Why isn’t Carl good enough?

I’ve joked in the past that it can be impossible to tell the difference between Traditional Conservatives and Feminists, but a Slate DoubleX article on women deliberately choosing single motherhood quoted by Steve Sailer and Vox Day has me rethinking this.

Theoretical Opposites:  Feminsts vs Family Values Conservatives

In theory when it comes to issues of the family and traditional morality we have two polar opposite groups.  On the one side we have feminists who see traditional marriage as a relic of the past and a constraint on women.  On the other side we have the family values group which longs to return to the traditional family model at the expense of feminist goals/gains.  This is the theory, in practice the two groups are surprisingly similar in their response to our current explosion in out of wedlock births (chart source):

db8_fig1_percent_out_wedlock_trend

The Similarities

Both feminists and family values conservatives tend to see the explosion in out of wedlock births as a problem, and both are certain that women are being forced to choose broken homes over marriage because men aren’t worth marrying.  To both, the women of our modern feminist era are desperate to commit for life and honor traditional marriage vows, if only there were men fit to marry.  The feminists at Slate’s DoubleX lay it on thick when describing Lily, a pregnant woman uninterested in marrying or even remaining with the father (Carl) of her soon to be born child (emphasis mine):

When Lily looks around at the available men, they don’t offer what she is looking for. Lily, just like better-off men and women, believes that marriage means an unqualified commitment to the other spouse. When you marry someone, you support him in hard times. You stick with him when he disappoints you. You visit him if he ends up in jail. And you encourage him to become an important part of your children’s lives.  It’s just that Lily doesn’t believe that Carl is worth that commitment. Nor does she believe that she will meet someone who will meet her standards anytime soon, and the statistics back her up.

This is of course pure (and laughable) conjecture on the part of the authors, as Lily has done nothing to even remotely suggest she believes in the commitment of traditional marriage.  Why do they assume that a woman who is deliberately having a child out of wedlock has a higher level of commitment to marriage than women who manage to avoid giving birth out of wedlock?  If Lily is the face of women who believe in traditional marriage, what would a woman who rejected marriage look like?

However, as I noted the basic assumption about the explosion in unwed mothers in the DoubleX article is shared by the leading members of the family values movement.  Focus on the Family is the leading organization in the United States representing the family values point of view, and their Director for Family Formation Studies has come to the same conclusion.  According to Director Stanton, unwed mothers haven’t rejected the constraints of marriage, they are responding to a sudden and mysterious deficit in men.  Stanton makes this case in his book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity:

If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage. Unfortunately, this describes exactly the new shape of family growth in Western nations by exploding margins…
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies. But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.

Pastor Mark Driscoll makes the same case (emphasis mine):

if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women.  A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”

 The Differences

As similar as the two sides are in assuring us that the horde of mothers who reject marriage aren’t really rejecting marriage, there are subtle differences in their arguments.  Not surprisingly, the feminists at Slate celebrate the changes feminism has put in place to create a world where Lily sees unwed motherhood as a viable option:

…socioeconomic, cultural, and economic changes have brought white working-class women like Lily to the point where going it alone can be the wiser choice. And the final irony: The same changes that have made marriages more equitable and successful among elite couples have made it less likely that marriage will look attractive to Lily.

Later in the article they reiterate that as feminists they would oppose any marriage related policies which would restrict Lily’s independence:

Does society have an interest in helping couples like Lily and Carl stay together? Probably, but not in the way many policymakers have proposed. Those who would promote marriage seek to do so largely by taking away Lily’s independence.

This is where the distinction between feminists and the family values leaders can be spotted.  While feminists celebrate the radical way we have reordered marriage and our society to make the explosion in unwed motherhood happen, family values leaders simply deny such a change occurred in the first place.  Because of this, the feminists are far less contemptuous of men than the family values crowd.  Feminists like the ones at DoubleX see the explosion in out of wedlock births and want to petition for some fine tuning to social policy, especially with regard to economic opportunity for young men.  In contrast, the family values group lays the blame for the feminist destruction of the family squarely on men, arguing (implicitly) that feminism would work if it weren’t for weak men screwing everything up.

The elephant in the middle of the room.

 What neither the feminists nor the family values proponents are willing to address is that the decision to move from a marriage based family structure was made in the US several decades ago.  Prior to the 1960s unwed mothers could not count on child support or welfare.  Most states had a patchwork of bastardy laws in place, but even here the laws varied and there was a clear stigma on illegitimacy.  Prior to the 1960s, a woman like Lily couldn’t count on the state funding her irresponsible decision to skip marriage, nor could she count on cultural leaders, including the most ostensibly “conservative” ones, publicly stating that her decision to skip marriage on her path to motherhood was not only understandable but wise.

Carl isn’t available to give his own side of the story, but at best he chose to knock up an irresponsible woman.  But while Carl is responsible for his own bad choices and the harm this will do to his child, he isn’t the reason we are watching the continued destruction of marriage.  The truth is that neither feminists nor family values conservatives can stomach the limitations on Lily’s independence which a return to a marriage based system would impose.  The only difference is that feminists admit this outright, while conservatives manage this through denial and redoubling their efforts to make men find a way to make feminism work.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Child Custody, Child Support, Denial, Feminists, Feral Females, Glenn Stanton, Mark Driscoll, Stantons Heroes, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

417 Responses to Why isn’t Carl good enough?

  1. donalgraeme says:

    The truth is that neither feminists nor family values conservatives can stomach the limitations on Lily’s independence which a return to a marriage based system would impose. The only difference is that feminists admit this outright, while conservatives manage this through denial and redoubling their efforts to make men find a way to make feminism work.

    Here, here!

    A society built around marriage only existed, and can only exist, because of laws that limited the independence of women (and of men). When you remove the social/cultural and legal impositions on the behaviors of men and women, our present culture is exactly what you will get every single time.

  2. donalgraeme says:

    Incidentally, I’m slowly working on a post touching on this phenomenon, although from a much broader angle with regards to the overall values of our present social order.

  3. princeasbel says:

    Just wanted to say hi, Dalrock! I’ve been in withdrawal since you set your blog on moderation. Very glad to see you back. :)

  4. In contrast, the family values group lays the blame for the feminist destruction of the family squarely on men

    It’s striking that none of the tradcons ever suggests that maybe Lily should pass on being a mother if she can’t find a suitable husband. They’re not happy about her single motherhood, but they’re not about to criticize it. Apparently they believe that any woman who wants a child has such a God-given right to one that it trumps all scriptural commands about fornication and Christian beliefs about the importance of fathers.

    Feminists and tradcons both rank a woman’s right to control her reproduction above all other considerations. The only difference is their end goal: feminists say she has a right to kill her baby, and tradcons say she has a right to an illegitimate one.

  5. JDG says:

    A feminist is a feminist is a feminist. Bring back “the patriarchy”. It’s a sad day indeed when Russia is making more sense than the country I was born in.

  6. James K says:

    “It’s just that Lily doesn’t believe that Carl is worth that commitment.”

    The feeling is mutual. Apart from a strong interest in handbags, shoes, and badboys, what does Lily have to offer?

  7. Crank says:

    As I’ve mentioned before, I think tradcons painted themselves into this corner because of Roe. Feminists, etc. called them hypocritical if they shamed unwed mothers on the theory that it was encouraging the very abortions that they opposed. Unable to take any criticism or shaming, and partly out of legitimate fear of causing abortions, they then turned around and starting hailing them as courageous for not aborting, which gave rise to the heroic single mother meme, even in churches. But, needing someone to blame, they had no problem then blaming the men for single motherhood since the men couldn’t choose an abortion, even though the women had much more control over the conception. And, to double down on that, they made it criminal in some jurisdictions for a man to do much of anything that would influence her to get an abortion. After a while, they started believing their own BS on this, so they have come up with all sorts of reasons why its ok for a woman to affirmatively choose to get pregnant out of wedlock (which is going much farther than choosing not to abort), and simply doubled down again on blaming men for giving women no choice but to do this.

  8. Crank says:

    Woops, that was supposed to be in reply to Cail, where he said “It’s striking that none of the tradcons ever suggests that maybe Lily should pass on being a mother if she can’t find a suitable husband. “

  9. Aquila says:

    You protect yourself from a lot by #1 only marrying a fellow Christian and #2 not having sex before marriage. The Holy laws in the Bible protect us from harm. I’m not saying that thing’s can’t go wrong with a Christian wife, everyone who reads this blog knows it can all too often, but doing what the Word says just rescues a person from a heap of trouble in this world.

  10. theshadowedknight says:

    If men can’t find good wives to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do woman or having babies with her without marriage. Unfortunately, this describes exactly the new shape of family growth in Western nations by exploding margins…
    Men want to marry and have mothers for their children. But if they can’t find good wives to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a wife deficit.

    …if you’re a single guy hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 70 percent of divorces right now are initiated by women.  A lot of men have decided: “I’m never going to find a gal who is actually trustworthy and honors her vows to have a life with. So what is the point of a career and a family; I might as well be a easygoing bachelor because there are no gals worth spending life with.”

    The Shadowed Knight

  11. Something tells me that if the situation were reversed and Carl couldn’t find a good woman to be a wife and mother, these tradcons wouldn’t support him if he were to hire a surrogate to pop out a baby so he could be a dedicated single dad.

    No, they’d tell him that his standards are too high, that children need mothers, that he should give Lily — that nice 250-pound divorced smoker at church — a chance. If he said he wanted a fit young woman who could excite him and give him her best years, they’d excoriate him for being a lustful brute and tell him he should get his priorities straight and stop expecting marriage to be perfect.

  12. RICanuck says:

    It seems that the church leaders have a greater contempt for men as men than even the feminists do.
    I read the original article and Lily doesn’t need Carl or any other man. But somehow she can get to work without a car. Any white knights in her neck of the woods? Or will Pastor Driscoll show Carl what hoops he needs to jump through to be found worthy of driving Lily to work.

  13. okrahead says:

    Okay, I know Carl… except that’s not his real name, and he’s not the baby’s real daddy.
    True story… “Carl” is a young man who is a friend of mine. He stands 6’3″ tall, and is not quite 220 lbs, all of it muscle (we work out together at the gym). He was a boxer during college, is clean cut, and well spoken. “Carl” has a college degree and a good job leading into a better career. He’s pleasant to everyone he meets, and attends church every Sunday. And yes, this “Carl” is a real man.
    “Carl” and I were working out at the gym just this afternoon (you posted this just in time, Dalrock), and I was spotting him while he busted out some serious weight on deep squats with free weights, Mark Rippetoe style. I should preface this by saying that I am quite a bit older than “Carl”, and that I’ve been working out at this same gym since 1998, so I feel free to say what I want to when we’re in the “pit” (free weight room, in the basement).
    So, as “Carl” is tearing it up, Miss Thang comes sidling into the room and walks over to the Smith Press (ugh) machine directly beside the squat rack we’re using. She’s wearing nothing but spadex, and not too much of that, revealing some ginormous, grotesque ink work that may or may not have been applied in a jail cell. Miss Thang proceeds to get down on her hands and knees inside the squat rack and begin kicking one leg up behind her at the bar, explaining to everyone (all men) around her she’s doing “donkey kicks”. I kid you not, this really happened not two hours ago.
    At any rate, “Carl” finishes a tough, five-rep set and leans against the side of the squat cage. Miss Thang loudly announces, while looking directly at him, “I hope you’re not looking at me!”
    “Carl” is clearly flustered, and doesn’t know what to say, so I reply for both of us, “what if we are?”
    Miss Thang immediately plays her trump card, crowing, “Well you better not be CREEPY about it!” followed by craning her head all around looking for a white knight to come and put “Carl” and me in our respective places. Did I mention that “Carl” is 6’3″ and used to box, or that I’ve been working out here since Miss Thang was passing STDs around the first grade playground? NOBODY comes over… and she’s clearly upset about it. Ignoring her, I turn to “Carl” and LOUDLY say, “One of these days I’m going to write a book about women who walk into a room full of nothing but men, wearing nothing but spandex, and complaining that nobody better look at them.”
    “Carl” looks at me like I’m a Martian while Miss Thang stalks off in a huff. “Carl” warns me that I’m liable to get a sexual harassment suit filed on me (oh man, “Carl”, why do you have to be so freakin’ blue pill? I already told you to check out this website).
    Here it is… Miss Thang thinks she’s better than “Carl”, and that she’s even too good for him…. and the society we live in will largely back her up. If we had been in church, instead of a gym where “Carl” and I know everyone, it could have been trouble for us…. Why Mark Driscoll might have rebuked us! Because everyone knows Miss Thank in her tights and tats is far superior to “Carl” with his hard work and good manners…. because she has da sacred poontang!

  14. greenlander says:

    @theshadowedknight:

    …if you’re a single guy hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 70 percent of divorces right now are initiated by women. A lot of men have decided: “I’m never going to find a gal who is actually trustworthy and honors her vows to have a life with. So what is the point of a career and a family; I might as well be a easygoing bachelor because there are no gals worth spending life with.”

    Yes, this. Since the constraints on women are gone, women have rejected assorted mating in favor of the carousel. If you’re willing to stoop low enough to marry the woman who will have you, you’re still taking a risk that she will frivorce you for the cash and prizes.

    Two years ago I left to the United States permanently for Russia. A lot of living in this world is simply a pain in the ass. (You wouldn’t believe what an ordeal getting a driver’s license is here.) But most of the things that people complain about on this blog don’t apply here. If you become a single mother in Russia, your life sucks. There’s no free rain of welfare state goodies to feed your bastard spawn. If you want to have a good life with a child, you’d better pick the stand-up beta. And you’d better stay married: the cash-and-prizes aspect of palimony doesn’t exist here. A lot of divorced guys just don’t pay their child support and the system is too inefficient and too toothless to do anything meaningful.

  15. donalgraeme says:

    TSK knocks a homer out of the park in the early in the game.

    @ Crank

    Yes, the abortion angle I think plays a significant part in the whole mess.

    @ Cail

    You are correct that there wouldn’t be reciprocity of support. Most Trad Cons really are just anti-male at this point.

  16. Solomon says:

    This brilliant post and already excellent comments really highlight just how entrenched feminism is in the church. I smell it in just about every sermon anymore, and its even down to the pantywaists that play in the band in their skinny jeans.

    It breaks my heart, but I find it very hard to find a church that isn’t ultimately useless to me because of this. Those who have the same sense about it, whether clearly or subconsciously, would also stay away, and this effect will bring about more lost souls… more people that couldn’t sort through the bullshit well enough to really get the Word they needed.

    If the church can’t shoot straight, who’s left? It’s remarkable that the lefty fems come off more honest here then those who proclaim their love for God. Reminds me of a quote:

    “prostitutes are more honest women – they tell you the price up front.”

  17. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Lee of DGM fame and I once commented on the good and bad of living in other societies. Every society has good and bad in it. The trick is to find a place where the good is what you want, and the bad doesn’t affect you at all. Or, at least not emotionally.

    He gave the example of poverty in China being the bad, but he has more money than the poor people so he isn’t affected by poverty at all. Here in Mexico, the bad is corruption, but I either am not hit on for mordida, or can pay without blinking so it doesn’t bother me.

    Aquila says:
    April 28, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    Not having sex before marriage may help, I am not sure. The few virgin marriages I knew to Christians ended up in divorce.

    But the divorce rate for Christians is not lower than for non-believers. Every study I have seen shows it as around 2% higher. They try to excuse it by saying the sample size is small enough that confidence error rate is at 3%. Alas, for one study that may be true, but with many studies, all showing 2% higher, the true value is 2% higher.

    If you want a virginal marriage with a Christian, that is certainly your business. But, advocating it for others based on false premises is not nice at all.

  18. RICanuck says:

    Tangential to Pastor Driscoll, Cail, and the Shadowed Knight, some things have gelled in my mind re Christian contempt for men.

    Recently I was with a mixed group of fellow Christians, and the topic of porn came up. The consensus of Fr. Mike and the women was that porn is bad, sick, and destructive of marriage. A couple of men admitted to temptation, under the watchful eyes of their wives.

    I made a comment that a lot of husbands asked for sex a lot, because sex is how we bond, and how our wives remain beautiful despite advancing years.

    Right on cue, one wife, blurted, “That’s stupid”!

    I said what I had rehearsed. “That’s contemptuous! I as a man, husband, and Christian said what a lot of men feel, and was responded to with a contemptuous insult. Porn doesn’t show contempt. Porn is just a bunch of pixels or ink dots. A woman has personality, a smile, a response, a scent of a woman on her skin, a yielding of flesh, that has created new lives together. How can porn compete with that. The contempt for men that permeates our society, our churches, and TV commercials, envelopes women and they know it as much as a fish knows it is wet. Despite all of the advantages a wife has over porn, they have taken themselves out of the competition. Porn doesn’t show contempt.”

    I have not been invited back.

  19. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @Soloman: >>Those who have the same sense about it, whether clearly or subconsciously, would also stay away, and this effect will bring about more lost souls… more people that couldn’t sort through the bullshit well enough to really get the Word they needed.

    One does not need a church, unless perhaps Catholics, and not sure of that. Get yourself a good Bible and start reading, man.

  20. gdgm+ says:

    theshadowedknight @ April 28, 2014 at 8:26 pm:
    You are correct; it’s also been noted on other blogs, though with ambivalence: Choice Daddies

    So, there are not a few solid reasons for the cynical or jaded or burned or cooly rational to opt for choice daddyhood. Yet I still oppose it, and here’s why:

    It’s selfish to choose to be a choice daddy.

  21. Just dropping in and giving my 2 cents from my past experience in the USA as an outsider on why Slate wants more Lillies.

    Two words: class warfare.

    It’s a form of class warfare. The richest in the USA are all modern-post modern, liberal, quasi secular-religious hybrids and they have extreme political clout. Hence, they want to give bad advice to their “opponents” and utterly destroy them. This article discusses liberal dominance of powerful influential sectors such as media, academia, finance –> http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/04/25/think-rich-conservatives-rule-the-world-think-again/

    The hilarious thing is that the feminist idiot in that article discussed how modern U.S. family law is bad for lower middle to working class white men and has penalized them, yet is tailored to the most upper-class ones (e.g. secular Jews, and liberal white men). If that isn’t an open admission that the rulers of academia, media and finance are all pale-skinned liberal men, then I don’t know what is.

    What feminist liberal women are often railing against is the fact that liberal men such as Bloomberg, Soros and Gates are all today’s rulers, so their insidious fictitious “patriarchal enemy” is actually their good old allies. In reality, feminist policies target the apolitical, independent or more conservative (depending on the region) lower middle classes the most.

    Affirmative action policies for women tend to negatively affect lower to middle class men the most, the same way heavy taxation rates targets smaller businesses instead of big corporations (whom can afford high taxes, off-shoring to foreign markets and Human Resource departments focused on diversity policies) and IRS scrutiny affects non-liberal groups more.

    It doesn’t affect powerful liberal men, just their opponents and blocks access for others to gain power and influence in media, academia, finance, and education (those who are decidedly, in Mencious Moldbug’s terminology, not part of the “Cathedral”, or in my opinion the more accurate term “Synagogue”). Liberal feminist women are truly bafoons, because they are brainwashed women being used as tools by their liberal male allies.

  22. Luke says:

    Aquila says:
    April 28, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    “You protect yourself from a lot by #1 only marrying a fellow Christian”

    Where in America can you now reliably find those in any numbers, outside the Amish (and who wants to live without air conditioning, appliances, or the Internet?). Certainly not in most churches. (Hint: if a denomination has female ministers ANYWHERE, leave it, it’s not Christian anymore, no place for you, let alone your children, and will likely be defunct in a generation or two.)

    The welfare system will go under this decade, I believe with most units of gov’t having finances that lousy. Expect child support collections to plummet both from the economy continuing to auger in, and ever-increasing outright resistance from men to paying it. I think telling a mulling-going-wayward-and-frivorcing wife that you’ll just live in the woods/get cash jobs, and she’ll never see a child support/alimony dime will prevent more divorce than any appeal to the Bible will anytime soon.

  23. @Greenlander – Two years ago I left to the United States permanently for Russia. A lot of living in this world is simply a pain in the ass. (You wouldn’t believe what an ordeal getting a driver’s license is here.) But most of the things that people complain about on this blog don’t apply here. If you become a single mother in Russia, your life sucks. There’s no free rain of welfare state goodies to feed your bastard spawn. If you want to have a good life with a child, you’d better pick the stand-up beta. And you’d better stay married: the cash-and-prizes aspect of palimony doesn’t exist here. A lot of divorced guys just don’t pay their child support and the system is too inefficient and too toothless to do anything meaningful.
    :)

  24. okrahead says:

    Carl isn’t good enough because:
    1) He’s never hit her
    2) He doesn’t have much of a rap sheet
    3) He isn’t banging her sister and her best friend on the side
    4) He has a steady job in a legal business
    5) He drives a used car
    6) He goes to church all the time (and takes it seriously)
    7) He likes kids
    8) He’s respectful to his elders
    9) He finished school, and maybe went to college as well
    10) He doesn’t have tattoos
    Ok, what else did I miss?

  25. srsly says:

    It’s interesting that we refer to dependence as independence in this context. I don’t know much about the woman in the article, only that she works two jobs. However, I’d speculate that neither job is very good. I make enough to live on at my one job, and that’s why I don’t have or want a second. It’s probably fair to assume that this woman will not pay a dime of federal or state income tax for the next eighteen years, and likely receives significant government assistance. If she doesn’t, maybe she should quit one of her jobs. The government would replace most of the lost income, and she would save on work-related expenses.

    And that’s why I, a gainfully employed, responsible, thirty year old man, won’t have anything to do with single mothers (read, almost all available women my age). Worst case, they aren’t actually earning enough to feed themselves. Sure, they’ll tell you how they’re ‘doing it on their own’, but if I were to partner with them, they’d lose eighty cents of government assistance for every dollar of disposable income I bring in. They expect their life is about to get better, only to find their purchase power shrinking. Guess who takes the blame.

    Meanwhile, best case scenario, she is actually earning (before the tax freebies) enough to pay for herself, her child, and whoever is watching the child while she’s working. Well, then she’s doing a LOT better than me. I have to think my workload (including housekeeping I don’t care about and caring for another man’s child) is about to increase dramatically, or I’m going to have a perpetually pissed off wife.

    But whatever this woman’s circumstances, most single mothers are closer to the former scenario, and these welfare cliffs operate to make marriage irrational for them. Their lives will be worse, their children’s lives will be worse, and their husbands’ lives will be worse than if they hadn’t married. A better decision would be for Lily to have a second kid out of wedlock and thereby maximize her earned income credit.

    The most disgusting part is that it’s the children themselves who are getting the bill for this. I can’t find any reliable figures (it’s probably crimethink to even ask) but I’m certain that women as a group pay no taxes and cost over a trillion borrowed dollars a year. Hell, men as a group probably just break even. But when the programs that have promised the unfunded trillions hit zero balance, somebody’s going to have to put in more than they take out.

  26. theshadowedknight says:

    I gave up on having a family while I was active on SSM’s blog. There was a day that I had enough and I realized that what was on offer was not what I desired. The post, “Creepy” has the details in the comments, if anyone is interested. I could probably get away with it, if I tried, but the risk is too high. Any investment I would be putting in would only increase my risk, so I never even bother. The low quality of women today is the reason I will never reach my full potential as a man.

    The churches and pastors can say anything they want, but they have nothing to offer me and nothing with which to threaten me. Why would I listen to them? The worst they have to offer is social disapproval in a society of which I am not a part. They ceded their authority as men when they embraced feminists. They ceded their authority as religious leaders when they abandoned God. I recognize none of them.

    The Shadowed Knight

  27. Johnycomelately says:

    I like how the language has been so co-opted that a word like ‘independence’ gets bandied about without nary a peep of opposition, even the great Dalrock gets suckered into the paradigm.

    Feminists aren’t arguing for ‘independence’ they’re arguing for the right of social ‘dependence’, Lily types werent restricted in the past they were unrestricted without the social safety net if they stuffed up. Complete freedom of success or failure.

    Harsh consequences makes for harsh decisions.

  28. Hamilton says:

    If Jesus was at Mark Driscoll’s church, he’d have been yelled at 35 times for not marrying a reformed slut and not having a good job.

  29. bluedog says:

    The most important statement in the article, worth a lot of thinking about all on its own:

    “The truth is that neither feminists nor family values conservatives can stomach the limitations on Lily’s independence which a return to a marriage based system would impose.”

    Dalrock covered it in the extremes, i.e.: “feminists” and “family values conservatives”, but it’s everything in between as well.

    Really, a point worth reflecting on.

  30. srsly says:

    I opposed it, Johnnycomelately, just 2 comments before you. You really are a Johnnycomelately 😁

  31. Lyn says:

    Going back in time is never going to happen. Women will never voluntarily give up the right to an education, the right to work, and the right to vote. That boils down to simple survival. My mother was married in the 1950s and dreamed of the usual domestic happiness that girls aspired to in her time. My father, unfortunately, became an alcoholic and died of cirrhosis. My uneducated mother had to take care of my two brothers and I by becoming a waitress. The one thing she drilled into us was to learn to support yourself and get an education. Women as a whole do not want to be as vulnerable as there foremothers were. In my view, the only way we can stop out of wedlock births and abortions is to (as a society) condemn promiscuity in both women AND men. In stead of celebrating PUAs and one night stands, maybe we attack promiscuity and not celebrate it. Society condemned smoking (and it took awhile) but you don’t see people smoking much anymore. Maybe if we stopped promoting irresponsible sex, there won’t be 13 million abortions annually worldwide….. But I’m not holding my breath.

  32. bluedog says:

    @alcestiseshtemoa,
    re: April 28, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    Lordy. I can’t respond to that whole thing. But as a self-described liberal who seems tolerated around here, let me try this tact:
    1) It is class warfare, you are right about that much. For a good statement of unbelievably remarkable honesty about the class warfare I direct you to Kevin D. Williamson of the National Review specifically as regards, “Get rich or die trying”. I’m reasonably confident the upper classes Williamson speaks for (not liberals) are completely ok with the “die trying” part. They loose no sleep over this. Me on the other hand …
    2) Another one is this: think very, very carefully – set time aside for this, about the difference between free trade and a free market. If you can decipher 5 differences between the two, start re-listening to conservative and liberal economists. What you thought you understood, you’ll realize you didn’t understand at all. Conservative economics will come through as incredible double-speak, and the important thing about that is this: the conservative economists are smart enough to know, it’s double-speak. They know exactly who they are hurting – and they’re ok with that.
    3) There is affirmative action where we identify underprivileged people and we voluntarily take steps to reach out a helping hand. I believe in that and I don’t think there’s enough of it.
    4) There’s what you are talking about when you use the words “affirmative action” and before you reject it … and I’m not saying you shouldn’t, but before you do – look up the history of MLK specifically as it regards “why we can’t wait”. Google exactly those words. Be sure you understand the argument. It may not change your mind, but it will give you a sense of history.
    5) US Census Table 696. Google it, learn it, know it, love it. 4.3 million black families, 16.1 million white families … they are all in the same boat. The conspiracy, if you ask me, is all the energy spent making sure that none of them realize this.

  33. Zippy says:

    @Crank:
    Yes, it is the hostage crisis/stockholm syndrome effect. Single moms have to be portrayed as heroes because they didn’t murder their own children. If they aren’t portrayed as heroes for not murdering their own children then more of them actually will murder their own children. Eventually this leads pro-life conservatives to actually believe that single moms are heroes — possibly even more heroic than, you know, married moms who got married before having kids.

    @others:
    The difference between state-sponsored “independence” and husband-provided dependence is that with the former she remains autonomous in her day to day choices. It isn’t “independence” in the sense of not requiring outside provisioning; it is “independence” in terms of autonomy in choosing what to do, where to go, who to shack up with this week, etc. No-strings entitlements from the State are entirely different in character from having to submit to a particular husband who rules his family: any situation where a woman has to do what a man tells her to do is inherently tyrannical to modern liberals (including the kind labeled ‘conservatives’). So it is true that this “independence” isn’t material independence from provisioning provided by others, but compared to the tyranny of living in one of those terrible medieval marriages it lets her make her own choices without a man bossing her around.

  34. Bob Wallace says:

    Lilly independent? Hardly. Either she marries a man or she marries the State. The only money she’s getting as a single mother is from the government. No matter what her delusions, she’s still 100% dependent on men – on the despised “patriarchy.”

  35. LH says:

    Maybe the Feminists and Family Values crowd are partly right about the lack of men. The type of woman who goes to clubs and ‘hooks up’ with guy after guy, or shacks up with guy after guy may find that there is a dearth of men out there willing to be providers interested in dating or marring her.

    if I were single, looking seriously for a wife, I wouldn’t want to marry that type of woman. I wouldn’t want to marry a woman exploring her sexual independence? I’d want a very traditional-minded Christian woman who’d saved her virginity for me, or possibly a widow who had only been with her late husband.

    If a woman were the type to have sex and have a baby with a man she does not consider worthy to marry, is that woman wise enough to be a prime candidate for a wife.

    Women like to say “All the good ones are taken.” It seems to them like the good potential husbands have already married. Some of them may have married the good potential wives, women who were marriage-minded with good mother potential, kind, not too pushy or feminist, and attractive to the man who was looking for a mate.

  36. MarcusD says:

    I don’t know if it was me just skimming, the small screen I was using, or perhaps my hypercorrection for bad kerning, but I read “Director for Family Formation Studies” as “Director for Family Fornication Studies.”

    The third article in this post is relevant to the OP: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/04/feminism-in-news.html

    A short quote from that article:

    Q: How is ‘Otherhood’ a new phenomena? We’re indeed seeing people marry, or partner long-term, and have children later in life and have been for awhile. Are these women different from the “spinsters” of decades ago?

    A: Today, the good news is that the women who remain single longer and have children later are among the most capable women. They take charge of life. It may not be the life that they expected, but it is certainly a life that has extraordinary meaning and significance. I think this is a new phenomenon. I hadn’t seen in recent history anything like this generation of women.

  37. The truth is that neither feminists nor family values conservatives can stomach the limitations on Lily’s independence which a return to a marriage based system would impose.

    no fault divorce must be maintained at all costs, ALL COSTS. we can’t go back

    because that is the prime directive (allow women to exit a marriage at any moment and collect cash and prizes) marriage has been destroyed. You simply cannot have a marriage based society with no fault divorce.

  38. Micha Elyi says:

    One does not need a church…
    –Anonymous age 72

    You don’t think Jesus doesn’t know what we need? In case you didn’t notice in all that Bible reading of yours, Jesus left us a Church.

    Get yourself a good Bible and start reading, man.

    Jesus did not leave behind a Bible. The Church, however, did produce the Bible. The Bible is the Church’s own book.

  39. Micha Elyi says:

    Both feminists and family values conservatives tend to see the explosion in out of wedlock births as a problem…
    –Dalrock

    I disagree. Feminists call “the explosion in out of wedlock births” female empowerment and proof of the Women Don’t Need Men article of the feminist faith. If feminists see a problem, it’s that the State doesn’t rain down as many goodies on females as feminists would like. This is not at all the problem that family values conservatives see.

    To both [feminists and family values conservatives], the women of our modern feminist era are desperate to commit for life and honor traditional marriage vows, if only there were men fit to marry.

    I disagree. Where’s the feminists making such arguments? Can’t point to Slate DoubleX, for you yourself exploded Slate DoubleX’s claim about their Lily being desperate for traditional marriage by pointing out that she “has done nothing to even remotely suggest she believes in the commitment of traditional marriage”.

    However, I do agree that feminist and traditionalist females are surprisingly similar. They both stand for female supremacy and demand that female class interest should rule our politics. They only quarrel over which intramural faction of Team Female gets to define those female class interests.

    While feminists celebrate the radical way we have reordered marriage and our society to make the explosion in unwed motherhood happen, family values leaders simply deny such a change occurred in the first place.

    Perhaps we need different “family values leaders” in America.

    The sainted Pope John Paul II frequently pointed out how in the West sexual relations between the sexes and child raising has become increasingly disordered. (Many of his speeches were replayed in the Catholic media this past week.) And Pope Paul VI predicted much of it in Humanae Vitae.

    The Church isn’t perfect, it is after all built from living stones all of which are fallen, but she’s not trying to propagate the belief that men are obliged to make feminism work.

  40. CalirChristianlady says:

    If you’re a Christian, you really shouldn’t be having sex out of wedlock. Although it’s more common in this generation to slam virginity for both sexes, maintaining chastity is still an important Christian value. Marriage is a sacred institution where, if done right, both spouses can express their lust towards each other, and not worry against the contraction of STDs from an outside lover, or a child from an extramarital affair, and so much more. IMO, marriage actually protects women more than men. This is because men are supposed to be spiritual leaders (if you’re Christian you should believe this, but even if you’re an atheist, plenty of evidence suggests that biology and nature dictates that men are physically stronger/more competent anyway) and men do provide guidance for their wives who are mentally and physically weaker (obviously, feminists disagree with this). Even if the passion, and feelings of love are numb, I still think women need men in their lives to help them. I know men that can live on their own, but I don’t know women that can. This isn’t meant to say that women are inferior or are incapable of responsibility, just that they’re not as strong as men, and that their natural abilities are different. I think it’s safe to say that all women will find value in a man’s opinion regarding house repairs, car repairs, making decisions, etc. Even if the man isn’t extremely successful, he’s still going to be concerned with things that men should be concerned with and that women are naturally uninterested in. For example, my mom, is actually a very masculine, independent woman and my dad is quite sensitive, sometimes in a feminine way but there’s no question that when we’re all at the dinner table he’s still more masculine than she’ll ever be, and vice versa. She cleans constantly, he prefers not to do the cleaning.. He goes to out “to the world”, to the store, fixes things and she’d rather stay in the house and tend to the garden or whatever. I’d even say that my dad, though he’s kind of lazy in regards to watering the plants, he still manages to observe things about how to take care of plants correctly, and other small “facts of life.” He’s always trying to explain something to me about the mechanics of whatever he’s working on, or reading, or what he heard on the news, etc.And not surprisingly, when my mom and I are alone together… we gossip.What else do women do for fun (kidding, but not really). I don’t believe for a second that these single moms aren’t relying on some strong man in their life, whether it be a relative or a friend, to help them deal with life. They’re just replacing their need for a husband with help from other males. This, I think, is more true than the idea that a woman’s independence is threatened by marriage. Perhaps what really is threatened is the lack of morality that becomes enforced when a real man is leading a home.

  41. Luke says:

    Sigh. FYI, Micha, “The Church” in Christianity is not any single organization, rather, it is the body of believers.

  42. Remo says:

    And the only long term fix is one of extreme authoritarian viciousness. Islam may have the right solution and I hate to say that as I am a Christian. Too bad Christianity has been replaced with churchianity with the feminism as its god.

    *1 Remove all social welfare payments to single mothers … *ALL* single mothers whether they are divorced or never married. Replace with a yearly financial penalty that carries jail for non-payment. Say It’s for “the children” when they complain.

    *2 Remove all current “domestic violence” laws and replace it with guarantees that daddy can’t be arrested for disciplining his children OR wife. If you don’t like it, leave, and no you don’t get the kids. The whole he hit me thing is drastically overblown and based on a fake reality constructed for political purposes.

    *3 Any girl who is not a virgin (mandatory testing) on her wedding day is penalized with a large fine payable by her and her father and receives no benefits at all from the husband in the event of divorce even if he is at fault.

    *4 Eliminate the ability of women to file for divorce, period.

    *5 In the event of divorce she retains what she brought to the marriage and what she can be imputed as earning up to half but never more. She loses everything if number 3 is “no”.

    ^6 Any woman found guilty of cuckolding her partner shall be put into prison as if she had committed forcible rape, with permanent felony status and other sanctions.

    Do this and see how many vestal virgins the U.S. is suddenly overcome with who suddenly see the value of faithfulness and chastity.

    Yes this is an awful, evil, sexist, misogynistic, neanderthal like, throw back to those awful bad, bad, bad, days of intact families. Sue me. No wait you can’t as I had to leave the U.S. because it’s a cesspool of feminism.

    *

  43. Casey says:

    I am so sick & tired of women creating problems………and then pointing a finger at men as both the cause & solution to that female created problem.

    Women have such cognitive disconnect that no real conversation can be had around the ’cause & effect’ of the problems we have as a society, and family destruction & child well-being in particular.

    Lionizing single motherhood as a rational and responsible choice is claptrap. The cost of such decisions is borne by society at large, and unfair to those making more responsible choices.

    Anyone who DARES question the feminist imperative is quickly & vehemently silenced. Both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have become mouth-pieces for feminism. Neither show can get through an episode anymore without bowing to the alter of feminism. Such is the way of things……advertising dollars have more votes than the American people.

    I used to believe that this insanity would have to collapse in on itself sooner rather than later…….but I was dead wrong. Everywhere I look the establishment is ‘doubling down’ on their feminist bets.

    Anyone who tries to bring a different viewpoint (men especially, but also women who acknowledge the problem) is tarred and feathered, and quickly ushered offstage. Losing your job is a real possibility if you openly question the feminist narrative.

  44. greyghost says:

    Remo
    Good list. My idea would be to leave things as they are only with male birth control pills and 2 one semester elective courses required for all male students one would be “Laws of Misandry” and the other be “the red pill and western civilization”

  45. jf12 says:

    @okrahead
    11) His hairstyle is so last year.

  46. jf12 says:

    donalgraeme “When you remove the social/cultural and legal impositions on the behaviors of men and women, our present culture is exactly what you will get every single time.”
    Lyn “In my view, the only way we can stop out of wedlock births and abortions is to (as a society) condemn promiscuity in both women AND men. In stead of celebrating PUAs and one night stands, maybe we attack promiscuity and not celebrate it.”
    Actually, the more patriarchal the culture, the less promiscuity overall and the more matriarchal the culture the more promiscuity among women overall and of course the top percentages of men. Limiting the freedom of women to choose is what works; nothing else limits promiscuity. It does not help to limit the freedom of the vast majority of men, who could not be very promiscuous if they tried.

  47. Longtorso says:

    Divorce and suicide risk
    …Divorced men were over eight times more likely to commit suicide than divorced women (RR = 8.36, 95% CI = 4.24 to16.38). After taking into account other factors that have been reported to contribute to suicide, divorced men still experienced much increased risks of suicide than divorced women. They were nearly 9.7 times more likely to kill themselves than comparable divorced women (RR = 9.68, 95% CI = 4.87 to 19.22). Put another way, for every divorced woman that committed suicide, over nine divorced men killed themselves….

  48. Longtorso says:

    The flip side to my earlier comment:

    Jobless mum advises her daughter, 19, to get pregnant – for an easy life on benefits
    …Sinead Clarkson, 36, has no qualifications, has never worked and rakes in £1,200 a month from the State.

    She has now admitted encouraging her 19-year-old daughter Melissa to follow her shameless example and ‘work the system’ by having a baby.

  49. Just Saying says:

    The simple fact is that marriage has nothing to offer your average man – and especially your “above” average man. A simple cost benefit analysis shows staying single to be a no-brainer if you are a man. Why would any man trade in the ability to have an unending supply of 18-25 yo’s share his bed, for one that will age, get bitchy, and be an annoyance? No thank you… I’ll enjoy them for a night or two, and trade her in for the next flavor. :)

  50. Athor Pel says:

    “Lyn says:
    April 28, 2014 at 10:05 pm
    Going back in time is never going to happen. Women will never voluntarily give up the right to an education, the right to work, and the right to vote. That boils down to simple survival.
    …”

    You speak of rights. The things you list as rights prove that you don’t know what a right is. None of the things you list are rights in the sense of them being God given. They are all man created.

    Now for further disabuse of your faulty assumptions.

    Education does not equate to access to college. Education is what you learn for yourself. It does not require a college. If you can read you can teach yourself just about anything. At college you are buying a credential, not an education.

    Women have always worked outside the home, I mostly speak of poor women. Beyond that, no one owes anyone a job just because of some personal quality outside of their qualifications for said job.

    Voting is merely getting a plurality of citizens to signal their complicity in the system that seeks to exploit them. Voting is condoning the actions of whatever the instituted government does after the election.

  51. Casey says:

    @Longtorso

    From the article link you posted………

    ‘I know people will be angry with my choices, but they should not judge. It is the system’s fault that I can choose not to work.’

    ‘What is the point of having a job if I can’t earn much more than I get now? People decide to have babies so they can get benefits because this country allows it.’

    WOW, does that ever sum up the present situation:

    1) Don’t judge me.
    2) It’s someone else’s fault.

    Never mind this woman has undoubtedly wrecked at least 2 men’s lives by pumping & dumping them. I assume these men are being hunted to the ends of the earth by the state, and having their paychecks garnisheed in perpetutity to keep this woman in the life she is accustomed to ‘for free’.

    Absolutely NOTHING is ‘FREE’ in this world.
    Everything has it’s price.

    Tick…….tock………tick…….tock.

  52. James K says:

    @Lyn

    Women’s rights to be educated, work, and vote are not the problem.

    The problem is the way that modern women attempt to resolve the tension between their raw sexual desire for the charming badboy, and a more measured desire for a man who offers loyalty, family values, and a steady job. In years gone by, responding to the latter cues was seen by society to be decent, while responding to the former was heavily deprecated, chiefly because it led to extremely bad consequences for the woman herself.

    The modern woman argues that because (a few alpha) men have a lot of casual sex, she should not be punished for enjoying it too. Reliable contraception means that she can satisfy her lust for alpha cock, without giving any thought to whether the man would make a suitable husband or father. If she does fall pregnant and is abandoned, she can blame the wicked man for his misconduct, without any need to accept responsibility for her own choices.

    If the alpha cock of her choice has no legal income, the abandoned pregnant woman then expects the taxpayer to bail her out, using the income of the boring reliable men that she decided she didn’t want to marry.

    I deplore promiscuity and the PUA culture; however, I am not going to defer my own acceptance of personal responsibility until “society” decides to condemn those nasty promiscuous men; and neither should anybody else.

  53. srsly says:

    No, zippy, they are talking about buying power, and nothing else. The state dependent single mom is exactly as liberated as the educated career woman. They both have buying power.

  54. Zippy says:

    srsly:

    they are talking about buying power, and nothing else.

    Even if that were the case, money she gets to spend without consulting a husband is different from money she has to get from a husband. Her personal, autonomous, unrestricted buying power is greater when she is a trashy single mom than when she has to convince her husband to spend money.

    But it isn’t the case that they were talking about “buying power, and nothing else”. The word “independence” shows up in the article exactly twice, and it is in the context of discussing her autonomy (especially her sexual autonomy):

    Those who would promote marriage seek to do so largely by taking away Lily’s independence. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, for example, suggests that more restrictive abortion policies could increase the marriage rate. And many who seek to promote marriage, like the Catholic Church, link the availability of contraception to the sexual freedom they see as responsible for the decline in marriage. Others, like Charles Murray, would cut programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, early childhood education and child care, mandatory family leave, and other policies that make it easier for women like Lily to raise a child on their own.

  55. Lyn87 says:

    For the record – Lyn (who commented earlier in this thread) and I are not the same person.

  56. WolframCochrane says:

    Another tangentially related “help the strugglng single mom” example:

    http://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/303797060/one-approach-to-head-start-to-help-kids-help-their-parents

    tl;dr – In Tulsa, the two paths to getting a full-ride, 4-year, $90,000 nursing scholarship, including tuition, books, fees, child care, gas PLUS group and individual guidance counselling are:

    1) Study hard, excel academically in high school and beat out the competition – OR –

    2) Don’t study hard, drift aimlessly and have a bunch of kids by different guys. Marriage optional.

    ALL FOUR of my kids could get bachelor’s degrees for $90K. Where’s our subsidy?

  57. AmStrat says:

    @Lyn
    “In my view, the only way we can stop out of wedlock births and abortions is to (as a society) condemn promiscuity in both women AND men. In stead of celebrating PUAs and one night stands, maybe we attack promiscuity and not celebrate it.”

    You sure your plan to get off the island will work, little buddy?

  58. crowhill says:

    >the decision to move from a marriage based family structure was made in the
    >US several decades ago [by allowing unwed mothers to get child support] …

    I agree with what you’re saying there, but isn’t another major component the general acceptance of sex outside of marriage? Is there any significant voice in the culture today that speaks against it?

  59. AmStrat says:

    @Lyn87 says:
    April 29, 2014 at 9:39 am
    For the record – Lyn (who commented earlier in this thread) and I are not the same person.

    I knew it didn’t sound like you, but my condolences that the names are so similar.

  60. jf12 says:

    Vaguely related.

    http://www.livescience.com/44906-female-insect-with-penis-found.html

    Females valued the males’ resources so much that the females developed appendages designed to reach into the males’ pockets to extract the resources. Researchers surmise that it is the coercive nature of the females’ strategy that caused the males to adapt an effeminate i.e. deceptive strategy. The male lets the female have her way, while attempting to deceive her with less valuable resources, sort of like Monopoly money.

  61. jf12 says:

    @CalirChristianlady “I think it’s safe to say that all women will find value in a man’s opinion regarding house repairs, car repairs, making decisions, etc.” Except if that man is her own husband; then she has to voice her contrary opinions instead.

  62. Zodak says:

    funny, i just wrote a blog about which sites to avoid reading & slate was one of them.

  63. Wobs says:

    Bluedog wrote:
    “3) There is affirmative action where we identify underprivileged people and we voluntarily take steps to reach out a helping hand. I believe in that and I don’t think there’s enough of it.
    4) There’s what you are talking about when you use the words “affirmative action” and before you reject it … and I’m not saying you shouldn’t, but before you do – look up the history of MLK specifically as it regards “why we can’t wait”. Google exactly those words. Be sure you understand the argument. It may not change your mind, but it will give you a sense of history.”

    Affirmative action does not work. History shows this to be true again and again. As you’re a fan of googling, try the wiki article on Affirmative Action and the section on Dr Thomas Sowell.

  64. jf12 says:

    In Missouri, where I gather Lily and Carl reside, the relevant legal guidance as to denoting paternity begins with

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C100-199/1930000085.HTM

    Note the following proviso
    “If the father is not named on the certificate of birth, no other information about the father shall be entered on the certificate.” That includes his last name, and this same language is in the newest updates of every states I’ve checked (five so far). The mother cannot simply list a child as having the same last name as his father (if that differs from her last name).

  65. greyghost says:

    Bluedog types are why we are where we are today

  66. jf12 says:

    Believe it or not, so far 28 out of 28 states I’ve checked have that exact same language regarding designating paternity. It is technically illegal for an unmarried mother to not name the father and to call his child by his last name.

  67. I used to believe that this insanity would have to collapse in on itself sooner rather than later…….but I was dead wrong. Everywhere I look the establishment is ‘doubling down’ on their feminist bets.

    Anyone who tries to bring a different viewpoint (men especially, but also women who acknowledge the problem) is tarred and feathered, and quickly ushered offstage. Losing your job is a real possibility if you openly question the feminist narrative.

    In some conspiracy sites, there are claims that women in the West drive about 70-80% of consumerism, hence feminism would be corporate capitalist’s best friend. I think it’s an accurate statistic, since the 3rd richest man on the planet is a Spaniard who owns Zara, a women’ clothing outlet.

    –> http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/04/zara.html

  68. LynM says:

    I guess what I was trying to get across is simply this, if you want to stop the 43% of women from having children out of wedlock you simply need to stop giving them your sperm. Problem solved!

  69. MarcusD says:

    @Just Saying

    The simple fact is that marriage has nothing to offer your average man – and especially your “above” average man. A simple cost benefit analysis shows staying single to be a no-brainer if you are a man. Why would any man trade in the ability to have an unending supply of 18-25 yo’s share his bed, for one that will age, get bitchy, and be an annoyance? No thank you… I’ll enjoy them for a night or two, and trade her in for the next flavor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Carl isn’t available to give his own side of the story, but at best he chose to knock up an irresponsible woman.

    No, at best he chose to have sexual intercourse with a Strong, Independent Woman, going along with what popular culture says is good. Sure, she’s neither strong, nor independent, but likely Carl doesn’t know that because nobody ever told him otherwise, including the megachurch he wandered into a few times.

    Then there’s other scenarios. Such as, Julia — er — Lily decides to have a child. Both feminists and tradcons get very angry when I point out that there are women who at some point decide it’s time for them to have their own bay-bee, and they basically try a few sperm donors on for size during ovulation. “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill” is easy to say and certainly young men like to hear it, but it is still a lie even so. Feminists don’t like the duplicity inherent in that, and tradcons tend to pedestalize women & are enraged by the very idea that a woman could and would lie about such a thing for her own ends.

    Be all the above as it may, Carl may well have not known he’d impregnated Lily for months and months. Indeed, he may have been assured by her that he could not do so. Machs nichts.

    Zippy is correct in pointing out the difference between dependence on the state (i.e. men as a class or group) and one, particular, individual man. The state won’t tell Lily not to go cruise bars when she’s lonely and horny, and then bring home men who are a potential danger to her child, just for a start. This kind of independence is an obvious manifestation of the Female Imperative at work, and is a foundational stone of matriarchy. It should be obvious why feminists like this sort of independence – it increases the choices of women by increasing the duties of men.

    This kind of independence should be anethema to those who claim to be traditionalists, because of the words involved in the traditions they claim to support. Since tradcon actions do not match up with the alleged beliefs, a quandary exists.

    The simple explanation is the most obvious: tradcons do not really believe in their own traditions. It’s all just feel-good mouth-noises. Because if they believed it, they’d act differently.

  71. James K says:

    @LynM
    I guess what I was trying to get across is simply this, if you want to stop the 43% of women from having children out of wedlock you simply need to stop giving them your sperm. Problem solved!

    The two occurrences of “you” in this sentence do not refer to the same people.

    When you are looking for someone to pick up the bill, I guess it is convenient to view men as indistinguishable, interchangeable schlubs. One man’s dollar is as good as another’s.

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    LynM
    I guess what I was trying to get across is simply this, if you want to stop the 43% of women from having children out of wedlock you simply need to stop giving them your sperm.

    I’m sure from the perspective of the Female Imperative this makes sense. In the real world, one man can impregnate dozens of women, and some men do so. That’s how harems work, you see, one man plus many women.

    It’s not the posters here that are giving the Lily’s of the world sperm, it’s other men.

    There is a difference between “some” and “all”.

    Problem solved!

    It appears that you do not believe women have any ability to choose, i.e. that they do not have free will. Could you expand on that notion? Using your own free will, perhaps? Or perhaps you assert that every babymomma was actually raped? If so, you need to provide evidence.

    Hypergamy plus choice addiction are a much simpler explanation…

  73. greyghost says:

    MarcusD
    That Coolidge effect is something in real need in the west. The sad thing is it is a rational means of self preservation in an uncivilized world pretending to be civil.

  74. greyghost says:

    AR
    Most of this stuff goes on due to lies. The 80% beta chumps usually make a good call when told the truth. As I posted earlier a male pill and the truth will work a lot of magic. Too many people will see Carl as a bad man and not a dupe. Wait until the narrative (from a purely male point of view0 goes from an unplanned fatherhood is a victim of a rigged system of misandry to being a stupid chump that deserves what he gets. We need to get to that tipping point That is going to be fun.

  75. LynM says:

    I’m saying that when a man has sex with a woman there is always a chance of pregnancy. If a man wouldn’t want this woman to be a mother to his children or abort his children he shouldn’t have sex with her. That would eliminate the problem. Stop donating to sperm banks to help unfit people have babies. Believe me, I’m not saying these women don’t need to have their butts kicked …..I’m just saying the maybe that the manosphere should campaign for men to stop impregnating nitwits.

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    greyghost, it is indeed due to lies. Note that Carl was good enough to tingle Lily but not good enough to marry; his SMV was high enough, but his MMV not so much. Because his MMV has to be higher than the MMV of the state.

    He was good enough for Lily to submit to him for a while, but not for the long term.
    More crudely, she didn’t mind being on her back underneath him for a few weeks or months, but she couldn’t bear the idea of that for the rest of her life.

  77. greyghost says:

    LynM
    If you are really serious go on a campaign to get Gandarusa here in the US.

  78. In the real world, one man can impregnate dozens of women, and some men do so.

    Right. To counter the female imperative with male chastity, you would have to get 100% of men (or at least 100% of the most attractive 30% or so of men) on board with the program. Even one man out of a hundred who decided to use the opportunity to score like crazy would spoil the plan. That level of unanimity is just not possible.

    The only way to get back to widespread sexual responsibility is for women, the gatekeepers of sex, to close the gates. Now, it may be that men will have to be the ones who make that happen, through shaming, legal changes, or other methods. But whoever causes it, it will happen through a change in female behavior. Shaming men, or otherwise trying to get all men everywhere to stop putting out for women, is a non-starter. Most of the time, it’s just (yet another) attempt to put all the blame on men and make sure nothing changes.

  79. Bubba says:

    LynM
    Perhaps it would be more effective to require the “nitwits” to have a license to breed prior to having sex at all. Unless, of course, they were on government monitored BC and submitted to that “independence tax” for “the children”.

  80. crowhill says:

    LynM says, “I’m saying that when a man has sex with a woman there is always a chance of pregnancy. If a man wouldn’t want this woman to be a mother to his children or abort his children he shouldn’t have sex with her.”

    I agree completely. (I don’t think your call for the “manosphere” to take up such a cause is reasonable because some of the manosphere is on the “enjoy the decline” side of things.)

    The only real solution to the mess is a return to traditional values, where sex is only considered to be moral when it’s inside marriage.

    But note, LynM, that it’s okay to tell the man “if you didn’t want a child you should have kept your zipper closed” (which I heartily endorse), but if you said that about a woman it would be unacceptable.

  81. jf12 says:

    James K is on a roll. “The two occurrences of “you” in this sentence do not refer to the same people.” Homerun!

  82. jf12 says:

    @LynM, are you really missing the point of the Gilligan argument, or just pretending?

  83. MrsF says:

    Although we don’t hear from Carl in the original piece on single moms, I thought this article on Working Class Dads from the blog of the Institute for Family Studies did a great and touching job of articulating what his experience might be.

    http://family-studies.org/stop-blaming-working-class-men/

  84. jf12 says:

    Anonymous Reader remarks “Because his MMV has to be higher than the MMV of the state.”

    This is how we close the gates: make the state unattractive to women.

  85. Lyn87 says:

    Again… I’m neither Lyn nor LynM…

    However, from the perspective of Christianity, Lyn/LynM does have a point – fornication is a sin and sin is an individual thing. But as several others have noticed, formulating the proper public policy forces us to look elsewhere for solutions… since sperm is readily available and eggs need not be.

    If half of the nation’s baby-daddies suddenly zipped it up, the number of bastards born would remain essentially unchanged, while if half the the nation’s baby-mommas suddenly started keeping their legs together the number of bastard births would be cut in half starting nine months from now. Because rape (by which I mean actual rape, not whatever definition N.O.W. and A.A.U.W. is using this week), is pretty rare, it is women who hold the key to solving this problem, because it is large numbers of women who reward douchebaggery with sex.

    The question is, “Which aspect of the fornication problem are we talking about?” If we’re talking about the sin aspect, then male fornication is equivalent to female fornication. I am unwilling to tell a cad that God winks at his fornication – acting on such heretical beliefs can send him to Hell. If we’re talking about societal ramifications, though, then female fornication is a far more serious matter.

    As I and others have pointed out over the years, a marriage-based society cannot exist for very long when women can initiate divorce without proving fault to a high legal standard. In one sense, the law is the key, but it is also true that our laws reflect our cultural moral zeitgeist. Fix the culture and all the other problems will fix themselves. That is where the actions of most TradCons diverge from their stated goals, but it also at precisely that point where feminists gain male allies in the PUA community – in their common desire for moral anarchy with regard to sex. We men desire the approval of our male peers nearly as much as we desire the approval of women (“bros before hos”) – and no guy who denigrates male chastity is an ally of men. Yet in my days as a celibate single man I caught a lot more crap from men than from women.

    Another aspect of this is that advanced civilization cannot exist for very long outside of a marriage-based society. The options seem to be “Let it burn” or “Go back to what works.” There is no viable middle ground in the long run… if advanced civilization is to survive, womankind must relinquish some of her autonomy. But that’s “Lily’s” whole problem, isn’t it? She wants her freedom. She wants to freedom to act as she sees fit without serious consequence, but such are the fantasies of children, not the appropriate goals of large-scale social policies. Marriage requires everyone to give up some degree of autonomy – I had to cut WAAAAY back on my dating, for example…

  86. JDG says:

    Lyn/LynM please read what Lyn87 has written above (April 29, 2014 at 2:21 pm).

  87. Casey says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    Anonymous Reader said: “Because his MMV has to be higher than the MMV of the state.”

    Truer words have never been writtten/spoken.

    As long as women can extract resources out of men via the state, marriage cannot exist as a societal pillar or construct.

  88. Opus says:

    I have to take issue with vast amount of Lyn’s comment at 10.05.

    She begins with the assertion that the clock cannot be put back – this is part of the progessivist onwards-and-upwards view of history; but, in my view, states of affairs often do change, to positions which would once have seemed implausible or impossible. Examples are too numerous to mention, but one of them is of course that Marriage is being jettisoned in favour of Polygamy – which Marriage originally replaced.

    She then says that women will not give up certain rights: I am not aware in your constitution of any right to Education or Work. If women do however have rights which they previously lacked then they must have received them from someone one or come body, and that can someone or somebody can only be a man or men. What is given can equally be taken away: a right is no more than a permission. To deal with her three examples: Education: it is inaccurate to say that women did not have education; women (some) have always had education and so have a few men: most men didn’t and the same goes for most women. Work: most women have worked – except for a few very wealthy women. The Suffrage is a new invention for both men and women – 100 years ago women did not have the vote and neither did most men – and let us not forget that most men dying on the Western Front, or on the Beaches of Normandy did not have the vote! Historically it is an exception to Aristocracy and Monarchy and only a very brave person will predict that it will last long – for men or women.

    Lyn then understandably refers to her own difficult family history and then (as if it is the same thing) says that women do not want to be as vulnerable as their foremothers were. Women, however, are now far more vulnerable than in the past because they no longer have firstly, the likelihood that one man will have their and their children’s back for the duration of their lives and secondly the breakdown in marriage (and extended families) has caused women to have a far more difficult time than they ever had under the dreaded Patriarchy. It is only mod-cons that hide this inevitable fact.

    I am surprised that Lyn’s thinly disguised and factually inaccurate Feminism has not caused others here to reprove her for writing nonsense.

  89. Just to be clear, I don’t think anyone is saying fornication by men isn’t a sin, or that we shouldn’t try to discourage men from sleeping around. We should always discourage sin, regardless of the circumstances.

    We’re just saying that’s not a solution to the current problem of the unrestrained female imperative. It’s a good thing to do, and a benefit to the individual men who accordingly mend their ways, but it won’t have any general effect.

  90. greyghost says:

    Any solution that requires action on the part of women outside of their natural selfishness is doomed. The first 50 years of the mens rights thing was an appeal to women has people that give a damn and want “equality” That was a big mistake. They also have voted in misandry and see no way they are going to vote out their “gains”. The solution is going to have to come from women behaving with virtue and chaste in there own selfish interest with the same drive and gina tingle they get from the cock carousel. The church has no answers because they are with out faith and too busy being pleasing to man. (don’t want to get those souls dirty shifting the attitude of the female electorate.) lifestyles not in keeping to scripture need to lead to involuntary childless sprinterhood and shame. Just focus on the things necessary to make it happen and don’t worry about not looking the Christian chump part. Like I have posted before the PUA are doing the lords work. And game makes it easier for some cunt to play Christian wife so what. man is supposed to toil anyway and that includes pussy. have faith or enjoy the decline http://shtfschool.com/

  91. JDG says:

    Opus says:
    April 29, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    Thank you for this.

  92. jf12 says:

    MrsF, interesting that in both Carl’s case and Ricky’s case(s), the problem was not that the men didn’t want to marry the sluts, but that the sluts didn’t want to marry the men.

  93. Any solution that requires action on the part of women outside of their natural selfishness is doomed.

    True, women aren’t voluntarily going to give up the sweet deal they have now. And you’ll never get enough men to withhold sex from willing women to change things from that side. So we’re almost stuck. The only active solution would be for men to take away the sweet deal — take away no-fault divorce, presumptive maternal custody and paternal child support, no more baby showers and pats on the back for pregnant fornicators, etc.

    That doesn’t seem likely either, though, since it would mean less action for the dominant men who run things and make those decisions. I really don’t see any way to get there as long as we can afford to provide girls with make-work jobs and incomes that make it possible for them to think they truly don’t need a man, even to raise children, until they hit the Wall. It will take an economic collapse that wipes out most non-essential jobs and makes any man with a job a hot commodity, or a virulent venereal disease that scares everyone straight, or something drastic like that.

  94. MarcusD says:

    State of Higher Education: Thanks to Ridiculous Tuition More Coeds Becoming Strippers

    http://nypost.com/2014/04/28/these-nyc-coeds-are-students-by-day-strippers-by-night/

    The Other Side of Title IX (and more)

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304393704579529714129190136?mg=reno64-wsj

    It’s Time to Ditch Monogamy

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117528/monogamy-outdated-and-unattainable-ideal

    The first link is the most interesting. I don’t know what else to say (beyond the obvious fact that it fits into a lot that is discussed here).

  95. Lyn87 says:

    Greyghost says, “Like I have posted before the PUA are doing the lords work.”

    Isaiah 5:20 says: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Emphasis added.

    Fornication is a sin, and PUAs are most certainly NOT “doing the Lord’s work.” They are doing the Devil’s work, and to say otherwise dances on the edges of blasphemy. You may or may not care about that – but if not, you ought to. Some people get burned by PUAs and learn eternal lessons (pain can provide powerful impetus to change), and God may redirect the consequences of an evil act toward a righteous end, but the sin of fornication is still a sin, whether by a man or a woman. One could just as easily say that, “Feminists are doing the Lord’s” work in that they expose the shallowness of many churches and pastors.

    For a Biblical parallel – God used the Babylonians to punish rebellion by the Children of Israel, but when they went beyond His mandate they were destroyed in turn, while the Children of Israel survived and rebuilt. The fire will care not one whit whether one was an unrepentant feminist who sought to tear down the church or an unrepentant PUA who sought fornication to slake his lust.

    I like you, Ghost, but you’re dead wrong about that.

  96. The root issue is that both feminists and tradcons subscribe to the same underlying belief – feminine social primacy.

    Both factions believe every woman is entitled to a child (preempting the need of a father) and that the potential mother and her kid(s) are entitled to unconditional support.

    This sort of gives the faithfully celibate guys like Earl and Donalgraeme another slap in the face. Mainstream Christianity will dismiss your well intentioned desires to start a family (the legitimate way) by telling you that “God’s plan for you” may well be a celibate life, despite your being a good husbandly prospect to women. But according to the church, women are entitled by virtue of feminine primacy to have a child and start a family irrespective of marital status. So while “God’s plan for” men may be celibacy, “God’s plan for” women is always an entitlement to fulfilling her biological imperative.

    That really sucks for men, but you have to appreciate the brilliance of the social engineering of the Feminine Imperative.

  97. Oh yeah, and you’re not a man® if you’re not onboard with all of that.

  98. greyghost says:

    You are right Lyn87. The thing is rather than discuss the problem lets see if we can come up with a culture and day to day way of life to make a shift in behavior. how does a Christian man fight such a beast and keep his hands clean (I have an 8 year old son)
    It is a conversation that really needs to be had. The alternative is a full on SHTF Lots of guns out there and this last stunt with the Clippers owner is just one more step. BLM backed off to less public means of punishing the peasants in reference to the rancher in Nevada. It is times like this is when faith and leadership really come in to play. I remember the staple Christian story about Christians in the commie country that outlawed Christian worship raided a house with Christians praying. Some people booked ass out of there and others stayed. The asked if they were Christians in worship and they proudly said yes. The soldiers were so impressed that they wanted in on the power of Christ. Here we are in times when todays Christian can be in that very story and have chosen to flee to pray another day. The subject of half of this article. This is one of the toughest times to be Christian and a warrior.

  99. Right, Rollo. It’s like feminists say men are worse than women, while tradcons say women are better than men. Mostly a difference in semantics, so they end up in the same place on most practical matters between the sexes, abortion being the only real divide between them.

  100. jf12 says:

    To be fair to Lily’s parents, I’m sure they wanted access to the grandchild, which access Lily knows is in her power, granted by the state, to unilaterally terminate.

    People here may not remember Annaleigh Smith. I know her grandparents well. http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/toddler-who-fell-into-ditch-dies/article_6a0973e6-b079-5dce-b6c6-b6ecc973974a.html
    The tragedy brought Annaleigh’s parents together, and they have gotten married etc.

  101. “What happens if we reverse the roles?”

    Normally I’d suggest we’d have to wait until Lily was about 32 and looking for a “settle-for-him” Beta provider husband after banging a series unsuitable-for-marriage bad boys exercising her fierce independence and becoming a successful entrepreneur, but thanks to the invention of the modern internet we don’t have to be inconvenienced with that wait,….

    http://thoughtcatalog.com/leo-steven/2014/04/dear-girls-who-are-finally-ready-to-date-nice-guys-we-dont-want-you-anymore/

    Read the comments for a primer on what rationales to expect when Lily reaches 32.

  102. Stryker says:

    I need some advice, my white knight roommate is using Ephesians 5:25 as a reason why men should marry single mothers and that marriage should be a sacrifice on the men’s part.

    I think he is struggling with understanding moral agency. He believes that marriage is the representation of Christ’s relationship with the church, but thinks his love only means sacrificing oneself…I’m not sure what approach to take. This all started when I said I’d never consider a single mother for marriage. Now he’s asked me if I would be ok If he told my girlfriend I’m not a virgin (she already knows) since I’ve got a past I should be disqualified if I’m disqualifying a single mother.

    I’m in the process of explaining why there is a a so called double standard when it comes to the repercussions of sexual sins between the sexes. I’d appreciate any pointers you guys may have on discussing this from a biblical point of view with a white knight.

  103. AbelardLindsey says:

    With regards to the single mother phenomenon, it would be more useful to think about why American women are so obsessed with having kids that they are willing to do it on their own. I can assure you this is exclusively an American phenomenon. Women of both Europe and the various East Asian countries consider single parenthood to be a completely irrational choice and rarely do it.

  104. How does a Christian man fight such a beast and keep his hands clean?

    Greyghost, you do not keep your hands clean. You are going to have to get dirty. I do not have any sons, any daughters, a wife, a family. Leaving the chastisement and restoration of this nation to men who have no stake in it seems a poor solution to me. If we burn it to the ground and salt the ashes, we have lost nothing, but your stake is razed and barren. If you are not willing to make sacrifices for the future, then you will cede its direction to those that will.

    Cail, imagine the consequences of a virulent and incurable gonorrhea. It is getting harder to cure as time goes on because we are killing off the weak strains. Now design a bioweapon that will sterilize those who catch it. Some of the common venereal diseases already damage reproductive health. Imagine if you strengthened those traits. You could conceivably create a disease that would select against the promiscuous and the depraved. An interesting thought experiment. What would be the results?

    The Shadowed Knight

  105. James K says:

    @jf12
    Laugh away.

    I guess what I was trying to get across is simply this, if [the conventional Christians on this blog] want to stop the 43% of women from having children out of wedlock [the pick-up artists like Carl] simply need to stop giving them [their] sperm. Problem solved!

    Does that make LynM’s viewpoint any clearer? She wants to frame the discussion as male versus female, when in fact it’s moral versus immoral.

  106. Anonymous age 72 says:

    >>Micha Elyi says:
    April 29, 2014 at 1:58 am

    One does not need a church…
    –Anonymous age 72

    >>You don’t think Jesus doesn’t know what we need? In case you didn’t notice in all that Bible reading of yours, Jesus left us a Church.

    >>Get yourself a good Bible and start reading, man.

    >>Jesus did not leave behind a Bible. The Church, however, did produce the Bible. The Bible is the Church’s own book.

    I was reading the Bible decades before most of you were born. The whole thing; not just that which is recommended by the heretic support groups.

    And, you do not need a church. You are making stuff up.

    The churches in the US are places of evil. There is no way Jesus would say you need an evil church.

    Dalrock has been looking for a good church for a long time. A church which castigates women who sin against their husbands. To date, as fare as I know, the only one he has found is the one which excommunicated Jenny. Even the Catholic churches push for divorce for dearies who are unhappppy, oh, excuse me, I mean annulments.

    It is good if you can find a good church to have one. If you cannot find one (see previous paragraphs) then you do not need one, period.

    As long as all churches are evil, you only need your Bible.

    See also theshadowedknight says:
    April 28, 2014 at 9:47 pm

  107. obsolete says:

    Hypergamy doesn’t care

  108. Lyn says:

    Does that make LynM’s viewpoint any clearer? She wants to frame the discussion as male versus female, when in fact it’s moral versus immoral.

    Actually, I guess I’m not communicating well. This is my first time on this blog. As you can probably tell, I’m a woman in her 50s who sometimes reads the manosphere. Dalroc said all comments welcome, so I chimed in. What I’m trying to say is morality does matter, but you can’t just point to women and say you’re the reason we have so many illegitimate children without pointing to the fathers of these kids as well. I’ve been practicing anesthesia since the early 80s and I’ve probably seen more stupid, irresponsible women walk into the ER pregnant, without prenatal care, and instantly receive Medicaid to cover all the expenses than I could possibly count. They then hand baby to grandma and go on their merry way. I’ve seen hundreds of women use abortion as birth control and think nothing of it. The other day I went in to put an epidural in a young Medicare mother and the baby Daddy is sitting in the chair in the room watching TV. Turns out he is a famous football player here in town who makes 7 figures. I don’t know who to be more mad at….the gold digger, the stupid baby daddy, or joe tax payer for paying for their baby. Luckily, I surround myself with good people or this crap would really get to me.

  109. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn
    What I’m trying to say is morality does matter, but you can’t just point to women and say you’re the reason we have so many illegitimate children without pointing to the fathers of these kids as well.

    However, that is not what you did. You pointed your finger of judgement at all men on this blog directly, and all men by implication, for the actions of some men. So you blame men who are striving to remain chaste – virgin men by choice – along with married men who are faithful to their wives, along with men whose wives have frivorced them, for the actions of some men and some women.

    Again I challenge you: unless these babymommas are being forcibly raped, they are voluntarily doing what they do, and if take away their current boy-toy they will find another one.

    You are attempting to shame the men who are trying to do the right thing, for the actions of men that won’t listen to you. Keep this up, and soon no men will bother with you at all.

  110. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn
    I don’t know who to be more mad at….the gold digger, the stupid baby daddy, or joe tax payer for paying for their baby.

    This is easy, you blame the babymomma and her babydaddy equally, and you leave joe taxpayer out of it for the simple and obvious reason that joe taxpayer has no choice.

    You don’t blame innocent bystanders or the taxpayers when some drunk plows into a lamp post, do you? Nor do you blame the salesman at the car dealership who sold the car, do you?

  111. Johnycomelately says:

    How on earth does one conflate kicking a man to the kerb with fornication?

    Every single baby mamma I know kicked the guy out of their life.

  112. CalirChristianlady says:

    @CalirChristianlady “I think it’s safe to say that all women will find value in a man’s opinion regarding house repairs, car repairs, making decisions, etc.” Except if that man is her own husband; then she has to voice her contrary opinions instead.

    @jf12
    Personally, I think that if Christian women and men were more aware of their distinct biological differences, there would be less issues between the two sexes. A husband should be able to make the final decision, and perhaps his wife can counteract it, question, or provide more information to HELP him make the decision. But at the end, he has to make the decisions. It’s his God-given duty to lead, and I firmly believe that a woman should behave accordingly. And of course, I didn’t realize this was the way that things worked until I started preparing myself for marriage by studying the role that a man plays in marriage. Because no one ever told me about it.

    I was actually researching how to judge a man’s character (if you want to marry him) and found out so many ways that men are different from women. Unfortunately, today’s generation of young adults is oblivious to their sex roles, as I was. It’s not a difficult concept to understand, you just have to embrace what you learn. Men act like men all the time, but the woman tends to either take it for granted, or be completely unaware of it. What she needs to do is mentally tell herself, “Oh, he’s just being a man, that’s why he’s doing things that way. Let me trust him and see where he’s going with this.” It doesn’t work the other way around for men, because men are supposed to be leading. This is a tough change of behavior for ANY person to make, and as they say, the red pill is a tough pill to swallow. Except for me, it wasn’t about swallowing the red pill, it was about following Christian values/preparing for marriage.

  113. Lyn says:

    You are attempting to shame the men who are trying to do the right thing, for the actions of men that won’t listen to you.

    I apologize to Anonymous Reader. That was certainly not my intent. Again, I must not be communicating well.

  114. Lyn87 says:

    Greyghost,

    Fair enough – and you ask a good question, “Now what?” It seems to me that we’re well past the point where we can dodge disaster without Divine intervention. The only thing I’m left with is this:

    2 Chronicles 7:14 (NKJV)
    If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

    Absent that, which would require a sovereign move by God to save us from ourselves, the cliff looms ahead. As I type this the United States would need $17,000,000,000,000 of extra cash to just get to the point where we could say, “We’re broke.” And that doesn’t count private sector debt or unfunded liabilities. We are, simply put, in a hole that we can never dig our way out of. Sooner or later that bill WILL come due, and bad things will happen to the American economy, which will tank the world economy, and then things will get interesting. As many have noted, the social construct that allows us to maintain expensive falsehoods like feminism and political liberalism are only possible in a nation that has gobs of excess confiscable resources. That WILL end… whether by bang or by whimper… it WILL end. What follows that is a crap-shoot. It could go Mad-Max, for example. One thing seems certain: if the checks stop arriving the cities will burn, and a lot of people are going to get hurt. Being a useless Section 8 baby-momma who treats her uterus like a clown car – or an “empowered” sassy, single gal in a make-work job – will be a decidedly bad strategy in the new paradigm. But whether woman wise up and start giving men a reason to give a crap, or flock to whoever ends up on top remains to be seen. In any case I’m betting on dystopia.

  115. srsly says:

    Zippy, I think you’re being too charitable. You seem to be interpreting their ideas based on the assumption that they don’t hold contradictions in their heads, deliberately conflate the meanings of words, intentionally look past the real and obvious issues, and pour praise or blame on anyone, so long as they don’t deserve it. Of course her income is different from her husband’s, but in their worldview, a married woman with no income has zero social and economic power, even if her husband willingly submits to her every whim. Did you know that 96% of spouses of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are women, and that none of them have any more social or economic power than slaves?

    To them, as far as I can tell, independence means nothing more or less than the receipt and consumption of wealth. That may seem insane to you or me, but that’s because we understand that wealth is the product of human labor. They don’t have any idea what wealth is, because they have never created any.

    As to the idea that they are referring to sexual autonomy, automatons don’t have autonomy. (see what I did there). Women are perpetual victims of circumstance. The article never genuinely acknowledges that any choice Lily herself made could have had anything to do with her present circumstances. Their real interest in abortion and birth control is to ensure that women don’t experience periods of lessened productivity due to pregnancy and child care. In their perfect world, I’m sure abortions would be legal and free, but it’s far more important to them that nobody would have more wealth than anyone else.

  116. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    Pretty tough pickle we are in. I try to be of value out side of the money I have. Being a gun owner, mechanic, technician that works with carpenters, other mechanics (automotive and industrial) is a good start . Food and water production would be the next skill set for the group of acquaintances. The stuff miracles are made of. what do think of this? I honestly think this is where we are headed. http://shtfschool.com/security/suburban-survival/

  117. Martian Bachelor says:

    Ask not what your bimbos can do for you, ask what you can do for your bimbos.
    – Prez Nekkedy

    lol

    As the exorbitantly high status of women in western society is completely bound up with the xtian tradition of past centuries, the complete and utter degeneracy of modern xtianity is man’s greatest hope for a better future, even though in the meantime it’s kinda like passing a kidney stone: the faster the better.

    lol^2

  118. Painless says:

    @greyghost

    Bluedog types are the stalkers of American politics.

    “I know I’ve destroyed your life beyond all recognition but PLEEEEZE JUST LET ME BACK IN, BABEEEEE!!”

  119. okrahead says:

    Lyn,
    You need to review the Apex Fallacy, the 80/20 problem, changing lanes and “alpha lays, beta pays” (I cleaned the last one up, you can figure it out) at length.
    Women who have multiple little fornication trophies in tow are CELEBRATED by the majority of churches, as well as society at large. The men who sired the fornication trophies in question are not going to be present in the pews. The (dwindling) numbers of men in the pews are already shamed by the preacher on a regular basis for the actions of those men who never darken the door of a church building. As for blaming the taxpayer…. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I think you may want to make sure you were not exposed to a little too much anesthesia yourself over the years.

  120. Highwasp says:

    LynM says:
    April 29, 2014 at 12:41 pm
    {[“I’m saying that when a man has sex with a woman there is always a chance of pregnancy. If a man wouldn’t want this woman to be a mother to his children or abort his children he shouldn’t have sex with her. That would eliminate the problem. Stop donating to sperm banks to help unfit people have babies. Believe me, I’m not saying these women don’t need to have their butts kicked …..I’m just saying the maybe that the manosphere should campaign for men to stop impregnating nitwits.”]}

    ~ ‘morals’ and ‘sin’ aside

    ~ and considering women currently have all the procreative choices and opportunities to avoid pregnancy, conception and birth –

    LynM, your paragraph would more accurately be written like this:

    “I’m saying that when a woman has sex with a man there is always a chance of pregnancy. If a woman wouldn’t want this man to be a father to her children or abort her children she shouldn’t have sex with him. That would eliminate the problem. … I’m just saying that maybe the Manosphere should campaign for women to stop getting pregnant by nitwits.”

    Women STOP getting pregnant by nitwits!!

    …yeah that’ll work.

    How about instead we make available to men the same birth control technology as the women currently have and let the men decide who gets pregnant. The shaming language – “He got her pregnant” – will then mean exactly what it says.

    Hey LynM, what do you say to that? No more male shame and blame for celibacy’s sake. No more Morey Povich or Jerry Springer, no more paternity tests… Men having the same birth control methods as women would take all the guess work out of it and make life a lot more pleasant for everyone. We all want that – right?

    Oh, and just as I write this – look – here’s a male birth control procedure which acts just like the 10 year IUD which women currently use in the US –

    http://www.bustle.com/articles/19164-new-male-birth-control-vasalgel-is-perfect-and-unavailable-and-needs-to-be-on-the

    and here’s another in pill form;

    http://sartikaherbal.com/home/extract-herbal/gandarusa-justicia-gendarussa?vmcchk=1

    It appears there exists equal birth control options for men – but alas – both are illegal in the US.

    Both effective and safe, yet in the US these male birth control procedures and methods are illegal… hmmm, do you wonder why that is LynM?

    I know blaming and shaming men is so much fun, effective and manipulative that it’s hard to consider ever giving it up. Heck, our entire way of life is built around it! And male birth control is illegal in the US not because it’s immoral or sinful…

    It’s simply because the social, cultural and economic status quo depends on men being enslaved.

    To compare: Modern day technology [for women] has made celibacy as birth control a mute point. All the shaming and blaming tactics like “if you didn’t want a child you should have kept your legs closed” are obviously ridiculous and won’t act as effective coercion to control women’s sexuality. Those days are over [for women]… But not for men whom we still chastise and beat with the ugly stick, blaming and shaming them into submission.

    However, once thee same birth control technologies are in the hands of men in the USA then procreation will be a man’s choice. He’ll then choose whom to get pregnant for real.

    Imagine that – procreation being a man’s choice…

    Off the top I can think of two major social and economic disruptions this would create almost immediately:

    1. The number of ‘Heroic’ single mothers and their offspring [more single mothers and future prison inmates/slaves] will drop by at least 50%, taking along with them 50% of their supporting governmental agencies, social programs, victim and grievance industries, support groups, special rights groups, day cares, school systems, Obama care…

    2. ‘Heroic’ single mothers raising sociopathic and psychopathic men would quickly become a thing of the past. The prison industry and all associated legal and law enforcement agencies would collapse as inmate populations and subsequent crime numbers plummet… the ‘Powers That Be’ can’t accept such a healthy society – it isn’t profitable for them.

    So before you start saying that maybe that the Manosphere should campaign for men to stop impregnating nitwits, I say maybe you should hold off on that shame and blame until men have the same opportunity to be responsible as you women do. Then, we can talk about who’s responsible and who isn’t. Until then, chastising us men is a lot like whipping the slaves just to make yourself feel better.

  121. feeriker says:

    Dalrock has been looking for a good church for a long time. A church which castigates women who sin against their husbands. To date, as fare as I know, the only one he has found is the one which excommunicated Jenny. Even the Catholic churches push for divorce for dearies who are unhappppy, oh, excuse me, I mean annulments.

    It is good if you can find a good church to have one. If you cannot find one (see previous paragraphs) then you do not need one, period.

    As long as all churches are evil, you only need your Bible.

    “Looking for a church” in today’s Amerika means finding like-minded believers who are not gulled by the pseudo-corporate artifice that is what most people today think of as a “church” and gathering together in His name to pray, worship, study the Scriptures, and draw strength from the Holy Spirit. In other words, exactly how the original First Century church (i.e., the real church, pre-Constantinian corruption) worshiped. Unfortunately, such a church would be unrecognizable to the majority of those who today call themselves “Christians” and those who organize such churches will face persecution at the hands of the heretics (i.e., churchians) that will rival that experienced by the Apostles themselves.

  122. Lyn87 says:

    … still not Lyn/LynM – I feel the need to keep writing that.

    Ghost – I’ve given that no small amount of thought. I live in that sort of place, but I have family nearby, and a rally point, and we’ve discussed what our strategy should be if the SHTF around here. We have enough firepower and expertise between us to do some damage and hopefully encourage the survivors to seek easier prey long enough for us to either make it through the mayhem or bug out in earnest. Of course, God laughs when men plan, and all the bullets ever forged cannot save you if God decides that your number is up. In the final analysis, everything is in God’s hands, and He isn’t as concerned with our temporal situation as he is with our eternal destination.

    Back to the main topic – several people have mentioned two new methods of male contraception that will eventually come to market. Like the Pill, that would be a game-changer, as the current generation of men – many raised by single mothers in a sea of misandry – realize that sexual anarchy need not put them at the mercy of women and their endless ability to make “choices” that confer responsibility on them. But whether the new drugs will gravitate to the top of the social pyramid (like the Pill did), or flood the whole market remains to be seen. In any case, expect lots of strange bedfellows to campaign against it to a degree not matched even by the one that greeted the Pill when it was new. In fact, I would not be surprised if lying about the absence of temporary sterilization (by men) to gain consent was seriously considered to be a form of rape (since WOMEN MUST HAVE CONTROL OF THEIR REPRODUCTION and discreet male contraception could result in women not being able to get the pregnancies they so richly deserve). “He gained my consent fraudulently, your Honor… I told him I wanted a baaaaaaaybeeeeeeeee.”

    Stranger things have happened.

  123. MarcusD says:

    @Stryker

    Given that men who are virgins are shamed for wanting to marry likewise, it’s practically a hopeless cause in your case. Basically (for your own sake, not for any explanation), you can marry who you want to marry (well, within certain guidelines) – if something about the person would be damaging to the marriage (e.g. potential STDs, damage to fertility, increased divorce risk) then you do have a right to try to avoid that (and so does any women who might be annoyed at your double standard).

    A few interesting quotes:

    The targets of defiance include most of the cherished bastions of orthodoxy from religion (no one is any longer a believer, though most had been raised with a faith) to sex (none of the single girls are virgins, and the divorced ones freely take lovers) to drugs (almost everyone has experimented with illegal drugs). I should add, however, that the people these women associate with now do not judge their behavior as deviant. Nevertheless, the women themselves are perfectly aware that their life styles do offend “general community standards.”

    Micossi, Anita Lynn. “Conversion to women’s lib.” Society 8.1 (1970): 82-90.

    Data about virginity at marriage indicate that the trend toward premarital sex experience is proceeding with extraordinary rapidity. Whereas virginity at marriage has decreased from 50% among husbands to 13.6%, the drop among wives was from 86.5 to 50.0%.

    Lock, Frank R. “The challenge of change.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 24.3 (1964): 481-487.

    Comparisons of the diagonals of items 1 and 2 (1.80-1.98 and 2.92-3.15) suggest that males wanted to marry a virgin as much as females wanted to be virgins. Conversely, females were as concerned about marrying a male who was a virgin as males were about remaining virginal.

    Kaats, Gilbert R., and Keith E. Davis. “The dynamics of sexual behavior of college students.” Journal of Marriage and the Family (1970): 390-399.

  124. Lyn87 says:

    I’m curious, Ghost, what happens when a box full of Gendarussa tablets arrives at U.S. Customs bound for your address? Do you get the box or a DEA SWAT team? Doesn’t affect me personally – I had the snip in 1989 and my wife is barren anyway, but I suppose a lot of guys would like something like that as an option. I wonder… can Gendarussa be grown here legally?

  125. okrahead says:

    I have seen what hbc does to women…. and as a result I have no intention of using anything of that sort for a man. Seriously, have you seen the side effects women on the pill, or, even worse, with Norplant injections, suffer? All so they can get their freak on with the bad boys. I’m not doing anything equivalent to myself.

  126. Highwasp says:

    Lyn87 Now yer talkin’ – Home Grown Gandarusa in the States… that’s a great idea. GreyGhost maybe have just the seeds sent to a PO Box and make your own capsules after your first successful harvest.

  127. I’m saying that when a man has sex with a woman there is always a chance of pregnancy. If a man wouldn’t want this woman to be a mother to his children or abort his children he shouldn’t have sex with her. That would eliminate the problem. Stop donating to sperm banks to help unfit people have babies. Believe me, I’m not saying these women don’t need to have their butts kicked …..I’m just saying the maybe that the manosphere should campaign for men to stop impregnating nitwits.

    That doesn’t fix the problem. The manosphere could campaign for it but “the stick” method isn’t really working here. (Pastor Dalrock has been trying “the stick” method to shame men into marrying sluts and that isn’t getting him or society anywhere.)

    No what you need to do is remove “carrots.” Put “the stick” away because whacking men with it does not change anything. You need to take away women’s “carrots.” No more money, housing, healthcare, anything from government to single moms. In fact, if she has a baby out of wedlock, the only “carrot” she gets is the government taking her child away and putting it up for adoption against her will perhaps. You have no husband or no way to support your children on your own, you don’t get to keep your kids. Do that and we might start to eliminate the problem.

    Ask yourself this Lyn7, why should hardworking single men who have no children and no families pay taxes out of their earning to financially support bastards? What did they do to deserve that? Is that good for society?

  128. Lyn87 says:

    Update – I suppose I ought to do a Google search before I ask a question with a readily-available answer. Gendarussa is an innocuous little evergreen plant that can be grown legally – several nurseries carry the plants and/or seeds. But apparently it may not survive in most of the U.S. unless grown indoors, which is easy enough to do, I imagine. As for what you have to do with it to get the desired effect…? It can’t be too hard, as it was discovered by natives with no modern medical knowledge. I read that the native men noticed that their wives didn’t get pregnant when they (the men) would chew the leaves. Of course I’m not a doctor of any sort – so caveat emptor, YMMV, and all that.

  129. Lyn87 says:

    IBB, once again… I am not Lyn/LynM. That is a different person.

  130. Lyn87 says:

    Okrahead, from what I’ve been able to glean, Gendarussa does not act anything like HBC. What it does is eliminates the sperm cell’s ability to penetrate ova – in other words the “swimmers” never reach the finish line. Normal sperm function returns if the man stops taking it.

  131. IBB, once again… I am not Lyn/LynM. That is a different person.

    Well whoever that person is, right now the law states that people who work have to pay income taxes (or the government just borrows the money from China) to support the bastards hypergamous sluts bring into the world through alpha cock. This is wrong. But we can’t elect any politicians who are willing to change this because women vote and almost no women would ever vote for any politician that had that as part of his/her platform.

  132. Rhoubbhe says:

    I read that Slate article and thought, so Lily can’t find a decent guy because there are nothing but “losers”? There are many Lily’s and Carl’s in the United States, in fact, they aren’t the exception, they are now the norm.

    I’ll give Lily the benefit of the doubt, and assume the reasons isn’t attracted to some plain average looking responsible young man and would prefer to be humped on a motor cycle by bad-boy Mr. Neck Tattoo type. Why can’t Lily find a good man or get Carl to be responsible?

    I’ll tell you why, because feminist liberals and family-value conservatives have fucked this society up beyond measure for the last 40 years. I wouldn’t expect Slate to take a good look at why Carl and young men like him are the way they are. Slate has advocated for some of the very policies that created “Carl”.

    Carl most likely was raised by a single mother. Carl is simply typical of a generation of boys with no male presence in his upbringing. Carl’s mother likely grew up an “empowered woman” in the 80’s, meaning she was a heavy metal groupie in tight leather who got more play than ACDC’s “Shook Me All Night Long”. Carl’s Mother in the 90’s decided to be responsible and got married, but in the 2000’s cashed in on her marriage like a savings bond, thanks to a no-fault divorce and child support, she has one last shot at “living the dream” on reunion tours.

    Carl’s Mother worked a decent day job at a bank, like most of her BFF’s, but also a night job as a bar waitress, but at least she would keep the fridge filled with instant pizzas, ADHD meds, and TV dinners, though the trailer was dirty, overrun with empty beer cans and full ashtrays. Carl’s male role models changed constantly, typically after an evening out on a Saturday Night. Where was Carl’s father?

    Carl’s Dad likely lives across the state, an uneducated, under-employed man. Carl’s Dad likely feels angry at the world, between his periodic trips to prison for not being able to pay his child support and bitterness at his trashy ex-wife, he struggles to survive on his meager pay at a corporate chain hardware store, he simply puts no effort into his son.

    Carl’s Dad isn’t as successful as his father and grandfather, who had good paying factory jobs that no longer exist. Jobs that made men, gave them pride,and built the concept of the American Dream. Why is Carl’s Dad not as successful?

    Because feminist liberals and family-value conservatives, bought off by the corporate elite who own both Democrats and Republicans, decided to instead worship the “golden calf” of Free Trade and send all those jobs to Chinese Communists (because they wanted to “reform” them to capitalism). Instead America we would “advance” as a civilization (like the Roman Empire) to become an “Information Economy” (that the Chinese steal).

    The “Information Economy” would raise the standard of living (like the Roman Empire), make us the “Financial Center” of the world (so we could go in debt to the Chinese), so we could afford our “legions” to “free” oil-producting Muslim nations (yet somehow not get any extra oil after spending a trillion dollars on wars), which allowed us to stop doing menial things like manufacturing, exploring space, or keeping a decent road paved and free of potholes.

    America’s future would college education for everyone for the “Information Economy”, which is slowly turning into college education for all women, due to declining male enrollment, feminist takeover of campuses, and loads of debt and devalued college degrees.

    Devalued Degrees that don’t match real jobs in the labor market, because technology allowed corporations to outsource the “information economy”. Corporate American can now outsource jobs faster than universities can train people. Our education system can’t adapt, because College Debt is a profitable sector for the government and banking industry, like other profitable sectors like selling real-estate to foreign billionaires that finance terrorist attacks.

    The rural community Carl’s father grew up in was decimated, people because unemployed everywhere, and crime rose. A new class of drug-dealers and criminals moved into the region that has few law-enforcement resources, sending property values into the basement. Wal-Marts put most local businesses under, leaving only bars, churches, a VFW, and Veteran’s Clinic.

    At least the community has about 40 spiffy new banks for Carl’s Ex-Wife and her friends to have a job, as well as several fast food places. Carl’s Father has worked at several of the fast food places at times. Carl’s father has some skills in construction and painting, but the local companies use cheaper immigrant labor (“illegals”), so this kind of work is hard for him to sustain.

    Despite the loss of “menial manufacturing”, Slate and other sites have reported that “health services” (thanks to mandated government health care giveaways to corporate insurance and drug monopolies) the next wave of jobs, well the parts that can’t be electronically outsourced, like wiping the asses of infirm old people. Thanks to a huge Baby Boomer generation, there will be plenty of old asses for the new economy to sustain it in the years to come.

    Carl’s Dad however is not equipped for the “health services” economy, he lacks the “skills” needed to wipe an elderly ass, like a 2 year associate college degree, and besides, he has a criminal record for his failing to pay child support, so he simply can’t compete with educated young women like Lily’s peers for this kind of work.

    Carl grew up seeing his father as a total failure and didn’t respect him. His mother talked down about her ex-husband constantly, how he was a deadbeat, a loser, poor and not cool like the tatoo-covered rhythm guitarist she screws.

    Carl’s Mother is seen as a “good mother”, everyone at her parents church understands how hard it is to be a single mother, and are “compassionate” to her plight. No commentary is made on her trashy dresses or smelling like an ashtray at church. It might be because her father is an “Elder” in the church and the pastor doesn’t want to lose his generous donations.

    Carl’s Dad won’t go to his family church, he quit going 20 years ago, because the only thing he hears from the preacher how men must “man-up” and work harder to support their wives and children. Carl’s Dad sure feels like a “man” after he gets his meager paycheck that was garnished to pennies by his state mandated Chid Support and alimony.

    Carl’s father is told to be an “entrepreneur” but the local business opportunities are all taken, he has no chance to get a loan at one of the 40 local banks. Carl’s father has enough mortality to not enter the growing industry of stealing copper pipes and stripping abandoned houses of precious metals. Carl’s Dad works his menial corporate service job at a hardware chain, to feel some semblance of masculinity, but mainly to pay off his child support arrears.

    Child Support that paid for 18 years of TV Dinners and the baby-sitters for his son Carl, namely Atari, Coloceo, Nitendo, Sega, Playstation, and now X-Box. Carl learned about sex and relationships from quality role-models like “Grand Theft Auto”, not from a mother and father, who gave up on being parents long ago.

    Is it no wonder Carl nocked Lily up and refused to grow up. Nobody taught Carl how to be man, except the culture and society created by Conservative White Knights and Whack-job Liberal Feminists. A society where one can only function on ADHD medicine and anti-depressants.

    Lily knows that Carl isn’t a good man, but she slept with him anyways, so what does that day about her? Now a single mother, Lily has few choices, despite her hypergamous instincts, there are only Neck-Tatoo guys left in her rural community. The decent men moved away from the economically depressed region.

    So its no wonder Lily can’t find a “good man”, because this society has “naturally selected” good young men for extinction. Marriage for about 70% of the populace will be extinct. An asteroid would be more merciful that the slow decline.

    You will never read any analysis like that in Slate however. Instead you get stupid debates on which celebrity billionaire woman is a true feminist, can a celebrity woman be a feminist screwing a neck-tatoo guy or is a cock-ring piercing sexy.

    Feminists rail against the “Patriarchy” but what the should rail against is “Anarchy”, and thanks to Loose Gun Laws pushed by Social Conservatives that allow anyone to own a gun, the world of Anarchy will be dominated the most ruthless men that will have no use for either group.

    People will say it will never happen in the United States. I am sure the Romans said the same kinds of things while watching the games, living decadent lives amidst moral decay, ignoring their internal structural problems while collapsing from within.

    When the epithet of is written for the fall of Western Civilization, it won’t be because men refused to “man-up” like Slate suggests as the cause of the downfall.

  133. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Great Post Mr.”D”!….I think this exemplifies how delusional the modern womyn is.She thinks that she is independent? She will be dependent on government handouts.She states that she has 2 jobs? This will not last long when she realizes that caring for the baby will be a 24/7 job in itself.Also,I would bet my last nickel that she will be going after “Carl” for support….even though he is not “good enough” for her.If she thinks that the dating pool is bad for her now she has seen nothing yet as any good,responsible and respectable man will run from her like the plague.Her and her battery operated boyfriend will be very happy together.Here are a couple of good and recent articles that coincide with your post.

    http://takimag.com/article/feminist_fallout_a_roll_call_of_regrets_gavin_mcinnes/print#disqus_thread

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372978/what-could-go-wrong-w-bradford-wilcox

  134. Mark says:

    @longtorso

    Thanks for the link you posted.I am going to be sending it off to a lot of friends! This “mentality” is epidemic here in Canada…especially among women! I see this BS everyday.”Kids pushing kids”.

  135. greyghost says:

    To all interested
    The only problem or technical hurdle to get past is a way to test sperm for the changes caused by the use of gandarusa and how much is needed. A test that was as simple as a litmus paper color match would be awesome. Once the process is developed I can just manufacture that myself in the house. A visual requiring a microscope would be harder to do but would work after a few test and then a procedure for use could be developed and the user would follow procedure and that would be his way of knowing where he stood.
    Customer base would be college athletes and party boys. The holy grail to me would be to get that into the hood to get those fellas out of that cycle. All it would take is one rapper doing a rap about how his gandarusa made him bullet proof and beating a bunch of paternity test from the hood hoes and the government. The good thing about it the guys caught up in the CS racket will be deserving and the laws of misandry will insure a strong customer base.
    I have thought about it but not taken any hard steps.

  136. Pingback: I’ve seen the future, brother, and its murder. [Leonard Cohen, quotage] | Dark Brightness

  137. jf12 says:

    @Lyn, your illustrative issue of yet another baby momma on Medicaid having yet another baby from a famous football player is indeed illustrative: it illustrates the apex fallacy. There are many more baby mommas than there are famous football players, right? So there is, at least, a false equivalency between the male and female. In general, even knowing most baby daddies are merely Mean Joe Thug instead of a famous football player, there are more mommas and fewer daddies because that’s how the sexual marketplace works.
    “you can’t just point to women and say you’re the reason we have so many illegitimate children without pointing to the fathers of these kids as well.” Yes, we can just point to the women, because in our society the woman and the woman alone has all power to make all decisions like that. There is no lever, no handle, we as a society can use on the fewer baby daddies to disincentivize them. But there are many handles, e.g. benefits we could take away, that would affect the behavior of the many baby mommas.
    Please read the Gilligan on Slut Island parable if you haven’t.

  138. Tam the Bam says:

    IBB, tell me you wrote this as a jest?
    “Pastor Dalrock has been trying “the stick” method to shame men into marrying sluts ..”
    I’d be quite interested if you can point me to the smoking gun, so to speak. Seems out of character to say the least, decidedly not my impression this past while.
    Or did you mean that fat prick with the silly haircut and the video-harangues instead?

  139. Athor Pel says:

    “Stryker says:
    April 29, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    I’m in the process of explaining why there is a a so called double standard when it comes to the repercussions of sexual sins between the sexes. I’d appreciate any pointers you guys may have on discussing this from a biblical point of view with a white knight.

    Look at the Old Testament. The principals involved in male headship in marriage are all laid out there.

    Number one. There are no laws against having multiple wives. In fact there are situations codified where it is commanded that a man take another wife.

    What this means in terms of marriage is this. If a woman leaves a man then that man is free to marry another. In fact he is free to marry another while still married to the first wife. The only way a man commits adultery is by having sex with a woman married to another man. Intention matters here, fornication is possible on the man’s part but it doesn’t prevent him from marrying. Fornication is not adultery. Fornication is sex without intention to marry. It’s fraud.

    In the strictest sense a woman commits adultery by willfully having sex with any man beyond the man that took her virginity. There are blameless exceptions to this but I don’t want to get into the details here.

    Suffice to say, biblically, marriage is a man defined institution. To try to shoehorn equalism into it is not biblical.

  140. Dalrock says:

    @Stryker

    I need some advice, my white knight roommate is using Ephesians 5:25 as a reason why men should marry single mothers and that marriage should be a sacrifice on the men’s part.

    I think he is struggling with understanding moral agency. He believes that marriage is the representation of Christ’s relationship with the church, but thinks his love only means sacrificing oneself…I’m not sure what approach to take…

    I’m in the process of explaining why there is a a so called double standard when it comes to the repercussions of sexual sins between the sexes. I’d appreciate any pointers you guys may have on discussing this from a biblical point of view with a white knight.

    I don’t think this is the right approach. In my experience/opinion men like this tend to be mixing two things. They are mixing an inappropriate expression of sacrifice with a desire to get laid. Somewhere rattling around in the back of his mind is the expectation that if he rescues a single mother he will do better in the MMP, and that at the same time she will be grateful to him for overlooking her baggage and her past. He also likely assumes that marrying a slutty woman means a wife who will want to have regular and exciting sex with him. The problem is compounded because his biggest lie is to himself. He tells himself that the real reason he wants to do this is to be noble, to sacrifice for another. Worst of all, these are lies that he desperately wants to believe.

    My suggestion would be to start by reframing the issue as his sacred obligation to his future children. He owes it to them to give them the best chance possible to grow up in an intact home. Share the studies the Social Pathologist has reviewed on the wife’s prior sexual partner count and divorce risk (first link, second link). Then pivot and talk about the obligation men have to reward the less flashy and exciting women who did the right thing by waiting for marriage. He owes it to his future children to find a mother who will keep the family intact and model a happy marriage for them, and he owes it to the good woman who waited for marriage to seek her out instead of rushing down the aisle with one of her slutty peers. Of course, tune the language/framing as needed, since he is likely to be horrified at the word slut (even though we have them literally marching down the streets in every major city in the world proclaiming their rights to sluthood).

    But all of this will still be an uphill battle, because at the core this isn’t really about self sacrifice…

    Edit: Welcome Stryker.

  141. Opus says:

    So I just grabbed my brother’s Knox Bible. Ephesians ChV v25 begins ‘You who are husbands must show love to your wives’. Is Paul acknowledging Polygamy for Christians. I guess not. Hard to draw the conclusion one should marry single mothers from that verse even in its continuation. As I wrote over at Cail’s yesterday one does not want to end up like Nekliadov the hero (?) of Tolstoy’s novel Resurrection, who decides to marry a prostitute because he had once taken her virginity – a denial on Tolstoy’s part of free-will or any form of agency in women. Of course in Tolstoy’s case it is merely a rather late-in-the-day justification as to why he should not have married his long suffering wife Sonya. Would he really have been better off with some whore he had once slept with – he could hardly marry them all – and why assume that the harlot wants to marry him in the first place.

    Nothing like this in Jane Austen.

  142. Dalrock is right, stay away from the double-standard stuff. It’s extremely difficult for most people to separate practical repercussions from spiritual ones. So no matter how carefully you word it and wrap it in disclaimers, if you start talking about how male infidelity (for example) generally isn’t as harmful to a marriage or to society as female infidelity, he’s almost certain to hear, “So it’s okay for men to fool around.” Even if you say, “Now that doesn’t mean it’s okay for men to fool around; that’s still just as sinful,” he will hear, “But really, [wink wink], it’s okay for men to fool around.”

    Point out to him that marriage is always a sacrifice. Even a happy marriage with a great spouse involves plenty of sacrifice for the average mortal. There’s no need to load it down foolishly with extra dangers. I assume he gives money to his church; does he give every dollar he has, even though it means he won’t be able to pay the bills this month? Or does he sacrifice a reasonable amount that he can afford while still maintaining his responsibilities? And as Dalrock said, bring up his future kids: how much would he be asking them to sacrifice?

    You didn’t say, but I’m guessing he has a particular hot little mama in mind, or he wouldn’t be pursuing this. So I don’t know how much scripture quotes will slow him down, especially since he appears willing to take snippets out of context to support his desires anyway, and it’s not really about sacrifice. I’d stick to the practical risks, including the fact that there’s at least one guy out there who used to have regular sex with her and probably expected that it would continue (especially if she was married), but it didn’t. How does he know that won’t happen to him?

  143. Stryker says:

    Thank you all for your comments and advice for me, it was beneficial! I will update you as my discussion with him continues.

  144. Dalrock says:

    @Cail

    Dalrock is right, stay away from the double-standard stuff. It’s extremely difficult for most people to separate practical repercussions from spiritual ones. So no matter how carefully you word it and wrap it in disclaimers, if you start talking about how male infidelity (for example) generally isn’t as harmful to a marriage or to society as female infidelity, he’s almost certain to hear, “So it’s okay for men to fool around.” Even if you say, “Now that doesn’t mean it’s okay for men to fool around; that’s still just as sinful,” he will hear, “But really, [wink wink], it’s okay for men to fool around.”

    Thanks Cail. This is very true. The fear of the double standard is after all what keeps us trapped on slut island. Assuming he hasn’t kept his own sexual purity, I would be ready for him to argue that he can’t therefore have any standards of sexual purity for his future wife. I would be ready to counter by arguing that he has already failed his future children by reducing their likelihood of growing up in an intact home because of his sin. He has also made it much more difficult for him to speak truthfully and faithfully as a Christian to his children on this topic due to his past sin here. These aren’t an excuse to put his future children at further risk and compound his original sin*. He needs to repent of his prior sin and make it a conscious point not to let this prevent him from teaching his children properly. He also needs to provide them with a mother who won’t hesitate to teach them biblical sexual morality as well.

    *If you foolishly made your house out of straw, you don’t choose more dangerous methods of heating and cooking just to be consistently foolish regarding the risk of fire.

  145. jf12 says:

    @Dalrock, I’m marveling at the notion of being consistently foolish. It’s like consciously deciding to lazily avoid tightening the lug nuts after putting on the spare tire since, after all, you also haven’t bothered to change the oil the past 20000 miles.

  146. Lyn87 says:

    IBB,

    I wasn’t disagreeing with you – it’s just that you seemed to be addressing your comment to me rather than the other Lyn in the thread (maybe I ought to pick a new nom de plume). I agree with you except for where you wrote this (emphasis added):

    Pastor Dalrock has been trying “the stick” method to shame men into marrying sluts and that isn’t getting him or society anywhere...

    … but I assume you meant to type Pastor Driscoll.

  147. OrdinisNyx says:

    The REAL elephant in the room is that women demanded the move away from a marriage-based society. When men valued marriage, women didn’t consider correcting marriage, they flatly rejected it and demanded its devaluation. NOW, in their criticisms of increasing male ambivalence towards marriage, women pretend that they were always champions of the institution of marriage and that somehow it became devalued because men either became slackers or somehow just came to devalue marriage recently. The problem with this elephant is that nobody calls women on this selective view of the history of marriage (or parenting) now that things have disintegrated.

    I’m seeing this trend more and more lately. Women are blaming men for the devaluation of marriage and fathering, totally ignorant of the fact that it was their mothers (and sometimes grandmothers) that waged an all-out war on marriage. A lot of people tried to discourage women from warring against marriage and the Feminist Industrial Complex silenced them all by declaring them to be patriarchal and anti-woman. Now, feminists are rewriting history by blaming men for the destruction of marriage.

    Women have never valued marriage, what they value is security. Only when marriage provides greater security than they currently have do women wax optimistic about it. When daddy/husband government promised to be the new alpha and provider, women “found themselves” and husbands became unnecessary and marriage was bad. Now that the sugar-daddy government is going broke, it’s no longer the “real man” that they thought it was. So now they look for security by re-subjugating men back into the husband role.

  148. Lyn87 says:

    OrdinisNyx says:
    April 30, 2014 at 11:12 am

    Well put. But as I’m sure you know, that genie isn’t going back into the bottle willingly. Feminist women may be singing the blues now that most of them are post-wall and can no longer effortlessly command the attentions of the men they desire like they could when they were younger/hotter/tighter (YHT). But as one prominent feminist noted, “Privilege hides itself from those who possess it,” and nobody is more privileged than an attractive young woman in the western world. They could not even begin to grasp how the world lay prostrate at their feet – and actually had the myopic solipsism to view themselves as oppressed (as if…) – and now that YHT is gone for good, they are angry… at men, oddly enough.

    But Eve cannot “un-eat” the fruit now that it tastes bitter to her. Women demanded equality with men in the good things (like voting) and a step-stool to the pedestal when equality was not to their liking (like alimony and child custody) – and men foolishly give them those things. But when Big Daddy Gub’mint can’t support all his baby-mommas in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, will enough women realize the solution the problem? Will enough men?

  149. Casey says:

    @Lyn87
    Lyn said:

    “But when Big Daddy Gub’mint can’t support all his baby-mommas in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, will enough women realize the solution the problem? Will enough men?”

    When the day arrives that government promises are broken (and that default is already in the mail), reality will bite.

    Women who have been protected from their cumulative foolish actions/notions will suddenly have to face a grim reality: Women require men in order to survive. It has always been this way, it is just currently concealed from view by those wearing blinders.

    Take away the shoddy foundation that feminism is propped upon, and the truth becomes clear. Women who have no MMV or SMV at that point in time will be truly cast aside.

    As in the tail end of WWII, when enlisted men would walk past the frail, weak, & injured to push on to their ordered goal. It’s not that they didn’t want to help, they simply couldn’t afford to.

  150. Dalrock writes, “Thanks Cail. This is very true. The fear of the double standard is after all what keeps us trapped on slut island. Assuming he hasn’t kept his own sexual purity, I would be ready for him to argue that he can’t therefore have any standards of sexual purity for his future wife. I would be ready to counter by arguing that he has already failed his future children by reducing their likelihood of growing up in an intact home because of his sin. He has also made it much more difficult for him to speak truthfully and faithfully as a Christian to his children on this topic due to his past sin here. These aren’t an excuse to put his future children at further risk and compound his original sin*. He needs to repent of his prior sin and make it a conscious point not to let this prevent him from teaching his children properly. He also needs to provide them with a mother who won’t hesitate to teach them biblical sexual morality as well.”

    Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, which gamey “Christians/Churchians” hate and detest, shows how a woman’s infidelity leads to war and ruin. It also shows how men’s infidelity and dalliances–following the Sirens onto the rocks, or being transformed into pigs by the beautiful sorceress Circe–lead to devastation.

    However, it also shows how when a woman can stay faithful, like Penelope, and when a man chooses to return on home instead of staying forever young with a goddess, like Odyssues–it shows that the family can endure the entire Trojan War, Iliad, and Odyssey.

    And this is why churchians truly detest classical literature, for it exalts the epic family–Fathers and Sons–mothers and faith and love–over the gamey pagan churchian church and their worshipping of butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozozo.

  151. BradA says:

    Cail,

    > “It’s striking that none of the tradcons ever suggests that maybe Lily should pass on being a mother if she can’t find a suitable husband. ”

    I would have considered myself a tradcon several years back (and I still hold some of those values), but I don’t ever recall embracing single motherhood. Having a child out of wedlock is not a good thing period. It may be better than aborting that child, but it is not a thing to elevate. I believe I have always held that position, so your selection of tradcons may be a bit limited.

    I seem to recall reading something by Dobson lamenting a pregnant teen getting a standing ovation for attending school while pregnant. It may have been another source, but whatever I read did oppose the very elevation you are noting. Killing a child is not good, but neither is encouraging the behavior that led to that child either.

    RICanuck,

    The thing with porn is that the women in it are generally happy and engaged, something that is not always true in reality. I think that is one of the biggest pulls, beyond the other mechanical and spiritual aspects. How many wives are usually eager? I doubt the lady you mentioned would be swayed by that observation, but I can’t recall seeing any magazine covers, from soft “women porn” (fashion magazines, etc.) to other stuff had a hateful looking women on the cover, as an example.

    Anon72,

    It is written that we should not “forsake the gathering of ourselves together” for a reason. Finding the right church may be tough, but difficulty is not a cop out God will accept.

    Lyn,

    > “Women will never voluntarily give up the right to an education, the right to work, and the right to vote.”

    My wife often says that, but I have been gradually getting her to see that it won’t be an option if/when it happens. It is kind of like welfare today, what can’t continue won’t continue. Note that the Bible speaks of several women proclaiming they will “pay their own way” yet do anything to be called by a man’s name. That specific day will come as will others like it as we cycle through the stages of the life of a society. People make choices under duress they would never make otherwise. Huge times of duress are coming as we burn through the past capital and run out of fumes to keep cruising on.

    Your anti-promiscuity angle sounds good, but won’t work since it is so enjoyable, for a season. People won’t give up stuff without a firm conviction. Smoking has enough problems that it has been vilified, but many still smoke today, even so. I don’t see “free sex” getting even that level of negative focus without some massive external pressure. Cutting off the spigot for those with children outside marriage (including many divorces) will force this far more than anything else.

    It has amazed me that the growing amount of STDs has not dented here, but those require some long term thinking and are definitely not really presented in a realistic manner when sex is put forth.

    bluedog,

    Most people are poor today because of their own choices. Escaping poverty may be very difficult now, but I would bet you can point to many bad habits in those who remain in poverty. This was especially true in the past. Almost all of them would not be poor if they stopped having such a short time preference in their actions. My own living on the edge of it is my own fault, not some outside system. (Though I despise the very rich, whatever their political view claims, that game the system to their own benefit by foisting their losses on everyone else.)

    (I may read and respond to more, but this is as far as I got so far and this is getting too long.)

  152. BradA says:

    Anon72, I doubt you were reading decades before I was born as you would have had have the Bible in hand as you were born to just qualify. I am 2 decades behind you, but I have seen enough in my time.

    I do agree the modern Christian church has serious issues, but when did it not? Study the letters to the churches in Revelation for many corrections, even to the “passionate” Ephesian church. (I believe those refer to ages of time, but all the churches exist at any given point as well.)

    People are people and largely mirror many parts of their society. You are no more holy where you are than those you condemn in many ways. You may be a lot better than some, but you still fall far short in your actions of the perfection Jesus required of us. Throwing stones is not ideal for those who live in glass houses.

    People, inside and outside of a church, will always reflect the society they are in to some extent, even if they are standing against it. That is just humanity. We should never cease to stand for what is right, but neither should we elevate ourselves as some form of especially holy just to condemn others. I would still rather live in this country with all its flaws than in Nigeria right now, or the former Soviet Union in the past. Yeah, it sucks, but so does life in general. That is why I look to a future time when that will all be gone.

    ====

    A few have mentioned that things won’t change, as they have not done so thus far. This is a very shortsighted view. Things will eventually change because the foundation they are built on is flawed. People don’t normally chose radical change for the better on a voluntary basis, it is forced upon them. When the money and other supports to do evil dries up, as it eventually will, then people will change. TPTB certainly have power, but they are not God and cannot control all they try to control.

  153. BradA says:

    A general comment:

    While I completely agree with Cail and others that fixing the female end of things is the only ultimate solution, we must also stand for proper male behavior as well. Some like Driscoll may be idiots, but that doesn’t make the idea that men need to be responsible as well incorrect. We are all called to “be holy as I am holy” (Jesus). Enjoying the decline is not a way to do that.

    Many in this are tend to jump on those that don’t claim a completely one-sided solution to our current problems. One side may be a key part, but that doesn’t make it the entire part. Pick any single solution, or even a list of related ones as noted above, and you will only end up with just as bad of a situation and possibly a worse one.

    God made us to live as man and wife for life. Some Christian callings may override that (per Paul’s writings in the NT), but the core plan is one man and one woman for life. EVERYTHING ELSE falls short of that, however it diverges.

    I need to study it more, but the fact that the start of the Book of Romans notes that God gives people over to sexual depravity for rejecting Him indicates that our rejection of Him (as a society) may be a bigger issue than the sexual depravity we are focused on so much.

  154. BradA says:

    OrdinisNix,

    All of us seek to avoid personal responsibility. Its called sin. Note that both Adam and Even tried to pass the buck, as it were. Both are a problem and just solving one will not solve the other. Anyone who thinks we will be in Nirvana if we could just return to 1800 needs to study history a bit more. Many things were better, but people were still people and bad things happened. The actions then laid the groundwork for what we have now.

    That doesn’t mean the actions of everyone involved have the exact same impact, but blaming just one sex does not square with reality. Turning women into chattel (going to the extreme) would not solve all our problems. Preach the truth to all and let things fall where they may. Nothing will likely change in the short run, but the groundwork will be there if any in the future chose to rebuild on a better foundation.

  155. Highwasp says:

    BradA

    [{Most people are poor today because of their own choices. Escaping poverty may be very difficult now, but I would bet you can point to many bad habits in those who remain in poverty. This was especially true in the past. Almost all of them would not be poor if they stopped having such a short time preference in their actions. My own living on the edge of it is my own fault, not some outside system.}]

    well written for someone who apparently knows about choices and personal autonomy, but consider this:

    My father comes from a ‘dirt poor’ background where he literally cleaned the ‘house’ by shoveling the dirt out the front door… no insulation, gaps in the walls, leaky roof, winter temperatures in single digits, stealing clothes and food… I have heard stories about his literal ‘dirt poor’ childhood and have experienced first hand the resulting compensations and personality disorders associated with that poverty. As such I have concluded – The dirt poor don’t actually perceive that they have selves to destroy or impoverish. When they get a little power they know it’s only for a moment. They have no practice in preparing for the future… The poor generally don’t believe they have a future. They don’t count.

    For the poor, birth is the primary disaster: owning a body that has to be fed and sheltered and looked after. Then having siblings who need to be fed and sheltered and looked after since ‘mom’ is not around and ‘dad’ has been kicked out… (raised by siblings, ignorant and gullible, blamed, shamed and abandoned) all combined with the drive to reproduce, to continue. Survival first, everything else is kid stuff, including death.

    Escaping poverty, having choices, bad habits, having a short time reference, being a Christian, living on the edge, blaming an outside system… concepts that don’t even appear on the ‘reality radar’ for the truly poor. Holding them to a standard like ‘pulling yourself up by your bootstraps’ doesn’t seem to apply to those with no boots.

  156. Brad, you’re right, of course: we shouldn’t give a pass to male sin. I don’t think anyone here is trying to do that (though some non-Christian regions of the manosphere may). The reaction you see when someone comes in and says, “Why aren’t you bashing sinful men too, huh?” comes from the fact that sinful and irresponsible men are already being called to account by their pastors, friends, families, media, and politicians. Even men who aren’t all that sinful have to sit through “Man up, you losers” sermons on Father’s Day and pay through the nose so that women can be strongandindependent. The rest of the world has the topic of male failings well-covered; they don’t need our few voices helping with that.

    So we’re talking about the problems that they rarely, if ever, talk about. If we don’t, no one will, and if we spend 50% of our time chronicling male sinfulness for the sake of appearing to be fair, that just means half our time wasted on something that’s already being handled by plenty of others. When someone comes in and complains that we’re giving men a pass, it’s usually a feminist trying to shut down the discussion and get us back on a safe topic, so that’s why you see resistance.

  157. jf12 says:

    @BradA re: “I need to study it more” me too. But several things stand out.
    1. It’s not about *society* rejecting God so much as it is about groups of backsliders (e.g. “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge”).
    2. It’s not just about rejecting God but also accepting idols.
    3. These groups encourage backsliding in others, i.e. they are missionaries of idolatry.

  158. OrdinisNyx says:

    @BradA

    “That doesn’t mean the actions of everyone involved have the exact same impact, but blaming just one sex does not square with reality. Turning women into chattel (going to the extreme) would not solve all our problems. Preach the truth to all and let things fall where they may.”

    I’m not even sure if you replied to my comment or to someone else.

    A) I’m not advocating the general blaming of everything on women but, in the case of marriage history is, in fact, history. Women broke marriage, period. This is recorded history. Men tried to keep them from doing so and women won. I’m not sure why so many people become averse to pointing out where responsibility should rightfully be when women are involved but being afraid to confront women about the choices they make is a very large part of the problem society is now facing.

    B) I never suggested turning women into chattel and agree that they should not be. I’m not sure why you chose to respond to my statement with that red herring.

    My point was that men need to stop being afraid to hold women accountable for the decisions that they make, just as they are unafraid of doing so with us. They can’t destroy marriage, then blame men for it. They can’t declare fathers unnecessary, then blame the absence of fathers for the destruction of their children. You do women no favors by being afraid or unwilling to confront them on their choices.

  159. Random Angeleno says:

    @Highwasp: I can also speak to the outlook of those living in desperate poverty, the likes of which are quite hard to find in the US. I’m talking about 3rd world style poverty. These people are concerned with survival over everything else as most of them literally have no certainty of eating tonight, let alone tomorrow. The mentality required to adopt future time preferences simply can’t exist in this environment and there is no chance that more than one in a thousand living in this environment will ever come close to figuring that out. For the few who do come into better income situations, it should be no surprise that none of it is saved or banked for the future as suddenly obtaining a future-minded outlook would represent a total sea change in their attitudes. Anyone who works with these people comes to understand this about them. I walked among these people, I get why there is so much trash on the ground everywhere in their environments, I get why the smell of raw sewage is everywhere. Got to have money and future time preferences to care about these things. Got to have income to pay taxes that would take care of them.

  160. MarcusD says:

    I guess she knew where to look:

    Following the cancellation of The Brady Bunch, McCormick went through years of addiction to cocaine and quaaludes that harmed her career. McCormick later claimed she sometimes traded sex for drugs. She also had two abortions during her early twenties. She flubbed an audition with Steven Spielberg for a part in Raiders of the Lost Ark, showing up high on cocaine and sleepless for three days. She lost her reputation for reliability in Hollywood, and one producer threatened that she would never work as an actress again. She also dealt with bouts of depression and bulimia.

    On March 16, 1985 she married Michael Cummings, who had heard of The Brady Bunch but had never seen it. They fell in love upon meeting in a church.

    (She was invited to the church by a friend.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_McCormick#Personal_life

  161. Right there is the fantasy of every white knight: he’s going to end up with Marcia Brady when she wanders into a church one day and he’s the one who non-judgmentally treats her right, and they’ll live happily ever after. She’s even still quite attractive for 57. Of course, he had to stick it out through years of wacky New Age therapies, depression, threats of suicide, and who knows how much other insanity. They also only had one child — maybe due to those abortions, since each abortion seriously reduces a woman’s chance of future children, but who knows.

    But still, he got Marcia Brady! So if I, a nice guy who keeps getting rejected, just keep the faith and don’t rule out any women no matter what a mess their pasts have been (which was probably some man’s fault anyway), God will surely send me my own Marcia.

  162. deti says:

    Marcus, Cail:

    Perhaps the good gentlemen should pray that God does not send them their own Marcia Brady.

    Let’s have a gander at what Mr. Marcia went through after he married her. From the same Wikipedia entry Marcus linked:

    “After her marriage, McCormick went through a series of interventions, stints in rehab and experimental therapies. She says treatment with psychologist Eugene Landy, who had also treated Brian Wilson, set her back. Although she began to get sober after marrying her husband, McCormick still suffered from depression and paranoia. McCormick once threatened to jump from a balcony in front of her husband.[8] She and her husband were at first wary of medication, but McCormick has been treated with antidepressant medication such as Prozac since the 1990s”

    Did you catch that? After marrying the squeaky clean Marcia (when she was 29, just in time to stave off The Wall): continued dysfunction, mental illness, and substance abuse. Therapy. Interventions. Depression. Paranoia. Antidepressants. Suicide gestures.

    No man should put himself through that, particularly since, as Dalrock notes, a man has a duty to his children to secure for them the best mother he can.

  163. The Grand Cannon says:

    “In theory when it comes to issues of the family and traditional morality we have two polar opposite groups. On the one side we have feminists who see traditional marriage as a relic of the past and a constraint on women. On the other side we have the family values group which longs to return to the traditional family model at the expense of feminist goals/gains. ”

    Several decades ago this either/or dichotomous theory may have existed but not so now. Today people have a much broader spectrum view about relationships, marriage, family formation, etc.

  164. BuenaVista says:

    Cail, check this one out: manly manner-upper finds meth-head Marcia Brady FTW:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3150328/posts

    And this is how I see Taylor. She is completely new, completely transformed, and completely clean. This is not because she became a part of a helpful program, or because she really “pulled herself together.” It’s because God, in his incredible, infinite kindness, took Taylor’s dark, crimson life, and made her as white as a snow. He took all of her sins on placed them on his Son, and then gave her Jesus’ righteousness to wear like a perfect white wedding dress.

  165. Deti, that’s the thing: a pretty enough face can convince the white knight that any such trials will be worth it. Also, as Dalrock suggested about Stryker’s friend, he will tell himself how noble he’s being, taking on such a woman, and that God will surely reward him for that sacrifice. But a less noble part of him will be thinking, “She’s such a mess that she’ll be eternally grateful to me for helping her out of it. So she’ll reward me with awesome sex and never leave me.”

    Thing is, it could work. Sometimes people really do have a true conversion and change their ways, leaving behind their old habits and living a transformed life. I don’t think we’re saying that never happens, just that it’s very rare, and a man shouldn’t assume his devotion will make it happen. If a woman with a past of drugs and slutting is truly “transformed,” it will be by the grace of God, not by anything a white knight did for her. If she was transformed five years ago, that’s one thing; but if he thinks he’s going to walk her through a transformation, he’s just fooling himself.

    But the point is to maximize your chances of having a successful marriage, which you won’t do by intentionally going after born-again sluts. Turn it around: there are men who get sent to prison for serious crimes, then reform themselves, get an education, and become responsible citizens. It’s very rare, but it does happen. No one would say that means women should seek out husbands at prisons. Dating single moms is like dating convicts — not a good percentage play at all.

  166. BuenaVista, here’s the kicker in that story:

    And this is how I see Taylor.

    So he sees her as transformed, a new person with new desires, etc. Is she really? Who knows. He certainly doesn’t; it’s clear from the story that he can’t see her objectively at all. He even says at one point that he doesn’t “deserve her,” which is a sure sign that he’s seeing her through rose-colored glasses, and he’s got her so far up on a pedestal all he can see is the glare off her wonderfulness.

    I hate to speak ill of the newly married, really, and I hope it works out for him. But a guy who calls himself boring, marrying a woman with an exciting past of stimulating pleasures, worshiping her as perfect when she knows damn well she’s not (transformed or not, she knows she’s not as perfect as the fantasy he’s projecting on her)….he’s almost guaranteeing that they “grow apart” within a few years, if she’s not looking up old boyfriends within months. If it works out long-term, it’ll be thanks to dumb luck and God’s grace, not his discernment of the state of her soul or his slavish devotion.

  167. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Right on, Cail.
    ###
    You people who happily preach “just start your own Christian group if you can’t find one”, remind me of Rush Limbaugh in his early days. He used to preach that we all can start successful businesses, if we just get off our lazy rear ends.

    Over the years, he figured it out. Now, he is closer to saying, well, there are MANY PEOPLE who can start successful businesses, if they just get off their lazy rear ends. And, he has admitted there are people who simply don’t have the people skills; the business skills; even the intelligence, to start their own businesses.

    When you dismiss the inability of many people to do what that man some time ago, wasn’t his name Joseph Jackson? You are well into Thank Thee O Lord That I am nto a sinner like this.

    While I admit this is unfortunately normal for MRA’s, it is still counter productive.And, I am going to repeat what I said above. If you can’t find a suitable group sit down with your bibie. That is all you need.

    Don’t let people put another guilt trip on you because you can’t start your own compatible group.

  168. Anonymous age 72 says:

    The odds of a successful compatible group founed by an individual are about the same as that man who married Taylor staying married to her until death do them part.

    Has everyone read TEN STUPID THINGS MEN DO by Dr. Laura?

    Don’t get me wrong. I hope the miracle happens and she lives the rest of her life as a good Christian mother and wife. Forever is a long, long time.

  169. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Let me point out that Jenny was also completely new, completely transformed, and completely clean.

  170. Anonymous age 72 says:

    BradA says:
    April 30, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    >>Anon72, I doubt you were reading decades before I was born as you would have had have the Bible in hand as you were born to just qualify. I am 2 decades behind you, but I have seen enough in my time.

    Let me review what I actually said. “I was reading the Bible decades before most of you were born.”

    I am going to repeat that. I was reading the Bible decades before most of you were born.

    Had I wanted to say, decades before ALL of you were born. I had have done so. That pouncing on me as if I had said something wrong when I did not is a perfect example of what I call a pissing contest and adds nothing positive to the comment section.

  171. @Cail

    Right there is the fantasy of every white knight: he’s going to end up with Marcia Brady when she wanders into a church one day and he’s the one who non-judgmentally treats her right, and they’ll live happily ever after.

    Thing is, it could work. Sometimes people really do have a true conversion and change their ways, leaving behind their old habits and living a transformed life. I don’t think we’re saying that never happens, just that it’s very rare, and a man shouldn’t assume his devotion will make it happen.

    Far too many have bought into the trope that women civilize men. No, that’s a romantic feminist lie. It’s men that civilize women, and in their efforts to support their women and children they create civilization. Nobody wants to hear it, but the only way to deal with high-N temple prostitutes is polygyny. They don’t deserve monogamy and they’ve polluted themselves to the point they can’t make it work.

    Was talking to a woman yesterday, she’s about 45, was probably an 8 back in the day, nowdays she’s about a 5 and that’s only because she isn’t fat. Turns out she’s been married four times and she divorced all four of her husbands. I was teasing her, lots of push-pull, then I asked her how much she made off each divorce. She looked me in the eye and said ‘About a hundred grand each, and I still get alimony from my last one.’ Just said it with a straight face like it was perfectly normal. It took everything I had not to give her a serious beat-down. The most amazing part of this is she’s now homeless, no car, her kids refuse to speak to her and two of her stupid ex-husbands want to get back together with her again.

    This is the very definition of the word hope. Or maybe delusion. These women are a curse and men are so stupid that they buy that cat knowing it’s going to claw them one day.

  172. Edwin says:

    What all these people forget is that one of the benefits of marriage is that Carl can much more easily do better to be “good enough” for Lily. Working hard and/or working extra by going to school to advance your career is stressful; no better way to relieve stress than some regular sex and cuddling and company, and romance, plus motivation via kids or potential kids. If you have company and sex at home, you can much more frequently skip going out and doing things with friends, since you don’t need to go out looking for it.
    And then there’s also the huge time saver of having someone help or entirely do all the domestic chores, which are very time consuming. Plus, they can be done better when done from scratch at home; really good, healthy home cooked food definitely gives points on the stress relief side.

    But women nowadays don’t do that, few women really make these promises. So surprise, surprise, men don’t care to be “better”. Like Chris Rock says if a man can get a woman even if he lives in a cardboard box, he’s gonna live in a cardboard box.

    I know this strongly applies to me; I honestly don’t care about having that much wealth; providing for myself is easy. Of course, the woman-being-help also depends on personality type; I know for me it works out like I explain above, because I LOVE doting on someone and cuddling. But of course for a strong extrovert I’d imagine they’d rather have their freedom, they more easily get sex so have more choices, and they don’t find a personal relationship as rewarding as going out with lots of people all the time.

  173. Jack Amok says:

    I’ve no doubt that the quality of the average candidate in the Eligible Bachelor Pool has declined. A couple decades of trying to feminize boys and gut middle class opportunities for men will do that. Of course, Feminism is the biggest contributor to both of those trends.

    But if the quality of bachelors has declined, the quality of the candidates on the Girl Tree has positively cratered. A couple decades of masculizing girls and promoting sexual promiscuity will do that. Oh, and whaddya know, it’s Feminism again that’s driving those agendas.

  174. Stryker says:

    @BuenaVista – that’s the exact article that started this entire discussion I’m having with my friend. It just screams of a man making an unwise choice, and the main point I was trying to make during the entire thing is that yes, Grace can abound and make it work, but everything points to that not always being the case, and the wise decision would to be to marry someone without such temporal consequences of sin as baggage to bring into the marriage.

  175. Tam the Bam and Lyn,

    IBB, tell me you wrote this as a jest?
    “Pastor Dalrock has been trying “the stick” method to shame men into marrying sluts ..”
    I’d be quite interested if you can point me to the smoking gun, so to speak. Seems out of character to say the least, decidedly not my impression this past while.
    Or did you mean that fat prick with the silly haircut and the video-harangues instead?

    Whoops! Yes, I meant Pastor Driscoll, not Dalrock.

    Sorry Dalrock. Been away from here too long, had a brain fart.

  176. MarcusD says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q9SkOPHwRE

    Strangely enough, there are a number of feminists who would be quite annoyed at the above video (despite the WAW effect…). That said, most mainstream feminists and tradcons would be pleased with the video (since they are gynocentric feminists).

  177. Norm says:

    I’ve no doubt that the quality of the average candidate in the Eligible Bachelor Pool has declined. A couple decades of trying to feminize boys and gut middle class opportunities for men will do that. Of course, Feminism is the biggest contributor to both of those trends.

    But if the quality of bachelors has declined, the quality of the candidates on the Girl Tree has positively cratered. A couple decades of masculizing girls and promoting sexual promiscuity will do that. Oh, and whaddya know, it’s Feminism again that’s driving those agendas.

    I was listening to CBC radio for about 2 minutes(all I could stomach) during my coffee break. The host Gion Gomeshi (who is a disturbed liberal who believes in global warming and other left wing causes) was interviewing this woman who was saying feminism is making big roads in the Ukraine. She was saying stuff like women are questioning their roles and enjoying their sexuality(carousel riding). This woman was from the UK btw. Doesn’t she know the Ukraine was under Communism for 80 years? I guess since the west had a Russian friendly president tossed, they can further destabiise the country with the worst of western values. I am sure this is one of the reasons Russia is not happy with the west.

  178. patriarchal landmine says:

    the solution: avoid marriage. avoid children.

    let the baby rabies kick in, and women will come crawling back over broken glass, begging to be made into chattle.

    we can only recover from the mistakes of the female gender after we have stripped them of all their rights and privileges.

  179. xoxoxox says:

    The article makes it sound like it is women turning away from marriage, when it is only part of the equation. Men are equally turning away from marriage too. Women want to get married, but only to quality men – but quality men don’t want, or more importantly, don’t need to get married hence single motherhood.

  180. Luke says:

    rtisanal Toad says:
    April 30, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    ” Nobody wants to hear it, but the only way to deal with high-N temple prostitutes is polygyny.”

    Incorrect. Why sleep with b*tchy rode-hard post-Wall types at any price? Better to shun them in all ways, not just romantically.

  181. MarcusD says:

    @Stryker

    If you don’t mind me asking: what is your ethnic background (e.g. English, Italian, Russian, etc), and the ethnic background of your friend/interlocutor (if you happen to know)?

    (Just some mental wanderings on SOI and ethnicity…)

  182. jf12 says:

    Carl isn’t good enough because the changes in social structure were designed to make the Carls less appealing to women. The powers that be, being so anciently stupid and sluggish, erroneously thought that if the Carls were less appealing marriage-wise to women then women would choose to have fewer children with the Carls.

  183. @Luke

    Assume we’re talking about a man who fears God but does not desire to be celibate. This requires marriage if he wants his ashes hauled on a regular basis and a successful marriage if he wants to have children. Given the sociological and cultural problems with marriage today, the question is how to have a successful marriage. Yes, one has a better chance of a successful marriage if one can marry a virgin, but this is no guarantee that the marriage will last. It doesn’t matter if she was a virgin when you married her or a N >100 slut, if she decides to pull the pin that grenade will explode underneath you. OTOH, if she decides she’s in it for life then she won’t pull the pin.

    Yes, a guy can improve himself, learn game and do everything he can to beat the odds, but hypergamy is still going to be a problem. Every marriage has problems at some point and both the men and women *should* recognize that and do the work to make things work, but neither the church or the culture support that any longer. Women respond to incentives, but the problem is the current rules are designed to destroy marriage rather than preserve it.

    The problem isn’t the men, it’s the women, the legal environment and the culture. The solution is to have a marriage that has the incentives arranged to reward staying in the marriage and doesn’t offer rewards for leaving. What if you had a marriage that the courts refuse to recognize as a marriage? No marriage means no divorce, so no cash and prizes for cupcake. The only way to do this (within the bounds of Christianity) is to have a polygynous marriage that’s formed under a written marital covenant that functions in the legal sense as a cohabitation agreement. The state should not be involved in marriage, but even with an unlicensed monogamous relationship a court can and will simply “deem” the parties to be married and proceed with the divorce-rape according to the established pattern. With an unlicensed polygynous marriage we have a completely different situation because the court cannot recognize a marriage that’s contrary to public policy. No marriage means no divorce.

    This is all about incentives. Not every guy can be a cat herder, but for those that can this arrangement aligns the incentives toward staying in the marriage. Assume a man living with three women. One stays at home and the other two work outside the home. That’s a three-income family with a full-time housekeeper, and the odds are that none of them could achieve that standard of living on their own or in a monogamous marriage. If any one of them bails out, the best she could do is child support and only from the man. Compare that to the current model of marriage in which the woman gets cash and prizes on the way out and possibly income for life.

    The women can meet their own emotional needs and sex can’t be used as a weapon by the women because they have to compete with each other for his attention. With multiple women under the same roof there has to be some discipline, and there’s nothing like a well-deserved trip over the knee to establish some dominance. The dominance is attractive. The structure alone tends to make the husband more attractive to the women and keep them in line. Let’s see… plenty of sex, no divorce rape, stable structure for raising children, higher standard of living… what’s not to like?

    Notice that I haven’t mentioned “bitchy, rode-hard, post wall women” at all. If you want to complain about being handed a basket of lemons, fine. If you want to make lemonade, I just gave you the recipe. If you can pull that 18 year old virgin and marry her, more power to you, but after you’ve ridden her hard for fifteen years she’ll still be able to steal your children and financially and emotionally rape you in divorce court. Why? Cause you went monogamous. Why? Because that 18 year old virgin wanted a monogamous marriage that gave her the power to withhold sex and play games and cash out when she decided she wasn’t happy.

    You pays your money and you takes your choice, but the only way to check out of the system is to not play the game according to their rules. For a Christian the only safe choice at this point is polygyny. If a woman truly wants out there’s no way to keep her, but arranging the incentives to reward staying in the marriage is the best solution.

  184. “Why isn’t Carl good enough?” is a good question.

    But a better question is, “Why does Dalrock Dictate that “Christian Men Need Game” instead of teaching that “Christian Women need Christianity and the Law of Moses which Christ Came To Fulfill?””

    Why do Dalrock and his loyal flock of Frankfartians want to rebuild the church around serving women’s butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozozolzooz instead of serving Jesus and the Law of Moses and Genesis?

    Why?

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/why-does-dalrock-dictate-that-christian-men-need-game-instead-of-teaching-that-christian-women-need-christianity-and-the-law-of-moses-which-christ-came-to-fulfill/

  185. Stryker says:

    @MarcusD

    We are both white Caucasian males in our late 20’s. He is single and a virgin, life long Christian. I’ve been a Christian about 3 years, I’m not a virgin, but I am currently dating a chaste virgin woman.

    Our discussion has moved into the realm of moral agency now. He views men as being more responsible in a marriage due to their leadership role. I’m not convinced you can say that without removing at least in part some moral agency from women. Just because man was placed into leadership does not mean he is responsible in any form for a wife not being submissive.

    This sarted with a piblic comment from him being “Any man who looks to his wife to make their marriage a better image of Christ and his bride does not understand what Christ did for his.”

    Given the way this statement was worded in the absolute I think it implies the removal of moral agency from the wife. This is do mostly to omission and lack of context. It’s like me saying homosexuals will burn in hell. It would be easy for others to assume I hate homosexuals. Leaving out context and information leads to incorrect assumptions.

    So now I’m trying to sort through this and relate it back to wise mate selection.

  186. James K says:

    80% of young women and 20% of young men were invited to one hell of a party. The casual sex was so good that many guests didn’t leave for 10 or even 20 years.

    The other 20% of women and 80% of men could not get an invitation to the party, no matter how hard they tried. Many of us would have given our right arm to be invited, so there might be some sour grapes when we talk about the immorality of the party-goers.

    The party produced a lot of illegitimate children, and the party-goers now want the rest of us to help support them – even if the higher taxes in some cases mean that we cannot afford to have so many children ourselves.

    Most of us will agree that this is not a healthy way to organise society. We can debate how much blame should be attributed to different participants, but this is really no more use than arguing about how we should have arranged the deckchairs on the Titanic.

    We are funding Lily’s choices.

    The welfare system was designed in a time of full employment and well-paid unskilled jobs. Because those conditions no longer exist, welfare dependency has not only become a lifestyle choice, for many people it may be the best choice on offer.

    No one wants to see other people starve; but except for a few decades in the 20th century it has always been impossible to provide a “safety net” that preserved the dignity of the people it helped, yet was less attractive than self-reliance.

    People are not willing to vote for drastic welfare “reforms” that push the undeserving poor below subsistence level, or rob them of some of their dignity. However, such measures will be forced upon us when our line of credit runs out. We forced other countries into “austerity” when we were their creditors; we will be given the same treatment ourselves.

    Our civilisation is following a trajectory that we cannot alter. The PUA dictum “I’ll be poolside” might not be a moral response to the decline, but it is a rational one – just like Lily’s.

  187. BradA says:

    @Highwasp,

    > “Holding them to a standard like ‘pulling yourself up by your bootstraps’ doesn’t seem to apply to those with no boots.”

    Few people in the US today have no boots as you indicate. Some have incredibly hard times, but we are a far different world than 1000 years ago, for example. This does not mean that everyone can truly be “whatever they want to be,” but that most remain in a bad situation because of their own actions. Some specific counter examples may prove the assertion, but it remains the primary principle in all I can see.

    I definitely don’t claim, “I did it so you can too,” though I do note that many of my own ongoing challenges are due to my own stupid choices not some outside force outside my control. That is something that is often lost in our modern “I couldn’t help myself” focus.

    @Random Angeleno,

    > “I can also speak to the outlook of those living in desperate poverty, the likes of which are quite hard to find in the US. I’m talking about 3rd world style poverty.”

    My comments are concerning those in the US and I do not see the desperate poverty here that many claim. Some face quite hard times, but it is nothing anywhere near what you note. That is my point. It may be bad in the US, but even the dirt poor here are historically better off than many kings in the past, so letting people avoid responsibility by taking the focus off their own actions is stupid.

    @Cail,

    I don’t think everyone is giving men a pass, but look over some of the replies in this thread and you will find many that assert “fix women and the problem will be gone.” The role women play in the problem does need to be much more significant than it has in the past, but that is not completely sufficient. I do not believe your replies state that, so I may be mixing principles.

    I know I got whacked for being one of the “bad guys” in the past because some posters seemed to have thought I was trying to give women a free pass in noting a man’s responsibility. (IIRC of course. I may be forgetting the exact context at this point.) I tend to focus on principles to the extreme and I suspect that leads to misconceptions.

    @OrdinisNyx,

    > “Women broke marriage, period. This is recorded history. Men tried to keep them from doing so and women won.”

    I would disagree with that. I think corrupt men worked with corrupt women to get what we have today. I can’t give women all power here anymore than I can give men all power. Both men and women have benefited from what we have today and both push it. Perhaps this is more of a “conspiracy theory of history,” but things are rarely as trivial as they seem on the surface.

    Many women definitely seem to benefit from the current situation, but so do some men. We can only really solve the real root issue if we look at all the causes, not just a branch or two.

    > “I never suggested turning women into chattel and agree that they should not be. I’m not sure why you chose to respond to my statement with that red herring.”

    I did not mean to imply you were saying that, though I believe someone farther up had a post that went that way and I have read that idea in many places. I was using it as an extreme example however that all the problems would not vanish even if women no longer had any control at all. Some men are still benefiting from the way things are and many of those would find a way to benefit even with a changed playing field. Hopefully this makes sense.

    This is a continuation of the idea that we need to look at the whole problem. I would agree with your final paragraph.

    @Anon72,

    > “That pouncing on me as if I had said something wrong when I did not is a perfect example of what I call a pissing contest and adds nothing positive to the comment section.”

    Nope, you put it forth to stifle debate about what you said, I have been taken to task as well for things I have said, as it will always be. No big issue, unless you make it one.

  188. jf12 says:

    @JamesK, literally many (many!) people require that the safety net provide cable tv service. The debate has shifted to whether anyone has the right to premium channels.

  189. BradA says:

    @Stryker,

    > “Just because man was placed into leadership does not mean he is responsible in any form for a wife not being submissive.”

    That is the tough thing today. Men are responsible for many things, but you are correct that they cannot force a rebellious wife out of rebellion. The idea that many of the Christian family shows push that a woman will just naturally follow a solid leader is a bunch of bunk. Being a proper Godly leader can certainly help, but it is not the full picture. A man should strive for that, but we must also work to make it clear that women really do have a strong role to play.

    I guess some of this depends on who you are talking with and the exact context of the discussion. This is why this can be such a bumpy area. Men need to step up, but it won’t do them one bit of go to do so no matter how well they do it in today’s environment.

    How do you effectively get that message across? That question bears some consideration.

  190. cryo says:

    Marriage is not a Christian institution, it is a Pagan blood rite. Marriage is a device of the Matriarchy. In a true Patriarchy, there would never be such a thing as marriage.

    Marriage is the final stake and claim made by the Female Void in devouring the Male Light. Christian men trying to restore marriage are a laughable bunch.

  191. BradA says:

    I would run from Taylor given all I know now. My own sister knew the Lord and had a relationship with him, but was stuck in crud her entire life, with drugs ultimately taking her a bit over a year ago. She knew right and wrong, but got a “I can’t help myself attitude” and kept pursuing all the bad things noted here and elsewhere.

    She had many chances to change and offers from me to come live with my wife and I to get her life shifted around, but she refused to make the attempt since it would impinge her personal freedom.

    Some might argue she was not reborn, but I know she was, yet she was still a slave to worldly ways. That would make me VERY hesitant to think someone like here (and Taylor and Marsha Brady it seems) to live a fairy tail life. That rarely happens.

    God’s transforming power is far beyond what any of us can imagine, but I would not gamble my future that a specific woman was able to properly walk that out for herself when the odds seem so stacked against it.

    How many will feature the stories of how this man’s life 10 years from now if it turns out Taylor really couldn’t overcome all that stuff? I doubt we would get to hear about that.

  192. Anonymous Reader says:

    Stryker
    Our discussion has moved into the realm of moral agency now. He views men as being more responsible in a marriage due to their leadership role. I’m not convinced you can say that without removing at least in part some moral agency from women. Just because man was placed into leadership does not mean he is responsible in any form for a wife not being submissive.

    That is a fairly hot topic in various quarters right about now, in fact. It is easy to find churchgoing men on both sides of the issue of “do women have moral agency” on this site. The notion of women having zero moral agency is absurd in scientific terms and probably in terms of the Bible (I am not a Bible scholar). However, a man who knows what to look for – in Dalrock terms he “wears the glasses” that enable him to see reality – will notice women all around him on a regular basis, maybe a daily basis, who sure don’t seem to have very much moral agency. To be sure, Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT) and there are women whose behavior does display moral agency, they tend to be rare.

    So a more realistic way of thinking about women and their moral agency would be a sliding scale from “not much” to “a whole lot”. There are behavioral patterns that are typical of both ends of the scale that can act as indicators. Short term vs. longer term thinking, i.e. deferred vs. instant gratification would be indicators in general. A lot of plainly visible tats, for example, would tend to indicate something about a woman. An inability to keep her weight down would tend to indicate something about her long term vs. short term gratification. A high N would suggest a “live for the moment” way of thinking, a low N something else.

    As Cail noted above, in Bible terms one must make allowance for the possibility of divine providence making a change in someone’s life. A lot of people see the drama and emotion of a moment, such as an altar call in some churches, and assume that can be a good substitute for the day-to-day series of small decisions that led to it. It could be true, but often is not, as anyone who has ever tried to break just one bad habit (“No, I will not take a donut from the office box at 9:30 AM anymore”) can testify. A woman with a high N has certain thresholds for excitement of both sexual and nonsexual nature, day to day life with a churchgoing man won’t meet that. Can she really restrain herself if some man from the past shows up on social media, and not contact him “just to talk about old times”, for example? Can a woman who is overweight really submit to a kitchen with no snack foods and no little chocolate donuts, without sneaking out to the convenience store “just this one time”?

    There is a poster here who foolishly and rather incoherently argues that women have no moral agency, they have no moral compass. I don’t buy that for the obvious reason that it fails to predict reality. I will agree that plenty of people have a moral compass that has been damaged.

    By the way, arguing about whether women have moral agency or not could be substitute for actually engaging in a search for a woman that is marriageable. I’m not saying it is, but it could be. Your friend could be engaging in looking busy while really avoiding the risk of an actual wife search.

  193. Anonymous age 72 says:

    >>@Anon72,

    > “That pouncing on me as if I had said something wrong when I did not is a perfect example of what I call a pissing contest and adds nothing positive to the comment section.”

    >>Nope, you put it forth to stifle debate about what you said, I have been taken to task as well for things I have said, as it will always be. No big issue, unless you make it one.

    I did not put it forth to stifle debate. Project much?

    I put it forth because while this board spends most of its time on p.c. nothing useful is being done about the mistreatment of men. My views are different because I have been involved in the pre-Internet equivalent of the manosphere since the 70’s, and this p.c. quarreling has been the same all those years. So much time wasted in p.c. Yet the incredible number of suicides continue and nothing useful has been done in the real world. Except the withdrawal from marriage, which is really bringing attention to men’s issues.

    That pouncing on me for something I never said adds nothing postive to the comment section, which is why I said it adds nothing postive to the comments section.

    If someone is going to pounce on someone for something, they should be sure their pounce has some relevance.

    And, on second thought, your comment, “No big issue, unless you make it one.” is much more intended to stifle debate. Think about it.

  194. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    April 29, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    Co-signing the idea that total collapse will be necessary for change to occur. Public choice theory and all.

  195. Dalrock says:

    @Stryker

    Our discussion has moved into the realm of moral agency now. He views men as being more responsible in a marriage due to their leadership role. I’m not convinced you can say that without removing at least in part some moral agency from women. Just because man was placed into leadership does not mean he is responsible in any form for a wife not being submissive.

    Cane Caldo did an excellent post some time back called Advocates Under Authority which is very relevant here.

    This sarted with a piblic comment from him being “Any man who looks to his wife to make their marriage a better image of Christ and his bride does not understand what Christ did for his.”

    The problem with the statement isn’t that it is technically wrong. It is true that the man as the leader/head shouldn’t be looking to his wife to lead them to a better marriage. But 99% of the time when modern Christian men say things like this, they are also in denial of headship. They trot it out and thump their chests, but real headship makes them squeamish. See here for one example. Headship has been twisted to ceding authority while taking responsibility for the outcome. I could easily read your roomates comment as not pointing out that the husband must lead his wife, but as a sort of prohibition against husbands directing their wives.

    This should actually be a very productive area for your discussions with him though. I would probe his views on headship and submission. Does the Word of God make him squirm? Would he insist that a prospective wife accept biblical headship and submission prior to deciding to marry? If he truly walks the walk here, I wouldn’t worry so much about him being open to marry a single mother. It is still a bad idea, but not the disaster it would be if he kinda sorta accepts biblical marriage so long as it doesn’t offend feminists.

  196. Stryker says:

    @ananymous reader –

    All good points. Just for some more perspective on this, I would argue that scripture teaches that every person is a moral agent. To claim women are not moral agents is heretical. If women are not moral agents, and are not responsible for their behavior/sin, then why did Christ die for all humanity? If they are not moral agents, Christ came to die for men only, and women would not be judged at the great white throne because they aren’t responsible for their sin.

    So biblically I do take the position that the moral agency of both sexes is biblical and to claim otherwise is not in line with what scripture teaches.

    As men when we make statements that can be construed as removing moral agency from anyone us to teach against scripture.

    How I’ve related this to marrying single mothers is that it sets an example for younger women that they have an “out” later in life if they screw up. A wallet to provide for them if they jump in church after being the carousel in order to land a provider. Yes they might be truly saved, we can know no others heart and cannot judge unto salvation, but to cover the temporal consequences of sin in this case is to make temptation greater for another.

    It’s like if I go to the bar for one drink. Another Christian who knows me sees me there and assumes I’m getting drunk. I have one drink and leave but the other Christian gets drunk by falsely justifying his sin because he thought I had sinned as well. I’m not reaponsible for the other guys sin but I did something that strengthened his temptation. It’s the same parallel with marrying single mothers.

  197. BuenaVista says:

    @Stryker, agreed. Though what I found repellant, and causing me to be doubly skeptical, is the self-aggrandizing, faux-humble Christian-robot-talking-point quality of the man’s summary. Why, he’s a brother in Christ and practically Bonhoeffer. (Also, the faux-sophistication of using “I” as an object.) It just struck me as a staged polemic in order for him to be showered with praise, patted on the head, and I await the music video. It struck me less as a man offering testimony than a man standing up to receive his merit badge. Good luck to him, but glad I don’t have to sit next to him.

  198. Stryker says:

    Thanks dalrock. My roommate is very traditional with his view on the marriage roles and I’m not concerned about him not understanding the roles or headship. It’s the way he conveys his ideas that he implies men’s responsibilities are such that they are accountable for their wives, even leading to a point of being responsible for their sin. Maybe I’m wrong in thinking this, but his comment i read as removing responsibility from the wife. While we are appointed by God to lead, what is the greater responsibility? Is leading correctly any more of a responsibility or more important than a wife submitting correctly?

    A man should look to his wife to make a better example to the world through submission, obviously not leadership, as that is the mans role. Idk maybe I’m going down the wrong path here but that’s the way I view it currently.

  199. AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s says:

    @Artisanal Toad

    Firstly, the state, i.e. government has every right to regulate marriage because God gave governments that authority. Which is why the governing body in the Old Testament (religious leaders) enforced God’s Laws regarding marriage in the first place. The problem with this particular government regulating marriage is simply that it’s satanic/secular.

    Secondly, I get so sick and tired of hearing so called traditional-minded Christians promoting the secularist lie that it’s okay for women to act as a breadwinner in any capacity. God says that He wants women–all women–to be keepers at home. And so, I’m constantly confounded by traditionalists “Christians” who keep finding all these caveats and situations in which it’s okay for a woman to go off working in private industry. Now, I’m not necessarily saying that some situations don’t exist (obstetrics/gynecology/midwifery is a natural working environment for women), only that it doesn’t in the scenario you paint.

    Assuming the two working wives aren’t hopped up on birth control pills, past their child bearing years, or otherwise infertile, they’ll be having children. As will the “stay at home mom” (in quotes do to it being a false secularist invention.) given the same parameters. So, not only does the SAHM/nanny have to raise her own children, giving them all necessary love and affection–sadly, something already made more difficult by her slutty past and perhaps also her being raised in a secularist environment which has been systematically beating maternal instinct out of her since her own slutty mom plopped her down in front of the TV set at age two–now she has to somehow conjure up the ability to do so for the children of her sister wives as well. Um, this is just setting these children up for failure!

    Moreover, the two WORKING WIVES WILL STILL BE TAKING JOBS AWAY FROM MEN!–*from fathers!* Plus, don’t you think sending a repentant whore back out into the world on a daily basis where she will inevitably run into various men (even those dreaded alphas!) and be in close quarters with them for extended periods of time might be a source of temptation and relapse for her? It’s akin to sending a recovering drug addict into the back alleys after dark.

    But, most importantly, I repeat: God says that women are to be keepers at home. Therefore, outside of a few select jobs/services which necessarily must be provided by women, because they benefit other women or children, women are not be out of the home working alongside men. That sort of behavior is wholly inappropriate and modern “Christians” just don’t understand this, yet still have the nerve to long for times past. For this reason and others in a related tone, I wonder how many inroads will ever be made in the fight against feminism, secularism, and modernism. There’s just so much fundamental re-education that needs to be done to rid the “Christian” psyche of its secularist/worldly assumptions…

  200. hurting says:

    James K says:
    May 1, 2014 at 9:48 am

    Well-said.

  201. Dalrock says:

    @Stryker

    My roommate is very traditional with his view on the marriage roles and I’m not concerned about him not understanding the roles or headship.

    I highly doubt it, and my advice would be to probe this. What is taught 99% of the time today is for husbands to submit to their wives and call it headship. Nearly all modern Christians have accepted cross dressing theology over the real deal. See the enthusiasm for Fireproof for just one example.

  202. Stryker, you’re right to resist your friend’s attempt to let his future wife off the hook. Yes, the husband is responsible for leading the family, but the wife is equally responsible for making herself subject to him. They are both responsible, but for different things. There are things he can do to make her responsibility easier for her, like being dominant and staying fit, but ultimately it’s up to her to make that choice to refuse to follow Eve’s example.

    Since he talked about the Church being the bride of Christ, go with that. Christ does expect His Church to carry out certain responsibilities, like teaching the gospel to all nations and baptizing unbelievers. Yes, His Sacrifice on the Cross provided salvation without any help from us, but that doesn’t mean we’re off the hook on how to live. He didn’t ascend into Heaven saying, “Okay, go do whatever you like and I’ll handle it.” He spent forty days before the Ascension training His disciples to follow His commands. We are sinful, so the Church will never follow Him perfectly, but He does expect us to try. Likewise, a wife won’t be perfectly subject to her husband, but she does have the responsibility to do her best to be, and he can’t do it for her any more than Christ comes down and forces us to preach the gospel.

  203. AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s says:

    Just wanted to clarify, in my first comment, first paragraph the satanic/secularist government I’m referring to is the modern United States government.

  204. It just struck me as a staged polemic in order for him to be showered with praise, patted on the head,

    Agreed. As a former white knight, I can attest that there’s a lot of pride involved in the “I, unlike all those less sensitive men out there, see the wonderfulness in her under the damaged exterior, and I will treat her better than all those other men, and everyone will see that I am such a good man that our marriage will succeed despite starting with these problems.”

    There’s a lot of not-really-so-nice in the average Nice Guy, I’m afraid.

  205. jf12 says:

    Dalrock suggests a good question is “Would he insist that a prospective wife accept biblical headship and submission prior to deciding to marry?”

    To which I answer: Yes, he ought to so insist, but in my experience it doesn’t help him downselect for a wife since she will say anything that pops into her head anyway. But it is a good question for him to answer to help exhibit his own motivations.

  206. jf12 says:

    “There’s a lot of not-really-so-nice in the average Nice Guy, I’m afraid.” presumably at least different in focus than “The Nice Guys are the Real Jerks!”

  207. Anonymous Reader says:

    Stryker, here is another angle to consider when talking with your friend. Have him make a list of behaviors or properties that he expects of his wife. For example; thrifty, tidy in her clothing and dwelling, modest in her dress, cheerful in her demeanor (no shouting), demure in her entertainments (no barhopping), and so forth. Then ask him if the single mother he is considering already displays those, right now.

    It’s an analytical way of asking “Does she look like a wife right now or not?”. This is important because IMO people do not change very rapidly unless there is a good reason to do so, and those changes may or may not stick. If she doesn’t look like wife material in all the ways that matter to him right now what reason does he have to expect that she’ll somehow change in the future?

    And if he cannot articulate and write a list of qualities / properties he expects in a wife, then there’s a large problem he needs to deal with. This needs to be more than just a rote paraphrase of Proverbs 31, given that he’s dealing with a women who may just happen to more like the one in Proverbs 23.

  208. Cane Caldo says:

    @Stryker

    My roommate is very traditional with his view on the marriage roles and I’m not concerned about him not understanding the roles or headship. It’s the way he conveys his ideas that he implies men’s responsibilities are such that they are accountable for their wives, even leading to a point of being responsible for their sin.

    In addition to sharing her burdens, taking on the responsibility of a wife means that he takes on the responsibility to instruct her and maintains the expectation that he be obeyed. That’s the part that–because of Christian capitulation towards Feminism–goes either hushed, unspoken, or outright denied.

  209. @Cane
    and maintains the expectation that he be obeyed. That’s the part that–because of Christian capitulation towards Feminism–goes either hushed, unspoken, or outright denied.

    An easy litmus test to find out how a woman really feels about headship is to ask her “Do you want me to love you like Christ loves the church?” When she says yes, have her read Revelation 3:19 and discuss the meaning of the word ‘chasten’ with her.

    This is also a good litmus test for men to determine how much they fear stepping into the role of husband.

    @AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s
    Firstly, the state, i.e. government has every right to regulate marriage because God gave governments that authority.

    Wrong. Genesis 2:24 is where God gave the grant of authority over the family to the MAN, not the state. Ephesians 5:22-24 points back at that grant of authority in describing it. In Matthew 19 Jesus pointed out that it wasn’t the leaders who granted a divorce, it was the MAN who had the power to initiate the marriage who was also allowed by Moses to end it. The family was one of three entities God created (family, state and church) and He gave a mission to each of these entities.

    The family is to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it.
    The state is to be ministers of righteousness, enforcing the law, punishing the evil.
    The church is to go forth making disciples of all men.

    Within the marriage/family, neither the church nor the state was given authority and it is the husband/father who has the authority, right and responsibility to rule his family. The assertion that either the state or the church has the authority to dictate to the husband/father how he rules his family is just another example of women looking for a way to get out from under their husband’s authority. Woman, go find your husband or father and quietly get some instruction. Men are speaking.

  210. BradA says:

    @Anon72,

    You are the one who asserted that we do not need to be in a church, that having your Bible was enough. I was asserting that I disagreed and had significant time invested as well.

    Continue on if it makes you feel better though….

  211. BradA says:

    @AHCW,

    > “Firstly, the state, i.e. government has every right to regulate marriage because God gave governments that authority.”

    Which Scripture says that? I cannot think of one Scripture that authorizes the state to sanction marriage. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc. never went to any governmental authority (civil or not) for their marriage. The father gave a daughter or a man took a wife for a son, but no government authority was mentioned that I can think of.

  212. BradA says:

    I have always been a very strong willed individual, so there was no way my wife would run our marriage. She can have the areas I don’t care about, but I will stand for what is right, even though that has definitely cost me in many churches and other areas.

    We fight a lot more than many “happy couples,” but even she has been realizing recently that much of this is driven by her own internal misdirections rather than my fault. That is a hard pill to swallow for her, so we keep working on it.

    I keep meditating on what it means “to love your wife as Christ loved the Church” and I agree with the use of the letters in the Book of Revelation to illustrate that. The modern church view that Jesus just accepts whatever is bunk. He holds us quite accountable, though He does accept us no matter what.

    Thinking on all this has ironically gotten me to see flaws in many modern “compassionate” things, including what is currently called caring for the poor, whether it be government or church sponsored. Though that is a side issue to this topic, but likely quite related in some principles.

  213. BuenaVista says:

    @Cail and Stryker: When Christianity is conflated with the logic of the movie Pretty Woman, we have a problem Houston. Sure, a woman may wander in the wilderness and squander her potential, as did the Prodigal, but when he returned and ate at his father’s table, it was not an occasion for anyone’s self-celebration. In an inversion, the guy who loves himself SO MUCH because he married Marcia Meth-Head, reminds me in his egotism of the Older Brother, so focused is he on his earthly achievements.

    I hope things work out for the happy couple, and they might. Sometimes people are permanently transformed, though perhaps not with the narrative neatness Mr. Marcia M-H recounts.

  214. James K says:

    @jf12 – you are right. Another paradox is that, across the Western world, obesity is a disease of poverty. That is something that I would find hard to explain to someone from a genuinely poor country. Poverty is not simply a matter of having enough money, but being able to budget, prioritise, resist traps like debt and drugs, and so on.

  215. lzolzozozozozozoz

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/the-hivemind-fractures/#comment-557180

    lzolozozoz

    hey heartyietettz!!!

    long ago, my forefathrsz noticed somethingz!

    dey noticed dat when womenz followed der gina tingzzlzlolzozo and but tizngzzlzllzlzolzoz all went to shitz.

    so dey wrote da Iliad which showsz dat when a womanz runs off with a pretty boy, it leadsz to a ten year war.

    and dey wrote da Biblez too, as dey noticed dat womenz lusted after da lostas occkas seprentz, and so as to create civilizatizozn, dey told adam dat he would rule over evez, and dat all her desirez would be unto himz:

    16 Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bringforth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -Genesis

    Indeed women no longer follow God, Jesus, and Moses, but their butt and gina tinglez. And the hilarious thing is that rather than trying to resurrect the Christian Soul in the churches, schools, universities, and family court system and reform women, the “Christian men” such as Dalrock & Vox suggest that we all become slave to butt and gina tingelzozozizlzo and learn how to serve them first and foremost, over the teachings of Christ and Moses, as serving butt and gina tinzgzzlzlozolzoz over Christ and Moses is the heart and soul of game.

    Jesus Christ Exalted the Law of Moses, not Dalrock / Vox Gamey Game. More Gamey Churchians Threaten to Ban and Censor the Words of Da GBGM for Quoting Jesus Christ and Honoring THE LAW OF MOSES Over Gamey Churchian Butt and Gina Tingalalozozzoozzo

    Churchians have no shame and deserve every divorce/broken marriage they get. Their failed gamey crusade shall soon be forgotten, while the Christ and Moses they castigated, ignored, belittled, censored, and impugned shall Rise Again and Serve the Rising Generation who honors the Law of Moses and our Lord Jesus Christ over gamey game and gina tiznzgzlzlozozozo.

    “Those who live by the tingzlzozozozozl shall die by the tingzlzlzozozlzoz” -GBFM

    when da central bankersz conquered da west, dey destoryed da civilization by exalting da womenz butt and gina tingzlleeozozl over god and moses and zeus, and den dey gave dalrock a blog to sanctify and chruchian it zlzlzozozoozozozozzl

  216. @BradA
    I keep meditating on what it means “to love your wife as Christ loved the Church” and I agree with the use of the letters in the Book of Revelation to illustrate that. The modern church view that Jesus just accepts whatever is bunk. He holds us quite accountable, though He does accept us no matter what.

    It’s kind of strange to me that so many Christians place far more weight on what Jesus said in the Gospels than in what He said in the letters to the seven churches. In the Gospels, He was doing His job in His earthly ministry as a man. In Revelation He’s speaking as the risen Lord, no longer the humble lamb, now the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Big difference, but women don’t want to hear that.

  217. AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s says:

    @Artisanal Toad
    “Wrong. Genesis 2:24 is where God gave the grant of authority over the family to the MAN, not the state. Ephesians 5:22-24 points back at that grant of authority in describing it. In Matthew 19 Jesus pointed out that it wasn’t the leaders who granted a divorce, it was the MAN who had the power to initiate the marriage who was also allowed by Moses to end it. The family was one of three entities God created (family, state and church) and He gave a mission to each of these entities. ”

    1) A Godly government will be made up of men and only men. Adam was, in part, the first governing official of the Lord. You can see this in God’s command for him to name the animals.

    2) In fact, it was the leaders who granted these men “legal” divorces for the hardness of their hearts. Perhaps this started off as the religious leaders addressing certain prolific problems present among the Israelite due pagan/secularists influences. Maybe it was similar to a concept that Roman Catholics (of which I am not) understand as “binding & loosening,” but, if so, it had clearly gotten out of hand by the time of Christ’s ministry on Earth.

    “They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”–Matthew 19:7-8

    Moses was of course one of the most famous religious leaders of the Old Testament times and is nicknamed “the lawgiver.”

    3) The idea of a so-called separation of church & state, as it’s commonly understood, is an exaggeration of sorts at best and secularist nonsense at worst. The ancient Israelite didn’t separate church and state, or at least not in the way it’s thought of today. That’s why religious leaders were responsible for carrying out punishments for serious and persistent cases of adultery and immodesty and the like.

  218. desiderian says:

    for Lily?

    He is.

  219. Hey, GBFM!

    What’s the GBFM definition of the word “DESIRE” in the passage you quoted, Genesis 3:16?

    Tell me how lotsa cockas defines this one. We need answers here.

  220. desiderian says:

    “There’s a lot of not-really-so-nice in the average Nice Guy, I’m afraid.”

    Be not afraid; they (literally) know not what they do. Cheap grace is the only religion they’ve been taught, so they give away their approval and validation cheap too, and expect to get it back likewise.

    For God so loved the world that he got down on his knees and kissed the nice guy’s ass, er, I mean, washed his feet without asking anything so uptight and judgy as obedience or confession or repentance or good faith. The nice guy loved God back, didn’t he?

    Why shouldn’t the nice guy do likewise with his blushing bride. Then she’ll love him back too – right? Buehler?

  221. @AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s

    I appreciate your agreement with me, but seriously, what are you trying to say?

    #1. I agree, you are correct here.
    #2. You have a problem with reading comprehension. The man was commanded to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away. Completely private, no officials involved.
    #3. You need to read 1st Samuel 8:18. Ancient Israel was a theocracy.

    I don’t know where you’re getting your information, BUT, there is a difference between enforcing God’s Law in the public sphere and some entity or another presuming to IMPOSE rules and regulations within the family. Maybe you didn’t catch the distinction, but it’s there. Adultery is a public crime. Whether a husband tolerates his wife’s behavior within the marriage is purely private. Fornication by a daughter is a public crime, but the dress code her father prescribes for her is his decision and no others. In fact, you’ll find that if you read 1st Corinthians 7 very carefully, you’ll find that your father has the authority and the right to command you to remain unmarried.

    Your comments are rather incoherent. Again, go find either your father or your husband and seek instruction in quiet submissiveness. You are talking to men. Don’t dishonor yourself by being stupid.

    Homework: What restrictions did God place on the husband with respect to his treatment of his wife(s)?

  222. Moral agency is a tricky thing to talk about, but I have another take on it. Consider it more of a spectrum. Men are on the far right of the spectrum, with high agency. Women on the other hand, are to the left of men, having diminished agency. Animals are on the far left, having no moral agency. Another way of looking at it is that given women tend to rationalize and will change to please their man, they are more moral executors compared to man’s moral agency. Man does as he will, woman does as she is told. I am still working on it, so it is not yet complete, but I have done plenty of thinking on it, and it seems to hold up.

    The Shadowed Knight

  223. @TSK

    From the Word:

    I directed my mind to know, to investigate, and to seek wisdom and an explanation, and to know the evil of folly and the foolishness of madness. And I discovered more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are chains. One who is pleasing to God will escape from her, but the sinner will be captured by her. BEHOLD, I have discovered this, says the Preacher, adding one thing to another to find an explanation, which I am still seeking but have not found. I have found one man among a thousand, but I have not found a woman among all these. BEHOLD, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought many devices.” Ecclesiastes 7:25-29

    The righteousness of women, speaking to their moral agency.

    This house is going to burn.

  224. Mark says:

    @Great Books

    “”Why do Dalrock and his loyal flock of Frankfartians want to rebuild the church around serving women’s butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozozolzooz instead of serving Jesus and the Law of Moses and Genesis?””

    I think that you are on glue!

  225. Dalrock says:

    @Mark

    I think that you are on glue!

    GBFM has been grieving for the last few months.

  226. Who knew? Now it all makes sense! GBFM, dude, I’m sorry, condolences and all that

  227. Mark says:

    @HeadCoveringChristianWoman

    Could you please explain to me what a “Head Covering Christian Woman” is?……I am Orthodox Jewish and have never of this “angle” of Christianity.To me it sounds like you dress like a Muslim woman but, have Christian beliefs?…..Just asking.Thanks.

  228. jf12 says:

    @Mark see 1 Corinthians 11:5-10. Roughly speaking all traditional Christian societies promoted head coverings for women (think Amish bonnets, e.g.), especially when praying, up until last century. My own mother was raised Catholic, and as a girl the nuns used to stand outside and hairspray toilet paper squares on the girls going in to Mass who forgot their hair doilies.

  229. Mark says:

    @jf12

    Thank you my friend…..that has cleared things up a bit.

  230. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    Here is a good link for you my fellow Canuck friend…..http://soulmateinthecity.com/2012/05/29/the-case-for-the-never-married-adult-over-35/

    “”The real societal pariahs are unhappily married men. These miserable haters are the ones that we really have to worry about because they scare their never-married friends away from good women who would like nothing better than to grow in love with someone.””………..I agree!…..I was smart enough to listen to these older men!

    Make sure that you read the link…”hedonistic” ……typical “”Jewish Skank””! I have told men on many posts here at Dalrock’s Blog….”STAY AWAY FROM JEWISH WOMEN”………as a Jew I know very well what I am talking about!……..Shalom!

  231. Tam the Bam says:

    Right you are, IBB. I was pretty sure it wasn’t serious. Eyes front, carry on chaps.
    But I’m at that sort of age where people I’ve known since “black&white TV times” (thanks, kids, that really helps me ya know) start having random strokes and stuff, so I’m a bit gunshy ..

  232. Tam the Bam says:

    “Animals are on the far left, having no moral agency.”
    Hey there, why, I say. I say boy! I’ve had dogs that knew damn’ fine they had done wrong while I was out. And couldn’t keep it from their faces.
    I never knew a woman couldn’t believe herself the victim of some appalling circumstance that simply forced, I say forced her to .. [lie, steal, whore, drug up, drink, abort, crash cars etc. etc.].
    And maintain a countenance of wounded innocence unsullied by self-examination throughout, and in perpetuity.

    I’d be most obliged if you’d adjust that there spectrum of yours, to put most mammals, the corvids, parrot-type things and possibly some lizards more right of center than women.

  233. jf12 says:

    @ Tam re: dog guilt face. One of the more interesting aspects of dog’s using facial expressions for emoting is that dogs developed faux eyebrows using brow muscles that were underdeveloped in wolves. Even feral dogs now use their faux eyebrows for communicating.

  234. Tam the Bam says:

    Indeed, jf12, whereas women have developed .. precisely what? Oh, I remember. Concealed ovulation and arousal.
    I wonder if that barmy Russian bird, who did the generations-long experiment with caged Arctic foxes or wolves or whatever it was, to try to assay the origins of domestic doges, ever kept the ones that fell to the other side of the curve from the amazing multicolored, curly-tailed and friendly ones she did succeed in breeding?

    Tut tut, now I’m going to have to wander off into the interwebs out of curiosity. Into the Nature of Women. For a start, they don’t have nice curly tails ..

  235. AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s says:

    @Artisanal Toad

    Please don’t ever tell me I lack reading comprehension skills when your responses to me clearly indicate that it is in fact *you* that lacks reading comprehension skills. Oh, and your attempts to belittle my statements simply because I’m female are hilarious. In case you haven’t noticed: male authority figures are not God and they have no right to overrule God’s Laws, which are supreme above ALL. For example, can a man tell his wife to prostitute herself? Of course not.

    And I think my posts only seem incoherent to you because, aside from your reading comprehension issues that is, you don’t know nearly as much about Scripture and Church history as you think you do. Perhaps you should spend more time researching that instead of finding reasons to white knight and marry your precious whores.

    And, lastly to you and all other “Christians” so quick downplay or dismiss theocracy, i.e. the supreme rule of God’s Law, when Christ returns to Earth to establish His kingdom, what kind of government will it be? A theocracy that’s what, where God is our God, and we are His people.

    @Mark

    No, I do not dress like a Muslim woman. I dress (hopefully) in modest apparel becoming of a Christian woman, which includes a veil to cover my hair. The woman’s headcovering was a staple of Christian tradition for centuries before feminism and the weak, idiot men who support feminism encouraged women to uncover. I recommend you and other interested parties research what some of the ancient Church fathers wrote about headcovering and women’s modesty. 1 Corinthians 11: 1-16, is indeed an excellent place to start. The Apostolic Constitutions also, I believe, offer interesting insight to how past generations of Christians viewed female modesty, although some do challenge it’s authenticity.

  236. @Tam

    Damn. One day I hope to write as well as you do. In the meanwhile, I’ll gorge myself on boiled crawfish.

  237. jf12 says:

    Re: nice tails. My first daughter was four, maybe, when she proudly announced she had figured out the difference between girls and boys: “Boys have tails, and girls don’t.” She gets an A+ for observation, with a few points deducted for analysis. I would prefer about twenty catlike face whiskers first for myself, if I get to choose a furry body mod.

    My younger brother, however, caused a family uproar of rofling when he announced his discovery around the same age in 1959, i.e. prior to hippies: “Boys have ears, and girls don’t.”

  238. James K says:

    @Mark – yes, I used to read GBFM’s posts carefully, and amongst the repetition there would usually be a kernel of wisdom or a lozlzl joke. However, the suggestion that Dalrock is really a Marxist of the Frankfurt school and promotes the serving of gina tingles is puzzling.

  239. Luke says:

    BradA says:
    April 30, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    “People are people and largely mirror many parts of their society. You are no more holy where you are than those you condemn in many ways. You may be a lot better than some, but you still fall far short in your actions of the perfection Jesus required of us.”

    Incorrect in spirit here. Agreed that all of us are sinners, in total need of God’s grace via Jesus’s sacrifice to enter heaven. That said, there most certainly ARE degrees and differences in how “holy” or moral people are, a moral spectrum with periodic lines. This is pointed out many places in the Bible. Example: we’re commanded not to even eat a meal with unrepentant (unsaved) sinners.

  240. Tam the Bam says:

    Oh dear .. busted. You are a very smart Toad. The English was never my first language.
    but dammit, I do try!11!!
    (Thing is, I now barely remember the other :( )

    Which reminds me. Da sainted GBFM might condescend to add another GB to the bibliog. mascul.
    Landnamabok. Olaf Hoskuldsson called the Peacock (Irish mother) is addressing his mutinous mariners mid-ocean:-
    “The opinion of fools .. is not greater, the more of them that there are”.
    He prevailed.

  241. Anonymous age 72 says:

    http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/attend.html

    Discusses the need for a church. Not specified by scripture.

    Brad, you keep on responding, and keep implying I am somehow in the wrong for also responding. If you think the exchange is wrong for any reason, you can let it go as well as I can. And, the exchange started because you ‘disagreed’ with me over something I said.

    Which is, God would never expect you to go to an evil church. Makes no sense at all.

    Nor does he mandate that you start your own group when you are unable for any reason, personal; emotional; or circumstantial. You just make stuff up to suit your own opinion. This sort of put-down is all based on a desire to feel superior to all those other dummies. Thank thee o lord that I am not a sinner like these. The hallmark of the manosphere and why no effective defense against feminism has ever come from men. Except completely avoiding marriage…

    That is why He gave us the scriptures, so we can read and understand them when we don’t have an effective group to work with.

    Many here spend a lot of time debating to the point of being a p.c. what some verse means.

    Jesus spoke at length about this. He said you cannot be saved by following The Law. And, that includes the NT laws as well as Mosaic law. It is not humanly possible for any human to avoid all sin, and Jesus plainly said so. So, why all the ad infinitum ad nauseum p.c. on trivial points in the Bible?

    In past years, I participated in what was when called Christian Message Board. What a pathetic place? Men asking, is wanking a sin? How about left-handed wanking? Right handed wanking? Ambidextrous wanking? Is lusting after my own wife a sin? If there is a woman at work who is dressed sexily, and I have impure thoughts flash into my mind when I look at her, is that a sin?

    The last straw for me came over a woman who was a basket case single mom. Her kid had all sorts of emotional problems, most of which would disappear if his dad got custody. I suggested EFT, and the moderators immediately removed my posting, saying EFT is New Age, from the Devil. They knew nothing about EFT, except that it actually works well in most cases. But, they were right. After all God wants you to be emotionally disturbed. It is Satan who wants you to be emotionally healthy and prosperous, correct? [/sarcasm]

    EFT is basically acupuncture without needles.

    In the 90’s, volunteers went into veteran hospitals and within a week sent men home who had been in the hospitals with PTSD for over 20 years. There is nothing Satanic about it at all. It is all based on knowledge of the human system as designed into it by God.

    Anyway, all this constant bickering over points in the Bible is exactly what Jesus talked about when he said you cannot be saved by the Law. And, it is why I call it a p.c.

  242. jf12 says:

    @JamesK re: “is puzzling”. Some people claim that glue is to blame, but I know it’s his own fault. He writes remarkably similar to how my alcoholic brother drunk-talked, especially when he wanted to be obnoxious on the telephone and would be drooling at his own precociousness. I presume that’s the effect he is striving for, i.e. drunk-dialing.

  243. Tam the Bam says:

    O arse. Wrong link location. Sorry Toad. Meant this.

  244. LynM says:

    I know this post has been going on for days, but I thought I would ask a question. If men don’t want or trust women and (according to this other post), women might feel the same, what happens to our society? Is this the beginning of the end.? Are these anonymous ( and sometimes vitriolic ) discussions making things worse? Are Carl and Lily to be the new norm? Scary times.

    returnofqueens.com/are-good-women-going-their-own-way/

  245. AmStrat says:

    @jf12
    “Re: nice tails. My first daughter was four, maybe, when she proudly announced she had figured out the difference between girls and boys: “Boys have tails, and girls don’t.” She gets an A+ for observation, with a few points deducted for analysis. I would prefer about twenty catlike face whiskers first for myself, if I get to choose a furry body mod.”

    hate to ask for elaboration… but what was your daughter referring to?

  246. The article makes it sound like it is women turning away from marriage, when it is only part of the equation. Men are equally turning away from marriage too. Women want to get married, but only to quality men – but quality men don’t want, or more importantly, don’t need to get married hence single motherhood.

    No. I know it feels like its profoundly accommodating to throw in such edgy remarks as , “men do it equally too”. This way you say it takes two utterly unrelated things and sets them equal. You compare women jettisoning men in NF divorce to men’s reluctance to marry and come up with a simplistic statement that expresses both. Shallow readers would cheer you on. They read two things that are essentially correct statements in isolation and get lathered up that something, anything, that can be widely agreed has been said.

  247. feeriker says:

    If men don’t want or trust women and (according to this other post), women might feel the same, what happens to our society?

    It continues on its current path to complete disintegration. The real question that Christians should be asking themselves (but mostly aren’t due to the corrupt nature of today’s “churches” that leads them away from any such introspection) is “what happens to the BODY OF CHRIST when men and women stop trusting one another?”

    Is this the beginning of the end.?

    How do you define “the beginning of the end?” One could easily argue that that began in the Garden of Eden when Eve led Adam into temptation and sin. I would say that what you are referring to describes a symptom of the ongoing (dare I say accelerated pace of?) the end rather than a marker for the beginning of it.

    Are these anonymous ( and sometimes vitriolic ) discussions making things worse?

    Hardly. While they might not always lead to tangible solutions, not having these discussions and at all and failing to acknowledge the reality around us leads to even worse things.

    Are Carl and Lily to be the new norm?

    What’s with the future tense? I think anyone not living in a cave or a coma can see that they already are the new norm, and have been so for some time.

  248. Tam the Bam says:

    Am strat. Aye so. My best mate’s GF got drunk, and during the course of the next couple days I decided that her embarrassed awkwardness, around her as-long’s-the-last-joint-o’-my-pinkie caudal extension (couldn’t wiggle it. I am disappoint) exceeded her gadoid writhing athleticism in my handmade box-bed (we were, as usual, Oop North, over-sea).

    Long story short.
    In the Island, the men (being essentially descended from adventurous Outsiders) are a deal less inbred and physically peculiar than the (mainly U and a bit of H mtDNA) wimminz. Who have been here just .. forever. Dunno how that affects you lot, Over There.

  249. Andrew says:

    Let me disagree slightly: I think cad-shaming is highly effective.

    But before you claim that I have no clue, let me qualify that. Cad-shaming is highly effective if everyone – male and female – maintains the integrity of the “tribe”.

    It seems to me that men have three loyalties: they rally behind their leader/s, they stand with their peers, and they stand guard over their dependents. Any form of male unity, discipline or defence generally must fit within this framework.

    If a man is ostracised and the tribe remains united against him, then he is punished (and possibly disciplined) for his behaviour. But if his behaviour is to break sexual mores, and when he is set aside the women “break ranks” and continue to admire him, then the discipline is ineffective. And that is why things break today: women (and men, but this issue is specifically about women) wanting independence from the tribe yet still benefiting from the tribe’s protection. But the very independence that they cherish emasculates the tribe’s power (pun intended), and renders it unable to protect them.

    This doesn’t handle the issue of when the men fail to discipline their own insiders or condone cruelty, which has been a real issue in many circles, but one doesn’t fix damaged leadership by tearing down the unbroken remains and then wondering why things got worse rather than better.

    (I have the same issue with “rape culture” – many of the soft rape situations that occur today occur when girls assert their independence yet fail to comprehend that they have asserted independence from protection as well as authority/dependence. In general, men can only police their own within the tribe – put yourself outside the tribe and you render “your” men powerless. Plus they feel rejected and disrespected and don’t feel an obligation to protect you anyway.

    This is not just a women’s issue. I also see men today dissing their tribes (or just failing to see value in associating with them) and then wondering why no-one is there for them. Perversely enough, it’s one thing criminal gangs get right, turning a good thing (male belonging and tribes) to a bad end (crime).)

  250. JDG says:

    @ AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s

    Artisanal Toad is correct. the government has no authority over marriage. The government does have the power of the sword to dispatch evil, but it has no God given authority to regulate or define marriage or the family. Those entities are what God made them and cannot be redefined. Furthermore, God gave man authority over his family. You are quite wrong.

    Oh, and your attempts to belittle my statements simply because I’m female are hilarious. In case you haven’t noticed: male authority figures are not God and they have no right to overrule God’s Laws, which are supreme above ALL. For example, can a man tell his wife to prostitute herself? Of course not.

    Comments like these give credence to the Tradcon = feminist argument. No where did Artisanal Toad claim that male authority figures are God or have authority to overule God’s laws. His claim is that you are misrepreseting the scriptures, and doing so in a manner in which you have no business doing. He also correctly pointed out that you are a woman, and women are not to teach or take authority over men. The woman was deceived, not the man.

  251. Finn McCool says:

    @AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s

    If a child of yours was discovered to have a special need or special talent, i.e., a rare disease with an effective but “experimental” treatment or Olympic-level ice skating, and your husband decided that the most practical way to fund the appropriate treatment/coaching would be for you to get a job in “private industry” (your words), would you obey him?

  252. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    What I don’t understand is the fear that those men will be scared away from marriage. If they are, perhaps they wouldn’t be happily married?

    Anyhow, she forgot happily divorced men – that’s a group that she should be more scared of.

  253. Tam the Bam says:

    Is this the beginning of the end.?
    How do you define “the beginning of the end?”
    My only friend ..

    [Warning! : Boomer Soundz! Please puke only within yore designated aisle]

  254. Tam the Bam says:

    “What happens to our society?” Done gone finish. Problem?

  255. feeriker says:

    AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s = Troll(ette). The handle itself is pretty much a dead giveaway.

  256. Wonderful to be reading Dalrock again!!!!

    Outstanding post,
    engaging comments,
    and humorous dialogue as usual.

    Quite an addition to my uneventful routine.

  257. jf12 says:

    @AmStat “hate to ask for elaboration” Male genitalia are midsagittal, like tails, and approximately caudal, like tails.

  258. AmStrat says:

    I see… for some reason I was thinking of lombaxes… a fictional species where the males have tails but the females don’t.

    Carry on then.

  259. BradA says:

    @AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s,

    The religious leaders had the authority, not the state. Even then they were the ones who were the “experts” in the Biblical law. Note that it was not the Romans (the government) that Jesus referred to.

    @AT,

    Jesus said some pretty challenging things even during His earthly ministry as well. He was even hard on his own disciples when His other followers split at one point, asking “you going to run too?” He didn’t beg them to stay or act really nice. Not the Jesus we often think of.

    @LynM,

    > returnofqueens.com/are-good-women-going-their-own-way

    These women “going their own way” are riding the carousel. I am well past the target age (and have been married for 25+ years), but I would have had a hard time with those who are proud they threw themselves into sex outside marriage, no matter how committed they were. I certainly wouldn’t want seconds, thirds or fifty-seconds after others. That was true even in my more blue pill days.

    Is that supposed to be a Christian site? They talked about transformation and then boasted about sex after marriage. That is not the talk of one truly dedicated to Christ. They may be reborn, but their flesh is ruling them, definitely not a good thing.

    Yes, society is doomed when that is the best we get.

    I was going to reply to the base post with the comment that I would almost bet the women mentioned in the post likely looked right past the godly men around them who did not fit into the browbeaten or player categories. They only have scorn for the first and the hots (likely) for the latter, not seeing anyone else.

  260. BradA says:

    BTW Dalrock, that could make an interesting base for a post. Though you may have plenty of material. I have not looked through the entire site, but I am guessing it is a punch against the red pill returnofkings site.

    The post seems to have merit at first, but then the comments show the true colors, including the queen mentioned in the post. Really sad if this is supposed to be a Biblical standard. I guess Jenny would fit right in there.

  261. MarcusD says:

    Worried about son….

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=879286

    Check her posting history. To me it’s a bit like the women who (knowingly) marry serial killers.

  262. Pingback: Churches are Real Things | Things that We have Heard and Known

  263. AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s says:

    @JDG ; @BradA
    What part of theocracy do you people not understand? In a proper, Godly government religious leaders *ARE* the state and therein, HAVE EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD TO REGULATE MARRIAGE. Because the purpose of Earthly governments is to enforce God’s Laws and to make them understood by the people at large. But, thank you all for proving my point that this notion is completely lost on the average worldly minded “Christian” in this day and age.

    @Finn McCool
    Of course not. First off, I would refuse to marry a worldy minded, greedy little fairy who can’t a grasp a simple concept like obedience to God’s Law above all else. Plus, ice skating and most every other sport calls for horrific immodesty for female participants. Therefore, I would seriously question why my metaphorical (worldly minded) husband would want our daughter to engage in such activities in the first place.

    “Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness.”–Leviticus 19:29

    And if you were referring to a boy child, well I wouldn’t want him hanging out around the effeminate, homosexual men who overpopulate such endeavors like ice skating in the first place.

    @feeriker
    I’m a troll? You wish.

    If you lot are the best thinkers in traditional Christianity today, then obviously my worries for the Church are not unfounded. Secularism has completely warped the mind of Christians. So sad.

  264. SlargTarg says:

    returnofqueens.com/are-good-women-going-their-own-way

    These women “going their own way” are riding the carousel. I am well past the target age (and have been married for 25+ years), but I would have had a hard time with those who are proud they threw themselves into sex outside marriage, no matter how committed they were. I certainly wouldn’t want seconds, thirds or fifty-seconds after others. That was true even in my more blue pill days.

    Is that supposed to be a Christian site? They talked about transformation and then boasted about sex after marriage. That is not the talk of one truly dedicated to Christ. They may be reborn, but their flesh is ruling them, definitely not a good thing.

    “Return of Queens”

    It looks like another typical female “aping” response to what men do.

    Roosh owns “Return of Kings” dedicated to his vision of masculinity so a woman goes and makes a reverse-gendered “Return of Queens” site for women.

    Nope, no originality there.

    “Hey you men are going your own way? so we women are going are own way too.”

    Except they really aren’t going there own way when the government has their backs 100%

  265. desiderian says:

    “If you lot are the best thinkers in traditional Christianity today, then obviously my worries for the Church are not unfounded. Secularism has completely warped the mind of Christians. So sad.”

    Sad people don’t prance around talking smack.

    Legitimate concerns are best addressed in an atmosphere of mutual humility/confession/repentance.

  266. Boxer says:

    My wife and I both served in the military. When she returned from Egypt 19 months ago, she dropped a bomb on me, saying she didn’t want to be married anymore. She said she had settled for second best all her life and that’s what she had done with me.

    http://news.yahoo.com/kids-collateral-damage-wifes-war-marriage-050116895.html

  267. greyghost says:

    MarcusD

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/why-isnt-carl-good-enough/#comment-120413

    That is straight rebellion of her husband fully encouraged. And a boy being raised to be a sissy. The boy needs to know why he sees his “friends” like that.

  268. greyghost says:

    Boxer
    I commented on that one

  269. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    Here’s an article on its own regarding the sad, sad, sad state of Churchianity in the West.
    MMA pastors with a congregation.

    http://www.fightchurchfilm.com

    So, to distill this down to reality…….women want to sleep with Cads & Players; but they want to be accepted as ‘good’ in doing so.

    Church going men are perceived as good…..so we need to get Cads & Players to attend church.

    To get Cads & Players to attend church, we need to introuduce MMA into the church so the men women want to sleep with will take an interest in attending.

    Is anyone else weeping for the state of Christ’s church?

  270. jf12 says:

    @Casey, the funniest part of the scheme to encourage more wolves into the flock is that the bad boys WILL go after the younger and innocenter lambs instead of the single moms, always making the problem worse. Always.

  271. jf12 says:

    Why isn’t Carl bad enough? Of the typical bad boy profile, which are the aspects he is most lacking?

  272. BradA says:

    @AHCW,

    When has such a theocracy ever existed? The only one I know like that will work is waiting for the King of Kings to return and setup His own rule on the earth. We are stuck well below that until then and your theocracy will not happen. Never has, never will.

  273. @silly woman with covered head and open mouth

    Because the purpose of Earthly governments is to enforce God’s Laws and to make them understood by the people at large. But, thank you all for proving my point that this notion is completely lost on the average worldly minded “Christian” in this day and age.

    We were talking about marriage, not the general purpose of government. So, chapter and verse, what are God’s laws concerning marriage that government is supposed to be enforcing? Where, specifically do you find any support in Scripture for this notion?

    The question is ‘by what authority’ and your job, having made the assertion, is to show where this authority supposedly comes from.

  274. Other than the bible indicating we are to adhere to this world’s governments, there is no specific biblical rule that worldly governments are to define marriage in any way.

  275. Boxer says:

    I can’t believe no one has addressed kooky “Christian Woman” and her baseless claim that the bible instructs women to stay home all day (maybe someone has, but I missed it if so). She clearly hasn’t read the text she claims to be an authority on.

    But, most importantly, I repeat: God says that women are to be keepers at home. Therefore, outside of a few select jobs/services which necessarily must be provided by women, because they benefit other women or children, women are not be out of the home working alongside men.

    Hopefully we can be of some help to the confused. Proverbs 31 is a good place to start:

    15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

    The good religious woman apparently has servants (employees) for whom she is responsible, and who she apparently pays wages to, out of her own purse. Where does she get the money?

    16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

    Why, she invested it in property, hired some servants (see above) to help her work the land.

    17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

    One doesn’t get the strong arms of a good woman by sitting on her ass, watching Oprah and eating doughnuts.

    18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
    19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

    She works hard and competes in the business world.

    20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

    She has enough money of her own to help the poor and the needy, and is a benefit to her community.

    21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

    She is a breadwinner with her husband, providing her family with everything they need.

    22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

    She dresses modestly but professionally, keeps fit, and looks her best whether out in public or at home with her husband and kids.

    23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

    She manages to attract and keep the attentions of a strong, alpha male.

    24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

    She doesn’t sit home as “Christian woman in a burqa” suggests she should. She’s out making money and bringing it home, living the good life with her man.

    25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
    26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

    She doesn’t need to get on Dalrock blog to boast or seek negative attention. When she speaks, people (both male and female) listen, because she’s at the top of her game and she knows what she’s talking about.

    27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

    For the umpteenth time, she doesn’t take the bad advice of “Christian Woman” or her masochistic fellow kooks, who would have women sit around causing their husbands trouble. She’s not a parasite, she’s a partner.

    Well, I could go on, but I trust we get the picture.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  276. MarcusD says:

    That is straight rebellion of her husband fully encouraged. And a boy being raised to be a sissy. The boy needs to know why he sees his “friends” like that.

    You should see every other thread she’s started. Personally I think she’s a troll, but the other option is that she’s mentally afflicted in some way.

  277. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @DearieWithAHat_20s:

    >>Because the purpose of Earthly governments is to enforce God’s Laws and to make them understood by the people at large.

    Hohohohahahaheeheehee. Nipping the Joy Juice, I see.

    The purpose of Earthly governments is to enslave men for the benefit of women.

    This woman is identified in several places in the Bible as a contentious woman. And, a harlot.

  278. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Sorry, I meant to say, Or, a harlot.

  279. Boxer says:

    That was a very informative article, though I’m most amused by the butthurt of the author, who is now responding in the comments section to her own detractors.

  280. jf12 says:

    Woman correctly laughs at the idea that she would pay for the “boyfriend experience”

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/171932/new_male_escort_service_provides

    because obviously she’s good enough to insist the men pay her instead.

  281. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD, that bit of Female Imperative is interesting, on the same page there is a link to another part of the FI at work:

    http://cphpost.dk/news/every-second-young-woman-has-taken-a-morning-after-pill.9414.html

  282. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    Here you go my friend.I almost fell out of my office chair laughing when I read this.What a bunch of delusional twats!….You Go Grrlllzzz!……Lmao!

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376709/odd-throuple-christine-sisto

  283. Ras Al ghul says:

    jf12 says:

    “Woman correctly laughs at the idea that she would pay for the “boyfriend experience”

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/171932/new_male_escort_service_provides

    because obviously she’s good enough to insist the men pay her instead.”

    I didn’t see her as laughing this off, but actually in a tongue and check way endorsing it.

    And in fact there are men in Japan that provide the “boyfriend” experience and make a million a year so this is coming here, this service is just ahead of the curve. The genders are so alienated in Japan that women pay happily for a man to listen to them a couple times a week.

    Roissy and others are right, that beta orbiters are “feelings sluts” the male equivalent of a cheap woman. They are giving away the relationship goods for free and it is a very valuable commodity for women.

  284. Luke says:

    AHeadcoveringChristianWoman_20s says:
    May 2, 2014 at 2:30 am

    “Plus, ice skating and most every other sport calls for horrific immodesty for female participants. Therefore, I would seriously question why my metaphorical (worldly minded) husband would want our daughter to engage in such activities in the first place.

    “Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness.”–Leviticus 19:29

    And if you were referring to a boy child, well I wouldn’t want him hanging out around the effeminate, homosexual men who overpopulate such endeavors like ice skating in the first place.”

    Leaving aside unconsidered her other posts, I definitely have to agree with these points.

  285. @ Casey:

    Thanx for the fight church link. I’ve got a small collection of ultimate fighting dvds. I wish there was a way to invite this blogs readers to my house to watch together. The first few seasons are the best, before the rules were altered.

  286. JDG says:

    @ Boxer

    I believe AHCW is referring to Titus 2:
    2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

    I have come to believe this passage as well as Proverbs 31 points to a home/family centered projection in subjection to her husband. It may or may not involve working a job somewhere, but I think the less contact with nutty feminists and high profile males the better. I also think it not a good idea for a wife to be under the authority of another man, or that the wife make too much money as divorce rates increase as the women’s earnings go up.

    If a Christian woman wants to stay at home and sit on her rear end all day, I think a husband may want to put her to work somewhere so she can pull her wait in that manner. I would cation him to beware of the a fore mentioned pitfalls though.

    To me AHCW sounds like a woman who would use her understanding (or lack there of) of scripture to rebel against any authority including her husband, but not every thing that quacks is necessarily a duck.

  287. JDG says:

    JDG says:
    May 2, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    cation = caution

  288. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    When I read that passage, there doesn’t seem to be any ambiguity in it. The ideal woman buys and sells, works the land, makes added-value goods (linens, etc.) for sale in the marketplace, manages employees, etc.. All this for the benefit of her husband and kids, it’s true, but it’s still there.

    Of course the ideal woman is also described as rarer than precious gems (i.e. it’s likely we’ll never meet one among the innumerable Jenny Ericksons and AHCWs).

    Best,

    Boxer

  289. JAL says:

    as feminists they would oppose any marriage related policies which would restrict Lily’s independence:

    Maybe the guys have a problem with marriage related policies which restrict their independence?

    But maybe that’s not what either the women and men getting married need to be looking at.

  290. Finn McCool says:

    @Luke: You might want to re-read my question.
    Hints:
    1) I said “ice skating”, not “ice dancing” or “figure skating”: Google “Chad Hedrick wedding” for a pictures which are available from
    2) I mentioned “medical treatment”
    3) (for the reading-impaired): The key word in my question begins with the letter “o” and is not “Olympic”.

    See also JDG’s final paragraph.

  291. If you look at the economics of male-female relationships today (I don’t mean the monetary aspects) there is not going to be a way for men to “man up” until women on the whole culture-change themselves into women worth manning up for. Regarding sex, women today are giving away what they should be charging a very high price for, and charging a high price for things that men don’t much want at all. And then they look around and wonder what’s wrong with this picture.

    For more, see my essay, “Sex, marriage and exchange of value.”

    http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2011/10/sex-marriage-and-exchange-of-value.html

  292. Ken Mitchell says:

    Where are all the eligible men? Why are there no good marriage candidates?

    Dr. Helen nailed it; they’re “On Strike”!

  293. Jeb Kinnison says:

    Yow, quite a thread. Let me plug my dating/relationship/marriage site and otherwise look on in amazement… jebkinnison.com

  294. Pingback: What’s the Matter with Marriage? | Jeb Kinnison

  295. MarcusD says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    Denmark’s birth rate isn’t as bad as other countries, but that’s probably because of the extraordinary measures they’ve gone through to keep it only bad instead of dismal (e.g. http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/374994:Danmark–Indvandrerkvinder-og-danske-kvinder-foeder-lige-mange-boern, but also more extensive maternity leave (which is of course gynocentric feminism – but everyone will forget that little ‘boost’ down the road…)).

    @Mark

    Yes, I saw that (and another case elsewhere in the US) in the past week. It’s a bit like Boston marriages for a recession age, but with a slight increment on the number involved (and still “No Men Allowed”). Then, there are people advocating for polyandry: http://time.com/1162/one-husband-cant-save-a-low-income-woman-from-poverty-shell-need-three-or-four/ (many people, surprisingly).

    An interesting quote from the article you linked:

    Same-sex marriage advocates have convinced a growing percentage of Americans that two-person gay marriage is acceptable. Now they’ll need explain why three- or five-person gay (or other) marriage is not.

  296. MarcusD says:

    Moving Past Adultery

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=879545

    Why is it so common for Catholic women to marry non-Catholic men? (Stunning for all the wrong reasons)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=879436

    Second thread/link fits into the theme of “Why isn’t Carl good enough?”

  297. MarcusD says:

    Let me plug my dating/relationship/marriage site and otherwise look on in amazement

    Is that a good “amazement” or a bad “amazement”?

  298. greyghost says:

    Bob and Audrey Meisner are a Christian couple that weathered the storm of Audrey having an affair and gave birth to a son who was a mixed race. They do marriage counseling now and help other couples through the grace of God. You can google them and find video if you like but here’s their story in a nutshell..

    MarcusD
    The contrast from this bunch and the manosphere most be huge. The comment is a punch line in a porn fetish joke. Bob should have kicked her ass. And got forgiveness 30 years later so he coukd sneak into heaven. He could have went old school like the guy in that movie “Mandingo”

  299. jf12 says:

    According to the timeline, Lily chose to impregnate herself with Cal’s sperm during his downtime of being laid off and hanging around the house.

  300. desiderian says:

    Rev Sensing,

    “If you look at the economics of male-female relationships today”

    I looked (at your take), and found the usual good read – been awhile since you got an instalanche so I hadn’t realized I’d missed you.

    In ministering to young women, that very last point is the big one. A couple additional thoughts:

    (1) The notorious 489 bullet point checklist for what she requires in a man only applies to men who can’t, or won’t, laugh at the 489 bullet point checklist. It’s a masculinity/dominance screen.

    (2) Men raised in the church or without masculine role models, but I, unfortunately, repeat myself, are taught never to laugh at women, so fail the screen

    (3) Men who could pass the screen don’t make passes at girls who act like asses – i.e. dominant. The you go girrl feminism, Dominus Femnus, taught by the church in a million ways, tends to produce such behavior in spades. “I haven’t found the right guy” means she’s been focusing elsewhere than what she can bring to the table.

    Men for others,
    women for themselves is a lousy creed in general, but its disastrous for healthy family formation. If anyone is tempted to think Protestants are better, I’m afraid they’re fooling themselves.

  301. gift says:

    Reading through the comments on this blog have left me quite speechless. As a woman, I sympathize with the single men that have not found anyone yet suitable for marriage. I also sympathize with the women that are single. There’s a lot of vitriol towards women on this board, but perhaps it’s just that you guys haven’t come across the right women, or your circle is seriously lacking.

    I am married, and we have one child. We are both Christians. I submit fully to my husband, 100%. Some women think I’m crazy because I proudly declare verbally and through my actions and behavior that my husband is the head of my household. He has almost complete control of the finances (although he prefers if I maintain the payment of some bills so that he doesn’t have to worry about them). I work full time outside of the home, and I have a PhD, which I completed recently. I make a 6 figure income, and considerably more than my husband, but in our eyes, it’s ONE account, and ONE income. I cook for my husband regularly, and keep the house decent. If I find that I am unable to do a good job of housecleaning temporarily, we will hire someone to clean for a few hours on a Saturday. We have our date night, and one thing I NEVER do is come between my husband and his weekly Saturday sports Even a few days after we had our child, I encouraged him to go out and do his sports activity because it’s important for his emotional and physical well-being. Rarely will you catch me waking up after 6AM, as I get up 6 to 7 days a week extra early to workout not only for my health, but because I met my husband when I was svelte and in shape, and I’ll be darned if I let things fall apart (I’m running a triathlon in August, which my husband fully supports). We have a very hectic schedule, but I try to make sure that I am physically available for intimacy as frequently as I can, unless I am physically ill, or during that dreaded time of the month. Sure, there are a couple of weeks where we only get a few times in, but generally, we are pretty stable at 2 or 3 times a week. I do the grocery shopping, take care of our daughter, and generally try to provide a peaceful home for my husband. My husband, on the other hand, treats me with respect. He does not belittle me, is not intimidated by the income differential, has never called me out of my name, and has never EVER thought to lay a hand on me. He is firm but respectful and loving. He loves me like Christ loved the church. I have never shouted at my husband, although we do have our disagreements. However, I was taught by my parents how to respect a man, and I respect my husband and would never even so much as tell him to shut up. The key here is that there is a mutual respect and understanding. My husband is not above cleaning the bathrooms, cleaning the house, car, etc, especially if he knows I am exhausted and have done my best to uphold the house. He also cooks every once in a while, which is great! I think the key problem here with many of you is that you chose unwisely. As a result, it has lead to what appears to be a general contempt for most women, and the notion that most women are untrustworthy, irresponsible, emotional basket cases. I am by no means a feminist, but I respect a woman’s right to have her own opinions and thoughts. Women and men are very different, and it seems that the men on this board are consistently invalidating women’s feelings, and making a mockery of women in general. Granted, I tend to be a little lower on the emotional scale, but a little empathy and grace would go a long way for most of you men. I would gladly bow down to my husband…IN PUBLIC! And I have done so, on our wedding day. Maybe the men on this board need to focus on how to be better men, instead of blaming the women in their lives for all of their problems. Alternatively, choose a more suitable woman.

  302. MarcusD says:

    Gynocentric feminism…

    http://www.catholicmatch.com/institute/2014/05/st-john-paul-ii-pope-francis-are-true-feminists/

    Also:

    genius (n.) – late 14c., “tutelary god (classical or pagan),” from Latin genius “guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent;” also “prophetic skill,” originally “generative power,” from root of gignere “beget, produce” (see kin), from PIE root *gen- “produce.”

  303. MarcusD says:

    Etymology provided for those reading the term “feminine genius” (I wonder if it’s meant as a pun?).

  304. CARealist says:

    calirchristisanlady, you make the most sense of anything I could bear to read here.

  305. jf12 says:

    Re: feminine genius. I’ve been trying to masculinize myself, to man up. Just give me a little more time.

  306. JDG says:

    Gynocentric feminism…

    Is there any other kind?

  307. gift says:

    Hmm…still waiting for my comment to come out of moderation purgatory. Probably won’t since it’s not the type of thing that guys want to hear. Oh well.

  308. Marcus D., that article about Pope Francis was actually fairly positive (and I’m not exactly a fan, but my complaints are too subtle to get into here), including this critical bit buried near the end (my emphasis):

    This is important because this is the context in which [Pope Francis] makes his comments about “women having a bigger role in the church.” He wants women to know that they do have an important and irreplaceable role in the Church and that role will grow. At the same time however, that role is not to be clergy as women are helpmates, not replacements.

    So why did he have to call them the “true feminists”? Yuck. I know what he’s trying to say: “feminism” = “valuing women properly”, and we have the correct way to view that, so we’re the real feminists. But that’s not what feminist means today — not what it ever meant, really — so why try to rehabilitate the term and wind up with a misleading headline?

    I guess “Pope Francis” reaffirms the Church’s 2000-year position on male and female roles” wouldn’t be as attention-getting.

  309. James K says:

    @LynM

    Most of us in the Manosphere do not want to give up relationships with women, but we each go through a stage of learning that the female character is not what society pretends it is.

    The “Return of Queens” article is worth a page in its own right, but in brief:

    1. The trends cannot be blamed on the Manosphere, simply because most people are still unaware of it.

    2. It is not uncommon for a woman of 22 to shun men, marriage and parenthood. She will probably not feel the same way at 32. She might feel a special bond to her group of intimate women friends now, but one by one they will defect when they see the chance for a happy marriage.

    3. The writer’s categorisation of men is as beta and (disgusting) alpha. She and her friends cannot stomach the beta, and they have yet to meet an alpha – a man with options – who will ignore his other options and thereby stop being “a disgusting player”.

    Welcome to the real world. It is a world where we have been given our sexual freedom, but that freedom isn’t what we hoped it would be, because other people use their own freedom in ways that we don’t like.

    If the 22-year-old of the article is being truthful, then she is leading a celibate life; and so she would not lose anything if we went back to 18th-century courtship, preserving our virginity until marriage. But of course she is not being entirely truthful, even though her frustration is genuine.

    Life is a bitch. A suitable spouse is hard to find. Second-wave feminism gave everybody a license to screw around. Should we be surprised that this didn’t make it any easier to find that elusive good man/woman?

  310. feeriker says:

    Is anyone else weeping for the state of Christ’s church?

    I’m sure that the state of Christ’s church, small and persecuted though it is, is actually in a very good state, although we should pray fervently for its growth.

    As for the sorry spectacle you describe, that not only has nothing whatsoever to do Christ’s church, but I sincerely and constantly pray that Jesus shows mercy to those shallow, deluded souls upon His return to Earth. I foresee Him dealing with today’s churchian franchises in a manner that will make His punishment of the moneychangers in the Temple look positively loving by comparison.

  311. feeriker says:

    Bob should have kicked [Audrey's] ass.

    Just for starters.

    Lemme guess: being a typical churchian castrato (as well as a biblical illiterate and hypocrite), Bob Meisner would be the first to crucify a cuckholded man for divorcing his wife for one of the only biblically sanctioned reasons for doing so, but would cheer on any churchian woman who frivorces her husband because she’s unhaaaaaaappy.

  312. Boxer says:

    Bob and Audrey Meisner are a Christian couple that weathered the storm of Audrey having an affair and gave birth to a son who was a mixed race. They do marriage counseling now and help other couples through the grace of God. You can google them and find video if you like but here’s their story in a nutshell..

    Bob Meisner is certainly a sad example of what’s wrong with American men. I’d hope no brother would ever debase himself far enough to take any advice from such a dysfunctional halfman, who seems perpetually waiting wherever people go to queue up for the gender reassignment surgery. Such a mangina has nothing to “teach” anyone.

  313. Notre Dame hasn’t been noticeably Catholic for a long time. They made that clear when they invited the most pro-abortion president in history to speak and gave him an honorary degree, while arresting an 80-year-old priest who showed up to protest peacefully.

  314. Boxer says:

    Dear Cail:

    I had not heard that story before today. Amazing.

    http://www.catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=33579

  315. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Off Topic, but how often are comments on topic?

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140504/troopers_killed-f20ec50a38.html

    This is a story of two LEO, I think in Alaska, who were killed from the back by the son of a man they were arresting for the planet stopping offense of DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE.

    I was reminded of an older man I well knew in the 70’s. He had the same name as a well known symphony conductor. Every Monday morning, I’d say, “Great concert last night, Carl.” And, every time he’d laugh like it was actually funny.

    He used to tell us, (paraphrased) “I feel for you younger men. You will never know what freedom is. We used to not need a pocketful of licenses and identification of every type. We didn’t need driver’s licenses nor car registration. If the cop talked to you, he asked your name and you told him abd ge believed you. No boat registration needed. No hunting licenses. No ham radio license. No bicycle registration. No snow mobile license. Today, you can’t move without a pocketful of licenses and permits and identification. This is not freedom. Back then if you did something wrong, they took action, but you didn’t get arrested for not having a piece of government paper in your pocket.”

    This is more proof that as governments continue, the bureaucratic burden increases forever, until the citizens can no longer tolerate it. Then, the government officials whine about people not obeying the laws, ala Reid. And, always something shuts the system down completely, albeit external or internal forces. Wouldn’t you think humans could ever learn?

    I believe the article said the LEO had to travel like 130 miles to arrest him. So, how far did he have to go to get the piece of paper which allegedly allowed him to drive a car? The same distance? I’d like to know.

  316. embracing reality says:

    Dear ‘gift’

    The bulk of your comment seems to be that you, in your opinion, are a near perfect (10) among women in all categories. Swell, congratulations to you and your blessed husband. We won’t debate this as he isn’t here to confirm (or deny) your illustriousness but your solution to our completely justifiable dissatisfaction in the supply of available single women was as follows;

    “I think the key problem here with many of you is that you chose unwisely. As a result, it has lead to what appears to be a general contempt for most women, and the notion that most women are untrustworthy, irresponsible, emotional basket cases.”

    As a highly educated woman with a doctorate in something surely you understand simple math. Numbers don’t lie so lets try a few. Statistics have shown for decades that most teen girls begin having sex in high school, the few studies/poles I’ve seen on Christian women show averages only slightly better. I can say in my years of experience dating many Christian women I have rarely dated a virgin, even years back when I was dating girls that were 17. As for marriage, even the counseling community considers ‘sexlessness’ in marriage to be epidemic and their own data shows it’s usually because the wife is withholding sex. Noteworthy is the fact that the average wife in the US gains 40 pounds in the first 10 years of marriage. 70% of women in the US are considered overweight, around 50% obese. 50% of marriages end in divorce. University of Notre Dame did a massive study demonstrating wives initiate 2/3’s of divorces in the majority for frivolous, emotional reasons. Ex-wives, even adulterous ones, receive primary physical custody of children almost automatically (85%+) reducing the ex-husband/father to a visitor in the lives of his own children. Ex husbands are put out of their homes and statistically required to pay 95% of awarded child support/alimony. Yes “most women are untrustworthy, irresponsible, emotional basket cases.” and for that reason contempt for them is rational and completely justified.

    Face it Dear, feminism and the modern feminist church has raised at least two generations of women most of whom are completely useless as wives. Suggesting the majority of men choose “suitable women” from a pool in which the majority of women, *by the simple math* are clearly completely unsuitable doesn’t seem very bright to me.

    Refute it.

  317. MarcusD says:

    Huff and Puff Post linked this: http://aattp.org/ten-photos-that-prove-christian-purity-balls-are-the-creepiest-thing-ever-images/

    Apparently the girls are all either about to cry or are completely creeped-out.

  318. JDG says:

    embracing reality says:
    May 4, 2014 at 12:45 pm

    Well put!

  319. MarcusD says:

    Is there any other kind?

    Well, some would say that there is. In practice, I don’t think there is.

    Re: feminine genius. I’ve been trying to masculinize myself, to man up. Just give me a little more time.

    The irony of “feminine genius” is that it is a re-affirmation of the role of women in giving birth to children (not a green light for a career) – I’m guessing people haven’t caught on to that.

    I guess “Pope Francis” reaffirms the Church’s 2000-year position on male and female roles” wouldn’t be as attention-getting.

    I’ve always understood that to be complementarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism).

    But yes, the problematic part of the article is the use of the word “feminist” (the meaning of which is different for everyone, and is more of a means of scoring points with people who, for all intents and purposes, hate Catholics).

    Apparently Roman Catholic universities have changed since I was a student.

    Notre Dame should lose any Catholic designations that it has.

    It’s ranking has been going down for a while, too: http://www.topuniversities.com/node/4271/ranking-details/world-university-rankings/2013

  320. Apparently the girls are all either about to cry or are completely creeped-out.

    The author’s contempt for all things Christian or virtuous is tiresome and predictable, but I have to agree that the father/boyfriend thing is a little weird. Seems like one of those cases where people instinctively know mainstream ways are wrong and want to do things the right way, but they’ve been cut off from tradition, so they’re making it up as they go along and ending up in some odd places.

  321. Boxer says:

    Marcus D sez:

    Is there any other kind?

    Well, some would say that there is. In practice, I don’t think there is.

    The second-wave feminist figures who rebelled against what we’re calling “gynocentrism” were largely silenced. There are a couple of exceptions. Camille Paglia and Warren Farrell are still writing books, though the completely tolerant gynocentrists will generally try to shut them down whenever they attempt to speak in public.

    A good example of a sane feminist of the second-wave (60s-70s) who has disappeared is Esther Vilar, author of *The Manipulated Man* and *The Polygamous Sex*. Like Paglia and Farrell, she made an attempt to honestly look at gender discourse, and was punished severely for it. She got assaulted so many times by her “sisters” back in the old days that she now has completely disappeared back into the woodwork (she was still alive as of a couple of years ago). She’s far from the only one.

    Best, Boxer

  322. JDG says:

    I think feminists who speak out against ‘gynocentrism’ might be more accurately labeled as humanists; however, they are nevertheless in support of feminism (against patriarchy). To concede that these humanists are in the right is to claim that patriarchy is wrong.

    There is no such thing as equality (as defined by feminists or humanists). Lowering standards to make way for women does not make women equal to men. Keeping the standards the same means women won’t make the cut. There it is in black and white.

    Putting women in male spaces has been destructive. Giving women birth control has been destructive. Giving women the vote has been destructive. Giving women ‘independence’ has been destructive. Every major ‘improvement’ brought about by feminism has been destructive.

  323. jf12 says:

    Re: “Maybe the men on this board need to focus on how to be better men, instead of blaming the women in their lives for all of their problems. Alternatively, choose a more suitable woman.”
    Why didn’t we think of that?

  324. MarcusD says:

    Alternatively, choose a more suitable woman.

    That would start a 20-page thread of angry responses on CAF (e.g. “How dare you suggest that not all women are suitable for marriage!” etc).

    (Actually, it’s amazing how little common sense (and sanity) there is on CAF – it’s frightening. Fact-free, emotion-based, and fallacy-ridden arguments rule the day.)

  325. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Esther Vilar has a Facebook page, and commented on it in 2011. She is reported alive and living in Argentina.

    Not too long ago, I Have seen interviews of her on MRA pages over the years.

    She wrote a play in the late 90’s, and I think another around 2003, though it is hard to understand German..

    But, let’s face it. She is nearly 80 years old. Even Richard Doyle will eventually die. Heh, heh.

    The original book is still in print, nearly 43 years later.

    She said if she had known what wriring the book would mean in her personal life, she would not have written it. Thus, she is glad she wrote it.

    I have a 1971 or so printing of the book. That sucker must be a collector’s item, heh, heh. I read it way back then, and never forgot the message. The message was correct. Few women deserve American men. Yet, most of us are convinced we don’t deserve a woman. Mexican women know better.

  326. BradA says:

    @gift,

    Paragraphs are a good thing. Blocks of text quickly become TLDR.

  327. Anonymous age 72 says:

    embracing reality says:
    May 4, 2014 at 12:45 pm (To gift, a legend in her own eyes)

    >>As a highly educated woman with a doctorate in something surely you understand simple math. Numbers don’t lie so lets try a few. Statistics have shown for decades that most teen girls begin having sex in high school, the few studies/poles I’ve seen on Christian women show averages only slightly better. I can say in my years of experience dating many Christian women I have rarely dated a virgin, even years back when I was dating girls that were 17. As for marriage, even the counseling community considers ‘sexlessness’ in marriage to be epidemic and their own data shows it’s usually because the wife is withholding sex. Noteworthy is the fact that the average wife in the US gains 40 pounds in the first 10 years of marriage. 70% of women in the US are considered overweight, around 50% obese. 50% of marriages end in divorce. University of Notre Dame did a massive study demonstrating wives initiate 2/3′s of divorces in the majority for frivolous, emotional reasons. Ex-wives, even adulterous ones, receive primary physical custody of children almost automatically (85%+) reducing the ex-husband/father to a visitor in the lives of his own children. Ex husbands are put out of their homes and statistically required to pay 95% of awarded child support/alimony. Yes “most women are untrustworthy, irresponsible, emotional basket cases.” and for that reason contempt for them is rational and completely justified.

    >>Face it Dear, feminism and the modern feminist church has raised at least two generations of women most of whom are completely useless as wives. Suggesting the majority of men choose “suitable women” from a pool in which the majority of women, *by the simple math* are clearly completely unsuitable doesn’t seem very bright to me.

    Oh, man! Comment of the Week!!!

  328. The Grand Cannon says:

    I quickly read through a bunch of the comments and forgive me for being so blunt but there’s a missing link I think a lot of you are missing. I know a lot of happily married couples raising functional families. Some are Christians. Some are atheists. Some are agnostics. Some are members of other religions. What they all have in common is a certain socio-economic status and a certain attitude about education and achievement. I don’t mean to sound like a classist snob but I do think certain values are passed along cultural rather than religious lines. I think certain classes of people with certain attitudes about education and achievement tend to meet and socialize primarily with similar types of people who share their same values and these types are more likely to form functional, stable and long lasting families.

    It has nothing to do with religion(s) or lack thereof.

  329. MarcusD says:

    Do i marry him?

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=879870

    I’m really starting to believe the research about women who are attracted to those kinds of men.

  330. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Noteworthy is the fact that the average wife in the US gains 40 pounds in the first 10 years of marriage. 70% of women in the US are considered overweight, around 50% obese. ”

    OK I simply cannot resist posting what has been making the latest of the Facebook rounds here.

    http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/08/slender-wives-vs-fat-wives-sexual-activity-hunger/

  331. jsr says:

    @anon 72

    If you still have that list of all the bible verses that touch on gender relations, I would greatly appreciate a copy.

  332. desiderian says:

    Cail,

    “Seems like one of those cases where people instinctively know mainstream ways are wrong and want to do things the right way, but they’ve been cut off from tradition, so they’re making it up as they go along and ending up in some odd places.”

    Nails it.

    “The author’s contempt for all things Christian or virtuous is tiresome and predictable, but I have to agree that the father/boyfriend thing is a little weird.”

    More than a little – at the root of a lot of the SMP and female rebelliousness problems. Hypergamy + doting daddy = bad news for all involved.

  333. desiderian says:

    They’ve retained enough of the tradition to know that self-worship is wrong (unlike, say, the author of the article), but to keep up with the secular Joneses (and to thumb their nose at the Progs who hate them) they do it vicariously by worshipping their kids, especially daughters.

  334. Mark says:

    @Embracing Reality

    Awesome post!

    “”Suggesting the majority of men choose “suitable women” from a pool in which the majority of women, *by the simple math* are clearly completely unsuitable doesn’t seem very bright to me.””

    Just because ‘Gift’ is educated does not mean that she is smart……or bright!….Bravo my friend!

  335. The Grand Cannon says:

    I don’t think the photos are creepy but these purity ball and promise ring dads seem to be replacing their wives with a newer, younger, hotter, tighter model – their daughters! And that’s whats creepy. Its the same with the SAHMD cult. Wifey is conspicuously absent and barely mentioned, but the young hot daughters are everywhere. A lot of these dads are at the mid life crises age where they would be contemplating and attempting affairs or divorcing trading up for a newer model wife if their consciences would allow them. But they are God fearing men so they project that onto their daughters instead and its socially accepted in their cult world. I suppose it might be better than what Doug Phillips did? By the way, anyone have the latest on his whole scandal?

    The author’s “about” is funny.
    About John Prager
    “John is an unfortunate Liberal soul who lives uncomfortably in the middle of a Conservative hellscape. While he is not a fan of politicians, period, he has developed a deep-seated hatred for the bigotry, fear mongering, and lies of the Right Wing. John also works as a warden at one of Barry Soetoro’s FEMA re-education camps and a HAARP weather control coordinator. John can be reached at americanlesionx@gmail.com if you have any questions or comments.”

    You guys here know what HAARP is, right?

  336. Mark says:

    @Anon72

    I just wanted to say that I have read all of your posts over at Happy Bachelor Forums and they are quite remarkable and very insightful.I wish some of the other posters from over there would come over here…..especially Christopher In Oregon(CIO)

  337. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Statistics have shown for decades that most teen girls begin having sex in high school”

    What statistics? The last I read teen promiscuity and OOW births are at an all time low (since the 80s and when both peaked) and its never been the case that the majority of high school girls are having sex. Of course I’ll try to produce those stats for you as well.

  338. Pingback: the Revision Division

  339. “Noteworthy is the fact that the average wife in the US gains 40 pounds in the first 10 years of marriage.”

    Imagine if the average husband lost 25% of his income in the first 10 years of marriage. It’d be a national crisis; there would be congressional hearings on what to do about it. But women balloon up (40 pounds is enough to take you from attractive to unattractive, unless you started out bony) as soon as they get the ring, and their husbands are just supposed to like it and lump it.

  340. jf12 says:

    Re: age at first intercourse. Yes, the average age of first intercourse has crept up in recent decades from it’s all-time low in the 1980s. But the percentage of very young pre-16 nonvirgins has also crept up. And still the *majority* of high school girls (e.g. 62%) have had sex before graduating. And the majority (51%) of young people have oral sex for some time before engaging in intercourse.

    http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/resources-and-publications/info/parents/just-facts/adolescent-sex.html

    http://www.tuftsdaily.com/2.5512/the-20-year-old-virgin-not-as-rare-on-campus-as-you-may-think-1.596748

    photo/1

    All told I think all this means is that the division has increased between the haves (have sex) and havenots (incels and/or voluntarily virgin).

  341. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD “When we looked closer at obese persons from the reference group some intriguing results were found. They did not differ on any scale when compared to the non-obese” except the bathroom one.

  342. MarcusD says:

    @jf12

    HAHA!

  343. embracing reality says:

    Friend of mine married a 25yo gal, she was probably about 160 pounds, she was fairly tall. In less than 10 years of marriage she gained 100 pounds, this woman did not have a child during the marriage or previously. In combination with the fact that the woman was miserable in every other imaginable way my friend finally divorced her, he was able to do this primarily because they were ‘child-free’. She then proved to the world what we all know to be true, women can fix this problem if they want to. She remarried a few years later and was around 150 pounds when she did, I saw her with my own eyes. My friend recently saw her 5 years into her new marriage with her new baby. Care to guess what she looks like now? Thats right, she’s around 300 pounds, complete with cankles and everything.

    Nothing like the ol’ bait-n-switch.

  344. embracing reality says:

    @ jf12

    Thanks for the numbers on the sluts.

  345. The Grand Cannon says:

    CalirChristianLady, you still around?

    ” This is because men are supposed to be spiritual leaders (if you’re Christian you should believe this, but even if you’re an atheist, plenty of evidence suggests that biology and nature dictates that men are physically stronger/more competent anyway) ”

    Physical strength is not the same as spiritual strength.

    “Even if the passion, and feelings of love are numb, I still think women need men in their lives to help them.”

    Help them with what?

    ” I know men that can live on their own, but I don’t know women that can. This isn’t meant to say that women are inferior or are incapable of responsibility, just that they’re not as strong as men, and that their natural abilities are different. ”

    Studies have shown that women do better on their own than men. This is attributed to women “outsourcing” their social and emotional needs while, at least in this society, men tend to not to. That basically means single women maintain a network, even if very small, of close friends and family members whom they can emotionally bond with more than single American men do, who report more loneliness and depression over the single life.

    We’re at the point now where for practical stuff, and for that I even mean reproductive purposes, the sexes no longer need to pair bond. Sperm banks, womb surrogacy, adoption, its all available to men and women. For house and car repairs women can do all that and those that can’t can hire out. Same with men. Women can outsource their emotional bonding needs to friends and families and men can do the same (even if they tend not to).

    For a man and woman to actually come together and pair bond in today’s society they really, really have to WANT to.

  346. Steve H says:

    “Studies have shown that women do better on their own than men…”

    Yes and socially-challenged men need support and are not getting it. I’m often frustrated when I’ve befriended such men (when they don’t really have the wherewithal to actually be ‘friends’ to me) and I’ll think they’re making some progress, only to see them go back to some worthless tramp ex or whine publicly on social media about what victims they are, thoroughly anti-vetting themselves as dating pariahs for all to see. Or some other pitiful, self-sabotaging behavior. You’re right – they have to *want* to move forward socially with their lives, and what’s ‘real’ is what’s familiar to them, so regrettably they revert back to their old friend misery time and time again.

  347. The Grand Cannon says:

    Steve H, there are countless groups, clubs, workshops and seminars to help such people.

    Regarding weight gain after marriage, its normal to let yourself go a bit because you have settled into a comfortable rhythm with your spouse. 40 pounds is nothing to write home about (goes for men too), but I agree 100 is extreme, and unhealthy.

    Has anyone addressed the comment at the top about single motherhood being a uniquely American issue? Western Europe is more socially progressive and feminist than the US yet you just don’t have anywhere near the same numbers there, or in other socially progressive countries like Japan. Any ideas on why?

  348. Western Europe’s marriage rates have been declining and their birth rate is generally below replacement rate (it’s the illegitimate babies which have been propping it up a bit), but it’s true that their marriages tend to last longer and divorce rates are lower.

    The USA is as feminist as Western Europe, the difference is that they have more stable marriages, whereas the USA has a lot of single mothers (mostly non-Asian minorities, but it’s catching up in other ethnic groups a little bit too) due to law enforcement which views most American men as criminals and punishes them adequately.

    The USA has perhaps the most father-hating legal system on the planet: it has no-fault divorce where cash prizes such as alimony and default mother custody are the norm, in addition to feminist legislation such as VAWA which targets and feathers all men in the same light, effectively expelling them from the home.

    The relation between large government power (welfare for single mothers, affirmative action for women), federal law which targets fathers and a militarized police state come together to bring about the toxic single mother cultural norm.

  349. How many Japanese police are beating down Japanese homes and treating fathers like de-facto rapists, wife-beaters or other such negative light? Not a lot.

  350. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Western Europe’s marriage rates have been declining and their birth rate is generally below replacement rate (it’s the illegitimate babies which have been propping it up a bit), but it’s true that their marriages tend to last longer and divorce rates are lower.”

    I know Western Europe’s legal marriage rates are in decline but they pair bond (real marriage) without being legally married. So what you would call “illegitimate babies” are not the “kids of single moms” and its not how I interpreted the original comment regarding it. I assume the commenter was talking about American women who have kids without living with the father and even no involvement of (other than sex) from him and how that is very rare in Europe and other areas of the world.

    It seems American women, more than women elsewhere, value having children no matter their circumstances, whereas Western European and other women value having children only under ideal circumstances.

    I believe the commenter even used the word “obsession” in this regard.

  351. MarcusD says:

    but it’s true that their marriages tend to last longer and divorce rates are lower

    That’s because the marriage rate is low in most circumstances – the people who are most likely to divorce are not getting married. Culturally speaking, Europe is further along in jettisoning marriage.

    So what you would call “illegitimate babies”

    I still remember an absolute flame-war on CAF about how horrible the word “illegitimate” is – it is primarily responsible for unmarried women aborting their children, for single mothers, for family breakdown, for wars, global warming, etc. It’s mildly disturbing to know that many of those statements are made by ‘tradcons’ (plus a few gynocentric feminists, but I repeat myself).

    How many Japanese police are beating down Japanese homes and treating fathers like de-facto rapists, wife-beaters or other such negative light? Not a lot.

    They’re being very careful around fathers/men in general, I think. The last thing they want to do is encourage more men to go the “grass-eater” route, further lowering Japan’s already dismal birthrates.

  352. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Culturally speaking, Europe is further along in jettisoning marriage.”

    But not pair bonding (real marriage). When I asked the question I made no assumption about legal marriage vs living together in a long term/lifelong pair bond with kids that both of you seemed to have made. I highly doubt the original commenter who’s comment I was referring to did either. He or she spoke of “single moms”, not women living in a pair bond with the father of their children, European style.

    [D: The US has a lower percent of adolescent children living with both parents than Europe. I charted out some data on this here.]

  353. MarcusD says:

    Speaking of illegitimate children:

    How do I explain an unmarried pregnant family member to my children?

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=880113

  354. Luke says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 5, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    “We’re at the point now where for practical stuff, and for that I even mean reproductive purposes, the sexes no longer need to pair bond. Sperm banks, womb surrogacy, adoption, its all available to men and women. For house and car repairs women can do all that and those that can’t can hire out. Same with men. Women can outsource their emotional bonding needs to friends and families and men can do the same (even if they tend not to).”

    Having all (or even many) of children be born bastards is a good way to destroy the ability of the society to endure, to have things like reasonable levels of public safety vs. theft/assault/rape/murder, reliable municipal water and electricity, etc. A society of illegitimates will have essentially NO scientists, engineers, highly competent corporate managers, competent military officers, etc. Proof:

    85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)

    90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)

    71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)

    75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God’s Children.)

    63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)

    …children from a fatherless home are:

    5 times more likely to commit suicide,
    32 times more likely to run away,
    20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
    14 times more likely to commit rape,
    9 times more likely to drop out of high school,
    10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances,
    9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution,
    20 times more likely to end up in prison,

    than are children from two-parent families.”

    http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/quotes1.htm

    A proponent of illegitimate birth is an enemy of civilization above the level of hunter-gather, as even pre-1800s agriculture required largely intact families.

  355. desiderian says:

    Luke,

    Thanks for the data – that’s what its going to take. GC is a classic representative of the don’t preach what they practice elite.

  356. jf12 says:

    Speaking of the lack of Swedish utopia, where sharing a mailing address is “better” than being married, note in Dalrock’s link that Mexico of all places is “better” than Sweden.

  357. BradA says:

    @The Grand Canyon,

    > “Steve H, there are countless groups, clubs, workshops and seminars to help such people.”

    Which ones are those? I can’t recall of any that aim at fixing stupid men like that. What am I overlooking?

    I have seen many things that tell men that women should be put on a pedestal and that such foolish women are broken because of what men have done to them.

  358. The Grand Cannon says:

    “The US has a lower percent of adolescent children living with both parents than Europe.”

    Exactly! That was the point of the original commenter who asked WHY American women seem so hell bent on being single moms.

  359. The Grand Cannon says:

    Dalrock, “There are a couple of relevant questions here. What are the out of wedlock birth rates for Sweden and other European countries? And, what percent of children in each country grows up with both their mother and their father? From the point of view of the child, parents who never had a wedding but stayed together are arguably more “married” than parents who had a wedding but split while the child was growing up.”

    Bingo!

    Yet a few of your commenters will insist these kids are, what is it – “illegitimate”?

  360. Luke says:

    Sigh. GC, under socialism that is as severe as it is in Sweden, ALL children not born outside families conservative/traditional enough to be in clear opposition to TPTB are effectively illegitimate.

    BTW, you have yet to respond to my rebuttal of your position that there is no longer a requirement for children to be born into AND raised in intact, mother-father married families. Please do so before your next post so I won’t conclude you are dodging this part of the discussion. (I will also take it as a clear concession on your part that I am right and you are in error.)

  361. The Grand Cannon says:

    ” ALL children not born outside families conservative/traditional enough to be in clear opposition to TPTB are effectively illegitimate.”

    I don’t know what TPTB is, but obviously if a couple is long term pair bonded, living together in one house and raising a family, that IS traditional and socially conservative. A legal paper is not required to create and raise a stable, functional, traditional family.

    “BTW, you have yet to respond to my rebuttal of your position that there is no longer a requirement for children to be born into AND raised in intact, mother-father married families. ”

    There is absolutely no “requirement” for such. But you entirely missed my point. I was not arguing in favor of single parenthood, nor was the comment about children and their needs. It was about men and women and how we no longer “need” each other even for reproductive purposes.

    But I see you conveniently edited out my last sentence when you copy and pasted my comment. Or perhaps you missed that sentence altogether, which would in fact explain why you misinterpreted and misunderstood the point.

    That sentence and the whole point is;

    “For a man and woman to actually come together and pair bond in today’s society they really, really have to WANT to.”

  362. Luke says:

    Sigh x2. FYI, GC, a couple that is cohabitating while unmarried is NOT living in a traditional manner. Over 50% of the couples that are unmarried but produce a kid together are splitsville a mere 5 years later; this casts more than a bit of doubt on that being a good plan on how to raise the next generation. That’s without even going into the example they set for any kids they have, who are likely to go even farther away from reproductively productive (quality AND quantity of children by birth #s and upbringing), to no dad around at all by birth to no kids produced at all. First the branch rots and ceases to grow, then it falls off…

    There is absolutely no “requirement” for such. (for children to be born into AND raised in married, opp-sex families)

    I suppose that for someone who despises their nation, civilization and race with sufficient hatred that they overtly desire the death and destruction of these, no. Anyone that wants there to be such things as electricity, agriculture, and avoiding having their line end in a cannibal’s pot (Ilana Mercer’s similarly-named book is prescient here; see Zimbabwe) would favor maximizing the strength and prevalence of paternally-led married families. Apparently the first paragraph describes you. How did you become a Rousseauian nihilist?

  363. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Over 50% of the couples that are unmarried but produce a kid together are splitsville a mere 5 years later”

    In which country?

  364. BradA says:

    > “It was about men and women and how we no longer “need” each other even for reproductive purposes.”

    I will let others continue that argument, but it still takes a sperm and an egg, so this is not quite accurate.

    The need for a two-parent family may have been abrogated by big daddy government, but it still takes two to tango, as the saying goes, even direct contact doesn’t happen.

  365. jf12 says:

    @TheGrandCannon, in ANY country, cohabitors de-cohabitate at much high rates and much more frequently than marrieds.

  366. The Grand Cannon says:

    “I will let others continue that argument, but it still takes a sperm and an egg, so this is not quite accurate.”

    Here we go again. Did I not mention sperm banks and surrogate wombs for hire? I made it clear that “need each other” refers to an intimate pair bonded relationship. Once more, the point is: For a man and woman to actually come together and pair bond in today’s society they really, really have to WANT to.

    Now, does anyone disagree with that?

  367. The Grand Cannon says:

    “in ANY country, cohabitors de-cohabitate at much high rates and much more frequently than marrieds.”

    Really? Dalrock himself investigated that claim here

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/is-europe-proof-that-intact-families-dont-really-matter/

  368. jf12 says:

    @TGC 1:13 pm
    Incorrect data for incorrect question (Mexico? really?). The question is whether cohabitor break up earlier and oftener, in Europe or elsewhere. The answer is yes.

    Aarskaug Wiik, K., Keizer, R. and Lappegård, T. (2012), Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74: 389–398.
    “in all countries cohabiters more often had breakup plans and were less satisfied with their relationships than individuals who married”

    Liefbroer, A. and Dourleijn, E. (2006), Unmarried Cohabitation and Union Stability: Testing the Role of Diffusion Using Data from 16 European Countries. Demography, 43(2): 203-221.
    From Table 2, pages 211-212, and Figure 1, page 213. The relative hazard of actual breakups for cohabitors averages 300% to 400% higher than marrieds.

  369. Dalrock says:

    @The Grand Cannon

    “in ANY country, cohabitors de-cohabitate at much high rates and much more frequently than marrieds.”

    Really? Dalrock himself investigated that claim here

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/is-europe-proof-that-intact-families-dont-really-matter/

    I think you are misreading my post. The data I found was at the country level, not individual, but even that data showed that countries with higher out of wedlock birth rates tended to have lower rates of adolescent children living with both parents. The pattern is there, although at the country level at least it was much weaker than I would have expected.

  370. Luke says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 7, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    “, the point is: For a man and woman to actually come together and pair bond in today’s society they really, really have to WANT to.

    Now, does anyone disagree with that?

    Me, for one. The couple just has to DO it; like remaining sexually faithful or reliably going to a job every day, it’s the act, not the emotion, that counts as to whether or not they did something. This is how arranged marriages (when one or both of the couple-to-be were less than fully enthusiastic about the prospect) worked in the past, or still do in more traditional cultures. It’s not that complicated.

  371. The Grand Cannon says:

    ” The couple just has to DO it”

    No, they don’t. And they aren’t. That’s the point.

  372. Luke says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 7, 2014 at 1:18 am

    “Over 50% of the couples that are unmarried but produce a kid together are splitsville a mere 5 years later”

    In which country?”

    The U.S. Perhaps you’ve heard of this country?

  373. The Grand Cannon says:

    Right, Luke. But if you scroll up you see we are discussing American trends of single motherhood vs Western European trends of life long pair bonding and family creation sans legal marriage.

  374. jf12 says:

    “The relative hazard of actual breakups for cohabitors averages 300% to 400% higher than marrieds.” regardless of your feelings.

  375. Luke says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 7, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    ” The couple just has to DO it”

    No, they don’t. And they aren’t. That’s the point.”

    Agreed that many today sadly are not doing what they need to do, to justify the oxygen they use. To have this thing called civilization, millions DO have to this thing called marry and raise a family together. Multigenerational welfare queens and gangbangers don’t keep the lights on.

  376. The Grand Cannon says:

    Multigenerational welfare queens and gangbangers are a statistical minority. As are university degreed, professionally educated upper middle class people who stay married to the same person for an entire lifetime and raise university educated, professionally employed children who themselves create an upper middle class lifestyle for themselves..

    Most Americans fall somewhere in the middle.

  377. The Grand Cannon says:

    Middle means lower-middle to middle-middle class where divorce, single parents not on “welfare” and couples pair-bonded but not legally and/or religiously married proliferate.

    “Commitment ceremonies” seem to be the in thing amongst the middle class veering toward upper middle class though.

  378. Luke says:

    Here is an example related to this article on how leftists are intentionally discouraging marriage among the proles:

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/05/how-personal-relationships-threaten-the-power-of-the-state/

  379. jf12 says:

    Luke @4:14 am The way I see it, women are much more directly manipulable by oligarchs, primarily through popular culture, but also advertising, etc. Most men ignore advertisements, but can be manipulated through their weak point i.e. sex. Hence “they” focus on separating women from the influence of their men, killing two birds: “they” get to influence women, and then the men.

  380. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Most men ignore advertisements”

    Not the ones specifically aimed at men.

  381. Luke says:

    Agreed re almost everyone being vulnerable to targeted advertising IF THEY SEE IT, GC. Rich Zubaty in his book “What Men Know That Women Don’t” defined pornography as anything tht excites unnatural desires. That means not just Playboy/Hustler/www.nudechicks.com, but also romance novels, the Lifetime/Oxygen/HGTV channels, Oprah, Cosmo, Vogue, and most advertising.
    Best to sell the TVs not used for video games or DVD/Netflix movies, end the magazine/newspaper subscriptions, and use the (Adblock/Popup blocked) Internet for news.

  382. The Grand Cannon says:

    If “pornography is anything that excites unnatural desires” then Playboy and erotic literature are not porn because the desires they excite are natural. Restaurant or food product commercials are not porn because again they excite a natural desire. We could say car commercials are porn I suppose because driving isn’t natural, but mobility is. What’s left to be advertised that does NOT excite a natural desire? Makeup? Its not natural but the desire to attract someone is. Shaving? Its not natural to shave but we could stretch that to be included under the natural desire to attract a mate.

  383. gdgm+ says:

    Lurker / Insomniac warning:
    I recently had a disturbing, new-to-me thought on all of the blogs’ discussions of “alpha”, “beta”, Game and so on:

    It’s not what a man *does* (or doesn’t do) that necessarily signals “Alpha” or Beta” . . . It’s the woman’s *reaction* to it which determines such, *to her*.

    I.E. Tingles = Alpha, regardless of circumstances. So, if Lily gets bored with baby daddy Carl, he;s no longer the “Alpha” she slept with to have that baby, but becomes a “Beta” she leaves.

    Sadly, I thought this after just hearing about ANOTHER exploded marriage where, by religious terms, the man did everything “right”:

    They married young (she was 21 or 22, he was a couple of years older). Their wedding happened ca. 1985, so in addition to being young, neither of them had “ridden the carousel” as is more possible today. They began having kids soon after, eventually having and raising four. He worked hard and became quite successful, a real-life example of Dalrock’s “patriarch’s dividend”. And (not to invoke the wrath of GBFM or Zippy Catholic) he read, believed and tried to live out his Catholic faith / Bible, and had also read some of the Great Books For Men. He truly, deeply loved his wife.

    I’d last seen him sometime in 2008, before re-connecting with him this week. According to him, about 2009, she got bored and fretful, saying she wasn’t haaaaaappy and needed to “find herself”, and filed for divorce. He did NOT want the divorce, and argued with her about the seriousness of the marriage vows they had taken, how they were consecrated to be “one flesh” (I’m paraphrasing here, but he’s a devout Catholic and from a family of 7 brothers and sisters). She would have none of it. And by the way, even though 2 of their kids were over 21 and adults at the time of the final divorce settlement, as a stay-at-home-mom for much of the marriage, she got ~ 55% of the assets, plus he’s paying additional money. And he has primary custody of their remaining kids…

    What’s saddest to me — please forgive a bit of venting — is that I (vaguely) *remember* their 1980s wedding; he was handsome and beaming, she was gorgeous and radiant. I knew them both before their wedding, they SEEMED well-matched (similar family backgrounds, faith, ethnicity and so on). I’m embarrassed to admit now that I was kinda jealous back then, not in the “Damn, she should be with ME and not him” way, but rather in the “Damn, I wish *I* could find someone like that who loved me back in the way I loved them” sense, since I’ve never married. But now looking at the pain in this fellow’s eyes, even after 5+ years after their split, I now feel like I dodged another bullet. What the hell happened??

  384. Luke says:

    “What’s left to be advertised that does NOT excite a natural desire?”

    Women who are 4s wanting to date and marry 9s and 10s would be one.
    Anyone already married influenced to want to sleep with anyone else is another.
    Yet another would be people making 30,000 a year coveting the rich people’s homes, foreign vacations, and various possessions they see on TV programs.

  385. jf12 says:

    @gdgm re: “What the hell happened??” When momma’s unhappy (e.g. menopause) then she wants to make everyone else unhappy. Unless forced to do what she doesn’t want to do, just about every woman is this way.

  386. Luke says:

    An elaboration on what you said, jf12:

    I read in Rich Zubaty’s book “What Men Know That Women Don’t” that prior to agriculture, the average woman only had about 10 menstrual cycles during her lifetime. Now, the average Western woman has about 400 MCs. That means that they’re having (and men are forced to put up with) 40x as much PMS as there is supposed to be. A possible explanation for where feminism came from IMO…

  387. jf12 says:

    @Luke Wow! It had never occurred to me before. This is probably the main reason I like being involved in these issues is because the rate of discovery, for me, is so high. Yes, most women had to have had an order of magnitude fewer cycles, because of pregnancies and lactation and early death.

  388. Spacetraveller says:

    @ gdgm,

    Sorry to hear this sad story you tell us about…

    What happened?

    I’ll tell you. She listened to ‘the herd’. After many blissful years of happiness with her husband, she listened to some bitter woman (who does not wish her well!) who told her she had missed out on something by marrying, having kids, being a slave to her husband…Hence she became ‘unhappy’. She was happy before they got to her.

    I have no doubt that she loved her husband, and he loved her, from what you say. But in a moment of utter madness, she listened to the wrong voice.

    Remind you of the Garden of Eden and a certain man, woman and serpent?
    It all came crashing down when the woman listened to the serpent.

    That story keeps repeating itself even today…

    I like your take on alpha/beta. I shall ponder it more!

  389. Casey says:

    @gdgm

    Sorry to hear about your friend’s woes.
    Divorce is the modern day blight of our current societal construct.

    As long as the feminist pumping operation can continue to give an illusion of ‘independence’ to women, many of them will fall victim to the HISSSSS of the serpent.

    If you ‘Don’t need a man!’, then it is unlikely you are willing to give anything up to foster a relationship with a man. As Dalrock has put it, he is just ‘an accessory to her fabulous life’.

    Accessories fall out of fashion, and are discarded just like trash.

    Nothing will change until a crisis of epic proportions visits our societal construct. Then, and only then, women will realize they do indeed NEED a man to survive.

  390. The Grand Cannon says:

    “They married young (she was 21 or 22, he was a couple of years older).”

    In the US the demographic of couples with the greatest chance of dying still married to their first and only spouse are those who marry after having attained a university degree (and being professionally employed and upper middle class). That leaves the early 20 somethings out.

    The couples with the greatest chance of divorce are those where one or both of them marries young without having a university degree.

  391. Luke says:

    “The couples with the greatest chance of divorce are those where one or both of them marries young without having a university degree.”

    Nah. That would actually be where one or more of the following apply:
    1) Feminist “wife”;
    2) Wife with many premarital sexual partners;
    3) Wife has previous divorces;
    4) Couple cohabitated a long time (3+ years) before marriage;
    5) White wife, black husband
    6) Wife has SMV more than a point above her husband, and knows it
    7) Wife has lots of either or both of promiscuous or divorced female friends
    8) Wife’s parents are not currently married to each other
    9) Wife has professional career that she holds more important than the marriage (easily demonstrated by her refusing to quit her job and follow her husband across the country when he is transferred by his employer)
    10) Wife is longtime heavy consumer of Lifetime/Oprah on TV or romance novels

  392. The Grand Cannon says:

    Interesting though how most of those 10 are correlated with not having a university degree, not being professionally employed and not being upper middle class.

  393. imnobody00 says:

    Being an European I have some ideas about why European people remain in a couple (but not marry) but American people marry and divorce and marry and divorce like in a marriage-go-round.

    The rejection of marriage between European is not rejection of pair bonding. Marriage is rejected because of ideological reasons (left-wing / anti-religious bias) so, as long as you don’t use the word “marriage” European do not reject marriage. They do not idolize it either. Marriage is a mundane business and married people don’t have more status than married people. So people have no insane expectations when marrying.

    American people (specifically, American women) idolize marriage. It is living the dream, the happily-ever-after, having your soul met, your prince (Clotaire Rapaille says that “love” in America means “high expectations”).

    So, when the honeymoon period ends, American women think “This is not my soul mate. I don’t feel happy all the time. I have to look for my soul mate”. Then divorce, remarry, wash, rinse, repeat.

    Of course, this is enabled by the fact that American women can divorce and collect more cash and prizes than Europe and the go-grrrlist attitude, where no action or intention done by a female can be criticized.

  394. MarcusD says:

    The couples with the greatest chance of divorce are those where one or both of them marries young without having a university degree.

    [...]

    Interesting though how most of those 10 are correlated with not having a university degree, not being professionally employed and not being upper middle class.

    That’s a sign that the independent variable hasn’t been found (and no, it’s not university education or lack thereof).

  395. The Grand Cannon says:

    “White wife, black husband”

    While black wife, white husband are amongst the demographics that have marriage longevity.
    I realize I sound like a classist snob as I keep hammering home this point. Its not the university degree itself that ensures longevity. The degree is just a proxy for what can be termed “groundedness”. That being the case, the type of degree matters. The more difficult the subject, the more application of self-discipline it requires to see it through to the end, and the practical usefulness of it in the forward march of humanity reflects the values of the individual who signs up for it (or the values of his or her parents who if they come from a good family background would have been instrumental in their child’s higher educational choices).

    A lot of hoopla is made in the States about “college enrollment” but you don’t hear as much about college graduation and in what particular fields. Its as if enrolling in any bullsh*t timepass course is enough to warrant the epithet “highly educated”.

    Passing grades, what to speak of good grades, in difficult subjects can tell us something about how the student lived his or her life while at college. That he or she took on a difficult course, made decent marks and graduated in the same difficult field he or she originally majored in says something about their commitment abilities.

    In many cases it also says something about their parentage and upbringing.

    Culture matters and I will not back down on that.

  396. gdgm+ says:

    @Spacetraveller and Casey,
    Thanks for your comments. For the record, the guy *had* graduated from university, and the woman at 22-ish finished and got *her* degree after they married (we all had another party after that!). But I suspect outside influences such as “the herd” didn’t help at all, especially while she was an at-home mom as hubby worked…

  397. gdgm+ says:

    @Imnobody00 and Grand Cannon
    I suspect that imnobody00 is closer to the truth, than Grand Cannon is. Another reason the couple’s ‘split’ was so sad to me, is that they were in the “sweet spot” of what in theory would make for a long marriage: Middle-to-upper middle class, white twenty-somethings from intact, church attending families, whose parents had strong values (at least *his* definitely did — I had attended events with them). He’s in a technical / IT field, and because they were so young, neither had been previously divorced. In short, it was horrifying to see they had many of the USA “Cultural Markers” right, and things STILL went so wrong.

  398. Luke says:

    “things STILL went so wrong.”

    Ha. Weasel words. Try, “she murdered their marriage, broke up their family, made her children b*stards, profited by it, and now is sleeping with other men to whom she is not married, and nobody has yet said one critical word to her, the immoral b*tch”.

  399. imnobody00’s comment is correct, but I sometimes wonder not only why, but the irony of leftists avoid the totally modernized/post-modern left-liberal legal system. Since the laws are usually seen in a secular liberal matter, then why are leftists avoiding the results of their own making?

    How can Sweden, and places like that, because rationalized as a “right-wing” legal process? Who makes such crappy, untrue statements?

    Why are leftists avoiding a legal system which mirrors their own moral and quasi secular-religious system? That’s called hypocrisy 101.

  400. I’m not American by the way.

  401. The Grand Cannon says:

    “I suspect that imnobody00 is closer to the truth, than Grand Cannon is. Another reason the couple’s ‘split’ was so sad to me, is that they were in the “sweet spot” of what in theory would make for a long marriage: Middle-to-upper middle class, white twenty-somethings from intact, church attending families, whose parents had strong values (at least *his* definitely did — I had attended events with them). He’s in a technical / IT field, and because they were so young, neither had been previously divorced. In short, it was horrifying to see they had many of the USA “Cultural Markers” right, and things STILL went so wrong.”

    Not all the American cultural markers were on point. You mention “middle to upper middle class”. The demographic with the lowest divorce rate is firmly UPPER middle class. Rich folk.
    You mention she graduated while married. The demographic with the lowest divorce rate has both partners already graduated and working in their fields before they marry.

    Its a shame their marriage went south so early but not at all surprising. I would have totally predicted it given what you described here.

  402. gdgm+ says:

    Grand Cannon,
    You’re still mis-reading this. She graduated after they were married, and *then began having children*. They had four of them while husband and wife were still young, their eldest born in late 1986/early 1987 or so. They began divorce proceedings ca. 2009, the oldest children were over 21 and therefore adults. I’m not sure why you’re writing what you are.

  403. The Grand Cannon says:

    Gotcha. They divorced in old age. Its a shame but to be expected, I suppose. Traditional cultures have rites of passage for various stages of life. Middle aged people are not expected to do the things they did as youth and old people are not expect to do the things they did as middle aged people. Rites of passage, rituals for transcendent experience, initiations into wise elder hood, we don’t have those things but expect we should carry on doing the same ol’ same ol’ at every stage. There are stages of life and transitions. Modernism and post-modernism does not recognize any of that and hence we’ve got “mid life crises” and they often end in divorce.

    We need shamans. We need a return to ritual and stages and transcendent experiences.

  404. Spacetraveller says:

    @gdgm,

    I have thought some more about your friends…I used to be against ‘early marriage’ too, and to that effect, I do agree with some of what TGC says. But, I think it is not the young age per se which kills the marriage. Dalrock himself has produced stats which show that the younger the woman at marriage, the higher the chance of divorce. I now think that it is not the young age per se, but the woman’s intrinsic level of confidence in her own marriage. Afterall, your friend’s wife divorced her husand NOT at a young age, but at an age where she should have known better. So it wasn’t the young age that was the problem…
    Listening to other women, espeially those who are single or (bitterly) divorced is a tragedy waiting to happen. One of the best advice I got prior to my own wedding last year was from a woman who said to me, ‘don’t listen to anyone when it comes to your marriage, especially other women!’
    That woman was divorced. I guess she was speaking from personal experience…

    The education thing is important. TGC has a great point about education, and working hard at something. The point about education is not the education itself, but the fact that education is a proxy for hard work, not giving up easily (especially) if the education was for something ‘hard’, not easy. It is not education of women which is the problem in the present era, it is what women do with said education. If her education is not for the betterment of her own life and her family’s life, then of course it is better if she had not received that education.
    And, of course I also understand the conflation of education with promiscuity…
    But it doesn’t have to be so, of course…

    I really like your take on the alpha/beta thing.
    May I expand on it?

    I think it depends on what the man WANTS. If Carl were looking for just sex, then Lily leaving him (after giving him sex) does NOT make him beta. He retains his alphadom, because afterall, he got what he wanted. If Carl wanted marriage, then Lily leaving him makes him beta, yes.

    So there are two kinds of alpha/beta – SMV and MMV alpha/beta, depending on what the MAN wants. Since alpha/beta cannot be used to describe women, it is immaterial what SHE wants in this sense…

  405. jf12 says:

    @Spacetraveller re: ” it is immaterial what SHE wants in this sense…”

    Only for alphas. For the majority of men who are betas, the ONLY thing that matters is what she wants: he has to provide her with bananas and grooming.

  406. BradA says:

    > “We need shamans. We need a return to ritual and stages and transcendent experiences.”

    Nah. We need a commitment to underlying core values. The value relativism approach to life is a strong part of the mess we have today. You can dump a long-term marriage if commitment means nothing.

  407. JDG says:

    The education thing is important. TGC has a great point about education,

    No not anymore at least in this country. The cost / benefit ratio is appalling. Especially if you hold the view that being a wife and mother are more important than having a career.

    and working hard at something.

    You don’t need an indoctrination (sorry, education) to work hard at something.

    The point about education is not the education itself, but the fact that education is a proxy for hard work,

    The majority of degrees these days are anything but hard work. And why take the risk of sending our children unnecessarily into harms way (temptation / indoctrination) if the education itself isn’t the point.

    not giving up easily (especially) if the education was for something ‘hard’, not easy.

    I would say ONLY if the education was for something difficult (STEM) with the small possibility of the occasional exception to the rule.

    Just my two cents.

  408. gdgm+ says:

    @Spacetraveller at May 12, 2014 at 4:36 am
    Thanks again for your thoughts; you are welcome to take my comments and expand / interpret further – especially since I haven’t yet figured out the whole story! Your comments on “the herd” continue to make more and more sense to me – even Dalrock himself wrote a good past post on that subject, The Whispers.

    If there was a ‘bright spot’ in seeing my colleague and friend, it was that, despite the sad news about the end of his marriage, we all had a good enough time “catching up” that we agreed we shouldn’t let SO much time go by before we meet up again, so I will ask about her friends the next time we get together. For while I knew *his* family fairly well, I didn’t know hers (other than her parents not being divorced — don’t know about her other friends). And while I still think Grand Cannon *meant* well in this thread overall, the people involved are now in their late 40s / early 50s, which I don’t yet consider “old age”!

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