The women at Christianforums are outraged!

You may recall the Christian forum I linked to in my post From cornerstone to stepping stone; the mainstream Christian view of marriage.  They are outraged that their private conversation on the internet has been quoted on this site!  How dare I use their own words to show how soft on marriage they are!  Christian forums is supposed to be a place where Christian women (and perhaps Christian men?) can be soft on marriage without ever being called on it. If Christians can’t be soft on marriage there, what place is safe?

The discussion thread is available here for your reading pleasure.

It is worth noting that the thread was started by the commenter who goes by the handle dreamer1982.  You may recall her from her thoughtful Christian insight into the threat staying in an unhaaaapy marriage poses to one’s soul (emphasis mine):

I think it’s shortsighted to judge people who divorce because they have been very unhappy for a long time. The unhappiness is the symptom of what is seriously wrong with the relationship…and if that can’t be fixed (because one spouse is unwilling) then it can feel quite soul-destroying to stay, stay, stay. I believe in commitment and working for the marriage in the face of all kinds of adversity, BUT i think there needs to be more love and grace offered to those IN or even LEAVING unhappy marriages. “I’m unhappy” may sounds trivial on the surface, but that feeling is generally just the result of something more seriously wrong.

For extra irony points, I learned about the thread after the site itself sent me a pingback to the discussion. For that I want to personally thank dreamer1982 for linking to my blog when she created the thread. I hope she appreciates that I went ahead and approved the pingback, and even offered the extra bloggers courtesy of making a separate post linking back to her topic.

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

124 Responses to The women at Christianforums are outraged!

  1. van Rooinek says:

    I got through about 4 pages worth of postings at the CF link and failed to find a single substantive argument against the content of the Dalrock site. They’re just not haaaapppyy, that’s all. And they can’t say why.

    And they are upset that no CF men have gone over to Dalrock’s to defend them. To which one poster responded,

    “…I will say that one possible reason that none of the men from here stood up and said anything is that what’s being done to the women there isn’t really all that different than what those same women do to the men here….”

    He he. I’m gonna sit back and watch the fur fly.

  2. B.R. says:

    Haha, their posts remind me of this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt4Dfa4fOEY#t=01m00s – ‘How English sounds to non-English speakers.’ At first, it sounds like they’re speaking English, and you try to discern what they’re saying. Slowly, it dawns upon you they’re speaking complete gibberish, it just sounds indistinguishable from English.

    At first I thought the posters at CF were making arguments. But when I tried to identify their claims, I came up empty. It’s just empty emotional gibberish. When met with an argument, as the user chaz provided, the only result is more gibberish.

  3. Pingback: Privacy alert - Page 8 - Christian Forums

  4. Crank says:

    I like the way one poster repeatedly asserts that the men are being “brainwashed” by this site. LOL I guess posting of opinions contrary to, or critical of, her own opinion is deemed “brainwashing”.

  5. DG says:

    “…I will say that one possible reason that none of the men from here stood up and said anything is that what’s being done to the women there isn’t really all that different than what those same women do to the men here….”

    Not quite. Here we dislike women who dump out of a non-abusive/non-adulterous marriage because they can’t figure out how to be haaaaappy. or define “abusive” as “doesn’t do what I want him to” without realizing that obligations are supposed to be reciprocal.

    In other words – that act like children.

    (and for all that women smirk about “boys and their toys,” we usually a) pay for them, and b) deal with the messes, etc. we create.)

  6. Peter Blood says:

    So this is where “the pursuit of happiness” ends up. Lesson to the wise: don’t pursue happiness, don’t even think about it. It is NOT a virtue.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    Let me distill DG’s statement down just a bit.

    1. There are women who make solemn, serious promises before witnesses.
    2. Later on, sometimes a few years later, some women break those promises because they are no longer made “happy” by keeping their promises.
    3. Men don’t like women who break promises for unserious reasons, and “not happy” is not a serious reason. And now, finally, groups of men are making their anger over promise-breaking known, in sometimes very blunt language.

    That’s it. That’s what there is. So if there are wimmenz who want to defend promise-breakers they won’t find this site very pleasant.

  8. … I will say that one possible reason that none of the men from here stood up and said anything is that what’s being done to the women there isn’t really all that different than what those same women do to the men here….”

    Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.

  9. Tanizaki says:

    They mean business! Several have adopted the “disclaimer” of:

    “DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT GIVE MY PERMISSION FOR ANY OF MY POSTS TO BE USED NOR [sic] QUOTED IN ANY OTHER FORUM OTHER THEN [sic] CF!”

  10. Dalrock says:

    Two arguments I think the men there should offer:

    1) How was it that the discussion on marriage went 44 (maybe longer) pages without a serious challenge to the comments I referenced? They couldn’t have the discussion there, so we had it here.
    2) On the whole chivalry nonsense, why should Christian men defend women who are making arguments in defense of frivolous divorce? If anyone deserves these men’s protection, it is the children placed at risk by this type of argument. To the extent that the men there failed in their chivalrous duty to protect the weak, it was to the children, not the women scolding others to keep an open mind regarding frivolous divorce.

    I also get a kick out of the fact that the Christianforums.com site keeps sending me pingbacks on a thread where the women are complaining that I linked to their site. Christianforums does this to generate traffic from other blogs. I think I’ve already approved 3 or 4 today from them. They really have no clue.

  11. Twenty says:

    Dalrock, your Internet etiquette just sucks.

    First mentioning private e-mails, now linking to public discussions. Where will it end?! Next thing, you’ll be commenting on articles published in major newspapers, with not a whit of concern for the author’s and editor’s privacy and feeeeeeeeelings.

    Didn’t you ever learn: “If you can’t say something nice (about women), then don’t say anything at all (about women).”

  12. straightright says:

    I don’t think they even understand what the issue is. Or why there are problems with their view of marriage. For instance,

    #64, bottom of the post:

    “Dont you think its at least KIND of funny Dreamer?”Happilly married man” ..bashing women who divorce becasue they arent happy?Mocking and ridiculing THEM for even puttign importance on that and further talkign about them like they are criminals because if they arent happy they leave the marriage?But yet when he has ONE line to descirbe HIMSELF in his MARRIAGE thats the word he chooses?Not ‘just married”..or ‘sometimes happily married” or uhappilly marreid” …but HAPPILY MARRIED..I think its hoot..people crack me up with ther absurdity..all the time..I love people..”

    They admit they divorce because they are unhappy. They just don’t like to be criticized for it. Perhaps the problem is that they feel all of their choices should be affirmed.

    I thought Page 5 was a riot. Here’s one:

    #44: “You guys are beyond ridiculous.
    What it boils down to is you didn’t defend us because you agree that we are what that NON-Christian misogynist says we are.
    And then you want us to believe you’re the “spiritual leaders”. Bah.”

    So criticizing does work. To be criticized is almost unbearable for them.

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    I also get a kick out of the fact that the Christianforums.com site keeps sending me pingbacks on a thread where the women are complaining that I linked to their site. Christianforums does this to generate traffic from other blogs. I think I’ve already approved 3 or 4 today from them. They really have no clue.

    Well, most people do not really understand much about teh intertubes. So I am willing to cut some slack on this last bit. Heck, there are people who think that making their Facebook page private somehow means people can’t see older postings. I’m thinking of college students who “private” in their senior year, only to find out that the Spring Break images from a couple of years back are still quite easy to find – and some potential employers do a fairly good search of the web on potential new hires. Oopsy.

    Still, someone should inform the Angry Christian Women about the reality of auto pingbacks & what the site they are posting to actually does for revenue.

    Which brings me to that great disclaimer: given the way all the spiders and ‘bots crawl the web for Google, wayback and other such sites, good luck on enforcing that disclaimer.

  14. Crank says:

    LOL. She’s now calling you “anti-Christ like”. Not sure if that literally means “Like the The AntiChrist” or something less – I’ll assume something less.

  15. Dalrock says:

    By the way, I would suggest printing the pages to PDF if you want them for later reference. I can’t imagine their mods will let that thread survive very long. It makes the entire site look just plain ridiculous. They were caught writing really embarrassing things over a very long period of time, and their only response is that they didn’t know anyone was listening. As Prof Hale put it, that’s going to leave a mark.

  16. It is unbearable, and it will not be tolerated there. You cannot even mention divorce being a bad thing, lest you are said to want to enslave women in bloody abusive marriages, you cannot question ….QUESTION mind you, haaaaaapiness as the measure of a marriage, you cannot discuss modesty, lest you be avoiding responsibility for your male proclivity, you cannot mention pornography unless you spew angry venom, mention grace and you are a porn addict, you cannot question the absurd definitions of “abuse” or you are abusive, submission is so controversial its a disallowed topic and no matter where you come down on it, you are an ogre who demands obedience and fealty…

    why am I writing this here, you all know all this because its the same tactics of feminism, just adapted to the church.

    S

  17. Twenty says:

    I saw the derogatory term used to describe women that starts with an “s” and ends with a “t” on that blog more times in my 20 minutes of skimming than I ever have heard or read it in my entire life.

    Sophist? Secular humanist? Silly twat?

    I love how these delicate little flowers have no problems blowing up their families, screwing over their children, and stealing from their ex-husbands, but if they see strong language it’s time for the fainting couch.

  18. van Rooinek says:

    So if there are wimmenz who want to defend promise-breakers they won’t find this site very pleasant.

    PROMISEBREAKERS… a new spiritual movement for Christian divorcees….. filling stadiums at a city near you. Reserve your tickets online… Come and get encouraged in your sin… Childcare and hamstercare available onsite….

  19. Rico says:

    They post on a public forum, then get upset that another public forum quotes what they say, saying it’s a “privacy violation”?

    It is to laugh.

  20. deti says:

    My off the cuff thoughts:

    1. In case people are not seeing this, the point of the “Cornerstone to stepping stone” post was that leaving a marriage because you’re not haaaappy is not at all Christian. Leaving a marriage because that is easier than staying and working through the unhaaaaappiness or letting your unhaaaaappiness pass is not at all Christian. Leaving a marriage because you don’t love each other or no longer love each other or your love is of a different, less satisfying character than it was, is not at all Christian.

    In fact, “I’m not haaappy” is not a biblically sanctioned reason for divorce. “I’m no longer in love” or “I love you but I’m not in love with you” are not biblically sanctioned reaons for divorce. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. One would expect professing Christians to have deep knowledge and understanding of this.

    Seriously: These tenets are (or at least should be) beyond any debate for an orthodox Christian. How can there be any serious discussion or disagreement about them?

    But also, I was personally surprised to see such secular ideas expressed and even overtly advocated on a Christian message board. More evidence to me of how feminism has thoroughly infected western Christendom.

    2. It’s said that “I’m not haaappy” is just a symptom of a larger problem. But most of the time it is not what a wife thinks it is. Many times it’s hypergamy. She’s seeing what she believes are better men — nicer looking men, richer men, more interesting men. Or he’s let himself go and is not as physically attractive as he was. Or she tingles at them and thinks “these other men are more attractive. That means my husband doesn’t make me happy!” Or something is broken in her — maybe she can’t pair bond or never pair bonded or chose not to. Maybe she married her husband for the wrong reasons. Or he’s too beta, formed from years of trying to keep her pleased.

    That said, none of these things — NOT ONE — are a biblically sanctioned ground for divorce.

    Seriously: Why are Christians even entertaining such concepts? That’s the point of the Cornerstone thread.

    3. The women at CF in the linked privacy alert thread were chastising the men for not defending them. Oy.

    4. If you’re going to write something on a public forum in a public blog, especially something that might engender controversy, expect to be challenged on it, expect disagreement, and expect to be quoted. It’s no different than being out on a public forum and saying something to a broadcast journalist; or to a newspaper reporter.

  21. Anna says:

    I read the entire thread. Compress the entire thread (minus the signatures with huge graphics and other cutesy/childish elements) and there’s not much to read. And when you actually look at what they’re saying, it boils down to “you’re a big meanie.” No real substantial disagreement, just immature whining. Some of them take it farther and decide to play armchair shrink, talking about someone’s “neuroses” and “mental illness.” Pretty silly stuff.

  22. deti says:

    More to my point 1 above:

    Scripture is crystal clear on how God views divorce: He hates it. Scripture is also crystal clear on what is permissible ground for divorce: Adultery. That’s really pretty much it, according to God.

    So why are professing Christians talking about ending marriages for unhaaaaappiness? How is this at all Christian?

  23. slwerner says:

    Wow! That forum is a hoot!

    I couldn’t get very far through that linked thread. I had to stop after some niffer was whining about the men of CF not white-knighting when the women were being, as she expressed it, “torn apart”.

    Really, having your opinions and ideas, even radically anti-Christian ones, dissected and refuted is akin to actually having ones physical body harmed?

    I did notice that a few men were taking their chance to push-back on the whiny women pointing out that they have been known to treat men no better.

  24. CL says:

    The real issue here, IMHO, is that some of you men actually agree with the MRA stuff.

    yes that is a real issue just like its an issue there are rapists in a crowd..

    There you have it; if you agree with any of the MRA stuff, you might as well be a rapist.

  25. IGotThis says:

    Because sitting back and judging based on one form thread is so much more christlike…

    [D: Written by someone with the phrase "biteme" in her email address.]

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, we are all cowards here. Bdecause we post under various names. Someone at CF who posts under the pseudo of “Dallas” said so.

    That thread is giving me my daily allowance of irony…

  27. Rico says:

    That thread is pretty unbelievable. A debate teacher’s wet dream (or nightmare) – full of every logical fallacy known to man.

  28. Brendan says:

    That thread is like the gift that keeps on giving — a virtual endless font of stupidity which serves to confirm most of the themes of this blog over the past few years, and especially the past several months. And the most entertaining, quite deliciously entertaining, aspect of it is that this is completely lost on them — oh the sweet irony!

  29. If there were forensic controls there would be less discussion

  30. van Rooinek says:

    Happily married. Virgin til marriage. Never commited rape or sexual harassment. Attentive involved father. Church every Sunday. Tithe. Just the kind of man they praise over at CT

    Soi…why do I sympathize with the MRA? Because “good Christian girls” treated me like DIRT back in my single days, and the MRAs are the only ones who addressed the question… “Why?” The manosphere told the truth — when nobody else would — and helped me make sense of my heart-breaking, soul-shredding treatment I received at the hands of “Christian” women during my long and agonizing wife-quest.

    BTW the manosphere and the ideas thereof, can be a pretty good litmus test for women, if you’re still single. If she says, “Gee, you’re right, a lot of women are like that”, continue. If she goes into raging denial, immediately dump her.

  31. Luther073082 says:

    Dalrock, perhaps you could clarify as to who you are on CF if you even post there. I’m getting the impression that you just mostly lurk there and all the women think it’s one of us.

    [D: I'm not even registered there.]

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    Was it Paul who said that women should be silent in church? After all these years I think I understand why.

  33. Rico says:

    “That thread is pretty unbelievable. A debate teacher’s wet dream (or nightmare) – full of every logical fallacy known to man.”

    I want to apologize for my previous post. I insinuated that only men can be debate teachers, and I should have ended with “every logical fallacy known to woman and man” or “people”.

    So mysoginistic.

  34. Anonymous Reader says:

    One of the regular posters at CF has this signature:

    Being a woman is how I define it for myself and its AWESOME to be a woman!

    Says it all, really. Oddly, there’s no Bible reference given. Dunno why. Gotta be in there somewhere, right?

    Maybe it’s in the Book of Awesomeness?

  35. Graylan says:

    patheitc little men with pathetic little pensies.

  36. van Rooinek says:

    One of the CT folks appears to have some insight:

    Guys don’t turn MRA because they hate women; they do it because they want to be associated with people who actually care about what they’ve been through and want to encourage them to have a genuine hope for the future. They do it because they have no faith the the general trend in our society.

    I would add: Guys don’t turn MRA because they hate women – they turn MRA because they loved women, and their love was repaid with hatred. This hatred could be expressed in decades of baseless and rude rejection — being passed over in favor of bad boys — losing kids, home, and even freedom in an ujustified divorce… being cheated on…. many things could be the trigger.

    But every MRA started out with LOVE… and was burned.

  37. deti says:

    van Rooinek:

    “Because “good Christian girls” treated me like DIRT back in my single days, and the MRAs are the only ones who addressed the question… “Why?””

    And this, especially after we were expressly told
    1. Christian girls were different from secular girls
    2. Christian girls don’t sleep around and are virgins
    3. Christian girls want to date and marry Christian men
    4. Christian women are better wives and mothers than non-Christian women because they are specifically trained for marriage and motherhood
    5. there will be a wide selection of Christian women at church just aching and dying to meet, date and marry nice Christian men like you

    Lies. All of them.

  38. dragnet says:

    I stuck it out long enough to read the first six pages. Absolutely cringeworthy. Post after post of the most sniveling, self-justifying bullshit—hamsters on steriods, the lot of them.

    In the end they can’t confront the basic issue: why they are so soft on the core tenants of Christian sexual morality. Instead they machine-gun the messenger or upbraid manginas for not white knighting hard enough for them. Those women are irrefutable evidence of the rot at the core of Christian congregations.

    The service done here in chronicling their dumbassery is indispensable.

  39. Mule Chewing Briars says:

    Be very careful how you guys tread over there. I realized something when I got into an argument about female clergy (I am strongly against them) with proponents of women’s ordination. I could reason with the men, but with none of the women. I was accused of being an abuser and a misogynist, and one woman ( a ‘Reverend’) had to excuse herself because my remarks (mostly Scripture and interpretation thereof) were ‘triggering flashbacks’ of previous abuse. At that point, everything I posted was filtered through the lens of ‘what I did to poor Marie’.

    It is a rare woman that can be convinced in the same way a man is convinced. Usually, they have to be wooed, which is entirely different, and it should be done by the men in their lives. I have my hands full with my own woman. I can’t be bothered with trying to lecture other men’s women.

  40. Joe Sheehy says:

    I found this one particularly amusing:

    “Women need to submit because the Bible says so.
    Women need to be modest because the Bible says so.
    Women need to be respectful of men because the Bible says so.”

    These are their mantras. ”

    So what is her response? She doesn’t care what the Bible says?

  41. Anonymous says:

    Slightly off-topic, but in PJ Meida today…

    “7 Mistakes Women Make with Men,” by John Hawkins, PJ Lifestyle on PJ Media (fomerly Pajamas media), 14 Mar 2012

    http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/03/14/7-mistakes-women-make-with-men/

    “I’m puzzled listening to my female friends tell me they don’t understand men. This is like a rocket scientist telling you she can’t figure out how a flush toilet works. … There are lots of good men out there and if you don’t seem to run across any of them then you’re probably doing something wrong.”

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    Better get those screen shots quickly. The mods just closed the thread “for staff review”.

    No way that thread will be left up for very long. I expect it will vanish into the bit bucket in a day at the most.

  43. Country Lawyer says:

    Ha ha ha ha.

  44. Suz says:

    Did anyone notice dreamer1982’s avatar? “All I want is a warm bed, a kind word, and unlimited power.” Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

    Not “typical hairflip,” my a$$! The floor shook when she flounced out of the room.

    Hey, McScribe! If you don’t already follow Dalrock, you might actually find yourself comfortable here!

  45. an observer says:

    Ah yes, the misunderstood good christian girls.

    At the risk of being labelled a hater, too many christian girls were –

    1. Focussed on getting a career, because of course, marriages fail you know.
    2. Sexually active, but presumably there is forgiveness available for that on a weekly basis.
    3. Very demanding, with expectations the man would be a charismatic leader, a productive business man with a rippling body, but very sensitive, a good listener and good with children.
    4. Completely useless in the kitchen and deeply in debt for consumer items, and
    5. Active liars whose behaviour was at odds with their espoused beliefs.

    Had i not had any belief, i would have notched the bed post with secular women. Ironically, that probably would have scored extra points amongst the vagina carriers at church.

    After those experiences, finding a wife that actually behaves like one was completely unexpected.

  46. Alexander says:

    No worries. Assuming it disappears, anyone that wants a copy and didn’t make it in time, send me a line at memory.whole@yahoo.com

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    Suz, I think that if someone came up with a good Java based hair-flip avatar that would be golden to some of the women on that forum. An eye-rolling avatar would be icing on the cake.

    Some of the men who post there should post here. Speaking of which I noted UKFred posts there, and is frustrated with the women on the site.

  48. Joe Sheehy says:

    ““All I want is a warm bed, a kind word, and unlimited power.” Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?”

    That’s incredible Suz, that women who think they are Christians are incapable of recognizing just how absurdly un-Christian some of the things they say are. Sometimes I wonder though, if a lot of these women are just there to try to manipulate discussion towards the “Team Woman” position, and that they may n some cases be consciously subversive. Still, it’s simply extraordinary. It’s what happens when women don’t have authorities that can put them in their place – this woman has taken the “ye shall be as gods” message to heart.

  49. slwerner says:

    Anonymous – “7 Mistakes Women Make with Men,” by John Hawkins, PJ Lifestyle on PJ Media

    Thank you for linking that article here. The comment thread was also worth reading. One female poster, Dee, had this to say of an article seeking to advise woman on how to avoid relationship mistake swith men:

    “Never got past the first paragraph. Just another female bashing article from PJ Media.”

    I’m guessing she’d fit right in over there at CF, seeing as how she believes that suggesting that women might make mistakes and might be able to learn something about men from a man is a form of female bashing. I guess she must have been to angry at such a level of misogyny that she neglected to excoriate men for not white-knighting on behalf of her deeply offended sensibilities.

  50. Joe Sheehy says:

    @An observer

    Why do you say it “forgiven on a weekly basis” – was it a Catholic church, and if so, what kind of Catholic Church?

  51. slwerner says:

    Anonymous Reader – “Some of the men who post there should post here.”

    Why, sir, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you were intending to invite them over just so that we could “brain wash” them.

    I suppose if those women actually had a clue about the Manosphere, they’d be warning “their men” that we are trying to drug them with red pills.

  52. Mrs. P says:

    The thing I find most amusing is that the reason why the women are angry keeps changing every time a man refutes their arguments.

    Women: Dalrock quoted comments we posted on a public forum on his public blog and then wrote his opinion about them! Our privacy has been violated!

    Men: It’s a public forum. Anything you post can be quoted.

    Women: … ok… but… You guys didn’t defend us! What ever happened to chilvary?!

    Men: You guys didn’t defend us when a member of this forum bashed us on her blog.

    Women:…. yeah…. but… You guys actually AGREE with MRA! You misogynists!

    Men: We agree with what the bible says about marriage if that’s what you mean.

    Women:…… you guys are mean.

    I haven’t read all of it (but I intend to, it’s a hoot and a half!), so maybe they’re onto a new argument now. I personally love the poster with the white tiger avatar who can’t spell who has diagnosed Dalrock as a psychotic, narcissistic woman hater with mother issues all because he identifies himself as happily married. It’s also quite amusing that they think of Dalrock as a coward because he doesn’t reveal his true identity (of course all the women posting are using screen names). Dalrock publicly posts opinions that go against everything our feminist society stands for, how is that cowardly?

  53. Joe Sheehy says:

    “Privacy Alert” – it’s a hysterical abuse of language. If it’s an invasion of privacy to read and quote their posts, is it stalking to read their threads? Words have meanings, but that doesn’t stop these insane women. Which is why men are going to have to put their foot down if there’s going to be any hope for a sane and decent society in the future.

  54. Joe Sheehy says:

    “Hate to put it so bluntly..but why cant ya’ll beleive this is what you are encountering?And you cant really “argue” a man or a woman out of beign this..its a menatl illness..like sociopahty or narcissim..in fact you might find sociopaths narcissist AMONGST them..and of course there are differnt severities of this affliction but still..”

    No one can argue with creatures who use these tactics they’ve unconsciously imbibed from the cultural marxists.

  55. greyghost says:

    Those women at CF are most likely registered voters and have hostages(children)
    Damn Dalrock you are having way to much fun with this computer stuff and the blogging. Did you ever imagine what you would find when you started 2 years ago?

  56. I will never be embarrassed by Christ, but those ladies on the ‘christian’ forums embarrass me greatly. From my brief lurking on that site, it seems they exhibit as many Christ-like attributes as an old sock. It’s heartbreaking to see. The fox is truly in the hen house.

    The rot of feminism has spread like a cancer thru the church. The tumor is so engrained and widespread it’s difficult to discern the healthy tissue from the bad. We have no hope of removing this sickness on our own, it requires the ‘Great Physician.’ The most we can do is point this out to other men as a warning and rely on Christ to fix this. Thank you Dalrock for once again shining the light on the rot.

    @Deti 14:29
    “And this, especially after we were expressly told
    1. Christian girls were different from secular girls
    2. Christian girls don’t sleep around and are virgins
    3. Christian girls want to date and marry Christian men
    4. Christian women are better wives and mothers than non-Christian women because they are specifically trained for marriage and motherhood
    5. there will be a wide selection of Christian women at church just aching and dying to meet, date and marry nice Christian men like you

    Lies. All of them.”

    BINGO. EXACTLY!!! And they wonder why men are leaving churchianity in droves.
    Christian women = secular women with a thin coat of white paint and a superior attitude. Maybe this wasn’t always true but it certainly is today. Anybody that tells you otherwise is flat out lying to you. And when somebody like Dalrock calls them on it, they will scream bloody murder and call on their Christian ‘brothers’ to defend them. Too bad they’ve crapped on their Christian brothers for years.

  57. Oy, I win second place for vilification , maybe first, Id have to count. Darock, I ran interference for you unintentionally, because, well, Im under your pooowwwweeeeerrrr.

    “The spirits are about to speak”

    Look, I have mentioned that forum here a few times and now you can see why. But lets be clear, the problem is not that forum, the forum is fine, most of the folks who volunteer there are fine, enough are however hamstrung by the gynocentrism and the kafka trapping and all the rest of the forensically dubious things that are said to not see that its happening. And why? We know why. Because this is nothing extreme or extraordinary. This is not an outlier, so there is nothing especially bad or wrong there, they needn’t take anything personally because they actually represent the mainstream of Christian gender discourse and biblical interpretations on relationships and marriage. It IS the group here that are extreme, meaning the views are outside the norm.

    Like so many have said, if there is something that needs refuting, anyone can post here. Its no secret hiding place.

    If someone wants to argue their position on divorce they can. I doubt it will happen because the responses won’t be moderated, and hence stopped. When it is attempted to express a conservative view there it is mis-characterized as some really ugly thing. Then when attempting to clear that up, others jump in having read the accusation of the ugly thing. Before you know it 10 women are indignant because you have been PRO porn or something ridiculous you never said. Finally one gets frustrated and they get shut down.

    Anyway, Im glad some get a glimpse of mainstream Christian discourse on relationship, because it truly is not a better bet to recommend to a son, first and foremost find a “good Christian girl”. She may be soft on divorce AND have the scripture to back it up

  58. Not to be a blog whore but I started posting my own after getting kicked from there for the language I used in my anti-divorce stand. For some reason I was thinking about vanity and narcissism, but I can’t imagine why………

    http://ragingvanity.wordpress.com/

  59. deti says:

    Mortar:

    The girls I knew at church were of three basic types:

    1. Ultrahypergamous “daughters of the King”: Their expectations for men are stratospheric. Not a man alive could meet their requirements. He has to meet absolutely every single item on the 463 bullet point checklist or he is not “the One God has prepared for me.” He has to be wealthy, fantastically good looking, and have a pastor’s knowledge of Scripture. Turned up their noses at Christian men, but would give it up for the hot guys: the bad boys, the football team quarterback or the rock band drummer. She’ll have sex, but only with the very top men (preferably not Christian men, so as to preserve her virginal reputation).

    2. Homely girls/weird girls: These women can’t seem to fit in anywhere but at church. Female omegas, true unfortunates. They can’t dress, they can’t carry on a conversation, they can’t hold their own in groups.

    3. “Reformed sluts”: (Scare quotes required because there are “reformed sluts” and then there are true reformed sluts.) These women have pasts and partner counts that would make your toes curl. If it can be done sexually, she’s done it. She is divorced or never married, between ages 30 and 45, above average in physical attractiveness, well versed in Christianese. In no uncertain terms, she’s there to look for potential husbands. Dresses provocatively, calculated to draw male attention. Has a “hard” look about her from years of hard partying.

    Extremely evasive, then defensive, when asked about her past or her life. When pressed about her past, she explains it as “youthful indiscretions” or “mistakes” but she “is not like that anymore” and is “turning over a new leaf” to find the “man God has for me”. Deploys out of context scripture passages to justify her past behavior. She has memorized and skillfully recites “Judge not lest ye be judged” and “remove the log from your eye before attempting to remove the speck from my eye”.

  60. deti says:

    Also: the ultrahypergamous girls had wildly inflated views of their own SMVs. 5s and 6s routinely acted like 9s and 10s.

    These girls also delivered the cruelest nuclear rejections:
    1 “YOU’RE asking ME out?! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
    2. “You want to take me out? You’re not serious.”
    3. (Gives condescending look, then sneers) “Uhhh, NO.”
    4. “Go out with YOU? Seriously?”
    5. “What possessed you to think I would want to go out with you?”
    6. “You’re too fat/bald/old.”
    7. “You don’t meet my standards.”
    8. “You’re not good looking enough for me.”

  61. umslopogaas says:

    Bahahaha, this post just made my day. Absolutely gold in entertainment value. Many thanks Big D. for relaying to us this scary estrogen frenzy.

    I do feel compassion for some of the male commenters over there. They are trying to use logic on those screeching harpies, are attempting to calmly explain things to the “dearies”. And of course it’s not working particularly well.

    Instead these men’s perceived unwillingness to bravely ride out against those fiendish MRAs and their Dalrock Anti-Christ is bitterly noted, and they themselves have become targets of fury, vitriol and suspicion. Heh, I’d say the CF forum itself might be in for quite a storm.

    @CF men:

    This thread of yours in all clarity exposes the essentially unchristian, cryptofeminist nature of many of your women. Wake up, brothers, take the ‘Red Pill’ and join with us! You have feminist scorpions in your midst, playing the victim, who would weep snake’s tears to get you to fight us…and then when you are no longer useful…would stab you in the back.

    Know your foe. It’s not us. It’s *them*. Remove your ‘White Knight’ blinkers and put on your ‘They Live’ glasses.

  62. Pingback: Feminism and Christian Man… | Dark Brightness

  63. Ballista_GTOW says:

    This is really hilarious how childish these people are. Especially the women.
    1. Let me clear up something about the Internet. You are posting on a public internet forum. That means everything you write is available for EVERYONE to use in however they see fit. That includes quoting it up on another forum for discussion. Your “I give no permission” garbage is meaningless. If you don’t want your thoughts out in public don’t put them in public.
    2. I’M NOT HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPY! is not a valid reason for divorce. God hates divorce. But God especially hates divorce for this reason. Divorce for any and every reason is the work of Satan.
    3. Even more childish is this: Children cry about “things not being fair” and “you’re a big meanie” or even cry at all when people challenge them. Given the above point #2, you deserve to be challenged. In fact, you deserve to be revealed for the unmarriageable and immature little children you are. As it says in the Bible, all that is in the darkness will be revealed in the light. And you are crying like little children because this has done so.
    4. What you have chosen to say in the referenced thread and others like it is indefensible, therefore your “CF Men” haven’t come over here to defend you. Most people know a fool’s errand when they see one.
    5. As for myself, you all just handed me a gigantically huge and effective red pill I can read when I think about marriage and be reminded of how completely foolish marriage is, especially with the average “Christian woman” who believes her happiness takes precedence over God’s design for marriage and the intent of covenant. I took Dalrock’s suggestion and PDF printed this thread!

  64. Suz says:

    Mortarmanmike:
    “Christian women = secular women with a thin coat of white paint and a superior attitude.”

    Perfectly stated.

  65. GKChesterton says:

    @van Rooinek

    No. We can have loved women and never experienced the travesties you’ve listed. Some of us are pro-active about not being burned or are crusaders that see the general problem and want to address it before it gets out of control because, well, its _unchristian_.

    @Deti

    On female Omega’s…sometimes they clean up in amazing ways. There was a young home schooled girl that was about 13 when I met her. Complete loss from the outside. One of my younger friends decided to take a chance on her when she turned 18. She dropped about fifty pounds, shaved her legs for the first time in her life, and started wearing a smidgeon of make up. Total transformation. She’s still awkward but a very good catch and is pretty much a gold standard for “good” and a perfect match for the friend in question. For the same reason we hold women to account for ignoring beta’s we have to be careful to develop those women who have zero training in social poise.

  66. Ellimist says:

    Wow, I guess the truth hurts.

  67. Any form of male assertion has now been defined as “abuse”. I noticed this on my own blog recently. Anything a woman or a mangina might dislike is now abusive, apparently.

    From a Catholic perspective, we speak of “crosses” to bear in life. For some, it is work problems, for others problems with children, others have health problems, others have difficult or disappointing marriages. I suspect these women just won’t accept that their life is not perfect, that their marriage is a bit blah. They have no endurance. No guts. They are cowards, in a word.

    From an Australian perspective, this is where the “pursuit of happiness” leads. To people with no stoicism.

  68. To second Brendan’s point. Just think about what those stats mean. Americans have 5% of the world’s Catholics and 80% of the world’s annulments. What does that say about Catholic men and women in America? Especially, I suspect, the women. No guts.

  69. Sophie H says:

    Could we perhaps stop spelling “happy” with quite so many A’s please? It’s not doing anyone any favours and is just making most of the commenters here look as though they can’t spell.

  70. It never ceases to amaze me when certain women who are Christo-feminist Crypto-Marxists insist that we love them as “sisters in Christ” and anyone who pulls back the curtain get’s labeled a non-Christian misogynistic hater. Kafka-trapping as high art.

    http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-you-know-what-kafka-trapping-is.html

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    slwerner
    Why, sir, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you were intending to invite them over just so that we could “brain wash” them.

    Why, whatever do you mean, sir? I have no desire to wash anyone’s brains. I just want to hand them a pair of glasses…

  72. CL says:

    From an Australian perspective, this is where the “pursuit of happiness” leads. To people with no stoicism.

    I think it comes from a lack of understanding as to what happiness is. People normally think of it as kind of synonymous with “fun” and “good feelings”, or some kind of pleasure that one attains when one has reached some goal or other; but it is possible to be content in many circumstances.

    Perhaps the Founding Fathers were thinking more of the latter, but then, the word “pursuit” suggests an endless striving for something that is not so much an end in and of itself but a by-product of doing something you enjoy, something useful, spiritual practice, etc..

  73. Legion says:

    deti says:
    March 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm
    “…“remove the log from your eye before attempting to remove the speck from my eye”.”

    (Quick, before moderation hits.) Just tell them it’s the logs that have been in their a$$ that you are worried about.

    (I’ll work on being discrete now.)

  74. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Why, whatever do you mean, sir? I have no desire to wash anyone’s brains. I just want to hand them a pair of glasses…

    Nicely played. I recall your video contribution to that discussion. Sometimes it takes a good deal of persuasion to convince someone to wear the glasses.

  75. Legion says:

    David Collard says:
    March 14, 2012 at 6:17 pm
    “From an Australian perspective, this is where the “pursuit of happiness” leads. To people with no stoicism.”

    From a USA prespective, the pursuit of happiness is up there with life and liberty. Of course even our secular declaration states nothing on getting it. How they square it with their god is unbelievable.

  76. Suz says:

    Sophie,
    The extra A’s are meant to imitate the sound of whining, critical women. Think about it.

  77. deti says:

    Sophie:

    “not haaaaaappy” is also a bit of gentle mockery. Frankly, the nagging, whining, complaining tone deserves to have a little fun poked at it.

  78. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    Note: “Pursuit of Happiness” in the 18th Century, specifically for the Founding Fathers, meant that an individual could buy and own property. Specifically, land.

  79. Terse_man says:

    Here is proof that hamsters are immune to facts and applied logic.

  80. Terse_man says:

    I wonder if Jedi Mind Tricks work on hamsters

  81. Legion says:

    Terse_man says:
    March 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    If Jedi Mind Tricks come from an alpha male, then yes.

  82. Terse_man says:

    What about the love of Christ? What about “you shall know they are my disciples by the love they have for one another” and “love your neighbor as yourself?”

    But we are loving our neighbor. That is why we are here, to educate and make people more knowledgeable about very important matters.

  83. Rico says:

    Well put, Terse_man… too many lukewarm Christians define “love” as “whatever makes me feel good.” The fact that truth spoken in love can hurt does not make it any less loving.

  84. Samuel says:

    I went to the Christianforums thing…

    now, I am a Christian man. Have been most of my life.

    But the sort of christianity I find over there largely makes me sick. I thought I would go over there and have some fun but I really can’t stomach it. People got their heads so far up their own asses that I know it’s a lost cause. They don’t even know how to just be regular people.

    I hate that stuff. People so immersed in their indoctrinations that they can’t even have a normal discussion. I can lend very few of them credibility, for that reason, and cannot count myself among them.

  85. Johnycomelately says:

    I gave up on Christian girls when a friend (who was raised in a church and whose father was the most upright man I had ever known) confided in me that during the whole time she was married she was banging a junky stripper (a mutual friend). She even laughingly showed me the text message from the guy implying that he would commit suicide if she didn’t leave her husband.

    This, after offering me a blow job in the work toilets. Justice be damned, she ended up marrying a millionaire beta even after I told the dude about her history.

    Oh yeh, she even showed me the pics of an orgy (fivesome) she had with a female porn star (I couldn’t make this shit up even if I tried).

  86. Ian Ironwood says:

    The kinds of folks on that forum are one of the reasons I left Christianity for Paganism. Hypocrisy and selfishness at that level are just galling. And the self-righteousness . . .

  87. Terse_man says:

    But the sort of christianity I find over there largely makes me sick.

    They need some strong moral leadership from the church, and they are not getting it. So they wander.

  88. 7man says:

    If Christian women are so exceptional, why do they appear so unchristian and behave so unchristian-like when put under a bit of scrutiny?

    The men here are using logic and are not anti-woman. But we are trying to point out difficulties. Do these Christian women not realize that at times Christians have been persecuted? At those times women NEED a strong man and a man NEEDS a woman he can rely on that will be supportive of him, listen to him and not be defiant.

    A time like this may soon be upon us. It is high time women figure out that disrespecting men and exploiting men is NOT in their long term interest. But this would involve realization of implications and consequences of events and actions, future thinking. My observation is that women are not good at this, which may be why God designed the man to be the head of the woman. Therefore the man is dominant and the woman is submissive. It is just a hierarchy and a specialization of roles and does not mean men and women are not equal in worth.

    There is a pervasive “feeling” among both men and women that something is not right in the world. There is a dread of what the future might hold. This inflames the battle of the sexes. If the SHTF, then the best thing for a woman, is to have a good, strong, unbendable, “not NICE” man in her life. Men are waking up and preparing for this and it is advisable that the smart women learn to support men. Hey, this has historically been necessary for survival. Maybe this time it will be different, but I doubt it.

    Simple 3rd grade math, will demonstrate that the current financial promises and economic situation cannot be sustained. Wake Up! (Whether this happens in 6 months or 2 years of 5 years, matters little.) Women should invest in a good man and this does not mean controlling him, nagging him or divorcing him because she is not HAAAAPY!

    Since when has happiness been a entitlement flowing from Christianity?

  89. Terse_man says:

    It is high time women figure out that disrespecting men and exploiting men is NOT in their long term interest.

    The fish will need bicycles, but will the bicycles care?

  90. Terse_man says:

    Since when has happiness been a entitlement flowing from Christianity?

    Since 1970, the start of the Kumbaya era

  91. Terse_man says:

    It is high time women figure out that disrespecting men and exploiting men is NOT in their long term interest.

    A hamster cannot live by emotions alone, it also needs bread

  92. TFH says:

    Sophie,

    Could we perhaps stop spelling “happy” with quite so many A’s please? It’s not doing anyone any favours and is just making most of the commenters here look as though they can’t spell.

    The hubris. Telling others what to do, while also trying to change the subject.

    I was one of the few not doing that until now, but just for that, I will join the haaaaaaaaaapy brigade.

    There is a specific reason why this tactic is used to expose female dishonesty. If you understood how women think, you would realize the necessity of this tactic. And no, being a woman does not mean you know how women think – quite the opposite in fact.

  93. TFH says:

    dragnet,

    hamsters on steriods, the lot of them.

    Remember, that is when the hamster has grown to the size of a Songhua River Mammoth.

  94. TFH says:

    It is high time women figure out that disrespecting men and exploiting men is NOT in their long term interest.

    High time? That will NEVER happen.

    Women simply do NOT understand cause and effect very well. Expecting women to grasp cause and effect is just about the most futile expectation to have.

  95. TFH says:

    I have to repeat something, as it is the core explanation for all this, and might benefit someone new :
    _______________________________________________

    The divorce rate of a society depends on one thing predominantly :

    Will the woman’s living standard go down if she divorces?

    If yes, that society has a low divorce rate.
    If no (via rigged laws), then that society has a high divorce rate.

    All the rationalizations of not being ‘haaaapy’ or ‘growing apart’ or ‘needing to find herself’ or ‘he watched porn’ are merely excuses to cosmetically cover the financial decision. In societies where a woman cannot secure assets through easy divorce, all those excuses are miraculously absent.

    This lead to the other point I often bring up :

    Democracy and Marriage cannot coexist for more than a century or so. It will not be obvious to people who have an adult lifespan shorter than that, but Democracy inevitably leads to women voting for laws to be rigged more and more in their favor, until, after a delayed reaction, men just refuse to play along. Women cannot stop themselves from ruthlessly revising the rules in their favor, so Democracy simply destroys the institution of marriage.

    Conservatives think they are big on both Democracy and marriage. In reality, they have to pick one (they will usually pick Democracy since they don’t have the courage to address what is really destroying marriage).

  96. TFH says:

    greyghost,

    Dalrock you are having way to much fun with this computer stuff and the blogging. Did you ever imagine what you would find when you started 2 years ago?

    Along those lines, I would love to pose a question to Dalrock :

    On a scale of 1 to 10, how high is/was your opinion of the morality, logic, and capacity for adult responsibility of the average woman :
    i) 18 months ago
    ii) Today

    I bet the last 18 months has caused a distinct downgrade in your opinions of women on the above metrics. I went through the same over a similar period, as have many other long-time men here.

  97. Jim says:

    Wow, just wow. I just finished reading the faux outrage thread from CF and it just floored me on many levels. In summary, the women acting so indignant are outraged that the opinions they expressed were criticized in largely reasoned principled fashion, albeit in a slightly mocking tenor.

    Ladies, get over it and yourselves.

    You expressed a series of opinions and you were criticized by people who disagree with them. Then in a fit of hypocrisy you cried foul because people pointed out the obvious flaws in your arguments. You used every liberal trope to silence debate and dissent instead of furthering the debate with facts and logic. You then screamed “Violation of privacy’, “you hate women”, “You’re just stone age throwbacks like the KKK”, and other ignorant, ill-informed hysterical rants. That’s just not dishonest, it is anti-intellectual, it is anti-free speech. The critic is under no compunction to conform to the subjects idea of ‘fairness’. If you don’t believe in that you don’t believe in free speech or intellectual honesty.

    If ideas mean to be anything more they should be able to survive the rigamorale of debate and analysis, else they are NOT ideas worthy of being defended. That few if any women were willing or able to defend their positions points to their intellectual, if not moral bankruptcy.

  98. Pingback: Every MRA started out with LOVE… and was burned | Air & Space

  99. an observer says:

    Joe Sheehy,

    Re the forgiveness thing. What i was summarising was the typical christian whose actions during the week usually preceded much repenting of a sunday. One in particular did this repeatedly until she got pregnant out of wedlock to an unknown alpha who promptly did as expected.

    It was a baptist church, and there was much support and empathy offered for her instant sainthood, oops, single parent status.

    Whilst this is an extreme example, it was common for nice church girls to have lots of sexual sin to repent of. Whilst this caused them much grief, it was so addictive many of them continued to fall for the puas that used game on them.

    The delta and gamma men of the church were of course constantly shamed into marrying the used goods. Needless to say, damaged ability to pair bond, ongoing unaddressed hypergamy and overlooked refusal to submit meant lots of divorce. Most of my male friends who married are now divorced, and none the wiser for it.

    The nature of women is not being held to account. Hence, women get lots of forgiveness, empathy and understanding, because the poor dears were not haaaaaaaaapy. And the men got roasted for not trying hard enough.

    The church. . . Sigh. . .

  100. Suz says:

    “The nature of women is not being held to account.”
    There’s the problem right there. The church genuinely believes that women either can’t or shouldn’t be held to account. The church refuses to see that women who ARE held to account, become rather smart, rather quickly.

  101. Lavazza says:

    CL: “Le plaisir est le bonheur des fous, le bonheur est le plaisir des sages” Jules Barbey d’Aurevilly

    Roughly translated: “Pleasure is the happiness of fools, happiness is the pleasure of wise men.”

  102. Interested says:

    The staff review is complete over at Christian Forums.

    The discussion thread is gone!

  103. Brendan says:

    To second Brendan’s point. Just think about what those stats mean. Americans have 5% of the world’s Catholics and 80% of the world’s annulments. What does that say about Catholic men and women in America? Especially, I suspect, the women. No guts.

    I think it has two aspects to it.

    One is that this has been the practice now for a few decades that even more conservative hierarchs coming in are slow to change it — it’s become a part of accepted practice here now.

    Another is that more divorced Catholics want to get remarried in the Church, here, than in other countries (e.g., France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, etc.) — in many other very feminist Western yet Catholic countries, Catholics who divorce will simply walk away from the Church or get remarried outside the Church. Americans are more outwardly religious, and are more likely to care about getting an annulment than are more relaxed and less religious Catholics in other feminist countries that are even more Catholic (nominally) than the US. So the demand for annulments is much higher than elsewhere. In part that’s because people know they can get them (usually easy enough to show a defect in intention on one or the other’s part — that’s the most used ground for declaring an annulment) if they are willing to go through the process. But in part it’s also because they are more likely to *want* one.

  104. ticked says:

    It’s still there dumbass, you just didn’t look good enough.

  105. Rookie Writer says:

    @Interested
    Doesn’t shock me that it’s gone.

  106. TFH says:

    The discussion thread is gone!

    Heh.

    Remember my most important maxim of all :

    The side that strengthens from the free flow of information always wins over the side dependent on clamping down on the free flow of information, or the concealment of facts. It is only a question of time.

  107. Höllenhund says:

    These ‘Christian’ woman are so lame it makes my head spin. It’s just further proof that true Catholic dogma is dead and buried, that debating women on such issues is utterly pointless.

  108. Random Angeleno says:

    @Brendan, @David Collard
    I think it’s a bit more pragmatic – think “follow the money”. Quite a bit of money coming in from the annulments they get. Not talking about the donation for the procedure/process itself, but about the follow-on donations the newly free to marry bunch give down the road. Which is why the American Catholic Church goes along for the ride.

    As a Catholic, it pained me to say that, but have to see the flawed messengers apart from the message.

  109. TFH says:

    That’s just not dishonest, it is anti-intellectual, it is anti-free speech. The critic is under no compunction to conform to the subjects idea of ‘fairness’. If you don’t believe in that you don’t believe in free speech or intellectual honesty.

    What part of this do you think is not natural female behavior?

    Many basic foundations of modern Western society are very incompatible with female nature. Think about the implications of that.

  110. Tricket says:

    I’m a young Christian woman and after reading some of that forum…

    I am horrified and disgusted. My palm is slammed so hard against my face that I think it’s going to meld into my head. I honestly can’t blame men for their thoughts when you have supposedly “Christian women” like this parading around. The hypocrisy is just…. overwhelming and infuriating.

    Also, they need to learn how the internet works. Posts on a public forum are free game. You don’t want people making comments on what you say? Don’t freaking post it then.

  111. gwallan says:

    What a fabulous primer on the ways women ferment conflict between groups of men and the pettiness which can drive them to do it.

  112. P Ray says:

    “The unhappiness is the symptom of what is seriously wrong with the relationship…and if that can’t be fixed (because one spouse is unwilling) then it can feel quite soul-destroying to stay, stay, stay.”
    Jeepers, lady, have a heart. He has to stay loyal to you too, and from what I understand about Father Time and the female face/libido, that relationship doesn’t end well.
    Or is reciprocity a foreign word to your mind?

  113. captain jack says:

    I am disappointed you linked their site. I read most of the comments made on that site and I believe I may have suffered a loss of IQ from the experience. I did not find a single salient point of any value in the torrid vomit of feelings, emotions and nonsense dribble.

    As best as one could discern from the emotionally and intellectually retarded spew it boiled down to a chastising of men for not toeing the party line and rushing to the defence of a broken cause.

    I have known christian women, I have lived with christian women, I have loved christian women. These women however are not christian in any meaningful sense of the word.

  114. Pingback: Furor Feministae – Female Discourse Culture & the Pointlessness of Debating Women « UMSLOPOGAAS

  115. Terse_man says:

    “The nature of women is not being held to account.”
    Boys are judged on what they do and do not accomplish. Girls, not so much (they are exceptional no matter what). Now we face the consequences.

  116. Badger says:

    Brendan,

    “Americans are more outwardly religious, and are more likely to care about getting an annulment than are more relaxed and less religious Catholics in other feminist countries that are even more Catholic (nominally) than the US. So the demand for annulments is much higher than elsewhere.”

    This is a surreal point – Americans care more about the status symbol of getting remarried in the Church than Europeans, and so they work to undermine the sanctity of churchly marriage itself in order to whitewash their initial debasement of the institution via frivolous divorce in the first place.

  117. ukfred says:

    I’d like to chip in just a little, if I may.

    I have been suspended at CF for
    1) Using the phrase “pussy pass” in inverted commas when describing their misandry, and
    2) Flaming, by pointing out that a woman who had called me a troll and was supporting divorce had not declared an interest in that she was a divorce lawyer.

    I have suggested they remove me from their members list permanently.

    The women and some of the men on that site need lessons in basic theology. They need to learn to check out the facts and not assume that what they hear as anecdote is fact. And they need to learn to put a watertight argument together.

    Interestingly, Sheila Wray Gregoire (whom Dalrock thinks is soft on women) had a vlog put on the site for discussion and that vlog was dismissed as being misogynist by some of the women there.

    For a serious Christian discussion on marriage or any of the problems associated with it, far better to go to The Marriage Bed where nobody gets an easy ride if they try for a logical non-sequitur or a pussy pass.

  118. Yea, I was banned permanently because of calling outside attention to them. The final moderation comment was from the most angry feminist on their staff, kafka trapping me, shaming, etc.

    Here is the thing that makes the site significant, while I wish it was a fringe, it is maybe the biggest most heavily trafficked Christian site (English) online. It has to be in the top few if not the biggest. I am comfortable saying it is a good random snapshot of the English speaking church. That ought to concern anyone who claims Christ.

    There is not a wits difference between their beliefs and the most socially liberal atheists beliefs. I have to think that the mega church growth in the US is directly correlated to this feel good stuff and gynocentrism. Women love clubs, and love being administrators of clubs. Church is perfect. They even get authority.

    Of course they found Sheila misogynistic. First, not a single one of them ever even heard of Sheila, (their belief set is as deep as their own experience, nothing more) and all it took was a hint that Sheila could be less than full accommodating on divorce for them to cry:

    RELEASE THE CRACKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (Can that be a metaphor for the p…pass?)

  119. UK Fred says:

    Are hamsters on overtime at the Easter weekend on CF?

    “Re: Happy First Contact Day!
    “Dear Fred,

    “Your post, quoted below, has been reported to staff. I have deleted it for review. Please do not repost it or similar during the review process.

    “God Bless
    “Redheadedstepchild
    “Originally Posted by UK Fred View Post

    ” I’m not saying that it has no right to be on the forums. It just has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. It does not compute, to use your own metaphor. It is in the wrong place.

    ” But if this is, in the considered opoinion of the mods, relevant to marriage, that perhaps explains why the men on Dalrock mock weomen on CF so much.”

    And the original post on the Married Forum by illudium phosdex was

    “Happy First Contact Day!
    On this day, April 5th, in the year 2063, Dr. Zefram Cochrane will pilot the first warp ship, the Phoenix. This will attract the attention of a passing Vulcan ship and forever change the history of the world.

    “Live long and prosper.”

    “Edited on 4-7 to add: How did you and your spouse celebrate?”

  120. bob says:

    You also forgot to add that woman wiishing he would cheat would allow them to his money if his prenup was set up that way. These are horrible people these woman that do this.

  121. Pingback: From cornerstone to stepping stone; the mainstream Christian view of marriage. | Dalrock

  122. Amanda says:

    I just had to pipe in here. I believe I may have just been “ousted” from http://www.christianforums.com
    all because I listed several if not numerous of Gods Scriptures about remarriage and adultery, etc. Some guy (or 2) seemed to take a disliking to the Scriptures and actually attacked me calling me “legalistic” ,etc,etc,!!! Wow, well I guess if reading Gods Word and taking it for exactly what it means is “legalistic”, then GOD BLESS LEGALISM IN SCRIPTURE!!! heehee, it seemed like all of a sudden everything started running really slow and wouldn’t respond, so I shut down everything, and turned back on, and no matter even when I try to get back onto the website from the emails in my inbox, it won’t let me go to the site at all!! What the ##@??? What happened? So thats what they do to people if you put down scriptures they don’t like because they are not “adhering” to those particular scriptures?? Wow, like wow. I don’t even know what more to say about an online “christian” blog site like that. They’re definitely NOT CHRISTIANS that are moderating and doing the decision making.

    [D: Welcome.]

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