Reframing Christian marriage

Modern Christians have radically reframed marriage from the way the Bible does.  Where the Bible shows the husband in headship and the wife as submissive, modern Christians have turned this upside down.  The re-framing is so pervasive that most Christians have no idea that it has even occurred.  I’ve charted out the details below, but there are three fundamental changes which are at the core of the radical reframing of Christian marriage:

  1. The command to husbands to love their wives has been transformed into a command that he make his wife feel loved.  This subtle transformation turns a straightforward biblical command into a Sisyphean task.  After all, the wife herself is the only one who can pronounce whether she feels sufficiently loved.  Additionally only she can define the very meaning of the word love in this context.  As a result, Christian husbands are now held hostage to the emotions of their wives.  They must forever jump through whatever hoops their wives hold up in an impossible effort to gain her approval.  For example, if he watches a football game instead of doing what she wants him to do he isn’t making her feel sufficiently loved and is in violation of the biblical command.  There is no escape from this rule once you accept the subtle change, as logically only she can tell us how she feels.
  2. The command that neither should deny sex to the other is now seen as only applying to husbands denying sex to their wives.  Wives aren’t to be expected to follow this command unless they feel sufficiently loved and are “in the mood”.  Even if this were to apply, there is the added exception that the wife shouldn’t follow this command if it makes her uncomfortable.  This gives the wife a powerful trump card to hold over her husband.  If he doesn’t follow her leadership she can and will deny him sex for as long as it takes to bring him to submission.
  3. A wife holding her husband hostage to her emotions and employing denial of sex will eventually wear down the will of even the most determined Christian husband.  An additional threatpoint is needed to further enhance the wife’s undisputed authority and if needed provide an exit strategy.  This is the threat of unilateral divorce, with the accompanying expulsion of the husband from the home of his children and the appropriation of the majority of his wealth and income.  However, for this to be effective Christianity had to be morphed from a force standing in the way of divorce to one which provides moral justification for divorce.

These three changes put wives in the position of absolute headship in modern Christian marriage, in an inversion of the biblical concept of headship.  Moreover, while claiming to fear the ever threatened tyranny of husbandly headship, the new model puts the husband in a far more subservient position to his wife than a mere inversion would accomplish.  After all, no sane reading of the Bible would make the husband’s emotional state the final arbiter of wifely submission and obedience.  She isn’t commanded to ensure that he never feels any sort of dissatisfaction.  A husband who berated his wife simply because he wasn’t happy would be seen by all as abusing his position.  The same goes for a husband who denied his wife sex and/or threatened her with divorce for the same reason. Yet armies of Christian “relationship experts” now make their living writing books and articles and holding workshops advising Christian wives on the proper way to do exactly this.  In fact, these books, articles, and workshops are packaged as “supporting Christian marriage”.

The modern Christian reframing of marriage:

Note:  I have included at least one citation for each row in the table above, but this is not intended to be an exhaustive list.  If I’ve left off your favorite reference for any of these please share it in the comments.

See Also:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Book of Oprah, Church Apathy About Divorce, Feminists, Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

287 Responses to Reframing Christian marriage

  1. HeligKo says:

    Wow, just wow. No not you Dalrock. The truth smacks me in the face. In so many ways I saw this happen in my marriage. For some time, I went along to get along. The basic idea that “If mama aint happy, nobody’s happy.” This is true, but it also isn’t justification for the the above bill of goods that has been sold to men and women in the church. I checked out, and did what my kids needed and lived on a pitiful marriage rather than engage the overseer. Ultimately I started to wake up and assert my position. Something I was afraid to do. It can’t be right, you know, since that isn’t what is preached. The risk is that she is so stuck in this thinking she won’t accept the leadership. The two options really are the submissive wife that loves you, or the contemptuous wife who will one way or another head for divorce. Mine chose divorce.

    Dalrock, you write great stuff. Keep up the fight in the church. Someday I might want to go back if I can find a church that believes the Bible on these issues and others.

  2. Dave says:

    Thankfully, praise God, my wife chose submission.

    It took two decades +5, but we are in a much better place.

  3. AJ Miller says:

    Wow. Excellent article!

    The sad thing is that churches and preachers are shoving this new Gospel down our throats. They are active in promoting it and not just being passive. If you don’t agree with this your very salvation is even questioned.

    How can one meet a nice woman in the church that is immune to this way of thinking? My ex-wife left me because she was unhappy, joined Christian mingles 3 weeks later and still considers herself a Christian woman.

  4. tweell says:

    Ouch. That’s gotta leave a mark!

    That list is akin to Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses. He published his list, now you have done the same.

    Get ready for shaming, NAWALT and rationalization!

  5. OT, but nevertheless hilariously entertaining,..

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/05/07/relationshipstrategies/can-a-manwhore-ever-really-settle-down-even-if-he-wants-to/comment-page-3/#comments

    Hey Dal, I’m honored,..

    Honest to God, there are male bloggers I wish I’d never heard of. From this moment on, I’ll never mention Rollo or Dalrock again, and I’ll delete any comment that does so. I’d rather be water boarded than continue this conversation.

    I don’t even have to post on her comment threads anymore to enjoy the irony. Heheheh,..she loves me.

    [D: That is pretty funny. Did anyone even mention either of us, or was it entirely unprompted?]

  6. Some Guy says:

    I was really surprised when I got married and my wife kept demanding that I *lead* her spiritually. There was absolutely no sense of irony to it, either…! Thanks to your handy translation guide above, I can know understand what she meant now…!

    The wife loving their husbands thing…. My wife wholeheartedly believes she gets a pass on that if my spirituality doesn’t come up to *her* standards or if I’ve done anything to make her *feel* unloved. Any mention of what her responsibilities toward me is met with her going on the offensive and listing everything I’ve ever done to make her feel bad.

    I try to think about what she’s doing…. I guess… if she’s angry, she thinks she can use that to get what she wants out of me– ie, more chores, more money, more honey-do lists. But if she’s crossed the line from withholding sex to coldly saying she doesn’t love me at all… then what exactly are we fighting over?

    If I lose my temper or raise my voice in any of this, it’s pretty much game over for the discussion. If I am on the verge of making any good points, she threatens a divorce or asks me to just get out. (What… and leave my kids without a father…? Seriously? She may not care about them, but I sure do.)

    Sometimes I try to ask her how she can live with herself holding in all of this unforgiveness toward me… but I guess she gets a pass on the Sermon on the Mount where I’m concerned. Yeah… I’m her enemy. I’m her closest neighbor…. And she can’t show love towards me. Hmmm…. (Oh wait… she did make me a sandwich the the other day. Thank you, dear!)

    It’s tough on her, though. She spends a lot of time wondering why the kids don’t show her much love or respect. Like I said… no sense of irony. Amazing. Anything my pastor says tends to encourage her in this line of thinking. After all, the husband is responsible for all of this…!

  7. GKChesterton says:

    Also missing is the injunction to be “fruitful”

  8. A couple of things come to mind. The first one is to clearly define the role of a woman. She is a “help mate” or a “ezer” ( to help, protect, aid). Btw, this is not degrading at all since God is referred to as a “ezer”.
    Take a look at the women role in the bible – Proverb 31 is a classic.
    The husband is a elder and well known ( vs. 24)
    The wife ( hold on to your hat:) is a NON STOP tour de force of treating him well, makes clothes, shops, rises early in the dark hours of the morning to cook for her household, buys and plants a field and a vineyard, works out ( vs. 17), works out of the home (18), gives to the poor,stores for the winter, makes fine clothes for her and her household and sells them ( another side business), kind, gracious, and wisdom are in her words, and avoids idleness(vs 27). WOW !!!
    Secular values are EXACTLY the opposite of this.
    When the apostles left all ( Matt 19:270 and followed Christ – who took care of the wife and kids of them ? In addition, it was Jewish tradition for the males to go the feasts 3x’s a year. Btw, NT writings show the apostles were married men.
    The answer I am going to suggest is the family was more than self sufficient. To push the entire financial load on the man where he is overworked and not enough time to seek God daily to provide for the “American way of Death” has predictable consequences. The families are broken and in poor health. I have seen it with Fortune 500 ( my background) of men / women who work their butt off to OVER provide only to lose it.
    Btw, in regards to partner with holding sex or intimacy is not a good idea.
    If the relationship is Christ centered, abstinence took place during courtship and therefore excellent self control ( Self control over glandular urges is a wonderful thing) .
    When my ex-wife tried that with me – I withheld my affection, attention, and sex from her. It is wonderful and allows the actual problem to resolved since sex cant be used leveraged ( Btw, I am super affectionate / attentive man. When the “affection goo stops” it is missed and women HATE to be ignored.
    Relationships are reciprocal – the women is to obey the man and the man is to place the womans needs in front of his.
    It is called sacrificial love on both sides and it is the only kind of “love relationship” that works and that is clearly seen as Christ shows His love in His sacrifice and we show our love to Him in real obedience.

  9. namae nanka says:

    Contrary to internet atheist claims of church brainwashing about the old man in the sky, it’s the preaching of the virtue of women that has been the biggest brainwashing of the church today.

  10. Dalrock
    This is great, comprehensive, etc. Like most of us I’d add some words here and there in the text above the table, but so will all men who read it. Its amazing to consider that if you laid this out in front of a group of what you thought were well rounded and considered Christian friends, men and women, the replies you’d get would mostly be to attempt to refute it. More interesting is to consider how it would be refuted. Its hard to even imagine it being refuted because its so basic and concise.

    Michael Singer…the Proverbs 31 women is a new religion unto herself, for evangelical feminists. If you look at where they spend their study time its clear to see, they LOVE to study the Prov 31 woman, they love to read about the sins of men, and they love to mine scripture and languages for ways to wrangle out of responsibility for their own things. I see your comment “this is opposite of secular”…but see, the evangelical feminists dont claim secular values. Its easy to see that its opposite of secular, we even they know that. This is one insidious thing, they have cover for their beliefs because they overtly seem to not be secular. The problem, IOW, is not that they take on secular systems and values.
    The problem is they pervert the traditional, they stand it upside down.

    I’m not sure where you are headed with the comments about the man being the breadwinner, and how that relates to Dalrocks post. But on the sex thing, describing how to hold back from her if she holds back from you is not a good solution…its doubling down bad

  11. Allow me to explain ( I am a terrible typist). The women is suppose to contribue.
    To lay the whole $$$$ thing on the man to the point of whipping a mule to death to “over provide” to the destruction of the family and relationships due to time constraints. I know plenty of guys ( including myself ) who over providing and it comes with a cost.
    I don’t beg for sex nor do I expect my ex or future wife to either. Intimacy, affection, sex, and attention should NEVER be used for coercion. When my ex-wife ( of 19 years) attempted to force a bad decision or choice and then attempt to use withholding sex / intimacy from me – she learned the hard way – it didn’t work. In addition, being affectionate and nice is sometimes mistaken for stupid and gullible. There is a point where “tough love” takes a stand.
    I am a single guy again and hence a confirmed abstinent bachelor again. I don’t give away my affection, attention, or $$$ to women. If someone worthwhile – she need to prove herself to me she is a real deal disciple.
    I hope that helps.

  12. Firepower says:

    Modern Christians have radically reframed marriage from the way the bible does

    Oh you confused Christians
    Always getting in n’ outta trouble
    from those Pauline Directives…

  13. AJ Miller says:

    What is really sad is the thinly veiled threat lurking over every husband that if he doesn’t do “well”, his wife has every reason in the world to divorce him. How can anyone in a position like that be a leader? Can’t Christians see how demonic this really is?

  14. Some Guy says:

    Okay we know what the Fireproof advice is and what will come of it. Let’s see… the other advice is to eat right, exercise until you have a six pack, add $20K to your salary, and buy some new clothes when that’s all finished. Because a feral woman can’t see you unless she thinks other women are competing with her for you…?

    Either way… if you show weakness, suffer from illness or job loss, or even just let yourself go in the process of doing all the stuff she says she wants you to do… then the only reason you’re in the same house is because some other, “better” dude hasn’t come along and made her wet her panties.

    That’s just so inspiring. True love…. Man, sign me up for that!

  15. Where did the advice to lose weight and all that come from? Im not seeing that here, and definately not in this thread

  16. HeligKo says:

    @AJ Miller, Its not thinly veiled. I have heard pastors warn men from the pulpit that if they don’t “man up” then they will lose their wives, and deserve it.

    @Some Guy, Its hard to find hope out there, but I have stopped looking at the broken relationships and started looking at the ones that aren’t. They are out there. Guess what, the man doesn’t game his wife. He doesn’t follow her lead either. Both ultimately cater to the woman’s baser desires and not her higher consciousness. They treat her as if she were a mere simple animal. Barely more than a child who needs to be entertained and taken care of. The man in these relationships have true compromise and genuine self sacrifice. When there is disagreement that cannot be resolved, she follows his decision, and does so without threat of what will happen if he is wrong. Because of this, he knows that he can choose for them and have her support. Don’t sign up for the crap. Date long enough to experience difficulties and see how things are resolved, before marriage is even talked about.

  17. Some Guy says:

    That is Athol Kay’s advice on how to win your wife back. (His book is basically the anti-Fireproof.) In this context, a Christian husband basically has to Game his wife… because there is no shaming or instruction or teaching on the wife side of the occasion. Game is the only thing that can keep her interest, because the rationalization hamster will have her explaining to everyone that God told her to leave you for a more spiritual dude. Or something like that. The church of course is waiting to wag its collective head in sympathy.

  18. Lol..Its called “discipline” and “consequences”. Its works wonders.
    It has taken a kid from a broken home of domestic violence and turned him into a disciplined educated and moral man. Any disciplined and educated moral man wants the same exact thing in a woman and will not settle for less. It take a divine intervention to bring the two together because “they are exceptions to the rules”. I have met a few over the years and it is a very small network.
    Btw, not to brag – but eating right and exercising a “measly one hour” a day has huge benefits over the years. Six pack / eight pack is mere maintenance, striations in muscles are natural tattoos. In addition, it takes a really intelligent secure woman because a “disciplined man” will get approached by members of the opposite sex if not more.
    Nothing is more attractive than well balanced discipline – nothing.

  19. @Dal, look at the conversation string from about mid page 2. Completely unprompted.

    I have $10 here that says she mentions one of our names inside a month.

  20. Women are definitely attracted to *balance*, half the ads on TV and radio now tout the balance of the product, they don’t even have to understand what it means in a given thing to see balance as some mystical wonder.
    Im just not sure how much utility there is in pushing rock hard abs at men who may find themselves in familial existential problems. I agree w/ the above poster who suggests that gaming is a different form of pander too, though the beauty of game is both it and its goal posts are very movable.

    I have a great marriage IMO. I dont game my wife, I did, once Id read about game, start managing shit tests that way a bit, that took small acrimony out frequently. But I frankly dont have the mental focus, nor do i even want it, to do that, to be the guy who can see a situation and immediately react with “game says ________________”. More power to those who are better equipped, I tend to like finding some equilibrium at home and thats that, so long as its not based on huge compromise, because I honestly believe that men and women can coexist in largely their original modes if they jettison the tricks and manipulations. Piss out of the boat, not in it…..a couple decades sort that out for those who are teachable. The rest get divorced, and he women go on to serial monogamy while the guys game uni girls and worry every few months if they may have tested their luck and have an STD

  21. Crank says:

    @rollo

    Looking at it, Dogsquat brought you up.

  22. Some Guy says:

    When I was getting married, my wife repeatedly asked me if I would still love her when she got old. Our love shouldn’t just be on looks, right? If your love isn’t some sort of awesome thing that transcends looks, then you are just a totally shallow dude. Fast forward to ten years later. My six pack is gone. My wife has had kids and breastfed, yeah. And it’s my looks that really matter right now. No one told me that could happen.

    Seriously, can you imagine if someone had pulled me aside before we tied the knot and said, “look, man, really stay in shape or she’ll dump you– and always be her Daddy Warbucks, too….” Why bother? Really?

    There’s a lot of things I admire about this whole marriage thing. It’s almost as if it were designed to force me to become a leader even if I’m not inclined or taught to be that way. But this attitude of expecting a real commitment from only one side of the relationship is not what I was led to believe I was getting into.

    I am doubly betrayed. First by my wife… and second, by the church which foists this one-sided thinking across the entire congregation. That they are essentially ready to throw a party for her in the event of her dumping me just makes it worse.

  23. ballista74 says:

    This is a great concise view of some of the ways the religious feminists have used Scripture to redefine marriage in the feminist light. Well done.

    Re The Proverbs 31 woman: This stuff is usually hilarious when women bring it out, just to see how warped they make the actual text to suit them. The thing of it is, for them all Scriptural teaching has to have its purpose to affirm them. Unfortunately, they have so much power that most pastors can’t do anything but in church, or “former” gets added to their title pretty quickly.

  24. for them all Scriptural teaching has to have its purpose to affirm them.

    Ding ding ding ding

  25. gritartisan says:

    The reason marriage exists is to provide a man who would otherwise be delinquent or have a “peter pan” complex with those things he most desires: reciprocal power over a woman that results in his children. It works because when society recognizes that power, women naturally see these men as high value and the entire baseline of men who are ‘manly men’, ‘dominant’, ‘powerful’, ‘alpha’ goes up. It works because the animal side of humanity would have all women chasing an increasingly narrower margin of alphas, leaving all men to suffer.

    To believe in the foundation of marriage requires all parties to understand that this is a societal granting of power to the husband. Like Rollo says, “Every man loves a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut.” Marriage was the only social law that actually sought to enforce this concept. EVER. Else its just the woman’s hypergamy instincts controlling her actions.

    Unless the marriage grants the husband power, it doesn’t work. Today the government doesn’t give the marriage any power- it only takes away power in the form of divorce money. Maybe if a government marriage gave the husband rights over his wife and children that were beyond the scope of rights protected by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of government, it would actually then be a recognizable transfer of power to the husband’s authority. Like: “A wife can make claim against her husband, but because of the marriage contract she forgoes some rights of a woman citizen who would otherwise be her equal.”

    I doubt you will ever see this kind of rhetoric in the public realm ever again. No entity in today’s world will actually pursue and aggressively assert the rights of men. The only choice is to make demands of the Catholic Church in the hopes that it comes to vigorously reassert the inherent power a man receives in marriage. The resulting dissonance between the government’s “power of the woman is feminism” versus the Church’s “power of the man in marriage” would then initiate a “let’s you and him fight” scenario.

  26. Pingback: Marriage POWER « Grit Artisan

  27. Country Lawyer says:

    “Honest to God, there are male bloggers I wish I’d never heard of. From this moment on, I’ll never mention Rollo or Dalrock again, and I’ll delete any comment that does so. I’d rather be water boarded than continue this conversation.”

    The Dalrock the Unspeakable and Rollo aka “He who shall not be named”

    You two are kind of like a Cthulhu and Voldemort tag team.

    I wonder how long it will be until Dogsquat gets banned over there too.

    Anyone want to bet?

  28. Will says:

    Gritartisan, under the definition of Marriage you described, Marriage no longer exists in the west.

  29. Brendan says:

    Haven’t looked at the comments yet, but this is a red letter post if there ever was one. Sticky required.

  30. an observer says:

    The bitter irony of modern marriages is they can never be ‘fireproofed’. No fault divorce and the court system hang like the Sword of Damocles. Fed a steady diet of self esteem and ‘you go girl’ nonsense, the modern woman leverages this into a series of spoken or otherwise ultimatums.

    ‘If you really loved me [or children etc], you’d. . . [insert desired outcome here]‘.

    Thus, conditioned to believe that marriage is about keeping the woman happy, the man can never live up to this standard and is set up for failure and divorce at the wife’s choosing.

    The all-knowing State and wise church then step in, reassure her it was all his fault, and distribute the requisite cash and prizes to enforce the outcome.

    Way to wreck civilisation.

  31. an observer says:

    I should add that the State provides the force and coercion to strip the man of his assets, including the children.

    The church provides the moral authority to endorse it all.

  32. Guardial says:

    Rollo Tomassi said “I don’t even have to post on her comment threads anymore to enjoy the irony. Heheheh,..she loves me.

    What’s gotten into Susan Walsh? I consciously avoid her site these days for a number of reasons, but this seems like, what, a cry for help?

    Something’s seriously not right over there.

  33. TheMan says:

    WOW, Dalrock! Christians would do good to read this.

  34. Some Guy says:

    The Jews had money changers in the temple turning lamb and pigeon sales into a racket.

    The church still has its requisite money changers, but this time the cash is made by cooperating with the state and the self-help industry to systematically liquidate fathers (a.k.a. “the chumps”.)

    This all plays out while pundits bandy around rhetoric concerning the legitimacy of gay marriage.

  35. Brendan says:

    Seriously, can you imagine if someone had pulled me aside before we tied the knot and said, “look, man, really stay in shape or she’ll dump you– and always be her Daddy Warbucks, too….” Why bother? Really?

    I agree.

    I would add, though, that Athol isn’t big on people getting married. He’s very agnostic on that and advises men to be very very very careful and be very very very sure before deciding to marry. His advice is directed mostly to men who are already “locked in” and married, in terms of trying not to get divorced and fleeced. In that sense it makes sense, even though I would never want to be in a marriage that he describes, really. To me it is also “why bother”? If I need to be in dating form forever, why bother marrying and why not just date women without marrying them? Again, I don’t think he would really disagree, because his advice is to the currently married, but to a guy like me who is divorced, his ideas only make me much more reluctant to consider remarrying.

  36. TFH says:

    This shows the following two things :

    1) Marriage and Democracy cannot coexist for more than a few decades. While it may seem that they do, that window is merely a century long at most.

    2) Laws are the DNA of a society. Once laws are tainted, everything gets reordered around the new DNA.

  37. Höllenhund says:

    @Rollo Tomassi 11:49 am

    “Color me shocked”, as they say. We all know HUS is nothing else but a gynocentric, gynonormative quasi-feminist* echo chamber where you get ostracized and banned if you refuse to serve the feminine imperative.

    *’Quasi-feminist’ in the sense that Ms. Walsh and her hangers-on don’t actually oppose feminism as an ideology but merely oppose the roughly 5% of its long-term consequences that disadvantage women i.e. prevent men from serving the feminine imperative.

  38. Brendan says:

    2) Laws are the DNA of a society. Once laws are tainted, everything gets reordered around the new DNA.

    Absolutely.

  39. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    His advice is directed mostly to men who are already “locked in” and married, in terms of trying not to get divorced and fleeced. In that sense it makes sense, even though I would never want to be in a marriage that he describes, really. To me it is also “why bother”? If I need to be in dating form forever, why bother marrying and why not just date women without marrying them? Again, I don’t think he would really disagree, because his advice is to the currently married, but to a guy like me who is divorced, his ideas only make me much more reluctant to consider remarrying.

    I also think that he is quite often writing to the worst case scenario, especially in his book. He appears to be starting with the assumption that the wife is an absolute ball busting sex denying power grabbing shrew, and answering the question so what do you do now?

    My guess is this is the kind of question he sees fairly frequently. It isn’t illogical to take that approach in another sense because what he is prescribing is the industrial strength remedy. If anything will work, this should do the trick. The downside is it can be pretty shocking to look at what that remedy is. But even here this is doing a favor to men (especially men considering marriage), helping them understand the potential scope of the issue.

  40. Guardial says:

    Thought I’d quote this before Susan dumps it down the memory hole.

    In any case, Dalrock, I appreciate your thoughtful and incisive analysis of the SMP. You are a deep thinker, and you profoundly influence my own analysis.” – Susan Walsh, October 17, 2011 at 9:33 pm

  41. Höllenhund says:

    Indeed, Dalrock. I mean, come on…which self-aware man would want to sign up for Marriage 2.0 in the first place? Nonsense.

  42. Höllenhund says:

    @Guardial 4:33 pm

    Again, no surprise. The explanation is summarized rather well here:

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/rationalism-in-the-matrix/#comment-3847

    As another female blogger said: “If you have a rational argument, take it to the men”. Don’t ever forget this obvious truth.

  43. CB says:

    So where does one pass the collection plate around here? This one post contained more theology than attending six months of my parents church.

  44. I agree with Brendan.

    This post is one for the textbooks.

  45. JHJ says:

    @Brendan

    ‘To me it is also “why bother”? If I need to be in dating form forever, why bother marrying and why not just date women without marrying them?’

    The central point right here. If you gain absolutely nothing from marriage, not even lowered cost of courting, then why settle for anything but women who are on their best behavior because they are looking too? There is no casual relation that will treat any man half so bad as the modern wife.

  46. Feminist Hater says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/11/lack-babies-could-mean-extinction-japanese-people/

    For your enjoyment lads, have at it. So easy to know the problem with feminist culture and lack of children but so difficult to get it into their heads!

  47. Some Guy says:

    I love this. While going about the day, I’ve been thinking… what am I going to do with my son and daughter…? They’re too young to get it all now… but these scriptures in this post… if I read them and talk with them about them and just lay it out there for them… they will see when reality doesn’t stack up to them. No need to make a big deal about how things can go wrong. Just tell them what’s right now… and then be ready when they have questions about the hi-jinks and absurdity they are surely going to witness over the next decade.

    Five or ten years from now… it’ll be: Son… learn a trade, move out, and buy/build/maintain a house. Pile up the cash, live right, and gain respect in your field and you’ll be more attractive every year. Daughter… marry while you’re young and stick with your man through thick and thin– and if that’s your plan… then be very careful about who you say yes to. Both of you… don’t date anyone that’s not marriage material.

    But that type of advice… the prep work starts *now* with the verses in this post. It’s like a road map. If these things are clear, every thing else that follows from them is obvious. But know now that the church will be absolutely useless in backing you up on this.

    That means… that somehow… over the next decade I have to forge social contacts with people that know the score on these issues. That’s tough because it is politically incorrect to raise these issues… even in church. The Amish have weddings and funerals where they can all meet up and do their match making. We have nothing. One thing is sure. If you leave the social calendar entirely up to your wife… you have dropped the ball and your kids are liable to suffer for it.

  48. will says:

    I wonder if game can be used to take a shrew of a wife to being a submissive wife. You know an alpha can even redefine reality in her mind. Heh heh heh.

    [D: You sound like a different Will there. "I say it is the moon."]

  49. gunner451 says:

    Will,

    I’d say no based on experience. A wife that is a shrew to her husband has already determined that he isn’t alpha enough to respect, you’ve already been pigeoned holed into the provider beta role in her mind and nothing is going to shake that image she has of you. I know, I tried all sorts of game on her and she was still a shrew. Dalrocks analysis is spot on, this is exactly how things played out in my marriage and exactly how things were presented at my so called conservative church.

  50. Some Guy says:

    The thing that I most appreciate about Athol Kay… is that he makes it absolutely clear that withholding sex is engaging in infidelity. It’s being unfaithful to the relationship and vows and just as serious as adultery. The dude’s an agnostic/evolutionist/heathen/whatever, but he’s right on this. It never occurred to me before.

    What happens in most counseling situations when it comes out that the wife is withholding sex… the first thing that happens is they pretend like the guy’s problems are just as much the issue as the woman’s. They try to deal with both sides equally seeing what faults lie on both sides and what compromises each can make. If a guy tries to reel this in, they will say… let’s work on the relationship first… the sex will come later. This is where they are totally deluded. If the wife has already cut off the sex, she is already done with the relationship and is probably working on the next one. You’re just not going to make any ground by figuring out how to divide up the household chores at this point…!

    (Seriously, how can these counselor types not get this stuff…?)

  51. Jason says:

    Excellent if depressing post Dalrock.

    Isn’t it insidious the way all of this advice, which can only be described as coming from the very pit of hell itself, is so superficially plausible because it is dressed up in half truths.

    After all, if a wife is feeling unloved and miserable then this is something a husband should do something about. It isn’t a justification for divorce, it doesn’t enable and empower the other behavior that women and white knights justify with it, but if you love your wife then you do try to address an issue like that.

    I have seen a guy like Mark Gungor (who I do like. He does have some good advice I think on the whole) suggest to use sex as a bargaining chip (a very soft one, and in the context of regular sex anyway as a reward, like, “When the garage is clean come back and i’ll rock your world”). Although he does seem to be slowly taking the red pill. He used to have a segment in his seminar “Laugh Your Way to a Happy Marriage” that talked about getting a husband to do what the wife wants, but has dropped it as he realised women were asking how to get the husband to bend to their will. Much as you observe above.

    It is always amusing to watch women (Actually i’ve seen men do it too, but you are right women are being told from the pulpit to do it, men are not) care out exceptions to ever rule so that in practice nothing applies to them.

    The irony of it is that the more they refuse to submit, the less happy they will be with their husband and the more likely they are to be “unhaaaaapy” and destroy the marriage and put spouse and kids through the divorce mill, where they will quite likely end up even more unhaaaaaaaaaaaapy.

    I guess feminists sell this bill of good because they don’t want anybody to be happy if the bitter old shrews themselves can’t be happy.

    Jason

  52. Jason says:

    @SomeGuy,

    I loved Athol Kay’s advice when it comes to male female relationships and the whole sex thing, to cast it in the light of the relationships between Shrek, Princess Fiona and Donkey.

    Shrek loves Donkey and would go out of his way for him, but Princess Fiona can make requests (actually really expect demands to met effectivly) from Shrek that Donkey never could. But of course Princess Fiona puts out.

    Jason

  53. Some Guy says:

    @Jason, His parenting advice is pretty good, too. My daughter started to pitch a fit the other day, and I said to her, “grown ups eat ice cream. If you can’t eat your peas without pitching a fit, then you must not be an adult. What’s it going to be…? Pitch a fit and not have any fun? Or eat your peas so we can all have a good time eating ice cream together?” She choked back the fit, buckled down, and ate her peas right there.

    It was my first real alpha male moment. Heh.

  54. P Ray says:

    @SomeGuy
    “I am doubly betrayed. First by my wife… and second, by the church which foists this one-sided thinking across the entire congregation. That they are essentially ready to throw a party for her in the event of her dumping me just makes it worse.”

    Doesn’t that mean when you raise your son and daughter they may have to look OUTSIDE the church for their spouses?
    Don’t forget 1 Corinthians 7:13 now!

  55. pb says:

    Reminds me of a certain book by a Catholic woman (Teresa Tomeo) in which St. Augustine’s dictum about our hearts being restless was re-interpreted in terms of being loved by rather than loving God.

  56. Looking Glass says:

    Athol’s work, especially in the book, is more about Marriage Triage. It’s blunt force trauma to a guy about reestablishing boundaries inside the relationship. Reestablishing a broken boundary is a brutal amount of work and could coup de grace a relationship (though it’s really just ending it sooner). But it does work.

    The catch is that Athol’s work isn’t Roissy-style Game. What you end up needing to do, after all of the work, is really only 2 things: 1) be in better shape than your wife and 2) maintain the, now, established boundaries. Once you have the ability to pass Fitness Tests mostly locked in, you actually won’t get that many. You don’t question a strong leader and come out cleanly from the challenge. But if you challenge a weak leader, the risks are low. This is exactly the dynamic that is happening with continuing Fitness Tests.

    Still, for any guy thinking of getting married, a pre-nup that’s really restrictive should be a given. Yeah, they can get messed with in court, but that’s an even higher hoop to jump through and weeds out the bad options pretty quickly.

  57. Chris says:

    I just want to point out that men also need to obey. Not their wives, but the governing authorities.

    As a man, it is easy to wave 1 Peter 3:1 around and forget that 1 Peter 2:13 and 2:18 exist. And yes, all those verses exist, and are true. But how many of us who criticize women for not obeying their husbands, even if those husbands are not “spiritual” or “righteous,” stop to consider that we also must obey the governing authorities, even if they are not “spiritual” or “righteous”?

    It is easy to cry out against a corrupt government, and then get offended if wives cry out against corrupt husbands. Are we speaking to the government in the same way we wish our wives spoke to us?

    Some of these issues require a lot of introspection. Men are particularly blessed, in that they have been given both roles by God, and can learn lessons from observing and experiencing both sides.

  58. pb says:

    “It is easy to cry out against a corrupt government, and then get offended if wives cry out against corrupt husbands. Are we speaking to the government in the same way we wish our wives spoke to us?”

    Men act like b*tches to the government?

  59. R7 Rocket says:

    Chris said:

    I just want to point out that men also need to obey. Not their wives, but the governing authorities.As a man, it is easy to wave 1 Peter 3:1 around and forget that 1 Peter 2:13 and 2:18 exist. And yes, all those verses exist, and are true. But how many of us who criticize women for not obeying their husbands, even if those husbands are not “spiritual” or “righteous,” stop to consider that we also must obey the governing authorities, even if they are not “spiritual” or “righteous”?
    It is easy to cry out against a corrupt government, and then get offended if wives cry out against corrupt husbands. Are we speaking to the government in the same way we wish our wives spoke to us?

    The Bible doesn’t say that men shouldn’t point out the unrighteousness of the governing authorities. It simply says to obey its laws. Since nobody here is making their posts from prison, I presume that they are in obedience to the governing authorities.

  60. gdgm+ says:

    It’s been interesting, over these last few months, to see Dalrock develop his views. Alas, those views also reflect how grim the MMP has become for your average, American Beta male. The solid, steady guy, less than 6 feet tall and making less than 6 figures (or without any obvious ‘bling’), but still needed to keep the electricity on, pay the bills and the taxes, and do the often-unglamorous work of keeping things running. But who doesn’t interest or excite the corresponding females, you know, in THAT way.

    Even past our current generation, there are concerns about what D’s and others’ children (if they even get to have them) will face when they become adults. Will the sons find worthwhile women to marry and raise families with? Will the daughters marry, and maintain stable families headed by fathers? If we continue on this path, probably not!

  61. Pingback: Dalrock on Reframing Marriage « The Rambling Royalist

  62. Interested says:

    Sometimes it seems like we are talking about a shrinking pool of women in their twenties who have actually resisted the unending stream of “go grrrl” messages as described in this post. If you happen to be a lucky guy who picked right you are probably still married.

    But many guys (me included) were/are ignorant when it comes time to make that choice. So we got married and experienced the three steps you describe in this post.

    OK, fine. We are through the gauntlet known as family court with all it’s supposed focus on family and now find ourselves trying to find love again. We aren’t the angry men the women that HUS makes us out to be.

    But think about it. Pick whatever percent you want to describe the numbers of women you knew in your twenties who managed to avoid internalizing the message of “It’s always about me” or “If mama ain’t happy then no one is happy”. I’ll bet that a pretty high percentage of them are still married. Why? The guys who married them aren’t universally stupid enough to divorce them. They are pretty happy with their lot in life.

    But when you are newly single as an older man you are fucked. Your pool of women are limited to the following:

    – Broken women who have always been a train wreck. Slept around. Single moms. Possible mental issues.. Never bothered to take care of themselves and are now grossly overweight, out of shape, or with new or ongoing health issues.
    – Unhaaaapy women who have a long list of expectations of what you need to do to make them happy. They have swallowed the pill when it comes to society telling them that it is all about what they want.
    – The small percent of women who resisted all the messaging, but married a total cheater, dick, whatever. They were in it to win it, but their husband actually left them. Good women who are now single.

    I wish I could be optimistic and tell you that there is an incredible selection of the last category out there but there isn’t. Women like this are for the most part still married. All the more reason why you need to pick early and well as a young man.

    I actually met one of the last category just the other day. She was engaged. She was also a lawyer who I consulted with for a second opinion on how to reduce my child support payments. She didn’t offer much hope, but when I realized how much our life trajectories mirrored each other and how she was a sweet, intelligent, fit and attractive woman that some man had snatched up within six months of her divorce from a bipolar monster I felt pretty low. Again, why?

    She was the first woman I have met since my divorce three years ago that truly fit the last category I described.

    Ok, Ok. For you ladies picking your way through this post and comment. No, I am not some bitter man. Maybe I am supposed to accept that I had my moment in the sun.

    But what do I tell my sons? Blindly make that bet? Learn as much as you can and make an informed bet? Work to become a player and make game a natural part of your life like breathing? Even if you do you can’t help but categorize marriage as a bad investment for men with skills. She can leave you on a whim. And you will pay, just like I am, for a good long time.

    What man who loves his sons can stand back and let this happen?

  63. Candide says:

    Dalrock the Unspeakable, while you deny the existence of a Marriage Strike, you’re doing great work to make sure it happens!

  64. will says:

    @gunner451
    I see. You would have to reestablish alpha cred in your marriage before you can tell her what to think. That’s probably why. I forget which post Athol kay discusses this type of thing about establishing dominance after a pattern of subservience.

  65. GKChesterton says:

    So I am now seriously concerned that no one here keyed off of “fruitful” which is an adamic command and which the Ante-Nicene Father’s and apostles repeated. Sex must have an end. It can’t be an end in and of itself. It is obviously destabilizing to not have children. For all the charts presented here there are plenty that show 4+ children correlates in happier marriages and lower divorce rates. Women are more likely to appreciate a beta provider when he actually provides for something and are going to be hormonally adjusted to such a man if they are child bearing. Keeping a woman without children reduces her and by implication the man who heads her.

    Missing is the Pauline injunction, “Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Tim 2:15)

    Perverting women into sex-bots that must slut at bars is the opposite end of the admonition in Timothy. As our goal is to be fathers the goal of women must be to be mothers. If we detract from this goal we are playing into feminism just as much as anyone.

  66. wdplant says:

    Good post!
    Another interesting thing in today’s marriage happens when a man, denied of sex within the marriage, has to go outside the marriage to satisfy his natural drives. Nowadays it is considered acceptable for a woman to deny her husband sex on the grounds the she feels “unloved” as Dalrock puts it so well. But when the man is then found out to be satisfying his natural urges outside marriage he is ostracised by society and accused of “cheating” on his wife! Where is the equity in this situation and how did we men, supposedly the stronger sex, allow ourselves to get into this unwinnable situation? (As an aside, one only has to look at the atrocities committed by Catholic priests. wrongfully denied an outlet for the sexual drives nature has given men, to gain an understanding of what sexual deprivation can do to a man’s mind).
    Is not the woman the one who was first “cheating” by denying sex to her husband? But today, in our feminist dominated western culture, it is not socially acceptable to accuse a woman of “cheating”.
    I think men are largely to blame for development of this situation. Over the last 20 to 30 years men have acquiesced as the feminist movement has, with great subtlety and surety, moved the balance of power in western marriages and relationships in favour of the woman. The very insidiousness with which this process has occurred has me now thinking that woman operate on a very different plane to we men.
    I now cringe when I see supposedly intelligent men, whether they be talk show hosts, religious people or relationship “experts” unwittingly following the socially acceptable feminist lines and, to my mind, betraying their gender.The words from the bible of Jesus relating to Judus, “father forgive them for they know not what they do”, come to mind.
    If men are to improve their position in society and again take their rightful place at the family table they must cease mindlessly accepting the feminist tripe that is slowly but surely eroding their standing in an increasingly feminist dominating society. I am not suggesting we become misogynists but we must act more intelligently and learn to understand women for what they are, not what we think they are or we want them to be.

  67. speculativemeasures says:

    @ Interested “But when you are newly single as an older man you are fucked. Your pool of women are limited to the following:….

    Maybe I am supposed to accept that I had my moment in the sun.”

    The impression I get is that your happiness is dependent on a relationship with a “good woman”. Accordingly you lament the scarcity of them.

    I don’t really think women’s essential nature has changed that much. If you were to go back in time and pluck a woman from 500 years ago and expose her to the fem-centric ideology pervasive in today’s society, her behavior would eventually look a whole lot similar to today’s Western women (Christian or otherwise). This phenomenon is affirmed by men who marry foreign brides from cultures that espouse traditional male-female roles. These once respectful supportive wives often become westernized and don their suit of entitlement.

    However, as a man free from the warped power dynamic that is modern marriage you hold the cards, or at least a fair enough share of them. Remember, while women are the gatekeepers of sex whereas men are the gatekeepers of commitment. So you meet a woman who has some things you like about her, yet brings her modern issues with her – what to do? You simply reward good behavior with your company and dissuade bad behavior with your absence and divided attention.

    If you can love children despite knowing they can be adversely influenced by society or their peers, how can you not also love women who are just a susceptible? Like children, if you lead, establish boundaries and remain consistent they will love and respect you despite occasional protests and challenges.

    You do have a point though, namely that many women you meet are going to have some built-in issues, however once removed from the warped Queen/servant dynamic (modern marriage) you should be able to define a relationship on your terms. That has been my experience.

    As an aside I have noted the more committed a woman has been to feminist tenants in the past the more visceral her attraction to me is when exposed a man who defines, asserts, leads, organizes and arbitrates.

    Here is just one example: A woman I reconnected with from High School went on to be a careerist and holds an executive position in a +100m/yr company. She is feared at her workplace by men and women, for which she is proud. She has a vanity licence plate (withheld) that conveys something along the lines of “I’m an cold hearted biatch”. When we reconnected she brought all this baggage with her. We live 2000 miles apart and she came to see me multiple times when in the area and I for her.

    She would boast of her conquests and power trips at work – I was genuinely unimpressed.

    She would say “men are intimidated by an intelligent successful woman” – I would playfully but seriously imply its because she’s not being feminine. At first she would go mental on this, but much to my shock she gets it now.

    She would be rudely tied to her Blackberry, – I would take her phone and put it in my pocket or put it in her purse and tell her not to use it with me firmly but with a smile.

    I would insist it was the mans job to drive, pay and plan our dates, reminding her it was her job to sit there and look pretty.

    I would order her food, plan what we are going to together and have a genuine good time.

    At every step I would reinforce the concept that a woman can only be happy if joined to a strong assertive man. There were a couple of flare ups during the adjustment period. But let me tell you this once bitch of a woman melts in my arms. Whenever we are together she tells me her friends would be aghast if they saw how she acts around me. She says their jaws would drop if they saw the way I lead her. In moments of tenderness she reveals how relaxed and content she is around me. She says she never goes without her phone yet thrice in a week she left it in her hotel or at my place. She makes offers to fly me where-ever and whenever so we can spend time together. I can tell she yearns for the peace this all brings to her.

    Words of encouragement I hope.

  68. Joe Sheehy says:

    @GKC, yes women who are willing bear many children are less likely to flake out, but there are plenty of “fruitful” marriages in these traditional chapels that end in divorce. Yes, the use of contraception is a huge factor in the decline of traditional marriage, but the systematic feminist bias in nearly all social organizations is the major reason marriages are unstable. If you can’t blame a woman or hold her accountable but are the typical “Christian” who is always looking for an excuse to bash their fellow men, you can’t have stable marriage.

  69. pb says:

    ” (As an aside, one only has to look at the atrocities committed by Catholic priests. wrongfully denied an outlet for the sexual drives nature has given men, to gain an understanding of what sexual deprivation can do to a man’s mind).”
    Most of those were homosexual.

  70. unger says:

    Chris: …and the guy who wrote that got killed – quite nastily, let us note – for disobeying the authorities. Curious, hm? All authority has its proper sphere, beyond which it is invalid. There’s not the slightest bit of inherent hypocrisy in saying that a man rightfully has a certain authority over his family, and elsewhere saying the State has no rightful authority over something it claims the right to regulate.

    The point of 1 Peter 2’s dissertation on authority is not that the State, or any of its agents, actually have the right to do anything more than resign their offices; it’s that our reason for living is to save souls, and that where obedience to the unjust and usurping furthers that task, we are obligated to do it in spite of our rights.

  71. This does a perfect job of summarizing why I’m single. Thank you.

  72. Cecil Harvey says:

    Perfect description of my wife’s mindset. Perfect.

    The really dangerous thing is that it allows the woman to talk about obedience, submission, the marriage debt, etc. Prior to marriage, whilst still espousing these twisted interpretations.

    I’ve turned my marriage on its head, and it’s become somewhat bearable. When she doesn’t obey me, I call her on her shit, and walk out of the room when she tries to justify. When she initiates sex after weeks or months of spurning my advances, I tell her sex will be on my terms, not hers. When she nags, I leave the room or the house.

    One advantage I have over other men is that I can say with good certainty she won’t divorce me. I’m Catholic and have gone to lengths to make certain the validity of my marriage in very public ways, so she would have a hard time getting an annulment. Second, I’ve told her many times that if she leaves me, she will get nothing, as the house and cars are in my name, I’d dispose of them if she moved for divorce, and I’d go to jail before paying alimony. And she believes me. I am that stubborn. I’d like to see more men play this card.

  73. Jacquie says:

    Will says: “I wonder if game can be used to take a shrew of a wife to being a submissive wife. You know an alpha can even redefine reality in her mind.”

    gunner451 says: “I’d say no based on experience. A wife that is a shrew to her husband has already determined that he isn’t alpha enough to respect, you’ve already been pigeoned holed into the provider beta role in her mind and nothing is going to shake that image she has of you.”

    Game can be used to take a shrew of a wife to being submissive. I say this based on my experience. I was that shrew, I had that little respect for my husband for over two decades. A couple of years ago things began to change. It’s tough to say exactly when, or what exactly happened first, but my view of him has changed drastically and continues to change. If he tells me ‘tis the moon, then that it is, or if the sun, then it is. If he makes a mistake, it is not that, it is a learning experience for him and for I. I accept that he is human. I trust him that he is capable. He provides, he leads, and I follow. I’m not playing a game. I’m learning.
    I’ve also found that as I continue to play out the role of Katherine as she was in the end, feeling abhored at the actions of my contemporaries, I am made to feel as a fool—sometimes by both genders.

  74. Miserman says:

    “A wife holding her husband hostage to her emotions and employing denial of sex will eventually wear down the will of even the most determined Christian husband.”

    The goal of it all, I suspect.

  75. Jacquie, it is a mark of Shakespeare’s genius that he seemed to understand women so well.

  76. My wife and I are currently watching a DVD of the 1970s TV series McMillan & Wife. It is incredible to see the way American wives used to be portrayed. Feminine, respectful, obedient.

  77. Some Guy says:

    This look grim… but women as a group are extremely predictable. Almost every interaction I see with women now involves the expectation that I reach into her brain and make her feel good by spinning her mental hamster wheel. The whole church is predicated on doing that.

    I remember when my marriage first began to fall apart… my instinctive response was to “turn the other cheek” with each successive shit test that she dealt me. The counselors and the church would always point me towards how I needed to change myself. I remember clearly telling a counselor… “I’m just going to do everything she asks.” In my mind… that was imitating Christ and returning good for evil. I was willing to crawl ten miles over broken glass to save my marriage. A couple of years into that… I saw fireproof and I remember taking exception with some of the things in it… but I had no idea how deep the rot went.

    All of the verses in this post… they are ones that I have reactively backed off of. I *don’t* expect my wive to follow any of them. I have always made the move that would spare her feeeeeeelings. Now that I have observed the women that respond these posts… I see how the arguments just go round and round and round. This hamster stuff… it’s why the new testament puts women in the place that it does. Paul was not just a male chauvinist pig when he wrote this stuff. There is quite a bit in there that corresponds to reality.

    If I hadn’t seen with my own eyes a “good christian woman” (not my wife) go hunting for another man, make out with him in the back of an SUV, have a good time, and then drop her husband like a stone… and then rationalize the heck out of it all and get her friends and church to justify it… then I just wouldn’t have considered it. This was a woman that read the bible cover to cover– and she would go on about how the new guy was so spiritual and good with kids….

    I think… standing up for these verses… patiently and consistently… can keep your average beta from looking like such a chump. Women will resist it, sure… but at some point they have to realize that this religion thing is a complete sham if every single injunction directed at you doesn’t apply if you don’t feeeeeeel like going along with it!

  78. GKChesterton says:

    @Joe,

    I don’t think you understand what I wrote. I’m not making excuses here but I am pointing out that I take these versus a lot more seriously than I did when I was younger. I’m saying a man that is anti-children, and lots of them, is sowing the seeds of his own destruction.

    A woman without children will subconsciously be looking for _means_ to have them even if she perverts those means. As the scripture points out her salvation is in danger. A wife of a man who does not want children is in a bind and may be doomed. She has a natural desire to submit to the person she is hypergamously attracted to. Yet she has the competing impulse to have children/have sex (what we should see as the same thing for her). This results in the perversion of two natural drives. As we have seen this likely means that she will start looking for men elsewhere.

    We know women who are pregnant have hormonal shifts that make beta’s more attractive. Women who do not have children are going to be pushed into ill behavior. Yes, the behavior is still “their fault” but it would be something like dropping the average christian man in a room of ready and willing supermodels. Most of us may have a dark desire for such a thing, but we’re thankful it doesn’t happen. If we are good leaders why would we do the equivalent to our wives?

    Nor am I saying I was a paragon in this area. We had children late but my wife’s outlook on the world improved markedly _after the second_. We can’t have more now, but looking back I would advise any man to have children immediately after marriage. That in line with the Law that he should consider that his first responsibility.

    The verse escapes me right now but newly married husbands were exempt from all religious and social duties under the Law for one year so that they could have their first child. While we aren’t under the law directly it is still a general tutor. How many of us have taken that command that seriously? How many here would have been better off if their wives were surrounded by children?

    To that end that verse should not be skipped. It is just as important for defining marriage as all of the others Dalrock mentioned. It is just as hated by the feminists. It is just as forgotten by modern Churchanity.

    And evidently as forgotten here.

    Feminism in the air we breathe strikes again.

  79. greyghost says:

    Dalrock this post makes me want a christian wife. American women should be ashamed of themselves along with american churchianity. I will never ever speak of christian church in the west in a positive light ever again. Not only that I will also not put one dime in any church donation box salvation army included and will join in against any and all public displays of religion just like the athiest busy bodies do. This last one was enough for me to see from the church of the western christianity Dalrock. Fuck them. I think I will post this link on every christian relationship blog comment section on the web.

  80. GKChesterton says:

    @Dalrock,

    Because of the above and because of your posts dealing with pastors skipping over these important lessons I implore you to include it. It is a tough verse. It is not one that fits in well with the PUA crowd nor with feminism, but it is just as critical to defining Christian marriage. I’ll try to find the verse in the Law later.

  81. deti says:

    This is just the latest in an ongoing theme that I’m seeing and have seen since I’ve been reading and posting here for the last 14 months. It goes like this.

    At their own demand and in the interests of “equality”, all constraints on female sexuality have been removed.

    Women then have sex with the top 15% or so of men, ignoring the 60% or so of the remaining marriageable men.

    A growing portion of that 60%, including Christian men, recognize that marriage is a bad deal.

    The prevailing cultural mores seep into the Church, which adapts them to the Church’s tenets. The Church, being comprised of human beings, yields to cultural pressures and instead of living in a broken world, becomes of the world. The Church then justifies “I’m not haaappy” divorce as

    “my husband is not loving me as Christ loved the Church”
    “he is not leading me”
    “he needs to love me even if I’m a raving bitch. He needs to get on that cross just like Christ did”
    “I don’t have to submit until and unless he loves me as Christ loved the Church”

    Once again, scripture is twisted and perverted to justify women’s bad behavior.

    “God is Love.”
    “Faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is Love.”

    The Church must support divorcing women because failing to do so would contradict the “God is Love” tenet Christians hold. All this is justified under the biblical injunction to show love to our fellow man. It is not loving to tell an “I’m not haaaappy” divorcee that she has sinned and she should crawl back to her husband on her hands and knees and beg his forgiveness. “God is Love.” Therefore, we must show love. That means unswerving acceptance, tolerance, and even embrace and celebration of the divorced woman. Stanton’s Heroes.

    “Judge not lest ye be judged!”
    “How dare you try to remove a speck from my eye! How about removing that beam from your own eyes first, you pinch-faced moralizing hypocrite!!”

    THus we are told we are never, never, NEVER to judge the divorcee or the slut. We are never to examine what led to the divorce or to the destructive behavior. Her “repentance” consists of praying a tearful prayer, then being proclaimed a “born again virgin” and ready for remarriage to the church’s men, who must line up to compete for her, eh, slightly used affections.

    Yet men are always held responsible for their behavior. A divorced man is literally vivisected in and out of church. If a man is divorced, it is his fault, every time and always. The promiscuous man is a pervert, a brute, a liar, a con man. He is tricking and duping Christian women into sleeping with him. He must repent and prostrate himself before the congregation, begging and supplicating for forgiveness.

  82. Legion says:

    namae nanka says:
    May 11, 2012 at 12:40 pm
    “Contrary to internet atheist claims of church brainwashing about the old man in the sky, it’s the preaching of the virtue of women that has been the biggest brainwashing of the church today.”

    You don’t even wait for an atheist to say anything before you generically slag us. I’m not a bible expert, so perhaps you can tell me where it says to ‘slag others before you are slagged’?

    Christians impress me. You christianists don’t.

  83. GKC, are you thinking of women in the NT being “saved by childbirth”?

    Christian men should think about the possibility that St Paul had it absolutely right about women.

  84. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    Because of the above and because of your posts dealing with pastors skipping over these important lessons I implore you to include it. It is a tough verse. It is not one that fits in well with the PUA crowd nor with feminism, but it is just as critical to defining Christian marriage. I’ll try to find the verse in the Law later.

    I think it is good that you brought it up and it adds to the discussion. I’m not sure it is core to the point I was making though. Either way my intent wasn’t to create an exhaustive list, but to point out how fundamentally marriage has been reframed. I’m not anti children in marriage. I think it is very clear both biblically and practically that marriage is intended/required to provide children with both a mother and a father, and I think if you go back you will find this is something which I have written about consistently. If I didn’t believe this I wouldn’t be spending so much energy on marriage. I would do as others do and simply advise men to avoid it. The problem is we can’t dispense with marriage, no matter how badly and how eagerly the church and state corrupt it.

    With this said, you have made a good case here. I think I will include that verse in an upcoming post, although more along the lines of this post and therefore not exactly with the point you are making. It will however provide you with another opportunity to continue making this case if you wish.

  85. Dalrock says:

    One point I forgot GKC:

    It is not one that fits in well with the PUA crowd nor with feminism, but it is just as critical to defining Christian marriage.

    One thing you might be surprised about is how much more supportive of traditional marriage the PUA crowd is than most Christians. It always intrigues me, because feral women are in their own interest. Yet even they can see the harm this is causing to our larger society and the insanity of trying to build marriage on female headship. I doubt you will find many PUAs who argue against what you are saying on women being designed to be mothers and the problems which stem from them greatly postponing or missing altogether their chance at childbirth. In fact, I can’t think of any PUAs who would disagree with you there.

  86. PUA can at once agree on the childbearing and still not be supportive of traditional marriage. I have to say, I ain’t seeing this support you allude to. Could you maybe have a small blind spot on this?

  87. GKChesterton says:

    @David,

    No I quoted that verse. There is an exception in the law that allowed men to stay out of military service and temple service in the first year of their marriage so that they could have their first child. For those of us who have had children the first child is by far the worse. It is the Unknown and therefore more than a little scary.

    This focus on children is something that is missing in Churchanity which has largely adopted the Culture of Death. The idea of “choice” as posited by feminism rather than the compulsion for children found in both the New and Old Testament is gone.

    @Dalrock

    If you do a second posting consider:

    http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/2/134

    http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/VSTAT/latest/t42.shtm

    This unfortunately doesn’t give total populations to compare to (so no percentages per number of children) but does convincingly show that not having children is damning. I know I’ve seen the ratio before but I’m having trouble finding it right now.

    I’d also agree with Empath here in that while PUA’s may be comfortable with agreeing with woman’s predisposition towards children they see that as a means to an end not a useful end in and of itself.

    This would also be one of the signs a young man should look for in a wife. While he has been taught to flee from women who want “lots” of children these are probably the best bets _if_ they are given lots of children.

  88. UK Fred says:

    @GKC

    Deut 24 v5 “When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.

  89. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    PUA can at once agree on the childbearing and still not be supportive of traditional marriage. I have to say, I ain’t seeing this support you allude to. Could you maybe have a small blind spot on this?

    I’m not sure what you are looking for from me here. I didn’t say they are traditional, I said it is surprising how supportive of traditional marriage they are, especially compared to modern Christians. I suspect that nothing I offer in this regard would be accepted by you or others as proof however. But I may be mistaken. What is your standard of proof here?

  90. GKChesterton says:

    To be fair Dalrock you made the initial claim. I really don’t think they are supportive of marriage. I can offer Roissy’s “Marriage is for Chumps” category which is likely far worse than anything you’d find even with the hard core churchian crowd:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/category/marriage-is-for-chumps/

  91. Johnycomelately says:

    Prying into the mind of God it seems the purpose of these injunctions is to maximize beta fecundity and limit alpha access to multiple partners and beta provisioning of unkept women (hence the Apostle’s injunction for widows to get married and stop smooching from the collective).

    Shaming is a veiled threat, without material (or existential) consequences it has no effect, the church no longer affects the minds of men it is a rubber stamp for the prevailing social mores.

  92. tspoon says:

    Saying marriage is for chumps isn’t supporting it and also isn’t not supporting it. It’s describing it as a bad deal, and pointing to the naked truths about females and our society which currently make it so.

    If marriage were a good deal for the average male, I’m confident PUA’s would be pointing that out, and I’m also confident the PUA movement would not then have enough interested people to make it a movement. The fact is, the PUA movement is a by-product of facets of our modern society, facets which are tacitly and sometimes overtly supported by christianity in this day and age.

  93. Interested says:

    @speculativemeasures

    “If you can love children despite knowing they can be adversely influenced by society or their peers, how can you not also love women who are just a susceptible? Like children, if you lead, establish boundaries and remain consistent they will love and respect you despite occasional protests and challenges.”

    Agreed. Rereading my comment highlights for me that going out for beers with friends is a good thing, but it makes for some erratic writing when you get home.

    The piece I left out after commenting about how you are fucked as an older man is the element of available time you can devote to dating when you have teen kids that spend most of their time with you. Add in a demanding job and a house that you keep working on and there isn’t much time left for dating.

    But I do it anyway and at least now I do it without any rose colored glasses. For that I can thank this site and others as well as all the comments. But my kids are at an age where I have to be here and fully present as they are with me most of the time. Soon enough they will be off to college and I will have more available time to sort through the suspects.

    As for the comment about having had my time in the sun it was a pretty weak effort at sarcasm aimed at the ladies who come here and get worked into a frenzy over any suspected criticism of their gender. I blame it on the mixture of barley and hops.

  94. Rookie Writer says:

    I’ve read this article and quite frankly I agree with it. This is a good article.

  95. Opus says:

    Not having a Pastor (or ever coming across them socially) I have no view on the article. I did, however, observe that not only are all the passages cited from the NT but that none of them are from The Gospels. UKFred has found another but that is from Deuteronomy and, by the way, I notice the order (first love; then soldiering) is consistent with the order in Shakespeare’s Seven ages of man speech.

  96. Suz says:

    Beautifully done, Dalrock! It takes courage for a woman to live by it, yet just try to convince a “Christian” (or any) woman that a submissive wife is not a mindless doormat begging for emotional suffocation.

    Yoo-hoo! Ladies?

    Start by marrying a man with a history of integrity. (Some of them are sexy even when young, but most will get sexier as their confidence matures. Those hot bad-boys have no intention of maturing.)

    Trust him completely, give him the best of yourself, and build him up; this builds you up as well, because your “identities” are intertwined. (Result: your best gets better. Win-win! No, really!)

    No matter how you “feel” on any given day, he has not betrayed you unless he has betrayed the marriage (and ultimately himself as well.) If he should betray the marriage covenant, THAT’S what divorce is for. (Nobody is asking you to be a martyr.)

    Start by marrying a man with a history of integrity.

  97. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Week of May 13, 2012

  98. Suz, so many women don’t seem to understand that marriage is supposed to be about co-operation, not competition. A supportive wife helps herself by helping her husband.

    Well put.

  99. @Suz- well put with the integrity. It takes a really intelligent person who was raised by good parents to realize the value of it. In addition, accompanied with integrity is a close walk with Jesus – while it may not be the most exciting ( it has its moments) it is continuous learning experience and well worth it.

  100. Dalrock
    Disconnect:(and I hate the way the explanation has to read)
    You responded to something I didnt allege. You said:

    “”I didn’t say they are traditional, I said it is surprising how supportive of traditional marriage they are,””

    But I didnt say that you said that they ARE traditional. Maybe I am hung in word choices here, but its an important distinction that we are not discussing whether they ARE or ARE NOT traditional.

    I assert that your claim that they are SUPPORTIVE of traditional marriage is incorrect, however, you did state it in a relative sense, as in “more than you’d think”….so who knows, and given that of course there is not a possible standard of proof unless we can make what I/we think into a variable, and approach it empirically by taking YOUR -think variable- and comparing them. This is like debating if I like chocolate more than you, we cannot determine this objectively.

    At rish of having the question turned on me, I’ll ask you, whats the catch? Why do you care about how others perceive PUA’s?

  101. Alarm says:

    Maybe Dalrock means that PUAs are supportive of traditional marriage by avoiding marriage 2.0. to a higher degree than other men.

    As I see it support of traditional marriage stands on two legs:
    1) Supporting traditional marriage where it exists and/or to the extent it exists.
    2) Avoiding and critisizing marriage 2.0.

    Churchians are supporting traditional marriage in theory but are not critizing marriage 2.0. and are not helping men to avoid it.

  102. Oh, make no mistake, I am not suggesting whatsoever that churchians are supporting marriage, my comment is in a vacuum, not relative to any other group. If I had to say who is willfully supportive of marriage the most its those of us in this growing niche, dalrocks niche kind of. To the extent that PUA’s offer a glimpse at the alternative to marriage…yea, I guess that supports marriage
    Im not in the business of condemning folks, I do not go online to moralize about specific people outside the church….but I cannot get my mind around what appears to be a lot of rationalization to find something….anything….redeeming in a Christian sense, about raw game and PUA stuff. Im fine with its adaptive marriage applications, I just cannot see that which is openly set forth to pump and dump as having some intrinsic value. Its one thing to not sit in judgement and not to write on and on about how bad they are, Ive no interest, its another completely to often offer moral hat tips their way

  103. Here is an OT thing but interesting for Mothers Day, which always is a treasure trove of material

    Im blogging on this for my 7 readers.

    But Dalrock if he chooses can make it better, stronger, faster….

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/stupid-mothers/

    I commented there, hastily. They heavily moderate so if writing a comment there one need to be “nice”

  104. tm says:

    Potentially relevant gem from a household name Christian author of an infamous ‘man up’ article, blaming men and concerned for the wimminz at home:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/07/what-about-wives-daughters-mothers-men-in-secret-service-scandal/?intcmp=obnetwork

  105. Pingback: Another Mother’s Day…..Same as the other Mother’s Days | Feminism is Empathological

  106. Jacquie says:

    Suz, Thank you.

    “Trust him completely, give him the best of yourself, and build him up; this builds you up as well, because your “identities” are intertwined. (Result: your best gets better. Win-win! No, really!)
    No matter how you “feel” on any given day, he has not betrayed you unless he has betrayed the marriage (and ultimately himself as well.)”

    I’ve lived the before and for over a year now I’m living the after. My husband has been a patient man(and a Nice Guy as we have now learned). It’s been a learning process for the both of us. I do trust him completely, he has my best. I’m better than I’ve ever been in my life, and yes, I am happy, but by my own, not dependent on the Mr. or what he does for me. I have many things to contribute that I freely give to him and to our marriage relationship.
    His patience has paid off, he has the wife of his dreams. We both just needed a little wake up call to get the act together.
    Courageous, you bet your a$$. I am learning that it takes a strong woman to submit. I haven’t seem a great many strong women, just loud ones(no fire here, please, I used to be one, I admit). But like I said before, I get the treament as if I’m a bubble headed doormat at the mention of my submission to my husband(and yes, I am a Christian woman), but I am far from that and can stand on my own two feet and use my own brain when needed.

  107. Suz says:

    I think one of the most subtle yet convincing lies told by feminism, is its definition of “submission.” The grrlz have convinced everyone (yes, men too) that submission is passive, silent and repressed, with no will, though or intent. Our idealized image of a submissive woman is folded hands, downcast eyes and a sweet smile. Bull! A passive, weak woman who submits to her husband, will also submit to whatever influence is right in front her at any given time – that hunky neighbor, her willful disobedient children, her shrewish FemiNazi coworker, her interfering mother, the internet and the TV, you name it. Such a woman must be guided and managed around the clock like a child. What man with a job, friends, hobbies, and any sort of life, needs such a burden? Yes, I said burden. A married man needs a wife who supports him with her words and her deeds, whether he’s right next to her or on a business trip to the other side of the world. Submission isn’t passive. It isn’t silent. It can’t be repressed. It holds its head up, sometimes defiantly, and rolls its eyes at those who would belittle it. It’s back is straight, it makes eye contact, it is steady and confident, and occasionally it’s noisy and fierce.

  108. Im sorry to say it, you two are still being influenced by the folks you seek to avoid. If a woman is submissive as she is supposed to be, and has her attitude about it right, she need not even mention the stuff about how she CAN stand on her feet and CAN use her brain and it CAN get fierce, etc etc. I assume that the women IS standing on her own and IS using her brain. There is no dichotomy in submission and brain use/strength. The verbiage here created one though.

  109. Feminist Hater says:

    Men, as logical and rational creatures, serve as better leaders. Just my view on the matter. A woman who submits to her husband, by choice and not by being weak willed, is not stupid or weak. She realises the positives of having a proper masculine husband who is built up by her and their family to be strong. By being in submission to her husband she gets the very best from him and can actually be happy in her marriage by being the feminine creature she was created as. She also becomes attached heavily to the man she submits authority to and is therefore less likely to look elsewhere and less likely to let her mind wonder. By being content with her husband, having submitted her authority to him, she can now focus on her family.

    By following the Biblical outlook on marriage life, the male and the female fulfill the roles they were built to do. By being a ballbuster, a woman creates in her man a weak leader and a weak provider. A weakling who can be walked over by all and sundry. She cannot remain attracted to such a man, even though her actions led to him becoming emasculated. A wise woman will notice such and realise that to submit to her husband is in the very best interest of her marriage.

    Men and women are far happier when they are able to perform to their strengths. By turning, on its head, the natural ability of men to be strong leaders and women to be strong home makers, both men and women become increasingly unhappy and society is suffering for it.

    I will agree with Suz to a point. I certainly do not want a woman who cannot decide herself to not be used by other men. I want a woman who takes her faith seriously, her chastity seriously and her duties to her husband, family and God seriously. I’m not interested in a woman who cannot decide for herself that being in obedience to her husband is in her very best interest.

    However, I don’t see it as being able to ‘stand on your own two feet’. That’s a logical fallacy. If you’re able to stand on your own two feet, you don’t need a partner at all. Husbands and wives should be together because they complement each other, the masculine and feminine made one. The effort should be put into the relationship, not the individual, so that the relationship can stand on its own feet. Whatever is thrown at it.

  110. Suz says:

    Emp, Jacqui and I are clarifying what should be obvious, but isn’t. (All of us, you included, are in the process of unlearning what we’ve been taught all our lives.) I hope you’re not suggesting that assertive language and open defiance against those to whom one hasn’t submitted, is somehow “not submissive?” Surely you don’t subscribe to the myth that feminine submission is always quiet, gentle and meek? It’s not. It’s part of a woman’s entire essence. It competes ruthlessly to win a dominant man. It becomes unladylike in bed. It screams in pain during childbirth. Its face gets puffy and snotty when it cries. It works itself to exhaustion (well, not so much these days) creating a nurturing home environment. It gets discouraged and it gets sick. Wifely submission is not a pretty display of love, patience and serenity, suitable for framing and hanging in the parlor. It’s a living commitment to honor her husband and her god; it involves every aspect of her life, and sometimes it gets its hands dirty. If you doubt me, try quoting this comment to a “Christian” white knight and his non-submissive wife. They will react with outrage and disbelief.
    Feminism wants us to believe that attaining and maintaining independence is the only permissible use for female strength and assertiveness. Feminism wants us to forget that human history is more than fifty years old, and that strong, moral, outspoken women existed before feminism did. Back then, most such women devoted their strength to their marriages and families, as submissive wives. It worked pretty well for millennia, until feminism hijacked the language and co-opted the attitude.

    Our verbiage didn’t create the dichotomy, it addresses the dichotomy, which most of the modern world accepts and tries to hold over our heads. We’re just saying it out loud. Who else does it this explicitly? Not the church, the self-proclaimed millieu of “submission.”

    FH, you are correct, although I think Jacqui used the term “stand on your own two feet” to indicate the ability to go it alone should it be necessary. All four feet in a marriage are intertwined.

    The point we’re trying to make is that a strong, even forceful woman isn’t necessarily a ball-buster. She can use her force FOR her husband, rather than against him. She won’t overshadow him unless HE is submissive. Marital dominance/submission is a two-person undertaking.

  111. Pingback: Suz says: About Submissive Women « Complementarian Loners

  112. Jacquie says:

    Thank you, again, Suz.

    “although I think Jacquie used the term “stand on your own two feet” to indicate the ability to go it alone should it be necessary.”

    This is exactly what I meant; my husband does not need to micromanage. I know what he expects, and get it done. I am not sitting on my hands waiting for a ‘command,’ I am standing with my husband, blending my strength with his. For me to complement him means that I have his trust to handle my share of the load.

    “She can use her force FOR her husband, rather than against him.”

    I would suggest, since it has become necessary to defend a comment because of one misplaced word, that exchanging the word FOR, in the above, replacing with the word WITH. The hamster will tend to rationalize behaviors as doing what is needed FOR the best interest of her husband since she feels he needs her to do things FOR him. Twisting words is something easiliy used to defend the very behaviors I do not wish to revisit.

    My main objective is to speak enough about my own experiences in the progression of changes in my own life hoping that someone lurking on the fringes will see that it is possible, what life can be. If they see that there are others who have been able to go against the mantra, that they are not locked in, that there is a better alternative, then they may find their own strength to embrace change.

  113. Why then , when I read these posts, to I picture hands on hips and head wagging

  114. FLGuy says:

    Dalrock,

    Here is a question I hope you will address in a future post.
    For a young christian guy, who is celibate and will not get “married” due to the inherent bias against Men in the west, what is the process for finding a “wife”?

    Ex: Old process……

    Date–Engagement—Wedding—Divorce

    IF you wont get the marriage license, what do you advise? Cohabitation?

  115. Suz and Jacquie are right. My wife is like that.

    The point of The Taming of the Shrew is that all Kate’s assertiveness and energy will now be used for her husband’s good. He has broken her to his will, but she is not broken as a woman. She will be strong for him.

  116. Women are not fragile. They want to be useful. The best ones want to be useful to a man.

    This is why Athol Kay’s model appeals to a lot of women. They get to be First Officer to a good Captain.

  117. Suz says:

    Emp –

    ….because that’s a normal reflexive reaction for anyone raised in a feminist world, which never permitted you to envision female assertiveness as anything other than an aggressive woman Doing What It Takes To Be. In. Charge?
    Feminism doesn’t want you to recognize the difference between dominance and domineering, in men OR women. You’ve been thoroughly trained to see a domineering woman with her hands on her hips and think, “That’s a strong woman; watch her dominate her world in spite of the difficulty! She’s heroic! Only a jealous, insecure cretin would call her a shrew,” the same way you’ve been trained to look at a dominant man who doesn’t take crap from women, and say, “Arrogant, domineering control freak! What a prick!”

    A submissive wife must dominate many aspects of her world, on her husband’s behalf. If she doesn’t, those things will dominate her, creating obstacles for her marriage. Envision Mrs. Caveman chasing jackals away from stored food while Mr. Caveman is away hunting more food. Not a pretty picture, is it – shrieking, throwing rocks, wielding a club. (Of course, Mr. Caveman rarely sees that side of his wife, because when he’s home, HE handles the jackals.)
    Women have always done dirty and rather vulgar things that don’t fit the sterilized image of “femininity.” Before feminism it was done behind closed doors or politely ignored, but quietly respected as necessary. Under feminism we’ve gone to the other extreme, and claimed it as THE defining characteristic of femininity (and shame on you for not thinking it’s just wonderful.) How ever the culture perceives female strength, it’s real and it’s useful. Some of us want to use it for good, and we promise not to be offended if you’d rather not watch. We know it’s not our pretty side.

  118. Your assumptions are misplaced as to where Im coming from….your sharing them as such and in this manner magnifies the hands on hip head wagging image.
    I need time to more thoughtfully respond.

  119. Suz says:

    I ended that first sentence with a question mark because I’m not assuming, only wondering. I’m genuinely curious as to why that’s the image you see, and if you perceive it as negative. I’m looking forward to your thoughts.

  120. Suz says:

    @ David:
    “This is why Athol Kay’s model appeals to a lot of women. They get to be First Officer to a good Captain.”
    So true, he chose a brilliant metaphor. Under the influence of feminism, It’s OK for the “lesser” females to cooperate with highly qualified senior officers (even if they happen to be men *cringe*) After all, it’s not like we can ALL be Alpha Grrlz. So we suppose it’s acceptable as long as we remain mindful of our “high” rank. Kay is reaching out to the mainstream while upholding the basic tenets of wifely submission. A First Officer can feel “empowered” while behaving like a Submissive Wife. (Just don’t tell her!) Is it unethical to manipulate women by feeding our hamsters and allowing us our illusions? Purists might think not, but I don’t know – the end may justify the means. It sure was effective when feminism did it, and Heaven knows manipulating women with logic is an uphill battle.

  121. Women tell themselves stories, and they like to fit into a story. And women think in a concrete way. I have had a quite feminist young woman tell me that she liked the role played by Jamie Lee Curtis in True Lies, which really surprised me, but I think it was the excitement of being led by a real man, not the boring husband that the Arnie character initially appeared to be. They wish their husbands would be more exciting leaders. A lot of the images that women like show the woman as a brave helper. Even McMillan & Wife, which my wife and I have been watching, has the girl being quite brave and helpful, though taking orders and obeying her husband. I think this show has turned my wife on.

    I have to go now, but examples could be multiplied. Imagery that appeals to both men and women often has the Captain/First Officer dynamic in place.

  122. Dalrock says:

    @Suz

    Emp, Jacqui and I are clarifying what should be obvious, but isn’t. (All of us, you included, are in the process of unlearning what we’ve been taught all our lives.)

    You are fighting against a social current which would be difficult to overstate. Along the same lines, those who pretend that submission happens naturally if the husband is Christian enough rob women who are following (or even just sincerely trying to follow) the biblical framing of marriage of the credit which is their due.

  123. Suz says:

    Dalrock,
    I can’t see ’round the clock submission as a “natural” or automatic state for any dynamic sentient being. Status constantly shifts at least a little. To maintain a Biblically framed marriage, a man must cultivate his dominance, and a woman must cultivate her submission. Neither spouse can do it without the cooperation of the other. Your post clearly illustrates how far we have strayed from mutual cooperation. Women are told not to bother. By the church, no less.

  124. ray says:

    “I can’t see ’round the clock submission as a “natural” or automatic state for any dynamic sentient being”

    “dynamic”?

    why be dynamic (altering) about the Good state in which male and female were created by God? why does it have to be jazzed up and always in flux? (answer: cause most females like constant drama and conflict)

    if somebody told my granny that marriages needed to be “worked on” she’d have choked

    animals dont write sonnets, but theyre sentient, and female animals (mammals and primates) are quite naturally and comfortably submissive 24/7

    they dont rebel against their created condition, and the planet doesnt suffer for their rebellion

    w/o the constant interference of state, church, and even worse actors, most women would also be NATURALLY and happily submissive — in a low-key, casual, attractive way

    “To maintain a Biblically framed marriage, a man must cultivate his dominance, and a woman must cultivate her submission.”

    cultivation is for corn

    men dont need to Work On being men, i’m so sick of that therapy babble

    we want to be left in peace to be men, instead of Managed by women, like a crop . . . including not being told by women what a Biblically-framed marriage consists of, when they should be in silence and . . . uh, submission

  125. The Antigrrrl says:

    @Ray

    Submission is not a unchosen state for any human being, if total submission was easy, no one would ever have to be concerned about disobeying God. We could all just rely on our natural desire to be submissive and obedient to the powers above us. True submission is not the lack of will, it is the choice by the will to act in defiance of our carnal natures. But next time my children try to defy my authority, I will tell them that they are abnormal, maybe it will help.

  126. Pingback: The Personal Jesus…one introduction | Feminism is Empathological

  127. Cane Caldo says:

    More of what Hollywood thinks of Christians

    http://www.nbc.com/save-me/video/born-again/1401375

    Be sure to watch both trailers.

  128. Cane Caldo says:

    Meant to add: no one to blame but ourselves.

  129. Suz says:

    Ray,
    We are all “dynamic” because we think. Our perceptions are continuously changing, ever so slightly. As long as our brains are processing stimuli, we are dynamic. We have the will to decide how we respond to our environment.

    “men dont need to Work On being men,”

    That statement implies that men are perfect in their natural state, and don’t need to discipline themselves or repress their more destructive impulses. That men don’t have or need the will to choose their behavior. It is not for women to manage men, it is for men to manage themselves. A woman speaking this truth is not a woman attempting to “cultivate” men. It was men “cultivating” themselves that built civilization.

    You have chosen to submit yourself to God, correct? Did that choice require will? Does living that choice require you to actively glorify God and speak against His enemies, or is your submission passive and silent? Do you think female submission should be held to a lower standard? How would you judge a woman who “submits to her husband as to God,” but lacks the will to condemn her husband’s enemies or to glorify her husband? Expecting women to be silent and passive, is giving them permission to NOT truly submit. A passive wife/mother is a useless object. A submissive wife/mother is an asset who will raise moral children and turn your “kingdom” into a little piece of heaven on earth.

    The point of my comments here is that Christians must reject the twisted modern cultural understanding of submission as “passive.” Without the wholehearted, enthusiastic, and vocal submission of a wife, a marriage is nothing more than a domestic arrangement. You seem to be buying into the cultural definition of submission, rather that the Biblical definition.

  130. Dalrock says:

    @ray

    w/o the constant interference of state, church, and even worse actors, most women would also be NATURALLY and happily submissive — in a low-key, casual, attractive way

    Then why all of the commands to wives to be submissive in the NT? Also, what about Gen 3:16? I don’t disagree that with some work it could become something wives find much more natural, but I do think it takes them fighting the rebellion within them.

  131. bskillet81 says:

    @ray

    w/o the constant interference of state, church, and even worse actors, most women would also be NATURALLY and happily submissive — in a low-key, casual, attractive way

    Ray, most of the time I agree with what your write, but this here sounds almost exactly like Stanton’s statement that, without constraints from society, women would naturally develop into good wives and mothers.

  132. greyghost says:

    Ray does have a point. With out the artificial propping up by government the basic feral selfish norm of women to do whats in their own self intererest will default to a cooperative helper. Beta type men become high status males over night. Women do not respect any thing but their own selfish needs. When articulating ideas on structuring society and making cultural norms that has to be a factor. Assuming a virtue of benefit to society thoughts and motivations on to women is just plain foolish and irresponsible. It is also very destructive to a civilized society. Dalrock has posted for the last few months on the church projecting virtue on to women and look at the results. Now we are here falsely believing it is possible women will be convinced with everything as it is now in culture and law that it is in the best interest of society and thier’s in the big picture to be cooperative helper to a man. That is blue pill thinking and is the biggest obstacle to making any headway in reversing this madness. Something as simple as maintaining standards and accountability is all that it would take. gender neutral enforcement of the laws we have will work. But with women projected the virtue of responsibility they have the vote ( authority to carry out the responsibility) the reality of the child like selfishness will not allow any changes. Once a child realises they have authority over her parents all is lost.

    d

  133. bskillet

    Actually his implication to my understanding is not they they will naturally fall into line, but that cause and effect and consequences will funnel them into the right place, and if it doesn’t, big gubmit isn’t there to pick them up. I get that the word NATURALLY throws it a bit. Instinct, even ones cultivated in a pavlovian way, can be called natural I guess, she sees women getting consequence and no assistance, she will follow the pavlovian path

  134. Bob Lawrence says:

    DalRock,

    A friend of mine recently introduced me to your Blog and so I am a new reader trying to learn more about you. I would like to recommend that you read a book by Christopher West called “Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching” (you can find it easily at Amazon). You will find a deeper biblical understanding about Catholic teaching regarding sacramental marriage, sex, and divorce. I would also recommend for you to read “Annulments and the Catholic Church” by Edward Peters so that you realize the annulment process is not about “finding a way to declare a marriage of ten years and mulitple kids did not exist”. Such statements are very misleading and simply do not speak truth.

    I too live in the Dallas area and would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss further your thoughts regarding marriage, divorce and Catholicism.

    May God continue to bless you and your family.

  135. Suz says:

    “Once a child realises they have authority over her parents all is lost.”

    Yes, Greyghost. Civilization has given us permission to defy the authority of nature itself. The family structure “rules” of the Bible preserve the natural order. (I use the term “natural order” because it applies rationally across all beliefs. Non-Christians don’t get to pretend they’re exempt.) The cat is out of the bag because women know we can get away with defiance. We must learn (or more specifically, be taught) that it’s in EVERYBODY’s best interest, for us to choose “obedience.” Technically, obedience has been optional since civilization became big enough to show mercy to the disobedient. That’s not going to change. We need to recognize the value of obedience, and choose it willingly. Christianity now only teaches selective obedience, to populations that are easy to “punish.”

  136. greyghost says:

    Women are extremely adverse to responsibility. So much so that it is considered misogynist to even make a judgement on a womans anything. Women are not even treated the same as men for criminal acts. It is known in the manosphere as the pussy pass. With responsibility submission will because as natural as beathing the air and peeing sitting down. But we are so busy being equal and fair we are outcome basing our culture removing responsibilty and duty to give the illusion of gender equity and fairness. The madness of the whole thing is people defining fairness and equality are the ones that are having responsibility removed from them. We are documenting and discussing this process in the church now.

  137. bskillet81 says:

    @Suz

    Christianity now only teaches selective obedience, to populations that are easy to “punish.”

    In other words, innocent beta schlubs.

  138. Feminist Hater says:

    Just say what you mean. Consequences felt by the person who engages in a certain behaviour, determine their ability to learn the correct behaviour from the incorrect behaviour. If women are protected from their own mistakes, they won’t learn to correct them and neither will the next generation of women learn from the former generations so as not to repeat the same mistakes.

    I still might be blue pill in a way. I believe women can act in their best interest when the consequences push them into making the right choice. It is essential for a Church or a Christian community to actively pursue the Biblical callings for both men and women. Teach girls to be submissive but helpful and teach boys to be dominant but fair. I don’t believe it’s natural for men to become leaders or for women to become submissive helpmates. However, it’s natural to the extent that if we follow God’s teachings, family unification becomes far easier, both spouses feel more content and the family unit becomes a viable place to raise children.

    It’s either following one’s natural ‘carnal nature’ or following God’s nature, the one he has built into us. It’s another one of those ‘choices’ that he gives us.

  139. Suz says:

    FH:
    ” I believe women can act in their best interest when the consequences push them into making the right choice.”
    That’s not Blue Pill, it’s a fact of human behavior. (Heavens! Don’t confuse Blue Pill with the truth!) Women would absolutely step into line if we faced consequences We SHOULD be held to the exact same moral standards as men, because we are designed to be capable of living up to those standards. The white knight’s assumption that we are incapable of it is the reason we are sheltered from consequences. It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women are living “down” to man-made, artificially lowered standards. (…and enjoying it. Until we’re not.)

  140. greyghost says:

    Suz this statement is good and can only be realized by a beta male It is the definition of manhood
    “The cat is out of the bag because women know we can get away with defiance. We must learn (or more specifically, be taught) that it’s in EVERYBODY’s best interest, for us to choose “obedience.” Technically, obedience has been optional since civilization became big enough to show mercy to the disobedient. That’s not going to change. We need to recognize the value of obedience, and choose it willingly.” This is normal for a beta man. They are often refered to as beta chumps. The almost natural ability for the beta male to do and be taught to do what is in the best interest of “everybody” as you say in the back bone and to me the definition of civilization. The constitution and the founding of this nation and biblical principles were to my eye seemed written to make men like that the center or foundation of a strong society, feminist called it the patriarchy. Women do not and never had this unique and powerful beta male tendancy. Normal female behavior is rather childish and selfish. With responsibility being like kryptonite under all circumstances so much so we have the concept of the rationalization hamster.

  141. Suz
    I get that the submissive women isnt the quiet folded nads in lap, avoid eye contact thing the secular world would try and paint it as, when they go after the SBC about their proclamations on marriage that is what they want the image to be.
    I can even say that this dangerous term of mutual submission, if aptly applied, can describe the complimentarian model quite well, whereby OF COURSE my wife tends to her job(s), and I to mine, and neither should she be mucking and nagging about mine, and in a perfect world I neednt be doing so about hers. In that though exists an atmosphere of submission which will look a little bit different for every couple, and thats OK, as long as its real and not a veneer.
    To many , when they say mutual submission, dont even have a clue what they mean, when women knee jerk to that term it is exclusively because of the emotions the term evokes, it has zero thinking about what it really means, it just sounds all fair, all balanced and stuff ya know, 50/50 and the like…..(until some women sticks her head in and corrects everyone saying HER marriage is 100/100 dadgummit)
    There is an equilibrium that can be reached by each couple, just like that of a chemical reaction, an equilibrium of the constituents and the resultant products can be reached. But here is the thing, that equilibrium is ultimately determined by something(s) that are outside the constituents, like temperature and pressure and volume/space …. the reaction as a whole understands that its held where it is by a bigger picture. That’s the submission aspect. The man holds the temperature and pressure controls. This shifts the equilibrium to the right and left as needed for lifes seasons and ebbs and flows.

  142. Women avoiding responsibility is an interesting thing. It ranges from willful avoidance to plain old ignorance of the need for it, so narcissistic in weighing things as it affects HER, based only on data from HER and her tiny life (in scheme of things) she sees no responsibility TO avoid. If it worked for her sister Molly, it will work for her, and nobody got hurt! Sure when Molly dumped her husband the kids went off the rails, little Trisha got pregnant and Bobby sells ecstasy for cash….those kids made some BAAAAAD choices

  143. greyghost says:

    Suz you are getting there.
    “Women are living “down” to man-made, artificially lowered standards. (…and enjoying it. Until we’re not.) ”
    You are really working hard on being an MRA aren’t you. You still have the “team woman” pulling at your heart but you are slowly getting it will an eye of mature understanding. Parent and leadership stuff there. BTW don’t confuse the terms blue pill and red pill a lot of people learn the defintion by it’s use in context.

  144. Pingback: Reframing Christian marriage part 2: rebelling wives aren’t to blame for their own rebellion. | Dalrock

  145. Suz says:

    greyghost, I ditched Team Woman before the MRM was born. I’ve been floating around in Team Neutral Confusion for decades. Ideally I ‘d like to be completely rational and neutral, but for years I have landed on the side of men. I’m only now learning the language and what could become the “doctrine.” I assess each aspect carefully before I accept it. Blind acceptance of others’ opinions is what got us into this mess.

    Emp, I don’t think we disagree. My point is that the husband can’t (and shouldn’t have to) “control the environment” in every aspect of the wife’s existence. His influence on HER can keep her going out and “looking for a fight,” but there will be times when a fight comes to her, and he won’t be around to handle it. Her refusal to give in is when her submission doesn’t look like submission..

    The only thing I comprehend abut “mutual submission” is that it’s the the process of a relationship collapsing in on itself.

  146. Strong Man says:

    Excellent post. I’ve linked to it in this post: http://goodstrongmen.blogspot.com/2012/05/christian-marriage-reframed.html, where I’ve also linked to four specific incidents I’ve observed of this transformation to the expectation of wives being in charge.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints remains absolutely committed to the Bible as scriptural cannon, but recent talks can be found that include support for both sides of this issue. In general, men are to “preside over” their families, but women and men are “equal partners.” Much of the actual interpretation of this is left to individual views and practice.

    I’m seeing some younger couples headed both directions–some toward clarifying the man’s role as leader, others openly following their wives. The Church tries to encourage men to step up to their responsibilites, but does not also generally seem to be encouraging wives to submit or follow their husbands. However, this past year, the official manual taught and quoted straight from Ephesians 5:22-25, without trying to reinterpret or modify. Not sure how many noticed that, though.

  147. Pingback: For the wives who do not feel sufficiently “loved” | Smash Mouth Politics

  148. ray says:

    greyghost –With out the artificial propping up by government the basic feral selfish norm of women to do whats in their own self intererest will default to a cooperative helper.

    exactly

    i’ll repeat it — you were created GOOD in your hierarchichal roles, male and female, and that only changed (and continually is changed) when demonic elements convinced the woman to rebel from her NATURAL AND GOOD condition, and to assume the male role and the authority of judgment (of what is right/wrong, think Justsis Sistem)

    those malevolent elements, once purely “spiritual,” are now exteriorized and concretized as our western (feminist) States, Churches, legal systems, cultures etc

    “Then why all of the commands to wives to be submissive in the NT?”

    b/c paul, advised by christ, understood that those worldly/demonic elements had, long before the first century AD, corrupted and inverted male-female relations . . .and that both men and women would be under attack by those elements until the end — so constant reminders against female leadership and empowerment were necessary to a neophyte church representing our FATHER, MASCULINITY, and restoration of the original created order

    as greyghost noted simply, remove those worldy/satanic elements and woman NATURALLY returns to the NATURAL Godly condition (happy and willing submission) in which she was created

    the quote in Genesis is the same warning, just written many centuries earlier

    bskillet — Ray, most of the time I agree with what your write, but this here sounds almost exactly like Stanton’s statement that, without constraints from society, women would naturally develop into good wives and mothers.

    society doesnt constrain woman, society is woman, and so is empire

    the animalistic aspects of woman’s nature are “covered” by male spiritual leadership, and it is her submission to him that allows her to rise from animality to her created condition as a GOOD HELPMEET of the male (first as her father, then as her husband)

    w/o the submission, she regresses to selfish animality and chaos b/c she has rejected her GOOD created condition

    that was (and is) the entire purpose of the serpent . . . knowing that the nature of the whole planet is dependant upon the nature of the male//female; once that primal bond was thrown into antithetic confusion, the planet had no choice but to fall also

  149. ray says:

    Dear Ray:

    Rather than compose a bright and chirpy response in which I question your submission to God, I’ve decided to forego my own words and will, and accept what you’ve offered in a spirit of obedience.

    Instead of questioning and arguing and negotiating, I am going to submit as I have been commanded. Instead of picking apart your statements — flawed and incomplete though they may be — I will trust in God’s order and will, rather than my own inclinations to resist and reframe.

    I hope my unique offer of obedience will lead other females to question, and perhaps even reject, their own willfulness, resentment, and desire to rule over men.

    Obedience is SO liberating, Ray! For the first time in my life, I feel freed from the need to get my way, to have the last word, to be right, to ensure that my feelings are heard and understood.

    It’s almost like a scratchy, corroded old skin, at last sloughed off! I feel great!

    Perhaps God was actually correct, and my obedience is more important than my opinions? Wouldn’t THAT be a hoot!

    Ray, thanks again for your interest in me, and for the opportunity you have extended to really change my behavior, and to come closer to God by modeling my submission, rather than just gabbing about it and actually changing nothing.

    Your fellow servant in Christ,

    Suz

  150. Jason says:

    I was reading the back and forth between Ray and everybody last night and it occurred to me that there seems to be a confusion int he language being used. Unfortunately in English we use one word “naturally” to mean two completely opposite things. I have found the convention of using Naturally and naturally in writing to tell them apart helpful, but that is just me.

    To clarify, consider the following statement, “A wife will not naturally submit to her husband but she Naturally will submit to her husband”. Two different uses of the word naturally, the sentence may seem contradictory but it is only equivocal.

    I’ll use the capitalization to explain if anybody is still confused :)

    For something to be Natural, it means that it functions towards its proper end (in the Aristotelian sense of proper end, that which it is made to do). For something to be behaving Naturally it will be working in the way it is intended to work. This is obviously a deeply teleological sense of the word Natural.

    For something to be natural however means it is working or operating as it would “by default”. How something functions without any restraint and towards no particular end.

    So a rebellious wife who refuses to submit to her husband is acting quite naturally. This is a result of the fall and this drive and desire is part of the curse itself.

    But it is quite unNatural for a wife to behave this way, as she is made to submit to her husband. Athol Kay’s conception of “wife as first officer” is really an excellent one. A wife is functioning properly and acting inline with her Nature when she does willingly submit to her husbands leadership. However unnatural and difficult this may be to her.

    So I think Ray is right when he says wives will Naturally submit to their husbands, but everyone else is quite right to note that it is profoundly unnatural for women to do so.

    You might just be talking past each other a bit because of Englishes annoying habit of using one word to mean two different diametrically opposed things.

    Jason

  151. Suz says:

    OK, Ray, I get it. (Funny you should use the word “re-framing.”)
    I have submitted myself to God and to my Husband. I didn’t shut down my brain when I did either, so everybody else’s motives are suspect. Nobody else gets my devotion or my unquestioning acquiescence.

    Would my questions be worth answering had they come from a man? Because I notice you didn’t answer them, you merely shamed me for asking. (Btw, are you by chance following my conversation over at The Spearhead? Oddly enough, I addressed that very point yesterday.)

  152. Dalrock says:

    @empathologicalism

    You responded to something I didnt allege. You said:

    “”I didn’t say they are traditional, I said it is surprising how supportive of traditional marriage they are,””

    But I didnt say that you said that they ARE traditional. Maybe I am hung in word choices here, but its an important distinction that we are not discussing whether they ARE or ARE NOT traditional.

    I was feeling a bit chastised by this, until I read:

    At rish of having the question turned on me, I’ll ask you, whats the catch? Why do you care about how others perceive PUA’s?

    And:

    but I cannot get my mind around what appears to be a lot of rationalization to find something….anything….redeeming in a Christian sense, about raw game and PUA stuff.

    The only reason I care about how others perceive PUAs is the desire to correct a misconception; accuracy matters. By all means judge away at the PUAs. They are my neighbors in the manosphere (and yours as well if you look around), and they have been very courteous and helpful to me. But this doesn’t change the nature of fornication, so by all means speak the truth. Better yet, find a church which isn’t fully corrupt on sexual morality and invite them to attend that you might save their souls (and don’t keep such a church a secret from the rest of us please). I haven’t argued that there is something redeeming in the Christian sense with PUAs either. This is frustrating for me. What I said was it is surprising how supportive of traditional marriage they are, especially compared to modern Christians. Here are some examples of what they tend to believe:

    • A sane society would have women marry young, and men would strongly prefer to marry virgins or women with very limited sexual history.
    • A sane society wouldn’t encourage divorce by offering women cash and prizes for violating their vows.
    • Unwed motherhood should be shamed.
    • Sluts should be shamed.
    • Women who have sex with men like them should be shunned by beta men who are looking for a wife.
    • Women would be better off marrying and having children while young instead of pursuing casual sex and a career and then marrying later.

    Compare the list above to the views of the Darwii, Stanton/FOTF, The 700 Club, or Pastor Driscoll.

    GKC says:

    I’d also agree with Empath here in that while PUA’s may be comfortable with agreeing with woman’s predisposition towards children they see that as a means to an end not a useful end in and of itself.

    I may be mistaken, but I read that to mean that they support traditional views for their own pragmatic ends. But none of the above are in their own interest as PUAs. Every one of the items above if followed would lessen their opportunities. Of course they know they aren’t at any real risk by speaking the truth, because they know that Christian and secular So Cons will continue on their insane path of sending their daughters to ride the carousel and continue to reward divorce and rebellion.

  153. Suz, some men on these blogs are pretty angry with women. You will have to accept that. Men, like women, have mixed emotions about the opposite sex. Some tenderness, some dislike. I have been lucky with the women in my life, but some men have not. And even I sometimes feel irritated with women in general.

    A lot of women on these blogs cause trouble, even, perhaps especially, when they are attempting to be sweetly reasonable. It is up to the respective blog owners, but I have come to think that a few, select women are all that a Manosphere blog can take. I think you are one of the good ones, but you will have to spend a lot of time proving your credentials, with some men especially.

  154. “A sane society would have women marry young, and men would strongly prefer to marry virgins or women with very limited sexual history.”

    PUAs probably know how many men really think, and that a lot of men (themselves included) think that men who marry non-virgins are chumps. They probably know very well that they are polluting the women that other men will eventually have to take as wives. At some level, it probably disgusts them.

  155. Suz says:

    Thanks, David. I don’t condemn and I don’t take it personally. I’ve been alternately debating and agreeing with Ray off and on for a while now. Specific differences aside, we know we’re rooting for the same team.

  156. Of course, Suz, you have no duty of submission or obedience to any man other than your husband. So, debate away.

  157. Matthew says:

    Jason, that is a brilliant comment. The distinction between Naturally and naturally is key. The Fall broke a lot of nature.

  158. Jason says:

    @Matthew,

    Thanks Matthew. I was talking to a friend about this at lunch time and the same thing occurred to me (about the fall, not that I make brilliant comments). Before the fall Natural and natural were one and the same but after the fall was when they became opposites.

    Jason

  159. ray says:

    “I think you are one of the good ones, but you will have to spend a lot of time proving your credentials, with some men especially.”

    i do not want her to prove anything, or to establish her credentials — thats exactly my point

    Suz and i arent supposed to be constantly jousting and jockeying for position, in the same way the church isnt to be constantly refuting and debating Christ

    in spiritual spaces and contexts (esp biblical interpretation) Suz is commanded to submission (and sometimes silence) and to obedience to Godly men

    thats INCLUDING submission to her husband, which is not the only submission to which she is biblically bound, read the book again

    “Suz, some men on these blogs are pretty angry with women. You will have to accept that. Men, like women, have mixed emotions about the opposite sex. Some tenderness, some dislike. I have been lucky with the women in my life, but some men have not.”

    your characterization of me as angry with Suz is unfair and inaccurate, but less pathetic than the passive/aggressive spin of her having to accept what doesnt exist

    likewise catty is your assumption that i have been unlucky with women in my life, based on my unwillingness to allow Suz to interpret Scripture concerning marriage

    my experiences have been widely mixed, actually — but thanks for smearing me, and for dis-incarnating the females who have loved me . . . quite a rhetorical coup regarding someone youve never met!

    i’m sure Suz appreciates your support Mr. Collardgreens… how the clogging lessons coming along? ;O)

  160. ray says:

    Jason — i hadnt thought it out, but that sure is what i was trying to convey with the word “Natural”

  161. Jason says:

    @ray,

    Glad to be of service ray. I watched the conversation and it did seem that you guys were talking past each other and each using naturally differently. It is something of a shame that English does this with its words.

    I am involved with a ministry that does outreach to people struggled with same-sex attraction, so we encounter a fair bit of pro-gay propaganda. This is where I first caught this equivocation on the use of the word natural. Although I suspect the equivocation is deliberate rather than accidental in most of those cases.

    Jason

  162. Suz says:

    Jason,
    “It is something of a shame that English does this with its words.”
    That’s how I feel about the differences between passive and submissive, and dominant and domineering.

    Ray,
    I give you credit for your honesty and your adherence to your beliefs, although you already know I don’t share them all. Not that you need my approval, but you get it anyway.

  163. ray, I was not speaking about you personally.

    I don’t believe that Suz is required to submit in this forum. It is not a church.

  164. Jason says:

    @Suz,

    Yeah but at least the words are different. What chance have you got with Natural and natural?

    Lets not even start on Love vs Agape, Eros, Philia and Storge,

    Jason

  165. The Antigrrrl says:

    The issue with women submitting to any and all godly men is that all godly men do not agree. Were I to submit to the mainstream church teachings of some of the godly men quoted on this very site, I would not submit myself to my husband unless he were a spiritual leader. It could not even be counted as sin on my part in their accounts, it would be counted against my husband for not being godly enough. Discernment of truth is an important quality, even in women.
    Having read the book several times, it is my understanding that women are to be modest in public and not to put themselves into positions of authority over men, to obey God, our husbands, fathers and those in authority over us , not that we are to follow whatever the nearest godly man’s opinion.

  166. Dalrock:

    On the matter of PUA’s and their support (Tacit? Coincidence? Begrudging? Accidental?) of traditional let me respond.

    First, you know there is no church TO find that isn’t corrupted, it would be a disaster to invite them to most mega churches as it would be unleashing foxes in henhouses. Anyway, I get your point on this, redemption, etc. and I agree.

    The context of your site in general, then of the posts and comments under which your assertions on the redeeming value of PUA’s appear, sorry if its just me, absolutely infer strongly a Christian aspect to the value you are suggesting as you “desire to correct a misconception”. Further, I’m not sure I see that misconception writ as large as you do, and it seems the urge to defend is kind of unilateral based and not a reaction so much as an perception you have for some reason. Bear in mind, this is my perception vs. your perception, so……

    Now the core, that it is surprising how supportive of traditional marriage they are. From where comes the list of bullet points? Is it a summary you made based on wide exposure to their sites, or are these some of their core beliefs that appear in a list somewhere. I simply don’t know, and I want to know. You say the TEND to believe these things, leading me to think you are the source of the list. I’m seeing this all a little differently, sort of like saying bank robbery is good for security service providers, cancer is good for oncologists, etc. etc. Each thing on that list is IMO less a belief, than a sort of describes fallout, or unintended end game, of their values, NOT a value in and of itself. I go with GKC comment on pragmatic ends.

    I fail to see the reason to even make a comparison with Driscoll et al. I dislike moral relativism (and I’m not suggesting yours was an appeal to moral relativism necessarily)
    The things are not related enough to compare even if relativism worked, yes, they are both systems having to do with relationship, that’s about it.

    I guess Im still not seeing the “why” that I’d asked before, because Im not really seeing the misconception you seek to correct stated to the degree that it needs correction, and that’s my perception of course.

    We agree that So Cons will keep the pipeline filled with prey.

  167. Anonymous Reader says:

    Late to the thread due to travel.

    I would disagree with the notion that bearing children in and of itself is a stabilizing influence on women. In the modern, child-centered family it is quite easy for a woman’s natural affection for children she bears to become something a whole lot like “marrying” them. Whether she’s working for money outside or not, she can pour all of her love and honor into the children, and thus relegate what’s-his-name to a rather utilitarian status at best. Since the divorce machine rewards women with children who divorce-theft their husbands, there is a low-level background noise of “you don’t need him, grrrl” present in modern society. To be cynical, a woman who succeeds in having one or more children acquires a whole new stack of sticks with which she can beat her husband, and can convert their relationship into a one-way street enforced by the state. Absent children, there’s very little to use to macerate a man in “family” court.

    Yes, women’s physical selves are built for bearing children & absent genetic tragedies it is good for them to do so. But making babies is in no way a guarantee of emotional stability, and can work in exactly the opposite manner. I have personally known couples who chose to have a child in order to strengthen their marriage – when that plan failed, all the pre-existing flaws in the marriage were magnified.

    It may well be a good idea but it is no panacea.

  168. HeligKo says:

    Marriage is strongest in a dangerous world. Right now our world is not that dangerous. Our day to to day lives that is. As the state takes over the masculine roles in society, it has a sense of being safer. Like the Soviet Union twenty years ago, the sate will become the threat. Interestingly those who remained in the main stream soviet culture didn’t value marriage. Those who were ducking the state, and living outside the communist police state valued marriage very much. It provided protection and comforts for the more dangerous life.

  169. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    I guess Im still not seeing the “why” that I’d asked before, because Im not really seeing the misconception you seek to correct stated to the degree that it needs correction, and that’s my perception of course.

    I think you’ve been here before (from my side), so I think you will understand this. What this feels like to me is you and GKC arguing against a fairly simple and straightforward point, each time upping the ante of denial. Then once I fully prove it to you, you will say “Of course. Why did you have to make such a big deal out of it?” Reference the origin of this discussion, which was GKC making an assertion that advocating that women have children young would be unpopular with the PUA set. GKC wrote:

    Because of the above and because of your posts dealing with pastors skipping over these important lessons I implore you to include it. It is a tough verse. It is not one that fits in well with the PUA crowd nor with feminism, but it is just as critical to defining Christian marriage. I’ll try to find the verse in the Law later.

    The verse he was referring to was 1 Tim 2:15. I can’t think off the top of my head of a blogger from the pickup/game side writing specifically about women having children, but their general stance on the advisability of marriage for women would seem to prove the same point. They often advocate social changes which if implemented would dry up their own pond. Here are some examples off the top of my head:

  170. Suz says:

    Antigrrrl,
    Thank you for putting that into words. The concept that any woman is to submit to any man under any circumstances, is about as un-Christian as you can get. A woman who questions or disagrees with a man, is not necessarily attempting to exert authority over him even if they are both Christians.
    The conversation with Ray is a good example of the confusion between Submissive and Passive. I get the impression form his comments that he doesn’t believe a submissive woman should be assertive with those to whom she has not submitted (if they “outrank” her) and perhaps that public modesty should by definition be meek and silent. This is precisely the myth of “submission” I’m trying to debunk. No commander ever succeeded without input from valued subordinates. I don’t blame the FemChristians for rebelling against this bastardized understanding of submission, and I’m not even a feminist. Christian women would likely be more amenable to GENUINE submission if they understood it’s true nature, as opposed to this “Shut up and go make me a sammich” stereotype of submission.

    Genuine submission doesn’t pander to a woman’s desire to be “strong,” it requires all of the strength a woman can muster. There is no moral obligation to hide that strength, because that strength is not inherently immodest. In fact, “strength” that’s immodestly flaunted, is likely not strength at all. It’s domineering, not dominant.

  171. Elspeth says:

    Genuine submission doesn’t pander to a woman’s desire to be “strong,” it requires all of the strength a woman can muster. There is no moral obligation to hide that strength, because that strength is not inherently immodest. In fact, “strength” that’s immodestly flaunted, is likely not strength at all. It’s domineering, not dominant.

    Excellent.

  172. Suz says:

    Thank you, Elspeth

  173. ray says:

    ray, I was not speaking about you personally.

    c’mon david, scroll up the thread

    you know exactly what and who you meant, so did Suz etc

    you cant even be honest w/yrself, yet expect me to take you seriously

    I don’t believe that Suz is required to submit in this forum. It is not a church.

    she is biblically required — David Collard’s Beliefs notwithstanding — as this site is part of the only authentic church now extant

    if you know of another church that’s actually about my daddy’s business pls enlighten me, i’ll hustle on over there b/c even after drinking here, i’m still plenty thirsty

  174. Dalrock
    I think you’ve been here before (from my side), so I think you will understand this. What this feels like to me is you and GKC arguing against a fairly simple and straightforward point, each time upping the ante of denial
    ———————————————————————————————–
    Me thinks you thinks too much on this, no, this isnt what this is. If it seems that way its by accident, speaking for me. Im 100% open and not playing, not holding back, truly asking for the simple reason that I want to understand. Im upping nothing, I have zero idea what you are on about, and thats OK, you owe me nada.

  175. Suz says:

    Ray,
    “she is biblically required”
    …and submission, while respectful, isn’t silent or passive. You did, after all (this time), challenge MY statement. In an open discussion, a challenge invites an answer. I answered respectfully by asking some thought-provoking questions.

    You frequently make sweeping statements which come across as narrow, rigid, and outrageous. I’ve learned to resist the temptation to respond to them with scorn and disrespect, even when I disagree with the specific points, or object to the overall tone. THAT is Christian submission to a person who “outranks” me. Politely disagreeing with your religious opinions is not rebellion, it is asserting my submission to God, in that if I’m mistaken, I invite correction, and will seriously consider what information is offered to me. But I will not accept it blindly from you or anyone else; to do so is to risk betraying God. To use Biblical terminology, there are “false prophets” here, and for all I know you could be one of them. I’m not jockeying for position, as I have no need to prove myself to you or anyone else. I don’t see these debates as competitions; I see them as explorations of ideas that nobody else is discussing.

  176. Dalrock says:

    Empath,

    I’m not accusing you of playing a game, I was just trying to explain how it strikes me so we could avoid going down that road. It isn’t a big deal to me either way, but if you have further questions let me know.

  177. ray, I have been around the Manosphere a while and I was trying to explain the dynamic to Suz. I was not referring to you personally. There are men who have shared the details of their reasons for anger at women. I have no idea about your circumstances.

    I am a Catholic. I do not share your opinion that this forum is somehow the only real Church.

    I believe that Suz is required to obey her husband, and maybe her priest or pastor, if she is in that kind of church, so long as their demands are not immoral. But other men, no. That is a recipe for anarchy. God wants proper order.

  178. Elspeth says:

    I have to agree with Suz (again, LOL) that submission isn’t necessarily silent or passive. I have a very strong, dominant husband and he would not be happy with nor feel challenged by a shrinking violet masquerading as submissive.

    I submit to him (and I firmly believe this includes obedience in all things not overtly sinful). Still he expects me to say what I’m thinking about issues that affect us all. And if was too scared or stupid to offer insights when the need arises, he wouldn’t like that either.

  179. The Antigrrrl says:

    Suz/Elspeth, I really appreciate your perspectives. Growing up in a Plain church, “Shut up stupid women and let any male rule you (no matter how biblically incorrect they are, they are still better than you) ” was what turned me into a feminist, it has taken me a long time for me to even want to find my way back to real and truthful submission.

  180. Suz says:

    Antigrrrl,
    I know that type of “chauvinism” still exists in a tiny minority of churches; I have encountered badly battered women who were lucky to escape from them. It’s sad that it took a force as extreme and destructive as feminism to chase that attitude most of the way out of Christianity, because the price sure wasn’t worth it. (And most women have traditionally had social or legal protection from real abuse. Men never did, and so much as protesting it is now all but criminalized.) It was like shooting a pesky rat with a cannon.

    The collateral damage is intolerable; it’s destroying civilization.

  181. Suz, it is destroying some parts of one civilisation only. I thought this was interesting from Vox Day recently:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/consequence-of-quality.html

  182. Jacquie says:

    Antigrrrl,
    “it has taken me a long time for me to even want to find my way back to real and truthful submission.”
    It is how the pendelum swings. When we finally break away from one side, the usual reaction is to distance ourselves as far as possible from where we were. Time and wisdom helps us to find our way to somewhere in the middle. It’s not uncommon.

  183. ray says:

    Suz —
    Antigrrrl,
    I know that type of “chauvinism” still exists in a tiny minority of churches; I have encountered badly battered women who were lucky to escape from them

    v instructive indeed

    like Mr. Collard, to whom rebuke or disagreement is a “recipe for anarchy,” you trot out the spectre of Badly Battered Women at the hands of Those Lurking Chauvinists (the horrible males who dare disagree with you, and hold you to biblical obedience)

    gee, i just cant figure out why the western churches are empty of men . . . why wouldnt they love what Mr Collard and Suz are selling? sounds exactly like what i hear from government, media, schoos etc every single day

    Suz i guess youre gonna ride the Plausible Deniability Train and pretend, like your friend Dave, that your accusation that i’m a Batterer of Women (who were EVER so lucky to escape!!) is completely impersonal, and certainly not directed at any individual etc

    again — 30 seconds reviewing the comment thread busts tactics . . . not just slanderous, but (as usual) false

    the Badly Battered Women Parade has been a tremendous winner for you, your States, and your “churches” the past half-century — destroying the lives of countless boys and men, and turning our nations into feminist police states

    i wont bother to deny battering women at any time in my life — you already got what you wanted , eh Suz?

    the exercise of your petty vengeance (over being told to obey) by making a deniable accusation in such a dishonorable, childish, and malicous manner makes my points far better than anything i could compose myself

    shameful

  184. The Antigrrrl says:

    @ Suz
    “I know that type of “chauvinism” still exists in a tiny minority of churches”.

    Yes, agreed Suz, the attitude was a minority even in the denomination I grew up in. It just happened that the congregation was backwatered and tended towards rebellion against the church at large. The church at large was very marriage positive and I can remember only one divorce. The lady was divorced by her husband so he could marry a woman he had been having an affair with, she was excommunicated when she divorced but readmitted when she promised not to marry/date/etc but live as ifshe was still married to her husband. That is the only divorce I ever even heard of in the entire denomination.

  185. Suz says:

    Ray,
    My comment was most certainly not an accusation that you are a batterer. It was a direct response to Antigrrrl.

    You have been reading my comments for months, and you should know better. If you saw it, the “takedown” I unleashed the other day on The Spearhead, was the ONLY time I have EVER stooped to bitchy passive-aggressive sniping, and it was in response to a very specific attack on me by a few specific people. You have no rational reason to believe I would lash out at you in such a backhanded manner.
    How colossal must your ego be for you to assume that my comment supporting a sincere woman, was an attack on your character? You’ve seen me say I don’t take criticism personally, that I try to learn from it. I have news for you: I DON’T take your criticism personally, and I was never angry or offended by it. To me you are nothing more than a random stranger on the internet, whose opinions interest me. You are, however, not important enough in my life for me to get all bent out of shape over your disapproval. NOW though, I’m rather annoyed by you, so here’s what it looks like when I “attack” a person who has the moral fiber (or did at one time) to have been straightforward with me:

    You are overly defensive. You are arrogant. You are prideful. You are paranoid. You are a hypocrite.

    In the past I have overlooked those traits due to your apparent devotion to Christian principles.
    However, your closing paragraph, with its personal attacks, and so carefully worded to discredit any denial from me, shows unequivocally that you are not worthy of the respect I have previously shown you. With that you have earned nothing but contemptuous dismissal from me, for reasons entirely unrelated to religion, politics or sex. Since I presume I’m no more important to you than you are to me, I don’t expect you to be crushed.

    Coincidentally, the other day I linked an excellent article about paranoia. You should read it:

    http://mattforney.com/2012/05/08/nobody-gives-a-fuck-about-you/

  186. ray says:

    sure Suz whatever you say, obviously my comments about your disobedience just happened to be followed by an, uh, unique thread from elspeth, jackie, antigirl, collard and yourself in which you somehow remembered the “chauvinism” of abusive males who required female obedience, which resulted in many “badly battered women” who were “lucky to escape” from their Intoleratnt Male Tormentors

    . . . quite a coincident, strange, (and highly emotive!) tangent that, clearly, had no bearing on my immediately preceding comments :O)

    then you deny you did it, pretend shock, indignation, and offense; gather allies, and declare yr target paranoid and an “attacker” (of women!!) :O)

    really, Suz — a classic, feminism 101

  187. ray says:

    and that, brethren, is why women (and their enablers) must be silent in Church — lest YOU be the next “attacker”

    praise God for the internet and PD ;O)

  188. The Antigrrrl says:

    @Ray
    Get over yourself.

    I made a specific comment that many of the men I grew up around preached obedience, while being disobedient. On the scale of knocking their wifes teeth out, breaking bones in their children, and sexually abusing their children. In one specific incident I rememeber watching a man flip out and kick his young son around the church yard, later brothers came and rebuked the man. For being a smoker.

    Denying that there are so called godly men in existance who have abused the command for woman to be obedient is as blindly fanatic as what the feminists do on their side.

  189. Pingback: One By One » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

  190. What is the value, or the relevance, of the new new awareness raising about abusive males?

    We have been rererererererererererere-reminded of that for decades, to the point where it comes across as a yawn inducer. Its reflexive…topic of submission comes up…..gotta rush to warn everyone some dude may be abusive and tell the snowflake she doesnt have to tolerate that crap…..yawn.

    If we defined every Biblical admonishment by the most extreme misapplication of it we can imagine, we’d not be Christians in the first place

  191. The Antigrrrl says:

    Ray felt attacked, I wanted to clarify for him that we were not discussing him.
    I have already said that I believe woman should be submissive to their husbands, fathers, and those in authority over them- random weird internet guy, not so much.

  192. Antigrrrl,, Elspeth, Suz, Jacquie and I all hold that wives should obey their husbands, and any properly constituted authorities in the church, within the limits of morality and reason.

    There is no collusion between us. We all hold the orthodox Christian view on this matter.

  193. Raycomo1982 says:

    Dalrock,

    Have you heard of Isabel Sawhill? She has some pretty interesting research on marriage (the lack thereof) and poverty. Check out the link.

    http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/03/unplanned-pregnancy-thomas

  194. Suz says:

    Emp,
    Is there no difference between “raising awareness” about abusive males, and acknowledging their existence? Or is it one of those things only men can say out loud? Since we all know how women tend to latch onto some marginally relevant point, take it completely out of context, and use it as an excuse to spew vitriolic, irrational condemnation. Like Ray did.

  195. The Antigrrrl says:

    Suz, I thought you did very well in pointing out that that element is very small and does not affect what the rest of woman are supposed to do..namely obey and submit.

  196. Suz says:

    Yes, Ray, You’ve busted us. Our conspiracy to persecute you has been exposed. Keep looking over your shoulder.

    Here. I’ll spell something out for you; I’ll tell you my secret motivation. I won’t ask you to believe it because I suspect you’re convinced my vagina makes me incapable of telling the truth. Or even comprehending it. But here goes:

    I read MRA blogs because I support men’s constitutional rights. I support everyone’s constitutional rights to equal protection under the law. I support gun owners’ rights to be armed. I support gays’ rights to the same marital/familial protections that straights have. I support religious people’s rights to pray in public. I support student-debt-ridden unemployed whiners’ rights to wave signs blaming someone else for the results of their own choices. I support WBC’s rights to wave nasty signs at funerals. I also support the Patriot Guard’s to stand between WBC and mourners. I support anybody’s rights to own property and attend school. Are you getting the picture? I even support the right of mentally unstable religious megalomaniacs to log onto the internet and lord their presumed superiority over strangers, based on capriciously cherry-picked, out-of-context verses from religious texts.

    Got that? I take your rights seriously and I even agree with some of your opinions, but I don’t take YOU seriously. I find your condemnation of me pitiable, as your opinion of my character is of no consequence to me. I’m not a prop in the Broadway production that is your narcissistic existence. Sorry if that reality comes as a shock to you.

  197. Suz says:

    Antigrrrl,
    Thanks for acknowledging what took up 3/4 of my comment. ;)
    Ray must not have read that part.

  198. greyghost says:

    Lay off Ray and I know where he is coming from. And you ladies know what you are doing too. Any woman can walk away from any abuse. Abuse a man takes is at the hand of the state. It is the law any thing that happens to a woman is a choice she makes to accept it it is not by law. He and every man has every excuse to be as irrational vitriolic as he chooses. All of this talk about submitting and living by god is just nice beta men trying to save western society and civilization in a peaceful way. Otherwise you can do it the Arab spring way. Or the mexican way. We can can post up live behadings with the sound up and you get to hear the paniced rush of breath through a cut wind pipe.Or we can do it the Islamic way with the mangled bodies left after an explosion. Seems to work wonders nobody is allowed to say bad things about islam. Right now western men buy into the lies, MGTOW, become peter pan video game players, look to the church, Some have chosen to be PUA and just enjoy watch they can. Others have chosen supplication,and acceptance of the misery,still others suicide ,alcohalism and drug addiction to just given up homelessness. The laws of misandry are there, a gun to the head of every male from inside the womb to the day he dies. Beta men are nice guys and are rather effeciant and productive at what they do do. Lets just continue to hope and take for granted that those hated men don’t realise they have nothing to lose and take up arms.

  199. greyghost says:

    Suz
    All of the shit you you suppoert denoting virtue and goodness doesn’t mean a damn thing. What are you and your sisters going to do about the laws of misandry beside monitoring the speach of men on mens blogs and ensure there is a balanced dialog of wrong doing from “both sides.”

  200. Jacquie says:

    greyghost,
    “What are you and your sisters going to do about the laws of misandry beside monitoring the speach of men on mens blogs and ensure there is a balanced dialog of wrong doing from “both sides.”

    I never came here to monitor anyone’s speech. I came because I am learning and understanding some of the injustices. I came to support the best I could. I may not agree with everything that is said, so I hold my tongue many times because if I don’t feel I have something of value to contribute to the discussion it is best if I just sit patiently, listening and observing.
    I do not appreciate the blanket inclusion of ‘sisters’. Just because another human being has the same anatomical structure that I do does not mean we also hold the same opinions or values.

  201. The Antigrrrl says:

    The teaching of “if you, as a man, are doing what you are supposed to do, the woman will submit after you have made it easy for her” is a complete failure because it disregards the natural state and flesh of the woman, which is to be in rebellion. Without any active choice on the part of the woman to obey and follow the Natural order, there can be no true submission.

  202. Suz says:

    greyghost,
    Really?
    “…ensure there is a balanced dialog …” Because two comments out of nearly two hundred is “balance,” right?

    “What are you and your sisters going to do about the laws of misandry …”

    I’m doing the same thing you’re doing – speaking up and exploring strategies, and spreading the word, and lobbying my idiots in office. I’m stating undeniable truths that apply to everyone, not just to folks who agree with me.

    “Lay off Ray”

    Lay off a guy who stuck his nose into a rational conversation, contradicting a reasoned opinion with an irrational rant? Should I “lay off” women who do the same thing? (You may have noticed, women do it A LOT!) Should I give the grrrlz a pussy pass when they’re butt-hurt? How about if their self pity exists for a valid reason?
    I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t care about where Ray (and you) are coming from, but I’m not here to pander to you or to curry favor. Don’t expect me to apologize for holding men and women to the same standards of integrity. Men disappoint me far less often than do women in that regard, but occasionally it happens. You can fight an irrational double standard with another irrational double standard if you want, but you probably won’t like the results.
    I’ve already decided to “lay off Ray.” Since the only way to have a conversation with him is to grovel in agreement with him, it’s a pointless endeavor. I’m done giving him the benefit of the doubt.

  203. Is there no difference between “raising awareness” about abusive males, and acknowledging their existence? Or is it one of those things only men can say out loud?
    ————————————
    I have no idea what you are asking here

  204. The Antigrrrl says:

    I wasn’t trying to “raise awareness”, I was pointing out that my cdisagreement on the difficulties of across the board submission to all men had absolutely nothing to do with anything other than my own personal experience, and why I find submission difficult at times. I was certainly not giving myself a pass on not being obedient and submissive, because other peoples disobedience does not excuse my own. I even stated that my experience was not typical for the denomination I was raised in, and certainly never intended it as an across the board comment on the behavior of men in general and especially not men on this board.

    Is this a church? If so I will not post and remain silent. Is it preferred by the majority that women not post ? If so I will not post.

  205. Suz says:

    Emp,
    You said,”What is the value, or the relevance, of the new new awareness raising about abusive males?”
    It never occurred to me that I might be engaging in “raising awareness” Do a couple of brief paragraphs mentioning abusive men, qualify as raising awareness? Greyghost might think so, judging by his monitoring of my speech and his emotional response to it. You however, are a reasonable person who doesn’t see demons, insults and provocation behind every comment that doesn’t quite follow the “expected narrative.”

    Expect Ray to eviscerate you for this one:
    “If we defined every Biblical admonishment by the most extreme misapplication of it we can imagine, we’d not be Christians in the first place.”

    Or not, since you’re allowed to voice your opinion.

  206. Suz says:

    Antigrrrl,
    The most intelligent, rational and proactive men here have no problem with female commenters. as long as WE are rational, intelligent and proactive.

  207. No, I didn’t see YOU, or you or you as raising awareness. I see the mention of that fitting a family of behavior that somehow justifies itself using that meaningless nonsense “awareness raising”.

    I blow back, fast, when in a topic about submission, some women / woman interjects, as if a new and unique idea, that we gotta watch for the slippery slope and dontcha know that men are running rough shod over women because the church is teaching submission so much and so forth.

    Its so tired and worn down that even mentioning it at all seems bad form. That it may be true isnt even relevant.

  208. This is funny that Im being called reasonable, even rational. I was chased off and banned from Christian forums for my radical positions and anti woman hate mongering

  209. The Antigrrrl says:

    Strange men claiming church authority over strange women on the internet is not biblical. I sincerely apologize for bringing personal experience into it, I originally had only wanted to make the point that carnal nature is present in all humans, making “easy” submission a myth.

  210. ray says:

    i call for obedience from women, and suddenly outta nowhere Suz produces a global-anecdote that precisely such men are abusers who cause “badly battered women” — from whom the poor dears were “lucky to escape” (the same DV Fearmonger Lullabye i’ve heard all my life, to shame and silence male voices)

    Subtile Suz’ feminist associates then jump on the dogpile, and everyone swears it wasnt personal . . . just an extremely strange (and mathematically almost impossible) “coincidence” that — evidence be damned — is the product of my hateful and paranoid mind

    i am then told by The Group that none of it happened, and i am an “attacker” of women

    absolutely disgusting and shameful before God . . . a twisting and manipulation of truth that’d make satan proud

    i’ll repeat it: if you want to know WHY women should never be allowed to enter and direct conversations in spiritual contexts, read the last twenty comments again . . . carefully

    this is the nature and practice of the “churches” that we have NOW, and these are v much the type of people who fund, support, and run our anti-male “churches”

    The Group is everywhere, the courts and universities and halls of Congress, and they are quite happy to assassinate the character of males they do not know, and have never met, if it means advancing their rebellious “arguments” and intimidating any male who demands churchly obedience from females

    and for the past 50 years, theyve gotten their way every time

    “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and WOMEN RULE OVER THEM”

    of course Isaiah was just a Patriarchal Oppressor too, as was Christ, who put those words into the prophet’s mouth . . . right before the two of them headed out to Batter Some Women and to inhibit Subtile Suz from correcting and guiding the churches

    two thousand years, and the rebellion has only gotten worse, and the rhetoric more clever

    i remember The Group in jerusalem’s sad and tired streets, clotted together in shadows, towards the back of the crowd . . . there at the long bend, just before the road turns up towards calvary

    they had plenty to say on that day, too

  211. It is up to Dalrock, Antigirrrl. I don’t see this as a church. In my church, women remain silent, but this is a public forum. I think women should be welcome here, provided they do not set out to make trouble. It would be good if women do two things. Shame feminist men and shame feminist women.

  212. HeligKo says:

    Antigirrrl and Suz, whoever else involved. The justifying is frustrating. If you did not intend to do what ray has said, then stop justifying it. Understand the effect it has, and stop doing it. The justifying just makes me think that it was an intentional redirection of the conversation. The world is fallen, there are plenty of examples of how the fallen use the Bible to take advantage in some horrendous ways. It doesn’t mean that the things are somehow null. A simple explanation of “Its hard for me to submit, I imagine all the things that could happen if my husband weren’t a good man. That is something I have to constantly work on.” would have gone a long way and evoked a much different response.

  213. ballista74 says:

    empathologicalism wrote:

    I blow back, fast, when in a topic about submission, some women / woman interjects, as if a new and unique idea, that we gotta watch for the slippery slope and dontcha know that men are running rough shod over women because the church is teaching submission so much and so forth.

    Exactly. What has been done the last few posts and Ray is reacting to is a common feminist assault on the sanctity of marriage (1.0). To them, marriage in its whole is patriarchal oppression. They recognized that they could not eliminate it so instead they created Marriage 2.0. But they, both the religious and secular feminist, always feel the need to defend their new marriage structure at will.

    The assault is a favored one since it tends to make Marriage 1.0 advocates pedal back and shut up, because they don’t want to be seen as big bad abusers of women (and remember in the minds of these women, a single instance of submission and even sexual intercourse is seen as vicious oppression upon them by men). The logical fallacy is made that bringing up the fact that there is one instance of true abuse makes it a bad thing upon all of them. A parallel example from the logic textbook: “One duck is black. Therefore all ducks are black.”

    The truth is, however, if we look throughout history and throughout Scripture as well, the problem is almost never the rare tyrannical male head of the household. It’s the lax, foolish, uxorious “head” of the household that allows his wife free reign to do what she wants to offend God within the household, within the churches, and within the nation as a whole. It is much more easier to point to these dangers in Scripture than a tyrannical head of household (really can’t think of a Scriptural example of that, Nabal maybe, but it’s hard to justify from the Scripture given).

    Unfortunately, we have much more of the latter example in society today than the former, and society at large is in tremendous suffering in every way, shape, and form now over it. It is good to see people finally fighting against these tactics. It seems to be too little, too late for society to truly recognize what needs to happen for things to be restored before the sight of God. May God have mercy on us for what we have allowed women to do to offend Him in this society!

  214. I belong to a lively private discussion group for Traditional Catholic Men. We have a “no clerics, no chicks” rule. But in reality we allow a couple of responsible women on. I did see one off the list, not because she was a bad contributor, but because she had the cheek to meddle in whether one man should be included.

  215. Suz says:

    Well, this is certainly going in circles. HeligKo, I agree with your point about not justifying. I suspect Antigrrl is doing it because she’s flabbergasted by Ray’s overreaction to an innocent remark. I’m sure she will never again admit that she has ever met a man who beat his wife. Me, I’m not justifying anything. The only person who was offended by our statements is Ray, who’s perpetually offended anyway. I have nothing on my conscience. It’s not the women in this thread who are using “feminist” tactics to inflate something inconsequential into a behemoth.

    This little circus started when I suggested that wifely submission is not passive. Through all of Ray’s frothing gibberish since, he hasn’t managed to explain how my statement is incorrect. Instead he has tried to shame me for saying something he doesn’t like. Indeed he seems to think I’m duty-bound to submit to his authority. And he’s calling me a feminist for championing a wife’s submission to her husband.

  216. HeligKo says:

    @suz, I read what you said on not being passive, and I agree. If passivity is what the Bible is talking about then its no work at all, and women would gravitate towards it as the path of least resistance. It is most certainly an active thing. They must actively defy their baser tendencies, and actively support the decisions made, and actively honor her husband. Far too many women in the church submit passively, which turns into passive aggression. They will condescend when he is not around, and question decisions when he is out of ear shot, and passively do nothing for the success of the decision. This is the submission of a slave that will do only what is required to not get beaten, and hate his master. This type of submission breeds contempt. Voluntary submission is not that of the master and slave relationship. It is a constant submission of your own will to please another by choice. Enforcing wifely submission with force or punishment will only create a master and slave relationship in the marriage. The slave does not love the master. The Bible does not command a husband to make his wife submit, it commands her to submit. It is not the husbands job to make this happen, nor to enforce it, nor to be worthy of it. There is of course a compliment of things the husband is called to do regardless of what the wife does. There are no “ifs” in the commands for husbands and wives.

  217. Suz says:

    You said that beautifully, HeligKo. The master/slave relationship is what most women can’t tolerate, yet that’s not even the nature of wifely submission.

  218. Cane Caldo says:

    I’ve been following this spat for a couple days now, and while im confused on the particulars, I think I have the spirit of Ray’s position figured out: Shut up.

    Shut up, bad girls. Shut up, good girls. Shut up feminist sluts. Shut up, Proverbs 31 women. The time for women to talk has gone on too long as it is. Just shut up. In here. At least.

    There’s a lot of nuance in there (and quite a bit of wiggle room in there (stand-up for shutting up, or sit down, and then shut up?), but I’m sympathetic.

  219. Yes, but Cane, it is for Dalrock to tell women to shut up. Or not.

    Nothing Suz and similar women have said recently bothers me. I like to hear from intelligent women who nevertheless support the natural order.

  220. Jason says:

    @suz,

    Hi Suz, not to nitpick and hopefully not derail anything, but marriage isn’t a right, and state regulation of whatever you want to call a marriage is definitely not a right either.

    You speak forcefully as someone who is committed to individual liberty and the usual collection of natural/negative rights that people have, yet you slipped in the current faddish demand by homosexuals for a “right to marry”, when they are already at liberty to do what they please, and nobody has a right to demand that that state regulate or even care in the slightest about their relationships. If anything the state should be required to make a strong case for an actual compelling interest before they regulate and interfere in the life of others.

    Anyway, just my 2c, make of it what you will. I don’t want to derail the conversation, so if you want to discuss if further follow the link above and shoot me an email, or listen to my recent podcast on the issue.

    Jason

  221. ray says:

    1) you subtly connected my call for obedience with the battering of women in your churches, and while maintaining deniability, imputed the battering to me (and other males who demand your obedience)

    2) you got called on it, almost certainly for the first time in your life, . . . your motivations and tactics were exposed, and shown as exemplary (a textbook really!) of feminist methods used over the past half-century by both State and Church (and of course individual females)

    3) allies supported you

    4) you traded your spade for a backhoe

    5) you flatter individuals who you perceive might yet be swayed to your support — instant example, HeligKo at 6:33 (SO beautifully!) :O)

    yeah youre a big mystery to me alright Suz

  222. Jacquie says:

    HeligKo,
    Wow, that was so beautifully worded. I hope you don’t mind if I copy it and save it to my computer. This is what I strive to be. I couldn’t have worded it better. Thank you.

  223. HeligKo says:

    I did leave off one thing as I typed that. Though it is not the husbands duty to force the submission, it is his duty to hold her accountable for that submission as the leader of the house. It does not mean she is not to submit without the husbands accountability, but the husband is separately called to lead, and thus should be holding her accountable.

  224. HeligKo says:

    @Jacquie I don’t really believe in the idea of intellectual property. Some of us are better out pulling the bits out of the soup we call memory than others, but once ideas are freed they belong to whomever hears them. Copy, share, and refine as you please.

  225. HeligKo says:

    @Ray, have no fear flattery goes nowhere with me. I stand by the fact that justifying a poor statement, that really didn’t have a place in the conversation they are distracting from the point. A post about male abuses of wifely submission would be a fantastic place for such points.

  226. The Antigrrrl says:

    “Far too many women in the church submit passively, which turns into passive aggression. They will condescend when he is not around, and question decisions when he is out of ear shot, and passively do nothing for the success of the decision. This is the submission of a slave that will do only what is required to not get beaten, and hate his master. This type of submission breeds contempt.”

    I think this really nails my issue with the women I grew up around, the lip service to submission without any understanding of the spirit of it. So many I women I saw had such horrible martyr like attitudes and in conversation would give each other tips to “get even” while staying outwardly submissive. It was like they completely missed the point and they obviously held men in massive contempt. It was so sick and I had the hardest time forgiving them.

  227. Suz says:

    Jason, I just figure that anyone should be allowed to marry whomever they want (consenting human adults, of course) and the government shouldn’t offer benefits to some married couples, but not others. I think the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all, but since it is, the same standards ought to apply to every marriage.

  228. Cane Caldo says:

    @DC

    I didn’t say they must shut up, or that Dalrock should say they must. I said I’m sympathetic to the idea that women should.

    Honestly, it’s just easier when their quiet–and there’s very little loss in interesting conversation.

  229. Cane, most women add little of intellectual value, I agree. But there are a few exceptions.

  230. Pingback: God is dead « Jim’s Blog

  231. Cane Caldo says:

    …they’re…

    Of course. I visit the blog of one of them.

    And I wasn’t talking specifically about this blog. The manosphere, generally, is where I don’t want to hear much from them.

  232. Interesting comments on Gods love in post such as this. Couple of thoughts come to mind:
    – Gods love is quite conditional – this is seen in both the OT/NT
    – Gods demonstration of love is testing and disciplining.
    Does God forgive ? Of course, this is seen on calvary ?
    Does God expect repentance and obedience ? Of course ! In addition, testings and trials are meant to instruct, purify, and discipline – This is Gods love !!!

  233. ray says:

    David Collard — Yes, but Cane, it is for Dalrock to tell women to shut up. Or not.

    nah any man (of sufficient age) in the Church has that authority — i’m sorry you reliquished yours tho david!

    the Church is not in a building, nor in a system, nor in a denomination, nor even where David Collard, wise tho he be, demands

    the Church is where God is loved, Jeshua is obeyed, fatherhood and masculinity are honored, the sons of the nation are defended, and enemies (such as global feminism) are destroyed

    this, and 100 percent of the time the Spirit alights, no matter the era or locale

    that’s not happening in the catholic or protestant churches, but it IS HAPPENING in a few other places, one of those places being here

    the Kingdom will be (by far) the most masculine environment the world has ever seen, in the most positive way imaginable — real men will love it, and so will real women, tho temporarily there will still be rebels

    David you should go tell your catholic pals to put away Mary and start listening to PD — he’s a lot closer to the Lord!

    as a bonus dave to get you kickstarted on the future — boys in the front pews, closest to the Sanctuary, thats their protection there aint no other

    fathers directly behind them w/the rest of the guys, so the lads are guarded at both sides

    females in the back, with hair covered, if hair isnt covered or she isnt PLEASED and JOYFUL to sit in the back of Our Father’s House, then toss her down the steps and, as Suz says, good riddance (tho mind the Battering!)

    i’m an old altar-boy Dave so i’ve got some sympathy for a Catholic apologist — my dad loved the RCC, in my days it wasnt feminized or completely gone to mariolotry, the HNS still meant something

    who knows? make some reforms, act like men for a change, Christ might even come back into the place

    the Spirit follows the truth, and the truth is at PD and suchwhere — men striving towards God will be drawn here, and not to Our Blessed Lady Redeemer parish

  234. I am an old altar boy too, ray, and my wife has attended mass with me, head covered.

  235. Cane Caldo says:

    that’s not happening in the catholic or protestant churches, but it IS HAPPENING in a few other places, one of those places being here

    No. There is no here, here. Now, if we started meeting up, or using real names, then maybe…

  236. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    No. There is no here, here. Now, if we started meeting up, or using real names, then maybe…

    It is an interesting question. In times of persecution, what is the minimum? At any rate this isn’t a church, it is only a blog. I’m not a pastor, and I don’t have any intention on becoming one.

  237. Brendan says:

    The problem with that post by Mr. Frost, even leaving aside basic issues about religion, is that it doesn’t really have any realistic alternative. Essentially the critique is Nietzschean at its base (i.e., Christianity is the exaltation of slave morality and the strong should have no use for it), but the problem is the same one Nietzsche had –> what do you replace it with? Nietzsche’s exaltation of strength and the strong led, indirectly but also inexorably, to unmitigated disasters in the 20th Century precisely because there was no coherent, restraining principle. Appeals to the solidarity of race and people and culture, especially when coupled together with this kind of Nietzschean critique of Christian morals, only add more mid-20th-Century petrol onto the bonfire — it is a recipe for disaster, to say the very least. Exultation of the strong and racial solidarity has been done before, and it proved to be a terrible idea for pretty much everyone involved.

    The notion of creating a new Western culture which is robust and moral yet not Christian is truly the dream of Don Quixote written in “alternative right” terms. And it has about as much of a prospect for success. If the church truly disappears from the culture, the result will not be a robust and strong culture along racial lines, but rather the end, quite simply, of the West, full stop.

  238. Nietzsche was wrong about Christianity. I think he was brilliant enough to see the end game of liberal Christianity, but he did not foresee that the religion itself still had life in it and that it would adapt and grow. Far from leading to a loss of healthy hierarchy as he predicted, it is a major bulwark against egalitarianism and supports a natural order and morality. It has certainly been infected by the culture but it also affects the culture itself in positive ways.

  239. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    A church is a cause, and causes don’t really have minimum in material terms. Are you moving towards the goal? Authorities might keep a church from meeting on a regular basis, but there should still be plans to come together at some times.

    As you say, this blog is not a church. I’m perfectly content with that. Though, I am curious how others comport themselves in the flesh, and how that matches with their online persona.

  240. Some Guy says:

    My current “Man Action Plan” consists of:

    1) Working out… even if its just 20 minutes or so a day. (I want a patented Athol Kay washboard stomach of strappingness.)
    2) I teach the kids from the bible. This seems like an underrated Alpha move to me. When I’m driving them somewhere I retell some of the stories. (Did you know that you can tell kids about Saul and Nahash the Ammonite and they’ll ask you for *more* stories like that…? Also… that story is about shit testing. Heh. Never heard it preached myself….) Thank God I still have access to my kids….
    3) I keep a proper frame at all times and push back if I get hamster wheeled. My wife is being unfaithful to me and our marriage by withholding sex. Society and the church will give her a pass on this, but as far as I’m concerned this is open rebellion against both me and Christ.
    4) I pick my battles. My wife has a tendency to agree to a deal… then get upset about something else… then use that other thing as an excuse to back out of a separate deal. This is defrauding 101 and it’s the same attitude that she uses to justify #3. I call her on this whenever she does this to me or the children and try to hold her accountable to her promises/agreements.
    5) I stand up to my wife when she’s doing the usual nagging/complaining thing. This might blow up on me, but she sure seems to give me less shit if I refuse to take it.

    That is a full plate… and the church is no help to me. (Last check they laid all of my marriage problems at my feet and held my wife responsible for nothing.) I intend to go visit other churches every couple months or so and asking questions along the lines of Dalrocks “reframing Christian marriage” series. I also might drop by a few 6AM men’s meeting thingies and ask a question or two on this topic if that is socially plausible.

  241. ray says:

    Dalrock — At any rate this isn’t a church, it is only a blog. I’m not a pastor, and I don’t have any intention on becoming one.

    Christ decides who he wants to serve him, who and what his church consists of, and who he wants to lead his church — has zero to do with buildings or “minimum” numbers (well, it takes more than one, anyway)

    WE do not decide, in our limitless wisdom, if we should hang out a shingle and open up a church — thats the error of arrogance and worldliness we see everywhere now, with unauthorized people “leading” thousands of unauthorized churches

    once we’ve been called we only decide whether to respond or not — in such cases we’ve already been appointed pastors, and we shoulder the stone or not

    you guys still dont get it — it’s not about the externals, big buildings and millions of parishioners — thats the old (current) way of thinking and living . . . it is ONLY about access to Christ’s mind and heart

    thats where the Church is, nowhere else, and this blog currently qualifies

    “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

    “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thess.)

    according to assertions in the commentary, the Lord’s Church does not, and cannot, exist

    he might be a little disappointed to hear that, Pastor Dalrock :O)

    but your will is free

  242. ray says:

    I am an old altar boy too, ray, and my wife has attended mass with me, head covered.

    David i feel like i played the carnival ring-toss game and the guy handed me a little plastic dog when i wanted the giant plush hippo

    i was holding out for all of em in the back and REAL quiet… the stuff about the Steps and the Battering was just a joke (well mostly)

    but i appreciate you trying to cheer me up

  243. ray, this will cheer you up. I have probably been to mass about 2500 times and I have seen a woman in the pulpit once. At the Latin Masses I attend, women never enter the sanctuary.

  244. That girl was just relaying a story, not preaching. If a woman purported to preach, I would leave for the duration.

  245. Pingback: Do We Hate Women? | Christian Men's Defense Network

  246. Pingback: To Stop Divorce Churches Ought To Stop Marrying People | Feminism is Empathological

  247. Pingback: Christian Marriage | Air & Space

  248. Pingback: Sell Me Marriage | The Society of Phineas

  249. Pingback: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the oh my god I can’t believe she’s wearing those heels with that skirt! | THE UNIVERSITY OF MAN

  250. Pingback: Linkage | Dalrock

  251. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Purely Blogroll Selection Edition « Patriactionary

  252. Pingback: Two years, two million hits, and a Ph.D in Red Pill Pharmacy | Dalrock

  253. Pingback: Whistling through the graveyard? | Dalrock

  254. straightright says:

    This post was writtern a few months ago, but I wanted to add something for posterity. I read the reformed blogger Tim Challies a fair amount, and he recently reviewed a book by Justin Buzzard titled Date Your Wife. I hope the following quotes help Christian men to avoid this book. The book appears to fit perfectly with the post. From the review:

    http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/date-your-wife#disqus_thread

    “There is always a hot market for books on marriage, even among men. Every husband is aware of his inadequacies and every husband is genuinely eager to find solutions, especially if the solutions are simple and step-by-step (just like laying laminate flooring or changing oil). Writing a good and biblical book on marriage—now there is a challenge. Few have done it with excellence. Stepping into the fray is Justin Buzzard with his new book Date Your Wife. It’s a great title, a good idea, and a helpful imperative that is, unfortunately, substantially flawed.

    The book’s greatest strength is drawn straight from its title: Buzzard wants men to build dating into their marriage; he wants men to continue to romance their wives throughout marriage. Any man who reads this book will come away with a greater desire to pursue his wife and greater conviction of the inherent goodness of doing so. The book’s foremost application is valid and good, but there is quite a lot of weakness along the way.

    The book is fueled by one core conviction: If you want to change a marriage, change the man. Looking first at the sexual relationship and then widening the scope to all of marriage Buzzard says this: “Your wife isn’t the problem. You’re the problem. I’m the problem. Men are the problem. If you want to change a marriage, change the man. If you want to change your marriage, you must first see that you are the main problem in your marriage.” He goes on: “You are the husband. You are the man. And God has given the man the ability to be the best thing or the worst thing that ever happened to a marriage. Before you can be the best thing that ever happened to your marriage, you need to see that you have always been the worst thing that happened to your marriage.” ”

    Challies does critique the book, wondering where is the biblical warrant for stating that the man is always to blame and that the gal has no agency. As the title of the book suggests, Buzzard wants men to continually date their wives. That sounds nice, but seems overblown. I think that in the end this is one more book that twists scripture and that codifies the idea of eternal courtship.

  255. Pingback: Why Christians need game. | Dalrock

  256. Pingback: Links – First Edition « Quit Playing Church

  257. Edward King says:

    In North America, unhappiness is grounds for divorce. (This is likely why over 89% of divorces are initiated by women in North America). The way to implement the “unhappiness rule” in Canada is to move out (or move him out) and remain separated for a year and a day. That’s it… That’s all you need. Contested or non-contested, the judge will grant the divorcement.

  258. HeligKo says:

    The truth is there is no such thing as Christian marriage in the west. It doesn’t exist. We have legal marriages performed for the state by pastors, but there is no difference in these and the marriages performed at the court house legally or practically. I know far more people in happy marriages who aren’t religiously or traditionally driven. The entered into marriage not after setting a goal of being married, but after deciding that was the best course for their relationship. Its all fracked up, and I don’t see any hope in fixing it. The impending economic collapse of most of the west might be the only thing that saves marriage. It will be out of necessity to survive, not some moral stance that will make people appreciate the bonds of marriage.

  259. Pingback: The Chief Cornerstone of Marriage 2.0: Foolish Sacrifice | The Society of Phineas

  260. Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock

  261. Pingback: Its all Greek to me « Zippy Catholic

  262. Pingback: Decoding Chivalry: Sketching at the window of this train of thought

  263. Pingback: Romance 101: How to stop frustrating your wife. | Dalrock

  264. Pingback: The watchmaker is dead « Jim’s Blog

  265. Pingback: Feral love | Dalrock

  266. Pingback: Don’t be tricked into responding to a reframe with an intellectual argument. | Dalrock

  267. Pingback: The Deification of Wives | The Society of Phineas

  268. Pingback: How should the orthosphere engage the manosphere? « Zippy Catholic

  269. Pingback: Light years closer to God. | Dalrock

  270. Pingback: The Cowardly Pastor | Sunshine Mary

  271. Pingback: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the oh my god I can’t believe she’s wearing those heels with that skirt! « stagedreality

  272. Pingback: What is the manosphere? | Dalrock

  273. Pingback: Promiscuity and feminism incompatible | oogenhand

  274. Ephraim Israel says:

    This is an interesting post. It’s best to be in a marriage that has nothing to do with the church, the state, feminism, or western society. Just between you and the woman you are with. There is a great book out that goes deeper about the topic in this post called “Lies My Preachers Told Me: The Bible’s Doctrine on Marriage and Manhood Waterdown for Women” at lulu.com. Here is the URL: http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/lies-my-preachers-told-me-the-bibles-doctrine-on-marriage-and-manhood-watered-down-for-women/12638247

  275. Pingback: No room for headship here. | Dalrock

  276. Pingback: The Married Prostitute | Donal Graeme

  277. Pingback: Having a Cypher moment | A Space Between Wonder and Why

  278. Dohn Joe says:

    Yeah that first one, Dalrock, actually potentially subjugates husbands to EMOTIONAL REASONING – something regularly utilized by aggressive, manipulative, abusive, crazy personality-disordered people! See here: http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/08/29/welcome-to-the-land-of-emotional-reasoning-id-turn-back-if-i-were-you

  279. Pingback: God never tells a woman to violate His commandments, not even if she is really, really unhappy. | Sunshine Mary

  280. Pingback: Why Christian Men Choose Not to Get Laid Before Marriage | The Reinvention of Man

  281. Pingback: What a Typical Christian Wife Looks Like | The Reinvention of Man

  282. Pingback: The flower of rebellion. | Sunshine Mary

  283. Pingback: Headship Game. | Dalrock

  284. Pingback: Pastoral hypocrisy: only SOME of the sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God; the rest can lead marriage ministries. | Sunshine Mary

  285. Buepillprofessor says:

    I am a couple years late to this thread but it is so good I have to comment on some things in hopes it will get into the book. Dalrock, this blog is exceptional and deserves an entire series of books. I hope you will consider this and target an even larger audience. The word must be spread.

    The bloggers on this thread have really put on a show: From “SomeGuys” description of “True Love” (from Athol Kay- get a 6-pack stomach, make $20K more and know if you ever get sick or injured her love will die) to the comical female hyena attacks on “Ray” (for his admittedly unwarranted extension of wifely submission to the rest of the world).

    Dalrock said: Athol Kay appears to be starting with the assumption that the wife is an absolute ball busting sex denying power grabbing shrew, and answering the question so what do you do now?

    This is a perfect encapsulation of Athol Kay’s work and he never directly states it anywhere in the books.

    “Will says: “I wonder if game can be used to take a shrew of a wife to being a submissive wife. You know an alpha can even redefine reality in her mind.”
    gunner451 says: “I’d say no based on experience. A wife that is a shrew to her husband has already determined that he isn’t alpha enough to respect, you’ve already been pigeoned holed into the provider beta role in her mind and nothing is going to shake that image she has of you.”
    Jacquie Says: Game can be used to take a shrew of a wife to being submissive. I say this based on my experience.”

    Thus we have the answer to the repeated criticizing of Dalrock on this thread for apparently supporting PUA’s from Emp and others:

    Game CAN be used to turn a disobedient wife into a Biblically submissive wife, especially if you are both Christians and you do it right. My wife makes big bucks as a corporate lawyer while I am a lowly professor with 1/3 her salary. She lost respect for me and cut off the sex. I was ready to leave when I discovered Athol Kay’s books but thought there was something missing from them. Then I read the PUA literature and found what was missing- mainly, the Dread, but you can look that up yourself. PUA’s may have obtained their information in a rather unbliblical way, but they DO have important information for married people. PUA’s rediscovered that submission for women and dominance for men IS THE KEY TO SEXUAL ATTRACTION and thus the key to a happy marriage. The Lord spent time in the house of sinners, dining and even spending the night so I wouldn’t knock Christians like Dalrock for learning from modern day sinners like PUA’s.

  286. Pingback: Where man up goes wrong | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  287. Pingback: The Types of Women in Church – A Primer | The Reinvention of Man

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