The sin of lacking moxie.

Reader aa asked for my thoughts on an article by JD Gunter at the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) titled We’re Just “Talking”.  Gunter has misunderstood the increased ambiguity in the Sexual Marketplace (SMP);  where women have pushed to extend both the duration and the definition of courtship, Gunter sees men unwilling to grow up and state their intentions.  The median age of first marriage for women in the US is now 27, and this doesn’t factor in the women who have delayed marriage so long they are unable to marry.  The average American woman now expects to be courted for a decade or more.  Men stating their intentions to women who see empowerment in ambiguity and fear commitment won’t solve the problem.  Far better advice would be to warn the men to avoid women who aren’t clearly looking to marry, and to advise women who actually do wish to marry to be clear about their own intentions.

But this is very basic stuff, and misunderstanding the nature of the SMP is so common it is entirely forgivable.  I was more interested in the organization itself.  Very often organizations which form in response to feminism unwittingly adopt a surprisingly feminist worldview in the process.  With a click on their about page I found that unfortunately the CBMW has indeed swallowed large parts of feminism whole.

The first sign is the conspicuous inclusion of a Statement on Abuse on equal footing with their Core Beliefs and their Mission and Vision statements.  As I have recently written about, vague accusations that the average Christian husband is abusive are a very common way to assault the very idea of biblical headship.  It turns out that a vague and hysterical fear that the modern Christian husband is abusive is one of the 10 core reasons the CBMW was founded.  In their founding document (the Danvers Statement) of the 10 contemporary developments which [CBMW's founders] observe[d] with deep concern, a sudden and mysterious increase in abuse is number 6:

6. the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family;

This idea that modern men are somehow more brutish than the ostensible sensitive new age guys of the ancient world is flat out bizarre, yet this is a very common assumption.

Even more troubling though is their framing of biblical headship and submission.  In the Affirmations section they explain their fear that Christian wives will fall into the sin of servility instead of what they call “intelligent submission” (emphasis mine):

4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Genesis 3:1-7, 12, 16).
– In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.

This paranoia that Christian wives won’t have enough moxie is every bit as modern and feminist as the ideas the CBMW claims to be founded to combat, yet this is part of their very charter.  They present a modern Christian wife’s obligation as having to balance not being so feminist as to be overt about it, but being feminist enough to avoid the [feminist] charge of being servile.  They are a hair’s breadth away from accusing sincere Christian wives of not being true to themselves.

There is no need to lay this extra burden on Christian wives, especially at a time when following the instruction of Scripture is already a radical act.  No doubt they feel this new improved version of biblical submission is an act of kindness to Christian wives, but it is only more cruelty.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Death of courtship, Denial, Domestic Violence, Foolishness, Marriage, Moxie, Submission, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

333 Responses to The sin of lacking moxie.

  1. And it is these two things that are repeated over and over , the fear of them rather than any actual instance of them. This is what causes men to feel compelled to always add admonishment of men to any Ephesians discussion, fear that men are doing this

  2. Jason says:

    Thanks for the post Dalrock.

    As usual with these things, whatever the church is hystericall afraid of happening is the one thing you can be sure isn’t actually a problem and the thing they are ignoring or thinking isn’t a problem is exactly the thing that should be the most pressing issue.

    Screeching “Fire! Fire” as the floodwaters rise. It is madness but not a new phenomena.

  3. ukfred says:

    I recently sent the “Cougar” video to the Christian and unmarried 31 year old son of a Christian friend. this guy lives in the UK and his comment was that he might have to settle for such an animal as the cougar because Christian girls were dressing like grandmothers by the time they were leaving school, and there are few enough Christian girls around. It goes to show that the teaching by churches and parachurch organistions is such that most folks cannot find what they are looking for in a spouse within the Christian family.

    This leaves the young Christian looking to marry with three options: 1 do not marry at all and live as a celibate, 2 marry someone who is not Christian and go against Scriptural teaching, or 3 change the teaching of the churches and para church organisations. In the longer term, the only way to obey God is to show up these who preach something different from his Word as heretics and to do so openly and consistently. And that means that the older folks like me had better get used to doing some heavy lifting in the churches.

  4. If there has been an upsurge in family abuse, statistics to demonstrate that should be easy to find. I doubt there has been though, since crime of all kinds has been sharply trending downward.

  5. Would it be any sort of comfort to know that the feminists hate these guys nearly as much as we do?

  6. Oops, hate the message not the messenger. My bad.

  7. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Great post as usual!

    “”I found that unfortunately the CBMW has indeed swallowed large parts of feminism whole””

    You aren’t kidding!…Wow!

  8. “ukfred”

    dressing like grandmothers

    Uhm, actually, women should dress more modestly. So, just wanted te be clear that immodest dress like pants on women is part of the problem, yoga pants especially. Most women will wear sleeveless tops too, which I don’t believe fits under the “grandmother” category… Sleveless tops show too much for casual dress, but they will wear it with their “short shorts”… Very distracting, and usually ends up with un-chaste behavior following.

    A.J.P.

  9. hoellenhund2 says:

    OT: is it fair to say this commercial is pretty much Red Pill?

  10. Johnycomelately says:

    “Our culture suffers from a large number of males wallowing around in quasi-manhood for many years…permit young men to put off growing up, taking responsibility, and generally acting like a man…allowing young men to avoid taking responsibility and acting like men…indecisive boy-man.”

    Boy, that’s an awful lot of shaming for simply talking to a girl.

    I cant even surmise what he is getting at.

    “If you are a young lady stuck with a guy who isn’t interested in pursuing you.”

    Wtf does that even mean? How on earth can you be stuck with someone not pursuing?

    I can feel a headache coming on, I’m going to have to some work on my reading comprehension…

  11. earl says:

    It’s very clear to me.

    Between this society and the churches…the good aspects of the feminine are being brainwashed, attacked, and destroyed and replaced with the rebellious Satanic ones. Once that happens you can kiss masculinity goodbye.

  12. Feminist Hater says:

    Yea, men are such abusive bastards, especially the Christian ones. Women, I plead with you! Don’t get married!

  13. Feminist Hater says:

    What we need is moar feminism, moar moxie and moar Cougars!!!!! Hear them roar!!!!!

  14. Opus says:

    It is very difficult: women are always ambiguous in their signals; the woman who announces that she is keen to marry will have the men rushing for the exit (at least around here). The same applies to men; the man who announces he is keen to marry will be seen as the ultimate Beta or Omega – the man who cannot otherwise attract women. Men thus have to be aloof, dominant and then escalate and somehow switch horses in mid-stream and propose – thus demonstrating that all along it was the romance to end all romances and that it was courtship all along rather than gaming. Unfortunately, in a world where the average marrying age for a woman is twenty-seven and rising – doubtless higher for the middle classes (and that does not even factor in the unmarried – and in advance we do not know who the spinsters are going to be) one comes across many women in their thirties and beyond who would certainly be offended were you to tell them that they were unmarriagable much as you might tell them they were merely sluts, yet that is what they have become in their moxie-empowerment. Feminism has thus devalued women from the high status that previously they had had in the West, to at best Courtesans [I coin a neologism, Corporatesans] but frequently beyond the pale (as they hit that wall).

    We were very generous in olde England: a woman was marriageable until the age of thirty-eight, whereafter she was designated Spinster (of this Parish). None of this however answers the problem of how a woman can be obedient but not a doormat for her husband, and this is not a new problem; consider the tale of Griselda as told by the Clerk of Oxenford (who had, bound in red and black, twenty books of Aristotle and his Philosophy) in Chaucer’s stories of the Pilgrims journeying along the North Downs to Canterbury. Was there ever a greater drudge and look how badly her husband treated her, yet I cannot but observe that a new girlfriend who is hot for you will do whatever you ask.

  15. earl says:

    “Men thus have to be aloof, dominant and then escalate and somehow switch horses in mid-stream and propose – thus demonstrating that all along it was the romance to end all romances and that it was courtship all along rather than gaming.”

    Like going to war in order to obtain peace.

  16. “the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family”

    I’m respectfully wondering if maybe you haven’t misconstrued this one Dalrock.

    I remember debating a feminist man a while back. His claim was that women used to be property and that it was socially acceptable to beat your wife in the days before feminism. I asked him for proof, and he said that there wasn’t any because its not something you’d tell anyone (despite it being socially acceptable?)

    I told him that wife beating happens all the time now, even though we are a feminist society. I told him that if he couldn’t back up his assertion, that there’s no reason to believe that it happens any less under feminism than it did under patriarchy.

    His answer: we’re not feminist enough.

  17. earl says:

    “His answer: we’re not feminist enough.”

    That’s their answer for everything…we’re not (x) enough.

    You can’t ever get to the bottom of the abyss.

  18. DrTorch says:

    So many problems with this CBMW article.

    I have been wondering, is it unique to this era (say 20th C and beyond) that Christians don’t think Eccl 10:1 applies to them?

  19. I think Gunter needs to reread his Bible. He thinks “dating” is a biblical concept, and that “talking” is sinful? Talk about being backwards.

    But I guess when women are your god, whatever they prefer becomes “good” and whatever they don’t like is “evil”.

    “I wish that alpha thug would give me a ring because my bolthole is getting sore” lololozzzz

  20. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    The church (meaning the churchian organizations and the churches I’ve attended) has lost credibility with me. Back when I was listening to them, their advice was worse than useless. It harmed my relationships and trained me to do exactly the wrong thing when dealing with people (women included). Now I take a “wise as serpents, gentle as doves” approach to Game while keeping my marriage going and (hopefully) repairing the damage caused by my church/family/social training. At this point, I look at churches the same way I look at public schools. Attending them is a form of abuse.

    Oh, and NACALT, m’kay? Bully for you that you found a good one. I haven’t.

  21. oblivion says:

    i checked out jd gunters website and almost threw up in my mouth. this guy doesnt have a clue.
    his post on its time to take responsiblility is shameless.

    Apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks “talking” is a bad idea. Last week, I exposed this pre-dating phenomenon for what it is: an invention of indecision that “normalizes relationship without responsibility; closeness without clarity; cultural manhood, not biblical manhood.” Broken-hearted young ladies from all over the country sent messages to the effect of, “I’ve been hoping someone would say this!” I’m more convinced now than I was when I first wrote: going on date after date for week after week while leaving ladies guessing your intentions is cruel. Women are made in the image of God and we have a responsibility as men to cherish and honor them. We can do better.

    the we can do better message is like beating a dead horse at this point. lets all wait until snowflake is ready for a serious relationship (28-30plus) and she is ready for mr beta male. you know because all the alpha she prefers had better options than her and wouldnt commit. she just kept giving it up date after date (i use date loosely here) when she knew she couldnt keep him. she was just happy to have him 2 nights a week or a one night stand at a time up until wait for it………she realized that she is getting old and needs babys and mr alpha male aint gonna provide it for her.
    she says to herself i know ill go to the sunday morning nightclub and find that stable guy but he better be(long list) and sets off on her journey of molding him into her image.

  22. Feminist Hater says:

    There’s always been a solution for JD Gunter and the wimmenz he knows. No sexy sex and no sucky sucky me so horny before marriage.

  23. earl says:

    “Women are made in the image of God and we have a responsibility as men to cherish and honor them.”

    The PUAs, government, and churches don’t honor them…and as a result the MGTOW don’t cherish them.

    And I’m talking the constructive sides to the feminine. What we have now is the celebration of destructive female behavior.

  24. deti says:

    CBMW’s Affirmations : “the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.”

    Dalrock: “This paranoia that Christian wives won’t have enough moxie is every bit as modern and feminist as the ideas the CBMW claims to be founded to combat, yet this is part of their very charter. They present a modern Christian wife’s obligation as having to balance not being so feminist as to be overt about it, but being feminist enough to avoid the [feminist] charge of being servile.”

    I had to grapple with this a bit because the idea of “intelligent, willing submission” to me sounds almost right, about 90% right. But as so often happens, it’s that 10% that leads us down the primrose path.

    Let me flesh it out a little.

    A wife’s submission to a husband has to be “willing”. She has to submit her will to her husband voluntarily. A husband cannot coerce submission out of her.

    That leaves the question of what is meant by “intelligent” submission. You could say this is CBMW exhorting women not to check their brains at the door when marrying or submitting to husbands. Because women should engage intellectually with the world and with their husbands.

    I think this encouragement to “intelligent” submission is something different than telling wives to engage, and to offer godly counsel or input to their husbands. “Intelligent” submission in this context, and probably in the CBMW context, means that she is to surreptitiously measure the husband and his actions, directions, and overall relationship steering against her own desires, opinions and conclusions, and then submit only if her desires align with his conduct. Or, similarly, she is only required to submit to a husband whose conduct and beliefs correspond with her concept of a “godly man”. She is to submit to a husband only if he is “properly submitted to God”; and she (with the assistance of her mangina white knight pastor) is the sole arbiter of whether he is “properly submitted”. She only needs to follow so long as he is leading her where she wants to go.

    And if his conduct doesn’t align with her desires or he’s not “godly” enough or not “properly submitted”, then the wife is perfectly justified in disrespecting him, disobeying him, refusing to submit to him, overtly and covertly usurping and subverting his authority, refusing to honor her spousal obligations, and ultimately in divorcing him.

  25. deti says:

    Another thing here that I notice is conspicuously absent from these statements about “intelligent, willing submission” is the role of the wife’s choice.

    I accept that a woman is a full moral agent. She has as much free will as any man does. She is fully responsible for her conduct, actions and choices.

    This society is ordered to allow women as many choices as humanly possible. Never before in human history have so many choices been available to women in the realm of intersexual relationships.

    But when a woman marries, the matters of choice and submission are settled. She has made her choice of husband. She really doesn’t have a biblical option of how to submit, in what to submit or even whether to submit. Her obligation is to submit to her husband IN ALL THINGS, even if he is an unbeliever.

    To say it again, once a woman marries, she gets no choice in submission. That choice was made when he said “will you marry me?” and she said yes.

  26. thanksz again dalrox
    for being a strong, manly voice of reasonz and faithz!
    best,
    da GBFM

  27. earl says:

    “But when a woman marries, the matters of choice and submission are settled.”

    Which is why a woman should stay a virgin and have a moral upbringing with a father she submitted to first. That is the woman you marry. Because she has the body and mind to be a good wife and mother.

    You say you’ll marry each other with vows, that is the choice…and then cement it with sex, that is the submission.

    Today, women are encouraged to submit it first with guys who won’t commit to them…and then going back on their choice and divorcing the men that do.

    It really is all their fault by engaging in the destructive side of the feminine…and we are just willing fodder for the meat grinder.

  28. Dalrock says:

    @Deti
    I think you and I are in basic agreement, but I think you are overlooking the fact that they specifically list servility as a sin wives are prone to as a result of the fall (on an equal plane with rebellion):

    4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Genesis 3:1-7, 12, 16).
    – In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.

    They aren’t merely encouraging wives to submit willingly and intelligently, they are raising the bar saying that wives with insufficient moxie are sinning.

  29. I want a word to describe true feminine strength and mystique. I’m thinking of the frontier wife who grabs her husband’s rifle and shoots the wolf that’s attacking the sheep while her husband is driving the cattle to town. Or the woman whose husband comes home exhausted at the end of the work day to find the the house is clean and supper is on the table — and somehow she found the time and energy to plan a surprise birthday party for him. Or the girl who is able to flirt with a guy without compromising her chastity, challenging him without trying to dominate him, generating an excitement and anticipation that are hard to beat.

    I used to think that word was “moxie,” but I guess not. I wish there were a word for it, to differentiate it from the kind of in-your-face independence that feminists mean when they talk about “strong women.”

  30. 8to12 says:

    @oblivion said: “… lets all wait until snowflake is ready for a serious relationship (28-30plus) and she is ready for mr beta male. you know because all the alpha she prefers had better options than her and wouldn’t commit.”

    No, what we should be doing is telling these women that if they aren’t interested in us as a husband in their early 20’s then we aren’t going to be interested in them as a wife when they hit 30. To do otherwise is to support the feminist meme that causes women to wait till 30 to get serious about marriage–the meme that is actually destroying marriage.

    Never marry a woman over 30.

    If we could get that meme established among men, we might (just might) capsize the entire feminist “blah blah blah and when I turn 30 I’ll blah blah blah” meme.

    — Never marry a woman over 30 –

  31. earl says:

    “I think you are overlooking the fact that they specifically list servility as a sin wives are prone to (on an equal plane with rebellion):”

    servility: an excessive willingness to serve or please others.

    Wouldn’t that be another form of pride? I think in this case they are right. If a person is a tyrant or a doormat…they take great pride from their power.

  32. earl says:

    “I want a word to describe true feminine strength and mystique.”

    How about woman.

    Because what we have now is either girls or terrible examples of men.

  33. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    I think in this case they are right. If a person is a tyrant or a doormat…they take great pride from their power.

    There are two frames. One biblical and one modern/feminist. The first is:

    (1)Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, (2) when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. (3)Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. (4)Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. (5)For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, (6)like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

    The second is: Don’t be a doormat.

    When you find yourself in agreement with Sheila Gregoire and in disagreement with the Apostle Paul Peter, it is time to rethink things.

  34. sunshinemary says:

    Understand that when Christianity Today (the most influential publication in American evangelicalism) wants the conservative, complementarian, anti-feminist point of view, they ask CBMW for a statement. CBMW is seen as radically anti-feminist by virtually all evangelicals. That should tell you something right there.

  35. earl says:

    @ Dalrock…

    That’s why I looked up the word.

    servility: an excessive willingness to serve or please others.

    Submission and servility are two different things.

    Submission means you submit to your husband’s authority. (Or the correct authority)
    Servility means you submit to anyone’s authority (tingles anyone???)

    So a wife who has an affair with another man while disrespecting her husband’s authority is practicing both usurpation and servility.

  36. “Intelligent” submission in this context, and probably in the CBMW context, means that she is to surreptitiously measure the husband and his actions, directions, and overall relationship steering against her own desires, opinions and conclusions, and then submit only if her desires align with his conduct.

    Yes, it means that she gets to decide whether to submit to each instance of his leadership. If at any point she says, “Hmm, I think he might be making a mistake here, but I’m going to submit anyway because that’s the vow I made,” then that would stop being “intelligent submission” in their eyes. So it’s the usual inversion: she submits to him as long as she approves of what he’s doing.

  37. sunshinemary says:

    Deti

    And if his conduct doesn’t align with her desires or he’s not “godly” enough or not “properly submitted”, then the wife is perfectly justified in disrespecting him, disobeying him, refusing to submit to him, overtly and covertly usurping and subverting his authority, refusing to honor her spousal obligations, and ultimately in divorcing him.

    Exactly so, and I’ll tell you how I know. Because I did that. I had no guidance on these issues when I became a Christian years ago and here is what happened:

    1. I accepted Jesus and started going to church, dragging my grumbling husband with me, where…
    2. we never heard any sermons preached on submission, but I read the verses on it in the Bible and figured it was probably something I was supposed to do but…
    3. given that my husband was not a Christian, I decided my role was to bitch, nag, whine, cajole, and badger him into the Kingdom of God so that he would be worthy of submitting to…
    4. and when he wasn’t on board with that for several years, my Holy Rationalization Hamster explained to me that I did not have to submit to him because he wasn’t being a good spiritual leader, so…
    5. I became even more arrogant, rebellious, contentious, and difficult that before I was a Christian, plus I added in withholding sex, something I hadn’t done previously, which unsurprisingly…
    6. caused my husband not to be won over because he was hearing a lot of words but not seeing any purity or reverence.

    My story eventually had a happy ending in which I finally figured out the biblical submission thing on my own and unsurprisingly things worked out exactly like St. Peter said they would. But many, many women never figure this out, and it’s really a tragedy because they cause their husbands all kinds of grief, and they deprive themselves of one of the deepest forms of satisfaction that a woman can experience.

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    SSM
    CBMW is seen as radically anti-feminist by virtually all evangelicals.

    Thus you have an answer to the question that you asked on your blog the other day; “Are Christian Men Unattractive Pansies”?

    The answer is “No, not all of them, but no thanks to church leadership”. Or to put it another way – how’s Joseph of Jackson doing these days?

    Blank slate feminism & gynocentrism – we’re immersed in it, and anyone who does not consciously oppose it is unconsciously agreeing with it. As Dalrock demonstrates in the OP and recent comments quite clearly.

  39. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    @ Dalrock…

    That’s why I looked up the word.

    servility: an excessive willingness to serve or please others.

    Submission and servility are two different things.

    Submission means you submit to your husband’s authority. (Or the correct authority)
    Servility means you submit to anyone’s authority (tingles anyone???)

    So a wife who has an affair with another man while disrespecting her husband’s authority is practicing both usurpation and servility.

    Why does the Bible repeatedly instruct wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5-22:24, 1 Pet 3:1&5, Col 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11, Tit 2:5, Gen 3:16), and yet not include warnings about avoiding servility at the same time? Moreover, why does this group feel the need to add this in so prominently, at a time when rebellion against submission is pandemic? If this warning wasn’t needed for the ancient world, why is it needed for the modern feminist world? Can you not see that they changed the wording to appease feminists?

  40. lets all wait until snowflake is ready for a serious relationship (28-30plus) and she is ready for mr beta male. you know because all the alpha she prefers had better options than her and wouldnt commit. she just kept giving it up date after date (i use date loosely here) when she knew she couldnt keep him.

    Yes, as much as they want to make this all men’s responsibility, the true solution has to come from women: stop putting out. If Snowflake tells each prospective suitor that he won’t even be touching her bellybutton, let alone anything more intimate, until he’s met her dad and they’ve started setting a date for the wedding, Harley Rockbanddrummer will hit the road so fast he’ll leave skidmarks. She won’t get into this situation where she’s “dating” a guy for a couple years and then he turns out to be a cad who won’t commit, so everyone blasts him and tells him to man-up. She won’t build up an unrealistic view of her SMV. She won’t ruin her ability to bond to a husband.

    That’s all it would take: decent women, stop sleeping with men you’re not married to. (Or if that’s too hard, at least wait until the engagement, as most people used to.) Problem solved.

  41. earl says:

    We can even take submission out of the context of marriage.

    As children we are to honor our father and mother and give them respect because of that. As a result there is one woman on this earth I have to submit to because I learned it from watching her actions. And then having a father to counterbalance that and learn what it means to have responsibility and authority. That’s how you don’t end up as a momma’s boy or a tyrant…and why two parents are very important. No wonder the family is being attacked.

    When we grow up as men we have a healthy balance of knowing when to use our authority for good and when to be submissive for good. And women also learn how to submit and who to submit to. You take that away and your guess is as good as mine.

  42. earl says:

    “yet not include warnings about avoiding servility at the same time?”

    Does your Bible have the book of James in it? If I remember correctly…Luther threw that one out because of things he disagreed with. Catholics still have that book.

    James 2 talks about the sin of partiality.

    Women who serve their body to alpha bad boy because of tingles and refuse sex with their husband would be an example.

  43. sunshinemary says:

    A.R.

    The answer is “No, not all of them, but no thanks to church leadership”.

    Truly. And it just isn’t on issues of masculinity, either. I figured out the biblical submission thing, but no thanks to church leadership.

    Modern Christianity – making men less manly and women more rebellious.

    That’s messed up. It’s completely the opposite of what the Bible outlines.

  44. earl says:

    Or another example of partiality would be Jesus’s 8 woes to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23.

  45. earl says:

    “Can you not see that they changed the wording to appease feminists?”

    I’m not sure if that is necessarily correct judgement…it seems to me intelligent, willing submission would be to her husband. Servility would be giving her body to any tingle inducer she chooses. Which if you said that part is being a doormat would enrage the feminists who say “my body, my choice”

    “In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.”

    And in this day and age the husband is very passive so she takes advantage by usurpation…but they also included the guys who are tyrants to their wives. It seems they took every weakness a man and woman can have in a marriage.

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    “yet not include warnings about avoiding servility at the same time?”

    Does your Bible have the book of James in it? If I remember correctly…Luther threw that one out because of things he disagreed with. Catholics still have that book.

    James 2 talks about the sin of partiality.

    You are reaching awful hard here. I pointed out that the Bible doesn’t offer the same warning in context, and you bring up the reformation. Yes, my Bible has the book of James. But it is still not related to my point. The Bible instructs wives multiple times to submit to their husbands, and I don’t see a reference in that context to avoid becoming (your word) a doormat.

    Women who serve their body to alpha bad boy because of tingles and refuse sex with their husband would be an example.

    More reaching. The quote from CBMW is specific to wives submitting to their husbands post fall.

    Or another example of partiality would be Jesus’s 8 woes to the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23.

    Yet more reaching. It is the CBMW which is tying up a heavy burden for wives regarding submission to their husbands.

  47. Feminist Hater says:

    Another reason for the so called increase in ‘emotional abuse’ could be directly related to the increase in moxie within wives. Since constantly second guessing her husband and not following his leadership, instead trying to make him lead her where she wants to go, tends to cause a rather large increase in friction, which inevitably leads to more fights and more chances for words and fists to be thrown.

  48. 8to12 says:

    @Cail Corishev said: Yes, it means that she gets to decide whether to submit to each instance of his leadership. If at any point she says, “Hmm, I think he might be making a mistake here, but I’m going to submit anyway because that’s the vow I made,” then that would stop being “intelligent submission” in their eyes. So it’s the usual inversion: she submits to him as long as she approves of what he’s doing.”

    This is what I call political authority.

    The husband is like a politician, and the wife is like the voters. As long as the politician/husband leads in the way that the voters/wife wants, then the voters/wife will continue to grant him authority by voting him back into office. But, when the politician/husband starts to lead in a direction the voters/wife disagrees with, the voters/wife will remove his authority by voting for someone else and removing him for office.

    The point is, the REAL authority lies with the voters/wife, because they are the ones that can take the authority away from the politician/husband at any time. This is not the biblical model of authority. The church can’t remove Jesus’ authority simply because they disagree with him; a wife can’t remove her husband’s authority simply because she disagrees with him.

    This political form of authority (where the husband plays the role of politician and the wife plays the role of the voters) is what is being taught in far too many churches.

  49. 8to12 says:

    Forgot my tagline:

    — Never marry a woman over 30 –

  50. Feminist Hater says:

    Being a ‘doormat’ is feminism for ‘following a husband’.

  51. Feminist Hater says:

    Eh, for me it was no woman over 24, now it’s ‘no woman’. Being unattractive + Knowing what I know about women = Totally unsuited for marriage.

  52. earl says:

    “I don’t see a reference in that context to avoid becoming (your word) a doormat.”

    You mean the actual term “thou shall not be a doormat” in the Bible.

    Ok…how about ‘thou shall not commit adultery’.

    Nevertheless…I’m playing devil’s advocate for discussion. They could have put that in there to please their feminists masters…they could have put it in there as a warning…either way I learned what servility means and that I shouldn’t submit to any or all authority.

  53. deti says:

    @ Cail:

    “Yes, as much as they want to make this all men’s responsibility, the true solution has to come from women: stop putting out.”

    I continue to be surprised at how much, how frequently and how consistently the tradcon Christian movement doubles down on the male blame/shame game. Relationship problems are 100% men’s fault. If women aren’t able to find suitable men for marriage, it’s always 100% men’s fault. It’s Harley McBadboy’s fault for not coming to the altar and letting his girlfriend rub circles on his back, so that he can make that final transition from hot alpha boyfriend to hot alpha husband.

    From JD Gunter’s article “We’re Just Talking”, cited in Dalrock’s OP:

    “Our culture suffers from a large number of males wallowing around in quasi-manhood for many years. Boys used to grow up, get a job, and move out of the house. But we have inserted this chain of life stages from adolescence, to the college years, to early career, and so on – all of which permit young men to put off growing up, taking responsibility, and generally acting like a man.

    This new phase of pre-dating called “talking” is like adolescence for relationships: an unnecessary stage in the relationship allowing young men to avoid taking responsibility and acting like men. It prevents the man from having to be clear about his intentions to pursue or end the relationship. If he wants to stop “talking,” he simply walks away, leaving behind a confused, and potentially wounded, young lady.”
    ….
    “The young ladies I’ve spoken to share this frustration. They are left in a state of relational limbo, where they are unsure of the young man’s intentions and the purpose of the relationship. They are stuck going on non-dates with guys who are scared to date.”

    Gee, Mr. Gunter. You forgot to mention video games and mom’s basement.

    Implicit in all this is an assumption that it’s always the men who are avoiding commitment and marriage; and the women who are dying for husbands and marriage and children. In reality, it’s the exact OPPOSITE, as many men who have been on the receiving end of nuclear rejections from Good Christian Girls ™ can attest.

    But to hear clueless men like Gunter talk, the women are hapless victims and the men are clueless to the fact that they’re hurting the sweet innocent paragons of virtue (never mind that most of the women Gunter talked with aren’t virgins, haven’t saved themselves for marriage, and willingly gave it up to the hottest men they could find when they could find them.

    I’d encourage Gunter to get to the bottom of just how serious those women are about marriage and about living as godly, submissive women in biblical marriages. Let’s have Gunter sit down and talk to his female correspondents about what’s really involved in biblical marriage (submission in ALL things; respect for husband at ALL times). Let’s ask those women where they see themselves in one year, five years, ten years vis-à-vis marriage and family. Let’s ask those women to fess up to their Ns. Let’s ask those women what kind of men they have had sex with, and hear them spout the usual platitudes of “I’m not like that anymore” and “I want to do it right this time”and “I need to finish my education so I can have a career and share it with my husband.” Let’s ask those women if they are keeping their hair long, make up on and weight down. Let’s examine those women and see if they are nice, pretty, not fat, and available. Let’s ask those women how many dates they’ve been on with Christian men; and then how many second and third dates they’ve been on with those same men.

    Perhaps, juuuust perhaps, some of the women are part of the problem.

  54. There is that “tyrant” crap again. Have the feminists so corroded our language that the Bible and what it suggests looks like usurpation of an authority that God has clearly given? Don’t ya’ll know by now that the Bible is a hateful book that demands slavery, abuse and hatred? That’s why we misinterpret whole passages to make it conform to Churchianity.

  55. 8to12 says:

    @earl said: “When we grow up as men we have a healthy balance of knowing when to use our authority for good and when to be submissive for good.”

    Men have a natural training ground for leading these lessons in team sports, which teach there is a time to be competitive and think of your own needs first (such as trying to win a starting position for yourself) and a time to be submissive to the team. The two worst things you can say about a man are:

    1) He’s not a leader
    2) He’s not a team player

    There’s no conflict in being a leader AND being submissive to authority in most men’s minds. But, in the feminist mindset it’s an either/or proposition: you are either a leader or you are submissive–you can’t be both.

  56. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    I don’t see a reference in that context to avoid becoming (your word) a doormat.”

    You mean the actual term “thou shall not be a doormat” in the Bible.

    Ok…how about ‘thou shall not commit adultery’.

    Still more reaching/non sequitur. You and I both know that the CBWM isn’t warning wives not to commit adultery when they say the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility. They are warning Christian wives to be equally on the lookout for sinning on the side of being a doormat as they are of sinning on the side of rebellion. This during a time of pandemic rebellion, while the Bible doesn’t add this warning.

    Nevertheless…I’m playing devil’s advocate for discussion. They could have put that in there to please their feminists masters…they could have put it in there as a warning…either way I learned what servility means and that I shouldn’t submit to any or all authority.

    If by “playing devil’s advocate for discussion” you mean “being a tedious ass”, then we are on the same page. Just the other week you were arguing that women don’t need to actively submit because men have the obligation to make them want to submit by force of personality:

    Women’s rebellion only happens because a strong man isn’t there to guide her.

  57. earl says:

    “If by “playing devil’s advocate for discussion” you mean “being a tedious ass”, then we are on the same page.”

    I think you meant to say…

    “If by playing devil’s advocate for discussion” you mean “I never submit to Dalrock’s judgement on a subject and it makes me angry I have to defend them.”

    You aren’t my husband, boss, or father. I thought you were against the concept of men who are servile. You know…Mr. White Knight and mangina.

    Or do you want a bunch of yes men?

  58. earl says:

    Just because I’m presenting a counterpoint doesn’t mean I’m defending these people.

    Before today I never even heard the term servility.

  59. From JD Gunter’s article “We’re Just Talking”, cited in Dalrock’s OP:

    “Our culture suffers from a large number of males wallowing around in quasi-manhood for many years. Boys used to grow up, get a job, and move out of the house.”

    And why did they do this? Were they born with responsibility genes that were switched off a generation ago by fluoride in the water? Were they just aping their fathers? Was it all so they could buy a bass boat?

    No, it wasn’t any of those things, not primarily. An 18-year-old Tommy grew up and got a job because he wanted Sally’s good stuff, and Sally wasn’t gonna share her good stuff with a boy who lived in his parents’ basement and couldn’t afford to buy her the Westinghouse fridge with the ice in the door. So he went out and plowed the fields or beat the streets or mined the earth all day so that when he got into bed at night, Sally would be there waiting for him.

    Once Sally gave him the good stuff for free (partly because the government provided her with different ways to get the Westinghouse), his primary incentive for growing up and working hard was gone.

    It’s really that simple. Almost no one likes to admit that sex is that important to men; we’re supposed to have loftier goals, more spiritual goals, more charitable goals. And that’s true; we should have those goals and our life shouldn’t revolve around sex. But unless a man has been called to celibacy and given that grace, sex is still hugely important to his mental health. You might even say that having the sex thing under control makes it possible for him to pursue those loftier goals.

  60. earl says:

    Now Dalrock answer me this.

    Is a woman who follows her tingles into whichever man she chooses that she isn’t married to…servile?

    We really haven’t dug into this aspect as much as the outright rebellion women have for their husbands after they’ve been a “doormat” to men they weren’t married to. The rebellion might just be the effect and the servility is the cause.

    This could be the reason why feminists use that term quite a bit and loathe it…because they know in their head giving their body away to these guys makes them doormats.

  61. Robert Yates says:

    “The average American woman now expects to be courted for a decade or more.”
    I find it interesting that Mrs. Debra Fileta ( I believed she married around 24 and is now in her late 20s married with two kids) is giving advice to Christian singles as follows:

    Teens: It’s old fashion to seek out relationships at this young age because it forces you to believe that your main purpose in life is to find someone to love you, when really, this stage of life should be all about learning to love yourself.
    Twenties: Don’t fixate on finding the one, because while you are doing that, you will find that you have lost yourself. It is dangerous to lose yourself in this stage of life, because these are the years that begin shaping and defining who you are. Commit to the pursuit of yourself, and know that with each step you are investing in the future of a healthy, mature, and vigorous love.
    Thirties: It’s easy for discouragement to take over when you are struggling with singleness in your 30s. You begin believing a lie that fools you into thinking that with each passing year, you lose a little of what you have to offer…

    Here is the link

    http://www.crosswalk.com/family/singles/an-age-by-age-guide-to-singleness.html

  62. deti says:

    “It’s really that simple. Almost no one likes to admit that sex is that important to men; we’re supposed to have loftier goals, more spiritual goals, more charitable goals. And that’s true; we should have those goals and our life shouldn’t revolve around sex. But unless a man has been called to celibacy and given that grace, sex is still hugely important to his mental health. You might even say that having the sex thing under control makes it possible for him to pursue those loftier goals.”

    Well stated. I don’t see why Christians can’t admit that sex is important to men. I don’t see why we can’t just come out and say that a man isn’t going to marry unless he has a reasonable expectation of getting the one tangible benefit he’s supposed to get from marriage. And yes, marriage gets the base sexual urge satisfied so he isn’t out chasing poon and is instead improving himself and earning 10 times what he needs for himself; all to the benefit of the wife and children he wants.

  63. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    Now Dalrock answer me this.

    Is a woman who follows her tingles into whichever man she chooses that she isn’t married to…servile?

    Why? Are you arguing that this is what the CBMW means when they use the word in the quote I provided? I keep pointing out that this line of argument is absurd, and you keep pursuing it. If you want me to further explain why this is asinine, confirm that you are intentionally making this argument. If you aren’t arguing that this is what the CBMW means by the term in the quote I referenced, then by continuously bringing this up you are trolling in an attempt to derail the discussion.

  64. Nate says:

    Immediately after the “servility” gem is this-

    “2.In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.”

    That wording is pretty interesting. Men are power hungry, women… don’t do enough?

    [D: Welcome.]

  65. earl says:

    “I referenced, then by continuously bringing this up you are trolling in an attempt to derail the discussion.”

    You are too worried that I’m letting these people off the hook. I’m trying to get across to you that there is a term out there that you can use instead of doormat when it comes to deplorable female behavior in the other direction.

    Feminists think women should servile before marriage…and rebellious in marriage and call it “empowerment”. Now if your wife is a feminist…wouldn’t she have BOTH traits at her disposal to use?

    You are judging the apperence by who is giving the message…and I’m going to the heart of the matter when it comes to society and forgetting the messenger. No wonder you don’t like it when Matt K or me show up.

  66. earl says:

    Here’s another example:

    A wife can be rebellious to the authority of her husband or be servile to the authority of the government.

    That’s called divorce.

  67. Feminist Hater says:

    We really haven’t dug into this aspect as much as the outright rebellion women have for their husbands after they’ve been a “doormat” to men they weren’t married to. The rebellion might just be the effect and the servility is the cause.

    Me thinks they like being a doormat to a man that treats them like one.

    All of this was simply solved by ‘no sex before marriage’ and ‘submit to your husband’. If they followed both of those commands and went about their lives in grace to their husbands and children, women would be happy, more content and men would be more inclined to work harder, be responsible and head their wives words, when she talks to him instead of arguing with him, in quiet contemplation.

    Now…. not so much.

    A woman doesn’t submit because she doesn’t view her husband as the head of her spiritual life here on Earth. Instead, she sees him through the lenses of a hundred other relationships and has no deep connection to him beyond the wallet and status that he provides.

  68. aa says:

    Thanks for the post, Dalrock!

  69. 8to12 says:

    @Nate said: “2.In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.”

    I’ve noticed that from a churchian standpoint, any discussion of gifts always comes back to using those gifts as part of one of the church’s ministries–how can you use your gift to support/enrich/grow our institution.

    1) Reading books to people in the old-folks home on your own = an improper use of your spiritual gift.
    2) Reading boos to people in the old-folks home as part of a church ministry == a proper use of your spiritual gift.

    The exact same activity. The only difference is whether or not it is done under the auspices of a church.

    I suspect the above quote is a reaction to men telling their wives to “quit spending so much time at church and start spending more time at home with your family.”

  70. earl says:

    “Me thinks they like being a doormat to a man that treats them like one.”

    Oh yes…and don’t believe for a second they don’t when they tell their pretty little lies.

    And then when the guy they marry tries to pull the same stunt they aren’t as keen to that idea.

  71. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    This idea that modern men are somehow more brutish than the ostensible sensitive new age guys of the ancient world is flat out bizarre

    &

    This paranoia that Christian wives won’t have enough moxie is every bit as modern and feminist as the ideas the CBMW claims to be founded to combat, yet this is part of their very charter.

    &

    There is no need to lay this extra burden on Christian wives, especially at a time when following the instruction of Scripture is already a radical act.

    These three comments are key. The Biblical admonitions to women were written in a time and to a people among which slaves could be killed, and no one gets punished. Peter tells wives to [likewise] submit even if their husbands are the equivalent of evil masters.

    That tells us that women have always been lippy and rebellious even under the most dire of consequences. We can also be confident that the first instincts of the first Christian women were to assume that Christian freedom imparted release from the rule of self-restraint. And, it shows that modern wives’ continuation of this habit is stupid, but normal. This isn’t a struggle starting in the 60s, 1900s, 1800, etc.

    So why is this anti-servility statement in the CBMW charter? It’s simply serves to legitimize feminist propaganda; which they may not even believe, but they certainly fear, and so they are trying to cut-off criticism. Such effort is totally wasted because those who would use such propaganda HATE what the Bible has to say. It’s a lie that they interpret it differently. The truth is feminists interpret it the same way, but will say whatever they need to say to give the appearance that the Bible is illegitimate; out-dated; whathaveyou.

  72. Robert Yates,

    I don’t know if that guide is more hilarious or sad. It certainly has the proper title, though: it is indeed a “guide to singleness.” That advice will guide you directly to singleness, no passing Go, no $200, just the awesomeness of singleness until you die.

  73. feeriker says:

    CP said:
    At this point, I look at churches the same way I look at public schools. Attending them is a form of abuse.

    Oh, and NACALT, m’kay? Bully for you that you found a good one. I haven’t.

    An interesting anecdote on that very subject, one that makes me wonder how common this scenario is now becoming and if maybe “churchianity” is finally beginning to reveal itself to Christians for what it is:

    My widowed mother, who attends a megachurch[TM] in the south San Francisco Bay area, finds that she and the “small” group/Bible study shepherding group of which she is a member and that meets once per week, spend more and more of their time on Sunday mornings in extended Sunday school/prayer than in the formal Sunday morning service. Indeed, they’ve begun making a practice of actually skipping the service altogether on many Sundays and just spending the whole morning in prayer, Bible study [that is, study of the actual Bible itself), and fellowship. Why are they doing this, I asked her.

    According to Mom, there are several reasons that they’ve started avoiding the worship service. First of all, she says, the CCM that is the first part of the worship service has become essentially unbearable for most of the group (Mom’s elderly, as are most of the members or her group). While she doesn’t object to CCM per se, and actually found some of it inspiring and invigorating in the past, apparently much of it in the current morning worship service consists of “Christian Metal” (has anyone out there heard this? I’m not familiar with it, but I can only imagine…) and “Jesus is my boyfriend” paeans that are just unbearable to the ears and the soul.

    Second, the current pastor is a preacher, but NOT a shepherd of his flock. Hearing her describe him really puzzled me; I have NEVER heard of a pastor who was not a “people person.” This guy is apparently as aloof and impersonable as they come. WTH?

    Third, and perhaps this is most important, the Bible apparently isn’t very important to this guy, even as good of a preacher as he is. A big red flag to Mom and her BSG was the fact that for a whole consecutive month of Sundays, the messages during the worship service were centered on “themes” – without ANY scriptural references to back them up. Not that the themes weren’t biblically centered; it’s just that the preacher didn’t allude to any specific books or verses ANYWHERE in the message.

    So, I asked Mom, why are you and your group still affiliated with this church?

    She couldn’t think of any reason other than that they feel they need “legitimacy” by being affiliated with a church, no matter how unbiblically grounded said church is. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get her to digest the idea that being on your own as a group, studying the bible and praying, is a church every bit as much as, if not more so than, the churchian corporate franchise they now adhere to that is so badly failing in its mission.

    “Where two or more are gathered in my name…”

    CP, I not only believe that you’re doing nothing wrong by avoiding churches as they are now constituted, but believe that you’ve probably both saved your marriage and family AND gained a better understanding of the scriptures through “solo” Bible study (or study with your wife or other individuals) than you ever would have in a watered-down, say-nothing-to-offend-modern-sensibilities, milquetoast “church” setting. If there is anything I’d suggest to improve your situation, it would be to find other individuals and couples of like mind to gather with you once or twice a week (including or in addition to Sundays) to continue the practice and strengthen the fellowship.

  74. feeriker says:

    Robert Yates said:
    I find it interesting that Mrs. Debra Fileta ( I believed she married around 24 and is now in her late 20s married with two kids) is giving advice to Christian singles as follows:

    Hmmm, perhaps Mrs. Fileta regrets having followed the biblically-sanctioned model of courtship and marriage (“man, I missed the best years of my life by marrying this beta schlub and pumping out two crotch fruits! To think of the fun I could’ve had riding the carousel! I need to make sure that no one else makes the same stupid move I did!”).

    And what the heck is she doing giving advice to 30-somethings? How the heck does SHE know what issues they face/ If the bio info RY cites above is correct, she hasn’t even REACHED that age range yet, so why should anybody in that age group pay one microsecond’s worth of attention to anything she has to say to them?

  75. Sprinkle in a heaping wad of self-righteous Evangelical Catholicism and this is about what Earl’s “argumentative” process amounts to:

  76. Feminist Hater says:

    http://wtop.com/256/3448919/Revenge-porn-victim-tells-story-fights-for-change

    Lol! What’s the bet they’ll change the laws, just for her, but fighting for the rights of fathers, not so much!

  77. earl says:

    Heh…I know I’m getting somewhere when I get under the skin of secularists and Christians.

  78. Keep telling yourself that Earl, it’ll make you feel better with your dick in your hand.

  79. earl says:

    Well let’s see I engaged in debate with Dalrock over his thoughts with women…I engaged in debate with you earlier Rollo about your thoughts with breeding…and have made it to where you both got pissed off.

    Sounds like my dick is in your head.

  80. Religio-Troll is religious.

  81. Athor Pel says:

    “8to12 says:
    September 12, 2013 at 10:39 am

    There’s no conflict in being a leader AND being submissive to authority in most men’s minds. But, in the feminist mindset it’s an either/or proposition: you are either a leader or you are submissive–you can’t be both.”

    Which means these rebellious women aren’t aiming at a higher place in a hierarchy, they are aiming at the highest position. They want to sit in the place of God in the eyes of the men in their life.

  82. oblivion says:

    can somebody find earl a wet paper bag that he can win an arguement with?

  83. oblivion says:

    “Well let’s see I engaged in debate with Dalrock over his thoughts with women…I engaged in debate with you earlier Rollo about your thoughts with breeding…and have made it to where you both got pissed off.

    Sounds like my dick is in your head.”

    @earl

    nobody here needs to hear about your fantasys

  84. 8to12 says:

    @Athor Pel said: “Which means these rebellious women aren’t aiming at a higher place in a hierarchy, they are aiming at the highest position. They want to sit in the place of God in the eyes of the men in their life.”

    When you take it to its logical conclusion, that’s exactly right.

    But, isn’t that the nature of rebellion? If “doing what’s right in your own eyes” is the goal, then you have to displace any authority that would tell you otherwise.

    — Never marry a woman over 30 –

  85. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    @freeriker – “CP, I not only believe that you’re doing nothing wrong by avoiding churches as they are now constituted, but believe that you’ve probably both saved your marriage and family…”

    Don’t give me too much credit yet. My wife is still going to a church I’ve left (for being too political, as well as having a female pastorix). She’ll fuss at me on occassion for not providing “spiritual leadership”, by which she means “not going to church with her.” When she does I tell her flatly that I am leading her away from the church she’s currently attending, and she’s refusing to follow. She’s waiting to see who blinks first, I guess.

    There are a few other areas in our marriage where she’s in open rebellion, but it’s getting better over time now, rather than worse. Of course, it remains to be seen whether she’s in earnest or just re-arming.

    Regardless, I would not have gotten this far by following the church. And while following God without the support of a church is not ideal, it’s better than what’s on currently on offer.

  86. oblivion says:

    @8to12 and athor pel

    too bad society will completely collaspse before women reach that point. all these empowered feminists didnt think far enough ahead to realize what they want cannot be sustained.

  87. Robert Yates says:

    @Cane Caldo “Peter tells wives to [likewise] submit even if their husbands are the equivalent of evil masters.”
    Check out a Christian Feminist interpretation of 1 Peter. here is the link http://bwebaptistwomenforequality.wordpress.com/

  88. @Deti

    Well stated. I don’t see why Christians can’t admit that sex is important to men.

    L.O.L.! What kind of “Christians” do you hang out with?

    Even the good St. Paul talks about how it is better to marry than to burn.

    Come on… Use that backbone, “Deti”!

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

  89. Elspeth says:

    I don’t see why Christians can’t admit that sex is important to men.

    They do admit it. That’s precisely why people like Albert Mohler advise wives to set all kinds of conditions in order for sex to take place.

  90. oblivion says:

    @8 to 12

    “No, what we should be doing is telling these women that if they aren’t interested in us as a husband in their early 20′s then we aren’t going to be interested in them as a wife when they hit 30. To do otherwise is to support the feminist meme that causes women to wait till 30 to get serious about marriage–the meme that is actually destroying marriage.”

    my buddy and i do let women know that. women in their 30’s try to tell us how thier sex drive is really picking up and will peak at 35. we tell them that is their bodys last gasp at fertility.
    also women who are around 30 have tried to tell me and my buddy that we are getting old and we tell them that as men we are just entering the prime of our lives and if fact they are old. it usually doesnt go over too well with them. to be fair these same women were the ones we were trying to get in our twenty’s who were too busy playing the field(now its just any women over 30). my buddy and i starting to make good money and are getting set up in real estate. we are shooting for wives who are 23(just out of college(optional) and through the party stage(nessesary) anyone else we just pump and dump.its cold but its the truth.

    I tell my nieces to find a good young man (20-24) with high character and marry him young. the longer u wait the harder it will be to get a good man to commit. I also let them know by choosing at the age they will get a VERY high value man with far less competition.

  91. The_Collapsar says:

    feeriker, here’s some “Christian metal” that I enjoy for your listening (dis)pleasure. I have a strange feeling whatever was playing in that church was less extreme than this though.

  92. slwerner says:

    Elspeth, on the question: “I don’t see why Christians can’t admit that sex is important to men.”

    They do admit it.That’s precisely why people like Albert Mohler advise wives to set all kinds of conditions in order for sex to take place.

    Bingo! Give that woman a gold star…Hell, give her 100.

    Christians (er, Churchians, actually) certainly know the importance of sex to men. Not only do they advise woman to leverage that reality, they use it to pound young men into feeling disgust with themselves over their libido’s – which ultimately makes them more pliable to men=bad, women=good meme which is quite useful in controlling them when they become Churchian men.

  93. Dalrock says:

    @Cail Corishev

    An 18-year-old Tommy grew up and got a job because he wanted Sally’s good stuff, and Sally wasn’t gonna share her good stuff with a boy who lived in his parents’ basement and couldn’t afford to buy her the Westinghouse fridge with the ice in the door. So he went out and plowed the fields or beat the streets or mined the earth all day so that when he got into bed at night, Sally would be there waiting for him.

    The denial on this really is fascinating. The flip side of the same issue is the claim that married men feeling compelled to work longer/harder is a benefit men receive from marriage. Eventually the groupthink nonsense will be cracked and everyone will wonder why such foolish ideas had so much currency. The logic of why men marry, and why marriage creates incentives for men to shoulder additional responsibility is simple and bulletproof.

    BTW, I added you to the blogroll the other day (last week?). I haven’t checked the stats, but hopefully I threw a few hits your way.

  94. feeriker says:

    CP said: as well as having a female pastorix

    Whoa – BIG red flag! Definitely time to get your wife away from that “church” ASAP!

    I’m sure you’ve realized by now that you’re most certainly not alone in having a “rebellious” wife (welcome to the club, my friend). Hang in there!

  95. feeriker says:

    Elspeth said: They do admit [that sex is important to men]. That’s precisely why people like Albert Mohler advise wives to set all kinds of conditions in order for sex to take place.

    Excellent point!

  96. Mr. Tomasi says:

    Religio-Troll is religious.

    Coming from a hedonistic secularist, that may even be a compliment!

  97. 8to12 says:

    @Alan J. Perrick said @Deti Well stated. I don’t see why Christians can’t admit that sex is important to men.

    L.O.L.! What kind of “Christians” do you hang out with?Even the good St. Paul talks about how it is better to marry than to burn.”

    You are right, the Bible portrays sex men and women very differently than modern Christianity does. The demonization of sex by Christians (even in marriage) isn’t a recent occurrence. It was on of the reasons the Song of Solomon was spiritualized into an allegory of Christ’s love for the church. The Song of Solomon is so bluntly erotic and sexual, that I saw a pastor refuse to read parts of it from the pulpit for fear of offending his flock.

    This, your stature, is like a palm tree, your breasts like its fruit. I said, “I will climb up into the palm tree. I will take hold of its fruit.” Let your breasts be like clusters of the vine, the smell of your breath like apples, Beloved Your mouth like the best wine, that goes down smoothly for my beloved, gliding through the lips of those who are asleep. (So 7:7-9 WEB)

    This is supposed to be Jesus talking about the Church? Jesus is getting all excited about climbing on the Church and playing with the Church’s tits? If this is REALLY an allegory about Jesus’ relationship with the Church, then there really isn’t any other way to interpret this passage.

    The Song of Solomon is the best argument in the Bible that God approves of robust sexuality between men and women. But, we’ve eliminated its original meaning by overlaying a different meaning on top of it.

    — Never marry a woman over 30 –

  98. Mark says:

    @Earl

    “”Heh…I know I’m getting somewhere when I get under the skin of secularists and Christians.””

    Strange statement.I thought you were a Christian?…..Good luck getting under the skin of us Jews…we are VERY thick skinned!

  99. Mark says:

    @Cautiously Pessimistic

    “”My wife is still going to a church I’ve left (for being too political, as well as having a female””
    pastorix)

    I would do the same.This is one thing that I am in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church….they do not ordain Wimmin Priests. We have wimmin Rabbis but,not in the Synagogue that I attend.If we did…I would leave for sure!…..and so would many other attendees that I know!

  100. oblivion says:

    @mark earl likes to share his words of wisdom here. its only wisdom to him, to everyone else it just sounds like farting.

  101. Mark says:

    @Oblivion

    “”women in their 30′s try to tell us how thier sex drive is really picking up and will peak at 35. we tell them that is their bodys last gasp at fertility.
    also women who are around 30 have tried to tell me and my buddy that we are getting old and we tell them that as men we are just entering the prime of our lives and if fact they are old. it usually doesnt go over too well with them. to be fair these same women were the ones we were trying to get in our twenty’s who were too busy playing the field(now its just any women over 30). my buddy and i starting to make good money and are getting set up in real estate. we are shooting for wives who are 23(just out of college(optional) and through the party stage(nessesary) anyone else we just pump and dump.its cold but its the truth””

    Great Post!……..”Cold hard truth”…….This is the exact same way my friends and I thought also…..and still think….Now I am 48(never married…neither are they)……but,if you do decide to get married do it the smart way! Make your money!…that is NUMBER ONE PRIORITY!…..Money will never buy you friends or happiness…..it will buy you a better lifestyle and a much better class of enemies! If you insist on getting married….get a PRE-NUP!….a proper one!…..You owe no woman NOTHING!….and get married in the UK….Why?….because you can also file for divorce in the UK…in Sharia court!….those Muslim boys do not buy into the Femi-Nazi bullshit we have here….and you will retain all of your assets…and she will be ordered to return to the house of her father.Does this sound strange and cruel?….compared to what?….Family Court(Femi-Nazi Entrapment System)??? ………that we here…..Self preservation is the number one priority in your life….REMEMBER THAT!!!!!!………….SHALOM!

  102. Random Angeleno says:

    @Earl, first rule of holes, stop digging.

    @Deti, Christians don’t talk about sex?
    1 Cor 7:8,9: But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    If he wasn’t talking about sex, then what the heck was he talking about?

    @Cail, I gotta frame this one. thank you!

    And why did they do this? Were they born with responsibility genes that were switched off a generation ago by fluoride in the water? Were they just aping their fathers? Was it all so they could buy a bass boat?

    No, it wasn’t any of those things, not primarily. An 18-year-old Tommy grew up and got a job because he wanted Sally’s good stuff, and Sally wasn’t gonna share her good stuff with a boy who lived in his parents’ basement and couldn’t afford to buy her the Westinghouse fridge with the ice in the door. So he went out and plowed the fields or beat the streets or mined the earth all day so that when he got into bed at night, Sally would be there waiting for him.

    Once Sally gave him the good stuff for free (partly because the government provided her with different ways to get the Westinghouse), his primary incentive for growing up and working hard was gone.

    It’s really that simple. Almost no one likes to admit that sex is that important to men; we’re supposed to have loftier goals, more spiritual goals, more charitable goals. And that’s true; we should have those goals and our life shouldn’t revolve around sex. But unless a man has been called to celibacy and given that grace, sex is still hugely important to his mental health. You might even say that having the sex thing under control makes it possible for him to pursue those loftier goals.

    Incentives matter…

  103. BradA says:

    I too am sick of the hard rock underlying modern Christian “worship”. I was thinking about how shocking it would have been when I was just in college for the local Christian station to play something like Third Day in the morning. I remember liking it that a radio station in Phoenix (or Albuquerque) played Styper when I was there for training. Now that is almost all you get. Ironically, my wife can’t handle Rez Band (I can tolerate them for a while), but she likes Third Day and such. (I don’t mind them per se, I just hate that Christian worship is that way almost all the time. I have literally sensitive ears and electronically amped music is painful to me.)

    I see the value in a good solid church, but have not been able to find one that is consistent with what I see in Scripture in the areas of God being good and male-female relationships. I am at the point where just punching my ticket once a week is not all that compelling either. I believe we all should be part of a solid fellowship, but I am not sure how to solve that.

    I would have to agree with Dalrock over Earl this time, as the context of the “servility” was within marriage, not to parties outside of it. I would agree that being a general doormat in life is not a good thing for any women and I would not want that in my wife, but I don’t think that is much of a danger in many of the cases we are frequently warned against.

    I would ask those who continually refer to “Jesus as boyfriend songs” (an assertion I am in general agreement with) how you would deal with Psalms 42:

    [Psa 42:1-2 NKJV] 1 To the Chief Musician. A Contemplation of the sons of Korah. As the deer pants for the water brooks, So pants my soul for You, O God. 2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?

    This seems to imply an intense desire and a song with this could easily fall into that same category.

    What exactly is godly worship? I do suspect the hymns and such I sung as a child both in and out of the RCC were not always good either.

    One final note: If this is all a women problem, why are we discussing an article a man wrote?

  104. BradA says:

    Note that the last comment was in response to the discussion at the end of the previous thread, not anything said here.

  105. Wally says:

    Dalrock, just ban that asshole Earl. Then he and Matthew King can go start their own website, which no one will read. Earl just clogs up the comments section with his nonsense.

  106. Earl is the mechanic who doesn’t own a car, and has never worked on a car, but thinks he’s qualified to give you car care advice because he’s read a lot of Chilton manuals.

  107. Elspeth, nice one. But as much as they understand how badly men want sex and how it can be used to control them, I don’t think they get how deeply important it is. They think it’s something optional, like watching football on Sundays — a guy may want it really badly, but when the season’s over, he doesn’t stop going to work on Mondays and getting his job done. But when the sex season ends, or he never sees it on the horizon in the first place, it does change how he feels about going to work on Monday.

    I like a quote from a firearms trainer named John Ross: “[P]atriarchy is NOT the natural order. Neither is civilization, technology, heavy industry, central air, microwave ovens, etc. Patriarchy is an artificial construct that makes all these other desirable artificial constructs possible.” Civilization happens because a man wants a place to keep his woman safe so he can have lots of sex with her for the rest of his life, so it won’t continue for long if there aren’t social, religious, and political structures in place to make that possible.

    Dalrock, thanks for the link! Guess I need to get back to writing…

  108. Mikediver says:

    This is the beauty of the internet. You don’t have to read through every comment. If the comment has proven to your satisfaction to have nothing worth reading then merely skip over it. I do this on most threads with Earl after reading the first few. After that I know what he has to say and the rest add no further enlightenment. GBFM is another I skip over often, but everyonce in a while is worth wading through his nonsense to get at the gems. This is why I don’t see the point of censorship or banning of a commentor. But this is up to Dalrock as this is his site.

  109. feeriker says:

    Mark said: We have wimmin Rabbis but,not in the Synagogue that I attend.
    Apparently they’re very popular among “Reformed” Jewish congregations (’nuff said, I guess?).

    @The_Collapsar:

    WHOA! That is “heavy” – much too much so for worship, IMO. Then again, I’ve never really been much of a Metal fan.

    I can easily see how someone from an older generation would get tired of that, pronto. I can’t blame them for not wanting to be part of a worship service that assaults their senses with such.

  110. gdgm+ says:

    Only tangentially related to the OP, but what the hey…

  111. gdgm+ says:

    Whoops, *slight* language warning on the video. But it’s on YouTube, so nothing REALLY scandalous.

  112. Mark says:

    @feeriker

    “”I can easily see how someone from an older generation would get tired of that, pronto.””

    You said it bro!……….in fact,they are very popular among “Reformed Jews”……look at who is at the head of the Femi-Nazi movement….look at all the Wimmin authors that have written all the books….all Jew Wimminz!(aka..Steinem,Rosen….etc)…….nothing but trouble makers!…….Again,the one thing I admire among the Roman Catholic Church is “NO WOMEN PRIESTS”….and a stand against abortion!

  113. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    I am going to leave this right here for you to read on your own time!….You will have a heyday with this!….Shalom my friend!

    http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-review-of-shirley-taylors-dethroning.html

  114. Peter Blood says:

    E. MIchael Jones: “Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control”

    Liberation AND Control. Perfect!

    Dismal but enlightening reading.

  115. Anonymous Reader says:

    Seneca Falls II, well, well, well. I spy with my little eye “doubling down” in progress, along the lines of TFH’s “Mysandry bubble”. So apparently not enough damage has been done by the first Seneca Falls conference, and of course teh wimmenze are not haaapy.

    Dalrock, that link is worth perusing. This is how CBMW can claim to be non-feminist and even anti-feminist, because they are being attacked from the feminist side by the “dethroning headship” harpies.

  116. Legion says:

    I thought we all stop reading man-boy earl?

  117. Pingback: No Girls, You Don’t Need Moxie

  118. hurting says:

    8to12…

    I recently had my personal, financial, legal and spiritual life destroyed by divorce and am trying rebound. Thinking about marrying a woman over 30? Is this advisable?

  119. Ton says:

    So when folks buy a Bible, there’s a King James version with the Book of James in it for Catholics and one without for Protestants? Same for NIV etc etc versions?

    [D: No, not to my knowledge. According to the Wiki discussion of it, it sounds like at worst the books Luther had issues with are placed at the end in some German language editions of the Bible.]

    The Bible says something about how the foolish seem wise when they keep their mouth shut.

    Tradcons etc have to double down on the male shaming type stuff because they understand women have no moral agency, that women will not behave without the credible threat of reprisals, and they want to keep the currant system operating. It requires a metric $hit ton of deception and manipulation to keep men shackled to the state and the modern unholy version of marriage is part of that. Marriage subjects a man to a whole series of laws which exerts direct control over men/ limit their options but also brings indirect control over men. A married man has to produce a whole lot of worthless stuff so his woman and kids can consume a bunch of even more worthless stuff so we can keep an economic system based on the lie of consumer debt rolling along. These shackles requires men’s willing participation in this corruption because they lack the physical power to ensure compliance. Deception and manipulation is a lot easier to use then M4′ s and JADAMS. Cheaper too.

  120. JDG says:

    We are a fairly small congregation (40 to 90) of almost all 1st generation Christians that have gone from “seeker sensitive” to “Lets teach and do what the Bible actually says even if it’s not popular”. Over the course of 10 or 12 years we have gone through quite a transition and have lost more than a few due to our unwillingness to compromise with the teachings in the Bible (especially concerning women as elders and male authority in the home).

    No one in our congregation would identify as being a feminist, yet all of us have been under its influence at some point and to varying degrees many still are (though not like we use to be or like egalitarian congregations I have visited).

    In a way CBMW played a large part in helping us to choose the Biblical view. Wayne Grudem systematically dismantled every feminist argument for women in church leadership at a time when we were having those very discussions. This led to more credibility in what I had been telling the church leadership all along (that we need to take the Bible at face value and stop listening to excuses as to why it doesn’t mean what it actually says).

    However, as much as I am impressed with Mr. Grudman’s writings, I must agree with the conclusions in this post. I have visited the CBMW website on more than one occasion and was disappointed with what I found there, especially whenever it was an article written by a woman on how men should conduct themselves.

    @sunshinemary September 12, 2013 at 9:45 am
    I hope to share your testimony in this matter with the women in my congregation. Sadly I have seen this played out where it did not end so well and there are some women that I know that are struggling with submission right now. The part that seems to be the most commonly rejected is the idea that they will find more satisfaction when they submit. Yet I have personally seen this in my wife (even though she hasn’t made the connection).

  121. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    The flip side of the same issue is the claim that married men feeling compelled to work longer/harder is a benefit men receive from marriage.

    Yes. This is a huge point that very few people catch, even in the androsphere.

    It also shows that both declared leftists and ‘social conservatives’ are economic leftists who both want to overtax the same person, but for the different reasons.

    Imagine a highly productive man, earning a high income.

    The leftist wants to tax this man as ‘the rich’ and require them to not work less.
    The ‘social conservative’ wants this man to enter a Marriage 2.0 contract no matter how unfavorable.

    So both groups want to overtax the same person in the same way. One for his income, the other for his gender. It is the same thing.

  122. oblivion says:

    @mark thank you for the advice :)

  123. @ Ton

    Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
    (Pro 17:28)

  124. @Earl”James 2 talks about the sin of partiality.”
    I have to comment on your use of the OT/NT.
    You are SO FAR out of context it is ridiculous and sickening.
    ~Shalom

  125. Pete says:

    “the husband’s loving, humble headship”

    What is this s**t about “humble”. I’m surprised no one has caught that howler.

    Men are supposed to be bold and assured, and lead their woman from strength. Humility before God, and lack of hubris, yes. But humble before his wife? You’ve got to be kidding me.

    This is pure feminist schtick.

  126. 8to12 says:

    @Pete says “the husband’s loving, humble headship”
    What is this s**t about “humble”. I’m surprised no one has caught that howler. Men are supposed to be bold and assured, and lead their woman from strength. Humility before God, and lack of hubris, yes. But humble before his wife? You’ve got to be kidding me.”

    This is what I was pointing out earlier, that men have no problem understand that you can be both a leader and submissive. Men have no trouble understanding that you can be humble before God and still be a strong leader.

    But, for women it’s an either/or proposition. If they see a husband isn’t humbling himself toward his wife, then they assume he isn’t humble in any part of his life (like his attitude toward God). This is where they totally misinterpret the Bible’s admonitions to be humble.

  127. ukfred says:

    @Alan J Perrick
    Sorry for the delay in responding, Alan. What my friend’s son was complaining about was not that the young Christian women dressed modestly, which is something he would want, but rather that they were frumpy and definitely not stylishly dressed. Perhaps its my generation, but I feel that a woman has not thought through what she is wearing or is trying to project an image that I would not welcome, when there are bra straps showing with spaghetti strapped tops, for example.

  128. GKChesteron says:

    Servility should be a bad word for the world and not for Christians. We are slaves of Christ. We are servile. It is the paradox of Christianity that this willingness to serve makes us brothers and sisters of Christ because of His own willingness to serve. This independence…I just don’t get it.

  129. Martian Bachelor says:

    Little known factoid: Moxie is a regional soft drink that goes back to patent medicine days, containing gentian root extract. Supposedly discovered in S America by a Lieutenant Moxie, it’s now the official soft drink of Maine. It was once advertised by the likes of Ted Williams, and the word was one of the first neologisms coined into common usage by Madison Avenue.

    “Courage” was originally its second meaning, following “energy/pep”, so the word has morphed some as an independent meme on its own, as most people now take it to mean something like more like hutzpah – nerve, gall, and supreme self-confidence.

  130. Ton,

    Tradcons etc have to double down on the male shaming type stuff because they understand women have no moral agency, that women will not behave without the credible threat of reprisals, and they want to keep the current system operating. It requires a metric $hit ton of deception and manipulation to keep men shackled to the state and the modern unholy version of marriage is part of that.

    Tradcons are right that women have no moral agency. Typically, they don’t. That is why it is impossible for a woman with no moral agency to explain why it is perfectly acceptable for her to abort her own baby, but if a man hits a pregnant woman and she miscarries, that man is a first degree murderer. That makes absolutely no logical sense and women know it and they will not be able to rationalize it (and you can’t make them.) But they WILL vote for politicians who agree with it. And men can’t ask women to have something they are not going to have (moral agency.) But tradcons are totally wrong to shame MGTOW for not marrying women. And’ we’ve all seen this behavior and it is indefensible.

    I think the biggest reason for the shaming aspect of the tradcon towards the MGTOW is that the tradcon has a daughter. He knows that the actions/choices his daughter has taken in her life are indefensible (all her needless credit card debt on boots, shoes, hand bags, clothes, her terrible choices in boyfriends, age 32 she still doesn’t own her own home because she can’t save a penny, etc). But he could NEVER EVER say that to her (or Heaven forbid, his wife) because (since women lack moral agency) they are functionally incapable of being talked to the way a man can talk to his son. Its just not going to happen. They will cry and his wife will scream at him and (perhaps, if his wife is truly a loose cannon) call the police. A lesser reason is PRIDE gets in the way (he thinks his daughter might be perfect so of COURSE it is all the men who are at fault, never her.)

    So the tradcons shame MGTOW. They have no alternative. What do you expect them to do Ton? They know their situations suck (maybe they are in a bad marriage themselves with wives who are not submissive to them where they don’t have headship) and if life sucks for them, perhaps the tradcon is envious of the MGTOW? Perhaps this is how they keep their OWN system operating, by trying to trick other happier men into doing something that they might not do otherwise? Misery likes company? lol

    For the MGTOW (because they haven’t had a woman fall in love with them yet that they believe is worthy of being their wife) all they have to do is feel no shame. If a tradcon tells them how bad they should feethat they aren’t married (try to pressure them to marry someone they don’t want)l, tell the tradcon to go f-ck himself and mind his own business. That is the best advice I can give.

  131. So when folks buy a Bible, there’s a King James version with the Book of James in it for Catholics and one without for Protestants?

    No, there’s no Catholic KJV or NIV. When the KJV translation was being done in 1604-1611, based on sources coming from and including the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint, Catholics already had the Douay-Rheims, an English translation along similar lines done by Catholics in the 1500s (and whose New Testament influenced the KJV). The KJV was a project of the Church of England, and the CofE and the RCC weren’t getting along so well just then.

    Approved Catholic translations into English include the aforementioned Douay-Rheims, as well as the more recent Jerusalem Bible, the Revised Standard Edition, and the New American Bible. Some of these were able to go back to more ancient sources that were not available in the 1500s and 1600s, but they are also less slavishly literal than the DR (or KJV), so that has pros and cons. The NAB especially reflects the 1970s when it was compiled, and it is avoided by most traditional Catholics. The RSV is commonly considered a good compromise between literal translation and readability, and is frequently used for study.

    So, the short version: if you want a Catholic bible with the archaic sound of the KJV, get the Douay-Rheims.

  132. This is the beauty of the internet. You don’t have to read through every comment. [....] This is why I don’t see the point of censorship or banning of a commentor.

    Two reasons.

    A) It takes time to read far enough through a comment to know that it’s garbage. It takes time even to glance at the name and recognize that it’s someone you’ve learned to skip. Not a lot of time, but if you read hundreds of blog comments a day, it adds up. In fact, I normally don’t read the name that goes with a comment unless it’s especially good or bad and I want to see who is responsible. I’m busy reading the text, because it’s bad form to post a comment unless you’ve read the previous ones, and time’s a-wastin’.

    B) It’s basically impossible to get all the other apples in a barrel to ignore the bad one. I actually use a little bit of software I wrote to hide the comments of people I’ve identified as serious time-wasters (for the record, no, Earl has not been added to it). But I still have to wade through the replies to the time-waster, which now make less sense because I didn’t read the context.

    Note: I’m not arguing that Dalrock should or shouldn’t ban/censor Earl or anyone else. That’s his business. But there are valid reasons for censoring or banning commenters, and accepting every comment no matter how argumentative or off-topic is unlikely to produce “beauty.”

  133. Da GBFM is all for Dalrock editing his blog anyway he seesz fit. :)

    It’s his house–he built it with his own two handsz, so he has every right to edit/block/delete/post anything he wantsz too. It’s his art and he’s da painter.

    The folks will keep coming to hear Dalrock’s wise sermons, which are at da center and circumference of da dalrock experience. :)

  134. feeriker says:

    tell the tradcon to go f-ck himself and mind his own business.

    Needless to say (but I’m going to say it anyway, because it bears endless repeating), this is also superb advice when dealing with feminists and churchians (to the extent that they’re not one and the same) as well.

  135. Pete says:

    @Cail Corashev “So, the short version: if you want a Catholic bible with the archaic sound of the KJV, get the Douay-Rheims.”

    But if you want the real Douay Rheims get it here – http://www.realdouayrheims.com as the so-called Douay Rheims typically pitched is the Challoner translation put between covers saying Douay Rheims, but is not. Look on the title page and it will say Challoner Edition or something similar, showing it is not really the Douay Rheims.

    The real Douay Rheims reads differently, and has copious notes and annotations that take up about half the size of the Bible.

  136. Yes, I didn’t want to go into too much detail here, but the original Douay is super-duper-archaic, while the Challoner version done in the 1700s is a “modernized” version for that time that now only sounds super-archaic.

  137. Legion says:

    Cail Corishev says: September 13, 2013 at 11:20 am
    “In fact, I normally don’t read the name that goes with a comment unless it’s especially good or bad and I want to see who is responsible.”

    I don’t have to read all of the comment from a useless commenter. I don’t have the time to get my intelligence lowered. Reading the name of the commenter is good for me. If it’s a new useless commenter it takes me very little reading, usually less than a paragraph, to never read them.

  138. Ton says:

    It was a rhetorical question Cail, trying to prove the ridiculous by being ridiculous, but an interesting reply. Thanks for the info. Writing a program to ignore certain posts is a pretty good use of nerdology. How about a remote control for women? Cook, clean, on, off, f#ck, suck and a mute button. How hard can that be? I mean all the nerds erupting code for video games should apply that intellectual power toward something useful

    The info on moxie as a soft drink was interesting as well.

  139. It’s not whether a woman has moral agency or doesn’t have it. It is how much moral agency a woman has. After all, if a woman didn’t have it, why would the Holy Bible have instruction for women?

    The analogy that makes most sense for a woman’s moral agency is a toy train on a track (hamster-wheel analogy is only for rationalization). So, a man sets up this toy train and designs the course of the track – this is normally the father. Outside influences, for example a cad, could pick up the train off of its tracks and put the train on another set of tracks, could put the train on its tracks going the opposite direction, or disassemble the train for parts! Conflicts that are occurances which are part of life like job loss, physical injury, shortage of money, even hunger or homelessness could all push the toy train off of its tracks to where it is lying useless on the floor. Also, it seems that lack of encouragement would be the same thing as cutting electricity to the train track and, so, the train would slow down to a stop.

    A good husband keeps the woman motivated and moving (busy) and running efficiently. But the size difference between a human adult and a toy train-set is a good one because it gives an example of the (potential) strength of a man’s moral agency to the (maximum) strength of a woman’s moral agency.

    Women are weaker… So, it’s suicide for a man to go down to her level, in other words become feminized. Because then, a man or civilization of men who have all of their moral agency’s potential will be able to overcome the group of self-weakened men. A “You go grrl” attitude promoted to the female population doesn’t increase the strength of female morale agency – it only increases the confidence in it.

    To take a look a look at the craziness of feminine and masculine relations in the U.S., it’s apparent that we’re at a “Humpty Dumpty”-like situation, where the so many trains are off the rails that we can’t put them all back together again (Never marry a woman over 30). It’s a jumble of train-tracks, trains off of the rails, wheels spinning without purpose or purchase… And, the divorce or misandry laws allow banksters to reach in at will to knock the trains off of their assigned tracks, especially trains that aren’t on tracks reinforced with emphasis on traditionally religious participation and experience. (ie. the women who are part of communities that have partially or fully culturally seceded)

    A.J.P.

  140. Please excuse the italics!

    [D: Did I put the close italics tag where you had in mind?]

  141. feeriker says:

    AJP: It’s not whether a woman has moral agency or doesn’t have it. It is how much moral agency a woman has. After all, if a woman didn’t have it, why would the Holy Bible have instruction for women?

    I still assert that the question isn’t whether or not a woman has moral agency (she does) or how much she has (every bit as much as men do), but when is society going to stop coddling women and wake up and COMPEL them to realize that they are moral agents and make them behave accordingly?

  142. she has (every bit as much as men do)

    You really believe that the 19th Amendment is a healthy law based upon natural inclinations? L.O.L.!

  143. Let the record show that this is the recommended course of action:

    when is society going to stop coddling women and wake up and COMPEL them to realize that they are moral agents and make them behave accordingly?

    But, why make such a shrill statement as you did with “she has every bit as much as men do”? Did your inner “white knight” want to make an appearance? Don’t kid yourself, my friend…

    A.J.P.

  144. Drew says:

    I can’t believe the manosphere has let the latest Britney Spears single “Criminal” go without comment.

    Just look at the lyrics, is there anything more descriptive of the feral woman’s mindset. For the cruder, I think some refer to it as the ” ‘Gina tingles”.
    And the music video has this great intro fully demonstrating the rationalization hamster.

  145. Ton says:

    Personally I interact with women as if they have the maturity level of a 9-16 year old girl. You don’t take kids to serious, you don’t take women serious. You tease and what not kids, you tease and what not women. You lead kids, you lead women. Also helps remind me I am not dealing with a rational adult and takes away most of the frustration/ anger I use to feel when engaging them. I don’t expect 9 year olds to make good decisions, understand cause and effect, see the wider world around them etc etc. Nor do I expect much out a 9 year old regarding their moral agency either

  146. The One says:

    Look, you wouldn’t settle for a 9yr old car, why settle for a 27 yr old women who has lost 9 yrs of value on a depreciating asset, beauty. (11 actually since you can still get married at 16 in the majority of states). Combine this with the loss of virginity and the gov. and churches stacked against you, why anyone would marry a Western women is beyond me.

  147. oblivion says:

    on the subject of womens moral agency im a bit torn. are we talking about women in general or are we talking about the 1-3 percent of women who are more cerebral?

    general speaking ton may be right on the 9-16 age, but the higher a womens intellegence 120-140 range of iq, one kind find some much higher moral agency. im not going nawalt on this but there have been a few(3) (an exceptional few women ive had in my life) who had high moral standards in their relationships and life in general.

  148. oblivion says:

    with all that being said……ton sounds right in his assesment.

  149. The One says:

    Satan with hthe ighest IQ made the worst moral decisions…

  150. hoellenhund2 says:

    “No, it wasn’t any of those things, not primarily. An 18-year-old Tommy grew up and got a job because he wanted Sally’s good stuff, and Sally wasn’t gonna share her good stuff with a boy who lived in his parents’ basement and couldn’t afford to buy her the Westinghouse fridge with the ice in the door. So he went out and plowed the fields or beat the streets or mined the earth all day so that when he got into bed at night, Sally would be there waiting for him.

    Once Sally gave him the good stuff for free (partly because the government provided her with different ways to get the Westinghouse), his primary incentive for growing up and working hard was gone.”

    That makes no sense. The Tommy you’re describing is pure beta. The reason his type isn’t working itself to an early grave anymore isn’t that they’re getting free sex; it’s that women shit all over them and reject the idea of having any relationship with them.

  151. Pete says:

    @Cail Corashev: “the Challoner version done in the 1700s is a “modernized” version for that time that now only sounds super-archaic.”

    It is more than that. The Challoner version is a complete deviation from the Douay Rheims.

    Cardinal Wiseman wrote, ‘To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.’ In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version [King James]. . .”

  152. earl says:

    “I have to comment on your use of the OT/NT.
    You are SO FAR out of context it is ridiculous and sickening.
    ~Shalom”

    I would agree with your second statement…if you can prove the first one.

  153. earl says:

    “Earl is the mechanic who doesn’t own a car, and has never worked on a car, but thinks he’s qualified to give you car care advice because he’s read a lot of Chilton manuals.”

    Every man has a car manual and has worked on it. That’s what you don’t get.

    Just because you’ve worked on over 40+ Hummers doesn’t mean you are any more knowledgable about mechanics than a guy who has had worked on rebuilding his vintage car.

  154. jsr says:

    Look who’s setting herself up for a train wreck.

    http://lifeasadare.com/2013/07/why-i-wont-court/

  155. whatever says:


    Look who’s setting herself up for a train wreck.

    http://lifeasadare.com/2013/07/why-i-wont-court/

    Are you suggesting that the Christian girls “courting” have any intention of actually marrying the men that are “courting” them? It’s simply a label to attach to dating that means:

    1.The girl can be crueler.
    2.The girl can demand more for herself.

    That’s it. They have no intention of getting married for years and years(forever at that age) and so are simply lying their asses off by saying “courting”.

  156. whatever says:


    Once Sally gave him the good stuff for free (partly because the government provided her with different ways to get the Westinghouse), his primary incentive for growing up and working hard was gone.

    It’s really that simple. Almost no one likes to admit that sex is that important to men; we’re supposed to have loftier goals, more spiritual goals, more charitable goals. And that’s true; we should have those goals and our life shouldn’t revolve around sex. But unless a man has been called to celibacy and given that grace, sex is still hugely important to his mental health. You might even say that having the sex thing under control makes it possible for him to pursue those loftier goals.

    Some wise words. If only this wise man, repeating what the crowd says, to nodding wise expressions, was right in any point.

    Alphas ALWAYS got “the good stuff” without marriage. Oh sure, the quantities have increased a very large amount but the Prince always f’ked a huge pack of b!tches. Maybe dozens have increased to hundreds but he always had them on tap. The lesser alphas may have only had half a dozen sluts they used, where as now they have dozens, but they always had sex without marriage. Not on demand, but not so hard either.

    Prostitution also happened to be legal pre-1900 so ANYONE willing to pay could have had legal sex. The lowliest omega could.

    As for now? Prostitution is illegal and even a solid 7 man in his 20s could go a year without sex.

    So really, quit raving about “back then” you retarded ahistorical MORON.

  157. Joe says:

    “No, it wasn’t any of those things, not primarily. An 18-year-old Tommy grew up and got a job because he wanted Sally’s good stuff, and Sally wasn’t gonna share her good stuff with a boy who lived in his parents’ basement and couldn’t afford to buy her the Westinghouse fridge with the ice in the door. So he went out and plowed the fields or beat the streets or mined the earth all day so that when he got into bed at night, Sally would be there waiting for him.”

    The above reads like a pay-to-play relationship (i.e., Sally is a prostitute). Sally’s interest in Tommy is only to the extent he can buy her things.

  158. MarcusD says:

    Re: 19th century morality:


    Horrified by the moral and gendered implications of the proposed scheme to
    regulate prostitution, a loosely connected network of clergy and activists with longstanding ties to a range of reform causes—including women’s rights, abolitionism,
    and moral education—joined together under the leadership of the newly created
    New York Committee for the Prevention of State Regulation of Vice, hereinafter
    the New York Committee, to protest what they viewed as the incorporation of evil
    into law

    [...]

    Drawing upon the interrelated motifs of the destructive power of unconstrained male lust and the devastating consequences of female ruin, purity reformers advanced two primary arguments to support their demand that states raise the age of sexual consent to eighteen or twenty-one. First, emphasizing the vulnerability of young women in the years following the onset of puberty, they argued that the state had a duty to protect them from predatory men who sought to take advantage of their youthful innocence. Second, reflecting their view that the loss of virginity outside of marriage was the greatest disaster that could befall any woman, they also argued that the state should strengthen existing moral constraints on illicit conduct by making it legally impossible for young women to consent to sexual activity. As developed below, in turning to the state, the purity reformers both challenged male sexual privilege, with its implied right of access to the adolescent female body, and sought to write the sacred value of female virginity into law.

    Ehrlich, J. Shoshanna. “You Can Steal Her Virginity but Not Her Doll: The Nineteenth Century Campaign to Raise the Legal Age of Sexual Consent.” Cardozo JL & Gender 15 (2008): 229.

    http://www.cardozolawandgender.com/uploads/2/7/7/6/2776881/15-2_ehrlich.pdf

  159. feeriker says:

    AJP asked, rhetorically: You really believe that the 19th Amendment is a healthy law based upon natural inclinations? L.O.L.!

    As I said, it’s not that women don’t have moral agency; it’s that men have coddled them into thinking that they don’t, with predictably disastrous consequences.

    Your example really is not a good one to use in proving your point here, as voting (a.k.a. “advance auction of stolen goods” [thank you, H.L. Mencken!]), and by extension democracy, one of the WORST ideas ever to leak out of mankind’s diseased mind, has been used more by men than by women throughout history to cause widespread havoc. Men have used the voting booth to prove themselves to be just as shallow, selfish, and shortsighted as women have. The problem is that, demographically, women, being by a few percentage points the larger segment of the adult population and having been coddled by men and told that they have no moral agency worth considering, have used this institutionally sanctioned mechanism of theft and coercion in greater numbers than have men and men, the majority of whom are terminal white knights, have ALLOWED the worst of women’s impulses to run rampant.

    More to the point, ask yourself this: has ANY issue put up for popular vote via referendum in America over the last 93 years, issues that solely benefited women at the expense of men or the country as a whole, been written by or facilitated by a WOMAN>/I>?

    No, ALL of it has been the work of MEN seeking to pander to women’s basest behaviors in exchange for some grudging nookie. Had male legislators said to the women’s movement “NO, this is NOT going anywhere, and that’s that”, such destructive nonsense would have been stopped dead in its tracks. Sure, the Susan B. Anthony brigades might have launched noisy demonstrations, but the male-dominated political establishment could easily have ignored them or quashed them. But it was only because a few powerful male politicians were told by their wives “you will either support the suffragette/feminist agenda, or the zipper on my pussy stays in the ‘UP’ position” that women’s issues were given the attention they were (and looking at old photos of some of the wives of that era, they would’ve been doing their husbands the biggest favor of their lives). So, de male politicishens caved, adding the self-centered avarice of women to the already well-established greed that characterized the “popularly decided” political agenda of their era. Hence, the stagnant cesspool we find ourselves swimming in 93 years later, all because a few pussy-whipped politician blowhards of an earlier era valued ugly, bitchy snatch (and money from same, if sex didn’t work as a convincer) more than than principles and freedom.

    Late in the game as it is, I seriously doubt that repealing the 19th Amendment (which by all means I heartily support on GPs, given the odiousness that is the very concept of “voting”) would roll back our current sociopolitical decay to any noticeably significant degree. Democracy itself (i.e., a 51 percent majority imposing its tyranny on the 49 percent minority) ensures that the mess we find ourselves in now is the INEVITABLE long-term status quo.

  160. feeriker says:

    AJP said: But, why make such a shrill statement as you did with “she has every bit as much as men do”? Did your inner “white knight” want to make an appearance? Don’t kid yourself, my friend…

    WTF? Did you actually READ what I wrote? How, in any imaginative contortion of the English language, can you stretch what I said into the definition of “white knighting?”

    Do tell. This is gonna be a real laugh…

  161. feeriker says:

    oblivion: on the subject of womens moral agency im a bit torn. are we talking about women in general or are we talking about the 1-3 percent of women who are more cerebral?

    The point I’ve been trying to get across on this thread is that ALL women, like ALL men, have full moral agency and are responsible for their actions. The problem is that perhaps three percent of the female population, AT THE MOST, realizes this and behaves accordingly without having fallen under the sway of the modernist/feminist ideology or having to be constantly “gamed” by men.

    The other 97 percent of women, OTOH, have absorbed the message from the (predominant attitude of) the male population that they are precious little snowflake children who need to be coddled and spoiled and that anything they choose to do and any way the choose to act is acceptable because “they just can’t help themselves” or “that’s just the way they are.” They don’t need to exercise self-control or respect the dignity of others and are not responsible for ANYTHING they don’t want to be.

    Think of the women who regularly post here and who contribute regularly to discussions in the manosphere (Sunshine Mary, Hannah, Elspeth, etc.) as being among that rare three percent who are the exception to the norm we see all around us every day.

    It’s really not a difficult concept to grasp, but, inexplicably,. it appears to be rather complex for some of the folks posting here.

  162. Ton says:

    Regardless of the volume of words wasted, nothing will convince me woman have moral agency. I’m not the greatest of historical scholars, but it seems like the ancients did not think so, nor have the actions of women in the now given me a reason to believe in fairy tales. Course I don’t buy into much in the way of modern and liberal thinking.

  163. Women have moral agency. They just happen to have a hamster that is bigger than the agency. The woman’s hamster affords her a way to assuage guilt by reframing her choices to be, in the worst case, the least immoral one of the bunch…..or…..no choice at all, meaning the thing was inevitable, not a moral choice (“the divorce happened long ago, this is just paperwork”)

  164. “feeriker” says:

    Do tell. This is gonna be a real laugh…

    I’m not in the habit of indulging shrill pip-squeaks, though, so you’ll have to do without.

    The fact that you seem to have concluded that moral agency is a binary switch, either “full moral agency” or “no moral agecy” with no gradient between is a bit humorous, I will admit…

    A.J.P.

  165. @Feeriker

    Answer me this question, “white-knight”… Do you actually believe that those female manosphere participants could have what you describe as “full moral agency” without strong men around them to support them?

    And, since the answer is obviously No, then what you have described is a lesser moral agency. Are the scales off of your eyes yet?

    Do you believe that men require the support of women as much as women need the support of men? If not, then you are conceding the lesser moral agency of women. In practice, a lesser moral agency is revealed when an individual fails to make to make the correct moral decision throughout a prolonged period of time and challenging moral decisions. You are making the argument for female clergy, high-level female government administrators and so-on if you claim the same degree of moral agency for women and men.

    For sure, you might be doubling down on your half-baked opinion as to save face “feeriker”… But, you’ll not get any more of my time. I’ve got bigger things to do than read your sniveling posts…

    . The problem is that perhaps three percent of the female population, AT THE MOST, realizes this and behaves accordingly without having fallen under the sway of the modernist/feminist ideology or having to be constantly “gamed” by men.
    The other 97 percent of women, OTOH, have absorbed the message…

    N.A.W.A.L.T.?

  166. Jason says:

    This question of moral agency in women is interesting but there do seem to be a few confounding factors that make the analysis difficult.

    I would agree with the observation that if you look around to day you might fairly reasonably conclude that women lack much in the way of moral agency at all, but at the same time if you look at certain “ghetto” populations (In America or the UK, you would probably conclude all of them are incapable of any moral agency at all.

    Which suggests something interesting I think. The problem isn’t that men or women lack moral agency as such, but that being coddled and supported overly and not properly punished for your choices will destroy your moral agency and leave you to go feral. How men and women go feral is different but both seem capable of it.

    Women have to varying degrees always been coddled and protected for poor choices so they have always been more likely to lack moral agency.

    I’m not sure it is simply a matter of a woman requiring “strong men” around to support them. That would seem to be part of it, but this would be true of men as well to varying degrees. I suspect what is essentially required more than anything else is accountability for your behavior. Where that is provided then people learn to be moral and upright and when it is lacking they go feral. Women’s agency in that regard might be more fragile or more subject to be thrown out of whack by outside influences but perhaps not if nurtured properly in the first place. I don’t know.

    I suspect it is a case of NAWALT but when you look at them as a group certain trends do tend to emerge and they will tend to react in a predictable manner once you look at a large enough group of them.

  167. Jason says:

    Another thought on invoking the idea that the ancients thought that women lacked moral agency.

    I’m not sure you can simply conclude that. All you can conclude from the evidence (assuming we are reading it right) is that they found it easiest to treat women as if they lacked much in the way of moral agency. If it is difficult to get women to express their moral agency properly so simpler and easier to ignore it.

  168. Opus says:

    It varies of course but if you are born female then you are born with a safety net such that no matter what you do, then with rare exceptions you not only will not be judged and penalised for your behaviour but instead a man will be blamed for your behaviour and you will be given new opportunities (to display your lack of moral agency). To give examples (even from this week’s press) would be superfluous for we have all heard similar stories many times before. As TFH often says feminism has merely revealed female weakness where it had previously been covered over such that John Stuart Mill could – and with a straight face – say that we knew what women could do but not what they couldn’t.

    I have over the last few weeks been pondering, the following – the middle part of a Tweet – from a strong empowered woman ™ where she contemplates her future action in response to some unmentioned temptation: ‘Right or wrong, you learn’. I would suggest that one knows right or wrong in advance – thus I do not need to steal clothes from Sears and Roebuck to know that theft is wrong, nor do I need to do so to ‘learn’ thereafter whether theft is or is not wrong. It is clear the Tweeter knows that this too, for why else in advance of her actions would the question of right or wrong be exercising her brain, and in response to the proposition which has been made to her and her shift (from what had been the first person singular) to the third person (‘you learn’) looks to me like an attempt to shift guilt on to the anonymous reader and away from herself.

    It has to be sexual, of course, as it frequently is with female moral agency.

  169. She is pondering it in advance which is laying the food in the hamsters bowl and waiting for him to take it and digest. She will decide what to do and decide which choice is moral, separately, not linked.

  170. Ton says:

    The ancients all pretty much recognized women and men have different versions of morality with a man’s morality focused on hard justice, clear right and wrong etc and a woman’s morality based on…. the term extenuating circumstances comes to mind. That is not morality; today we call it the rationalization hamster. Different term but we are describing the same thing

    Jason, your second post on women and moral agency is interesting, but kind of pointless. If its difficult for women to express mostly agency properly and the ancients found it easier to assume they had none, isn’t that the same as women having no moral agency. In practical terms that is. Societies are founded on get shit done ideals, not idealism. Hair spitting and catering to the exceptions to the rule doesn’t work. The mess we have now is in part, because we have a crap load of lead, policy etc based on exceptions to the rule and one in a million events. Societies have to deal with/ work with the median/ normal/ average or what ever word we want to use to be successful, workable entities over generations.

  171. greyghost says:

    Ton
    You are right women don’t have moral agency. Any moral agency is applied to women it damn sure doesn’t naturally. The old sign of a discipline army of “doing it right when nobody is looking” The 80/20 rule with the 80 being the beta chumps I admire. Those men do not need a cop to not do wrong those guys will live be gods law with out ever having heard of god. Women? are you trying to be funny? If women had moral agency there would be no laws of misandry and no manosphere. Men of the past and even stupid ass backwards cultures understand women lack moral agency. Including the men that gave up nobility and wealth to found the nation. (women didn’t vote)
    Women don’t have moral agency that men didn’t put there. The stupid, mistaken, lied to, blind, hopeful, or just plain evil men believe women have moral agency because it is nice to believe so. It makes it easier to make the world less misandrious with out hurting your daughter’s feelings. That is natural way for a man to feel. And that is what I’m betting on when the collapse comes. The old common sense of marrying and marrying young and being a mother of a mans children. The more nurturing and caring you are the most likely you are to survive or live well during the collapse. Just the way it is in reality.

  172. Jen says:

    Ah, yes. Let us look at the available “safety nets”. I prefer to call them “economic incentives”. Humans tend to respond to them. The ghetto population is a case in point. Economic incentives are provided for poor ghetto females to have numerous children without a male provider – and – Voila! – we are overflowing in single mothers, fatherless children, and men of no particular value in this segment of the population. And, yes, ghetto males count as Males. Sorry guys, males, too, can quickly lose moral agency given misguided economic incentives.

  173. greyghost says:

    Jen
    What you fail to realize and is the missing piece. Those ghetto boys are raised by the ghetto moms and they (the boys ) Are the fathers.
    Men are discussing a very serious topic that is destroying civilization here.

  174. oblivion says:

    @feeker, i get u a 100%

  175. oblivion says:

    i was out at a restaurant tonight (live band) and the table next to me was a group of 3 middle aged woman, and one cute 20 something. i asked if they were having fun and one middle aged woman told me that they were out to celebrate her divorce. I could tell she was really happy to win all the prizes. its too soon for her in the divorce game to realize how much she is screwed, she was a sorry looking cougar. i didnt even bother talking to the cute chick after that. she was guilty by association.

  176. oblivion says:

    @greyghost

    the lynchpin of feminism is marriage, if men can end no fault divorce it would only take twenty years to save western civilization. with women being held accountable again they would be forced to change their behavior. like a plant, all of the characteristics of feminism get thier nourishment from the roots and the soil. once family formation is fixed (men arent frivorced) women will be forced to act like decent human beings again. the women who continue to act like little snowflakes will feel the full wrath of reality and no amount of hamstering will change their desperate situation.

  177. oblivion says:

    btw, i know sunlight plays a factor also, i forgot to mention that

  178. “the men who make up our church are all abusive scumbags who need to find a woman and get married to her immediately!”

    did no one else catch that?

  179. Opus says:

    @Empath

    Perceptive observation – thanks.

  180. Ton says:

    Young men in the ghetto, gang banging are displaying a version of moral agency. They are loyal to a group, follow the group’s rules, carry out their assigned tasks etc etc. It’s not our version of morality. It’s like islam vs Christianity. That’s not an attempt at moral relativism, or any of that left wing horse$hit.

    Not is it an attempt to romanticize gang activity. Gang life is often ruthless and brutal, often destroys the society around them but I’ve interacted with enough criminal organizations to know it’s a very tribal, small group version of “moral” behavior.

  181. Hannah says:

    Hi Ton :) Your gang morality comment sums up what I have observed. It’s a crude form but they do live by a moral code of sorts.

    Regarding moral agency in women – on one hand God created all humans with the opportunity of salvation through repentance so it would appear that He gave women the faculties to have moral agency. On the other hand, how many women truly repent?
    I resist the thought that women don’t have the ability rise above their base nature because then it makes me wonder why we would direct our anger towards women for the current mess of today’s society. If a woman has no cognitive awareness of morality, then why be surprised that she wallows in the mud?
    It appears to me that women are given every opportunity to sink to the lowest level possible with no real social ramifications, conversely, men are kept in line at every turn. Society has enabled the base nature of females to be indulged, but I will never give up trying to talk reason into such females! (Go Hannah’s hamster go?! Perhaps :))

    The other day after lunch I settled my littlies into their rooms for quiet reading time for an hour. The silence was shattered by vitriolic abuse coming from my neighbours. I don’t swear these days, but I hope I don’t offend anyone by writing the exact words I heard:
    “Get the fuck out you ugly cunt”
    “We don’t fucking need you Asshole”
    “MOVE out of my fucking way you fucking pussy!”
    “Are you going to fucking hit me?!”
    “Fucking give me back my fucking key and get the fuck out of my fucking house you cunt…. ”

    During this intensely loud attack, I finally heard something from the guy…
    He called her a ‘dope head’. That’s it! The woman ranted and raved screaming blue murder for what seemed an age and then finally she goes to leave the house with their children saying to them “We don’t fucking need him, that fucking cunt (their father) doesn’t love you”
    Then she yelled at the top of her lungs ‘You fucking Woman ABUSER!!!!’ The whole street would have heard that one.
    At one point I thought of ringing the police but didn’t even know who I’d be calling them for…

    Beyond that conversation, I don’t know what really went on with them. Maybe he does hit her. It would surprise me if he doesn’t. But she’s got the backing of society on her side no matter what she’s done, and he has nothing. They’re not married so the children would go straight to her. The house is hers under some welfare scheme so he’s not legally entitled to call it his home. She can scream insults at him day in and day out and never face justice but if he does hit her back then he will face the strong arm of the law. He may never touch her but if she screams “Woman ABUSER” he could end up in jail on her word.

    The point is that perhaps women have moral agency but they’re not dropped at a level where they have to face their own consequences and thereby shift their morality into gear. Society keeps ‘rescuing’ them from themselves. Women don’t fall to where they need to in order to cry out to God in repentance. There’s always a safety net and pretty soon they forget or ‘justify’ their regrets. By and large men are not given such allowances to indulge in their base nature. Even in prisons. They keep each other in line through practical, rational, logical cause and effect methods. Another reason men should be in charge of society.

    The mess we’re in. May God have mercy.

  182. Jason says:

    Thanks you Hannah that sums up what I was thinking nicely.

    “It appears to me that women are given every opportunity to sink to the lowest level possible with no real social ramifications, conversely, men are kept in line at every turn. Society has enabled the base nature of females to be indulged, but I will never give up trying to talk reason into such females! ”

    We have a pack of wildly feral females who are completely out of control and we want to generalize from this to all women as a group. That is like assuming all dogs are bad because you get bitten by one who was kicked and starved by its owner.

    I don’t think society has always rescued women the way it does today. It probably has to some degree but there used to be stigma and other costs attached to screwing up. That seemed to go some way towards keeping women in line. Men still face the pressure, and often more than ever before but many women have come to expect that they should face no consequences for their choices and behavior.

    Oh well, it will collapse at some point one way or the other.

  183. earl says:

    “Regardless of the volume of words wasted, nothing will convince me woman have moral agency.”

    The good feminine virtues start in the hearts of men….as do the evil ones. Women will only follow which way her man or society goes.

    A bunch of evil men…(fiat bankers lolz) have robbed a lots of men of more than just money.

  184. earl says:

    Or instead of following…I should say submit. That’s her decision in this morality dance.

  185. Hannah says:

    @Cail Corishev:
    “I want a word to describe true feminine strength and mystique. I’m thinking of the frontier wife who grabs her husband’s rifle and shoots the wolf that’s attacking the sheep while her husband is driving the cattle to town. Or the woman whose husband comes home exhausted at the end of the work day to find the the house is clean and supper is on the table — and somehow she found the time and energy to plan a surprise birthday party for him. Or the girl who is able to flirt with a guy without compromising her chastity, challenging him without trying to dominate him, generating an excitement and anticipation that are hard to beat.
    I used to think that word was “moxie,” but I guess not. I wish there were a word for it, to differentiate it from the kind of in-your-face independence that feminists mean when they talk about “strong women.”

    Is two words ok?!
    Capable and Captivating….

    Capable: Having capacity or ability; efficient and able
    Captivating: To attract and hold by charm, beauty, or excellence.

    Both words seem to capture the essence of feminine virtue… helpfulness and attractiveness.

    “Or the girl who is able to flirt with a guy without compromising her chastity, challenging him without trying to dominate him, generating an excitement and anticipation that are hard to beat.”

    Ok three words!
    Witty: Quick to discern and express amusing insights or relationships

    To me, wit keeps us on our toes but is exciting rather than aggressive.

  186. earl says:

    Today the alpha male mac daddy is Uncle Sam. If you think the 20% of the alpha men taking 80% of the women is bad…the 20% in the government taking 80% of your women plus 80% of your assets (or whatever it is in divorce) is pure evil. Your best interests would be to make sure your sig other submits to your authority and you have the game to back it up.

    However this pattern can’t possibly continue without complete chaos being unleashed worldwide…if there is even 10% of women that still take the righteous path and 80% of men are starving…those 10% won’t last much longer.

    We need to make the connection between the lack of sex and marriage for lots of men and wars unleashed through the world. Sex with a loving spouse neutralizes the natural violent tendencies in men.

  187. Feminist Hater says:

    The good feminine virtues start in the hearts of men….as do the evil ones. Women will only follow which way her man or society goes.

    This is a bunch of twaddle, you’re basically saying that all men are responsible because women decided to follow their tingles by following bad banksters who told them lies… oh boy, why does this sound so familiar?

    No matter what good men do, women will always choose to follow the tingle first and then blame men afterwards. It works so why should they stop fucking thugs when you give them an utter pass? I drew a line many years ago, I stated that if a woman sleeps with just one man other than myself, she’s on her own. She must marry him or stay single for life. When you cover for their bad acts, they will continue to commit bad acts because it’s just so much more fun than following and submitting to a good man. Women need to suffer consequences to teach them morality.

  188. Hannah says:

    @Ton:
    “Regardless of the volume of words wasted, nothing will convince me woman have moral agency.”

    @Hannah:
    “I resist the thought that women don’t have the ability rise above their base nature”

    Eek Ton here we are! May I challenge you to a battle of wits a la The Princess Bride?!

    hehe no I don’t have any wish to challenge you sir, although it would appear we’ve come to another impasse in our thinking….
    Please rebuke me as you would a 9-16 year old though, as it seems to me that you show kindness toward children :)

  189. Hannah says:

    Hi Feminist Hater :) Nice to ‘see’ you… you’ve changed your avatar pic but I still recognised your comment style… I very much enjoy reading your thoughts.
    “Women need to suffer consequences to teach them morality.”
    Agreed… this is both sobering and promising…. says to me that women CAN learn!

    Hey I am sorry to hear you say that on account of your unattractiveness and what you know of women that you’ve decided you’re unsuitable for marriage. That’s got to be tough. Not much else I can say on that but hope you’re doing ok.

    Blessings in Yeshua, Hannah

  190. earl says:

    @FH

    See I knew you were going to say that…which is why I said this statement. You might have missed it.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/the-sin-of-lacking-moxie-2/#comment-93349

  191. earl says:

    I think what I’m saying is basically the same thing GBFM is saying condensed down minus the lolz, butthexings, and Jesus, Moses, Homer talk.

  192. Ton says:

    As you know darling, I do not think women are capable of becoming mature adults. In the physical sense yes but that all women are some where between 9 & 16 on an intellectual, emotional, moral etc level. We do not hold children to the same moral level as adult men, and working, long terms successful societies do not hold women to the same moral level as men. This is why historically women held no official power and were in practical terms property of men.

    Someone said something to the affect that maybe 3% of the women are capable of full moral agency. I won’t quibble. A society can not function correctly if it gives full legal weight to 100% of women if only some small fraction of them are capable of acting in a moral and rational manner. Even if 49% of women are capable of moral agency, the other 51% would be just as destructive over the long term.

    As to why men get upset with the behavior of women, I assume it is because #1 most men only appear rational compared to women & #2 most men believe in the lie of female moral agency. If a man’s world view includes women being mature rational adults and they don’t live up to that, the man will be disappointed and frustrated. I don’t expect such things with women and now find enjoyment out of them.

    I grew up in Southron Appalachia. It’s gang culture write large in a lot of ways. Clannish and distrustful of outsiders; quick to resort to violence; disdainful of legal authority and the law; you never go to the law; quick to break the law to earn cash (weed and moonshine are viable career options) you don’t ever double cross family; you don’t rat etc etc. Which is nothing more then the modern version of Ulster Scots border culture. Similar to but much different then the gang culture of Detroit. A lot of folks have a semi gang culture/ morality but never put two an two together because the only version of it they are familiar with is urban dysfunction wrapped up with gang culture.

  193. greyghost says:

    a woman’s agency comes from the man or idea (gov.) she submits to. Ghetto black women are in submission to the government (in black speak they are in full submission to the white man. trust in that) So they have no need for a man(black man, the actual words used are cras and offensive even beyond the usual language I use here and do not wish to have Dalrocks blog used as an example of racism or what ever.)
    That 80/20 thing comes back into play in this also that 20 percent of men that the women go after are the ones that tingle the stink hole. Players and thugs. The only men that have the “strength” and masculinity in a feral society. (gangsters) Money only goes so far (see millionaire athletes that get frivorced.) The others (80%) are the guys that respect women, follow the rules, are fearful of arrest etc. are weak, punk asses that need to get out my face. These are the men that keep society civil and are the men society treats most harshly and treats as they are all rapist thugs. What is happening is women in general want the government to by law make the man that tingles a good man. (a man that doesn’t tingle, I’m not happy.) Toasted ice. So every year more laws of misandry are passed and more and more men are effected by it. Civilized behavior is penalized more and more. Since women are in submission to government simple changes in the law is all it takes, But due to some I’ll just say evil men that wrongly attached agency as normal to women let them vote. Women make the man that gives them the tingle, a brutal thug that looks strong bullying the 80 percent. (enjoy the decline) All women are doing this the cultural methods and way they go about it are different in the way they wish to be perceived but the pursuit of toasted ice is the goal. Anything short of toasted ice is oppression. Toasted ice trumps god himself (ask any churchian) No matter how high the pile of dead babies gets behind the abortion clinic or how full the prisons are, or how many fathers and children suffer, no suffering compares to the suffering of not having toasted ice. The end of western civilization itself doesn’t compare to that kind of suffering.

  194. greyghost says:

    “I don’t expect such things with women and now find enjoyment out of them.”
    Ton

    That was the greatest thing I got from the manosphere. One night I posted “women do not have the capacity to love” It was the truth.

  195. Ton says:

    My dearest Hannah, you know I do not argue with women, don’t argue much at all. The truth of my statements is readily visible in the world around us. All one has to do is set aside their indoctrination. Which does take some effort and you must be willing to jettison a lot of modern thinking. 12-15 years ago I thought I was the most traditional and “conservative” of men. Then I spent some time reading books written before 1860…. man was I full of liberal ideals. Thank God Almighty that is no longer true.

  196. earl says:

    Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman, ‘ for she was taken out of man.”

    Genesis 2:22-23

    I’ve been thinking lately that not only was the physical aspect of woman taken out of man (bones)…but also the feminine traits, emotions, actions, etc (flesh). However there is the good side to the female virtues and the bad side to the female virtues and those start in the hearts of men. I’ll focus on the two most talked about.

    Guys don’t have solipsistic tendencies…I use things that I’ve done or seen in this world to relate to my ideas. Guys don’t have hypergamous tendencies…don’t you want to BE the best man you can be. I know I do…I want to marry up and be the best version of myself…if you don’t then you have a problem. However these traits can be used for good (such as Jesus addressing the Kingdom of Heaven using things he saw, did, or knew of on Earth)…or evil (Marx never working in the real world when he developed his ideas). Working out, getting good at your craft, building a business so that you can help others…is the good side of “marrying up” as a man. The bad side is cutting corners or stepping over your fellow man so that you can have another buck or another toy. Women watch this and submit to whichever they find has the most value…the good man or the evil man.

    So when it comes to women in general…I could care less about their “moral agency”…I care only about my woman’s moral agency.

    So FH….that’s why it is not your responsibility when some tart you don’t know pillages another man…but it is your responsibility when your woman does. If you don’t want anything to do with them…then I fail to see why you are upset.

  197. greyghost says:

    Ton
    what are some of those books

  198. Ton says:

    Yep Greyghost those are powerful truths, add women’s inability for appreciation and a man can finally view women in the proper light and enjoy being with them. Why I know it’s crazy, but once those truths settled on me, I enjoy women even when they have clothes on AND women now enjoy my company.

  199. Hannah says:

    Thanks for your response Ton :)

    @Ton:
    “This is why historically women held no official power and were in practical terms property of men.”

    Yeah we’d do well to go back to those days! I’m glad to think of myself as my husband’s property.

    “I don’t expect such things with women and now find enjoyment out of them.”

    With a good looking girl who cooks you lasagne and blueberry pancakes I’m not surprised but very pleased that you enjoy yourself :)

  200. Ton says:

    LOL I live in an ocean of women.
    I live with an old Italian woman. She manages my household. “Maria” must be 74 & practically raised me.
    The girl you mentioned is a dream and is learning from Maria.
    I am building an addition to my home so my sister in law and my nieces can live with me.

    5 vs 1.

    Sorry brother, I cannot recall the titles. The 1st book was about the plains Indians and our war against them. It was written in… 1917 or so and started the whole thing.

    NC state university use to have a boat load of them online

  201. greyghost says:

    It is really funny how a guy that sees women the way Ton does mysteriously surrounded by them.

  202. greyghost says:

    All of this macho talk has made me want to share my inspiration for masculinity with you guys.

    Makes my dick hard knowing there is a path to the gina tingle that recognizes the agency of women.

  203. earl says:

    That terrible video, full of smooth talking serpents, was quite a laugh.

    How about this?

    I choose to encourage and show her the positive female traits…and I choose to use my authority to discipline her when she does the negative female traits.

    I suppose that means I better continue to study up on what are the positive and negative female traits are so that I know them when I see them.

  204. greyghost says:

    Don’t take that shit too seriously Earl. Those guys are as far from serpents as you can get, those guys are worms, supplicants.

    To all female readers please commit on the long term and short term gina tingle felt from the Dear Woman video. Even if you never commit just say yes or no and no need to be in fear of being ridiculed. If anybody does I’ll white knight for you.

  205. greyghost says:

    But you did see it was funny

  206. earl says:

    “Those guys are as far from serpents as you can get, those guys are worms, supplicants.”

    I think you underestimate their power. They might not get you…but they will get some unsuspecting male who has had no real guidence. Guys like us though…they will strike at our heel and we can crush their head. And more guys need to follow our example.

  207. Ton says:

    LOL, it’s not that mysterious, chicks dig chauvinist.

    Of course things are mildly more complicated; the two women I live with full time are widows and kin( by marriage not blood) and my girl digs me because I put the fear of Ton into her ex, but good natured chauvinism makes them tingle.

  208. Pingback: Christian women need not fear servility. | Sunshine Mary

  209. MarcusD says:

    Hmm…

    http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11203752&postcount=82

    Those people never cease to amaze me. Double standards… when convenient.

  210. Jen says:

    I brought up ghetto culture because it is perhaps an interesting study of where our society is headed. If you accept that this is where society is headed, then, you need to take an objective look at what happened. I think it is generally accepted that well-meaning but misguided economic incentives created the epidemic of illegitimate births in this community. So, does this translate to the breakdown of the rest of society? Or, is there a completely different dynamic at work in middle-class society?

    Is the root cause economic incentives? Or is it the lack of female moral agency, as argued by some here? Is it possible for males to lack moral agency, or do they simply respond to female behavior?

  211. MarcusD says:

    We need to make the connection between the lack of sex and marriage for lots of men and wars unleashed through the world. Sex with a loving spouse neutralizes the natural violent tendencies in men.

    “Research on testosterone-behavior relationships in humans is assessed in relation to a version of the challenge hypothesis, originally proposed to account for testosterone-aggression associations in monogamous birds. Predictions were that that testosterone would rise at puberty to moderate levels, which supported reproductive physiology and behavior. Sexual arousal and challenges involving young males would raise testosterone levels further. In turn, this would facilitate direct competitive behavior, including aggression. When males are required to care for offspring, testosterone levels will decrease. Testosterone levels will also be associated with different behavioral profiles among men, associated with life history strategies involving emphasis on either mating or parental effort. Most of these predictions were supported by the review of current research, although most studies were not designed to specifically test the challenge hypothesis.”

    Archer, John. “Testosterone and human aggression: an evaluation of the challenge hypothesis.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 30.3 (2006): 319-345.

    Other random note:

    Higher levels of testosterone in women are positively associated with higher occupational achievement. Women lawyers, for example, had higher testosterone levels than nurses or teachers.

    Dabbs, “Testosterone and Occupational Achievement,” p. 811.

  212. earl says:

    @ Marcus

    “Those people never cease to amaze me. Double standards… when convenient.”

    Are you referring to women or Catholics.

    Because I fail to see the downside to “this” double standard.

    “I think there should be a double standard. Women are the more vulnerable sex. Women deserve a higher level of protection, especially young and naive ones. Our society has let our young women down by grooming them to be sex objects, using them and exploiting them for sexual gratification, then hanging them out to dry. It’s a national scandal.

    Whatever we can to to better protect our young women, the more noble a society we will be.”

    So protect women from becoming sex objects. Isn’t the point of feminism to turn women into sex objects…and then after they do that, they either never get married or are horrible wives? They call that “empowerment”. I’d gladly use my protection powers to keep her from that self-destructive behavior. It would be in my best interest.

    Just imagine how much better marriages would be if women only had sex with their husbands…we’ve seen all the studies on divorce stats the more men women have had sex with, plus the lack of bonding.

  213. feeriker says:

    @Hannah @9/15/13 @ 6:25am:

    Thank you! You’ve said exactly what I’ve been trying to get across (perhaps coming from a woman it will carry more weight here)?

    At one point I thought of ringing the police but didn’t even know who I’d be calling them for…

    Thank God you didn’t call the cops. If cops in your part of the world are anything like the cops in Norte Amerika, someone –probably an innocent like one of the children– would very likely have wound up injured or dead. Calling the cops these days for assistance in any sort of crisis situation is like pouring gasoline on a smouldering forest fire or throwing a lit match into an ammunition magazine.

  214. MarcusD says:

    I don’t think I said that there was a downside. Anyway, the realization is that in order for people to accept that double standard, they must accept that women are somehow inferior, on one or more dimensions, to men. They likely won’t do that, but they will take the benefits of the double standard. In other words, the best of both worlds.

    As for bonding, something interesting to ponder:

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/230664139_Love_and_other_drugs_On_the_chemical_enhancement_of_human_relationships/file/79e41502aee424a9c3.pdf

  215. MarcusD says:

    Hmm, I guess when I read supplicating comments like this: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=9415791&postcount=13

    perhaps it is best to protect women (even if we don’t tell them we are doing so). Did you see my comment about 19th century morality (above)?

  216. herbie says:

    Another out of touch and mean ‘social conservative’ mucking up the narrative.

    Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II is going to find out he has a war on women. loloz

  217. Ton says:

    Dude you hope the words of a woman will carry extra weight….. Not good, not good at all.

    There is a completely different dynamic going on in places like Detroit and Newark but mentioning it makes you a bigger enemy of the state then being anti feminism

  218. feeriker says:

    greyghost said: Ghetto black women are in submission to the government (in black speak they are in full submission to the white man. trust in that) So they have no need for a man(black man, the actual words used are cras and offensive even beyond the usual language I use here and do not wish to have Dalrocks blog used as an example of racism or what ever.)

    I’m glad someone finally brought this up, as it really, really needs to be brought into the discussion, if for no other reason than to make it clear that this group is such an outlier, even by today’s abysmal standards of what constitutes “normal” female behavior, that to include them in any discussion of how to address the problems facing intersexual relationships today would be pointless.

    Ghetto black women (to use the less-than-PC term) are, very simply, not marriage material at all. In fact, they’re not even relationship material (cue in Greek chorus of “Well, DUHHHHH!”). I found this out the hard way (pre-red pill days, thinking with the head below my belt) over two decades ago and am still living with fruits of ignorance and irresponsible decision making. My own experience notwithstanding, I don’t think anyone who has had even casual exposure would argue against the idea that the situation is so bad that it’s just flat-out unreasonable to think that anything can be done for these women other than to just write off two or three generations of them as being a lost cause. Exceptions and aberrations, most certainly. But in general, there’s just no reason to be even cautiously optimistic.

  219. TFH says:

    Opus,

    As TFH often says feminism has merely revealed female weakness where it had previously been covered over

    Yes. That enabled women to be packaged as something far better than they were, so that most men could be duped into marrying them.

    In reality, there are very few productive tasks that average women can do better than a 12-year-old boy.

  220. greyghost says:

    Jen
    Lack of female agency is not a factor it is a given that female agency was never there. The economic incentives go hand in hand with the disincentives for men and the cultural and religious removal of checks on female behavior. Overall it is the feminine imperative that removes checks from the quest for toasted ice. So rather than see it as an incentive see it as a removal of check on behavior. Economic need is a check on hypergamy. Rights of a father to his child is another check on hypergamy. So fathers have no rights to his child under no circumstances, women are given choices in higher education and affirmative action on the job and welfare and money for children out of wedlock with the main purpose to remove the check of having to in any way rely or at the very least respect a man for his contribution. (that is a check on hypergamy) Non ratchet black women are the same and the feminine imperative is the same it just looks different due to cultural differences. The bottom line is hypergamy is to remain unchecked.
    There are males that lack agency, they are the defective males, criminals, and sociopaths, dark triad types. The comparison of normal women to defective men is done all of the time. Defective males can be made by raising them in female headed households. Defective males can be repaired with male leadership and with healthy cultural intervention. many attempts have been made at having all male and female school shot down. And no attempt is made to even speak of the issue as I have here at any official level.

  221. Feminist Hater says:

    Marcus, I love those links you keep sending from the Churchian forums. The level of mangina is over 9000!

  222. Feminist Hater says:

    Wow Herbie, how dare a man even think as to put laws in place that protect marriage rather than making it an easy to get out of institution! Listen women, I march with you! Don’t get married, it’s just not for you. You are strong and empowered, don’t let marriage get in the way! Fuck that, be independent and sassy, hook-up and debauch your thighs, vajayjays and hole for poopypoops; become sexy sexathlons! Marriage is (P)atriarchy, with a capital ‘P’! Say NO to marriage and YES to divorce!

  223. MarcusD says:

    @Feminist Hater

    I’ve got hundreds of them. I shall endeavor to add them in wherever appropriate.

  224. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    We need to make the connection between the lack of sex and marriage for lots of men and wars unleashed through the world.

    Really? Have you ever read any history at all? History of the Roman republic, for a start?

    Sex with a loving spouse neutralizes the natural violent tendencies in men.

    How do you know this to be true?

  225. MarcusD says:

    The canvas of human history is thickly layered with struggles for power, privilege, and prestige. One such struggle took place in 50BC when the Roman Senate, led by Pompey, attempted to subjugate Julius Caesar by accusing him of treason and ordering him to return to Rome and disband his army. In response, with a single legion of men, Caesar re-entered Rome, crossing the Rubicon River and uttering the words, “Let the die be cast!”. Thus began a civil war that set in motion the fall of the Republic and the emergence of the Roman Empire.

    Why would Pompey, comfortably seated within the powerful echelons of the Roman elite, risk Caesar’s wrath with such a challenge and then flee when the challenge was met? Why would a vastly outnumbered Caesar risk his life in response to such a challenge? One possible explanation can be found in research that suggests that the experience of power can lead individuals to assume unduly optimistic appraisals of the possible consequences of their actions, and subsequently take risks they would otherwise avoid (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006).

    [...]

    Higher levels of testosterone are associated with the pursuit of status seeking, dominance, competition, and violence (for a review see Mazur & Booth, 1998). For instance, lawyers with higher levels of testosterone are more likely to work within the adversarial field of trial law (Dabbs, Alford & Fielden, 1998) and prisoners with higher levels of testosterone are more likely to have a history of violent crime, to be rated as tougher by fellow inmates, and to violate prison rules in displays of overt confrontation (Dabbs, Carr, Frady, & Riad, 1995). Aside from competition, status seeking and dominance appear to be the two traits most reliably associated with testosterone (Booth, Granger, Mazur, & Kivlighana, 2006; Dabbs & Dabbs, 2000). Indeed, testosterone is so strongly associated with the pursuit of status that when this desire is not fulfilled, physiological arousal increases and cognitive functioning declines (Josephs, Sellers, Newman, & Mehta, 2006).

    [...]

    If we return to Caesar’s risky decision to defy the Roman Republic by crossing the Rubicon and committing himself to civil war, we can interpret his behavior as consistent with the findings of the current experiments. For individuals high in testosterone, and thus high in power motivation, the denial of power appears to motivate them toward risk-seeking behaviors, presumably in an effort to gain or regain power. The current research suggests that inducing high-testosterone individuals to feel powerless may remove a subjective state with which they are generally accustomed, or to which they orient (Cashdan, 1995; Dabbs et al., 1998; Dabbs, de la Rue, & Williams, 1990; Josephs et al., 2006; Mazur & Booth, 1998), thereby causing them to adopt a risky frame of mind. In contrast, when high-testosterone individuals are in positions of power, they tend to be risk-averse, apparently in an effort to avoid disrupting the status quo.

    Ronay, Richard, and William von Hippel. “Power, testosterone, and risk‐taking.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 23.5 (2010): 473-482.

    Results revealed that men in committed, romantic relationships had 21% lower testosterone levels than men not involved in such relationships. Furthermore, the testosterone levels of married men and unmarried men who were involved in committed, romantic relationships did not differ, suggesting that, at least for this sample, male pair bonding status is the more significant predictor of testosterone levels than is marital status.

    Burnham, Terence C., et al. “Men in committed, romantic relationships have lower testosterone.” Hormones and Behavior 44.2 (2003): 119-122.

    We examine the relationship of testosterone to tendencies to marry and divorce, and to the quality of marriage, of a large representative sample of men. The analysis shows that men producing more testosterone are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce. Once married they are more likely to leave home because of troubled marital relations, extramarital sex, hitting or throwing things at their spouses, and experiencing a lower quality of marital interaction.

    Booth, Alan, and James M. Dabbs. “Testosterone and men’s marriages.” Social Forces 72.2 (1993): 463-477.

    In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior apparently intended to dominate — to enhance one’s status over — other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man’s basal T level, predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers. Thus, there is a reciprocity between T and dominance behavior, each affecting the other.

    Prenatal exposure to high levels of testosterone may lead to increased probability of left-handedness. Extrapolating from arguments by Mazur & Booth leads to a prediction of increased incidence of antisocial behavior among left-handers. Six hundred ninety-four males were tested for seven indicators of delinquency in high school. Left-handers were more likely to display such behaviors, providing indirect evidence for the hypothesized behavioral effects of testosterone.

    Mazur, Allan, and Alan Booth. “Testosterone and dominance in men.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21.3 (1998): 353-363.

  226. Jen says:

    Is ghetto culture an outlier, as stated above – or a leading indicator?

  227. greyghost says:

    Jen
    It is not necessarily an outlier it is a separate culture based on race. But the principles of the feminine imperative are the same and have the same effect on the society. SWPL is different so it looks different but the end game is men out of the lives of their children and all of the destruction of society that follows. .

  228. earl says:

    “Really? Have you ever read any history at all? History of the Roman republic, for a start? ”

    Yeah. Tell me how that refutes my point.

    “How do you know this to be true?”

    How do you know it to not be true?

    I made the statements…tell me why it’s wrong.

  229. herbie says:

    @Feminist Hater
    I seee a real man that stands for righteousness and is actually trying to fix the problem from the hind end. I admire his resolve on most all issues. If only he could win the women vote.

    Too bad they are busy watching lifetime and thinking abortion, frivorce and climate change are important issues.

    :p

    “Wow Herbie, how dare a man even think as to put laws in place that protect marriage rather than making it an easy to get out of institution! Listen women, I march with you! Don’t get married, it’s just not for you. You are strong and empowered, don’t let marriage get in the way! Fuck that, be independent and sassy, hook-up and debauch your thighs, vajayjays and hole for poopypoops; become sexy sexathlons! Marriage is (P)atriarchy, with a capital ‘P’! Say NO to marriage and YES to divorce!”

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/the-sin-of-lacking-moxie-2/#comment-93403

  230. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    We need to make the connection between the lack of sex and marriage for lots of men and wars unleashed through the world.

    Me
    Really? Have you ever read any history at all? History of the Roman republic, for a start?

    Earl
    Yeah. Tell me how that refutes my point.

    By demonstration, obviously.

    I asked;
    “How do you know this to be true?”

    Earl
    How do you know it to not be true?

    You asserted that lack of sex and marriage causes wars.
    Support your assertion with facts, withdraw the assertion, or be shown ignorant of elementary logic.

    Your choice.

  231. Liz says:

    Oh look it’s the men who are fed up with women hating on women under the umbrella of religion blog. Fourisly dissecting away! clicky click click awwwwwww whats the matter boys? Not getting any nook nook? MAD at the guys who are? how dare women r able to decide who and what do to with her own body that GOD gave her funny thing is if you were getting some you would be in bed or on a date or with your wife and NOT on sexist blogs. Geez look at all this writing im not even going to bother reading all this. Here lemme sum it up for you:

    waaaaah im not getting any!
    waaaaah I hate women!
    waaaaah hot guys get laid n i dont!
    waaaaah my wife wants a divorce

    gee i wonder why

  232. mustardnine says:

    On the feral nature of women in the US:
    Over 1 million women commit a premeditated murder against their unborn young every year.
    Some of them do it more than once, making them serial killers.

    I venture to suggest that fewer than 1 million men alive in the US have ever killed anybody, including war; let alone their own children; let alone every year.

    How many of these women are in church? How many of their mothers?

    And not just in the US, of course.

  233. MarcusD says:

    @Earl

    My sources above are a starting point for proving your assertion, by the way.

  234. oblivion says:

    @liz

    thank you so much for adding to our discussion. the insight that u added really added depth to our conversation, and we are so grateful that a perfect little snowflake like yourself would grace us with your presence.

    “how dare women r able to decide who and what do to with her own body that GOD gave her funny”

    its funny, the body that GOD gave men can quite easily crush a women if a man so CHOSE to do it. just because u can do something, doesnt mean its the right thing to do.

    now go away little snowflake and go back to your jezebel blog and talk about rape culture…and dont forget to feed your cats.

  235. Ton says:

    Romans had access to sex, prostitution was common and legal. Plus the married

    Same.for Victorian era

    Both were violent societies.

    Same for ancient Greece. The Great Khan had what a 1000 wives? and the Mongols did what they did.

    There was a lack of men, an most likely no lack of sex or .marriage in pre nazi Germany

    The list is endless

  236. oblivion says:

    http://samuel-warde.com/2013/09/drill-sergeant-never-expected-answer/

    mom is unnnhaaapppy because her little boy wont behave

  237. Anonymous Reader says:

    Liz
    [Nothing of substance]

    Code Purple, with perhaps a tinge of Code Tan how tiresomely predictable.

    PS: Spell checking is ur friend, Lizzy. Try using it next time. Hugs ‘n kisses!

  238. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD to Earl
    My sources above are a starting point for proving your assertion, by the way.

    Except where they are not. Claiming that lack of teh poozle starts wars is clearly placing women’s lady bits on a pedestal, in fact it ascribes the power of God to collective lady bits. That’s not a new religion, by the way, fertility goddesses abound in human history.

    Lysistrata is a comedy, not a treatise on strategy…

  239. greyghost says:

    oblivion
    That kids mom is a POS and that kid has enough sense to know it. He is her prisoner and meal ticket.

  240. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Except where they are not. Claiming that lack of teh poozle starts wars is clearly placing women’s lady bits on a pedestal, in fact it ascribes the power of God to collective lady bits. That’s not a new religion, by the way, fertility goddesses abound in human history.

    Lysistrata is a comedy, not a treatise on strategy…

    I think the fundamental error lies in misattributing to women (or in this case their collective lady bits) what should rightly be attributed to marriage. Marriage doesn’t merely provide access to lady bits, it provides the average man with a stake in the society as the head of his own family, or (prior to marriage) with an accepted path towards the same.

  241. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, 100 years ago (Sept. 1913) marriage was common and pretty much expected for men and women in Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Imperial Germany, France and Great Britain (also Rumania, and Italy). Not to mention many other countries, but I have selected the above for an obvious reason.

    That obvious reason: August, 1914.

    What happened in Serbia, then Russia, then Germany, then France, then Great Britain? What happened a couple of years later in Rumania and Italy?

    The issue of societal stability is related to the issue of war, but it not necessarily causally linked. Every one of the nations that went to war a bit less than 99 years ago was stable in terms of marriage and family. Every single one. There were many other stress factors, to be sure. But marriage and family was an unquestioned “good” in those countries, just prior to the outbreak of The Great War, now known as World War I.

  242. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    The issue of societal stability is related to the issue of war, but it not necessarily causally linked. Every one of the nations that went to war a bit less than 99 years ago was stable in terms of marriage and family. Every single one. There were many other stress factors, to be sure. But marriage and family was an unquestioned “good” in those countries, just prior to the outbreak of The Great War, now known as World War I.

    Good point. I was focusing on the societal stability part, but as you point out the link to war is tenuous. Societal breakdown and the resulting chaos can result in war, but well ordered societies are in a much better position to win wars than chaotic ones. The chaotic society creates a vacuum the well ordered society is often tempted to fill.

  243. Anonymous Reader says:

    And please note that I’m on record here and elsewhere promoting the notion that any functioning society above the level of grass huts needs a certain number of normal, functional men to make it work. Such normal, functional men are most likely to arise from normal, functional, heterosexual two-parent families. So protecting the family is protecting society, and all of us who prefer an industrialized world to an agrarian one, or hunter-gatherer world, stand to benefit.

    I’m just extremely underwhelmed by the idea that war results from not enough sex, or not enough marriage. I’m not an historian, but I have read a fair amount of history, and I don’t see any support for the notion.

  244. Ton says:

    There are a lot of fluffy ideas about what starts wars. They are all wrong. War is the natural state of mankind

  245. Michael says:

    @ Oblivion

    That video link was awesome. I really felt it for that kid. It really gets you. All he did was tell the truth. The drill Sargent was totally thrown for a loop. Completely taken aback. Had to leave the stage. He was a good person and I think he realized the truth.

    What blows me away are some of the comments on that video. People miss (or choose to miss) the point even when it’s point blank staring at them in the face. Moronic commentator, Tracy M Higgins from Purdue University (further proof anyone can get a student loan these days) says the following idiotic comment:

    “Children don’t NEED two parents.. they need people who love them and positive role models who care about them. This young boy simply needs a strong male role model who is willing to take the time to be there for him in a positive way.”

    Can you count the contradictions in that paragraph?

    Here another idiotic comment from Sammy L Callahan a group thinking brainwashed senior high school student:

    “it doesn’t make a difference if mommy or daddy are living together”

    These types of “opinions” are the typical group think parroted by weak minded brainwashed people in this post moral functionally dysfunctional society. Sometimes I can’t even believe these kinds of people actually believe their own opinions.

  246. sunshinemary says:

    Oh look it’s the men who are fed up with women hating on women under the umbrella of religion blog.

    Wait, are the men fed up with women who are hating on other women, or are the men fed up with women while simultaneously hating women themselves? I am not sure who is doing the hating in that sentence nor which women the men are fed up with (all women, or just women who hate on other women).

    You know, Liz, you can’t go wrong with Strunk and White’s “The Elements of Style”. It could help reduce some of the confusion in your syntax. Try it and get back to us.

  247. These types of “opinions” are the typical group think parroted by weak minded brainwashed people in this post moral functionally dysfunctional society. Sometimes I can’t even believe these kinds of people actually believe their own opinions.

    They are forced to believe them. If they don’t then everything that they have been led to believe that is right and true would be wrong and they would have to re-examine/re-evaluate their own existance. They are functionally incapable of doing that.

    PRIDE.

  248. Jen says:

    There are some examples of male behavior without sex/marriage:

    Men without access to sex (with women) – male prisons: Brutal aggression and violence.

    Men with access to sex but not marriage – the ghetto/Sweden: The males become non-productive/destructive to the point of almost having no value.

    Ghetto males have the highest rates of unemployment and incarceration.

    Swedish males have high rates of suicide and are allowing an influx of aggressive male immigrants who, in turn, seem to have a penchant for rape. Swedish male response seems to be silence. Also, no Swedish babies – at least not at replacement levels.

  249. Also, no Swedish babies – at least not at replacement levels.

    You could say that of every single European country not named France or Albania.

  250. Jen says:

    It seems that men who are married to women are the only ones with the organizational ability to initiate/win a war. So, male marriage to women causes war. Just kidding there with that conclusion….

  251. Just kidding there with that conclusion….

    That’s fine.

    Its real tough on men right now Jen. In the United States, if you are man and you aren’t born with a high level of aptitude/cognitive ability, you better be tall and/or great looking. If you aren’t smart, you aren’t tall, and you aren’t good looking, most likely you are NOT going to get married (or if you do, you are likely not going to be happily married.) This is my evaluation. Men with lower levels of cognitive ability, they can’t just work hard anymore (put in lots of hours) and build a life for themselves. All the jobs that used to pay good for hard working men, automation and having a job be well formed has driven the value for that job ever closer to minimum wage. My nephew had to go back to school for 5 years to become an egnineer because he can’t earn enough money as a plumber to support himself (let alone a wife and family.) This was not the case, 30 years ago…

    …so you’ve got men who are born short, ugly, and stupid. Basically, in this country (if they want to be good Christian men and have a good marriage), they are screwed. And they don’t think that’s fair and I agree with them. But that is where we are today. So they leave many of their complaints here on Dalrock’s blog. And as a woman (and this isn’t fair for you) you are going to have to be a little more sensitive to what these guys are feeling because we have a lot of broken souls here. Liz’s comments most certainly did not help.

  252. Dalrock says:

    @Jen

    Men without access to sex (with women) – male prisons: Brutal aggression and violence.

    The problem with this is prisons are quite deliberately filled with violent men. So a high concentration of violent men creating a violent environment isn’t proof that something else is creating the observed violence. We can however examine cases where prisons weren’t filled with violent men, and observe if they too become brutally aggressive. In One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich Solzhenitsyn notes that even though the conditions were incredibly bad in the Siberian gulag, the prisoners didn’t fear violence from each other because the prisoners were all political prisoners, not real criminals. Likewise the accounts of the WWII Japanese prison camp at Cabanatuan don’t describe a decent into barbarism by the US POWS.

  253. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jen
    Men without access to sex (with women) – male prisons: Brutal aggression and violence.

    Counter example: men without access to sex with women – STEM graduate students. Any aggression is channeled into online gaming, with some p0rn on the side.

    Do you see the sample error in both examples? Neither group is an accurate cross section of “men” as a group. One is skewed to IQ below the mean and a short time horizon, the other is skewed to IQ above the mean and a longer time horizon.

    If I get to choose the data, I can “prove” all sorts of things.

  254. Opus says:

    Men without access to sex (with women) – Colditz: escape attempts with much tunnel digging and glider construction.

  255. oblivion says:

    @michael, glad u liked the video. since i finally digested the red pill, i can see stuff like that all over now. I didnt read the opinions on the piece, u beat me to them.

  256. MarcusD says:

    Dalrock, 100 years ago (Sept. 1913) marriage was common and pretty much expected for men and women in Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Imperial Germany, France and Great Britain (also Rumania, and Italy). Not to mention many other countries, but I have selected the above for an obvious reason.

    I’m not exactly arguing for or against Earl’s point. However, there is research (some of which I quoted above) that backs up his assertion, and I think it is worth pointing out. That marriage/LTR reduces a man’s levels of testosterone is demonstrated clearly by many studies (see above). Also, it does not matter all that much, in my opinion, as to whether the citizenry are married, but rather if the people in positions of power are. Anyhow, we’ve seen very little worldwide slaughter since WWII, but we have seen a significant decline in marriage rates.

    Beyond that, if you are going to reject my points, please do so with evidence (e.g. sources).

    I’m not an historian, but I have read a fair amount of history, and I don’t see any support for the notion.

    I did cite an example above.

    The problem with this is prisons are quite deliberately filled with violent men.

    There are different kinds of prisons – some are indeed filled with violent men (who most likely committed violent crimes), but most others (I think about 60% by population – http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp) are filled with non/minimally-violent men (e.g. drug users, burglars, white-collar criminals). It’s also worth noting that the prison population has increased rapidly since marriage rates began to drop (recognizing questionable cause, and all). It’s also worth noting that the US prison population race breakdown correlates with levels of free testosterone (see: James, William H. “Causes of racial differences in testosterone levels of men.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 85.6 (1993): 506-507.)

  257. oblivion says:

    since we’re on the subject of testosterone. If u want to raise your level of t naturally make sure not to miss leg day lifting. when one is squating heavy weights it releases alot more t in the body. Also, a good natural way of increasing t is taking a supplement called macca. macca will also make the boys swell and give u the energy in bed of an 18 yr old male. My final point to all this is that women are naturally attracted to men with high t and they dont even realize it.

  258. oblivion says:

    i forgot to mention, if u married guys start feeding your wife macca u will notice a much warmer bed at night. its a powder that u can buy at any whole foods store, the bigger the bag u buy the cheaper the price. instead of rubbing her feet make her a smoothie :) you will see results after 7 days :)

  259. MarcusD says:

    Preferences for masculinity were strongest when women’s testosterone levels were relatively high. Our findings complement those from previous studies that show systematic variation in masculinity preferences during the menstrual cycle and suggest that change in testosterone level may play an important role in cyclic shifts in women’s preferences for masculine traits.

    Welling, L. L. M., et al. “Raised salivary testosterone in women is associated with increased attraction to masculine faces.” Hormones and Behavior 52.2 (2007): 156-161.

    Men reported stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high than in test sessions where salivary testosterone was low. This effect was found to be specific to judgments of opposite-sex faces. The strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in men’s faces did not differ between high and low testosterone test sessions, suggesting that the effect of testosterone that we observed for judgments of women’s faces was not due to a general response bias.

    Welling, Lisa LM, et al. “Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high.” Hormones and Behavior 54.5 (2008): 703-708.

    Furthermore, men’s actual and perceived affinity for children predicted women’s long-term mate attractiveness judgments, while men’s testosterone and perceived masculinity predicted women’s short-term mate attractiveness judgments. These results suggest that women can detect facial cues of men’s hormone concentrations and affinity for children, and that women use perception of these cues to form mate attractiveness judgments.

    Roney, James R., et al. “Reading men’s faces: women’s mate attractiveness judgments track men’s testosterone and interest in infants.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273.1598 (2006): 2169-2175.

    Testosterone is thought to mediate a trade-off between paternal effort and mating effort, such that males investing monogamously have lower testosterone than those with multiple partners. This suggests that high-testosterone males may have a reproductive advantage over their low-testosterone counterparts via increased mating success. We tested 119 adult males to assess whether testosterone is associated with mating success, and rated masculinity and attractiveness. We found a significant positive correlation between testosterone and cumulative mating success. There was, however, no correlation between testosterone and rated masculinity or attractiveness. This study indicates that, although current levels of testosterone covary with male mating success, this effect may not be mediated by women’s preferences for visual cues to testosterone levels conveyed in static face or body features. If the testosterone–mating success link is driven by female choice, this effect may be behaviourally modulated, for example, through the augmentation of male mate seeking or courtship effort.

    Peters, Marianne, Leigh W. Simmons, and Gillian Rhodes. “Testosterone is associated with mating success but not attractiveness or masculinity in human males.” Animal Behaviour 76.2 (2008): 297-303.

  260. JDG says:

    oblivion is that macca or maca?

  261. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m not exactly arguing for or against Earl’s point.

    Then what is your point?

  262. oblivion says:

    Maca root, its a superfood. You start at 1 teaspoon a day for two weeks, then u can add another teaspoon. If taken only 3 times a week, it will still help.

  263. Micha Elyi says:

    [S]tart feeding your wife macca… you will see results after 7 days :)
    oblivion

    Result #1, she’s growing a mustache.

  264. MarcusD says:

    Then what is your point?

    Discussion need not conclude anything or be set on one position from the outset. My intent was simply to add what research has found to the discussion in order to facilitate further discussion and potentially to confirm or disconfirm claims being made. I dislike anecdotes and anecdotal information, and prefer instead to have a more solid basis. Feminist academics rely too often on anecdotal information, and I’d like to differentiate myself (and us) from them. The first step is rigor in citation.

  265. Anonymous age 70 says:

    Hey, Liz, small problem. I am the guy who wrote maybe 6 years ago that American women are collectively insane. Present company definitely not excepted.

    Not only am I getting some. I have been married 38 years, and have been getting some for 38 years. Your verbal diarrhea is called shaming language. That simply doesn’t work any more.

    In fact, it motivates men who might otherwise reject our views. Please carry on. We are glad to accept all available help.

    The United States does so much wrong. One of those wrong things is to put men in male only prisons, isolated from sex with women.

    I live a few minutes from a state prison here in Mexico. Every male prisoner (if there are exceptions no one has told me yet) is entitled to a sexual visit from his wife or girl friend or paid or unpaid volunteer at least once a week. But, I think it is not all the same time for all men. There is a bus which waits several times a week in the nearby village, for the women to load up and visit their mates in prison.

    Yes, this cuts down dramatically on violence, and virtually eliminates male rape in prison.

    I was also told, but have not been able to verify it, that women in the woman’s section are also entitled to sex visits under the same conditions. I joked with a cousin about volunteering to visit a good looker.

  266. herbie says:

    @ Oblivion

    That video link was awesome.

    Made me water me eyes.

    What a shame 300 pound wreck Mama has become.

    This video was from 15 years ago in 1998.

    I was lucky enough to have three step daddy’s, but none gave me a hug like that.

  267. herbie says:

    OK, off to do some leg lifts now. :p

  268. Anonymous Reader says:

    Discussion need not conclude anything or be set on one position from the outset.

    Then you don’t have any point to make, but you do wish to display your ability to copy/paste text, is that about it?

  269. MarcusD says:

    Then you don’t have any point to make, but you do wish to display your ability to copy/paste text, is that about it?

    That question was already answered.

  270. oblivion says:

    @herbie, glad u liked it :)

  271. whatever says:


    If we return to Caesar’s risky decision to defy the Roman Republic by crossing the Rubicon and committing himself to civil war, we can interpret his behavior as consistent with the findings of the current experiments. For individuals high in testosterone, and thus high in power motivation, the denial of power appears to motivate them toward risk-seeking behaviors, presumably in an effort to gain or regain power. The current research suggests that inducing high-testosterone individuals to feel powerless may remove a subjective state with which they are generally accustomed, or to which they orient (Cashdan, 1995; Dabbs et al., 1998; Dabbs, de la Rue, & Williams, 1990; Josephs et al., 2006; Mazur & Booth, 1998), thereby causing them to adopt a risky frame of mind. In contrast, when high-testosterone individuals are in positions of power, they tend to be risk-averse, apparently in an effort to avoid disrupting the status quo.

    Don’t even need to know the situation or the man to make wild and stupid opinions on why he did what he did.

    I’ll make a stupid guess myself. He had people loyal to him in Rome that where in on Pompey’s inner councils, by bribes or whatever, and had received word that if he disbanded his army and entered Rome he would be killed.

    So there was little choice at all if he wanted to continue to live.

  272. MarcusD says:

    You will notice that I provided only a small fraction of the paper in question. The basis for their “wild and stupid opinions” is discussed in far greater detail.

  273. Dear Dalrock,

    It is nice to see you write this,

    “I think the fundamental error lies in misattributing to women (or in this case their collective lady bits) what should rightly be attributed to marriage. Marriage doesn’t merely provide access to lady bits, it provides the average man with a stake in the society as the head of his own family, or (prior to marriage) with an accepted path towards the same.”

    Marriage is the cornerstone of Western Civilization. The Patriarchy grants every man exclusive property rights to his wife and children. Because the Neocons profit by seizing the property of others, they must destroy the family. Simply put, the more they buttcockc and deousl your future wife, the less she will be loyal to God, Man, and Family, and the more she will be loyal to the Fed and Neoconzzntzhhz. It is much more profitable for them to have your wife working in their corporations and brainwashing your children in daycare than it is to have her at home raising the children and instilling them with classical, exalted values.

    The PUA/Churchian community sees marriage as mostly an institution that provides them blowjobs, gina, and butthzizozlzzizolz access on demand. They too have desouled the classical, exalted institution, and they too are slaves to women’s butt and gina tingleslzozzlz which motivate all their actions/texts/negs/words/furry hats.

    Dalrock writes, “Marriage provides the average man with a stake in the society as the head of his own family.” Jesus Christ saw us not as average, alpha, beta, subprime/whatever. The only requirement for entering His Kingdom was living by Honor. And thus, those “average” men who live by Honor have ever been the true Alphas. Thus Marriage is an institution which exalts the Alpha over the beta neggers/buttcckersz/gamers/PUAsz lzozlzozzlozzozizzlzo which another reason why the Fed had to destroy marriage.

  274. Here’s the problem: You’ve now driven more traffic to that sadistic bastard religious psycho. Fortunately, at this moment, Amazon owned Alexa.com indicates that your site has 16 times as many sites linking to it as the one you’ve referred to in this post. He should become a man instead. His Friday the 13th tweet says so much
    “JD Gunter ‏@GunterJD 13 Sep
    Wife and I thankful for Family Life Conference led by @hershaelyork at the Seminary Wives Institute. @SBTS cares about marriage.”

    The day before he’s horrified … and retweets this
    “Sarah Pulliam Bailey ‏@spulliam 12 Sep
    Focus on the Family to cut 40 employees due to $3 million deficit. Navigators cutting 75% of NavPress staff (Gazette) http://ht.ly/oOQ0D

    Poor babies at FOTF… They’ve destroyed lives since 1977 – cutting $3 million / 40 people = $75,000 average per person. Not too bad for the lazy that’ve push the sickness on their ‘flock’ — too bad, now it’s automated.

    Maybe your friend JD can accept those donations to spread his vomit instead.

    Can you see why he has no comment section on his blog?

  275. No idea where this came from, but this showed up in my mailbox.

  276. Jen says:

    IBB – Yes, you are correct, I did not realize the male point of view at all. I never hear these things anywhere else – not in the media – nowhere. I have discussed some of these things with a few co-workers, and they are almost as clueless as me. However, we are in the Washington, DC area, so a very liberal demographic.

    @Anon Reader – The two opposite ends of the spectrum illustrate my point – if you view the ghetto population as a leading indicator (not an outlier). Think of the below the mean IQ sample as the steerage passengers on the Titanic. The above the mean IQ sample are the First Class passengers. The steerage passengers are the first to drown, but the First Class passengers will eventually follow. Their superior resources will only buy them some time.

  277. Jen says:

    @Opus – Colditz = “Die Gedanken Sind Frei” – nice version by Destiny Cross on YouTube.

  278. oblivion says:

    @feminist hater

    she gave a spot-on hamster rationalization too

    “There is little I can do to assuage the lack of credibility this misrepresentation has created, as well as the confidence my colleagues and others who have relied on me may have lost the past several weeks. Their anger and distrust is understandable, however, I never intended to willfully deceive anyone,”

    lol “i never intended to willfully decieve anyone” ya u just told everybody that u were a phd and they assumed u had reached that professonal level when giving your opinion.

    no big deal snowflake, u nearly started ww3 but no biggy. i guess we can add her to the nawalt list, only very few women have almost started ww3.

  279. BradA says:

    What exactly does “moral agency” mean?

    Women can be saved (transformed into a new life with God) just like men. They can and must put their faith in Jesus and be changed into a “new man” by Him. (II Cor 5:17) How is that not a requirement for moral action of a sort?

    > ” The only requirement for entering His Kingdom was living by Honor. ”

    Nope, the requirement was that you were reborn by being spiritually transformed by Him after putting him into the Lordship position of your life. Honorable living can and should follow that, but it is not what causes that nor is it the evaluation point of the inner spiritual transformation. (“You must be born again.”)

  280. There BradA goes again, displaying his epic manginaism and abhorrent corruption of Chirstianity.

    BradA tries to transform Christianity into Churchianity–a cult ruled by his mangina tinglelzozlzozlzo.

    Listen to Jesus, not to BradAsshat:

    A Tree and its Fruit
    (Matthew 12:33-37; Luke 6:43-45)

    15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing (BradA), but inwardly they are ravening wolves (mangina tyrants). 16Ye shall know them by their fruits (BradA’s inability to directly answer questions, like a man, while baring false witness against all men and blaming the murder of 50 million babies on men even though the babie were aborted by women’s choice alone). Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father (LIVING BY THE EXALTED CODE OF HONOR JESUS CAME TO FULFILL!) which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name (As BradA claims to do as the mangina man hater)? and in thy name have cast out devils (As BradA claims to do as the mangina man hater)? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (NOT LIVING BY THE CODE OF HONOR, LIKE BRADA!).

    You hear that BradA? Jesus never knew ye, as ye violate the LAWS HE CAME TO FULFILL by bearing false witness against your brother and multitudinous other dark sins and corruptions of Christ and Christianity.

  281. Some Guy says:

    >> What exactly does “moral agency” mean?

    Does a woman ever just do something wrong because she wanted to? Or is she always always always crafting the perfect narrative in which she is driven to do this wrong thing by some horrible mean nasty abusive man and it is the only way that she could handle it and she can’t take it anymore and she just has to do this thing or else the lives of her children are ruined and she absolutely must have this chorus of voices reflecting this back at her and you just don’t understand.

    Take any direct command in the New Testament and show it to a woman. The funhouse mirror twisted reflection that you get back demonstrates the lack of moral agency. Talk to her long enough, and you will see why she gets a free pass on half of the commands and why her inability to do the other half them is due to some man somewhere.

    A typical example of this is when “Christian” women commit adultery. You corner them and ask them why they did it and the answer you get back is that this new guy is so spiritual and so good with the children. He reads the bible, you know! Right and wrong to them is basically just something you use to justify yourself with and to beat your husband up with.

  282. Some Guy says:

    Women’s lack of moral agency is generally taken for being evidence of their being more emotionally mature, more focused on relationships, more in tune with themselves, etc.

    It’s all a smoke screen though. You can be sure that when the dust has settled, they will have exactly what they wanted all along with a totally believable cover story. Boys’ disinclination to play this sort of game is used to shame them throughout their school years. Marriage counselling picks up where the teachers left off.

  283. earl says:

    “My final point to all this is that women are naturally attracted to men with high t and they dont even realize it.”

    One side effect I found is you will have a stronger muskier odor. Throw away the colognes and any deodorants that aren’t natural…they mask your pheromones.

    Sense of smell I think is one of those realizations they don’t know consciously.

  284. earl says:

    “There was a lack of men, an most likely no lack of sex or .marriage in pre nazi Germany”

    And if you read up on when Hitler was a youth in Roissy site…he seemed to have a very difficult time getting the ladies.

    So if you are having a constant stream of sex…why would you want to waste your time planning wars or conquering other nations when you are conquering some poon. War to me seems like something you do when you are bored with your stagnant life.

  285. Opus says:

    I just came across a very interesting piece of writing by J.J. Rousseau, and I thought I would share his following observation: That although there are as many women as men, by playing hard to get all the time women give the impression that there are far fewer of them than there really are. Even promiscuous women may spend most of the year, Rousseau says, five-sixth’s, celibate, and thus even with great promiscuity it can feel for men like a sexual desert.

    Rousseau has a lot more to say on females [in the Second Discourse] and it is pretty Red Pill.

  286. SomeGuy,

    Women’s lack of moral agency is generally taken for being evidence of their being more emotionally mature, more focused on relationships, more in tune with themselves, etc.

    It’s all a smoke screen though. You can be sure that when the dust has settled, they will have exactly what they wanted all along with a totally believable cover story.

    That’s true. We’ve all seen it.

    It used to be that cultures/customs were designed around many of these parameters given how women think and live. I’ll give a personal example from my own life. When I was 21 I broke up with my then 22 year old girlfriend because she was never home when I went to pick her up, never. She was always out “somewhere” totally lost track of time. Not accountable. And it was never her fault, never ever.

    Well, the first person to find out I was breaking up with her was her father as he was home and she wasn’t. I told him that this was the last straw, to tell his daughter that I never wanted to see her again. He frowned and said he would tell her that and he certainly understood. (It’s a real hard thing for a father to handle knowing your daughter is a daft basketcase who has no one to blame but herself for her own problems.) I get home and 60 minutes later I get the call…

    “You didn’t have to leave. You could have just waited for me.”

    “Did your dad talk to you?”

    “Yes.”

    “Did he tell you I never wanted to speak to you again?”

    “Yes.”

    “So why did you call me? You are not worthy of me, lose my phone number.”

    “I think you are being an asshole!”

    “I don’t care. You need to take accountability for your actions. You keep doing this, and I am not going to tolerate it. You’ve lost me.”

    I hang up. Then about an hour later I got in my car and went to hang out with my friends for the weekend. I get home that Sunday and there is one message on my answering machine. Great. She left some awful, hurtful message, how dare I hang up on her, blah-blah. No. It was her dad. And he message was anything but awful.

    “I know you don’t want so speak to my daughter again and I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t either the way she treated you. She walked all over you, constantly took advantage of you. That said, she is my daughter. And my little girl has been in her bedroom all weekend crying, all weekend. She wont come out to eat, wont call any of her friends, she is broken. That is because she fully realizes what she’s done, what she has lost and it has devastated her. What’s worse, she is convinced that there is nothing she can do to change her behavior, she is a limited human being, we both know how women are. Would you please call me? My number is xxx-xxx-xxxx. Thank you.”

    So I call him. And he begins to tell me how sorry he is for the way she treated me (always standing me up, or being fashionably late.) I told him that I didn’t blame him and that it was okay, I would just move on and find someone else, and eventually she will do the same. And in the end, she’ll be a better person. Then he hits me with it.

    “As you know I own my own business. If you would consider taking her back and if the two of you end up married, I will give you a job in this office and half of my company.”

    I’ve heard of Dowries before, but I had never been offered one until that moment. Basically, what this guy was saying is this: my daughter is not a moral agent. She will never-EVER be a moral agent. And she knows it. And I’m stuck with her, she is my burden. You are a stable, moral, dependable guy, the best thing she can hope for in this lifetime to keep her focused and grounded. Here is a whole bunch of wealth if you relieve me the burden of looking aftern my good-for-nothing daughter who is not dependable enough to do anything. Please, wont you reconsider? That has got to be a really hard thing for a father to admit, but that is pretty much what Dowries were created for, to buy off the moral guy to care for the woman who has no moral agency. They knew (a thousand years ago) that there had to be some “incentive” for men to burden their lives with a woman because she is (typically) functionally limited. We seem to have lost that bit of wisdom along the way (probably because functional families are fewer and fewer) but it is what it is.

  287. Feminist Hater says:

    Eh IBB, Dalrock should rename this post ‘The sin of lacking moral agency’.

  288. FH,

    The problem with that is, I am not sure it is “sinful” for women to not be moral agents. Biblically, an argument could be made that it is expected that women act in that manner.

  289. Feminist Hater says:

    Nope, women are indeed moral agents, the Bible would be written entirely for men if they were not moral agents.

  290. Feminist Hater says:

    Watching the gold price right now… lol. I thought the markets expected the FED to taper, 10 to 15 billion, they promised me, hahahaahahahahaha!

  291. Feminist Hater says:

    Sorry, that should read, “.. would be written entirely for men if women were not expected to be moral agents.”

    I believe they have an issue with empathy and deceit but I have never held the position that they cannot or cannot be expected to have moral agency. There would literally be no point for them to be a man’s helper nor companion if they did not.

  292. Watching the gold price right now… lol. I thought the markets expected the FED to taper, 10 to 15 billion, they promised me, hahahaahahahahaha!

    As Captain Capitalism says, “….enjoy the decline.” We are borrowing $85 billion a month that we don’t have, $2,840,000,000 a day, most of which is money just given to single moms to pay for the feeding, clothing, and shelter of their bastard offspring, not to mention financial aid to girls to attend school to someday be HR generalists. But our President, HE has Moxie!

  293. Sorry, that should read, “.. would be written entirely for men if women were not expected to be moral agents.”

    I believe they have an issue with empathy and deceit but I have never held the position that they cannot or cannot be expected to have moral agency. There would literally be no point for them to be a man’s helper nor companion if they did not.

    Well FH….

    …either the man is the spiritual head of the household, or he isn’t. And whether you or I like it or not, society holds men to a higher standard of moral accountability.

    Think about the almost $3 billion this country borrows each and every day. That is entirely immoral. But we do it because our fearless leaders have been brow-beaten by feminism into believing that we need all these government programs and agencies to subsidize women who have made terrible choices. That is basically where we are at…. and that is not changing.

    Jim Duggar is the spiritual head of his household of 19 children. They have no debt. Their children were home schooled so they took (basically) NO government services for all the property taxes that they paid (he has never called for police or fire and I expect he never will.) Just today, there was a comment at yahoo that another one of his daughters is entering “courtship” with a young man. I fully expect that if the two of them marry, that this young man will find a way to scrimp and save and pay cash for starter home (or if not cash, a MASSIVE down payment and a smallish mortgage.) He will be a moral agent. It is that or Jim wouldn’t let him near his daughter. We need more spiritual heads of households who understand that following the Bible not only makes spiritual sense, it also defines moral agency which is critical for men who are responsible for leading their wives. As Sunshine Mary would say she’s going to submit so the person she should be submitting to is her husband and he needs to have moral agency enough for the both of them.

    WithOUT him, she is likely to live a Life of Julia because she is NOT a moral agent. She can read the Bible but she will “hamster wheel” away all the moral parameters in that book and justify any behavior on her part without a man’s guidance. She will spend all her money and money she does NOT have and she will make bad choices. And that life (ad the National level, our immoral behavior) leads to $3 billion a day of federal borrowing.

  294. BRING DA DOWRY DOWERY DOWERIE BACK!!! LZOZLZO WOMENZ WOMENZ UP BRING DA DOWERY BACK! LOZOZOZZO

    zlozozoz

    if all da neneoconths wringing tehir handsa about the decline and fall of marirage REALLY WNAT TO BRINGZ back marriage they need to probvide INCENTIVEESZ FOR MENSZ TO GET MARRIIIED. as there is 0 chance dat da neoconctehdodsn will ever stop woemnz form nebing buttcocked and giancocked by hudndedreds of cockas, as the deousling of womenz and comunist destortcutionof teh fmaileiez is their prime agencda, there are otehr aooppaoahces they can take to saving marriage, such as resusnsituiting the DOWERY DOWERIE DOWRY! lzozlzzo

    thorughzout all hirstsoiresz it has ever been reladized dat womenz navigatedz not by exalted reason honor code of honor but via butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozzlz lzzozlz

    for dis reason, a man had to be compensatedz for marrying one and putting up with the endless flowsz of solipisimsz, ilogical fallacies, pursusit of gina and butt tingzzlzleoelzo satiate sataiatioation satsisfy her butt tizngzzklzozozl intsead of raisng kidz and aborting kidz to sataiate butt tzinzgzlzozlzo, and the curse of eve which meansz dat she will forever be longing for da seprent losstas ockasz cockasz zlzozlzozol and is compeleyetley icncapalble of moral reaosn incapable of moral agency incapaable of s cs lewiws russle kirk’s moreal moral moral moral imagainatinz imagainztzataioznz and instead perfer da serpent temptaonsz butt and gina tianagzlzozlzuzuzzlzlzzlozlzlo zzlzlozozozozzlo tizngalozlzaazlzzlzo

    anywho, because this female nature was FUCKNG OBVIOUS to the ancientz, they came up with the dowery DOWERYZ DOWERY to COMPENSATE MENZ for puutinng up with womenz base, cheating, butt and giana tingelelzytzz mtotivated speech and incapacity for reason or moral turtehsz.

    da only broo problemz these daysz is dat as womenz have been pre-buttcoked an dginaocked and splooged in der outhhole and anuthhole and ginahole MORE THAN ANY TIME EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKINDZ, da DOWERY IS GONNA HGAVE TO BE HUGE AND VASTZ VAST VAST and HUGESZ to simply compensate menz for all the risk they take on in marryying a butccoekd multi-butccoked benrnakified womenz who hath been deousledz so as to be more loyal to the bottomm bottom bernankez line lzozziz (bottm=buttholeizlzio line) than she is to the higher ideals and god, man, and famileyzlzoz zlzizi

  295. BradA says:

    No GBFM, you are the one who is an idiot here. Read the Scriptures you claim to esteem. Humans need an inner transformation (“You must be born again”) to come into God’s Kingdom. No works are sufficient and those works only proceed from the relationship, not cause it. You can’t do enough good things to get into heaven, you must be transformed.

    Be an idiot and call me what you will. I follow the Scriptures. Not sure exactly what you follow other than your own rhetoric.

    [Jhn 3:3-7 NKJV] 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

    [2Cr 5:17-21 NKJV] 17 Therefore, if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things [are] of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore [you] on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

    Note especially verse 17. Pure Scripture here. Sounds more like GBFM is the one twisting things. Is that how you get your kicks, insulting those who hold to the Scriptures? You may want to look at the beam in your own eye first and apply the Scriptures you used to yourself.

    Note that you never addressed my point, which shows you have no argument, just insults. I was literally asking a question at the first part after reading in the start of this thread the discussion of “moral agency” and I didn’t see a good definition of what was being defined. We all have some responsibility to God to take what He has presented, whether we are male or female. This is independent of the current argument, but it looks like you can get past your own hamster.

  296. Note how manginA BradA fears to quote Jesus Christ, just as he fears to answer the question, “Are women responsible for their actions?”

    A Tree and its Fruit
    (Matthew 12:33-37; Luke 6:43-45)

    15Beware of false prophets (BradA), which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves (mangina man-haters and Christ-haters). 16Ye shall know them by their fruits (BradA’s bearing false witness against men and blaming them for the over 50,000,000 babies murdered via womens’ choice alone via abortion). Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit (BradA only provides EVIL FRUIT and deceit and false witness). 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them (BradA is incapable of answering questions with a simple yes or no. He is doing Satan’s work.) .

    21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord (Like BradA the beaerer of false witness and worker of iniquity), shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven (which BradA does not do). 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name (as BradA will do)? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    BradA will be judged not on his faux “haalaeuuljah! halalalalaujah!” and white-knighting man-hating manginisms, but upon his bearing false witness against men.

    Jesus will say to BradA, “I never knew ye,” and cast him away.

  297. BradA,

    No GBFM, you are the one who is an idiot here. Read the Scriptures you claim to esteem. Humans need an inner transformation (“You must be born again”) to come into God’s Kingdom. No works are sufficient and those works only proceed from the relationship, not cause it. You can’t do enough good things to get into heaven, you must be transformed.

    He doesn’t have a problem with this Brad. The problem he has with you is the same problem we ALL have with you, you refuse to answer any of our challenging questions. Instead, you try to REFRAME everything according to your worldview that way you don’t get pushed outside your very limited comfort zone.

    You are being political, not spiritual.

  298. MarcusD says:

    So if you are having a constant stream of sex…why would you want to waste your time planning wars or conquering other nations when you are conquering some poon. War to me seems like something you do when you are bored with your stagnant life.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs would seem to suggest otherwise. In other words, those things are supposed to be the basis on which to further progress in life. (Though, I find the fact that sex was added as a basic “need” to be a product of the post-sexual revolution culture rather than a product of science.)

  299. for dis reason, a man had to be compensatedz for marrying one and putting up with the endless flowsz of solipisimsz, ilogical fallacies, pursusit of gina and butt tingzzlzleoelzo satiate sataiatioation satsisfy her butt tizngzzklzozozl intsead of raisng kidz and aborting kidz to sataiate butt tzinzgzlzozlzo, and the curse of eve which meansz dat she will forever be longing for da seprent losstas ockasz cockasz zlzozlzozol and is compeleyetley icncapalble of moral reaosn incapable of moral agency incapaable of s cs lewiws russle kirk’s moreal moral moral moral imagainatinz imagainztzataioznz and instead perfer da serpent temptaonsz butt and gina tianagzlzozlzuzuzzlzlzzlozlzlo zzlzlozozozozzlo tizngalozlzaazlzzlzo

    anywho, because this female nature was FUCKNG OBVIOUS to the ancientz, they came up with the dowery DOWERYZ DOWERY to COMPENSATE MENZ for puutinng up with womenz base, cheating, butt and giana tingelelzytzz mtotivated speech and incapacity for reason or moral turtehsz.

    It has occurred to me, that in today’s culture and climate, Hollywood would not be permitted to make a movie like “Fiddler on the Roof.” The whole concept of culture/customs and where they came from (the ancientz as GBFM so aptly put it) could not be shown if it was shown in a way that was hurtful to women (as is the whole concept of the “dowery” in that 1971 movie.) And yet the principle behind it is the same today as it was 4000 years ago, women are a burden and have no moral agency.

    With “science” we have “Jumped the Shark” with regards to Doweries in China and India. They just abort all the girl babies instead of having them and worrying about supporting them from now until forever. This (following science wherever it leads which is amoral) is what happens when you reject Christ and His teachings.

  300. feeriker says:

    FH said Nope, women are indeed moral agents, the Bible would be written entirely for men if they were not moral agents.

    EXCELLENT point. I also doubt that any of the women in the Bible who did great things on God’s behalf (including the woman who was chosen to bear His son) would have been chosen for the task had they not had any moral agency.

  301. She can read the Bible but she will “hamster wheel” away all the moral parameters in that book and justify any behavior on her part without a man’s guidance

    This actually proves she is a moral agent

  302. Francine says:

    My understanding is that dowry was usually intended to sustain the wife in the possibility of her widowhood. Sometimes it was even bound up legally to be used exclusively as such by either her or her children. Therefore, at least officially, it wasn’t really a “bribe” to the husband, though that is often our mistaken understanding of it today based off of Hollywood, etc.

  303. Men are moral agents who wrote the Bible.
    Women are moral vessels who are capable of behaving morally via moral choices, but generally only if they have been taught how to do so by men.

    How many strippers had a strong father?

    As the FED/bernnakifiersz wanted to destroy the family and profit off the welfare state spawned by women’s natural “alpha fuckzkzukz beta bucks” hypergamous instincts, they simply put women in charge. And voila! Da GBFM were replaced by books centered upon butt and gina tinagalalaoauaalzozo in our universities, and MEN were replaced by BradAs in our churches.

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
    zlzozlozozz

  304. 8oxer says:

    @InnocentBystanderBoston

    I have nothing to add here but gratitude for that (impeccably recounted) story.

    Boxer

  305. Francine,

    My understanding is that dowry was usually intended to sustain the wife in the possibility of her widowhood. Sometimes it was even bound up legally to be used exclusively as such by either her or her children.

    I’m sure that it was, but that was prior to no-fault-divorce, so….

    Therefore, at least officially, it wasn’t really a “bribe” to the husband, though that is often our mistaken understanding of it today based off of Hollywood, etc.

    Its kind of like when Draco was trying to bribe James Bond (George Lazenby) to marry his useless daughter Tracy, with £1,000,000 in gold bullion in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

    You could say this: there is probably no time in Western Civilization where the “dowry” was anything other than a bribe (and when I say Western Civ, I’m talking AFTER the French turned the Muslims back and the Dark Ages started winding down…) I can’t even imagine a Dowry in the Western Hemisphere as being anything other than a Bribe.

    And evenback in the day Francine, if it was only meant to sustain her in her widowhood, the father of the bride giving the future son-in-law 10 cows, 20 chickens, and 5 acres of farmland, you can’t put that in the bank and keep it there in case the son in law dies to sustain his wife. He is going to manage/use the Dowry (kind of like a bribe.)

  306. feeriker says:

    I can’t even imagine a Dowry in the Western Hemisphere as being anything other than a Bribe

    just as a thought exercise, imagine how the tradition of dowry would be implemented today in a western society made up in the majority of fatherless households headed by babymommas/divorced mammas (who would have nothing of value anyway to offer a man to take their daughters off their hands even if they agreed with/to the practice) and bitchy, desperate, entitled, well-past-their-expiration-date spinsters with no male relatives to negotiate a deal on their behalf.

    If nothing else, it would be really entertaining to watch…

  307. just as a thought exercise, imagine how the tradition of dowry would be implemented today in a western society made up in the majority of fatherless households headed by babymommas/divorced mammas (who would have nothing of value anyway to offer a man to take their daughters off their hands even if they agreed with/to the practice) and bitchy, desperate, entitled, well-past-their-expiration-date spinsters with no male relatives to negotiate a deal on their behalf.

    Carrot or stick?

    The carrot is the dowry.

    The stick in the eye is the bachelor tax.

    Which one seems more likely (in modern day Western Civilization) to motivate MGTOW to marry?

  308. 8oxer says:

    just as a thought exercise, imagine how the tradition of dowry would be implemented today in a western society made up in the majority of fatherless households headed by babymommas/divorced mammas (who would have nothing of value anyway to offer a man to take their daughters off their hands even if they agreed with/to the practice) and bitchy, desperate, entitled, well-past-their-expiration-date spinsters with no male relatives to negotiate a deal on their behalf.

    Imagine a shrill, red-haired, sour-faced harridan screaming at a well dressed and somewhat timid boy of about 22. “You have NO RIGHTS to that baby!” she repeats, over and over, making a huge scene in a public place.

    The harridan was the single mother of the boy’s girlfriend, who had recently given birth. The sour old screecher went on to harrangue that “In the Mexican community, a boy is expected to marry the mother of his child!”. The boy has a Spanish sounding surname, but is fair haired and far whiter than Brother Boxer, who is himself as white as a saltine cracker.

    Grandma, it turned out, after this amusing/horrifying incident, works at one of those social engineering agencies promoting empowerment and diversity and such. I suppose that’s why this old white slut felt the need to tell a white man what to do about his white girlfriend and their white baby, in an all-white crowd among the boy’s peers.

    The slits don’t have any dowry. They only have shaming. They continue to be amazed that the shaming doesn’t work as advertised.

  309. LiveFearless says:

    Attempted to communicate with the organization where the Gunter article was posted through Facebook messenger. After a few days they’ve responded to a few sentences. How? They’ve used emoticons and “I’m not sure what you’re talking about but thanks for the advice.” No one gave them advice. It appears they’re using outsourced talent to automate responses on Facebook, so that means it is an opportunity for your readership to post truths that correct any toxic thoughts you’ve found on their blog. Or, commenters can continue talking to each other here instead of asking the organization to correct course. It’s up to you. Complain -gossip together… Or, solve the problem by posting on their pages.

  310. @Brad “You can’t do enough good things to get into heaven, you must be transformed.” & “that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

    Nowhere mentioned in the scriptures is “heaven” the throne of YHVH ever portrayed as the goal. There is not a single verse that mentions when one dies/sleeps they go the heaven in either the OT/NT.

    The scripture is full of many examples of righteous, godly people who pleased YHVH and HE called them perfect (Job, Abraham, John parents in Luke 1:5-6)

    The goal of heaven is “incorrect” and gnostic. Paul stated his goal was the 1st resurrection that Yahshua mentioned in Luke 2x’s and in John 20.
    YHVH will is done in the heaven(s). Heaven is nothing more than the throne of YHVH and the earth is HIS footstool.
    The problem of rebellion is those dwelling in “air” and the “earth”- they/we are not conducting themselves in righteousness, joy, peace in the Ruach HaKodesh /Holy Spirit.
    The KINGDOM is both a “place” and a “government” with rules and laws.
    YHVH rules, laws are going to govern the earth through the sons of YHVH who are brothers of Yahshua.

    You are correct in saying that internal transformation is needed. This done in concert with obedience to the moral Torah and obeying the strict commandments given in the NT (1052 of them).
    However, it is a opportunity ie “might become” as you stated in quoting the scripture.
    The apostle Paul gave VERY STERN WARNINGS in Romans, Col, Gal, that those who continue in sinful behavior will not inherit the Kingdom. Yahshua and the other disciples gave stern commandments also.

    There is not a single verse in the OT/NT that says “Grace” nullifies, minimizes, subtracts, does away with the stern commandments of Yahshua/Disciples and/or the Law of Sowing / Reaping.
    Everyone is judged on how they behave and not what they believe.
    This includes women as well. They are not given a “hall pass”. Remember Lots wife.
    ~Shalom

  311. @innocentbystanderboston – Insightful experience on the dowery. Many thanks !

  312. Michael says:

    @ gbfm

    A girl from my high school became a stripper. She had a Dad but her mom divorced him and got the house.

  313. Hannah says:

    “Remember Lots wife.”

    My father painted these words on the rear windscreen of our old rusty Holden Kinsgswood stationwagon:

    REMEMBER Sodom!
    REPENT or Perish!

    Great comment antipas4yashua – Chag Sameach for Sukkot btw :)

    Blessings in Yeshua, Hannah

  314. Opus says:

    ..but Bond (the excellent Lazenby) did marry the Countess Tracy (Rigg – best Bond girl ever) and he doesn’t put up with any crap from her either, indeed slaps her around a bit. Tracy however cannot quite grasp that Bond really does want her (very well done by Rigg) and really, the idea that Tracy is useless when you are that hot, can skate, quote poetry (Flecker) make love in the presence of two horses and when it is your intention to make your married home in Royal Tunbridge Wells is a bit much. Not sure what happened to the bullion.

  315. Feminist Hater says:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-19/women-waiting-tables-provide-most-of-female-gains-in-u-s-.html

    Lol, of course what we need is moar feminism, right ladies? We have a mancession but the real problem is that women aren’t getting proper jobs…

  316. herbie says:

    When a woman can blow up the family on a whim and kill babies on demand, we have lost the war. :p

    Where do we go from here?

  317. Ton says:

    Yea things are to far gone to salvage, to early to rebuild. King David wasn’t allowed to build God’s house, but was ordered to start stockpiling materials for the big build.

    Seems to me that’s were we are as a people. To store up wisdom, real wealth etc for those who come after us.

  318. ..but Bond (the excellent Lazenby) did marry the Countess Tracy (Rigg – best Bond girl ever) and he doesn’t put up with any crap from her either, indeed slaps her around a bit. Tracy however cannot quite grasp that Bond really does want her (very well done by Rigg) and really, the idea that Tracy is useless when you are that hot, can skate, quote poetry (Flecker) make love in the presence of two horses and when it is your intention to make your married home in Royal Tunbridge Wells is a bit much.

    There is absolutely no debate, Diana Rigg was the BEST Bond Girl, ever. The most charming, intelligent, loving, understanding, and yes, making love in the presense of two horses is quite a womanly accomplisment. Kudos Tracy.

    Not sure what happened to the bullion.

    Draco gave it to Bond. Bond gave it right back and said “An old Chinese proverb, Her value is greater than her weight in gold or your millions pounds…”

    They were going to have 6 kids. For a start. Then Irma Blunt and Blofeld killed her. And Bond never re-married (was devastated.) Its okay, Bond dropped Blofeld down a factory smokestack in For Your Eyes Only, VENGENCE!

  319. They Call Me Tom says:

    “Seems to me that’s were we are as a people. To store up wisdom, real wealth etc for those who come after us.”

    Ton, that’s the impression I’ve been under ever since reading Farenheit 451. It means having children is important of course, or that your friends and family do at a minimum. We are wandering the desert, because on average, that’s what most people have sought to do. It’s funny that modernism was in part a response to fashion’s becoming too hard to keep up with, but in the long run, modernism only threw out the baby of historical context/ tradition and not the bathwater of fashion.

  320. BradA says:

    @IBB,

    > “He doesn’t have a problem with this Brad. The problem he has with you is the same problem we ALL have with you, you refuse to answer any of our challenging questions. Instead, you try to REFRAME everything according to your worldview that way you don’t get pushed outside your very limited comfort zone.

    You are being political, not spiritual.”

    Exactly which questions have I refused to answer? The only one I recall now is if women are responsible for their actions. I said “yes”. I initially noted that we all are responsible for our actions, since sex has nothing to do with that, but a few clearly had logic challenges and couldn’t realize that “women are responsible for their choices” is a subset of “men and women are responsible for their choices.”

    I may miss some responses at the ends of threads as I don’t live here. Hopefully I will remember to check back here, but a lot of this is a big circle jerk at times.

    I don’t fit any mold.

    Note that my comment about salvation is a spiritual issue. That is the ultimate issue. You go to heaven if you are reborn, you don’t if you aren’t. You may or may not have power of some kind on this earth with that, but the line determining your location in the next life is clear and far outside my control.

    It does show me a bit how much some here are idiots in their thinking if they label me a white knight and mangina, etc. But go on living in your fantasy land if you wish. I speak the truth best as I see it. I will change if someone shows me that I am clearly wrong, especially via the Scriptures. I have not seen any of that though, just a lot of insults. That tends to show a lack of the ability to think.

  321. BradA says:

    IBB, I would also challenge you to note exactly what I have stated here that makes me fall under GBFM’s claim that I am a false prophet, white knight, etc. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that however. I know GBFM won’t. He just attacks the target of the moment it seems.

  322. Joe says:

    My understanding is that dowry was usually intended to sustain the wife in the possibility of her widowhood. Sometimes it was even bound up legally to be used exclusively as such by either her or her children. Therefore, at least officially, it wasn’t really a “bribe” to the husband, though that is often our mistaken understanding of it today based off of Hollywood, etc.-Francine

    In his book, “Ethics of Marriage” by H.S. Pomeroy, MD, he explains the dowry should be viewed as an inheritance the wife would receive from an affluent family when she married a man from a family that had very little. In other words, she was going to get the money, property, etc. anyway; she’s just going to get it sooner rather than later. The book was written circa 1890.

  323. Pingback: Links and Comments #16 | The Society of Phineas

  324. Pingback: Who loves best? | Dalrock

  325. Pingback: A husband’s plea to Catholic Answers Forum: Stop sowing discord in my house! | Dalrock

  326. Pingback: Repackaging feminism as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock

  327. Pingback: Why we don’t need Sanger: Give the rebellious wife what she demands or the baby gets it! | Dalrock

  328. ulua12 says:

    it is very true women don’t understand the evolutionary battle that is besieging their hearts.
    however as men we must understand that if we had to bear the child our views would align.

    Alpha 1
    out

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