fair. His “love” for the church is not of the order of “tell me what to do and, even if I think it is wrong, or unfair, I’ll do it anyway.” No, it’s more like “I know what’s best for you and want what’s best for you, so even though you don’t want to take your medicine, you have to anyway.” Similarly, the part about the husband loving his wife as he loves himself and his body does not mean that he just does whatever she says. Again, far from it. If you really love yourself and your body (in a good, non narcisstic way), then you want what’s best for your life and your health, not simply to satisfy all desires, no matter how strong. You may want to get falling down drunk rather than go to work, you may want to eat nine thousand calories a day, but you know doing those things will hurt you, so, if you really love yourself, and your body, you won’t do them. Same thing with one’s wife. She may want x,y, and z, but that doesn’t you have to give them to her or else you don’t love her.

    And yet, in this movie and elsewhere, this is what you will hear women, including so called Christion women, constantly say…”well, he’s her husband, if he loves her, why doesn’t he do what she wants?” Love becomes obediance, somehow. And the person who, at least to Christians anyway, is actually commanded to obey, doesn’t have to. And no woman, Christian or otherwise, will say, “well, she’s his husband, so why doesn’t she do what he wants?” Love, obediance? He gets neither. She gets both. That’s your “mutuality!”

  112. Joe Blow says:

    OT, but I “Manned Up” today and opened a door at work for a female colleague, an attorney I don’t know well, who is probably in her mid-50s. She doesn’t walk so well, probably a combination of arthritis and 30 extra pounds and it seemed like it’d be a kind thing to swing open this heavy-ass glass door for her. Turns out, I got the nastiest look from her, just icy, as if I’d mutilated an animal, exposed myself and spilt a wine cooler on her all at once. At that moment I decided that maybe it’s not about being chivalrous, maybe it’s about sticking my finger in her eye and fighting back against her stupid second gen feminism and insulting it any way I can get away with. Not like I would do this expecting courtesy or to be thought well of in return, no, it would solely be to irritate people like her. And boy, did she ever look offended.

    BTW, her practice area… wait for it… employment discrimination law. Did I really need to tell you that?

  113. Eric says:

    Dalrock:
    A lot of those so-called conspiracy theories (e.g., the lizard men, the aliens, &c) are likely intentionally fanned by real conspirators to discredit anyone who accuses them and divert attention away from their real objectives. Anyone who reads history sees that conspiracies have been ongoing ever since the days of Cataline, and even before. I think the same is true with these Mayan Calendar and other apocalyptic scenarios— people who actually intend to subjugate us economically and politically are using these stories as cover.

    The Marxists—like today’s feminists—don’t even hide their actual intentions. They are plain for anybody to read.

  114. Ruddyturnstone

    The mutual subjection is the Christian ideal, expressed in the previous verses. In marriage this takes the form of Christlike love by the husband, obedience and respect from the wife. The pope never said that wives are not to obey their husbands or that husbands are to obey wives. The wife should obey the husband in all things and show respect. The husband is to be prepared to give up his life for his wife. His wife, that is, not some little pro-abort whore stranger.

    Joe, thanks. That is a good link. I attend both Latin and English masses. The Latin masses are said by FSSP priests. I know some SSPX people, but I am not one myself.

    Free advice for my Protestant friends. Dump the female pastors and pundits like Sheila Gregoire.

  115. Ruddyturnstone, I know the argument that the mutual subjection verses refer to Christians in general. Robert Sungenis makes the same point in his exegesis, ad nauseam. The thing is that the pope says the principle also applies in marriage. It is a reasonable extrapolation, and the sacrificial nature of the husband’s Christlike love is consistent with the principle. But of course none of this negates the wife’s duty to obey and show respect, something modern Christian wives seem to have particular trouble with.

  116. Joe Sheehy says:

    David, I’m going to post the relevant passage. I’ve already stated my opinion, but this way the readers can judge for themselves:

    The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

    In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is “old”: what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

    The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

  117. Eric says:

    PM/Anti-Feminist Tech:
    That’s a fairly good analysis. There is a distinction between social engineering and civilizing behavior. The first has no social utility (except what benefits the engineers); while the second aims at benefitting mankind (because it is based on broad, generally-agreed upon human opinions). Social engineering can only occur in cultures where the general mental and intellectual capacity of people has been weakened (or the will to resist sufficiently suppressed) to bring it about.

    The commentor who mentioned television and Hollywood is partially correct too, in the same regard. In that case, mass media can spread the dumbing-down like a virus. Look how the Nazis were able to employ radio and cinema to barbarize an entire nation during the 1930s.

    That’s basically what social engineering amounts to: to condition a people mentally to go counter to civilisation and their own natural instincts. You see how feminism has done the same thing: women today believe that men are unnecessary for themselves or children; that abortion is a right while motherhood is a burden imposed on them by nature; and that dominating men is the way to maintain a relationship; &c., &c.

    Nature will always have it’s course, though, and all these social engineering schemes end in disaster and feminism will be no different. Look at all the men who are MGTOW or raising families with non-feminist, foreign women, for example. Our culture embraced feminism; imposed it on the populace, and is now dying out by sheer attrition. Census figures show that white Americans are a plurality now and on track to become a minority within a few decades.

  118. Joe Sheehy says:

    I cut off the most important part:

    “All the reasons in favour of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both “out of reverence for Christ”.

  119. Joe, I have read and pondered those words at great length. First thing, the pope is saying that the break with the past was in the New Testament, not in his own writings. All he is saying is that the husband’s love is a form of Christian subjection. The wife’s subjection is obedience and respect.

    Feminists wet themselves over this teaching. Sorry, ladies, you still have to obey …

    I implore you, Joe. Read the passage dispassionately. It is conformable with traditional teaching. It restates the headship of the husband and says that the wife’s obedience is still to be carried out. The pope was a European diplomat. You have to do a careful reading, not look for feminist sound bites.

  120. I have already said that loving one’s wife does NOT mean doing everything she wants. I just got off the phone, after telling my wife off for changing the password on our computer. I told her not to do that again, “without my permission”. I don’t pander to her.

  121. Joe Sheehy says:

    David, I don’t want to argue about it here, but he talks about freeing the slaves and progress in history in that passage, but not about any previous Catholic authorities. I strongly recommend you visit sites like Tradition in Action and SSPX asia, and read some of the old SSPX materials, you’ll see where men like John Paul II and Benedict XVI are really coming from. It’s hard to face. I know.

  122. Joe, I respect your position. I am not very happy with the teaching. It is unclear, staggeringly inopportune and I think it was a sop to feminists. I don’t like the progress language, or rather rhetoric, either. But I can just reconcile it with Tradition. In the final analysis, Tradition trumps any such low level teaching anyway. Tradition speaks clearly: wives are to obey and respect their husbands.

    I moved from a sort of neo-con position to Traditionalism about ten years ago. I have moved a bit back to the Neo-Con position of late, for the practical reason that my autistic son copes better with English masses. There is an SSPX chapel in a town about 100 miles away. I could attend (Australians don’t take 100 miles too seriously), but I feel happier in the mainstream church,

    By the way, I don’t think Benedict pedestalises women like JPII did.

  123. As Zen Priest (Zed) pointed out elsewhere, it doesn’t really matter what traditionalist pocket you want to hide yourself in – Orthodox Church, Traditional Catholicism, fundamentalist Protestantism. The brutal reality is that the system is feminist, and all he-man, head-of-their-wife, patriarchal husbands act so only at their wives’ sufferance.

    The neo-patriarchal man is just another flavor on the man buffet that men are required to offer up to women.

  124. You obviously dont understand social engineering, or how society runs …

    I understand that a whole lot better than you do.

    Ever hear of market research, demographics, biometrics, neuromarketing, behavioural science, sociobiology, the list is endless

    Yes, I have heard of those things, and I guarantee I have much more knowledge and experience with them than you do. For starters, I know that several of those things like biometrics aren’t social engineering. People in the rest of those fields understand the reality of black swan events so even they don’t claim to have the powers you ascribe to them.

    lol PMAFT do you really think these fashions & trends, as well as feminism happen by mistake or chance?

    Yes, I do, and you better hope I’m right. What you have told me is that the conspiracy behind feminism has perfect knowledge of the future. This means two things. First, you can’t beat them since they will predict your every move before you conceive of it. Second, they knew that the MRM would be created eventually and allowed it to form. That means that the MRM is working for their goals, and you are a dupe who is unknowingly working for them. In other words, you’re wasting your time and everyone else’s time here because you will never defeat feminism.

    I prefer to live in a world where victory over feminism is possible.

  125. MCB

    Men have always been targetted by laws. It used to be Breach of Promise, Disturbing the Peace, and so in. Now it is something else. Being a man is risky. You might as well be a patriarch. It is fun and you are no more likely to get into trouble. My wife likes to say that it is the nice girls who get into trouble. Same applies to Nice Guys.

  126. Look how the Nazis were able to employ radio and cinema to barbarize an entire nation during the 1930s.

    Yes, but the Nazis weren’t as successful with that as you think. In post WWI Germany, the economy was in a major depression which allowed Hitler to do things like have massive banquets which gave free food to anyone who was a member of the Nazi party. Lots of people were out of work and uncertain where their next meal was coming from so this worked very well. They were convinced or engineered into the Nazi POV. They traded their support for free food. That’s not social engineering. There’s a reason the Nazis came to power during a depression, and not when the German economy was wonderful.

  127. flyfreshandyoung says:

    Good grief. Just visited over there to check out deti’s thread.

    Deti- You have the patience of a saint.

    I don’t know how you can put up with it. Every time she responds, she’s like well yeah I agree with you, BUT…… and then disagrees with about everything you say, throwing in random logical fallacies as she goes.

    It’s like hitting your head on a brick wall over and over again

  128. ruddyturnstone says:

    David:

    If the Pope said what you claims he said, he is simply pandering to feminism. Verse 21 commands Christians to submit “one to another.” What this might mean in practice is hard to say, because if one Christian submits to another, who is likewise bound to submit to him, confusion and anarchy would be the result. Perhaps what is really means is simply.that Christians should submit to proper Christian authority (although that’s not what it seems to say). Another possibility is that the first twenty one verses are aimed only at Christian men..for example…”5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” Obviously, a woman cannot be a covetous “man” and is highly unlikely to be a “whoremonger.” This makes some sense, because, Christianity being a patriarchal religion, general language in its holy book can be seemed as aimed at men. When women are to be dealt with, they are dealt with explicitly and separately. In other words, the first part of the chapter deals with the “standard” Christian, ie men, and the rest of the chapter deals with the special relationship between wives and husbands.

    But, in any event, there is no doubt whatsover about the meaning of the rest of the chapter…wives are to obey and hubands are to love. There is no basis whatsoever for any notion of “mutual” submission. That is not only NOT a “reasonable extrapolation,” but it is a direct contradiction of the plain words of the text. And, again, “love” and even “sacrifice” are NOT the same thing as subjection. Christ loves the Church, and sacrificed for the Church, but He is not “subject” to the Church. Indeed, the Church is subject to him. And the husband is explicitly compared to Christ and the wife to the Church. Christ loves the church, he doesn’t obey it.

    “The pope was a European diplomat”

    Exactly, and that is the problem with his exegesis, as you present it. It’s too “diplomatic,” It gives a little something to everyone and papers over an important distinction.

    Joe Sheehy:

    I think your interpretation has it exactly backward. You are seeing verse 21 as modifying or applying to what follows (verses 22 to 33). But look at the chaper as a whole. The first twenty one verses are directed at Christians in general.. what they should do and how they should interact. That all ends in verse twenty one, with the admonition that they should submit one to another. All of it is addressed to the followers of God, or “dear children” or whatever. Nothing about husbands and wives, nothing about the special rules of marital relations. When the duties of wives and husbands ARE to be addressed, those groups are mentioned specifically. In the Catholc version…”22 Wives should…, 25 Husbands should…”

    “Mutual subjection” is simply what passes minimum muster for the First Generation, equity feminists that the Pope, and most other Christian leaders, I reckon, are aiming to please, or at least appease. The feminists want, on paper, for marriage to be like a fifty fifty business partnership, where both partners are equally empowered but also equally “subject” to the other. A situation in which no big decision can be made other than unanimously, which encourages consensus building and compromise. (Of course, in reality, most feminsts, and most women in general, actually want the wife to be in charge, but, on paper they’ll settle for formal equality). Verse twenty one serves to give cover to these vacilating leaders. “See, it says all Christians are to be subject to each other, well, that must apply to husband and wife too.” Even though the very next verses make it crystal clear that, in marriage, it is the wife and only the wife who is to submit.

  129. ruddytunstone says:

    In addition, a specific injunction, like the one in verses twenty two through twenty four, should have precedence over a general injunction, like the one in verse twenty one. Verse twenty one is, apparently, aimed at all Christians, verses twenty two through twenty four is aimed specifically at wives. Moreover, the manner of the subjection is not specified at all in verse twenty one, but, in verses twenty two through twenty four, it is quite explicitly, emphatically and repeatedly specified…to wit, the wife is to obey the husband as the church obey Christ, the husband is to be her “head” as Christ is the head of the Church, and she is to subject to him (again, like the Church to Christ), in “every thing.”

  130. Joe Sheehy says:

    ? My interpretation of what John Paul II wrote? Or my interpretation of Paul? My interpretation is that John Paul II is departing from the clear meaning of St. Paul.

    Because I never commented on St. Paul. What I did do was quote from Benedict XVI’s tract.

  131. Joe Sheehy says:

    I mean from John Paul II’s letter mulieris dignitatem. Ruddy, I think you’re right, I don’t know how you’re disagreeing with me.

  132. Well, I won’t add to what I have said, except to say that feminists and others may read Mulieris like that, but I believe they are wrong. One last point. I am no feminist, but it is a bit idolatrous to argue that wives obey their husbands in exactly the same way as Christ. We must use our minds and make nuanced distinctions, else we are no better than the feminists.

    I won’t comment further. I have presented my points. I certainly think there is nothing in any Catholic teaching that supports the egalitarian model for marriage. I don’t believe the Church had it wrong for nearly 2000 years. Nor do I believe JPII was that stupid.

  133. Mark says:

    Joe Blow,

    You should make sure to hold the next door open for her as well. And the next, and the next . . . :)

  134. Anonymous says:

    More evidence that people suck…

    “Woman Dumps Boyfriend With Cancer But Still Wants His Super Bowl Tickets,” by Melissa Knowles, Trending Now, 30 Jan 2012
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/woman-dumps-boyfriend-cancer-still-wants-super-bowl-171734088.html

    Hey, how’s that sense of entitlement workin’ for ya, babe?

  135. ray says:

    jp II was the most feminist pope in the history of the catholic church, and his crap about “mutual submission” is direct disobedience to scrpture in service of worldly expedience, and an open invitation for women to rebel (which, as the decades after jp II have shown, they have done, and do still)

    benedict is little better, and probably much worse — jp II after all was v romantic, and possibly just deceived

    i like the loyalty of catholics, esp in the face of an increasingly pagan world, but that loyalty is misplaced in popes who claim infallibility, but instead preach scriptural error, and who encourage and deepen mariolatry

    i was raised catholic, but will have nothing to do with a “church” that supports feminism/collective female power and preaches that “mary” is the co-Redeemer with Christ, a mortal woman to whom i am directed to pray no less

    all so the old ladies and empowered emilys can believe that women have a “share” of the Godhood

    eve-ill

    correct your churches, but if they wont stop their worldly politicking and fem-idolatries, separate out and fellowship with co-escapees

  136. Mulieris did not purport to be an infallible statement. The co-redemptrix doctrine has not been defined and does not put Our Lady on the same level as Christ anyway.

    JPII’s only infallible statement was that women can never be priests. Deo Gratias.

  137. pukeko60 says:

    David Said JPII’s only infallible statement was that women can never be priests. Deo Gratias..
    If you have a theology of constansubstiation or transubstantiation then the gender of the celebrant has liturgical significance. This used to be considered so obvious that to defend it was to indicate that you had moved in your scholaticism beyound Duns Scotus to being a Dunce.

    If you are Catholic, priests have to be male, and have certain moral qualities. Obviously.
    But if you are NOT catholic, then Pauls teaching about good order in the church is still wise. And he limited public teaching by women… yet encouraged them to teach each other.

    That does seem (like most old teaching) to work. So John Paul did a good thing by punting the (dropkick) feminist demand for female celebrants into touch.

  138. @DC

    JPII said that? Glory be.
    I tell people that the Orthodox Church will have female clergy fifteen minutes after the heat death of the Universe.
    Let women be like Our Lady. That is a high enough calling.

  139. Opus says:

    I was once asked (to my surprise and horror) on a certain site whether my Name was a way of implying that I was a member of Opus Dei, and given the way this thread is going, apart from confirming Godwin’s Law – always a bad sign – I feel it wise for me to make clear that I am not a representative of the Catholic tendency. ‘Shakespeare, Milton and the Bible’ – that’s as religious as I get.

  140. Suz says:

    “correct your churches, but if they wont stop their worldly politicking and fem-idolatries, separate out and fellowship with co-escapees”

    Amen.

  141. ruddyturnstone says:

    Joe, you’re right. We are in agreement. My bad for saying otherwise.

    David:

    “One last point. I am no feminist, but it is a bit idolatrous to argue that wives obey their husbands in exactly the same way as Christ.”

    Even though that is “exactly” what the Bible says they should do? Sure you;re “no” feminist?

    “We must use our minds and make nuanced distinctions, else we are no better than the feminists”

    Rather, you are on the road to sugar coating what the Bible actually says about wives, much like the feminists.

    “I certainly think there is nothing in any Catholic teaching that supports the egalitarian model for marriage”

    Er, “mutual submisssion?” Sure sounds like egalitarianism?

    “Nor do I believe JPII was that stupid.”

    Not stupid at all. As you say, these are smart, well educated guys. Careful users of language, skilled at diplomacy and so on. JPII gave some ground to the feminsts, probably as a tactical move. Give them a little some something, with the language of mutual submission, and give the traditionalists something too, by also claiming to support the wife’s obediance. Everyone can point to something they like, while nobody is totally satisfied. Typical bureacratic politics.

    Funny too, David, how, in a previous thread, you said the Catholic Church did NOT sugar coat Ephesians 5. Now we see that the Pope has done exactly that.

  142. Wow

    White Knights have jousted of the rest of the knights

  143. Brendan says:

    And the bottom line is that for many homeschooling merges with the college carousel track. … Today the protective impulse has been corrupted by fathers deluding themselves as to their daughters natural behavior and to bullying easy target like: sincere betas.

    I think it’s that the “protective impulse” has morphed and adapted to current circumstances. In earlier days, marrying off a daughter “well” was hoped to protect her from “ending up” with a less suitable mate, and perhaps less suitable long-term economic circumstances in turn. Today, that protective impulse is tuned towards facilitating that the daughter have an independent financial base of her own to protect her from being dependent on any one man, given that the future is unknown. This is one of the main reasons why you see fathers very strongly discouraging their daughters from marrying/settling down before at least the late 20s — they are trying to protect them from adversity, and, to these men, this is what protecting their daughters looks like.

    The fathers clearly aren’t openly intending their daughters to either ride the carousel or become carousel watchers, but at the same time they don’t ask too many questions, and are much less concerned about this than they are about anything that would derail the financial independence track goal they have in mind.

    The larger point is this: everyone is a feminist, at least in the practical sense. That is, because our society is 100% shot through with feminist ideas, values and norms, everyone must embrace it to some degree upon penalty of extreme social isolation and ostracism. This is the case even in very traditional venues. The only difference is “where the tide stops”. In a traditional venue, the tide goes half way up the beach, while in a more radical/progressive venue, the tide is lapping up against the boardwalk, but either way, feminism is the rule. The traditionalist women don’t like the label (well, plenty of non-traditionalist women don’t like the label, either, to be quite honest), because it is associated with bra-burning, man-hating cartoon-like women from the 60s and 70s, but as a practical matter, almost every single one of these women embraces much of what the feminist movement sought to achieve. The same holds true for many men, even though men tend to be more skeptical of some of feminism, I think, as almost all of them (other than the alpha males) have not been the direct beneficiaries of feminism. But, and this is the key point, even for men who do not believe in feminism, the world requires you to act as if you do. This is the same in the traditionalist venues as it is in the progressive ones — the main difference is the rhetoric and tone.

    The churches are hopelessly feminist because the churches are hopelessly feminine. This is the case even in traditional churches, because only a tiny sliver of people live in a substantial enough isolation from the culture at large to avoid its influence to some degree, and that culture is 100% thoroughly feminist. It’s so thoroughly feminist that describing it as feminist almost seems inappropriate or passe. And this is also the culture in the churches. Yes, I know we will all say “not my church… my church is traditionalist and blah blah blah”. I say the same thing. But I would bet you a million dollars that lodged in the heads of the majority if not the utter vast majority of the women in these churches (and probably a goodly number of the men) are ingrained feminist ideas that are virtually impossible to dislodge because they seem as obviously true as the process of how to start the car’s ignition.

    [D: Great point.]

  144. Rmaxd says:

    @Brendan

    Well put Brendan, now try telling those feminist stayathome moms theyre not traditional …

  145. Rmaxd says:

    @PMAFT

    Since you incorrectly think you know more about Conspiracy theory & social engineering then me, why dont you tell us what exactly is it you know about social engineering?

    Ive already stated social engineering is a technocratic biometric simulative projection, feel free to add your misinformed conjecture to the issue …

    We are all waiting …

    Not expecting much from somebody who buys into mainstream propoganda of conspiracy theory, & discounts something like game,or even worse novy

  146. Carnivore says:

    As you say, these are smart, well educated guys. Careful users of language, skilled at diplomacy and so on. JPII gave some ground to the feminsts, probably as a tactical move. Give them a little some something, with the language of mutual submission, and give the traditionalists something too, by also claiming to support the wife’s obediance. Everyone can point to something they like, while nobody is totally satisfied. Typical bureacratic politics.

    It’s actually more than that. This is a technique that has been purposely used since Vatican II. Instead of being explicit, clear and to the point, they will use extended, fuzzy verbiage which is open to interpretation and requires continued efforts to “reconcile” the pronouncement with Tradition. All the while the Catholics in the pews continue to see the march towards Modernism and away from Tradition.

    But I would bet you a million dollars that lodged in the heads of the majority if not the utter vast majority of the women in these churches (and probably a goodly number of the men) are ingrained feminist ideas that are virtually impossible to dislodge because they seem as obviously true as the process of how to start the car’s ignition.

    Absolutely. If I discuss the topic after Mass with others in the congregation, they are absolutely shocked to discover what the Catholic position is regarding the relationship between a husband and wife. And it’s no surprise why. Limiting reading to republished books from the 1950′s helps only a little. Books published pre-WW II are good; pre-WW I is even better.

  147. Anonymous Reader says:

    I had a long and involved posting in the works, but Brendan has just written most of it above. There is one thing I can add.

    Since we are all immersed in feminism to some degree or other, it becomes clear that any widely held opinion likely will be feminist to some degree or other. Examples abound. It seems to be a widely held opinion in a lot of churches that there’s nothing wrong with women preachers. It seems to be a widely held opinion even among “traditionalists”, “conservatives”, “social conservatives”, etc. that women should be free to choose to work for money or not as they prefer, while men must do so. It’s a widely held opinion that children “belong with their mother” in a whole lot of situations. And it’s still widely held that women are naturally monogamous, moral, people while men are just animalistic. We can all produce our favorite examples.

    Therefore any piece of the “popular wisdom” must be examined for feminist notions. Popular wisdom must be assumed feminist until proven otherwise, the same for “common knowledge”. But wait, it may be worse. It could well be that anyone who isn’t explicitly anti feminist is unconsciously feminist, to some degree or other because we’re all surrounded by these ideals. That in turn suggests that any group of people that is not explicitly anti-feminist is likely to become feminized to some degree, because, like the old TV commercial said, “Madge, you’re soaking in it”.

    One of the best ways to subvert this is with Game. That is because Game demonstrates, in very personal ways, just how different men and women are pyschologically. And because Game provides rewards to the man who practices it, even in LTR / marriage, it is self reinforcing. A man can’t implement Game and still pedestalize women, and the dissonance between Game principles and premises of feminism is going to have an effect sooner or later. Most men won’t learn the whole panoply of Game, but I see men under 30 who are showing signs of basic understanding of Game every day. I suspect that while brain research may eventually influence the cognitive elites, the Escoffiers of the world, it’s Game that is going to erode the support out from under feminism.

    We’ll know that feminism is crumbling when TV sitcoms begin to reflect the realities of Game.

  148. Dalrock says:

    Outstanding comment Anon Reader.

  149. Brendan says:

    As you say, these are smart, well educated guys. Careful users of language, skilled at diplomacy and so on. JPII gave some ground to the feminsts, probably as a tactical move. Give them a little some something, with the language of mutual submission, and give the traditionalists something too, by also claiming to support the wife’s obediance. Everyone can point to something they like, while nobody is totally satisfied. Typical bureacratic politics.

    It’s actually more than that. This is a technique that has been purposely used since Vatican II. Instead of being explicit, clear and to the point, they will use extended, fuzzy verbiage which is open to interpretation and requires continued efforts to “reconcile” the pronouncement with Tradition. All the while the Catholics in the pews continue to see the march towards Modernism and away from Tradition.

    While undoubtedly this is true, it’s hard for me to tell exactly where JPII stood on these issues, really. MD was written from a very “split the baby” technique, I think, throwing the feminists (whom he knew were dominant in most first world Catholic parishes) a bone while also throwing one to traditional teaching. A vexing problem in contemporary first-world Catholicism is the ever increasing influence of feminism in the Church. Some seem to think that it isn’t as much of an issue because the priesthood, still, remains restricted to men. But this is hogwash when the life of most actual Catholic parishes is examined in any detail. Apart from the priesthood (which is, of course, incessantly complained about as sexist and misogynistic and a “Vatican III’ openly hoped for — not kidding here — by priests themselves during homilies), the thing is just as thoroughly feminized as most of Protestantism is, and more so than much of Evangelical Protestantism is currently. The Vatican knows this, the Bishops know it. But the problem is that they don’t know what to do about it. The men have left the building to a large degree — Leon Podles was writing his book mainly from the perspective of being a lifelong Catholic, even though he was also addressing what was happening in American Protestantism as well. So, the parishes become increasingly dominated by women in all capacities other than the priests themselves, who are similarly dwindling in number in terms of vocations. The leadership really doesn’t know what to do, because it doesn’t want to alienate these women — it sees them as the main means of keeping the faith alive — yet at the same time struggles mightily with retaining men. So they try to split the baby, which in effect pacifies the current situation and helps keep it moving down the path it was already on to begin with.

    I have met innumerable formerly Catholic men who have decamped for elsewhere. In my own personal case, most of them were coming East, but in more recent years I’ve met others who left for Evangelicalism. Of course there are also countless formerly Catholic men and women alike who have left for liberal mainline Protestantism due to politics, or disagreements about church teaching on sex, or, for the women, wanting to be ordained (you’ll find quite a few women who grew up Catholic among the clergy of the Episcopalians, for example). So the Catholic hierarchy kind of has it coming and going in the first world churches. The writing appears to be on the wall for some kind of conflict between the shrinking and seemingly inevitably progressive/liberal/feminist-inclined first world Catholic Church, on the one hand, and the fast-growing third-world Catholic Church, on the other. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

    Therefore any piece of the “popular wisdom” must be examined for feminist notions. Popular wisdom must be assumed feminist until proven otherwise, the same for “common knowledge”. But wait, it may be worse. It could well be that anyone who isn’t explicitly anti feminist is unconsciously feminist, to some degree or other because we’re all surrounded by these ideals. That in turn suggests that any group of people that is not explicitly anti-feminist is likely to become feminized to some degree, because, like the old TV commercial said, “Madge, you’re soaking in it”.

    One of the best ways to subvert this is with Game. That is because Game demonstrates, in very personal ways, just how different men and women are pyschologically. And because Game provides rewards to the man who practices it, even in LTR / marriage, it is self reinforcing. A man can’t implement Game and still pedestalize women, and the dissonance between Game principles and premises of feminism is going to have an effect sooner or later. Most men won’t learn the whole panoply of Game, but I see men under 30 who are showing signs of basic understanding of Game every day. I suspect that while brain research may eventually influence the cognitive elites, the Escoffiers of the world, it’s Game that is going to erode the support out from under feminism.

    I agree generally that the mindset of Game is kind of a universal acid in terms of dismantling the ill-effects of feminist-inspired (wittingly or not) thinking in the heads of men. I am unsure of how much it will spread and how quickly, but I do agree about the impact.

  150. Samuel says:

    Game itself reveals the lie that feminism is.

  151. Joe Blow says:

    @ Mark – I think I’m going to revert to Educated Southern Accent and start calling her “Ma’am” when I see her now too, now that it’s clear that common courtesy extended by a male is anathema to her. Talk about your environment of sexual harassment.

    @ Brendan – it’s not really just feminism that plagues the Catholic Church, it’s an influx of mush-headed left liberalism (the same influx wrecking so many of our institutions) and too much of a willingness to try to be worldly and soft in order to make itself attractive to secularists. Many bishops have not figured out that not only does the soft approach alienate believers, but it isn’t going to win over the lefty non-believers, who still think believers are morons but now also thinks they’re meek, sheepish believers. I’m fortunate to have found a parish that is obedient to traditional church teaching. It’s not a stereotypical frozen-in-the-forties sort of church, there are many charitable and spiritual ministries going on, but the padres are all followers of The Law. We also have a nice Holy Name Society with maybe 50 men in it. And we’re also getting a lot of vocations. Firm adherence to the traditional faith + concerted effort to conduct charitable ministry = vibrant faith community with happy men and women in it. Go figure. Some of this stems from the local community, which is heavy with military folks, but some of it comes from our Archbishops, who have been traditionalists and strong. As for the saps – well, I’m hoping that Obama’s HHS regulations forcing the church to either drop health coverage or provide abortifacients and other birth control, serves as a wakeup call. I’m not optimistic but clearly targeted persecution ought to be met with a strong reaffirmation of the faith, rather than a retreat.

  152. greenlander says:

    @Brandon

    The larger point is this: everyone is a feminist, at least in the practical sense. That is, because our society is 100% shot through with feminist ideas, values and norms, everyone must embrace it to some degree upon penalty of extreme social isolation and ostracism.

    Yes, exactly.

    +1 Brandon

  153. Brendan says:

    As for the saps – well, I’m hoping that Obama’s HHS regulations forcing the church to either drop health coverage or provide abortifacients and other birth control, serves as a wakeup call. I’m not optimistic but clearly targeted persecution ought to be met with a strong reaffirmation of the faith, rather than a retreat.

    My guess is that you’re going to see a split by dioceses, perhaps, at least at first, with some dropping the coverage and others going along to get along. In the ones that opt to drop the coverage (or order Catholic institutions to do so where they are not directly diocesan-controlled), I expect we will see some of the non-diocesan ones “going their own way” and keeping the coverage. Nevertheless, I don’t think this is going to cost Obama probably more than he had wagered, for the benefit of throwing his own left/feminist base a tasty bone (they pretty much loathe the Catholic Church anyway).

  154. TFH says:

    A gentleman has just spend 8 days translating The Misandry Bubble into Spanish :

    http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html?cid=6a00d83452455969e20168e6513ce5970c#comment-6a00d83452455969e20168e6513ce5970c

    Some people are pretty dedicated to the cause.

    He could have used Google translate, I suppose, but it might not have been exact.

  155. Carnivore says:

    The Vatican knows this, the Bishops know it. But the problem is that they don’t know what to do about it.

    @Brendan – the assumption you are making is that they want to do something about it. I’m convinced a significant number of the hierarchy sees the current situation as right on track to yet more “progress” in the future.

  156. Carnivore says:

    The “insurance paid birth control” issue simply highlights the hypocrisy of the RC hierarchy:
    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=201281
    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/selective-and-belated-protest.html

  157. ray says:

    agree Brendan, feminism/woman’s way permeates and dominates ALL the mainstream assumptions of western cultures, secular and “religious”

    it’s so deep into peoples’ heads that its demands and premises arent even questioned (e.g., the “historical oppression of women” which pope benedict condemned TWICE a couple years ago. . . on GOOD FRIDAY no less

    feminism IS the air we breathe, and the common knowledge/unconscious assumptons our nations make concerning religion, law, economics, marriage, politics, etc are ALL feminist — that has been the “norm” for many decades now

    “The larger point is this: everyone is a feminist, at least in the practical sense. That is, because our society is 100% shot through with feminist ideas, values and norms, everyone must embrace it to some degree upon penalty of extreme social isolation and ostracism. This is the case even in very traditional venues”

    well jesus said the world will persecute you like they persecuted him — if you’re dong the right thing

    many, perhaps most, of the OT prophets were ostracised and extremely isolated socially — baptist john’s a good example

    now you know why, for babylon only appears to be new

    many of the OT prophets (as well of course as christ thru patmos john) warn the faithful against association with “babylon,” and when they counsel “coming out of her” they dont mean moving to another country lol

    they mean stopping support of the feminist/matriarchal institutions and systems that rule our second and Great (global) Babylon

    the churches tried to pacify the collective power of women by various means (female rabbis and pastors, mary as co-redeemer etc) and they have been over-run by the matriarchy, even while their congregants pretend anti-feminism (sheila gregoire, elizabeth prata etc)

    “conservative” men, in particular, dont wanna hear that — they want to feed from the money-trough of feminism/babylon, to support its “laws” and cultural elements; they want their comfortable lives to continue while pretending to themselves that theyre “nibbling away” at the gynogulag

    “I suspect that while brain research may eventually influence the cognitive elites, the Escoffiers of the world, it’s Game that is going to erode the support out from under feminism”

    never happen, thats just delusion

    Game is a moneymaking gimmick, a secular version of Vatican II — the male re-makes himself in the image of what the female desires/responds to psycho-sexually; the Church re-makes itself to suit the “progressiveness” of secular society (feminism)

    thats not coming out of Babylon, it’s conforming to babalon, with a system that appeals to the younger generation b/c they can claim it as their “own”

    Game is a false hope, as false a hope as the catholics and their Blessed Virgin Redeemer who “mediates between humanity and God”

  158. TFH says:

    feminism IS the air we breathe, and the common knowledge/unconscious assumptons our nations make concerning religion, law, economics, marriage, politics, etc are ALL feminist — that has been the “norm” for many decades now

    This is directly correlated to how long a place has been a democracy, and how prosperous it is.

    A country that scores high on both prosperity AND duration of democracy (i.e. female suffrage) will indicate exactly the extent of misandry.

    That is why democracy has a life-cycle. Misandry follows democracy as surely as grey hair follows youth. The reason for this is that women view the role of government very differently from men.

  159. Joe Sheehy says:

    I think that women subconsciously, even if they claim to believe in monogamy, are very defensive about anything pertaining what I would call “carousel access.” For example, you can have a rather homely married woman who was never invited to high school house parties defend them. Defend underage coed drinking parties, so long as they’re “well-supervised.” And this from a woman who really is a trad – I mean, as far as her conscious mind goes she wants to be an authentic trad. The rationalization hamster can always find an excuse for rationalizing carousel access. And this is why the idea of “having your whole life in front of you” – “going to college” – “moving to the big city” and having high school drinking parties and “dances” (which I dare say are these days without any of the protections that used to exist) – no matter how far removed from old social standards these ideas are, are fiercely defended by women, even those who are believing religious.

  160. Joe Sheehy says:

    The patriachal idea that the daughter needs to be preserved for her husband and married early enough lest she is ruined or becomes a spinster is just not something most “religious” women are going to accept. And paternal “protectiveness” has long ceased to perform any positive role. Once the girl is 18 and is in college, all bets are off. What the father can do is sabotage any honest intentions. He can’t do a thing against the carousel cads. But delude himself.

  161. Rmaxd says:

    Oh great the game is for pussy beggars line gets rolled out …

    The posts before you were correct ray, Game & its emphasis on being alpha & dominant is the real fight against feminism

    The MRAs will change the political field, but the real battle, the real war is in transforming the betas, the drones into something more useful then grinding away as slaves for their behemoth wives & government

    Game is already huge, its a massive movement operating on a global scale, & face facts its going to get bigger, much bigger

    MRA is a political movement, first & foremost, game is a transformative movement, & nothing has more influence & power then a transformative movement on a social scale

    Your children will learn game first & then tap into the mra movement, if they ever need to

    Game will always be more pervasive as it grows, its already the most pervasive in the manosphere, wherever women are discussed you will always have game theory & game techniques discussed in those posts. its that pervasive

  162. ybm says:

    Here’s the problem I have with game and I’ll make it as clear as I can: I have heard hundreds of different things called game from a hundred different people. Strauss, Mystery and DeAngelo have a very different view of game than people like Chateau, Roosh, and Expats do.

    Is game just a set of techniques to get notices?
    Is game a lifestyle like being a S/M person?
    Is game psychology?

    I guess what I have arrived at from going through the PUA->Inner Game->None of the above motions is that game is some amorphous blob of “good feelings” and public speaking techniques. Its nothing new or revolutionary if that is the case. Doesn’t that make ray at least partially true? If its already been tried, isn’t it a false hope?

  163. Anonymous Reader says:

    Game is a moneymaking gimmick, a secular version of Vatican II — the male re-makes himself in the image of what the female desires/responds to psycho-sexually; the Church re-makes itself to suit the “progressiveness” of secular society (feminism)

    You are conflating two different things. Two very different things, in fact.

  164. Rmaxd says:

    @Joe

    Lets face facts, these are the days of the alpha

    Lets face facts, courtship wasnt designed for women, it was designed for betas, to allow them to become infatuated with the girl, to allow them time to fall in love

    Courtship was courtesy & respect for a betas form of sexuality

    Women simply dont have the long term consequences, to know why they keep getting dumped by alphas

    Its because theyre not courting the men, theyre simply not giving the men time to become infatuated with them & fall in love with them

    Dating is simply how well can this guy create gina tingles, & how well can he fuck me

    If women want to combat game, they need to re-learn how to court men, how to give men time to connect with them, how to give them time to grow & form a logical conclusion to form a meaningful relationship

    Without a womans respecting the need for giving a beta time, before sex, she will get pumped & dumped

    That is if she can get off the carousel, & stop humping alphas

  165. Joe Sheehy says:

    Women will adapt to game. And in all likelihood they will become worse rather than better. Most men are not going to master seduction, even if they have the ability and looks to pull it off. And even if they did, what do they necessarily gain? I mean having the values of “Alfie” is not going to give a man what he really wants in life. What is beneficial about game is that it gives you insight into women’s character, something the average man who is invisible to women can’t know. I have 0 game, but I’ve been fat and I’ve been in shape and modestly handsome, and I can tell you that the difference in women’s behavior is extraordinary. They are simply incredibly forward, and it just doesn’t compute with the average man who will never attract that much female attention. The so-called “red-pill” means knowing “the truth” about women, that’s the most valuable part of “game” – and the most valuable part of the MRA is the attitude to “cut one’s losses” – don’t double or nothing with women these days unless you have a death wish. They don’t value male sacrifice at all.

    I don’t want to say “NAWALT” – I think the objection to “NAWALT” is generally valid. What I would say is that women’s psychology has higher and lower aspects. Game can be too pat an explanation for female behavior. Women can love betas, even if 9 times out of 10 they’ll be taken by an alpha first. (at which point their ability to truly love a beta is greatly diminished). In a true patriarchal society, (if you talk to many muslim women you can know what I mean) you can see a different psychology operating – a psychology that reminds you more your mother than today’s drunken “slut-walkers.” Society does make a difference, personality can make a difference, but the most important difference is having the real power to impose moral behavior on women. Trying to take that power for yourself these days means either being willing to die for it or being ruthless and callous. Neither is really a good alternative.

  166. Joe Sheehy says:

    I mean to say, callous and to some extent devious.

  167. TFH says:

    Women will adapt to game.

    No they won’t. They have no clue about how Game even works, and have no ability to distinguish between a natural vs. a person who learned Game competently later in life.

    An absolute certainty is that Game will never stop working.

  168. Joe Sheehy says:

    The movie “The Quiet Man” is a good example. You have John Wayne, a natural alpha, “beta-ized” at least in the eyes of Maureen O’Hara, because he felt guilty for killing a man while boxing.

    Of course, in the movie he drags her for miles with a whole crowd of people watching when he finally fights her brother. That’s the difference between a patriarchy and this society. The man looking to truly “settle down” and have a peaceful existence used to be delegated power by the society to ensure that the woman’s ‘shit tests” wouldn’t fly. Today it’s the exact opposite.

  169. Joe Sheehy says:

    They may not adapt to natural game, to natural alpha, but they will be more and more on guard for the mimicry that “game manuals” are teaching.

  170. TFH says:

    They may not adapt to natural game, to natural alpha, but they will be more and more on guard for the mimicry that “game manuals” are teaching.

    No. There is a greater chance that NIMH will produce an intelligent civilization of rats than women becoming ‘immune’ to Game. This is because there is nothing about Game that needs to be memorized in a cookie-cutter way, there is no deception, and women actually *want* to experience competent Game.

    Joe Sheehy, before you discuss this subject, you need to demonstrate that you know enough about it. So please answer the following two questions :

    1) Define Game for us, in no more than 3 sentences.

    2) Explain why the fundamentals of Game are equally useful for LTRs as in casual dating and even pick-up.
    __________________________________-

    Answer these two questions.

  171. Joe Sheehy says:

    Why don’t you define game for me first. I have my own ideas, I’m not saying they’re good. If I were to ask you to define dance or music, would you be telling me what it is? I will say it’s the art of appearing alpha, of causing women to react to you the way they react to an alpha. Avoiding beta behaviors. Beyond that I don’t claim any special knowledge of it. But I estimate the vast majority of men are never going to become good dancers, good musicians, and the vast majority will never become Don Juans in training. They can know some simple hard and fast rules, and try to apply them (practice), but beyond that, it requires natural ability. That’s what I believe. But I concede ignorance.

  172. ybm says:

    Feminism can be defined, depending on your view as:
    a) Equality between the sexes
    b) Female Supremacy

    What can game be defined as?
    a) Seduction?
    b) Patriachy?
    How can an idea catch on without the simplest version of the idea being delivered easily?

  173. Joe Sheehy says:

    Game is not patriarchy. What patriarchy means is that every man is the “Lord” of his own house. And that is a minimum requirement for any man who wants a woman (who isn’t a very rare exception) to truly be a good wife.

  174. TFH says:

    Why don’t you define game for me first.

    Fail. I posed the question first.

    I will say it’s the art of appearing alpha, of causing women to react to you the way they react to an alpha. Avoiding beta behaviors.

    That is somewhat correct, if insufficiently detailed.

    Most of the points you are making are those made by people who don’t understand Game very well, and have been made countless times before.

    They can know some simple hard and fast rules, and try to apply them (practice), but beyond that, it requires natural ability.

    Becoming even partially competent in Game will propel a man to where he does better than 90% of men.

    And there is zero chance of women ‘adapting to nullify Game’, partly due to the fact that they *love* being the recipients of Game (without knowing it).

  175. Joe Sheehy says:

    I’m guessing that being better than 90% is just not that great unless you can actually get what you want. The problem for men with traditional values is that what they are looking for is scarce and rapidly becoming scarcer. And the worst part is that their supposed traditionalist comrades are pedestalizers and white knights.

  176. Suz says:

    “ybm:
    Is game just a set of techniques to get notices?
    Is game a lifestyle like being a S/M person?
    Is game psychology?”
    Yes. And more. Game has many definitions, but overall it’s a modern term that encompasses all of the biological, anthropological, sociological, and psychological aspects of how male/female human relationships are meant to work. Game, even when it’s practiced with a degree of deceit, is REAL. It’s an expression of genuine masculinity, and it works because most women, underneath their feminist indoctrination, are inherently feminine. Women no longer know how to be genuinely feminine, and game brings out the cavewoman in us. Although some women will fight against it, it will always work on the majority of us.

    That’s my definition – broad, vague and diplomatic ;D

  177. YBM says:

    Broad and vague is an understatement. Broad and vague almost to the point of irrelevance. If something is that broad and undefined, what possible influence in the greater polity could it ever hope to achieve?

    What is its goal?

  178. Rmaxd says:

    @Joe

    What is it, do you think men want?

    Game is first & foremost about inner game, its about erasing the emasculisation of a feminised society

    Its about conditioning a person to push their accepted version of masculinity & confidence outside of a persons comfort zone

    Its about correcting your misconceived idea of how masculine you really need to be

    Learned ruthlessness & extreme confidence are the foundations of masculinity, theyre also the foundation of society

    Without ruthlessness & extreme confidence, a womans hypergamy goes haywire & starts to destroy society

    Surround a woman, with betas & she will turn into an insatiable slut, surround her with confident alphas & their masculinity stabilises the woman

    Men are meant to be the pillagers of women, its what they respond to & expect from a man

    Its what stabilises a woman

    So what is it exactly do you think men want?

    Without game, theres no ability for a beta to become alpha

    Without learned alpha behaviours, there is no way to keep a womans hypergamy stable

    A unstable hypergamous society filled with betas leads to what we have today, the carousel

    What is it exactly do you think men want?

    Everything of the above …

  179. Sasha says:

    YBM,

    The primary goal of the game is to create a better, deeper, more intense, more enjoyable, more loving male-female experience. Game itself is an art-form.

  180. Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) says:

    Dalrock…I put this on her blog.

    Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) says:
    January 31, 2012 at 8:13 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Sheila,
    on another entry you wrote. “I just don’t want people slandering “Christian women”.”

    I chose to be a christian man when I was 16. I selected a christian wife. Alas, as soon as my second son was baptised my wife rejected her christianity, She did NOT reject her marriage. In divorce, 14 years later, ALL women who identified themselves as “christian women” supported and condone the criminal acts my NON christian women committed against me a christian man.

    I will not “slander christian women”. I will tell the TRUTH about them and the truth can never be slander.

    You christian women have a LOT to answer for. Just google “crimes against fathers” and you will find out all about my case. Christian women are the BIGGEST hypocrites of the LOT. And I have PROVEN this. My email is peter at peternolan dot com and you are welcome to write to me if you want direct links to the PROOF that christian women HATE US MEN so much that they will openly condone and support criminal non christian women over an honest christian man.

    By the way? Given the DISGUSTING TREATMENT of christian men and women I eventually renounced my christian religion. I do not wish to be associated with such evil people who are such liars and hypocrites.

  181. Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) says:

    Dalrock,
    I have a forum for man hating women and obviously Sheila is a MAN-HATER. If men on other countries want to maintain a forum for their country for MAN-HATING women I can provision those forums for free for men who want them.

    Feel free to let your readers know.

    http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums2/tabid/369/forumid/232/scope/threads/Default.aspx

  182. Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) says:

    Rmaxd says:
    January 31, 2012 at 5:06 pm
    “Lets face facts, these are the days of the alpha”

    Rmaxd, absolutely true. Having graduated to alpha from father, husband, protector, provider, beta, smuck loser I can tell you alpha is the way to go. One thing though. Two years as an alpha? And seeing just what women are like and how easily they are manipulated? How can anyone have respect for people who are than easily swayed?

  183. Sasha says:

    I have two metaphors for game. Non-adversarial one is partner dance, adversarial one is (combat) martial art.

    1. Partner dance.
    Dancing solo (posture, quality of movement, groundness) = inner game.
    Leading the follow, controlling the frame, spins, dips, rolls, flips = outer game.

    This is “Light Game” (not Game Light), where the emphasize is on dancing together as a team to create something new.

    2. (Combat) Martial Art.
    This is a better metaphor for “Dark Game” where the goal is to “win”, “score” – pin down the opponent, knock him/her out, kill.

    There are plenty of styles of each and they look wildly different but still belong to the same umbrella. On top of it, much of the non-combat Martial Arts can be described as “dance”.

  184. Joe Sheehy says:

    Society is always going to be filled with betas. The difference between now and the past is that they were not powerless betas. The idea that you can trick women into thinking you’re a ruthless pillager like a Viking isn’t going to work. In fact I would say there were probably a lot of betas in those long boats – that’s why they were in the ships and not at home enjoying themselves. Encouraging “white knighting” and “self-sacrifice” for women has become the tactic where women divert what little power men have in this society into keeping other men in subjection. Having what women want and having the leverage to behave amorally might be satisfactory for the men who can get what they want, but as for men who want to carry on the way of life that their parents handed down to them, it’s not enough.

  185. Joe Sheehy says:

    Men are not going to solve the problem of feminism by strutting around like cocks, acting like goombas, zoot suits, rappers, etc. What has to change is that men have to actually have power. The confidence has to be backed by real leverage, otherwise it’s just a peacock dance for transient and meaningless “scores” over women who aren’t worth having as wives and mothers for one’s children.

  186. Since you incorrectly think you know more about Conspiracy theory & social engineering then me, why dont you tell us what exactly is it you know about social engineering?

    I don’t have the time to do a data dump on social engineering, and it’s not like you would understand it even if I did.

    social engineering is a technocratic biometric simulative projection

    None of those words mean what you think they mean.

    Not expecting much from somebody who buys into mainstream propoganda of conspiracy theory, & discounts something like game,or even worse novy

    Since when do I discount game? Of course, it’s BS like this that is making me want to discount game.

  187. Suz says:

    @ybm,
    This is it’s goal: getting back to “how male/female human relationships are meant to work.” The techniques are as varied as individual personalities, and to the “natural,” often undefined. Your individual goal will be different from the next guy’s; use whatever aspects of Game will help you achieve YOUR goal in male/female relationships. Don’t sweat the details that don’t apply to you.

    @ Joe:
    You are mostly correct, but game can work as a long term strategy. Our emasculating laws may never change, and if we can change them it won’t be over night. No beta must convince women that he’s a strutting alpha, he need only convince HIS woman that he’s a better beta than she thinks he is (one with alpha potential) which will earn her respect. Millions of women respecting their men are the only chance we have of peacefully changing the system, and even that’s a long shot. It probably won’t happen in my lifetime or even my son’s. The question that remains is this: what are you the individual man, going to do with the rest of you life? If game can’t save society, at least it can save you and yours.

  188. TFH says:

    Joe,

    The problem for men with traditional values is that what they are looking for is scarce and rapidly becoming scarcer. And the worst part is that their supposed traditionalist comrades are pedestalizers and white knights.

    This is absolutely true. Men who want those values have to either expat, or dive deep into a community where women still marry at age 24 or less (which the man has to do at a young age).

    Men are not going to solve the problem of feminism by strutting around like cocks, acting like goombas, zoot suits, rappers, etc

    If by this you mean ‘Game’, then you are wrong. Game is one of the most powerful weapons against feminism.

    Google ‘The Misandry Bubble’ to read about a holistic way that feminism will implode…

  189. TFH says:

    Joe,

    This sentence of yours (which is correct) :

    And the worst part is that their supposed traditionalist comrades are pedestalizers and white knights.

    ….actually contradicts this (assuming this is what you approximate to ‘Game’) :

    Men are not going to solve the problem of feminism by strutting around like cocks, acting like goombas, zoot suits, rappers, etc.

    Surely you can connect the dots. If not, Google ‘The Misandry Bubble’.

  190. Joe Sheehy says:

    Obviously “game” is contextual. Whether you’re talking about roosters in a barnyard, rappers or Roissy.

    Exaggerated it becomes the technique of the pimp. I have a feeling most men would rather have faithful wives than to be a kind of “urbane” pimp mouthing platitudes about so-called evolutionary psychology.

    White knighting and pedestalizing are dangerous primarily because they deny that women are capable of or responsible for wrong-doing and give full credit to women for virtue whether or not they practice it. (and full blame for the men, where the loyal betas get most of the blame – because those are the men the women are most eager to blame). “White knighting” used to be about threatening seducers with death if they tried to ruin a girl – at at time when people realized that falling for the alpha cad would literally ruin a girl for marriage. Whereas today it’s about punishing any man that a woman complains about. The pedestalizing comes in when a man (often a husband or church-goer) tries to defend himself against a woman’s lies and provocations – the “white knight” has internalized a false idea of the feminine character and is also unable to hold women morally responsible for the situations they’ve gotten into.

  191. Rmaxd says:

    @PMAFT

    Go for it, go do the data dump & inform us exactly how a technocratic society functions, based on a scientifically controlled dictatorship

    Im more then familiar with biosemiotics, autopeiosis, batesoniansim, neurology, none linear physics, etc., bring it

    I love hard science, & advanced quantum mechanics, none-euclidean geometry & the poincare disc happens to be one of my favourite subjects

    I seriously doubt you have any data I havent researched yet, I already know about advanced black bag technologies & predictive technologies

    Personally i couldnt care less if you discounted game, half knowng something is worse then not knowing it all …

    Personally id love to see something substantial from you, for somebody who purports to support technology, theres very little hard science or real technology on your site, or your old site

    Anyway post a brief couple of sentences about your data dump, if you like, before you do the whole post

    Should be interesting to say the least …

  192. Rmaxd says:

    @Joe

    & how exactly are those men supposed to get faithful wives? If game is pimping, whats your solution?

    Lip service serves no purpose

  193. Rmaxd says:

    Also Joe, gaming is nothing like walking around like a pimp … jeez lol

    Suz gives an excellent description in her posts above, refer to those, as does TFH

  194. Eric says:

    ybm:
    Game is mostly a psuedoscience that embraces all the feminist premises and tells men they are empowered by employing the same tactics. They accept that women ‘have all the power in relationships’ for example, since Game is basically all about men conforming to what they believe ‘women really want’.

    As for their whole malarkey about ‘archetypes’; these are based various discredited psychological theories of the last generation or so. There is no such thing as an ‘archetype’ to which a given personality forms (except in schizophrenia where the ego has lost awareness of its own existence). Behavior follows what the ego perceives as reality. For example, feminised women believe that all men are pigs—therefore, they will act upon that belief until they are proven wrong. Techniques of any kind are obviously useless in these situations.

  195. Joe Sheehy says:

    It’s nothing like crowing like a rooster either – unless you’re a rooster.

    Game is in many respects reversion to more primitive behavior, because the rules that allow for social order at the family level are breaking down. It can also become predatory and I’m sure many pimps are experts at game.

    Someone who wants to make himself more attractive to women for a concrete purpose (like establishing a family), other than playing the Don Juan, is not just a “player” playing games with “game.” The reason feminism is dominant in this society is that the elites have no use for allowing the ordinary people to enforce sexual morality in any way that impinges on their hedonism. Being astute in conversation, being able to act the part of the confident man of the world, recognizing that women who have been promiscuous (the vast majority of attractive women past their teens in this day and age) are not capable of responding to male romantic love that seems to be supplicating in any way, these are critical attributes that men oriented towards establishing families need to attract suitable mates. And the final thing they need to realize, is that they may have to resort to violence to preserve rights in the household, even if it means certain death. What traditionalists need in their own communities is respect and support for husbands exerting authority over their wives. As the Mrs. Corleone said to Santino: “Bambino, don’t interfere.”

    It’s good, traditional advice.

  196. Joe Sheehy says:

    I think you could say the way in which frustrated socially conservative males in this country are propagandized to want to wage war on the Muslims for the way they deal with their women is the ultimate expression of the “white knight” psychosis.

  197. Rmaxd says:

    @Joe

    lol What version of traditionalism are you referring to?

    Game has nothing to do with reverting behaviour, its all about being socially intelligent & pushing your boundaries & breaking your comfort zone

    Being beta, following the herd, now thatss primitive behaviour

    Also your notion of men needing support to exert authority, will never happen, which is why they need game in the first place

    Face facts, traditionalism failed men, because it was subverted to enslave men into creating worthless families, & the traditionalists went along willingly

    It is precisely this worthless family, this dysfunctional unit we call a family, that is the root of our problems

    It is no coincidence, as worthless two children families replaced real nuclear families, we see the rise of feminism

    A womans disgust for her lack of a real family, & its inability to satisfy her hypergamy is apparent in the rise of feminism

    Nothing disgusts a woman more, then a society & its inability to provide her with a real family, or its inability to satisfy her hypergamy

  198. Joe Sheehy says:

    “Also your notion of men needing support to exert authority, will never happen, which is why they need game in the first place”

    We live in a society where responding to a wife’s “shit-test” easily becomes a domestic violence report to the police. Society used to delegate authority to men in their households, that has been taken away.

    Rmaxd said:

    “Face facts, traditionalism failed men, because it was subverted to enslave men into creating worthless families, & the traditionalists went along willingly

    It is precisely this worthless family, this dysfunctional unit we call a family, that is the root of our problems

    It is no coincidence, as worthless two children families replaced real nuclear families, we see the rise of feminism”

    Can you explain the distinction? As for female hypergamy, the solution to that is helping women find suitable mates at a young age, to prevent women from developing the exaggerated view of their own value relative to men that is so prevalent today, and finally reliance on force until she loses her looks.

  199. Rmaxd says:

    @Joe

    When pressed for answers your solutions & reasons are ridiculously naive

    Pass a shit test correctly & see what happens, ask Dalrock

    I also suggest you look up nuclear family …

    Also getting women to hookup at a young age, wont change a thing in a feminist society, except for increasing the divorce rate …

    Plenty of women STILL get married young, these are also the fastest to divorce, lasting at best 5 or less years

  200. P Ray says:

    “As for female hypergamy, the solution to that is helping women find suitable mates at a young age, to prevent women from developing the exaggerated view of their own value relative to men that is so prevalent today, and finally reliance on force until she loses her looks.”
    The problem is that unless women are with the first guy they are in a relationship with, they are going to find it much harder to bond with him, since anybody after the first is effectively “settling”.
    Even when in their teens, most girls are only after/interested in a few guys in their social circle.
    No matter what any woman says, they want a “guy nice to them THAT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN” … but never seem to add that bit in caps to their statements.
    So when men play to the tune without knowing it’s an unfinished symphony, all they get is used or told “you thought it was something more than what it was, I don’t like you in that way”.

  201. Joe Sheehy says:

    Well it is naive to think the clock can be turned back. But is it naive to think that we can convince traditionalist men to stop participating in the behaviors that enable bad behavior of their female family members? Maybe that’s naive too. It may be naive to think anything at all can be done collectively against the current tide, but social change does depend on collective action.

    “I also suggest you look up nuclear family …”

    I don’t think it’s too much to ask you to explain the distinction you’re trying to make. I agree that it’s not really a good idea to marry if one only intends to have two children. Marrying them young is definitely the way to go, you just have to find the right one. And a sure way to reject a choice is a woman who only wants two children. Or who is near an age where she’d be lucky to conceive two children.

  202. Joe Sheehy says:

    “The problem is that unless women are with the first guy they are in a relationship with, they are going to find it much harder to bond with him, since anybody after the first is effectively “settling”.”

    I don’t see how what you’re saying is going against what I’m saying. A man who wants to marry should be marrying a young virgin if he can.

  203. Go for it, go do the data dump & inform us exactly how a technocratic society functions, based on a scientifically controlled dictatorship

    You just proved you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Im more then familiar with biosemiotics, autopeiosis, batesoniansim, neurology, none linear physics, etc., bring it

    I love hard science, & advanced quantum mechanics, none-euclidean geometry & the poincare disc happens to be one of my favourite subjects

    Do you realize how many words you misspelled here. That alone makes it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Nothing I would say on the subject would make a difference because you’re too busy having a conspiracy theorist delusion to deal with facts.

  204. Suz says:

    Joe,
    Rmaxd is right, but he may be too concise. (oh God, did I SAY that?) Go back and reread him, pausing between every sentence. Each individual point he makes could be expanded into a book.

    You said, “I have a feeling most men would rather have faithful wives…”

    This is true, and here’s another point. Hypergamy isn’t inherently immoral. It evolved for a world where women lost mates frequently, and needed to be constantly “on the lookout” for the next one. (Somebody had to feed her kids.) We don’t KNOW that we do this; if we understood why we’re always seeking, many of us would rein it in on our own – I do, and I learned to do so long before I understood the dynamics. Game is not so much a reversion to primitive behavior, as it is an acknowledgement of primitive instincts. You can use game to keep a woman faithful, by convincing her that YOU are the “next one” she’s watching for. In a “successful” society of surplus resources, there are only two ways to mediate the destructive potential of hypergamy. One is the laws and social structure that we’ve had in the past. The other is game, one-on-one enforcement of those laws. With game, force is not necessary because game appeals directly to a woman’s instinctive need for stability. This may seem like an undue burden on males, but it replaces that old burden of frequently dying in the effort to provide a safe environment for one’s offspring.

  205. Suz says:

    If anyone’s interested, here’s an encapsulation of how I (with the help of my BetterHalf’s inherent masculinity/game) overcome my hypergamy. When another man attracts me, I don’t ignore the attraction; I simply think about BH. I use my “excited” brain chemistry to reinforce my relationship with him, by associating “that feeling” with him. I consciously choose to do this, and it works. Rationally, I know that wanting another man is wrong, and acting on that desire would destroy my life. That “want” is natural and I’d be foolish to suppress it, so I transfer it to my husband. I can’t control my emotions, but I can control what I do with them. I listen to my conscience.

    Society doesn’t teach this because society wants to believe that “good” women don’t have these feelings. Society wants to believe that women are too civilized to be subject to something as base as instinct. I had to figure it out on my own, just as (until recently) men had to figure out game on their own.

  206. Rmaxd says:

    @PMAFT

    You keep saying im wrong, & yet you prove nothing of substance, you said you have data,

    Im simply interested in what you say you have,

    Btw I dont believe in conspiracy theory, I believe in provable facts

    I can easily prove the paper trail for feminism, everything from the funding right down to official documents

    The same goes for social engineering

    All the documents & paper trails proving all of the above is public, put out there by the agencies & organisations themselves

    If you want to play the data game, im more then happy to prove my sources & data

    Im not the sort to attack someones data, Im simply after interesting data

    So far all ive seen you state im wrong, without you even stating your position, let alone prove me wrong

    State your position & state the data you think proves im wrong

    Calling me names, doesnt prove a dmn thing … apart from the hilarity of your position

  207. P Ray says:

    “I don’t see how what you’re saying is going against what I’m saying. A man who wants to marry should be marrying a young virgin if he can.”
    A man who is interested to marry a girl who is young and virgin, is usually branded with a heapful of shaming language, that players and CONservative women like to bandy around.
    Because the sluts who slept around want someone to marry them,
    and the players want the virgins first, so have to paint a guy not interested in playing around as “bad”, and that women need “experience” to be attractive.
    and the men of the previous generation are completely numb to the idea that men now are finding a real problem of being in a relationship of mutual respect.
    The other one is of course age-ist (against the man) idea that even modern churches promote against normal men (moguls or the rich seem to be exempted this criticism), see the marriage of Kayley Simock and Philip Nash.
    Relevant quote: “Youthful Kayley was playing guitar in the church orchestra when she was approached by Phil. Despite being warned by her parents and church leaders that the friendship was ‘inappropriate’, the pair continued to meet.”
    So much for the church being relationship-friendly.

  208. Brendan says:

    In a “successful” society of surplus resources, there are only two ways to mediate the destructive potential of hypergamy. One is the laws and social structure that we’ve had in the past. The other is game, one-on-one enforcement of those laws. With game, force is not necessary because game appeals directly to a woman’s instinctive need for stability. This may seem like an undue burden on males, but it replaces that old burden of frequently dying in the effort to provide a safe environment for one’s offspring.

    The problem is that most men are not going to be arsed to game their wives (or even game their girlfriends). Some men will, and will enjoy it, but most won’t. It’s not only that it’s a “burden”, but that it’s one that only a smallish percentage of men are naturally suited for. Most Game advocates openly accept this as well as a fact: most men won’t be able to learn to implement Game. I think all guys can learn a thing or two from Game, but implementing Game is another story — that’s persona specific, and as such, can’t be the basis for a social stability formula the way universally applied laws/mores can.

    My own prediction, therefore, is for a continuing trend of increased familial and relationship instability at most social levels rather than less.

  209. P Ray says:

    @Suz:
    “If anyone’s interested, here’s an encapsulation of how I (with the help of my BetterHalf’s inherent masculinity/game) overcome my hypergamy. When another man attracts me, I don’t ignore the attraction; I simply think about BH. I use my “excited” brain chemistry to reinforce my relationship with him, by associating “that feeling” with him.”
    That’s a mental concept called “anchoring”. Players frequently use that between the girls they see.
    On the other hand, is it right to completely blame players who only became that way after they got their hearts smashed by a girl? And is it completely right to deny women the right to own their own choices? A player cannot succeed with a woman who DOESN’T want a player. A nice guy cannot succeed with a woman who DOES.
    After all, consequences, _REAL_ consequences, are only frequently denied to those who are considered incapable of being equal or changing.

  210. Rmaxd says:

    @Joe

    Again you overlook a flaw in your women should get married at a young age …

    “Plenty of women STILL get married young, these are also the fastest to divorce, lasting at best 5 or less years”

    Without a strong nuclear family, filled with strong dominant alphas, there is no way to stabilise a woman otherwise her hypergamy goes haywire & she runs like a trainwreck to the carousel

    Only masculinity & the dominance of strong male role models, can stabilise a womans hypergamy

    Women need masculinity not for sexual gratification, they need it as a stabilising part of their personality

    Without the increased testosterone & strength & rationality of a male, a woman falls back on her emotions & irrationality & hypergamy

    In short she becomes dysfunctional, & her biology & emotions become hyper-stimulated

    Her ability to form logical over emotional conclusions becomes distorted, as she now produces large amounts of oestrogen, instead of testosterone in times of stress, & sexual need

    Oestrogen balanced with testosterone, produces submission, where the woman can see the logical conclusions of her frailty & need for a man

    Oestrogen unbalanced with testosterone, produces large amounts of hypergamy & riding the carousel & a lifetime of banging alphas …

    Large amounts of testosterone, produces the slut

    Without a strong alpha to influence & reign a womans biology in, to stabilise her femininity, she becomes highly dysfunctional, unable to function as a mother or a wife

  211. asinusspinasmasticans says:

    As I said above, the problem is that feminism has worked its way into Western society’s mimetic DNA to the point that anyone seriously proposing limitations to women working outside the home would be considered a threat to society, something along the lines of White Nationalists or jihadists. The same antibodies would leap into high alert.

    When women’s access to economic resources was limited to what they could obtain through men, this created a sort of a “Game-by-default” scenario whereby ordinary men could create attraction, genuine attraction, in ordinary women. What proponents of “Game” are attempting to do is to recreate this “men have default Game” position, and to be honest, it will result in kind of a “goomba-ization” of men. Matriarchal societies create the best and the most highly evolved goombas.

    What I am afraid of is that the wide dissemination of Game will result in a clear and unequivocal understanding of the nature of women, and still leave them in charge.

  212. Rmaxd says:

    @Brendon

    “My own prediction, therefore, is for a continuing trend of increased familial and relationship instability at most social levels rather than less.”

    I disagree, I dont think your aware of the numbers or size of the gaming communities

    They literally now number in the millions globally, its no longer a niche movement, its a global movement

    Games already had a massive impact in todays society, we wouldnt be discussing game on a none gaming blog, if it hadnt

    Its impact is only going to get bigger, its only a matter of time

    Then theres the impact of the MRA movement, which will literally change the face of a feminist society as we know it

    It will take time, but it will happen

    The above questions are simply not enough

    What we need to ask ourselves, will game & MRAs & the reigning in of liberalism & marxism, in conjunction with technology, be enough

    Will what we think to be the solution, will they be enough to change society, or are there hidden factors we dont know of ?

    This is why I bring up the conspiracy angle, asking the right question is just as important as knowing the correct answer …

  213. Brendan says:

    When women’s access to economic resources was limited to what they could obtain through men, this created a sort of a “Game-by-default” scenario whereby ordinary men could create attraction, genuine attraction, in ordinary women. What proponents of “Game” are attempting to do is to recreate this “men have default Game” position, and to be honest, it will result in kind of a “goomba-ization” of men. Matriarchal societies create the best and the most highly evolved goombas.

    What I am afraid of is that the wide dissemination of Game will result in a clear and unequivocal understanding of the nature of women, and still leave them in charge.

    As I say above, I think that the ability of the average man to take on Game is actually fairly limited. All men benefit from the “red pill”, but only a much smaller percentage can actually do Game properly. I very much agree with TFH in that only a small number may be needed to inflict the kind of “damage to the system” that sends it over the falls — which is more of a Leninist theory of change, really, and could very well work. Leninist approaches have worked in other contexts, after all. It doesn’t rely on most men learning Game, and Game becoming a new force of universal social stability, which is extremely unlikely, not only for the reason that most men won’t get that good at it, but also for the reason you mention, which I will address next.

    Game, writ large, fuels matriarchy rather than undermining it. It does so by making women’s “needs” and “desires” the main focus of male behavior. There’s no way around that — it is what Game does. People are very right to point out that it is the male equivalent of makeup and heels, but what is missed in that comparison is the very real fact that, like makeup and heels, this is actually pandering to female desire in the same way that the feminists critiqued female pandering to male desire — and, and this is the critical point, in a way that men never needed to do historically because, as you say, historically it was “Game-by-default”. The need to pander, or cater, to women in this way is, in every way, a downgrade for men, without question. It places men in the same position women have always been in — pandering/catering to male desire. The fact that this may get some men what they want is immaterial — pandering to men’s desire has also gotten women what they have wanted, more or less, over the centuries, but it was still pandering. For men to need to pander in the same way is a definite downgrade to the old system, and is not something men should accept, as men, long-term as a social solution.

    I certainly support the right of individual men to do as they please — learn Game, don’t learn Game, do whatever makes sense to you — it’s all good, really. That is where I differ from the anti-Game crowd. I also think it would be worth a shot for a bolshevik Game vanguard to do what TFH suggests, in a Leninist attempt to bring the system to a crash. I do not, however, support this notion of Game forming the basis for the new social order between men and women. That social order would be fundamentally unstable (because most men aren’t going to Game very well, so hypergamy will be largely unaffected) and would be built around the idea of men pandering to female desire — a downgrade for men in every way. It would be the realization of what Guy Garcia dubbed “The End of Men”, where he foresaw “men becoming the new women” and, in one vein, pandering to female desire.

  214. Rmaxd says:

    @Brendan

    Youre simply assuming game panders to a womans behaviour

    Game has very little to do with pandering to a womans behaviour, its about mastering your own masculinity first & foremost

    The fact it teaches men to be superior through their masculinity, is a game changer, getting the girl becomes a natural act, as opposed to something you have to learn

    The whole point of game is to become naturally more superior through masculinity, which in turn naturally attracts a woman

    This is essentially the framework & goal of game

    This is why game will be a major social change

    You cannot change the without, without changing the within

  215. Brendan says:

    Game can be a factor for social change, based on the Leninist model outlined by TFH. It cannot, however, form the basis for a new, stable, social order. So, as I said above, it may be good and “work” for individual men, but on a society-wide basis it is not a “solution” other than as a kind of social acid (the approach of TFH) — not as a new social order.

  216. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    Game, writ large, fuels matriarchy rather than undermining it. It does so by making women’s “needs” and “desires” the main focus of male behavior. There’s no way around that — it is what Game does.

    I disagree. Most game bloggers are highly motivated to intensely game women, which as you say most ordinary men probably won’t be, or at least won’t be capable of implementing intense game. Most men won’t be able to use game to put together a long string of ONSs or form a soft harem. Most men won’t be able to use game as the foundation for keeping their marriage together (and the few who can would still be insane to set out to do so). But as others have said you can’t learn even the basics of game without depedistalizing women, and starting to recognize the world of feminism and female entitlement around them.

    Young men are going to be highly motivated to be sexually successful. Game doesn’t create that motivation, it simply makes the goal attainable with less work. When you make something easier, some people are going to binge on it. Others will decide to devote less time and energy towards satisfying that need and more on other things. Only if the average man took game as a trigger to become a PUA would game mean making the needs and desires of women the main focus of male behavior. For a small number of men, this may be true. But for a much larger number it will reduce this, or at the very worst be neutral.

  217. Will says:

    “In a “successful” society of surplus resources, there are only two ways to mediate the destructive potential of hypergamy. One is the laws and social structure that we’ve had in the past. The other is game, one-on-one enforcement of those laws. With game, force is not necessary because game appeals directly to a woman’s instinctive need for stability. This may seem like an undue burden on males, but it replaces that old burden of frequently dying in the effort to provide a safe environment for one’s offspring.”

    Or the man can decide not to play into that frame and GYOW.

  218. Too true says:

    You can take the woman out of women’s studies classes, but you can’t take the women’s studies classes out of the woman.

  219. AmStrat says:

    Do you have anything negative to say about Game, Rmaxd?

  220. Brendan says:

    Only if the average man took game as a trigger to become a PUA would game mean making the needs and desires of women the main focus of male behavior. For a small number of men, this may be true. But for a much larger number it will reduce this, or at the very worst be neutral.

    The issue isn’t individual men, the issue is the overall thrust of the society. if the social norm becomes that men must have Game in order to attract and retain wives, then de facto this means that men are, to some degree, pandering to women’s desires. Your point is getting at the question of degree — I agree a PUA would be much more focused on it than a non-PUA. That’s obvious. My point is that everyone would be more focused on it than they would be under the “game-by-default” scenario aptly described by asinus above, and that this is not really a good thing. I don’t disagree on your point about “degree”, but even allowing for different degrees of focus, in order to achieve the “desired result”, all men would need to have some degree of focus on this. And that is new. And it is pandering, without question (if it were not, Game would not need to be learned ** — see below). And it makes men’s behavior vis-a-vis women much more like women’s behavior has been vis-a-vis men over the centuries.

    Suz, for example (not to pick on her, it’s just a recent example of an increasingly popular meme in the manosphere) suggests above that this is the way to a new social order and that men need to do it in order to ensure that their wives are faithful to them. Now, I know that you don’t agree with that concept (at least I’m pretty sure you have written that men should not have to Game their wives in order to ensure fidelity, and that rather the key is choosing well up-front), but others are suggesting that this should be the basis of a new social order between men and women. I do not see this as being the basis for a stable society, because it fuels hypergamy (husband always has to be careful to be satisfying his wife’s hypergamy to assist her in not giving in to her desire to upgrade), which creates a fundamentally unstable situation — again, writ large over the entire society.

    ** — I realize that the popular theory in the manosphere is that all men used be Game naturals, and that men only need to learn Game because of feminist indoctrination. This is rather dubious. Men were never all alphas, nor did most men have what now is considered Game. There were always charming Lotharios, natural leaders, and betas. The difference is that under the old regime men had what is referred to above (I think helpfully) as “Game-by-default” — it had to do with social position, socially enforced rules and the like, such that in any given social caste, most men were “above”, to one degree or other, most women. Again, there were men with “natural Game”: always — there have always been Lotharios and men who were naturally “better with women” than other men. But this was never the norm for men, nor was it ever needed to secure or retain a wife. The difference today is not that men are indoctrinated to be un-masculine according to some Driscollesque standard as much as it is that the social buffering that placed men above women in social castes has been taken away such that women are now the equals of most men in their social caste, and so the men need “something extra” to be reasonably attractive to peer-caste women, to place them “above” their otherwise social equals, in order to satisfy female hypergamic attraction. This is new. It is much more akin to what women have had to do for centuries, and that is not at all positive for men as a group, again, writ large across the span of society. It effectively concedes to the entire feminist project, because it accepts that men must pander in this way to overcome the social equality enforced by feminism and the sociosexual results of that, rather than trying to address the underlying issue — in other words, it cops to the status quo, and reinforces it, to wit: if all men just had good Game, social equality wouldn’t matter, because hypergamy would be satisfied, and everyone would be happy. This is basically a feminist fantasy, really, and it’s the crux of the problem with the “Man Up 2.0″ meme we see here, which peddles Game as the basis for a new social order between men and women precisely because it satisfies the desires of women.

  221. Rmaxd says:

    @Will

    Exactly, the important thing is men have choice, their choice atm is based on feminised & traditional misinformation

    The truth it isnt women who were oppressed, it was & always has been betas & unsuccessful alphas, theyve been everything from pack mules, to dying in coalmines, to enslaved in marriage to women who simply stayathome, while the husband dies in grinding labour & wars for government & the super rich

    Game & mra are the beginning of masculinity as a movement, betas now have the ability to see how & why theyre masculinity is exploited

    Game doesnt have to learned, this is the basic truth, its basic & very real truths about men & women will become mainstream, as will the mra movement

    Understanding the truth doesnt require an ideology, it merely requires a search for the truth

  222. Rmaxd says:

    @Amstrat

    Game is about choice

    The main danger with game, is not realising the importance of choosing correctly

    Its too easy to presume, you can get any girl, when the real question is, are you masculine enough to know what you want?

    Game will always lead you to the girl or relationship you want, not the girl or relationship you think you want

    Game is about using masculinity to realise & optimise your strengths as a person

    Game is first & foremost based on strength, the strength of your self discipline, the strength of your standards & the strength of your own expectations

    Game should always be expanding your notions of strength & determination, to the point they drive you to unknown depths, never imagined before

    The amount of confidence required in game, transcends social intelligence, it always becomes about how far are you willing to transform yourself

    Life is always about building & destroying yourself, without the ability to destroy yourself, you can never start anew or a new path

    An idea is change, how far you take that idea as a transformative, or as a intellectualism or as a complexity determines how far you go with that idea

    What you dont do will always be greater then what you do

  223. deti says:

    Most men will never become PUAs because they are incapable of it; or they lack the drive and the horsepower for it. So the shrill cry of the feministas, warning of a PUA/pimp nation are sound and fury, signifying nothing. There will never be 100% Game saturation. We will never have a nation of men doing nothing but running day Game on street corners or in coffee shops. vying for number closes. We will never have a nation of young single men hanging out in bars or house parties in their 30s running the power pickups, going for kiss closes, and spinning 4 or 5 “plates” (women). And we’ll never have legions of men in churches looking to pickup the “reformed sluts”.

    This will never be Roissy Nation. PUA Game will never be anything more than a significant minority of men shaping the societal fringes.

    But if we have men learning the basics of Game and female psychology, relearning what they already knew instinctively or what their fathers should have taught them, that all bodes well for men. Right now we have men in unhappy marriages, men who can’t seem to find any women, and men who have given up altogether. Game applied to marriages, LTRs, “dating” (whatever that is now) could have the effect of getting more men what they want from women. They won’t be PUAs but they’ll have the edge that gets them in the door with more attractive women. In a marriage, all it takes sometimes is simply telling her he won’t put up with any more of her disrespect and deceit, then backing it up with confidence and asserting himself socially and sexually. In LTRs and dating, men seem to be doing this by pushing harder and earlier for sex. If they don’t get what they want when they want, they simply move on. Men are becoming more and more scarce, as increasing numbers leave the mating scene.

    I think this could have the effect of forcing more women into traditional roles. But this will happen only if more and more men refuse to marry unless the wife assumes a submissive role to her husband’s dominant one. It will happen only if more and more men refuse to remain married to shrieking ballbuster harridans who treat their doormat husbands horribly and refuse to submit. It will happen only if more and more men refuse to tolerate shit tests, head games, demands for supplication, entitlement princessing, attention whoring, crazy girls, and sluts passing themselves off as “nice church girls”. It will happen only if more and more men simply walk away from unsatisfying relationships that cannot be salvaged. (If one even talks of “salvaging” a relationship, it’s time to walk away). It’s going to take a generation or two. It won’t happen overnight.

  224. asinusspinasmasticans says:

    I have to stand with Brendan here. Game alone just gives women what they want. Spend some time in a truly matriarchal society, like that of the Guijaira Indians, to see Game as what it is – an accommodation to female dominance in a society.

    It is true that “you can’t learn even the basics of game without depedistalizing women, and starting to recognize the world of feminism and female entitlement around them.“, but there’s no inherent virtue in that. A lot, a lot of men would be perfectly happy with women doing the work of the world as long as they got a modicum of sex. I think the next stabilizing spot would be polygyny.

    Like I said, leaving the depedistalized women in charge is the biggest danger in a widespread acceptation of Game.

  225. deti says:

    Aspinus:

    How do we fix this, then?

    One way to do it is to reinstitute the social rules in place a century ago: gender neutral divorce laws, social controls on hypergamy; slut shaming; and men in social positions and status naturally above women. The church, the government, education, and other social institutions woudl reinforce those standards and customs. But we’re always told that that cannot be done without dismantling feminism in its entirelty, women voluntarily giving up social and economic independence, and returning voluntarily to their prior submissive roles. Women would have to do this freely, and we’re told the general thrust and tone of this society will never allow or abide that.

    Game and feminism as a social order isn’t going to work. So the only thing we’re left with is total societal collapse; or men conscripted and enslaved into servicing the feminine imperative. That’s only going to lead to more expatriation, more “slackers”, more never married women, birth rates below replacement levels, more civil and societal unrest as law enforcement and military agencies crumble, and, ominously, perhaps more George Sodinis and more Thomas James Balls. (I’m not advocating violence against women. I’m saying we might see more and more of it if the present course continues.)

  226. Rmaxd says:

    @Deti

    “But if we have men learning the basics of Game and female psychology, relearning what they already knew instinctively or what their fathers should have taught them, that all bodes well for men”

    This is what im referring to, the growth of game & pua, will popularise the concepts & ideas & the truths about women

    The truth about women will become the new norm, & men will revert to masculinity for the answers

    Masculinity & patriarchy will always win, precisely because masculinity & patriarchy always support the good of society

    While feminism & matriarchy only benefits the marginal or the poor, at the expense of society as a whole

    This is precisely why feminism & liberalism will fail, they always go from protecting the few to oppressing society as a whole

    The truth always wins, its an absolute a universal law

    The truth is a force of nature, its how nature interacts with man

  227. ybm says:

    @Deti
    “How do we fix this, then?

    Game and feminism as a social order isn’t going to work. So the only thing we’re left with is total societal collapse; or men conscripted and enslaved into servicing the feminine imperative.”

    Men will be enslaved and conscripted, that is unavoidable. What comes next is open for interpretation, if I had to guess:

    In a word, Islam. In two words, Sharia Law.

  228. Rmaxd says:

    Btw game & its precepts as a social movement, has already begun

    Protest all you want, a social movement is always a numbers game, & patriarchy have already won …

    We already have veterans returning their medals in disgust, after judges told them to pay their wives out of their disability benefits

    “My ex-wife didn’t serve in Vietnam, I did. She wasn’t forced to killed people, I was. She wasn’t the one severely wounded, I was. She didn’t experience the pain I did. She doesn’t have the disfiguring scars I do. She doesn’t have to take the long list of medications I do, and she will probably out live me because of all of this. My ex-wife is not entitled to any of my combat related disability benefits. My veteran’s disability compensation belongs to me, and only me, and no one is going to take it from me,” said Scott Cameron of Duluth, Minnesota.

    In protest to this immoral and unlawful decree, Mr. Cameron has returned his Purple Heart and Bronze Star to congress in protest.

    A member of Operation Firing For Effect’s AREA 5301, a group of disabled veterans currently protesting the use of veteran’s disability compensation as “income” in a divorce settlement and divided with an ex-spouse. http://WWW.AREA5301.NET

  229. Rmaxd says:

    Oh btw I noticed Peter Andrew Nolan posted earlier in this thread

    Peter I just wanted to say youre a credit to the MRA & men everywhere, I always enjoyed your posts on the Spearhead

    I think your posts were a bit ahead of the Spearhead guys at the time, they also called my own posts too radical at the time

    But now even my older posts are accepted as the truth, Im pretty sure if you posted under a different nick youll get a much better reception

    Anyway its great to see you posting again

  230. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brendan,let me lay out my position.

    1. Men in general, and beta men especially, are vital to an industrial society.
    2. Beta men are especially punished by the legal system for what they are, from various forms of discrimination in education & work to divorce theft, etc.
    3. In order to give beta men an investment in the larger society, the legal system has to change.
    4. Change in the legal system will require changes in social and even cultural attitudes.
    5. Changes in social and cultural attitudes necessary to effect no. 3 can’t occur as long as women are pedestalized (‘more moral than men’, ‘naturally monogamous’, etc.)
    6. The most effective way to get men to stop pedestalizing women is Game. The feedback loop is short in time, much shorter in time than any “teach in” or long winded lectures in classrooms, drum-banging retreats, conferences, etc. This is due to the fact that Game cannot be co-opted by women (unlike all the other things I listed) and Game works. Perhaps Game will be to the righst of men as “consciousness raising” was to feminism in the 1970′s.

    If there’s a better way to get from no. 6 to no. 5, I’m all for it. But I’m satisfied that Game, subversive of the feminist paradigm and passed around the web in something more akin to samizdat than to any big Proclamation, is more effective than any other alternative. Because remember, the conference/teach-in/drum-circle/college course approach was tried in the 1980′s and 1990′s, and all we got for it was a crop of manginas and more patronization from feminists.

  231. Will says:

    I suspect feminists will introduce legislation to attempt to counter/neutralise Game/low investment sex by Men. We’re already seeing signs of this in the preponderance of evidence rape policies in US universities and in the new FBI definition of rape which according to my understanding is if the woman has been drinking [amount?] she cannot give consent and the Man is therefore guilty of rape. This is to enable a Woman to cry rayyyype! if she doesn’t get what she wants or otherwise wants revenge.

  232. Anonymous Reader says:

    Will, such policies will only affect the moderate, tolerant, average man. The real-deal player / PUA is not likely to be affected because of his alpha status, and the men going their own way, “checking out” of society won’t be affected either. Men, contrary to feminist belief, are not totally stupid. Younger men in thier 20′s will see that they are one bad date away from a charge of rape, and they will note that the PUA’s don’t seem to be at risk. So that kind of doubling-down will just accelerate the process already underway: some men become PUA’s, a lot more men just check out of the game pretty much entirely, choosing to live at a lower economic status in exchange for lowering their risk of false rape accusation, false sexual harassment accusation, and divorce theft.

    Note that both groups are not going to “man up” and marry women. So doubling down will just exacerbate the “good man shortage”, much to the dismay and fury of women.

  233. ybm says:

    AS the Indians of the Carribean have done in the past, the slave would choose not to reproduce than to birth another slave. Stories abound of Carribeans butchering their own children rather than condemn them to a life of labour and eventual painful death.

    As soon as a male pill is released, which the Non-hormonal male birth control is just reaching the end of the first round of clinical trials, kiss the west goodbye.

  234. Will says:

    Anon, I agree with everthing you say except about PUA not being at risk. The real deal “natural” PUA, badboy, stud,cad probably not so much, but the “non-natural” average PUA wannabees are probably playing with fire.

  235. Will says:

    ybm, re the non hormonal bcp – I think it was xsplat on another forum who said that when the Male bcp arrives and becomes widely used, Women will be protesting against it in the streets. I think he’s probably right.

  236. ybm says:

    Either way, banned or approved; that is a day that will live in infamy. Nothing (no not even NHMBC) will turn back the clock, bring women back to traditional roles and end the female supremacy movement. It would not surprise me if lobbying required female consent of a man going on NHMBC in order to get the perscription, or it will only be despensed to a female.

  237. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    if the social norm becomes that men must have Game in order to attract and retain wives, then de facto this means that men are, to some degree, pandering to women’s desires.

    What you are describing is largely what feminism has already accomplished. Game is the response to the status quo, or as one commenter put it feminism’s bastard child. Even if we deny this is what is happening today, it is still happening. This is the fundamental problem with the social conservatives. They close their eyes and pretend the old rules still apply. Culturally they simply don’t. They only way a man can hope for anything different is to find a woman who has the force within herself to keep her marriage vows. Game can help a man do this in several ways. By being more attractive than he otherwise would be, his options are better. As Anon Reader details above game also does a fantastic job of demolishing the pedestal. At the very least, game can help a man understand why marriage given his realistic options wouldn’t be a wise choice. If it only accomplished this last part, it would save a world of heartache and have the beneficial side effect of putting pressure on women and the culture in the right direction. It might even jolt at least a few social conservatives out of their contentment with the feminist status quo if we threaten their ability to fully feed their groom addiction.

    Suz, for example (not to pick on her, it’s just a recent example of an increasingly popular meme in the manosphere) suggests above that this is the way to a new social order and that men need to do it in order to ensure that their wives are faithful to them. Now, I know that you don’t agree with that concept (at least I’m pretty sure you have written that men should not have to Game their wives in order to ensure fidelity, and that rather the key is choosing well up-front), but others are suggesting that this should be the basis of a new social order between men and women. I do not see this as being the basis for a stable society, because it fuels hypergamy (husband always has to be careful to be satisfying his wife’s hypergamy to assist her in not giving in to her desire to upgrade), which creates a fundamentally unstable situation — again, writ large over the entire society.

    I absolutely agree with you here. This is an extremely dangerous concept. While it tends to come from game purists, in my view it actually is counter to the very concept of game. Right now men are told from all directions that it is their responsibility to keep their wives happy, and if not, it is their fault if she cheats and/or divorces. The feminists have turned the old meme of “she can’t keep a man” on its head. Men are tying themselves up in knots trying to “make mama happy”. This has been a disaster, and using game as an excuse for more of this kind of muddled thinking is absurd. There is something freeing to truly internalizing the truth that your wife is responsible for keeping her own vows. That freed frame of mind is a much more natural position for a man to game his wife from. He isn’t held hostage to her whims and emotions. In the end, she is responsible for them; he may choose to help her with them but they aren’t his responsibility.

  238. Game works in my marriage. It is easy and fun. It is a lot easier than dancing around a woman’s emotions. It is masculine and direct. It is the reverse of pandering.

  239. Höllenhund@ymail.com says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    “3. In order to give beta men an investment in the larger society, the legal system has to change.
    4. Change in the legal system will require changes in social and even cultural attitudes.
    5. Changes in social and cultural attitudes necessary to effect no. 3 can’t occur as long as women are pedestalized (‘more moral than men’, ‘naturally monogamous’, etc.)”

    I’m afraid that’s false logic. History doesn’t operate that way. Only tectonic economic shifts will lead to #5 and then to #4 and so on. Depedestalizing women won’t achieve sh*t in itself. Feminism as an ideology has always existed but it was only facilitated by long-term economic changes and technological progress. Athol had a short and accurate post on this:

    http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/12/technology-created-marriage-20-not.html

    Only changes of similar magnitude and nature can collapse feminism (if that’s to happen). Beta males will be re-empowered when society attaches more value to them, and that will only happen if beta males become scarce. Simple as that. The provider potential of men will be valued only after it has disappeared. Chivalry will become attractive again after everyone has stopped doing it. Marriage will be valued again when men refuse to sign up for it. Only utter societal collapse can bring this about. Otherwise we’re stuck in eternal feminist domination.

  240. ray says:

    Game works in my marriage. It is easy and fun. It is a lot easier than dancing around a woman’s emotions. It is masculine and direct. It is the reverse of pandering.

    it is the epitome of pandering, and it very much re-inforces, rather than subverts,the matriarchal cultures of the west

    guys want an easy, handy-dandy, quick fix to the overwhelming problems of our gynocracies, but there isnt one, Game included

    erich neumann knows more about female psychology than all the Game Gurus combined, and you dont have to pay for overpriced Guru tapes and workshops and conferences from third-rate minds

  241. van Rooinek says:

    How do you explain Sherwood Baptist creating divorce porn when they set out to create a movie about Christian marriage?…..Sherwood Baptist has taught many millions of Christian women that if she isn’t getting her way, if her husband isn’t following her leadership, if she wants the excitement of having multiple high status men fighting for her heart, file for divorce.

    Ah, yes, good old Sherwood Baptist. They have sponsor a ministry for the unwed mother, too. Laudable, since that’s better than abortion. But check out the name:

    from the church site…
    http://www.sherwoodbaptist.net/templates/cussherwoodbc/details.asp?id=33770&PID=534488
    direct link:
    http://alphapregnancycenter.net/

    Yes, you read that right. The ALPHA Pregnancy Center. No sign of a Beta Pregnancy Center anywhere. So I guess we know who’s getting all the action at Sherwood Baptist.

  242. slwerner says:

    Ray, re:Game – “it is the epitome of pandering, and it very much re-inforces, rather than subverts,the matriarchal cultures of the west”

    As some have argued, Game does tend to feed into giving women what they (really) want. And, yes, it is a matter of men making the effort to keep women happy and interested. It’s far from perfect.

    But, given the reality of today’s culture, it seems quite a bit better than pedestaling woman, giving into their demands, and groveling before them trying to make them happy. That is also a lot of male effort (even if misdirected), which also has as it’s base motivation the idea of making women happy. That, too, re-enforces Matriarchy.

    For men who are in relationships, the (admittedly) female-centric effort towards a applying bit of Game seems a better bet than the much more demanding and involved female-centric effort of pedestalization and pleasing.

    Perhaps it is merely a matter of picking one’s poison?

  243. Johnycomelately says:

    Great post Brendan.

  244. I have not paid for any tapes or whatever. I just read about Game on the Internet. It explained a lot about my wife’s behaviour. I have greater control in my marriage now.

    It is just applied psychology. I always suspected that we are lied to about the nature of women. Now I know.

  245. ybm says:

    Or you could take no poison at all, not relying on the writings of blogger-hipsters in their 20s and just live your life with confidence and self-esteem.

    This is what I don’t understand. everybody has all these definitions and they all boil down to two things; Confidence and Self-Esteem. That’s not game, that’s being happy with who you are and refusing to accomodate what doesn’t make you happy.

    That’s not game. That’s being happy. You don’t need a “system” to do that, and any system that does offer that is not part of game at all. Toastmasters gave me confidence and accomplishing things gave me self-esteem. Guess what? Chicks liked that, did I start developing a system because of it? You can’t! Game doesn’t even exist! Its reinventing the wheel for the millenials!

    MRA and “Game” are two totally different things and this shotgun wedding isn’t going to last. i welcome the game-bloggers leaving the MRA, because then the websites I donate to can get back to writing about divorce theft, paternity and alimony fraud, misandry, and sex based discrimination instead of writing moronic debates about what an MRA even is!

  246. Eric says:

    Dalrock & Brendan:

    Assuming that Game actually works or has any validity: can either of you explain WHY men should either learn it or employ it? I see no reason to make ANY effort to facilitate women when they obviously have no sense of reciprocity.

    Also, Dalrock has mentioned many times that the real key to a successful marriage depends upon how deeply the woman really values a man; and how strong the moral force of her marriage vows are. That being the case, would there be any need to ‘game’ such a woman in the first place?

    The only reason that women have any interest in so-called ‘Alphas’ (and it’s never ‘alphas’ of the good kind; only thugs and abusers who are superficially masculine); is to prove to herself her own superiority and lack of need for a man—cultural concepts inculcated by feminism. Doesn’t a man ultimately degrade his own masculinity by aping males whom he consciously despises just to curry female sexual favor? Women certainly don’t respect men who behave this way. So is it worth doing at all?

  247. Game is just adopting an attitude of male superiority. I have always been a “male chauvinist”. I just stopped trying to resist my natural inclinations.

  248. Eric says:

    Rmaxd:
    “Beta behavior, following the herd, now that’s primitive behavior”.

    Wrong again. The condition of primitive man doesn’t allow for the development of a ‘beta’. They would have become extinct long ago, if they’d actually ever existed. This another flaw in the whole ‘archetype’ theory of Game. No one can explain how men came to acquire these archetypes. They are basically just general behavioral categories into which would-be gurus stereotype people to pitch their theories.

  249. van Rooinek says:

    “Beta behavior, following the herd, now that’s primitive behavior”.

    Wrong again. The condition of primitive man doesn’t allow for the development of a ‘beta’. They would have become extinct long ago, if they’d actually ever existed.

    Wrong yet again. Unconstrained by law, so-called “Betas” would lash out at their tormentors, either solo or by forming coalitons and overthrowing them. Alphas would get away with a lot less.

  250. Suz says:

    I really don’t see moderate game as pandering. I see game as the outward manifestation of natural male dominance. SuperAlpha PUAs use it in the extreme, dishonestly displaying a dominance they don’t necessarily possess. They don’t always have peer dominance, community dominance or career dominance. The only people who see them as leaders are the women they seduce and some of their friends (who can always be counted on to laugh at those dumb broads, because “if only they knew the real story…”) A more well-rounded type of dominance is not needed for a high partner count, illusion of it is needed. Using game in this way IS detrimental to a marriage or an LTR, because it does put the entire burden of relationship responsibility on the man. (The dishonesty alone is a huge issue.) However in a healthy marriage with an honestly dominant husband and an honestly submissive wife, both parties can take responsibility for their own behavior.

    Using game moderately isn’t fake or dishonest. Most betas aren’t very dominant, but they can and should be dominant within in their families. A beta doesn’t have to act like an alpha to dominate his wife, he needs only to possess and display confidence in his moderate dominance. Feminist indoctrination makes ANY display of dominance or leadership appear to be contrived, because “those silly men, they should know better. They need to be better trained – by us.” (Yet nobody seems to mind a little natural dominance in the bedroom.) That’s where occasional use of game comes in; it’s a way of saying out loud what was once a given. A beta’s marital dominance should be steady and mostly understated; If it is, his wife will have confidence in her marriage and rarely test his strength. Under stress, she’ll likely become insecure, and that’s when “artificial” game is necessary – to neutralize her irrational fears. To have successful relationships in this cultural climate, men must understand both feminism and female psychology, and must be prepared to maintain control when women falter and start to lose control. All women sometimes stumble; a few women pull themselves together without any help, and many women are in a constant state of stumbling (these are the ones who can’t or won’t take responsibility for their actions.) Average women, however, just need a little boost of reassurance once in a while *once the man’s dominance is initially established.* For the vast majority of humans, male dominance over females is completely natural, it doesn’t need to be contrived, but in Western society it needs to be displayed.

  251. Suz, agree completely.

  252. Legion says:

    slwerner says:
    February 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    “Perhaps it is merely a matter of picking one’s poison?”

    The sad conclusion is that women are poison to men. Way to go team Women.

  253. This is due to the fact that Game cannot be co-opted by women

    Yes, it can. I call this Game 2.0, and there are plenty examples of this around like Susan Walsh.

  254. Rmaxd says:

    Excellently put Suz

    The concepts & truths about women, from game, will inevitably give men the ability to take back their households & families

    That is if they can stomach the truths about their beloved sluts …

    In the days of Alpha, the greed & injustice & the true nature of sluts, will force men to face the inevitable truth about their beloved wives & mothers & sisters

    Hypergamy, masculinity, confidence, dominance, the true nature of women, & the realisation of a mans true sexuality, & its importance to society

    Enslavement, never begins or ends at law, it always begins with the natural subversion of a mans biology

    If we want to understand how far we are enslaved, we have to understand how far our biology & natural sexual drives & natural forms of behaviour has been tampered with & subverted

    Marriage is a subversion of mans biological need for a tribe

    Religion is a subversion of mans need for a universal truth

    Society is a subversion of behaviour through mans need for tradition & culture

    Corporations are a subversion of mans need for building a nuclear family

    Game wont undo the centuries of enslavement, but it does allow us to undo the immediate damage done to men through feminism & white knights

    Game also leaves the door wide open to understanding just how far a mans sexuality & his biology has been dehumanised & subverted at the whims of the parasites who feed on mans ability to build a society, by men for men

    Monogamy has always been a womans subversion of a mans real polygamous sexuality, her parasitism subverts mans true sexuality of polygamy, for her serial sexuality

    Monogamy has always been used to force man to serve corporations & government, instead of building his own families & political power through his massive ability to create literally hundreds of families through polygamy

    A family has always meant to be a commercial & political venture, designed to rapidly combat injustice & ensure the survival of the family, through polygamys rapid abilitiy to create closely knit communities

    A monogamous society is easily controlled & predictable, where growth is kept at equilibrium, with easily manipulated consumers to brainwash & indoctrinate, ie women

    If women are to be freed, men as always have to find their true forms of biology first, to combat a monogamous society designed to be easily socially engineered & dehumanised

  255. I can easily prove the paper trail for feminism, everything from the funding right down to official documents

    No, you can’t. The only way you would have such a thing is if you were member of whatever world ruling conspiracy, your delusional brain believes in. This is why trying to have a conversation with you about something that exists in the real world is a waste of time. You aren’t interested in reality.

    As for data, you’re asking for data to prove a negative which means you will never accept the reality of it. You don’t have what you think you have.

  256. ybm says:

    Jesus christ how can you write:

    “If women are to be freed, men as always have to find their true forms of biology first, to combat a monogamous society designed to be easily socially engineered & dehumanised”

    And not say game is fem-centric?

  257. Jesus christ how can you write:

    “If women are to be freed, men as always have to find their true forms of biology first, to combat a monogamous society designed to be easily socially engineered & dehumanised”

    For that matter how can he write this, and not realize that having a conversation with him about some aspect in the real world is impossible?

  258. ybm says:

    I respect Rmaxd as he is passionate about criticising the world men live with today. He identifies the solution as “game” I do not. On the conspiracy theory chat I sincerely regret event mentioning conspiracy theorists because I see the massive derail that has ensued has provided nothing of substance on the very, very valid criticism of Sheila Gregoire in Dalrocks post. I apologize to Dalrock for even bringing up the topic.

  259. On the conspiracy theory chat I sincerely regret event mentioning conspiracy theorists because I see the massive derail that has ensued has provided nothing of substance on the very, very valid criticism of Sheila Gregoire in Dalrocks post. I apologize to Dalrock for even bringing up the topic.

    I second this because my decision to point out that holding women accountable was in direct opposition to believing that social engineers were responsible for feminism also contributed to this massive derail.

  260. John Rambo says:

    Sheila Gregoire is a man-hating feminist, even though she claims to be anti-feminist. She is simply PROOF that there is NO GOOD WESTERN WOMEN LEFT, that 99.9 PERCENT of western women are brainwashed by misandry and HATRED OF MEN.

    About Sheila Gregoire’s man-hatred:
    http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums2/tabid/369/forumid/232/threadid/1578/scope/posts/Default.aspx

  261. TFH says:

    PMAFT,

    Yes, it can. I call this Game 2.0, and there are plenty examples of this around like Susan Walsh..

    Actually, no. ‘Game 2.0′ can only mislead those who don’t comprehend Game.

    Almost no women comprehend Game well enough to damage it. Those who get mislead by sideshows like Game 2.0 are those who don’t have an ethos of focusing on results, and jettisoning anything that does not get results.

    You won’t find any of the major sources of Game instruction getting corrupted with any of this ‘Game 2.0′ crap.

    But there are already clueless men who go to Susan Walsh or Sheila Gregoire for advice. While these women given bad advice to men, a man stupid enough to still think that going to women for advice on women might already be too far behind to be saved.

  262. Anon says:

    John Rambo,

    Please report Sheila Gregoire to register-her.com :

    http://www.register-her.com/register/

    There is a category for ‘bigot’, where people similar to Sheila Gregoire have been registered. While it is up to the panel there to decide if she warrants registration, I want you (and others reading this) to submit a claim in the form above.

    It is time to close the loop on activism.

  263. TFH says:

    Brendan,

    if the social norm becomes that men must have Game in order to attract and retain wives, then de facto this means that men are, to some degree, pandering to women’s desires.

    I fully agree with Dalrock’s excellent response to the above, but I will also add this :

    Brendan, if a man can get the same or better thing, at 1/1000th of the cost (both direct and indirect), as a man being lied to by SoCons and the church, that is vastly, transcendantly more desirable of an outcome.

    Game tilts the power of a relationship in a man’s favor. Just ask PMAFT about his prior two girls and the one he scored from the Sunday Morning Nightclub (formerly referred to as ‘church’).

    I wouldn’t call that pandering.

  264. TFH says:

    Feminism is not a conspiracy not has it been generated by any grand design.

    It is merely the natural progression of democracy, as the democracy reaches the latter stages of its life-cycle. Just as leaves sprout in the spring, stay green for a while, then yellow, red, and brown/dead, misandry is merely the inevitable outcome of democracy.

    Anyone who knows how women think will see how giving women the right to vote has no possible outcome than a feminist police state.

  265. YBM says:

    @Anon

    I tried to submit her to the site but it said she had already been submitted.

  266. Unreal says:

    Want to see how completely ridiculous “pro-sex feminists” can get? How about going to a sadomasochistic public “play space” to get quasi-raped by a total stranger…then complaining that you were raped? Then doing it over and over and over for years…and continuing to cry rape over and over and over for years?! Here’s the Salon article:
    http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/real_abuse_in_bdsm/singleton/

  267. Anon says:

    YBM,

    Thanks for doing that. I guess it is up to the admins there now, to make a determination.

  268. Joe Sheehy says:

    “The only way you would have such a thing is if you were member of whatever world ruling conspiracy, your delusional brain believes in.”

    I’m not so sure you’re delusional, if you’re honest maybe you are.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

  269. Anonymous says:

    Slightly off-topic, but where we’re all (or, at least, or country) is headed… thank you, sex-positive Feminism and assorted left/liberal destruction of our values and culture.

    “Japan Population Decline: Third Of Nation’s Youth Have ‘No Interest’ In Sex,” by Mark Hanrahan, Huffington Post, 30 Jan 2012
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/japan-population-decline-youth-no-sex_n_1242014.html

    (It’s on HuffPo, ironically.)

  270. Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) says:

    Anon says:
    February 1, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    John Rambo,

    Please report Sheila Gregoire to register-her.com :

    Why not do that yourself ANon….why ask John to do it…John is already doing a MOUNTAIN of work collaborating with me. John Rambo is doing more than ANY other man to assist me as I have asked for assistance. Yet here you are. You cant even be bothered to do the slightest little thing. You are a great example of why men get screwed over…because they will not do thing one themselves.

  271. Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) says:

    Rmaxd says:
    February 1, 2012 at 7:13 am

    Rmaxd. PFMAT has been a conspiracy denier for a long time. He has refused to educate himself on the money system despite VAST amounts of evidence being put in front of him. He is one of the most ignorant writers in this area.

  272. Rmaxd says:

    Hi Peter,

    Go easy on the guys here Peter, we are all on the same side …

    Yea people like PMAFT I find hilarious, theyre willing to accept radical & non-mainstream concepts like game or MRA, but when it comes to a mainstream maligned subject, like real world conspiracy & engineering, they fall back to being a mainstream drone

    They can never really see the whole picture, as the whole is not meant to be seen through the eyes of an indoctrinated mainstream drone

    Our environments being taken from us, our natural states been taken from us, our communities & familiesve been taken from us, & we are surrounded by drones unable to see the extent of their dehumanisation & conditioning

    Their inability to see their own inhumanity isnt limited to feminists, the average, the mediocre, the drones existence, never sees the inhumanity around him

    All they have to offer are rationalisations, comfortable rationalisations which dont interfere with their world view

    Its not about the truth, its how well they can fit the truth to fit their own version of the truth

    Its this kind of cognitive inability to see reality, which always catches up with them, as they get strip searched at a TSA check point, or arrested on false rape charges

    They never really realise how far they need to take their epiphanys

  273. Rmaxd. PFMAT has been a conspiracy denier for a long time. He has refused to educate himself on the money system despite VAST amounts of evidence being put in front of him. He is one of the most ignorant writers in this area.

    Your “evidence” was a bunch of New Age woo.

    Besides, you’re a cowardly chickenhawk when it comes to anti-feminism. You hide out in Germany or whatever country you’re in now while you demand real MRAs fight your battles for you.

  274. @TFH

    Right, it is the natural progression of democracy, I agree, and I agree on the voting rights issue.
    Its just not complicated. In fact if it were a conspiracy it would be far simpler to deal with. As it stands, the feminism creep on society is nothing more than the amalgam of that huge swirling ball of unreconciled emotions that pretty much all women cart around with them. They manufacture crisis in the pursuit of empatha-gasms

    ——-
    I read that article about the linkages between corporations and such. This is incredibly silly.

    What if I studied the sport of tennis, and I kept coming up with the same set of top seeded players playing each other over and over….then I claim that those guys control the sport of tennis, from the child taking lessons to the college players and retirees at “The Villages” in Florida.

    If you take a filter media, drop stones in it/on it, remaining will be the bigger stones. Those stones, nor those tennis players, have conspiratorial WILLFUL control.

    I suppose Enron and Global Crossing were in that Cabal too.

    I agree each one has tons of influence, especially while they are so big and tentacled. I believe they move in tandem, usually things that are good for example, for banking, will be good for all the banking companies, they neednt organize a cabal to move in similar manners.

    One thing about conspiracy….if you want to find one you can, in anything.

  275. Suz says:

    Conspirators don’t always set “conspiracies” in motion The way Hitler did. Many of them simply gravitate toward certain situations and quietly gain control, arranging circumstances to their advantage. How is that different from an evil mastermind sitting behind a mahogany desk?

  276. Suz says:

    If you want to understand the issues, you have to go beyond the man-made constructs. Rmaxd isn’t advocating that we all live in caves like savages (You’re not, are you, Rmaxd?) He’s describing human nature as it was evolved to be, before highly structured religion, before highly structured societies, before advanced technologies, before we had the luxury of ignorance. All that stuff is real and we have to deal with it, but it is what we made, not who we are. The only way we can manage the social garbage we have created, is to mentally step away from it and view it objectively.

    This comment thread is packed full of theological theories, which are interesting, but ultimately useless. The Bible may motivate us, but I think it’s more accurate to say we use it to reinforce our emotion-based beliefs. This is why it’s so easy for the Gregoires and the Driscolls of the world to make a living “teaching” it – they teach us the parts that we want to hear. People don’t follow religion, religion follows people. Morality didn’t start with the first written laws. It didn’t start 6,000 years ago. It started with the first humans and their conscious and subconscious understanding of the most effective ways to survive and multiply successfully in a dangerous world.

    We needn’t be slaves to our instincts, because we have the ability to reason and to think in the abstract – to comprehend outcomes and consequences without witnessing or experiencing them. We have the ability to channel our instincts in ways that allow us to adapt to changing circumstances. This is how we built a massive, complex society which has become utterly foreign to human nature. We’ve gone so far from who we are, we don’t even recognize ourselves.

    Yet we still possess the instincts that society has made nearly obsolete.

    We can’t effectively solve human problems if we don’t understand their origins. Rmaxd’s comments can be pretty extreme, and I disagree with some of his interpretations, but they are based on scientific data. Not too many others are even looking at the science; they’re basing their opinions on one “tradition” or another. It all boils down to, “So-and-so said so, some-thousand years ago. It must be true.”

    Gregoire can come up with dozens of religious and cultural excuses for placing a higher value on women’s lives than men’s, and every last one of them is an opinion. Our knee-jerk desire for WACF is based on our innate need to preserve the children and the childbearers, so we don’t become extinct. Obviously, in the modern world a shipwreck isn’t going to endanger our species. The bare fact is that no human life is inherently more valuable than another, no matter how we feel about it. That fact doesn’t stop us from foolishly acting on our feelings.

    Rmaxd is dead-on about women being “freed.” What we see as “freedom” is actually restricting us, by oppressing half of the population – males who were designed to be our allies, not our enemies.

    One nit to pick, Rmaxd. Monogamy is a reasonable compromise between male promiscuity and female hypergamy. Males can get the progeny they seek while only supporting only one mate, and females can get the status and stability they seek for their progeny. Polygamy is probably better overall, but a harem drains a lot of resources from one man.

  277. Joe Sheehy says:

    “What if I studied the sport of tennis, and I kept coming up with the same set of top seeded players playing each other over and over….then I claim that those guys control the sport of tennis, ”

    Since when is controlling most of the world’s economy analogous to tennis? Since when is controlling the media analogous to tennis? I don’t see how it’s “stupid” to think that a relatively small number of people exert an extraordinary degree of control over society. The theory that women’s suffrage invariably leads to a misandrist police state is not necessarily. How did men ever give the franchise to women to begin with, or allow other feminist changes in law to occur in the 19th century?

  278. Joe Sheehy says:

    . . . is not necessarily very convincing.

  279. Rmaxd says:

    The basic fact is, he who prints the money, controls society

    Control the most critical form of artificial scarcity & you gain access to resources, youd have to raise up armies & conquer, all the while giving the illusion of a free economy

    The stock markets & the free economy are always rigged, precious metals worth millions, are one day worth thousands, while worthless companies not even showing a profit are worth billions, as corporations & banks launder money through these worthless stock markets

    All the while your controlled media, pump out propoganda to ensure the latest think tank formulas & equations, to keep the population in check & from rioting

    The latest trends & fads, accompanied by massive campaigns & adverts, with millions of sitcoms & tv pumping out the same message & propoganda, men are bad, everyone else good … including animals

    While lobbyists, donating billions in bribes & kick backs, to enact laws which reinforce the message in the latest tv ad

    Isolate the individual from any sense of identity & self worth, as you drown out his humanity in a sea of adverts & red tape

    He now sees everything from a point of isolation, everything is either untrendy, unfashionable & outofdate or a conspiracy theory, & of course hes a victim, of everyone else who doesnt believe in what he thinks as the truth

    He spends his life creatings excuse’s & rationalisations, for his inability to comprehend the truth, the perfect drone, made perfect by his own excuses & denials, made perfect by his own psychology, not realising his strengths or potentials

    The perfect drone believes it is incorrect to exercise his rights in law, he believes it is incorrect to fight the courts, cops, the traffic wardens, the security guards with zero real authority in shopping malls, dont fight the lawyers, the judges, & dont fight your local council, or the hordes of council inspectors

    Your inability to fight the law, this is what eventually destroys the individual

    Dont stand up for your rights in law, this is what it always boils down to

    Without a strong community willing to stand up for their rights, the feminists & your corrupt justice system will wreak havoc on your communities & your families

    While the perfect drone, whines about conspiracy theory & if you have nothing to hide, dont fight, you cant win against the cops, the courts & parking tickets anyway, so why bother …

    While he rationalises & excuses his freedom, the rest learn fighting the system correctly determines the quality of life, & the quality of life of those around them

    What is life worth, without a real substantial intellectual quality of life, enshrined by your ability to fight for those qualities?

  280. van Rooinek says:

    I posted at Sheila’s yesterday., at this thread, in support of Jack —
    http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2012/01/should-we-really-wait-for-marriage-to-make-love/

    Sheila killed my post. Today, I tried again…it’s “in moderation”….

    You killed my post from yesterday, so I’ll be brief…. Jack’s and Deti’s experiences are much more normative than you realize. Legions of Christian men report similar. Your “huge survey” of over 1000 women, and your 10 virgin til marriage friends, must represent extreme subject selection bias.

    Please SERIOUSLY read the stuff at Dalrock’s on this topic. It’s MUCH more prevalent than you imagine. And among women who attend church regularly, know the Scriptures, and imagine themselves to be “good Christians”…. yet have rationalization hamsters the size of capybaras.

    Take it from the good men who have ended up on the wrong side of it. We’re not lying, we’re not exaggerating. Unfortunately.

    Up til now, I had significant respect for Sheila even though I sometimes disagreed with her. If she kills THIS post, I’ll be forced to conclude that Sheila is either clueless or dishonest, and is indeed deserving of all the scorn the manosphere heaps upon her.

    We’ll see. The comment is still in moderation.

  281. van Rooinek says:

    Well… give Sheila credit. She let my comment through. Only for the purpose of arguing with it, but she did let it through.

    [D: Here is a link to Jack's comment which starts the exchange for those who want to read it.]

  282. AmStrat says:

    Was reading through the thread, when an analogy popped into my head. Starting jotting down what I thought of as it kept expanding, so it’s not super well-thought out, but I thought it worthy of evaluation.

    Today’s marriage scene is really more like a captured slave (the male) being forced to play a part in a play with the queen/princess. There are armed guards with constantly drawn bows aimed at him should he ever slip up in any way that the princess deems wrong. “Game” is really just the slave following the script of the play to be the hunky badboy the princess “wants”. It is all fake and no matter how either “player” feels about the perception, the truth is the slave is just a slave playing to the woman’s tune. The second he misses the script (acts beta) or goes too far into the act (actual violence rather than sexy sexy threats of violence or little-violence) the archers watching fire their arrows at him. From the slave’s point of view, he is already captured (married), he can either not play a part in the play and get shot, or follow HER script against his nature and hopefully NOT get shot, either way this “game” is not liberating, but merely life or sanity preserving. Maybe it is liberating, in that that slave now sees the whole play, he sees the princess’ demands and he sees the consequences if he does not play along or plays along too real, this must be better than the alternative of being shot without knowing why. The true liberation is to not be captured at all. Don’t marry. If you are married, learning game can only make you situation better.
    The sham of the act is what it is because of the presence of the guards (laws, the enforcement of said laws), no matter how the relationship feels, the slave is never in control, even if the script says so. Women love this because perception is reality to them, but they would love to be able to change whatever consequences erupt on a dime. For the play to become “real” requires the disbanding and restaffing of the guards.
    It is not hard to see why nearly everyone would recommend the slave (er, Man) study game; the princess wants the best performance, the Man wants less conflict and… the guards don’t really seem to care either way. This is why some women support game, they want their lived-out fantasies with no chance of negative consequences, what’s the fun of throwing a play when the male lead is going off script?
    Do I recommend Game? Yes, Yes I do. To Everyone. Someone who never plans to be captured by the play should learn the script to know what women are after. This may not help the non-slave as much as it “helps” the slave, but understanding the psychology of women could be helpful. What one should not take from this last paragraph is that a non-slave should learn the script and THEN get conscripted into the play. Don’t do that. The rank of the Men who are better/worser off is as follows (1 is best, 4 is worst):
    1. Unmarried, knows games.
    2. Unmarried, does not know game.
    3. Married, knows game.
    4. Married, does not know game.
    The worst off Man is the one in the play who knows not the script (game), the Best off Man is the one NOT in the play who knows the script. But in third place WAAAAY behind 2nd place is the man in the play who DOES know the script. You are WAY better off not being married and not knowing the script. Knowing the script might help a little, however.
    Sorry to call married Men slaves… but I call them as I sees them. Your princess could be the most understanding and helpful acting teacher out there, and let’s you go off script a lot, but the power she wields (that you do not) shapes your relationship. At any moment, she can snap her fingers and have your life ruined. No matter how good you follow the script, it will be a play. The first step to making it real is to disband the guards, deauthorize the princess from being able to use them. The first step is to remove the unbalanced laws.

  283. Anonymous Reader says:

    Well, it would be interesting to see how her “huge” survey of 1,000 women was conducted. The ways a survey like this can be skewed are many, and range from obvious to subtle. It is all too easy for the survey/interview method to introduce bias unconsciously – which is why the political pollsters that do phone banks require all their employees to read the same script on every call, by the way.

    Heck, I could whip up a “huge” survey of 1,000 people off of an email list without breaking a sweat. But it would in no way be representative of any population at large, because of the self selecting nature of such a list. If Gregoire’s “huge” survey was done in, say, ten churches of one denomination in the suburbs of Ottawa and Toronto, then the sample error would obviously be, shall we say, “huge”. If the survey was taken via web site & was self selecting, then it is useless. If the survey was taken via email, then there’s no anonymity and it is useless.

    Or to put it another way, suppose one surveyed all the married women that go to Driscoll’s Mars Hill church by talking to them in the lobby after church with a clipboard, i.e. in public. Would the results be meaningful in any way? No. The sample would be self-selected, the lack of anonymity would put pressure on those women to give the “right” answer no matter what the truth is. Do this 10 times with 10 large churches, and what would you have? Junk. Garbage. Nothing of any significance.

    There are a few ways to do an opinion survey correctly, and a whole lot of wrong ways. What are the odds that the “huge” survey of 1,000 women was done correctly, I wonder?

    Plus, cynic that I am, I cannot help but wonder how many of her “virgin” women friends were “born again virgins”. The first time I heard this term I thought it was a joke. It’s not. Some number of women join a church, become “born again” and decide that they are virgins all over again. Maybe in their minds it is true, but biologically it isn’t. And the men who marry them ought to know the truth before signing on the dotted line…er…saying “I Do”.

  284. Joseph says:

    I’m sure no one will read this way down here so here goes nothing.

    I am fairly certain that I know what is going on here. When Satan wanted to usurp God’s authority last time and attack his creation, he did it by appealing to Eve’s hypergamous nature. In Genesis, he clearly offered Eve a status level she had never had before. She could be “like God”. This time Satan has refined his attack and has offered them a much more attainable goal that is much more likely to be followed. She can be “like Man”. Feminism = the same old lie without having to do as much work. The hilarious part is that his most successful clients are “Christian” women.

  285. Anonymous Reader says:

    van Rooinek, that was an interesting exchange between you, Jack and Sheila. She clearly would rather attack men who say things that she does not like, than consider the possibility that some women are not telling her the truth about their sexual history. She really does not want to be told that there are church-going women whose lives are just like those of non church-going women, that is obvious. And while she’s willing to pay a little lip service to the experiences of men, in the end she just doesn’t want to hear/ read that stuff, either. Well, it is a web site for women, after all…and apparently it is her way of making money, so…

  286. deti says:

    @ van rooinek:

    I went to that thread you and Jack commented on. Jack left a killer comment, as did you.

    I’m leaving my thoughts here, since there’s really no point in talking there anymore.

    1. jack’s comment did not talk about Christian women. He just talked about women in general. And jack’s comment about being a Christian man, waiting for women in their 20s to “find themselves” sexually, while the good beta men are ignored, is spot on.

    2. Gregoire’s 1000-Christian woman survey is just a sample survey. There’s no description of their selection. But from that Gregoire extrapolates it to the North American Christian church at large. This is a fatal error.

    In Gregoire’s mind, the Christian women she knows and surveyed are not ultrahypergamous and as willing to sleep with hot alpha men outside marriage as their secular sisters; ergo, Christian women in general everywhere are not ultrahypergamous and as willing to sleep with hot alpha men outside marriage as their secular sisters.

    To recap:
    “I’m not like that!”
    “The women I know are not like that!”
    “The women on this blog are not like that!”
    “Christian women are not like that!”
    “NACWALT!”
    “My church is not like that !”
    “The churches I know are not like that!!”

    3. Gregoire gives only passing shrift to others’ contrary experiences. When confronted with a contrary experience, Gregoire’s response is always something like “well, maybe that’s your experience, but it’s not mine, and it’s not the experience of the people I know, and you are painting a terrible picture of the Church, and you’re just being mean and nasty.” The implicit argument is “my experience is more valid than your experience because I say it is and I believe it is.”

    4. Gregoire fails to recognize that Christian women are still women. Since they are human, they, like all other women, have human natures, sin natures and natural sex drives.

    5. I couldn’t believe this one: Gregoire actually used shaming language. In response to jack’s post on having to wait for women to “find themselves” sexually, she said this:

    “Jack, I can understand your bitterness, but I think your situation has clouded the reality.”
    and
    “I just think that you are upset because of your situation, and as I said before, you are painting a very ugly picture of the church–one that does not match up to what I have witnessed or to what the research says. Does that mean that you haven’t experienced it? No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that your experience is not typical, despite what many of the manosphere blogs say.”

    Translation: You’re just hateful and bitter because you can’t get married to and laid by a nice Christian woman!

    6. Gregoire is not interested in dialogue or talking about competing ideas. She does not want to hear about experiences that do not line up with hers. . Rather, she wants an echo chamber. She is interested in telling people her opinions and having people agree with her. She does not want to engage her fellow believers who have differing opinions.She said it herself — she wants to dispense advice. She is not interested in debate or “winning arguments”. (Interesting how she says she wants “to make a difference, not win an argument”. How are you going to make a difference if you don’t try to win arguments? Christians have been at the forefront of debates in the Western world, debates political, moral, social and otherwise, and trying to win those debates and wars of ideas, and mostly winning, for 2000 years now.)

    “I want to make a difference, not win an argument.”

    Translation: I want to say what I want to say, and I should not have to defend it or justify it. People should just believe me because I said it and I asked a bunch of women who say they are Christians about sex and stuff. My experiences, and the experiences of the Christian women I know (or what they told me of their perceptions of their experiences) are the only ones that matter. If I believe it based on my experiences and those of the people in my circle of acquaintances, then it is true, and no one has any right to question its veracity. No one has any right to come onto my blog and express ideas that do not agree with what I believe.

  287. van Rooinek says:

    AR — my first post, the one she killed, was an exceprt from my first post at this thread, which i reposted at Sheila’s in support of Jack —
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/how-should-christian-men-respond-to-slutty-women-marry-them/
    (post of jan 25th, 11:43 AM)
    I replaced the original f word with “fornicate”, so she wasn’t censoring based on language.

    I get the sense that she **truly believes** that “most Christian women aren’t like that”. What I see as the sad norm, she believes to be the sad but rare exception. I think her statistics are biased, frankly, but I see no point in pressing that issue further. To put it another way, she and I are in more or less total agreement on how Christian women SHOULD behave, but not about how they **actually do** behave.

    What had me so torqued off at her, was that I interpreted her deletion of my post from yesterday, as an implicit accusation that it was all a lie. Apparently that wasn’t her motive at all. She just thinks the discussion belongs elsewhere.

  288. deti says:

    van Rooinek:

    I’m responding to your last post just to make this point: I understand that she doesn’t agree that Christian men’s dating experiences in the Church as referenced by jack, you and me as “typical”.

    She also more or less accurately describes how Christian women SHOULD behave. But , she does not appear to me to actually understand how they REALLY behave in many instances. For every instance of a good Christian wife, I can show you an ultrahypergamous choir mezzo-soprano, a “reformed slut” with a double digit partner count resulting from a series of “youthful indiscretions” that somehow “happened to” her, and a female longtime Sunday School teacher leaving a 15 year marriage and 3 kids living at home because “we grew apart” or “I’m not haaaappy”.

    It is a bit hypocritical of her to censor discussion and debate on her blog, when she has come here to scold Dalrock and others on at least one thread about how men are excusing and justifying pornography, not doing enough to combat the ill effects of porn, and generally giving men a pass on porn. Dalrock let the post stand and it invited a fair amount of response and debate. see for yourselves:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/promiscuity-is-good-so-long-as-it-is-done-on-the-womans-terms/#comment-19617

    I ask Gregoire again: how do you intend to “make a difference” if you don’t try to “win arguments” by convincing skeptics of the correctness of your positions? If we in the manosphere are wrong, how and where are we wrong?

  289. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    She also more or less accurately describes how Christian women SHOULD behave.

    I don’t have time to go back and double check now, but as I recall you said that wives should submit to their husbands and she replied that women are being taught to be godly. In other words, I think she dodged the issue of submission altogether. Given her staunch feminist background I think we shouldn’t assume this was an oversight.

  290. Rmaxd says:

    @Dalrock

    You might be interested in this quote … lol

    “PORN IS MORE EQUAL THAN ROMANCE: Think about it. In mainstream porn everything is equal: no one has clothes, man is in the top, woman is in the top, woman gives blowjob, and man gives cunninlingus…Romance is very unequal. Cinderella is very poor, the prince owns everything. And when they marry, Cinderella gets huge economic benefits.”

  291. Eric says:

    ybm:
    LOL, and you’ll notice too how the Gamecocks managed to dodge the questions again: If these male archetypes really exist; how do men acquire them? Are they genetic or cultural? Notice, too, no one wants to explain why Game (assuming that it does work) would be necessary on a traditional, non-feminist woman.

    You’re correct: the whole ideology is feminocentric from start to finish.

  292. Eric says:

    Suz:
    What you’re describing in your previous post is not ‘Game’, it’s a healthy expression and recognition of gender polarities. The majority of women don’t think anything like you’ve described.

    You’ve pointed out several times—correctly—the biological and natural order of things. But relationships can’t work on that alone. If women are educated to go against their own instincts and natural inclinations, there is NOTHING a man can do to correct it. They have to change their own attitudes and correct themselves.

    Women may naturally need a strong, responsible and protective man; but at they same time they are taught that men are their inferiors and that she doesn’t ‘need a man’. The conflict is going to be that she has to prove to herself that she is more powerful and dominant; and will either crush a good man or pursue worthless losers.

    Women may naturally seek to make homes and families; yet they are taught that motherhood is victimization and abortion is a right. So she has babies and sues for child support, dumps them in daycare, or runs to an abortion mill—just to validate herself to the cultural norm.

    The same with sex: women want sex with dominant men; at the same time they are taught that men objectify them sexually and they are no obligation to be sexually appealing to us. The result is again, they either go into bisexuality; or slut around with any random male; or turn totally frigid and rejecting towards dominant men who are genuinely masculine.

    Marriage is supposed to be a union of equals: women are taught they are entitled victims and that their narcissicism is enlightened self-interest. Can you see why NO technique of ANY kind is going to work here? Women are too emotionally conflicted to build any kind of solid, responsible relationship with a man; and certainly they shouldn’t be having kids, either.

  293. ybm says:

    Fortunately Eric for the majority of the white women in the west:

    THEY AREN’T

  294. Suz says:

    Yes Eric, I mostly agree with you. And many Western women are likely too damaged to repair themselves. Game would be pandering to them because they are essentially insatiable – it will never be enough. There are still a few women who are only slightly damaged/brainwashed, though; they recognize the conflict in their perceptions, and they want to resolve it. The moderate use of game can reinforce their “reformed” thinking throughout the years. I think it’s necessary since women are constantly bombarded with cultural messages that renew the conflict, and being emotional more than rational, women will always be somewhat vulnerable to those messages. Anyone, male of female, who wants to get married and stay married in this society, must be willing to fight against the influence of the outside world. Game can be a useful but small part of the process – it reminds women that they already have the dominant protector/partner they need. Even the best women sometimes need that little nudge. To me it’s the same level of “pandering” as a wife buying some new sexy lingere when she learns that her husband’s boss just hired a pretty woman. It may not be necessary because she knows he loves her, but it’s probably a good idea to remind him why he loves her. I guess there’s a pretty fine line between reinforcing and pandering, because game IS a reward of sorts.

  295. Yes, Suz, but Game is easy. It is pandering in the standard way that is hard. All that Game requires is a little bit of moral strength and courage.

  296. Rmaxd says:

    Wrong, women are essentially dysfunctional precisely because they dont have strong masculine influences, who dont know how to be domineering or dominant

    Put a strong dominant male, in the presence of a damaged western woman & she turns into a submissive & pliant almost normal chick

    The fact you guys dont even know this basic fact, shows how little you realise the importance of game & the importance of masculinity, to todays society

    Targetting a persons biological functions is hundreds of times more effective, then any psychotherapy …

    Keep the anti-game hysteria coming, the less knowledge & understanding the average male has of women the better

    If you guys want to educate yourselves on game, I suggest you post your hilariously clueless statements, at the Chateau or a real gaming forum …

    In otherwords educate yourselves on the subject before getting hysterical about a subject you have no clue about

    Dalrocks is first & foremost a relationship & marriage blog, trying to address the finer points of game is pointless

    As for Eric & YBM & the rest of the clueless trying to turn Dalrocks into an ant-gaming blog, Dalrocks already proven the effectiveness of game

    Take your clueless anti-game rhetoric elsewhere

    Anyway Ill let someone else field the game questions, I dont need to defend game, its already pretty evident, it is after all hundreds of times larger & more influential then the manosphere

  297. Game works. It has improved my marriage a lot.

    Game is to feminism like garlic to vampires.

  298. Mark says:

    If Sheila truly wanted to help Christian women in their marriages, she would tell them to submit to their husbands. That one piece of advise would solve a ton of issues that she tries to otherwise address. And it would solve them far more effectively. Without that teaching, all of her advice is just a veneer over the real issue. In fact, it’s counterproductive, since women might actively and sincerely try the recommendations she gives and then get frustrated when the marriage still doesn’t go right–because she’s missing the key ingredient. So, the wife tries being adventurous in bed or whatever, but the husband still won’t do his chores–shock, horror! Time for a divorce!

  299. She won’t tell wives to obey their husbands. That would make life too easy for men. If there were peace in the Christian home, according to God’s plan, most of the problems she writes about would go away. Then she would have nothing left to do but mind her own business and her own home.

    We Catholics have our problems, but Sheila is a typical Protestant problem. Interprets scripture to suit herself and purports to preach.

    I would be amazed if she believes in Christian submission for wives. She will have a cute biblical interpretation to explain St Paul away.

    Happy to be proved wrong if I have maligned the lady … Anybody???

  300. Ive concluded that game works in marriage, it solved these tests and other dynamics.

    But dang the religiosity of it is off putting, its like the word “game” is in a back lit filtered camera lens like was once occupied by 1950′s movie starlets, and there is that annoying “aaaaaaaaahhhh” sound when some cool thing is introduced.

    What really pushed me to post that is the comment above that says “try posting that at The Chateau”.

    Its like early “Mac” converts talking to PC users or something.

    If you read this stuff and are not really a big part of it, meaning evangelizing the internet for game, it looks kind of weak.

    Its like the spongebob episode where he buys and wears blow up muscle arms and all the body builders start loving him….he looks good, he talks the talk, but then they toss him an anchor to lift and the arms burst revealing it was a strategy, and indeed it worked at what he wanted it to, it got the other guys in the gym to respect him.

    Do not conflate my comments with refutation of game efficacy.

  301. Sheila’s blog is basically cutesy. Its all wrapped in ribbons and should be full of rare emoticons, at least she left that off. Im sorry because these seem to be only aesthetic gripes and childish complaints but they actually have relevance in what Dalrock and others are getting at.

    Its been repeated and I will say it quick that she and the vast majority of women can reject a premise based on personal experience, with ease. “No, most people are not right handed, my 2 brothers are left handed” But she has taken this survey of hers and failed to see that even the endeavor of taking that survey is flawed…as frankly are 99 % of opinion surveys, quality surveys, etc…..but 99.999999999% of surveys that are relational in nature. Fact is women love surveys. The magazines always have the latest, Oprah always has a survey to discuss, even topics beaten to death, if there is a new survey on “what drives women crazy” will be treated like a new lunar landing in news worthiness.

    Combine all that, woman is asked a survey question. is her answer a factual representation of HER, or is it a vague amalgam of the anecdote like “I don’t know anyone who is like that so I’m gonna say no” Largely the questions themselves are not sufficiently bracketed to hold her (respondent) focus narrow enough, or if the intention is not personal about her but about women in general, they dont avoid anecdote. Also, never forget, in evangelical circles the ideas about sex in marriage have gotten so painfully screwed up that a woman may answer “1-2 partners” meaning in her mind since she said the sinners prayer of some such thing.

    The ability of Christian women to rationalize EVERY SINGLE THING in scripture that holds them to account, uniquely them, is to behold.

    And almost like porn….women on christian forums crave discussions about how a man is “loving his wife as Christ the church”….they could read white knight prattling on that all day every day and never get enough…..its the porn of romance novels cum Christian husbandly sacrificial love”

  302. will says:

    @Rmaxed: Submit documents and weblinks to back up your case. If you want others to believe you. Show us that paper trail you talked about.

  303. Suz says:

    @ Empathologicalism:
    “The ability of Christian women to rationalize EVERY SINGLE THING in scripture that holds them to account, uniquely them, is to behold.”

    That’s the magic (and the danger) of religion. Men do it too. I think the main difference is that men are more likely to call each other out over it. Women are more likely to accept the rationalization in blind solidarity.

  304. Suz says:

    “Dalrocks is first & foremost a relationship & marriage blog, trying to address the finer points of game is pointless”

    You can’t separate the two. The essence of game is to assert male dominance, and male dominance, subtle or overt, is necessary to a successful marriage. “The finer points of game” is not pointless, it is THE point. Nearly every single interpersonal interaction establishes or maintains status, from “Hey Babe, come here often?” to “My car keeps making a funny noise.” If you doubt that, think of the most insecure people you know, who can turn ANYTHING into a fight. Everything is conflict resolution, everything is negotiation, everything is manipulation. Every time one person interacts with another, his or her status becomes vulnerable; we’re not static and our status is not static.

  305. Suz, very well put. Both men and women are fascinated and motivated by status.

    We are primates, after all.

  306. Suz, that’s not THE magic and danger of religion. That something can be manipulated is not criteria for discrediting it, sheesh, if thats the case place game under that same microscope and see which is in principle more congruent with nefarious outcome.

    I wonder, and its a genuine question, if there are 2 or 3 spheres here, one that has game as a template for life, to a degree that would make the average megachurch pastor salivate at the idea he lead such adherants, another outright rejection of game, and a third employing game even using it to change their own lives for the better. And I wonder where dalrock falls on it, not asking about game or no game, that part is clear and I don’t think (I hope not anyway) people want to get round about game debate at its basic level, but one can get the impression that game is such that we could all just stop with the analysis of the things dalrock so skillfully writes about, and say to ourselves we neednt really worry about any of it, we need to just move more and finally most men into game expertise and whalla, these problems are solved.

    Isnt that what one hears in church, sorta? Someone says frivolous divorce is sin, and the response is , No, the problem isnt divorce, the problem is the heart and sin, and if we can just get all God focused all these issues will fall away.

    can someone explain to me how those notions of game, and that statement by many Christians differ at the functional (not theoretica, IOW not comparing game to religion in a which is better manner) way?

  307. I disagree that you cannot separate the two, game and male relationship. One is a potential means to the other, they are not inseparable parts of one whole. Ideally game wouldnt even BE game, it would just be how men are, organically….then its inseparable.

  308. Empath, some wives have always been termagants and the hen-pecked husband is a stock figure in all times and places. Even under patriarchy, there are rebellious wives.

  309. Brendan says:

    Brendan,let me lay out my position.

    1. Men in general, and beta men especially, are vital to an industrial society.
    2. Beta men are especially punished by the legal system for what they are, from various forms of discrimination in education & work to divorce theft, etc.
    3. In order to give beta men an investment in the larger society, the legal system has to change.
    4. Change in the legal system will require changes in social and even cultural attitudes.
    5. Changes in social and cultural attitudes necessary to effect no. 3 can’t occur as long as women are pedestalized (‘more moral than men’, ‘naturally monogamous’, etc.)
    6. The most effective way to get men to stop pedestalizing women is Game. The feedback loop is short in time, much shorter in time than any “teach in” or long winded lectures in classrooms, drum-banging retreats, conferences, etc. This is due to the fact that Game cannot be co-opted by women (unlike all the other things I listed) and Game works. Perhaps Game will be to the righst of men as “consciousness raising” was to feminism in the 1970′s.

    In this I have to agree with Hollenhund (and Athol Kay). The foundation of the current problem is not as cultural as we think — it’s largely technologically-driven. Therefore, the idea that Game can change the culture in such a way as to change the legal system is quite backwards. The culture that created feminism was itself created by technological changes that made feminism and Marriage 2.0 — or something like it — close to inevitable. And it’s also what makes them relatively durable, in my view.

    Again, to clarify what I said about this upthread. No doubt Game works in individual marriages and relationships — if people want to use it, they should go right ahead. It’s probably better than not using it, if you are already married or want to be. The issue I take is that Game should never be viewed as the basis for a new, stable modus vivendi among men and women — it concedes far too much, and is too unstable to be suitable for that. In this, I agree with Roissy himself, who certainly did not see Game as the basis for a new stable social order between men and women, but as the “best one can do” in a very flawed environment. A stable social order can only be built on the basis of legal and social rules, not personal/emotional/sexual desire or enagagement. Game — which appears to be a good way for men to make the best of a bad situation in today’s culture — is being used here as a solution to problems which it cannot solve in a stable way.

    Given the role that technology has played in the rise of Marriage 2.0 and feminism, it seems extremely dubious to me that Game, even if adopted by a large part of the male population, would have the impact of changing laws and social rules around marriage and relationships. If anything, it would feed into the development of a culture that plays to women’s sexual interests and desires, rather than stable family life. Again, this doesn’t mean that individual men alive today shouldn’t use Game to make the best of a rough situation. It does, however, mean that this cannot be the basis for a new, stable modus vivendi between men and women in a way that centers on the protection of family life. It is often said that Game is a tool, and I agree. But trying to make Game the basis of a new social order between men and women is like trying to peel a banana using a shovel: wrong tool for the job.

  310. Suz says:

    I wasn’t discrediting religion. I acknowledging that it is easy to misuse.
    Game is men consciously choosing to act how they were meant to act, therefore it is inseparable from relationships. Interpersonal status is fluid, never static; in stable relationships it’s less fluid, but it must be maintained. Ideally a man should choose a woman who requires very little gaming, but if he’s already in a high maintenance relationship, he he may need constant game to control his status. If she’s worth the trouble.

  311. ybm says:

    @rmaxd
    As for Eric & YBM & the rest of the clueless trying to turn Dalrocks into an ant-gaming blog, Dalrocks already proven the effectiveness of game

    You are misrepresenting my views because I can’t be against something that doesn’t exist. It is magical thinking to attribute things with no verifyable evidence other than anecdote. PUA very much exists, it just doesn’t work. The women Pick-up works on are the same women you could have walked over, and been, you know, normal to, and picked up. No “game” required.
    As for this “inner-game/marriage-game” nonsense, well, again, this is nothing that many men with a lot more education than Chateau have already written about, Dale Carnegie for example. I’ll take advice on confidence and self-esteem from actual educated men thanks. Not keyboard warriors in their 20s who are often unemployed.

  312. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    “I want to make a difference, not win an argument.”

    Translation: I want to say what I want to say, and I should not have to defend it or justify it.

    This really does seem to be the case. In addition to the points you and others have made about her relying on her own anecdote and (flawed) survey, I would add that even when she does know something contrary to the view she wants to put forward that information is simply forgotten. I gave the example of her own experience with Christian wives believing being “true to themselves” was the 11th commandment in the original post. Another example that comes to mind is when you cited the 38% divorce stats for Christians she claimed to have looked into it and found that it didn’t represent regular church attendees. I shared that stat with her several months ago and showed her that regular church attendance was exactly the group that statistic was measuring. But it didn’t fit with her narrative, so she simply denies it and claims it isn’t what it is.

    I would tie this back to the larger topic of men losing interest in the church. The attitude that all disagreement is personal and an unwillingness to back up what you are teaching rubs men the wrong way. The church has been taken over by men and women who argue in this feminine way. My father in law always says “Don’t take anything I teach you as the final word. It isn’t my opinion that matters, but what the bible says.” My father in law is an extremely smart man (STEM PhD), and has been studying the bible his whole life. Yet he understands that this is about something much more important than his own ego. This is an attitude which is missing in most churches today.

  313. Mark says:

    IMO, Games works inasmuch as it creates confidence. I had a ton of success with women years ago, then got married and stopped. Recently, I came across Game online and it was a big kick in the pants and reminded me of what I used to do. I went back to my old manner—using it on my wife—and it revamped my marriage overnight.

    If you can be confident, in-charge, flirty in a creative way, and not at all needy, then you’ve got it made, in most cases. I think the idea of memorising lines and so forth is silly. People should work on developing natural social skills, rather than faking them.

  314. van Rooinek says:

    PUA very much exists, it just doesn’t work. The women Pick-up works on are the same women you could have walked over, and been, you know, normal to, and picked up. No “game” required.

    I have seen with my own eyes, that this assertion is false. Even the accidental application of Game principles, can cause women — even Christian women — to suddenly be attracted to a man in whom they’ve never before had any interest.

    I am not a PUA but I must admit, that unfortunately, the PUAs are correct. Their teachings do work.

    I’ll take advice on confidence and self-esteem from actual educated men thanks. Not keyboard warriors in their 20s who are often unemployed.

    48, PhD Chemist, same job for the last 14 years, same wife 10 years. “Nuff credibility for ya?

  315. Anonymous Reader says:

    And almost like porn….women on christian forums crave discussions about how a man is “loving his wife as Christ the church”….

    Yep. And until he’s enough like Christ, she doesn’t have to submit. Though it isn’t generally stated that baldly, “No submission to man until he’s Christlike ‘enough’” is a common pouting point. And who gets to decide if he’s “enough” that way? Why, she does, of course.

    Someone else said it, I’m gonna repeat it: many women want a man to “lead’ them but only where they want to got. That’s not a leader. That’s a chauffeur.

  316. Dalrock says:

    @empathologicalism

    I wonder, and its a genuine question, if there are 2 or 3 spheres here, one that has game as a template for life, to a degree that would make the average megachurch pastor salivate at the idea he lead such adherants, another outright rejection of game, and a third employing game even using it to change their own lives for the better.

    I see your point on game having a sort of religious quality to some. I think you could break the game zealots down into the following sub categories:

    1) Those who are responding to someone getting the fundamentals of game wrong. Like anything else, the basic precepts of game are most important for those who are learning. There is a tendency for those new to the concept to grab onto a bit of it and then morph it off into nonsense. Those who have mastered game can get away with a bit of “unorthodoxy”, because they know what they are doing. Type 1 zealots know game quite well and see a novice making a common mistake and attempting to help. They are rigid in their teaching because they understand the person they are communicating with doesn’t yet understand the fundamentals.

    2) Type 2 zealots resemble type 1, but these are fairly new to game and trying to stop others from confusing them. Their strictness is a reflection of the internal effort they impose on themselves in order to change their own thinking.

    3) Type 3 zealots are best described as “I’m more alpha than you are” zealots. One can’t really know over the internet, but my sense for the vast majority of these is they are not the real deal.

    And I wonder where dalrock falls on it, not asking about game or no game, that part is clear and I don’t think (I hope not anyway) people want to get round about game debate at its basic level, but one can get the impression that game is such that we could all just stop with the analysis of the things dalrock so skillfully writes about, and say to ourselves we neednt really worry about any of it, we need to just move more and finally most men into game expertise and whalla, these problems are solved.

    I don’t claim to be a master of game, and I don’t claim to be alpha. I am a bit of a student of it, and I observed first hand the success that my natural PUA roommate had with women in college. Game seems to explain very well why what he did worked the way it did, and why the bits which I tried to mimic did or didn’t work. I also have found that understanding it helps in my own marriage, although as I’ve pointed out before I strongly believe that it shouldn’t be the foundation for keeping a marriage together. I generally avoid directly teaching game, but I do find that understanding the concepts of game leads me to some very productive areas of intellectual inquiry. Once there game may or may not offer insight on how to resolve the questions which come up.

    As for the power of game to drive social change, I’ve been considering writing a post on it for several months now. My thinking hasn’t fully crystallized on it but it might be worth doing one now anyway just for the insights others on this board already have. Although, much of their insight has already been shared upthread.

  317. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brendan, blaming technology for a social problem is like saying “Guns cause murder, ban guns and murder will stop”. What technology do you find behind marriage 2.0?

    IMO social changes are driven as much by demographics and the spread of ideas as any technology. Although I fear that excess resources – “too much wealth” – may be a factor as well, because of the observations of John Glubb in his monograph “Rise and Fall of Empires”.

  318. PUA very much exists, it just doesn’t work. The women Pick-up works on are the same women you could have walked over, and been, you know, normal to, and picked up. No “game” required.

    I have seen with my own eyes, that this assertion is false. Even the accidental application of Game principles, can cause women — even Christian women — to suddenly be attracted to a man in whom they’ve never before had any interest.

    ——————————————————-

    Van Roonik

    I hope you realize that nothing you stated contradicts his assertion in even the tiniest amount.
    I think I see that more clearly because as a chemical engineer, we have to sort the nuts and bolts stuff for you Erlenmeyers.

  319. ybm says:

    “48, PhD Chemist, same job for the last 14 years, same wife 10 years. “Nuff credibility for ya?”

    Publish a peer reviewed journal on game proving the assertion, and yes.

  320. ybm says:

    “Even the accidental application of Game principles, can cause women — even Christian women — to suddenly be attracted to a man in whom they’ve never before had any interest. ”

    This is the dictionary definition of magical thinking and you should know better than to try to pass it off as evidence.

  321. Dalrock

    Yes, and I guess you get it that again, Im not debating game in general or in specifics. i too like to think on it as it relates to WHY it works, and I enjoy credible explanations of things that drive behavior.

    Your point about basing a marriage on it is also something that disturbs me as to some category of what you aptly call zealots.

    Its not the rigidity of the teaching, its the appeal to authority (actually they appeal to authority that is at best tenuous regardless of how correct it is) that wrecks the posture for me. When push comes to shove some of these zealots use a common feminist tactic, “you dont get THIS (think some minute point) because you actually just don’t grasp GAME”, one can easily get an elitist feel to it, and the sense that rather than it even mattering in real world application, its devotion to the Oracle(s) of game that sets them apart.

  322. ybm says:

    @empathologicalism

    I’m only going to address this topic one final time in this post because I know when I am going around in circles. I am not criticising the positive aspects of “game” like confidence and self-esteem, I’m just saying smarter people than internet-jockeys have a lot better advice to give in those areas. Hell I’m not even critcising PUA, except from the viewpoint that even PUAs admit its really just a system of screening the women who are ALREADY attracted to you.

    What I am criticsing is the group-think and magical thinking that seems to be spreading like a cancer from this part of the internet and has even tried to attach itself to men’s rights as some sort of ment’s rights metholodogy. Game isn’t going to change ANYTHING, it is a holding pattern, and a supplicating one at that.

  323. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brendan, I’m pretty sure you don’t disagree with my larger points. Do you have any kind of roadmap to offer for rolling back feminism? Or are you now arguing that the long term direction is towards some kind of collapse, no matter what is done? I’m not baiting you, that’s pretty much what Glubb asserted in the 1970′s.

    ybm, you’re basically taking the feminist approach to v.R.: “I don’t like hearing what you are saying, so it must not be true”. But his experience is hardly unique, I can assure you.

  324. Brendan says:

    What technology do you find behind marriage 2.0?

    Several. One major one was the shift in work patterns overwhelmingly toward white-collar “office work”, which is as easily performed by women as by men. This was largely a technology-driven shift away from most jobs involving hard physical labor towards most jobs being office work. This trend was well underway by the time Marriage 2.0 kicked in, but has only solidified since then. The impact is that it enabled women to excel in the work force, which enables financial independence (from men).

    Coupled with this was the trend, again around the same time, of much household labor becoming increasingly automated. This led “housewifery” to become less time consuming than it was previously, which, in turn, led to the kind of boredom described by Betty Friedan (and shared by millions of women living as housewives at the time). This boredom, coupled with the fact that the world of work was fast becoming the world of office work, led to the intense pressure for women to participate on this on equal terms with men.

    Coupled with these was, of course, the advent of cheap, effective birth control and cheap, safe abortion. Neither was new, but what *was* new was the cheapness, safety, and effectiveness of them. These technologies have changed female sexual behaviors substantially due to the substantial change in the risk side of the equation, for women, in terms of avoiding or terminating pregnancy. Again, the impact of this was myriad, but two main impacts, in terms of liberating women, were (1) the freedom to have sex with the men she found sexiest regardless of whether they were father material and (2) the freedom to have sex — with husband as well — without leading to children. Both of these substantially increased women’s independence vis-a-vis men, even vis-a-vis their husbands, and walked, hand in hand, with the changes in the workplace and the changes in the home environment to abet the rise of female economic independence (from men).

    The general trend, as you can see, is that a number of technological and technological/economic factors were all trending towards a drastically increased participation of women in the full-time workforce, with the result of dramatically increased female independence, sexually and financially (for women, the two go hand in hand and are essentially linked, because a lack of female economic independence means, to a woman, reliance on a man, which restricts her sexual independence).

    Marriage 2.0 is the direct result of all of this. In a sense, it *had* to develop, given these behavioral changes that were rooted to a large degree in a changed technological landscape. The essence of Marriage 2.0 is the complete liberation and independence of the woman — sexually, reproductively, financially — from men. It tracks these developments almost completely. Women are liberated to pursue sex and love rather than security — that is the “essence” Marriage 2.0 (“hedonic” marriage, per Stephanie Koontz) — and to keep pursuing it even once they are married, by simply leaving that marriage and keeping on pursuing it. This ability is preserved by (1) female financial independence (i.e., her having a decent job she can live on after divorce) and (2) financial settlements, especially around children, which supplant that income by a continued portion of her ex-husbands income going forward — income which is forced even though she is now “independent” of the ex-husband, so it is, in effect, an income shift which facilitates her independence. The whole thing is 100% designed to maximize female independence from males, in this case their husbands, full stop. And that grows out of the overall trend, supports the overall trend and is in harmony with it, because the overall trend is based on underlying developments that, without some kind of massive technological and economic shifts, are more or less durable. Marriage 2.0 is just the logical expression of a technology-based economy which supports strongly the concept and realization of female economic independence –> something which “frees up” women to act sexually and emotionally in ways they were never before free to do without running adverse risks (due to biology), and it is this “freeing up” that lies at the core of the way Marriage 2.0 is set up.

    The change is fairly durable, because we’re not going to wake up and have women be economically dependent on men, or not be able to regulate their own pregnancies, any time soon barring an utter cultural and economic sea change — which is never a likely thing to bet on. In a world where women are financially liberated from dependence on men, and sexually liberated from having to be careful sexually and “pick”, over the course of a lifetime, more stable men who are less sexy, the rules about marriage between men and women were bound to reflect these priorities sooner or later — it just follows from the broader developments.

    This is why, from the MRA perspective, my own position has long been that the best that can be hoped for is a change in the existing laws to make them more fair. That is, upending the entire system and “going back to the way it was” is not going to happen, because of the fundamental technological and economic changes that underlie these changes to begin with. But, what you *can* do is tinker with the system’s rules and make them less unfair to men — along the lines that people like Glenn Sacks are doing. Similarly, it makes sense that Game would help men navigate the current situation, precisely because women now do have this “unnatural” ability (granted by technology) to pick the sexy over the stable (or to demand a strong sexiness mixed in with the stable), so making changes so that you are more sexy will help you in this regard — no brainer there. However, it’s also a no-brainer that this is at the same time an accommodation to a system that has fundamentally changed due to the underlying technological and economic changes that have “freed up” women’s mate choices in a way that doesn’t exist “naturally”, where women really DO have to care a lot about every pregnancy risk chance. Game is merely an adaptation to the new, changed system. It isn’t going to upend the system, precisely because it is an accommodation to it (i.e., it is accommodation to the trend of women selecting for both sexy and stable, because they can) , and the underlying things that created the system we have today are not being changed — and are, in fact, very unlikely to be changed any time soon.

  325. ybm….

    You are preaching and Im the choir. If you were directing at me the “only gonna say this one more time” tone…..maybe reread my posts or something, thats badly misplaced if I read it correctly.

    I’m essentially just not interested in debating game with anyone, because frankly I don’t care. Its comes across like some exclusive club, and it has the potential to utterly ruin the uber themes of thoughtful intelligent MRA’s who have a shot at actually being change agents.

    I start reading something thats steeped in fact, has analysis that fits sort of red pill common sense (lacking better term) and works with my anecdotal experience as well, and some gamer pops in with some quote from a game guru that picks at the margins of the writers more important over arching theme. Its maddening and sadly it affords tailwind, even succor to white knights and feminists who want to marginalize mens issues by marginalizing men in general.

    At its most positive it hasnt an iota of the import of mens issues in general, and societal issues like divorce and what not.

  326. Brendan says:

    Do you have any kind of roadmap to offer for rolling back feminism? Or are you now arguing that the long term direction is towards some kind of collapse, no matter what is done? I’m not baiting you, that’s pretty much what Glubb asserted in the 1970′s.

    I don’t think the overall “feminist system” will be rolled back unless there are a lot of big changes — as I say in my post above, it’s based on a set of durable things that aren’t going away any time soon. If they do go away, it’s hard to imagine that happening without some kind of revolution or collapse along the lines of the 60s/70s in reverse.

    In the meantime, and given that a collapse is not something to bet one’s life plan on, I think we can profitably tinker around the edges of the worst aspects of this system. Make family law more fair. Make job issues more fair. Resist increasing discrimination against men. Promote male studies centers to at least get the opposing view out on the table more formally. And, of course, personally — Game for relationships in this age.

  327. ybm says:

    “ybm, you’re basically taking the feminist approach to v.R.: “I don’t like hearing what you are saying, so it must not be true”.”

    No, I’m not hearing it at all, because anecdote is not scientifically verifyable. I completely dismiss people who claim global warming is/isn’t happening because “its warmer than usual” or “its colder than usual”. Some person on the internet saying “well it worked for me” has about has much rigor behind it, and is about as reliable. In other words, show me the studies on game, because confidence and self-esteem are already proven. You are half-way there.

  328. Brendan says:

    At its most positive it hasnt an iota of the import of mens issues in general, and societal issues like divorce and what not.

    There are two theories, i think.

    One is the Leninist theory — i.e., that if enough men learn pick-up Game, things will become bad enough for the overall system that it will cause something like a revolution in mores or a systemic (partial) collapse in relations between men and women, which would provide the basis for a kind of resetting of the rules.

    The other is the personal protection theory — i.e., that the laws suck and are going to continue to suck, but you can minimize their impact on you if you have “tight enough Game”. That is, you’re running a lower risk of divorce if you can effectively Game your wife, so it’s a way of protecting yourself personally from the impact of the bad laws, while the laws remain bad. Granted, this doesn’t directly have a systemic impact, but it does have a personal one.

    There’s also the theory, advanced above, that if enough men learn Game it will, in itself, result in a resetting of the social rules around male/female relationships because women will, in the culture as a whole, become de-pedestalized, and the basis which underlies female-favoritism in the law will therefore go away, resulting in fairer laws. I don’t agree with this for the reasons I point out above, but it is certainly a viable theory.

  329. van Rooinek says:

    Publish a peer reviewed journal on game proving the assertion, and yes.

    Hey, that’s not a bad idea. Problem is, how do you do the double-blind? The target females may not understand but the gamer has to know whether he’s gaming or not, and so will the observer.

    I have seen with my own eyes, that this assertion is false.
    I hope you realize that nothing you stated contradicts his assertion in even the tiniest amount.

    What part of “seen with my own eyes” didn’t you understand?

    I think I see that more clearly because as a chemical engineer, we have to sort the nuts and bolts stuff for you Erlenmeyers.

    My undergrad degree is BSc Chemical Engineering, and I have worked as a production compounder and as a process engineer as well as pure R&D. I can invent a formula, scale it up, AND personally manufacture it if need be.

  330. van Rooinek says:

    Do you have any kind of roadmap to offer for rolling back feminism?

    Retreat and wait for winter.

    “Winter” could be economic collapse, civil unrest, war…. any society disrupting event that forces women to ally themselves with men for protection and day-to-day survival. When stone age social mores violently reemerge, women will be forced to act “old fashioned” in a hurry whether they believe in it or not. The choice will be, submit to a good man in exchange for protection… or be left at the mercy of the bad boys.. who, unrestrained by law, will be badder than today’s women can possibly imagine. (Think Rwanda.)

  331. Höllenhund says:

    @Suz

    “You can use game to keep a woman faithful, by convincing her that YOU are the “next one” she’s watching for. In a “successful” society of surplus resources, there are only two ways to mediate the destructive potential of hypergamy. One is the laws and social structure that we’ve had in the past. The other is game, one-on-one enforcement of those laws.”

    There’s no such thing as ‘one-on-one enforcement of laws’. The husband isn’t authorized to enforce anything in Marriage 2.0.

  332. Joe Sheehy says:

    The desire to destroy the traditional patriarchy has been a long-standing goal of social revolutionaries. Wyndham Lewis was talking about the changes that were happening when there was plenty of house-work, abortion was illegal, and there was no birth control pill. While it’s true that technology has temporarily enabled marriage 2.0 despite the demographic nightmare it’s creating, it isn’t true that it’s a result of technological innovations. I agree with Brendan that feminists will not let go of this system no matter what the cost, and that the current system is strongly reinforced by modern technology, but I don’t agree as to causation or long-term durability.

  333. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    Regarding your points on the technological underpinning of marriage 2.0, I think all of the points you raise have merit, but I think there are other forces which you aren’t taking into account:

    1) Marriage 2.0 isn’t marriage, even though it at times does a great impersonation of it. Marriage has a fundamental purpose and that is to provide a stable platform to raise children. Those who succeed at keeping this platform together offer a distinct advantage to their children. There are already strong signs that UMC women in particular understand this. There will over time be a cumulative effect across generations with respect to commitment to marriage (real marriage). There is no way to finesse around this. Those women who move too much in the marriage 2.0 direction and/or SATC/carousel will over time have their descendants fall out of the UMC and ultimately MC. No technology can really render marriage obsolete, because at its core it isn’t about keeping the house clean or earning a paycheck. These are important, but only as means to the fundamental end, which is the rearing of children.

    2) Likely related to item #1 above, women are more invested in marriage than most men acknowledge. The reason for the misunderstanding is that the assumption by women is they can play by version 2.0 of the rules and still get marriage (and remarriage). We don’t need to change the laws or technology to help men understand how to stop playing this particularly loaded game. Not all women will respond as men adjust, but the ones who do will accrue benefits to themselves and their offspring.

  334. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    There’s also the theory, advanced above, that if enough men learn Game it will, in itself, result in a resetting of the social rules around male/female relationships because women will, in the culture as a whole, become de-pedestalized, and the basis which underlies female-favoritism in the law will therefore go away, resulting in fairer laws. I don’t agree with this for the reasons I point out above, but it is certainly a viable theory.

    I’m curious why you don’t think this will have a powerful impact. I agree that it won’t magically fix all of what feminism has broken, but it seems to me that given enough time it will change the general perception of women and sex. Even those men who aren’t able to put game into successful application are going to be touched by this. As an example, upthread there was a discussion of a pope’s pronouncement on wives submitting to their husbands. Picture a young high school age catholic man who may not run game but who watches several of his peers do so with great success, and learns from them what they are doing. Fast forward 50-60 years and this man is now pope, and the question of wives submitting to their husbands comes up. While the previous pope who addressed the question grew up internalizing feminism, he will have a very different philosophical foundation. Now do the same for judges, police officers, politicians, etc. The basic premise of our society regarding men and women is fundamentally flawed. Over time this will change, as the truth in game is difficult to deny when you directly observe it. I don’t see how this wouldn’t have a powerful impact.

  335. Höllenhund says:

    @Brendan 11:04 AM

    I’d add a couple of things to that list.

    One is the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which Athol was right to point out. This resulted in the disappearance of conventional war between great powers, which is an unprecedented development. These wars used to have the functions of culling the male population – both the alphas and betas, although I’d guess betas were always overrepresented among the casualties due to their propensity for throwing themselves under the bus for foggy goals – and promoting a ’warrior ethos’ among young men. These kept female hypergamy in check. (Other forces did that as well, of course.) But today the average young man is considered replaceable because it’s just so many of them due to them not getting regularly slaughtered, and he isn’t thought of as someone potentially tasked with the important and realistic job of armed conqueror (or defender).

    Another thing is that as societies have generally become more and more complex and regulated, the protector role of men has become devalued. Moreover, the safer and more predictable life is in general, the fewer number of men die for whatever reasons, which fuels female hypergamy and corrodes Marriage 1.0.

    Marriage 1.0 cannot really survive if every young man isn’t thought of as the valuable and cherished protector of his family and the slayer of enemies.

  336. Höllenhund says:

    it’s just so many of them = there’s just so many of them

  337. Suz says:

    Höllenhund: You’re right. However, It’s not laws I’m talking about enforcing, it’s pure morality, and it’s a rewarding, natural, secure relationship. And it’s a choice. When a woman learns how good that choice can be, chances are she won’t opt out even though she has the legal right to. It doesn’t mean marriage won’t continue to be a huge risk for men unless the laws change, but it can be less risky for men who really want it.

    Not too many women will walk away from a man who makes them happy, especially if they realize they’re happy. You already know all their friends are bitching about what losers their husbands are. When happy women hear that crap, they just shake their heads.

  338. Suz says:

    *Enforcing what used to be laws…*

  339. I have seen with my own eyes, that this assertion is false.
    I hope you realize that nothing you stated contradicts his assertion in even the tiniest amount.

    What part of “seen with my own eyes” didn’t you understand?
    ——————————————–

    Are you serious? So, you are actually unable to see the gaping flaw here?

    Two water white liquids with no meniscus….boiling. You could say “I saw that liquid boiling” You cannot “see with your eyes” that there is an azeotrope….you will see A LIQUID boiling, not 2 liquids soluble in one another and forming an azeotrope. You need to test beyod what you see.

    Same thought process applies. You saw a man/you employ game (you are not clear if its you or someone else, that’s also a problem with your statement but a far less significant one) with a “Christian girl” and it worked.

    Really? This disproves the possibility that the same man could have gotten the same girl some other way? How? It cannot be proven or disproved. Frankly, I’m shocked that I’m needing to even explain your failure to address his point. It feels awkward its so badly drawn.

    Separate but related, it would truly require massive data to “prove” game, no matter how well the foundational truths match with our 1st person perspectives. Its NOT empirically provable. It can be shown “likely”….but its not possible to objectively empirically prove.

    But claiming its true because you saw it with your own eyes is shocking for one who should be steeped in method and analysis.

    Once again….Im asserting nothing on it one way or the other, because I KNOW it cannot be proven.

  340. Dalrock, I think the late pope was the most feminist pope ever and the most feminist pope we will ever see. He was a pedestaliser and a white knight, to use the jargon. Personally, I understand he lost his mother when young. He probably had an idealised vision of womanhood. He was a great devotee of Our Lady. He sentimentalised women.

    Also, although I maintain that a careful reading of his writings on women discloses nothing particularly revolutionary, his tone was very pro-woman. He was still operating under the assumption that somehow women could not be the problem. Gentle creatures, they just want a bit of mild encouragement, seemed to be his thinking.

    What Benedict and future popes will know is that Scripture and Tradition on women should be closely heeded. Women are no better than men, morally. In some respects they are worse. St Paul clearly implies this. Which is why I am genuinely puzzled when Christians listen so attentively to the Sheila Gregoires of this world.

    A future pope, as Dalrock implies, will have seen the damage women, including wives, are capable of, and be less starry-eyed and much less feminist. He will have seen feminists in full cry and know the statistics on abortion and divorce, even among Christians.

    In the secular world, I sense that men are waking up rapidly. The articles and comments on gender issues in even the mainstream media no longer treat feminism as sacrosanct. It is under real attack now. The Internet has made a difference here by enfranchising the opinions of ordinary men and women.

    I recently retired, and I have started using a bit of spare time on men’s issues. I have just written to the Australian Government asking about the issue of domestic violence against men, which is, of course, largely ignored.

  341. I have thought about writing about Game in relation to what is sometimes called Darwinian literary studies. This is a new field which covers some of the same topics. I can also imagine Satoshi Kanazawa at the London School of Economics writing about Game. He likes dangerous topics.

  342. Eric says:

    Rmaxd:

    ‘Put a strong dominant male in the presence of a damaged Western woman and she turns into a submissive, pliant, almost normal chick.”

    LOL, are you serious? Just look at the way they melt in front of such ‘strong, dominant males’ like Justin Bieber and Taylor Lautner, for example! Or, better still, just go out and look in public places at the kinds of dregs women are throwing themselves towards.

    ‘As for…attempts to turn this into an anti-gaming blog…Dalrock’s already proven the effectiveness of Game.’

    No, he hasn’t; and neither have any of the other gaming blogs that you’ve mentioned. Aside from the fact that none of the Gamers want to address its fundamental premises; I’ve noticed a distinct LACK of any kind of proof that Game works. We hear the Gamecocks all kinds of theory, but I think it would be a lot more convincing if you guys produced, say, success stories? If Game is so infallible; where are all the Gamers bragging their supermodel LTRs/marriages, for example? For people who promote their system so aggressively, the Gamers seem to be unusually modest about touting its actual achievements!

  343. Eric says:

    Empath:
    You touched another problem with Game; like you said, an ‘exclusive club’. To me, it comes across like a religious cult at times. Its advocates seem hold on to it with the frenzy of fanatics; but never want to hear alternative theories or explain the finer points of it to anyone. So far, most responses I’ve gotten to criticising Game ends up with statements like: “Go read Roissy (or some other guru) and learn something!”

  344. Eric says:

    Brendan:
    I’m going to interject something here about rolling back feminism: Feminism is an inherently illogical and anti-civil ideology and it will eventually implode whether or not men do anything consciously to stop it. Action will accelerate its demise. What will happen is those who break from the feminist culture will either create a new society as the old continues to crumble; or else our own nation/culture will ultimately fall to a more virile, vibrant one. Game/PUA, &c. are only outward manifestations of male disenfranchisement and they are appealing to men—not because they have any scientific validity or social utility—but because men are trying to adjust to a dysfunctional and collapsing social order.

  345. Eric says:

    Suz:
    You’re right that women who make a conscious choice to reject feminism need reinforcement; but I don’t see how Game helps in this regard. Women like you described are going to seek out genuinely strong, dominant men, regardless. I think they would be more inclined to choose men who are naturally that way rather than men who are trying to manipulate them through a system.
    For example, I’ve had relationships with foreign women. They seem to dislike attempts to manipulate them, but they do test men for their strength and dominant qualities.

  346. Alistair. says:

    Recently my wife went on a small holiday by herself to visit her parents, and on her return got a touch pushy regarding housework, and I turned to her and asked her not to act like her mother, at which point she smiled and said yeah, it’s hard to break habits sometimes…being in a spotless home etc., and I said there you go again shaming me for no other reason but that you spent time with your mother and forgot you had a husband, did you?

    She has been great ever since.

    Many women run unconscious scripts programmed by their mothers, and don’t realize they are doing it, and some don’t care as it “empowers” them.

    My wife, thankfully, isn’t one of them. Once I pointed it out and showed her that I didn’t want to be treated like that, she stopped.

  347. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic, but news flash…

    “Court Allows Man to Seek Money from ‘Daughter’s’ Biological Dad,” Christina Ng, ABC News via Yahoo! News, 3 February 2012
    http://news.yahoo.com/court-allows-man-seek-money-daughters-biological-dad-184320957–abc-news.html

    “A man who discovered that the daughter he raised was not really his can sue the biological father for $190,000 -the estimated cost of raising her for 15 years – the Connecticut State Supreme Court has ruled. …”

    Guy found out the “close friend of the family” was really his daughter’s father, divorced his wife and sued… years of “best interest of the child” evasions overturned by Conn Supreme Court.

  348. Rmaxd says:

    @Eric

    Eric you wouldnt see the need for game unless it hit you across the head with a getaclue four by four

    Your arguements sound more like a chick on the rag … looser go get laid … your wife doesnt count :p

  349. Rmaxd says:

    @David Collard

    “I have thought about writing about Game in relation to what is sometimes called Darwinian literary studies. ”

    Kwl can you give us some examples, as much as I hate Darwinism, should be interesting to say the least ..

  350. Rmaxd says:

    @Anonymous

    “the estimated cost of raising her for 15 years”

    Shouldnt the mother be charged for fraud?

    @Alistair

    This is exactly why men need to stand up to their wives & learn some game, gawd knows how many pointless hamsterlike scripts running in there …

  351. Lavazza says:

    Brendan: “The culture that created feminism was itself created by technological changes that made feminism and Marriage 2.0 — or something like it — close to inevitable. And it’s also what makes them relatively durable, in my view.”

    But technologicalk changes were made possible by cheap energy. And cheap energy is not durable, from what I can see today.

  352. Carroll, Joseph. 2004. Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature. Routledge
    is a good introduction. A lot of what he discusses is hypergamy.

    Technology has largely favoured women, until very recently. Paternity tests and the Internet do not favour women. As Steve Sailer noted, the Internet has mostly enfranchised non-elite men with something to say. Particularly conservative men.

    Another point about John Paul II. In his life, he mostly saw masculine mayhem, Nazis and Communists. The wheels of Western Feminism, and the abortion mills, had barely begun to grind in his lifetime.

  353. Suz says:

    The principles of game, not necessarily every little “rule,” are in accord with human nature. Game is used as a charade primarily by pick-up-artists, who are “Alphas” mostly in sexual matters, not necessarily in the rest of their lives.* For the average man, the principles of game are natural once learned. The principles of game appear contrived because modern men have never been allowed to learn how to be “real” men. Men no longer presume any authority or superiority over women. (And “superiority” is legitimately debatable since the natural role of women has equal social value, even though it’s different, and usually easier.) Moderate game makes beta sexier, not because it’s a sham, but because it brings them up to the level of attractiveness for which they were born. Feminist society has kicked low alphas and medium and higher betas, down the status ladder to where they’re on a par with omegas. We treat them as omegas and we teach them to act the part. What’s disgusting is that men must now read books and blogs to find out how they were designed to behave. Men who openly flaunt their masculinity are considered uppity, sleazy, and irresponsible.

    *Among wild dogs, the human “alpha” would be an adolescent lone wolf – a guy with alpha potential, who has yet to establish his own pack, and who has been kicked out of his original pack due to his intolerance of the alpha’s authority. An alpha wolf doesn’t sit around on his fluffy butt all day, screwing anything that moves. He claims earns his territory, he earns his harem, he fights to protect his pack, he leads the hunt in order to feed his pack, and he teaches his cubs how to behave like proper dogs. Yet among humans we call this guy a high beta. Go figure. The game gurus are telling us some real truths about human nature, but you can bet they’re fiercely territorial and biased in favor of underemployed twentysomething sex machines.

  354. Rmaxd says:

    suz, im guessing stimulating t&a can produce great prose …

    Yes gamers can be pretty clueless in other areas, ie PMAFT, you also see the same happening with MRAs ie Keyster & his two planes full of kerosene & jet fuel, managed to melt the steel girders of not 2 buildings, but 3 … for the first time in history … plenty of planesve flown into buildings & none of them turned into pancakes, let alone blow up a building they never flew into …

    “underemployed twentysomething sex machines” as opposed to being parasites off their husbands, boyfriends etc & ass raping them in courts for the privilege ?..

    Of course youd paint men as unemployed pussy chasers … your married suz …

    Guarding your husband much suz? lol

    You need cash to run game btw, the bars & clubs dont pay for themselves, then theres the transport & trips to ones batcave in marsailles … & someone needs to pay the housekeeper for the upkeep on the penthouse …

  355. Suz says:

    “You need cash to run game btw, the bars & clubs dont pay for themselves, then theres the transport & trips to ones batcave in marsailles … & someone needs to pay the housekeeper for the upkeep on the penthouse …”

    Oh, please!

    “Of course youd paint men as unemployed pussy chasers …”
    NAMALT. Only underemployed pussy chasers, aka adolescent wolf alphas.

    Got no problem with MWGTOW, some of them are even wolf alphas.

    And yep. Damn straight I guard my husband. Don’t mind me if I “pedestalize” a good mid-beta/wolf-alpha when I see one. He may not be the “hottest” man I’ve ever met, but I’ve dated a few of the “hottest.” Let me assure you a furnace without fuel doesn’t stay hot for long (and no I don’t mean money.) Steady warmth with consistent flashes of fire is more than I deserve, but it’s mine and I’m keepin’ it.

  356. Suz says:

    *’Scuse me. Not “adolescent wolf alphas,” “adolescent lone wolves.”

    BTW, how many internet gurus/bloggers have you met in person? Generally, we’re not quite as cool as we want you to think we are. But almost. Oops. Did I say that out loud?

  357. Rmaxd says:

    Actually Ive criticised the game community quite harshly in the past, for using whats known in the trade as dark nlp, this got back to Ross Jeffries & a couple of others, who switched to using more subliminal marketing techniques

    This dark nlp, is standard practise outside of pua marketting, most internet companies & marketting gurus have been using this stuff years before the pua community got big

    One of the best trainers at LSD, Keychain uses this technique alot here …

    http://www.puagathering.com/forums/f4/keychain-high-value-first-impressions-1115/

    Notice, instead of giving advice, he literally peppers the entire speech with negative, depression inducing terminology throughout, before he even starts giving any advice, which is really at the end of the article

    Basically they try & destroy your idea of the subject at hand, & cause you mild depression, using proven psychological techniques, to get you to become dependant on their seminars & cds

    Its an old technique, im not sure why the above trainers still using it …

    Deangelo uses it alot in his earlier stuff too …

    As to who ive met, I meet smart ppl, the best in their field & i go train with them …

    Ive met Richard Bandler, the originator of nlp & one of the contributors to the popularisation of 2nd generation cybernetics, Ive also met Paul Mckenna

    I trained with them both at the bandler institute …

    Ive also met a guy called Marc Stevens, one of the top law activists in the states

    He states there is no such thing as a country or state, or a citizen, or politics

    A country or a state is simply a piece of paper drawn up as an act of congress,

    A country or a state doesnt exist …

    Nor does a country or state ie state of arizona have any rights, as it does not exist

    Marc explains the constitution is four pieces of paper; the State Of Arizona is an act of congress — a piece of paper — as are the other 49 “States”; There are no States, there are no citizens and no body politic. http://marcstevens.net/video/20101016libertopia.html The prosecution would need to prove I was within the piece of paper created by congress.

    He also states Traffic speeding tickets & parking tickets, are not crimes, as there is no proof of injury or damage to property or a person

    Ive used his stuff to get out of parking fines & even fights i got into when i was younger, the police never stood a chance, as i ran rings around them by asking them under what jurisdiction i was charged in, & refusal to incriminate myself by stating since i had no legal knowledge, i dont understand the question to everything they tried to pin on me …works everytime

    Also the key is to refuse to sign off on the interview, & state since i have no legal knowledge, i dont understand the question to everything they try & pin you on … oh & refuse to give your fingerprints & dna, as here in the uk its illegal to force id if there are no charges …

  358. ray says:

    “Another point about John Paul II. In his life, he mostly saw masculine mayhem, Nazis and Communists. The wheels of Western Feminism, and the abortion mills, had barely begun to grind in his lifetime.”

    ok thats fair

    doesnt do much for the Infallibility rap tho

    “the late ope was the most feminist pope ever and the most feminist pope we will ever see. He was a pedestaliser and a white knight, to use the jargon. Personally, I understand he lost his mother when young. He probably had an idealised vision of womanhood. He was a great devotee of Our Lady. He sentimentalised women.”

    benedict has seen the takeover by feminism of the west; he should be attacking it relentlessly, exorcising it church by church if necessary, starting in fem-central, the u.s.

    if that means dumping half the nuns, fine — i hear many are feminists, anyway

    instead — on good friday no less — benedict tells the world (twice in one yap!)) how Oppressed women are (and by inference, how Horrible those Males are for Oppressing them)

    no excuse for that vs. jp II –

    women in fifties america had only begun to drink the empowerment brew, and often displayed admirable female qualities — demureness, sacrifice for family, obedience, wifely loyalty (yes church was still mostly a social lark to them, but at least they werent trying to take it over)

    the fifties/sixties u.s. of jp two’s influence were the most Romantic decades in history, and his loving idealization of women/womanhood was probly used against him… like the boomer generation of males, it’s likely that jp II got tooled

    i suspect john paul was also (mis)directed into his mariolatry out of a combination of sincere goodwill, family psycho-dynamics, and malevolent interference

    babylon’s ancient and the matrix is deep, and in the very air. . . for jp’s sake, i hope he was just another nice guy that got zoomed

  359. I have not heard what Benedict said on women’s “oppression”. He did refer to the creation of woman from man in the Genesis story, in an early encyclical, which annoyed feminists.

    As I have already said, Mulieris Dignitatem was not infallible reaching. JPII’s only infallible teaching was Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, restating the impossibility of women priests. Most papal teaching does not purport to be infallible.

    Consistent teaching forms part of Tradition. I suspect that husbandly authority is pretty well established in Tradition. So was the masculine priesthood, but JPII wanted to provide a definitive answer.

  360. American feminist nuns are under investigation by the Vatican. The foolishess of many nuns in recent years is an excellent object lesson in why women cannot generally be trusted in spiritual matters unless they are under male authority.

  361. I wonder why conspiracy zealots as well as non-conspiracy zealots together are the most likely demographic to have a copy of the pocket constitution on the dash of their car…..

  362. Umslopogaas says:

    Heh, I was delighted by this splendid article by Dalrock’n Roll…and also by the extraterestrial bleating of Sheila Gregoire. So much so that I promptly wrote my own take at salvation for the dear, dear, dearies:

    http://umslopogaas.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/back-to-the-past-immaculate-conception-indulgence-peddling-re-virginization/

  363. Rmaxd says:

    Im not a conspiracy zealot, im a conspiracy proponent, also the constitution is not a legal document … according to the supreme court

    The main reason you guys are all in this mess, is precisely you dont know the law, & you dont know how to exercise your rights

    As a result you get your kids stolen from you & you get ass raped with taxes, fees & penalties

    A corrupt government & your streets are rife with feminism, precisely because you clowns are too busy labelling any forms of activism & the people who fight back as conspiracists & pariah

    When in fact, you should you should be researching their claims & see if they hold true

    Nothing happens in a vacuum, the people are implicit through their inaction

  364. Pingback: Back To The Past: Immaculate Conception, Indulgence Peddling & Re-Virginization « UMSLOPOGAAS

  365. Anyway….

    This false dichotomy, its pedestrian predictable.
    One needn’t be a sheeple OR be on board with what you are saying.

    I know it feels good to be above the fray, as such, like those a few years back with 911 is inside job bumper stickers or today’s silly ‘COEXIST” ones, its all exclusive and heady and it sets up a false dichotomy, a choice one needn’t actually make.

    Fighting back is not some lofty theory that no borders exist and documents are not inherently valid. There are those beliefs, i grant, there are those who choose to fight the IRS based on what seems irrefutable documentation.

    They loose. Gubmit gots gunz. Declaring them out of existence may feel good back lacks utility.

    Im not labeling for the sake of labeling, I find that another common banner to fly, that one is above sorting via labels, that they serve no purpose. It would be true if the use of labels was invoked in a vacuum of any deeper considerations.

    I choose to disengage now.

    Sorry to have waded into that.

  366. Suz says:

    This Marc Stephens? :

    http://www.popehat.com/2012/02/03/marc-stephens-threatens-me-some-more/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Popehat+%28Popehat%29
    Marc “What do you get when you cross a greased pig with a weasel?” Stephens? Marc “kernel of truth=plausible deniability” Stephens? I’ll grant the guy is interesting, but he’s the high priest of Deflect, Distract, Shame, Intimidate. He is fascinating; I’d like to lock him in a cage in a lab somewhere and study him. Twisted but brilliant, and successful in a frightening way. He could sell steak to a cow. And he would.

    Kinda cool that you know him, but I’d keep that one at arms length…

  367. Umslopogaas says:

    @Brendan:

    You make some very interesting observations vis a vis the formation of feminism – albeit you arrive at some very *veeery* depressing conclusions (to me at least).

    However I would like to ask you the following:

    If your hypothesis regarding feminism’s essentially technological origin is correct…how do you explain the fact that feminism by and large has been restricted to the West (i.e. western Europe, Australia and the US)?

    Why for example…has Japan not really become feminist? Surely they are equally (if not more) technological than the West?

    To me the explanation is simple: culture & societal structure.

    I agree with all your arguments up to a point. I believe technological progress made feminism a lot more likely. However, imo it was not inevitable, as nothing ever is.

    Imo what truly empowered feminism was the combination of (cultural marxist) encephalitis / psychosis the West suffered in 1968 and the advent of the welfare state.

    I currently reside in southeast Asia. There, there is no welfare state and traditions consequently remain strong. They do so because they have to. The family *has* to function properly…because the family is – in essence – everybody’s lifeline and livelihood. Alone, individuals literally starve…simply because if they get into trouble (as in out of work) there is no state to bail them out.

    There are also almost no single mothers. Of those there are….quite literally all are prostitutes and shamed accordingly. Thus you have a healthy feedback loop to discipline other women who thus….do not indulge in the carousel.

    Personally speaking, ever since I experienced Southeast Asian women…my faith in womankind has been restored. Or maybe not. But I certainly have experienced NAWALT.

    So globally speaking, NAWALT is correct. But AAWWALT is also correct. As in “almost all western women are like that”. :D

  368. Rmaxd says:

    lol …

  369. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz

    I didnt realise I didnt post any links …

    This is an excellent article on Marc Stevens, he makes some incredibly valid & radical statements about the real truth on how your government really works

    There is no real government, there are no real statutes & laws & most importantly there is no real society, our society is not run by a government, its not run on real law, its run on whats called the color of law, or legalese

    http://marcstevens.net/articles/theres-no-such-thing-as-an-illegal-alien-2.html

    Your traffic courts are illegal, & violate international & human rights constitutions, as are the mortgage & credit trials, the vast majority of courts operate illegally & outside the law, all they do is apply legalese & pass fake ordinance traffic fines & fees

    Your affirmative action & sexual harrasement, as well no fault divorce statutes, are also illegal, & are not laws, they are simply statutes & are unenforceable

    The main reason theyre statutes & not real law is the fact if they were law, they would violate international law & human rights treaties

    There is a legal procedure & it is possible to all of the above fake statutes thrown out of court, by pointing out these are fake laws & violate your right to a fair trial

    Its all a matter of knowing how the real law operates, & demanding you get a fair trial

    If the MRA taught Marc Stevens work, we’d have alot more fathers with their children & their homes still intact

    Again its all about knowing your rights, & how to exercise them

  370. Suz says:

    Yes his tactics can be VERY successful; there’s something to be said for knowing both sides well enough to play them like a pro.

  371. Eric says:

    Rmaxd:
    That wouldn’t be Shaming Language now, would it? You know those tacticss really don’t work any more, right?

    But it shouldn’t be surprising Gamecocks would use the same arguments as manginas. Only a fine line actually separates the two.

  372. Eric says:

    Suz:
    I wouldn’t categorize the ‘real men’ necessarily as ‘lone wolves.’ Quite honestly, most of them aren’t alone by choice. MGTOW’s are; but a lot of us are categorized as INCEL’s (involuntarily celibate). We’re like MGTOW’s, but not because we’ve chosen to be single; the cultural conditions impose it upon us. It’s like the analogy I drew earlier about American men living under famine conditions (socially speaking). To talk about techniques to us is like talking to starving Somalis about food preparation and nutrition LOL!

  373. Rmaxd says:

    @Eric

    Are you trying to say youre not a mangina? You dont believe in game, you dont believe in fighting back or researching how the world works, apart from behind a keyboard, are you sure youre not a mangina? … your actions seriously indicate otherwise …

    Are you referring to anything specific ?

    The MRA movement will eventually have to get into politics & use the law, they will have to use the same techniques & issues as Marc Stevens has been using for over 10 years now, this is purely a heads up, for whats coming down the road …

    Activism isnt simply about spreading information & changing opinion, its about actively fighting back & the MRA will have to confront the governments & feminists in court

    You need to avoid mistaking the beginning as an all be all, the beginning has nothing to do with what the MRA will eventually accomplish, reality is an inevitability

    Just dont hold onto that beginning or the sum of its ideas too tight, the MRA will not resemble as we see it today, it might be even more radical we dont know, but we can sure as hell ensure its success & play our part in it …

  374. Suz says:

    “I wouldn’t categorize the ‘real men’ necessarily as ‘lone wolves.’ Quite honestly, most of them aren’t alone by choice. ”

    According to the popular understanding of “lone wolf,” that’s true. Thanks for pointing it out. There’s only one type of canine “lone wolf,” one who is seeking a pack of his own. He’s driven by pure instinct. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he doesn’t always get it. Human “lone wolves” fall into two categories – MWGTOW by choice, who fit the definition romanticized by pop culture – “Shane! come back!,” and those who match the canine model, wanting a pack. Both are unwilling to be wolf betas (human omegas.)

    We humans make everything more complicated by applying abstract thought to our instincts and circumstances. MWGTOW have disillusionment, defiance and dismissal. Men like you (I believe) have disillusionment, caution and either hope or resignation. (If you are resigned, you might as well be a MWGTOW.)

  375. ray says:

    “I have not heard what Benedict said on women’s “oppression”. ”

    On the station that marks the passage in the Gospel where Jesus met the women of Jerusalem on the way to be crucified, the Pope also condemned the oppression of women, saying there were ‘many societies in the world where women fail to receive a fair deal’.

    ‘Christ must be weeping for them,’ the Pope will claim.

    He added: ‘There are societies too that are thoughtless about their future. Christ must be weeping for their children. Wherever there is unconcern for the future, through the overuse of resources, the degradation of the environment, the oppression of women, the neglect of family values, the ignoring of ethical norms, the abandonment of religious traditions, Jesus must be telling people: “Do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves”.’

    like the “leaders” of western churches, benedict wouldnt know jesus if he fell into his cornflakes at breakfast

    his pandering speech is indistinguishable from the lies we’ve been subjected to for half-a-century now, from both the feminist State and the feminist “Churches” . . . NO excuse for a “learned” man who claims to “love Jesus” to be dissemnating satan’s agitational propaganda

    this world crushes and abuses its boys and men, as it mocked and tortured and murdered the BEST of men, while this mangina bleats on about the Oppression of Women like he’s Andrea Dworkin — on the day set aside to commemorate the blood-sacrifice of the Male, “Good Friday” no less

    NO FAIR DEAL FOR WOMEN is the meaning of the King nailed to this sisterhood shithole of a planet

    now he and his “church” assure us that “Mary” is co-redeemer with christ, and that the “Blessed Virgin” is the ark of the covenant of God

    blasphemy and rebellion, and will be treated as such

  376. Paul says:

    haven’t read all the comments, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating something… but can we please Rachel’s (in the original thread) nonsense about women being put ahead of men for procreative purposes? We’re a planet of seven billion people, a couple hundred women on a cruise liner is not going to make a difference

  377. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz

    You make an interesting distinction, you could even say men joining the MRA, game, & avoiding the mainstream, & avoiding idiots who believe in socially approved junk science, are following pack behaviour

    Your analogy of refusing to be anything but the leader & turning to solitude, is an interesting idea

    Our need to dominate naturally leads to easily dominated social positions

    On the majority, most men dont want to be part of a pack, Ive rarely found men who wanted to be lead, & when i did, i found i hated them for wanting to follow me …

    Im not sure pack behaviour applies to men, but pack dynamics do apply to men

    As ive found men respond to commanding tonality & alpha displays of dominance, but rarely follow

    They root for you & provide support, but rarely follow the same way a chick does, like some lame duck shot in the ass …

    Men follow logical commands, can take a good kick up the backside, & dont wank on the job …

    Womens need for dominance, & displays of serviance, & demands for validating their serviance, instead of male driven competition, make them liabilities in competitive environments …

    As well as intellectual pursuits, for a male in terms of performance , pack behaviour isnt efficient

    As solitude is far more efficient at technological pursuit …

    Men tend to draw more towards, efficiency & optimacy then regular attributable human behaviour …

    Men are made more for combating & creating artificial forms of scarcity, then pack behaviour

  378. Suz says:

    I think omegas are the only true followers, and are likely despised or at best ignored by alphas and high betas.
    “As solitude is far more efficient at technological pursuit …”
    this may be a key point in beta behavior. They CAN follow (or cooperate) when necessary, like while hunting and fighting, but they need autonomy to accomplish their “routine” productive tasks. And they do need the “support staff” of women and omegas, along with the protection of the pack. Betas might do OK on their own, but they’re more productive within the pack, because they have the freedom to do something besides survive.

    I know women have similar ranks, but I don’t get the criteria. Maybe it changes at random. ;)
    You’re certainly right about women disrupting efficiency when male and female roles are blended.

    VERY interesting theory about creating artificial scarcity – it’s an excellent way to consolidate and maintain power. Oh! But wait. Women do it too – withholding sex and other “services…”

    Food for thought.

  379. Rmaxd says:

    Artificial forms of scarcity are key in male behaviour, especially in relation to testosterone, its only when scarcity is no longer scarce, men turn beta

    Essentially betaness is a social form of contrast, they think theyre being dominant, but to a woman who observe social class & how society classes dominance, she sees him as beta

    Theyre simply misreading the society around them & valuing theyre need to be masculine incorrectly

    Theyre socially uncalibrated

    Which is why social calibration & social intelligence plays such a large part in game

    Its basically how convinced you are of your reality

    Disassociation is key in highly intellectual pursuits

    The more you question your sense of reality, the more you disassociate from it

    Leading you to see it more uniquely then before

    Disassociation is the feedback loop in creating artifical forms of scarcity

    Women try & use delayed gratification, but an alpha walking into is pretty much the ultimate form of artificial scarcity

    I think a woman having standards & modes of conduct is far conducive to creating artificial form of scarcity in a woman, as sex for a man due to testosterone triggers the logical portions of his brain, when he sees a hot chick

    While he may be visually turned on, his relationship depends on her standard & conduct

    A hot but socially clueless chick is a turn off for most men

    Women can sense their invisible to me, its hilarious how asexual they act when i chck out their ass … of course i have to force myself … old jedi mind trick …

    A womans rank is based on plausible deniability, & her social intelligence & i.q, the more expertly she combine hotness & intelligence the more plausible deniability she has & the higher her status level, how well she hides her cards & believes in her own social position determines her ranking …

  380. “You’re certainly right about women disrupting efficiency when male and female roles are blended.””

    Darla, you sure know how to say neat things

  381. Brendan says:

    A few comments in response after being away for a few days …

    1) Marriage 2.0 isn’t marriage, even though it at times does a great impersonation of it. Marriage has a fundamental purpose and that is to provide a stable platform to raise children. Those who succeed at keeping this platform together offer a distinct advantage to their children. There are already strong signs that UMC women in particular understand this. There will over time be a cumulative effect across generations with respect to commitment to marriage (real marriage). There is no way to finesse around this. Those women who move too much in the marriage 2.0 direction and/or SATC/carousel will over time have their descendants fall out of the UMC and ultimately MC. No technology can really render marriage obsolete, because at its core it isn’t about keeping the house clean or earning a paycheck. These are important, but only as means to the fundamental end, which is the rearing of children.

    But, at the same time, UMCs are not having many kids. The kids they have are more successful, but they aren’t numerous. So we are going to see a shrinking of this demographic, most likely, over the decades ahead, while, at the same time, the elite becomes more entrenched and powerful due to these mating habits. I see no signs of these mating habits trickling down, which would also mean that the overall social impact (i.e., women seeking stable marriage to facilitate successful kids) will continue to be minimal outside the shrinking demographic of the UMCs.

    2) Likely related to item #1 above, women are more invested in marriage than most men acknowledge. The reason for the misunderstanding is that the assumption by women is they can play by version 2.0 of the rules and still get marriage (and remarriage). We don’t need to change the laws or technology to help men understand how to stop playing this particularly loaded game. Not all women will respond as men adjust, but the ones who do will accrue benefits to themselves and their offspring.

    As I say, this is a small demographic. The UMC already has “strong family values” (sans large numbers of kids, generally) in comparison to the rest of the culture and it isn’t having a huge cultural impact other than recreating another biological/inherited/raised elite. I don’t see this having a significant cultural impact outside the UMC more than it does today.

    I’m curious why you don’t think this will have a powerful impact. I agree that it won’t magically fix all of what feminism has broken, but it seems to me that given enough time it will change the general perception of women and sex. Even those men who aren’t able to put game into successful application are going to be touched by this. As an example, upthread there was a discussion of a pope’s pronouncement on wives submitting to their husbands. Picture a young high school age catholic man who may not run game but who watches several of his peers do so with great success, and learns from them what they are doing. Fast forward 50-60 years and this man is now pope, and the question of wives submitting to their husbands comes up. While the previous pope who addressed the question grew up internalizing feminism, he will have a very different philosophical foundation. Now do the same for judges, police officers, politicians, etc. The basic premise of our society regarding men and women is fundamentally flawed. Over time this will change, as the truth in game is difficult to deny when you directly observe it. I don’t see how this wouldn’t have a powerful impact.

    The main reason is that the technological and economic underpinnings of female liberation/independence from men are durable unless there is some kind of systemic collapse. If more and more men learn enough Game to take the red pill, this will not resurrect a kind of “soft Marriage 1.0″. What is far more likely is that women will remain liberated/independent, men will be increasingly leery of committing to them, and marriage rates continue to decrease. The laws are simply not going to be changed in a way that is friendly to men (other than tinkering around the edges, which very much can be, and is being, done right now, in terms of custodial assumptions and the like). Marriage 2.0, which essentially allows the voluntary unilateral “out”, will be durable as a legal/social framework unless women become economically dependent on men to a large degree, again, and I do not view that as a likely possibility, again, barring some kind of unforeseeable collapse. Instead, what I foresee is a continued decrease in marriage rates across the broader demographic due to the impact of the red pill, coupled with the continued trend of “small family values” in the ever-smaller UMC. In order for the laws to be changed away from their fundamental premises today, the independence of women from men would need to be reversed to some degree, and I don’t see that happening realistically (and, to be honest, what would be needed to do that would probably not be desirable for most people, including men).

    If your hypothesis regarding feminism’s essentially technological origin is correct…how do you explain the fact that feminism by and large has been restricted to the West (i.e. western Europe, Australia and the US)?

    Why for example…has Japan not really become feminist? Surely they are equally (if not more) technological than the West?

    Culture plays some role, too, but I would point out that Japan is more feminist than it was 50 or 100 years ago, and much of that is due to the kind of liberation offered by the changes in economics and technology (girls visiting nightclubs in Tokyo in risque dress were not common in Japan, either, 50-100 years ago). My point is not a determinist one, but rather one that points out that cultural determinism is also a weak position. In reality, it’s culture and technology and economics and how they intersect, but the general trend towards female liberation from dependency on men is unmistakeable — it plays itself out differently in different cultures (even within the West — France is quite different from the US, for example, in male/female relations), but the general trend is still in the same direction, despite cultural differences in the details.

  382. Höllenhund says:

    @Brendan

    “Culture plays some role, too, but I would point out that Japan is more feminist than it was 50 or 100 years ago, and much of that is due to the kind of liberation offered by the changes in economics and technology”

    Every country affected by these changes has undergone a similar course of cultural change, in fact. Even Iran and certain Arabic states. Collapsing birthrates, growing female independence resulting in the collapse of traditional morality etc.

  383. Rmaxd says:

    Right so plying these emerging countries with massive amounts of western indoctrination & massive media campaigns through their culture, has nothing to do with it …

  384. Francine says:

    Just curious. Is there a problem with the “children first” part of the message? I’m assuming not, but its not totally clear.

    I ask because I would say our society still places a moral superiority on the lives of children over adults. And I think we’re only arguing about whether or not the life of a female adult should be arbitrarily considered more worth saving than the life of a male adult.

    With children there’s also the whole, they can’t take care of themselves, they need the adults to do it. But even aside from that, I’d say society values the life of a child more than the life an adult.

  385. Dalrock says:

    @Francine

    Just curious. Is there a problem with the “children first” part of the message? I’m assuming not, but its not totally clear.

    From a practical perspective it would be a disaster to try to load children onto the lifeboats first. As I pointed out on my first post in the series, trying to give any group preference introduces additional chaos, stress and delay into an already chaotic, stressed and time pressed process.

    I ask because I would say our society still places a moral superiority on the lives of children over adults. And I think we’re only arguing about whether or not the life of a female adult should be arbitrarily considered more worth saving than the life of a male adult.

    One could make a good case for giving children preference over adults under the right circumstances. But to be clear, this is not at all what Sheila and others are getting at. On the Titanic women were effectively given preference over children. It was women first, then children, then men.

  386. Joe Sheehy says:

    At Hoellenhund:

    While lower birth rates and higher education and careerism are correlated with the gradual rise of feminism, the attitude of female entitlement hasn’t hit Muslim women nearly as hard as in other places. If you talk to Muslim girls, you realize their personalities are just a lot different. They are far more tolerant and easy to talk to, more feminine. If you tell a Muslim woman you want a lot of children and that you believe women should obey their husbands, they may voice disagreement but in reality it pleases them. They don’t pretend that promiscuity and infidelity are no big deal. Whereas with a Western woman that sort of thing doesn’t fit into their narcissistic self-image. Western women are also extremely impatient with beta conversation.

  387. Francine says:

    “From a practical perspective it would be a disaster to try to load children onto the lifeboats first. As I pointed out on my first post in the series, trying to give any group preference introduces additional chaos, stress and delay into an already chaotic, stressed and time pressed process.”

    Agreed. I think I had already moved past that (to me) obvious conclusion, into a more hypothetical version of the discussion. More along the lines of fireman walks into a burning building, there’s a man, a woman, and a child. Only one can survive. Whom should he save?

    I understand that wasn’t what the argument was about with Sheila, et al, and this is a bit tangential. But it was starting to almost sound like the children shouldn’t get preference (in the hypothetical situation) either. And I was curious if that really was the sentiment. Because it seems society in general still places a higher value on the life of a child, and I was wondering if there was disagreement on that idea as well.

    Were women really given preference over children on the Titanic? I’d never heard of that. I’m shocked, again because of my assumption of society’s (current?) preference for “it’s for the children” kind of thinking.

  388. tspoon says:

    http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm

    There you go, all graphed up and everything.

    I’d take a guess and say most commenters here wouldn’t argue for children to not receive every assistance in such a situation. They seem to be arguing that their lives are not forfeit just because a female is in a dangerous situation.

    My personal view is that children are routinely used by female advocacy groups, and by females in general, to gain special treatment for females themselves, and to commandeer the special treatment and resources that children need, for themselves. My own observation has been that in unusual circumstances, particularly those where no advantage can be gained or maybe the children become a disadvantage, this female-child association is very often jettisoned faster than you can… well, you get the picture. I can’t really claim that the survival rates on the Titanic prove anything like that. But they sure as hell don’t disprove it.

  389. Tspoon, a cynic would notice that children are disposable commodities to feminists in utero, but of great value to feminists ex utero.

  390. Höllenhund says:

    @tspoon

    “My personal view is that children are routinely used by female advocacy groups, and by females in general, to gain special treatment for females themselves, and to commandeer the special treatment and resources that children need, for themselves.”

    Exactly. Feminists and their opportunistic hangers-on talk about ‘putting the interests of the child first’ as means of ‘appealing to emotion’ to silence their potential critics. They don’t really care about the well-being of children, of course – one only needs to look at the effects of feminism on children, especially boys, to see that -, the real purpose is to marginalize and disempower fathers as a whole. It usually works. After all, you don’t want to be seen as someone who fails to put the interests of the child first, do you? Right?

  391. Höllenhund says:

    When a woman decides her unborn child is an obstacle to her self-fulfillment and autonomy, the fetus becomes completely unimportant. But if she wants to extract money from the biological father, it suddenly becomes very important. That’s how women think.

  392. P Ray says:

    Sheila Gregoire-something wrote:
    “I think it’s an easy criticism to make, but I personally do not see it. I don’t see it in the women’s Bible studies that happen at churches all over the continent on Wednesday mornings, or Thursday mornings. I don’t see it in Christian books written for women. I don’t see it in the Christian blogosphere. But I do see the criticism often.”

    That’s because you only see those women in church.
    When people have to perform to an audience, you get a performance.
    When people are getting through day-to-day life, is when you see the reality of their character.
    But of course, what you do outside of church doesn’t count,. amirite?
    I guess she’s never watched “Fireproof” <- yours was a good review, Dalrock!

  393. deti says:

    Gregoire watched Fireproof. Her review and advocation of the film is what prompted Dalrock’s review, as I remember. gregoire drew conclusions about the main characters and their motivations and conduct that simply were not present in the film. For example, Gregoire concluded Caleb, the husband, was addicted to porn and that this fully justified the wife’s open pursuit of another man. Caleb’s viewing porn was suggested but addiction or habitual use was not made clear. Gregoire also concluded the wife was seeking a new husband and would not have had sex with the doctor she was pursuing before marrying him. All that was depicted is the wife’s open pursuit of a (married) “other man”. It was not established that she wanted a new husband or that she would remain sexually faithful to Caleb until any divorce was final.

  394. Pingback: Do not be alarmed. | Dalrock

  395. Pingback: Reframing Christian marriage part 4: judging the performance. | Dalrock

  396. Pingback: Untethered | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s