Why are modern Christians so delighted with current divorce rates?

There is an article from the Christian Post making the rounds which has modern Christians giddy:  Author Debunks Myths About Divorce Rates, Including of Churchgoers.  The article and the book it promotes The Good News About Marriage: Debunking Discouraging Myths about Marriage and Divorce is welcome news to modern Christians.

My first reaction to the article was that the author is using questionable statistics*, even if there is a kernel of truth to what she is sharing.  However, what I think is far more important is the nature of article, book, and the responses to the book.  It would be easy to miss that they aren’t celebrating a recent decline in divorce rates.  Her main point in the Christian Post article is that the no fault divorce regime isn’t really that bad (and never has been):

Feldhahn: The most important big-picture truth: contrary to popular opinion, most marriages are strong and happy for a lifetime. That doesn’t mean most marriages are perfect; there are still plenty of legitimate concerns out there. But for our culture as a whole, the marriages that are unhappy, the ones that don’t make it, are the exception rather than the rule.

She reinforces this with positive data about Boomer divorce rates, as well as divorce rates for second marriages and churchgoing Christians.

So if they aren’t celebrating an encouraging decline in recent divorce rates, what are they celebrating?   They are celebrating what they see as a validation of the new (anti biblical) model of marriage.  All of those naysayers claiming the wakeup call model of marriage is destroying marriage were wrong!  It is working just fine!

If divorce levels were unacceptably high and marriage was collapsing as an institution, then they would need to rethink their rejection of biblical marriage.  But according to this author marriage is just fine, the only problem is that people have been tricked into believing that it is falling apart at the seams.  According to the author high divorce rates under our no fault divorce regime are caused by concern about high divorce rates, not the other way around.  This denies our recent history, where an explosion in divorce rates followed the legal and cultural gutting of marriage, and concern about the exploding divorce rates followed the actual phenomenon.

The reaction to the book is the same reaction Director Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family had when he found that the most devout Christians only have a 38% divorce rate.  He was so elated he sent out announcements of the good news two years in a row.

Reality

The biggest problem with the message is that the focus on reassuring Christians that our anti biblical model of marriage is working just fine is furthering rebellion.  But the problem doesn’t end there.  Aside from the problematic stats, the reality is that marriage really is falling apart at the seams.  40% of children are now born out of wedlock, and the US has a higher rate of children growing up without fathers than every country in Europe I could find data for.  Marriage is crumbling as an institution, and as a result each year we find that Americans spend an ever smaller percentage of their adult lives married:

percentmarriedallraces

These declining numbers represent a combination of delayed marriage, marriage avoided outright, and lower remarriage rates after divorce. As you can see from the chart above marriage patterns vary greatly by race.  What it doesn’t show is that other factors like education and class are also very important.  This new anti biblical model of marriage works much better for the upper middle class than it does for lower classes.  As a result, marriage is starting to become something only the elite can afford to dabble in.  Hidden in this tragedy is a potential silver lining.  As marriage becomes seen as something only for the elite, those groups which have experienced the highest divorce rates have retreated from marriage.  As a result, we should expect to see a decline in overall divorce rates.  But even here, this isn’t really good news for marriage, because it is due to marriage becoming weaker as an institution, not a sign that it is becoming stronger.

 

*As I mentioned above I think the questionable statistics in the Cristian Post article and another one on Catalyst are not the root of the issue, as bad as some of the problems are.  I’ve deliberately avoided taking the bait and focusing on the stats in this post in order not to lose sight of the much more important picture.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Data, Denial, Focus on the Family, Glenn Stanton, Shaunti Feldhahn. Bookmark the permalink.

271 Responses to Why are modern Christians so delighted with current divorce rates?

  1. donalgraeme says:

    Isn’t this the Churchian equivalent of “Rebuilding the Mound?”

  2. Pingback: Why are modern Christians so delighted with current divorce rates? | Manosphere.com

  3. donalgraeme says:

    Sorry, WP ate the rest of my comment. Continuing…

    What I find is that there are generally two sorts: those who want to actively deny there is a problem (the mound rebuilders), and those who just cannot see it. I have been dealing with a lot of the latter recently. I know some individuals who are already familiar with a lot of the problems with marriage in the US. They know about a lot of the bad stats, and agree that something is wrong. But it is next to impossible to convince them of the source of these problems. At times it seems like they cannot see the forest for the trees- they can see the individual problems but cannot connect the dots. The conditioning is just so deep, to get past it seems impossible for most folks, unless you can somehow really get them out of their comfort zone.

  4. SC says:

    So here is my question for Dalrock: if all residents of the United States are all equally subjected to US laws concerning marriage, divorce, and family, and we are all subjected to the same liberal media, why is it that upper class Whites, upper middle class Whites, and Asians tend to divorce at much lower rates than Blacks, Hispanics, and prole Whites? What factors cause Asians and elite Whites to stay married? How can society use these findings to help prole Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics to also stay married?

  5. Martel says:

    @ SC: I’m (obviously) not Dalrock, but a couple of possibilities jump out at me.

    One, the higher one’s place on the economic strata, the lower the incentive to “trade-up” for something better.

    Also, finances can put a strain on any marriage, so a couple with more money has less to fight about than one that’s always struggling to pay the bills.

  6. Martel says:

    And, you’re far less likely to get divorced if you never get married in the first place, which is the case for the lower classes.

  7. mustardnine says:

    SC:
    I realize that your question is to Dalrock, and I’m not Dalrock, but here is my .02:

    FINANCIAL PROBLEMS stress marriages.
    To the providers, who are not living up to social expectations.
    To the non-providers, who are not getting their personal or social expectations met.
    The poor, or relatively poor, get hit first, and hardest.

    Same goes when there is a bad economy: The guys on the low end of the pecking order lose their jobs and status first.

    Just one idea.

  8. gdgm+ says:

    I suspect the reasons for Ms. Feldhahn and her supporters of her view are a) sentimental (‘our Christian marriages are better than people generally think’), and b) finances-based, as in this (warning, long) article related to the OP: Post-Modern Marriage and Our Relational Longings It could also be a partial answer to ‘SC’s’ question.

    Marriage and parenting may be disappearing in large parts of sophisticated Europe and Japan, but not so much among our high achievers.

    … parenting is getting better among parents of our cognitive elite, whose kids are now surging ahead of the rest of society by virtue of nature (or genetic inheritance) and nurture alike, while it is generally getting worse among the rest. Although ordinary Americans have more traditional “family values” than our sophisticates, they are getting less and less capable of acting on them. Their families are getting more pathological, with more single moms, deadbeat dads, dependence on the government dole, and so forth.

  9. Martel says:

    I did some thinking, and my comment at 2:52 on its own doesn’t make much sense.

    HOWEVER, growing up in a world in which marriage is seen as superfluous (which is the case to a stronger degree among the lower classes) might make one less inclined to stick with a marriage through rough times.

  10. donalgraeme says:

    The UMC divorces at a lower rate for a number of reasons:
    1) The cost of divorce is higher- divorce means a significant drop in Standard of Living for both spouses, even the one who “wins” the divorce.
    2) Divorce is less socially acceptable amongst the UMC- they tend to look upon divorce as something “those” people do.
    3) The UMC is largely made up of those who are better at future-time orientation. In other words, they can understand cause and effect better, and so are more aware of the consequences of divorce, decreasing the desire for it.
    4) The UMC is very big on raising the best children possible,(although usually only with a few of them), and divorce hinders this greatly, so they don’t do it “for the children.”

  11. donalgraeme says:

    I should add that many of those same reasons apply to Asians, who share many beliefs and attitudes with UMC whites. As for the Upper Classes, again, they feel the costs of divorce a lot, because they have more to lose. Major drop in SoL is usually the case. And again, better future-time orientation. Plus there are status/social standing issues there as well.

  12. JDG says:

    What I find is that there are generally two sorts: those who want to actively deny there is a problem (the mound rebuilders), and those who just cannot see it. I have been dealing with a lot of the latter recently.

    I understand when someone is deluded and can’t see past the fog. I don’t like it, but I get it. What irks me is when you go to all the trouble to explain things (thinking if they only new the truth) only to find out that they really don’t care. The facts, figures, and what they Bible actually says just doesn’t matter to them.

  13. jf12 says:

    From the first article the single statistic cited “72% of people are still married to their first spouse” isn’t even wrong. It’s maraschino cherry picking, highly selected data that has been overly processed and is bad for consumption.

  14. @ JDG

    I understand when someone is deluded and can’t see past the fog. I don’t like it, but I get it. What irks me is when you go to all the trouble to explain things (thinking if they only new the truth) only to find out that they really don’t care. The facts, figures, and what they Bible actually says just doesn’t matter to them.

    You think righteously.

    Luke 12

    41 Peter said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his [u]servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that slave whom his [v]master finds so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master [w]will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of [x]a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

  15. Opus says:

    Shaunti Feldhahn (strange name for a Christian?) is a self-help feel-good guru and I suspect, a charlatan. The quote is odd:

    1. Most marriages may well last a lifetime but it does not follow that longevity equals strength (whatever that is) or happiness.

    2. One senses that her ‘there are plenty of grounds for legitimate concern’ is a thinly disguised call for men to be perfect, and thus make women happy.

    3. She equates unhappiness in marriage with divorce; that does not necessarily follow, and of course she reduces marriage for her female audience to happiness, and nothing else. No mention of loyalty, adherence to vows taken or any other reason for the continuation of a marriage, merely the Utopian idea of happiness.

    Either way the divorce rate is more or less equivalent to tossing a coin.

  16. Crank says:

    From the linked article, I offer a candidate for meaningless stat of the year:

    “And among those who have only been married once, even seven in ten baby boomers are still married to their first spouse!”

    I also hear that among those who have never divorced, 100% are still with their first spouse unless the spouse has died.

  17. Eric says:

    Aside from the problematic stats, the reality is that marriage really is falling apart at the seams. 40% of children are now born out of wedlock, and the US has a higher rate of children growing up without fathers than every country in Europe I could find data for.

    While I agree the legal and cultural environment surrounding marriage is something of a raw deal for men, I don’t think the solution is for men to refuse marriage until that environment changes. And I think that’s her point – that the idea every marriage is doomed to failure is just as toxic for individuals and society as the idea the changes we’ve made over the last half century aren’t creating problems.

    Convincing men not to marry is not going to lower the number of children born out of wedlock.

  18. Cane Caldo says:

    The basis of the criticism here is much stronger. I dig it. It’s hard to know what a non-Christian group of soft scientists means when they say “better’, but Christians don’t have that problem. They should know “better”.

  19. Guest says:

    I think the other reason the UMC divorce at a lower rate is because when you are pretty happy in your life overall, you tend not be as frustrated with your marriage. When you are unhappy in life, you start thinking that your spouse is not making you happy. If you are UMC or wealthy, you have plenty of money and time to pursue interest and time with kids and or friends and even if the marriage is not that great, you have other outlets for fulfillment and so you can at least become really effective co-parenting partners. Also more time to work out, more money to spend on fashion and appearance and it feels good to have this high quality person next to you at events, etc. So, unless one partner is really a monster, it is just pleasant to stay together even if perhaps the intimate connection has faded.

  20. Gunner Q says:

    Perhaps the answer is that modern Christians just can’t accept the consequences of fighting no-fault divorce. Bucking the divorce trend would require binding standards of conduct, public excommunication of rebellious women, pressuring fathers to get their Princesses married instead of college-educated, political activism to restore traditional laws… seriously counter-cultural stuff. They don’t teach upholding standards in seminaries. It’s mostly Bible study. And finance.

  21. jf12 says:

    @Crank, “72% of dentists who haven’t changed their minds still recommend using toothpaste!”

  22. JDG says:

    They don’t teach upholding standards in seminaries. It’s mostly Bible study

    If they’re not being taught to uphold standards when they study the Bible, then what on earth are they studying in the Bible?

  23. Dalrock says:

    @SC

    if all residents of the United States are all equally subjected to US laws concerning marriage, divorce, and family, and we are all subjected to the same liberal media, why is it that upper class Whites, upper middle class Whites, and Asians tend to divorce at much lower rates than Blacks, Hispanics, and prole Whites? What factors cause Asians and elite Whites to stay married?

    It is a combination of IQ/future time orientation and culture. The UMC places a premium on the success of their children. Divorcing the father places a woman’s children and grandchildren at a signifigant disadvantage. This then is reinforced by UMC culture. Having children in wedlock and then remaining married is a strong status marker, because it has real meaning for their children. At its core, women’s intrasexual status competition is about competing for an advantage to their own children, so this is only natural and we shouldn’t expect this to change.

    How can society use these findings to help prole Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics to also stay married?

    We can recognize that the tinkering the UMC did to marriage was incredibly selfish. It still seems to be working for them, so why can’t everyone else just become the elite? We see this with many Christians as well; they don’t care that the new model of marriage only works for the most devout, since only the most devout matter. Those other people (and their kids) simply don’t matter enough to convince them the new anti biblical model of marriage is a disaster.

    But getting the elite to acknowledge this will be very difficult. Generally speaking people don’t change things like this until the pain they personally experience becomes too great. For the secular elite I think that pain is already starting to be felt in the form of reduced tax receipts and GNP. They see the economy as a sort of piggy bank to fund their own pet causes; as we are seeing an alarming number unmarried men are now earning nothing or next to nothing. The elite needs men to buy into marriage so they will have the incentive to work hard and pay taxes.

  24. mustardnine says:

    JDG says:
    June 5, 2014 at 4:19 pm
    “They don’t teach upholding standards in seminaries. It’s mostly Bible study”

    If they’re not being taught to uphold standards when they study the Bible, then what on earth are they studying in the Bible?

    Mustard Suggests:
    Old Testament survey, New Testament survey, new theological perspectives on the book of Romans, how to preach a “good sermon,” jokes from the pulpit, comparative “Christian” psychology, our denominational imperatives/distinctives, “youth ministry,” megachurch / emerging church / progressive church “perspectives,” “contemporary issues,” “confronting our secular culture,” “church growth,” “shut-ins ministry,” how to become Senior Pastor, Our Denomination’s Savings and Retirement Plans.

    I’m exaggerating, but just barely. This from the Bible Belt. YMMV greatly, of course.

  25. mustardnine says:

    Oh, I almost forgot: “Women’s Role In Modern Ministry.”

  26. Dalrock says:

    @Gunner Q

    Perhaps the answer is that modern Christians just can’t accept the consequences of fighting no-fault divorce. Bucking the divorce trend would require binding standards of conduct, public excommunication of rebellious women, pressuring fathers to get their Princesses married instead of college-educated, political activism to restore traditional laws… seriously counter-cultural stuff.

    It is far worse than this, and the lie that Christians are fighting the good fight (if only in their heads) is part of the apparatus which protects the status quo. The truth is that modern Christians are deeply invested in the new model of marriage. Fireproof took the teaching in 1 Pet 3 and switched the sexes, and Christians couldn’t find words suitable to express how delighted they were with this cross dressed version of Scripture. As I’ve shown in countless example, modern Christians really like the new model. I have no doubt they wish that it didn’t result in as many divorces as it does, but credible threats of divorce are key to the new improved model of marriage. So an argument which claims that actual divorce isn’t required very often to keep wives in a position of headship will go over extremely well with modern Christians.

  27. David J. says:

    @Opus: “Shaunti Feldhahn (strange name for a Christian?) is a self-help feel-good guru and I suspect, a charlatan.”

    No. I know Shaunti Feldhahn and her husband, Jeff. (Jeff and I have spent time in two of the same law firms, among other things.) They are both great people, very bright, and well-intentioned. That does not mean that they are right on these issues or that they couldn’t be educated about whether they’re asking the right questions, reaching the right conclusions, or pushing the right recommendations. But ad hominem attacks on them are completely misplaced. Argue with their data, etc., but don’t attack their character. Doing so will only devalue your own arguments.

  28. John Salt says:

    Somewhat OT: been hearing this song on the radio lately. “One man’s trash is another man’s gold.” Single mothers are just treasures waiting to be had.

    Just more corruption where once there was virtue.

  29. patriarchal landmine says:

    nazis debunk myth of pogroms against jews, german jews relieved to hear the good news.

  30. Farm Boy says:

    They see the economy as a sort of piggy bank to fund their own pet causes

    That they do. However, perhaps they should be concerned with maintaing civilization.

    Pet causes might become a luxury item that can no longer be afforded.

  31. Dalrock says:

    @John Salt

    Just more corruption where once there was virtue.

    Even here the cultural rot is following the lead of modern Christians. Pastor Driscoll’s tweet comes to mind:

    Single guys: don’t overlook the single moms. Jesus’ mom was a single mom & it went pretty well for Joseph.

  32. Cane Caldo says:

    @Gunner Q & JDG

    They don’t teach upholding standards in seminaries. It’s mostly Bible study. And finance.

    The seminaries of Baptists and their like, generally speaking, teach (what I’ll call) churchcraft. There is Bible study in the sense that they study what others have said about the Bible, or their approaches to the Bible (e.g. theology), or how to read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. There are finance courses; as is sensible because churches do have to pay for things. Courses on preaching and courses on counseling, and all sorts of things done by preachers, pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and all the other church roles, or for those who are going teach church roles. Current movements in churches, church history, basic music theory (someone has to pick the hymns)…things like that.

    It is expected that those who are admitted to seminary already know the Bible in the sense that they know what it says, and what they don’t know they will be learning on their own. The testing for this is not a science, though.

    As I scroll back up just before I post, I see that MustardNine has covered it pretty well at 4:38pm.

    Catholics and Anglicans (perhaps others too) do this a bit better, I think. After seminary, a prospective priest (called a curate) is sent to a church and is tutored for a year or two under a priest before the curate is summoned for full ordination. During this period he will preach, organize church activities, assist with the Eucharist, etc, and he will be watched and corrected.

    Baptists don’t like hierarchies so they invented youth pastors, and that has made everything a mess.

  33. Farm Boy says:

    modern Christians really like the new model. I have no doubt they wish that it didn’t result in as many divorces as it does

    Why do they like it? Its high Kumbaya content?

  34. Eric says:

    Single guys: don’t overlook the single moms. Jesus’ mom was a single mom & it went pretty well for Joseph.

    Not bad advice in terms of upholding social order, but from the perspective of a single guy that terrible advice.

  35. Dalrock says:

    @Farm Boy

    Why do they like it? Its high Kumbaya content?

    Biblical headship disturbs them deeply, profoundly. The new model has the wife in the position of headship, which they adore. This requires threats of divorce and other sinful actions on the part of the wife to maintain. Actual divorce isn’t something they want, unless the man fails to submit to his wife’s satisfaction; in that case divorce is the vehicle to punish the disobedient husband (and frighten others who would follow) and prepare the way for a new marriage for the woman with a suitably obedient husband.

  36. Elspeth says:

    Shaunti Feldhahn actually wrote a pretty good book titled “For Women Only”. it wasn’t perfect (what is), but if most wives took even half the advice in her book they’d have happier husbands.

  37. Boxer says:

    Not bad advice in terms of upholding social order, but from the perspective of a single guy that terrible advice.

    I am not a Christian, but I must say it is horrible advice and not based on a rational reading of the New Testament. The mangina who said that is ostensibly casting one of the heroes of the narrative (Mary) as a skank-ho single mom… the type of shoulder-tattooed amoral whore I see so often, bending her fat ass over in Wal-Mart.

    I don’t believe Mary existed, historically, but I know how she’s portrayed in the story of the New Testament. It’s laughably inaccurate, and I was shocked when I first read such tripe coming from the mouth of an expert on the Christian texts.

  38. Dalrock says:

    @Eric

    Single guys: don’t overlook the single moms. Jesus’ mom was a single mom & it went pretty well for Joseph.

    Not bad advice in terms of upholding social order

    Perhaps for the first generation or two which practices such advice, but over time it is a disaster.

  39. JDG says:

    Old Testament survey, New Testament survey

    These two are good. The rest not so much.

    Oh, I almost forgot: “Women’s Role In Modern Ministry.”

    If they actually used the Bible to study this, we might have less feminism in churches today.

    I guess my gripe with modern “Christian” seminaries is their projection leading away from the Bible. Most of these schools are now egalitarian and teach evolution, psychology, and other courses puffed up with human knowledge rather than taking a firm stand in the scriptures.

  40. TFH says:

    This just proves that laws are the DNA of a society. Everything flows downstream from that.

    And the laws are the product of buying votes. When women can vote, they vote for just one thing (or can be bribed into voting for such). Men don’t vote for similarly male-centric laws and memes.

    Christianity got feminized because the laws induced the govt/media to go in that direction, and religious institutions are not immune to that even if they think they are. Islam, too, would, get feminized among Muslims that live in democracies.

  41. David J. says:

    @Elspeth: “Shaunti Feldhahn actually wrote a pretty good book titled “For Women Only”. it wasn’t perfect (what is), but if most wives took even half the advice in her book they’d have happier husbands.”

    Agreed. “For Women Only” was very good. I knew that when I read it, and my opinion was confirmed when my (now ex-) wife read it and hated it.

  42. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    Shaunti Feldhahn actually wrote a pretty good book titled “For Women Only”. it wasn’t perfect (what is), but if most wives took even half the advice in her book they’d have happier husbands.

    I was wondering about her other book. It may well be good, but it doesn’t change what is being sold with this one. Moreover, I’m not sure you and I have the same view of what Christian women’s marriage books are “pretty good”. Haven’t you said the same about Sheila Gregoir’s books?

  43. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    We can recognize that the tinkering the UMC did to marriage was incredibly selfish. It still seems to be working for them, so why can’t everyone else just become the elite?

    I don’t think it was the UMC, but rather the ultra-wealhy along with the academic/non-profit crowd.

    The UMC is usually the group that has the least time for political involvement, and are the most heavily taxed while using government the least.

    I define UMC as households in the $100K to $400K income range, who work in professions that have long hours, and pay a lot in taxes. They have very little discretionary *time*.

  44. TFH says:

    Dalrock said,

    The truth is that modern Christians are deeply invested in the new model of marriage.

    This is something that a) is terrifying, and b) I would not have learned without this blog. Sure, SoCon misandry is discussed on other androsphere blogs, but not in this much detail…

    It has pretty much scared me off from marriage, even as a non-Christian, simply due to fully realizing how unfairly I would be treated unless I did 10 out of 10 things right over a multi-decade period…

    Divorce used to be rare. Now, a man has to do considerable heavy lifting just to *avoid* ruination and separation from his children.

  45. Dalrock says:

    Just from a quick perusal of “For Women Only”, it is very clearly another “relationship” book. It may be one of the better ones, but it does not appear to be a book on Christian marriage, and I’m not even sure it is positioned as one.

  46. Boxer says:

    Divorce used to be rare. Now, a man has to do considerable heavy lifting just to *avoid* ruination and separation from his children.

    Many men on this forum will attest to the fact that even if a man does the heavy lifting, it is no guarantee that he is safe. There is always a “Frenzy Jen” to whisper in the ear of a wife, magnifying her hopes of a grand and glorious future awaiting her return to the cock carousel.

    It’s the randomness of the abuse which gets me. There’s really no way to guard against it. Even the best of women seem to turn on a dime, if the right set of circumstances present themselves.

    Boxer

  47. Opus says:

    @David J.

    I am sorry to have upset you. What is one to make of a woman who claims Harvard as Alma Marta followed by Wall Street and Capitol Hill and then allegedly for no explained reason reinvents herself as some sort of relationship guru. A woman who omits her date of birth from her Wiki entry surely has something to hide. I noticed that one of the less favourable Amazon reviews of one of her endlessly rehashed books described her as having little idea about men; something she seems to share in common with Jane Austen, another wealthy woman who turned out interminable books on male-female relationship that one may not criticise without cries of heresy being levelled – a case perhaps of Ink and Incompetence. She (Feldhahn not Austen) claims amongst many other things to be a best selling author; perhaps she is, that is, if not (presently) even breaking into the top 300,000 of Amazon’s list is now regarded as best-selling. Her woolly writing in the quote used by Dalrock hardly gives encouragement that she is the analyst she claims to be or even Christian at least in the sense that I understand. Still, best foot forward and no one ever lost money writing self-help books and there are over fifty thousand on Amazon to choose from.

    Should she not be a charlatan then I must say that she, with her perfectly coiffured hair and soft-focus good looks – and perfect family – appears to be cut from the same template as so many religious gurus – frequently couples – that America produces in droves. I am more used to the likes of ‘Beardy’* and Abu Hamza – he of the one eye and one hook and presently in an American Gaol awaiting trial on Terrorism charges, so good luck with that – never saw the Mrs of either and I cannot recall any woman on my side of the pond going all religious in print – so perhaps I am mistaking the style for the content.

    * Dr Rowan Williams – the recently retired Archbishop of Canterbury.

  48. MarcusD says:

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=886530

    Comment #38

    (Reference should be “Moms'” instead of “Girls'”)

  49. donalgraeme says:

    @ Eric

    Not bad advice in terms of upholding social order, but from the perspective of a single guy that terrible advice.

    As others, including Dalrock, have pointed out that, this is absolutely, totally wrong. Far from upholding the social order, it actively works to undermine it. When you incentivize bad behavior, you will get more bad behavior. And when you “encourage” men who aren’t the fathers to marry single mothers, you are telling women that their bad behavior will cost them nothing. And so you will get more of it.

  50. jf12 says:

    Boxer’s point at 5:16 pm is stunning in its simplicity. I’m agonna call it “Mary those sluts.”

  51. Elspeth says:

    I have never read one of Sheila’s books.

  52. Elspeth says:

    Wait. I read Sheila’s sex book. My mistake. But I see that at least one man here vouched for my review of “For women only”.

  53. TFH says:

    Boxer,

    It’s the randomness of the abuse which gets me. There’s really no way to guard against it. Even the best of women seem to turn on a dime, if the right set of circumstances present themselves.

    Yeah. Scary. While a man could once expect to avoid divorce simply by not being abusive or excessively adulterous, now a man can do everything society tells him is the ‘right thing to do’ and still be destroyed…

    One more factor :

    Until recently, in first world countries, a young man had a decent risk of being sent off to war, and dying. Military service was not voluntary, and wars had casualty rates many times higher than recent wars like the Iraq War. 10-20% of young men died in battle, and this was a constant state of society. This is where the commodity of male expendability was deployed. Thus, not all women could marry.

    But now, since war deaths are trivial as a percentage of the population, the surplus ‘male expendability’ is used to underwrite feminism. Everything from cash and prizes from divorce to moral interference on single motherhood, male expendability is merely being deployed to a new place. Since men no longer die in wars in such numbers, they can be ground up in order to give women the easiest possible life.

    But the constant, male expendability, is all the same.

    The androsphere is the first awakening of the huge shift that will define the 20th century – the adjustment in relative value of male vs. female well-being. Women only produce 10-20% of their possible output of children (which is the main reason just about every society will send thousands of men to die before any woman faced real risk), while civilization is fully dependent on the work of men. This traditional allocation of risk and resources used to be for valid reasons, but is now obsolete.

  54. Farm Boy says:

    Since men no longer die in wars in such numbers, they can be ground up in order to give women the easiest possible life.

    How much longer will women get to play the victim before people start to notice?

  55. TFH says:

    How much longer will women get to play the victim before people start to notice?

    The human brain is still hardwired around the realities of the first 99.9% of human existence. Both men and women are programmed to place a woman’s well-being higher in priority than that of a man or 10 men.

    At the same time, hard work by men used to mean more of their children lived. Now, hard work by men leads to payment of mortgage interest on wooden boxes, and the purchase of purses and women’s shoes.

    So it is hard to resist this programming. But the growth rate of the androsphere is high, and continues to be high, so that is a metric of how much ‘red-pill’ conversion has happened.

  56. feeriker says:

    I guess my gripe with modern “Christian” seminaries is their projection leading away from the Bible. Most of these schools are now egalitarian and teach evolution, psychology, and other courses puffed up with human knowledge rather than taking a firm stand in the scriptures.

    Anecdotally, I have never, in an adult lifetime of church attendance that spans three and a half decades, EVER attended a church whose “Bible studies” involved studying the actual Bible itself. Instead it was inevitably, without any exception that I can recall, a study of the latest book by a best-selling churchian version of Deepak Choprah, Joyce Brothers, or Stephen Covey, a book that touched obliquely on some esoteric biblical subtext without any depth. Meanwhile, actual Bibles gathered dust and dry rot from lack of use. Answers from pastors (these were all “evangelical” Protestant churches) to the question “why are we not studying The Bible (we are calling it Bible study, are we not?) instead of the latest one-off best-seller?” prompted responses ranging from some version of “well, this book speaks about a topic of real interest” [no mention of its biblical relevance] to a bold, honest “the Bible is too hard for most people to understand” (I kid you not – a Baptist pastor actually said this to me, verbatim).

    I bring this up in light of the highlighted comment because it seems apparent that (dare I say most?) churchian CEOs consider it not in their or their churchian franchises’ best interest to have people digging too deeply into the actual word itself. There are many reasons for this, but I sense that chief among them are:

    1. Pastors realizing how poorly trained in the Bible they really are, as in the inability to study it for themselves, think critically about its plain meaning, or meditate prayerfully on its message. The thought of laypeople being able succeed at this where they have failed has unpleasant implications and therefore they discourage it, even if only passively, whenever they can.

    2. Seminaries being academic institutions like any other, and just as susceptible to the influences of the wider culture, are not eager to “rock the boat” by encouraging their charges to dive too deeply into the Scriptures lest their messages cause the churchian-mandarins-in-the-making to start questioning doctrine that not only refutes prevailing secular and unbiblical behaviors that permeate the church, but that might lead them to question prevalent doctrine too. Someone in another thread (apologies for not remembering who) made the assertion that arguably more time is spent by seminarians learning about other peoples’ (“great theologians”) views on what the Bible says rather than studying the Bible itself for themselves. This no doubt carries over as practice after graduation and ordination. Hence “Bible studies” that are no such thing, thereby helping to ensure that accommodationist churchian “junk theology” (of the type that says that a wife divorcing her husband is fine if the husband won’t submit to his wife) goes unchallenged.

  57. Anthony says:

    Opus – “Shaunti Feldhahn (strange name for a Christian?)”

    Feldhahn seems to be a perfectly good German last name – I’m not sure why, but it sounds particularly non-Jewish to me. Shaunti does sound strange, but I’ll presume that’s her parents’ odd taste, not necessarily hers. All sorts of people convert, and I wouldn’t criticize someone for honoring her parents enough to stick with the name they gave her, no matter how odd.

    But as David J says, if she’s selling bad advice, have at her for that.

  58. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    “”And while some of the bad news is accurate (for example, 41% of children are born out of wedlock), many of the most demoralizing beliefs just aren’t true.””

    Huh?

  59. David J. says:

    @Opus: You argue like a girl. I point out to you, accurately, that you’re engaging in ad hominem attacks and that your ad hominem attacks are factually inaccurate, and your response is to re-cast my objection as my being “upset” with you? And then you double down on the stupidity of your first comment.

    It’s a very good thing there are others here who present their views with more credibility, because you have none. If you were the only one in the Christian manosphere, its truths would never have a chance.

    By the way, dolt, it’s alma mater, not “alma marta.” Come back when you have a brain and not just bile.

  60. Elspeth says:

    @ Dalrock:

    It was indeed a Christian book. I suspect the reason the book was so well done is because it was not Mrs. Feldhahn pontificating.

    She interviewed about 1500 Christian men (most married if I recall, but it’s been a few years), and she basically reported her findings. The men were very honest it seems and the advice to women was basically built on what the men said in the interviews.

    – Respect
    -Submit
    -Don’t get fat and if you are fat lose weight (oh, and fix your self up while you’re at it
    -Sex (the usual)

    But I think I’ll re-read it. I only commented because someone referred to her as a charlatan and while she may be as wrong as two left shoes on this one, like most of these folks, her intentions are good.

    And yes, I know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I’m not disputing your case against her here at all.

  61. JDG says:

    How much longer will women get to play the victim before people start to notice?

    Some people will never notice. Others will pretend not to notice. Still others just won’t care. Thus is how it always was. Thus is how it always will be (at least until the end of time).

  62. enrique432 says:

    Top Ten Beta trying to avoid getting taken to the cleaners…priceless.

  63. David J. says:

    @Elspeth: “It was indeed a Christian book. I suspect the reason the book was so well done is because it was not Mrs. Feldhahn pontificating.

    She interviewed about 1500 Christian men (most married if I recall, but it’s been a few years), and she basically reported her findings. The men were very honest it seems and the advice to women was basically built on what the men said in the interviews.

    – Respect
    -Submit
    -Don’t get fat and if you are fat lose weight (oh, and fix your self up while you’re at it
    -Sex (the usual)”

    Yes — “For Women Only” has a LOT of respect and submit content. The PeacefulWife blog credits Feldhahn’s book as one of a small number of seminal books that turned her around on respect and submission. Which explains my ex-wife’s anaphylactic reaction to it.

  64. Boxer says:

    Someone ought to reach out to Michael Moore. It’s a longshot, but the chance to have a documentary filmmaker dissect the divorce courts ought not be overlooked.

    The excesses of the feminist-conservative-progressive establishment (political differences in the cathedral are only cosmetic) are self-defeating, because they tend to be such fanatics, that they often prey upon their own biggest supporters. Moore was a feminist. This seems like an opportune moment to open his eyes.

  65. enrique432 says:

    Absolutely. We need to recruit him. Baldwin actually took it further than I ever expected of a liberal…and wrote a book that actually was like a condensed, personal version of Stephen Baskervilles “Taken into Custody” (which remains THE definitive cultural higher criticism of family law). Only thing is, in the end, Baldwin pulls punches by not blaming Kim Bassinger, but instead her “handlers”, and all this. That was “signaling” to any future wives/girlfriends…that while he might bitch about them later, they can expect to be exonerated of any guilt.

    Can anyone get in touch with Moore? Guy can do a hell of a movie, true or not.

  66. Lyn87 says:

    MarcusD,

    That thread you linked from CAF… it’s the gift that keeps on giving. The woman who called JDG a troll lobbed this out there, after the wife dialed back her rhetoric quite a bit:

    … Have your girls’ night out for release… and allow him to have his guys’ night out…

    Does everyone see the point? If she wants a night out, she should just go – but if he wants a night out he needs her permission. Charming. CATHOLIC Answers Forum, was that? This is even related to the current thread, since it reinforces the idea that many people who call themselves Christians have thoroughly bought into the idea that wives are the heads of their husbands – an exact inversion of Biblical marriage. This is the same woman who called us a cult, by the way.

    As for the numbers in Feldhahn’s book – they’re nearly meaningless. Short of waiting for an entire generation to die out and collecting the numbers ex post facto, the only way to determine the probability of divorce is to divide the number of divorces in a given year by the number of marriages in that year, and track the data for a long time. The numbers don’t lie – it’s between 40% and 50%. Her statement that “72% of people are still married to their first spouse” is highly misleading – every married person who has not yet been divorced is still married to his/her first spouse. I take it mathematics isn’t taught in whatever course of study Feldhahn attended.

    The raw numbers from the CDC are here (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm) In the period spanning 2000 – 2011 there were about 26.5 million U.S. marriages and 10.7 million divorces – just over 40%. But that table does not include all the states – several states are missing for some of the years and, specifically, California is not counted at all. The fact that California is a huge state and has a divorce rate of perhaps 75% leads one to put the actual, long-term chance of divorce in the U.S. as about the same as the chances of winning a coin toss.

    She’s correct that not all marriage situations are equally prone to divorce, and at least some of those things are under the control of the participants, but the fact remains that a statistical fact may be very kind to a demographic cohort and very cruel to an individual within that cohort… especially if that individual is a man. If one controls for all the factors one can, the divorce risk is fairly low – but the penalties for failure are astronomical, so one must consider the risk / reward aspect. Needless to say, controlling for all the factors eliminates the overwhelming percentage of women before one even starts.

    feeriker,

    FWIW, I taught a class some years ago in my church – we went verse-by-verse through the Old Testament prophets, in chronological order, within their historical context. About 98% of the text was the Bible (I referred to commentaries or history books once in a while). It took three years at an hour per week.

  67. Boxer says:

    Does anyone know where Catholic Answers Forum is located? I have half a mind to write a letter to the local diocese, explaining what goes on there.

    CATHOLIC Answers Forum, was that? This is even related to the current thread, since it reinforces the idea that many people who call themselves Christians have thoroughly bought into the idea that wives are the heads of their husbands – an exact inversion of Biblical marriage. This is the same woman who called us a cult, by the way.

    Of course, we’re a cult. Never mind that I’m a totally secular Mormon who doesn’t believe in the supernatural, JDG is a Protestant Christian, some of us are Jews, there is probably a Satanist reading here, and some Hindus, etc. No religious commonality needs to exist… If we believe in a minimum standard of common decency, holding people responsible for ruining the lives of little children, and keeping their most important promises, we must be a dangerous cult, bent on world domination. We need to be stopped, I tellya!

    Boxer

  68. enrique432 says:

    I’m a born Christian of Jewish heritage (mom’s mom…legally jewish) who’s followed the Sufi path for 15 years. Ramadan and all.

  69. Dalrock says:

    @David J

    Yes — “For Women Only” has a LOT of respect and submit content. The PeacefulWife blog credits Feldhahn’s book as one of a small number of seminal books that turned her around on respect and submission. Which explains my ex-wife’s anaphylactic reaction to it.

    Good to know. Amazon must not be searching that part of the book. It says the words “submit” and “submission” aren’t found anywhere in the book. Could you provide a quote with either word? I only ask because I’ve been assured so many times before that a modern Christian book or movie is different. Every now and then they are, but I’ve learned to check for specifics to tell one from the other. If you tell me the chapter of the quote I can check it out the next time I’m in a bookstore.

  70. JDG says:

    feeriker says:
    June 5, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    While I was reading your post my head was nodding (yep! yep!) as your words brought to remembrance all the “bible studies” using other books I had witnessed in years gone by. “Knowing God”, “The Purpose Driven Church”, “Love and Respect”, and others. Most of them were questionable at best and heretical at worst.

    Come to think of it, What started me reading the Bible to begin with was Jehovah witnesses knocking on the door and getting me to read their little explanation books along with their version of the bible. After they went home, I would just keep reading. Needless to say, I tend to shy away from accompanying material of these types anymore and have for the last decade or so.

    I was fortunate on later occasions to actually be a part of several bible studies that actually did use the Bible, and the instructor knew the Bible like nobody else I have ever met in person. Unfortunately, he was egalitarian and used the “The Corinthian women were out of line” argument to explain away 1st Cor. and 1st Timothy. However, He was a staunch support of wives submitting to their husbands. I still have trouble understanding how he was able to theologically separate these two ideas.

    Nevertheless, The pastor of the church I currently attend is not egalitarian and has often conducted studies of entire books in the Bible going verse by verse. Alas we are but a small church.

  71. Dalrock says:

    Elspeth can you find a few quotes for me in that book? Since submission is a core theme of the book I assume it should be fairly easy to find a quote or two with the word. It seems strange amazon can’t find either submit or submission, but perhaps parts of the book aren’t indexed.

  72. The problem with the fact that she has a decent book out there (I’m guilty of taking that on other’s word) is that it affords her credibility among primarily emotional thinkers. “She was right about the things in the book, therefore, woooo hoooooo, now we don’t have to fight our lyin’ eyes when we read about kids with no dads”

    Right, she says divorce is up because we say divorce is up.

  73. Boxer is one didn’t know better one may think you are on a CRUSADE about CAF and CF.

  74. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    CAF is based in California (appropriately enough): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Answers

  75. JDG says:

    Lyn87 says:
    June 5, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    This is why I encouraged Be Truthful and Be Courageous not to seek council on that sight. Some there claim that CAF is not a hotbed of feminism and then we read something like this from Xantippe:

    Speaking of Girls’ Night Out, the movie is hilarious (as well as edifying). If you do Netflix, I’d put that in your queue and watch it with your husband as your home date.

    As if it is just natural for the wife to designate a “date night” for the husband. What if the husband doesn’t want to spend his time off of work watching emotion porn for women?

    Xantippe’s comment reminded me of this from FranzyJen:

    Again, nothing about your wife. I’m challenging you to put your wife first right now. Stop making yourself the victim when she is obviously hurting. Man up.

    Are men even real people to someone who thinks like this?

    And here we have “A Warning” giving her idea of sound marriage advice:

    Its important for couples to keep friends after marriage. Sure his friends may drink excessively when they go out, that doesn’t mean your hubby has to. He can be the designated driver. The point is that he has a guys’ night out with his buddies, just as you should have a girls night out with your friends

    Not only is this STUPID advice for Christians, it again puts the woman in the drivers seat.

    Submitting to the emotional whims of your wife may be common behavior in the US but it certainly isn’t biblical. These folks probably don’t even know how steeped in feminism they are. How can they when the whole of modern society doesn’t know it.

    Okay rant over (I think).

  76. JDG says:

    Marcus I blame you for all my CAF troubles…because of patriarchy and cults and stuff!!!

  77. Boxer says:

    Boxer is one didn’t know better one may think you are on a CRUSADE about CAF and CF.

    I went to a Jesuit university for undergrad and met a lot of priests, and I’m pretty sure that many (if not most) of them — despite being very liberal and humanist types — would be shocked at what goes on at CAF. Not so much the ideas, which are commonplace enough, but the fact that the ideas are promoted on a forum which purports to tell the public what Catholics believe.

    A lot of Catholic priests are, under the surface, hardcore men who believe in honor and family values. I think that forum ought to be renamed if its going to continue encouraging divorce and bastardization of children. Call it a crusade against false advertising, I suppose.

    Boxer

  78. Norm says:

    How much longer will women get to play the victim before people start to notice?
    According to Hitlery …I mean Hillary Clinton, women at home are the real victims of war!?!? But what do you expect from a disciple of Saul Alinsky and who also was a former member of the Communist party.

  79. Boxer says:

    Dear Marcus:

    Thanks very much for the research. It’s interesting to note that Catholic Answers Forum is located within the boundaries of the Diocese of San Diego.

    Unfortunately, the Bishop (Most Rev. Cirilo Flores) has suffered ill health this month, and is recovering from a stroke in hospital. The present contact under these circumstances would probably be Msgr. Steven Callahan, or Fr. Rodrigo Valdivia.

    I’m sure that respectful letters from Catholics and others will be well received, if sent c/o Diocesan Pastoral Center, 3888 Paducah Drive, San Diego, CA 92117 I’ll probably be letting these brothers know how their organization and underlying faith is being represented, perhaps with screenshots of the latest antics: showing people encouraging nice Catholics to blow up their families in divorce court.

    Boxer

  80. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I attended a Fundamentalist church for some years, and Sunday School was almost all out of the Bible verse by verse. But, frankly, the teachers were not always too smart on the Bible.

    Californa divorce rate: they no longer supply the numbers, but a few years ago, an MRA group sent in a FOI request, and got a file with all the names of those divorced. They had volunteers count them manually, and found out there were 780 divorces for each 1000 marriages. No, I can’t remember the organization name, but it was on DGM-2 as a report.

  81. MarcusD says:

    @JDG, Lyn, et al

    “Girls’ Night Out” is likely not the movie that was referred to in post #38; it was likely “Moms’ Night Out” (one blog post here on it: http://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/family-friendly-films-sabotaged-to-be-supplanted/).

  82. Angry Gamer says:

    one of the side effects of declining marriage rates is the cheapening of the institution.
    Thus paving the way for marriage to be held as “not very special” and therefore “open to all orientations”.

  83. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, I skimmed Feldhahn’s book “For Women Only” in a bookstore once[*], and recall a chapter on respect somewhere in the first half of the book, it’s something like 30 – 40 pages long. If I remember right there are some references to Bible quotes, such as Ephesians, in that chapter. I do not recall explicit references to submission by wives, but it’s been over 3 years since I looked at it and my glasses were blurrier then…

    I do recall the opening chapters discussed a survey she had commissioned, using real-deal pollsters, on several topics. One question that stuck in my head was something like “Consider two bad situations: in one you are loved but not respected, in the other you are unloved but respected”. Women chose the first by some large margin, 80% of men chose the second. Speaking from personal experience, I would choose the second, and in fact have done so from time to time. Women either don’t realize how damaging their contempt is, or they don’t care.

    Again, from memory, she does a good job on discussing respect in a multifaceted way.

    [*] Interestingly it was in the religious section of a chain bookstore, not in the “self help” or “relationships” section.

  84. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Anon Reader. That fits with what I found doing a quick search of the book. I found references to Ephesians and respect, but no submission. That would make it a well above average “relationship” book, but a very poor book on Christian marriage. However, both Elspeth and David J assure me that it focuses specifically on submission, so I’ll hold judgment pending their responses with the quotes amazon left out.

  85. JDG says:

    it’s something like 30 – 40 pages long. If I remember right there are some references to Bible quotes, such as Ephesians, in that chapter. I do not recall explicit references to submission by wives,

    This has been the evangelical theme for headship since I can remember. Lots of talk about respect, but no mention of submit or obey when it comes to instructing wives.

  86. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    The problem with the fact that she has a decent book out there (I’m guilty of taking that on other’s word) is that it affords her credibility among primarily emotional thinkers. “She was right about the things in the book, therefore, woooo hoooooo, now we don’t have to fight our lyin’ eyes when we read about kids with no dads”

    On taking others word, I’m in Reagan’s camp; trust but verify. I was told the same thing about fireproof, courageous (it isn’t anything like fireproof, I promise!) and Pastor Driscoll (you have this one wrong dalrock! He’s not like that at all!). Note also the commenters at Cane’s recently assuring him that moms night out is nothing like the trailer. I could go on, and I’m guessing you could as well.

    But to your larger point, I agree entirely. The other book could be outstanding, but it wouldn’t change the message of the articles promoting this book. Sheila Gregoire gets it right, when she isn’t getting it terribly wrong.

  87. bradford says:

    Freeriker and JDG,
    With regards to literal Bible study, I’ve had similar experiences in my church. Always seem to want to use some book by the latest Christian author. I have been involved in Bible Study Fellowship for several years now. They use verse by verse expository study and provide separate study classes for men and women. Much preferred. Men’s only classes have a significantly different dynamic than your normal coed church “Bible study”.

  88. David J. says:

    @Dalrock: “Good to know. Amazon must not be searching that part of the book. It says the words “submit” and “submission” aren’t found anywhere in the book. Could you provide a quote with either word? I only ask because I’ve been assured so many times before that a modern Christian book or movie is different. Every now and then they are, but I’ve learned to check for specifics to tell one from the other. If you tell me the chapter of the quote I can check it out the next time I’m in a bookstore.”

    I can’t provide any quotes; I don’t have the book anymore. But I’ll second and defer to Anonymous Reader’s summary; it’s been much longer than 3 years since I read it. In any event, I think it would be worth your time to review the book yourself — perhaps from a library unless/until you’ve seen enough to know whether you want to spend any money on it.

  89. BradA says:

    @Dalrock,

    > “We see this with many Christians as well; they don’t care that the new model of marriage only works for the most devout, since only the most devout matter. ”

    I don’t think you have as much evidence for this as you do for most of your positions. Some may be that way, but I am more convinced that people of all times are products of the time they live in. They may pull things a bit and a rare few even help transform their societies, but most continue in the general path their society goes, with a possibly Christianized version of it. Nothing malicious is necessarily meant, just that it is much easier to go with the general societal flow than against it.

    This doesn’t excuse anything, but it is the reason it takes tremendous effort to change things.

    @David J.

    > “But ad hominem attacks on them are completely misplaced. ”

    Certainly true, but you will find a great deal of that in spaces like this, on both sides of the issues. Few people really want to look at facts. Most want to argue that their opponent is scum of some sort. You can find the same at sites that support the modern situation as well. Few sites really have the ideal of open discussion.

    The fact that many on these sites have been burned in the process makes it even harder to keep an even keel and just argue the facts. We are human and our emotions get in the way. That kind of fits with my point to Dalrock. We are all products of our times and situations. The rhetoric has been amped today, so those who keep talking feel the need (sometimes true) to amp up the rhetoric as well.

    She was rather foolish in what she said, which doesn’t help make her case either.

    I was rather shocked that she was peddling such tripe as I found her book reasonable when I bought it and the men version years ago. I would have to listen to it again to know if I still agreed with it all though.

    @whoever

    > “Not bad advice in terms of upholding social order”

    It is horrid for that. Many of those single moms have already showed their willingness to dump one man. What is the likelihood they will remain faithful to another for life? Quite low I would assume. I don’t believe it will even help the 1 or 2 generations that Dalrock mentions. I think it is immediately fatal.

    Driscoll is an idiot. I would only marry a single mother now if I were a single guy if she had her child by God. That only happened once, all others are in a far different category.

    Dalrock,

    I found my copy of For Women Only (I was an INTENSE reader in the past). I can skim through it for quotes later, perhaps after I take a certification test in a couple of weeks, but this quote gives the context of the first part:

    Feeling respect for our husbands, but not overtly showing it is the same as their feeling love for us but not showing it!

    Need #1: Respect his judgment.

    Need #2: Respect his abilities.
    Speaking of a man not asking for directions:

    It turns out that the old joke about men never wanting to stop and ask for directions….
    When you tell him to ask for directions, you’re telling him point-blank that you don’t trust him to figure it out for himself. … Are you going to decide to trust him or not?

    No “submission” word there, but that implies the idea of letting the man lead. (I clipped a lot in that section.)

    In a section on walking through financially tough times:

    Instead, they need our steadfast belief that they will solve this problem and our steadfast offer to do what it takes to stay afloat. That may mean our willingness to in more income ourselves or expressing excitement about staying with friends at the beach in the off-season instead of going on that romantic Caribbean vacation. I say excitement rather than willingness because a man will internalize your disappointment as a person failure to provide.

    (She had talked about a man’s need to provide earlier in that section. The second excitement and willingness were in italics in the book.)

    This isn’t perfect and some would read negativity into it, but it seems that the idea of being supportive is quite tied to submission and the emphasis on excitement implies more than just a grudging “OK, I’ll do it if I have to do it” attitude.

    I can look through more later, but Elspeth may beat me to it.

  90. BradA says:

    OK, so I couldn’t resist. I skimmed the book as it is under 200 pages in a small format. I wouldn’t be surprised if submit or submission wasn’t in there anywhere, but I do think the principles are. I might be able to loan you my copy if you really want to look at it as I read far more than my wife and I am not holding my breath waiting for her to read it.

    I even bought it before Amazon it seems, so I got it a long time ago.

  91. Lyn87 says:

    Regarding “Love versus respect” —

    I was speaking with a work-mate a couple of months ago… he’s a Catholic and on his third marriage, which he somehow got his priests to sign off on – some of those guys can wrangle a technicality out of anywhere.

    Anyway, we wandered onto the topic of love and respect. My theory is that a woman wants the love of a man she respects, while a man wants the respect of a woman he loves. So I asked him which he would prefer if he had to choose only one: a wife’s love without her respect, or her respect without her love. He, like me, didn’t even have to think about it – respect wins by a landslide. I would posit that a woman cannot love a man she does not respect for very long, anyway (by which I mean the man-woman kind of love, of course – that state that is a combination of the three Greek words storge, eros, and phileo).

    That’s one reason that “A Warning’s” advice is so very bad, along with most of the rest of the women on CAF. And they’re wrong for the same reason the Driscolls and Osteens of the world are wrong – for a husband to subordinate himself to his wife will inevitably lead to her losing respect for him as a man… you cannot be subordinate to your own subordinate. Loss of her love will follow loss of respect as surely as night follows day. To accept the idea that a husband should curry his wife’s favor by following her emotional lead to win her love is to think like a woman, and is generally the exact opposite of what he should do. A woman desires love, and while a husband should be loving to his wife, habitually subordinating himself to her emotions is not loving. (Yet see how stridently FrenzyJen demands that the husband subordinate himself to his wife’s feeeeeeeelings – his grueling work schedule, plus his Master’s Degree studies, plus his C.P.A. exam, plus his having to the housework his wife isn’t doing because she’s on Facebook all day… none of that matters to Jen. He MUST be made to confess to the sin of neglect and Man UP![TM] and stop abusing his wife.)

    It’s nonsense like this that drives the divorce rate among self-identified “Christians” close to the 40% mark.

    Yeah… we should feel really good about that – we’re 20% less screwed up than the rest of the world! [(50% – 40%) / 50%]

    It’s really not that hard – husbands, love your wives. Wives, submit to and respect your husbands. Haven’t we seen this somewhere before? If churches were teaching this – and enforcing it – would the divorce rate in the church be what it is? I think not.

  92. James and the Giant Peach says:

    On Shaunti’s website she makes a list of the things men wanted to tell their wives, but usually couldn’t for one reason or another, and she claims she goes over them in the book.

    One of them being “Men love your wives, women submit to your husbands – submission and respect. * Do not make him earn it, but sow the seed and see what God will do with your obedience.”

    http://www.shaunti.com/research/survey-how-men-think/

    Another Barnes and Noble review explained that the book seemed like a mish mash of secular things and biblical things, but did in fact teach submission of the woman to the man. I myself have not read it.

    [D: Thanks! Welcome]

  93. Dalrock says:

    Thanks BradA. That description fits with my hunch that it is an above average relationship book, but not one on Christian marriage. But again, perhaps someone will find a reference to submission and put it in the other category.

  94. MarcusD says:

    Marcus I blame you for all my CAF troubles…because of patriarchy and cults and stuff!!!

    We’ll need a secret handshake soon.

  95. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    “For Women Only” uses the words “respect” and “leadership.” It also covers the topic quite briefly (about a paragraph I’d guess).

  96. ChristianKP says:

    The Message that 72 % are living together with their spouse is not very comforting as this is for all marriages regardless of their duration. Of course 100 % are living together with their spouse on the first day of marriage and it could very well be 60 % somewhere down the line. It is not shown that more fewer than 60% of marriages end in divorce.

  97. Steve H says:

    @Dalrock

    Actual divorce isn’t something they want, unless the man fails to submit to his wife’s satisfaction; in that case divorce is the vehicle to punish the disobedient husband (and frighten others who would follow) and prepare the way for a new marriage for the woman with a suitably obedient husband.

    I think this dovetails with a number of areas where secular marriage-minded men, and certainly secular relationship-minded men have it far easier than those men who are endeavoring to lead a scripturally-based marriage.

    A man is far more likely to submit to his wife’s whims, as dysfunctional as that is, when his sexual needs are not fulfilled. Thus the Matt Walsh school of shaming men for looking at porn feeds into a man’s sexual needs not being fulfilled, albeit in a less-than-ideal, arguably non-scriptural manner. I’m probably not adding anything new to the common knowledge base here in citing that.

    But I mention that to set up my secularist view that a man must know/believe that he has abundant sexual options at all times, even (perhaps especially) several years into a marriage. He of course is not to indulge those options, but he must have them. I’d posit that in this day and age, with social media blah blah blah, the only way a man can keep his wife submissive is by maintaining abundance of sexual opportunities. Opportunities that extend far beyond the oft-shamed realm of porn – real life opportunities…which, of course, he must avoid. But it seems to me that since ‘Hey babe, I’ll walk right out of this house if that sh*t continues…’ is no longer a legitimate option within the permanence of marriage (and the Biblical edict to not even discuss divorce) – the man has got to stake his claim over her hypergamy somehow. I think establishing sexual options is probably within a solid scriptural framework if the man can currently not be led into temptation. Just some thoughts I had on what you wrote above. -S.

  98. MarcusD says:

    Jill Abramson, and Why Most Women Should Cut Themselves Some Slack

    I realize the stoic male approach may not necessarily be for the best; I remember an article that suggested modern society had women who talked with their girlfriends about work, relationships, raising kids, how to get ahead, and all kinds of useful subjects, and men who talked with their guy friends about sports. The result was women quickly improved various life skills, while men learned a lot about sports. But the guys’ approach certainly is an one that involves less angst, self-doubt, and self-flagellation for failing to live up to some preconceived notion of how all of those roles should be fulfilled.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/378466/why-most-women-should-cut-themselves-some-slack-jim-geraghty

  99. SC says:

    Thank you donalgraeme and Dalrock for your answers. I think that the solution to this issue is to simply ban no-fault divorce and to return to the pre-Ronald Reagan family laws. If this does not happen, it would be a good idea to move to a country where no-fault divorce hasn’t happened yet.

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    OT NSFW Attention whore alert

    “I Am Special, I Am Special, Look At Me, Look At Me…”

    As an artiste, she is….derivative, nothing more.

  101. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD, once in a while I get a glimmer of hope that National Review writers have learned something, have put on a pair of glasses. That usually doesn’t last long.

  102. MarcusD says:

    Ashley Madison users by religion

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=887549

    Some of the main characters on CAF comment on this one.

    (Oh, and BlueEyedLady is wrong, as often is the case; it’s self-control/novelty-seeking that is the independent variable, not education or SES. If you wanted to branch it out, you could argue that SOI, Big Five, and other personality measurements are also suitable.)

    —-

    Two variables that we considered indexes of opportunity for EMS, income and employment status, were both significantly related with infidelity. The association between respondent’s income and EMS was in the hypothesized direction. The positive relationship between income and infidelity for participants earning more than $30,000 per year shows that financial means are related to the likelihood of infidelity.

    […]

    Participants’ education showed an increasing linear association with EMS, such that the more highly educated an individual, the greater the likelihood of her or him having had EMS. Participants with graduate degrees were 1.75 times more likely to have had EMS than participants with less than a high school education. Past divorce was also a strong predictor of EMS; respondents who had been divorced were almost two times more likely to report EMS at some point during their lives than were respondents who had never been divorced. As noted earlier, there was also a significant interaction between education and divorce. The association between increasing education and infidelity appeared only for respondents who had been divorced.

    Atkins, David C., Donald H. Baucom, and Neil S. Jacobson. “Understanding infidelity: correlates in a national random sample.” Journal of family psychology 15.4 (2001): 735.

    A fairly recent overview (Allen, Elizabeth S., et al. “Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement.” Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 12.2 (2005): 101-130.) backs up the above (but only just – there are variables further down that explain it). People also seem to confuse research in marital infidelity with research into extradyadic infidelity (outside of a relationship, married or otherwise).

  103. MarcusD says:

    @imnobody00

    I saw that, and another (which I most certainly cannot post here). It was done publicly in Europe, but, like a lot of modern art (“art”) calling it tasteless is too much of a compliment.

  104. MarcusD says:

  105. BradA says:

    @MarcusD, the first chapter/section is on respect. I just wrote out a small part here.

    @Dalrock,

    Does a book have to literally say “submission” and “submit” to be a marriage book? Though I would agree that this is not a full marriage book. It is just a few ideas, from men, on what they want and desire the most. The focus is still on a husband-wife relationship, not something else.

  106. Legion says:

    David J. says: June 5, 2014 at 7:31 pm
    “@Opus: You argue like a girl.”

    David J. says you cannot name call Shaunti. Obviously David J. can name call.

    Your logic is not compelling.

  107. MarcusD says:

    @BradA

    Ah, okay. I only noticed one treatment of Ephesians and leadership together in what was a fairly short section. It sounds to be a better book in light of what you’ve noted.

  108. JDG says:

    I absolutely agree with the “Love and Respect” principles found in scripture that applies to our lives. However, as I recall, to me the book “Love and Respect” is lacking as it smooths over the role of the woman much like FOtF likes to do. There were some okay ideas there, but the words submit and obey are deliberately avoided. Headship is basically reduced to suggestion-ship. My impression was that psychology is the boat, emotions are the rudder, and some scriptures are brought along for the ride.

  109. JDG says:

    Does a book have to literally say “submission” and “submit” to be a marriage book?

    It does to be a marriage book that quotes scripture. If the author isn’t willing to quote scripture when giving marital advice, I have to ask myself, “Why?”

  110. Elspeth says:

    I’ll take it on faith that the word submission isn’t to be found in the book. It’s been a good few years since I read it and I don’t own it. I am a copious user of the library.

    I do know Dalrock, that it was a report of what Christian men said they wanted and needed, not an advice book per se. I agree in large part with the distrust aimed at Christian relationship books. My experience is that a wife’s best course of action is to listen to her husband and act accordingly. Many men however, are not very direct, and most women need corroborating evidence from anyone but their husband before they act.

    Since I blog so much about marriage and interact with women IRL a lot about marriage, I make a point every now and again of reading what’s being offered to Christian women. Most of it quite frankly, crap. When someone offers something that at least points them in the right direction, I take note of that.

    Ultimately wives have to walk through the door and commit to finish doing the work to learn submission. But books like Feldhahn’s, which offered the perspective of men, is helpful in the same way that many women have had their eyes opened because of sites like this. Except her book is more woman friendly. Bonus.

    As I said, I only commented at all to address the “charlatan” accusation. I’m not a follower of any particular Christian relationship author or guru because in my opinion very few of them (save maybe Debi Pearl) goes far enough to press home the importance of submission, sex, none of it. But they are well intentioned if misguided and wrong, which is different from being a fraud or a charlatan.

  111. Opus says:

    @Legion

    David J. is only defending his acquaintance, otherwise he would not have attacked me. As the lawyers – of which he is one – always say, when you cannot attack the argument, attack the spelling (and the person). I was getting German interference and thinking of Marter(n) Aller Arten. The only person here who is allowed to correct my spelling (because he is embarrassed for me) is TFH (Cavalier Cinq). I am always happy when he does so for to receive such attention from the person whom I consider the clearest-sighted and clearest-written contributor to the Manosphere, or – as he prefers to say – the Androsphere is a great honour – even if he fails the Cricket Test. His comment at 06.08 as to male disposability is essential reading.

  112. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD re: “The association between increasing education and infidelity appeared only for respondents who had been divorced.”

    Hmm. So, given increased infidelity with SES and decreased divorce with SES, another conclusion one can draw is that infidelity is a way to avoid divorce.

  113. jf12 says:

    One big reason submission is much more important than respect is because all women wil always interpret respect to mean internal feelings.

  114. Novaseeker says:

    Hmm. So, given increased infidelity with SES and decreased divorce with SES, another conclusion one can draw is that infidelity is a way to avoid divorce.

    Haha. More seriously, what it does point out is that there are other reasons why high SES marriages are more durable.

    So here is my question for Dalrock: if all residents of the United States are all equally subjected to US laws concerning marriage, divorce, and family, and we are all subjected to the same liberal media, why is it that upper class Whites, upper middle class Whites, and Asians tend to divorce at much lower rates than Blacks, Hispanics, and prole Whites? What factors cause Asians and elite Whites to stay married? How can society use these findings to help prole Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics to also stay married?

    The factors have been explained above by others. More fundamentally, if you tie them all together, what it comes down to is that this group is generally more successful *at life* than other groups, and so it is also more successful at marriage, and for mostly the same reasons. Determination. Focus. FTO. Tremendous drive to avoid bad outcomes. Note that this does not mean that these marriages are all happy, or that they don’t suffer from affairs and so on — they do. But it does mean that these marriages weather the storm better because the people in them are very determined to stay the course to avoid both bad outcomes for children as well as adverse social/professional stigma (which applies in some areas of the country in this set still, while less so in others, provided a divorced person remarries quickly and has a decent divorce narrative and a good or passable relationship with the ex-spouse).

    It’s very hard to replicate these in the “lower” SES groups (which includes the still large middle class), because the same reasons why they are not as successful in other areas of life impede them in marriage. Essentially, the entire social order — financial, marital, etc. — is currently heavily stacked in favor of those who have the ability to out-perform others. Note that in any system people will outperform others, but a sane system organizes its economic and social institutions around the larger part of the population and not around the small number of out-performers. Our system, by contrast, is organized around the small number of out-performers and, as such, people who are not in that group are simply expected to “get better” or “be more like them” — which flies in the face of reality, Gaussian distributions and so on.

    So, the life script of late marriage, a couple of kids, egalitarian relationships, open door for divorced that is infrequently used and so on works well for the small group of out-performers because it provides time for them to develop separation from the pack in the early years, while at the same time providing easier access to divorce for that small subset of couples in this group of out-performers who well and truly hit the wall with some very bad issue in the marriage (as compared to the rest of them, who generally weather the storm in average marriages). It works for this group because of who this group is — generally the most successful people around who had to do so on their own drive and nickel (rather than the UCs, who have substantial inherited wealth — a very tiny group that has very special characteristics, of course). You’d expect them to succeed under any model other than one which is specifically designed to suppress them (e.g., an outright communist model, but even there this drive was merely redirected to the party, really). But designing the entire social order around their own strengths means that you have a social order that is a poor fit for everyone who doesn’t have those strengths in anything close to the same degree (i.e., nearly everyone else).

    So, no, can’t really replicate it down the food chain. What’s needed is instead a paradigm shift. That’s not likely because the tendency among the chattering classes (who tend to be almost all UMC) is to see the issue as being one in which the “lessers” just need to adopt the ways of being of the UMC and all will be well — that is, they all need to be very highly educated and they will then be fine — which, again, fails to recognize that some people just have skills and talents and drive that others do not (because admitting that is very taboo). instead, we have an elite which refuses to see itself as an elite and simply says to everyone else “Hey, you can be like me, too, if you just put in the work!” — which is bunk, but makes everyone feel better. So, the people who matter, in terms of writing books and articles and chatting on TV shows and so on, don’t see the issue because in the UMC around them they see it mostly working well — and that’s not wrong. What’s wrong is the idea that this model can work for everyone else and/or that everyone can be UMC if they tried hard enough. It’s that mythology that is the root of the pathological approach to the social institutions in these areas. If you design social institutions around the priorities and abilities of the small group of outperformers, you will end up with social institutions which fail in the broader demographic for the same reasons that the broader demographic does not “keep up with” the outperformers in other areas in which they are competing.

  115. Dalrock says:

    @BradA

    @Dalrock,

    Does a book have to literally say “submission” and “submit” to be a marriage book?

    No. Not at all. But you left out an important word. The distinction I was making was between a “relationship” book, and a “Christian marriage” book. If we are talking about a Christian marriage book, then leaving out headship and submission is a total fail. Moreover, as we are talking about a Christian woman teaching other women about marriage, Titus 2 is very clear. If her book to women on marriage omits the words “submission” and “submit”, then it is a double failure.

    One argument I can anticipate being made in her defense is that the words “submit” and “submission” are so toxic to modern Christian women that she may have decided to omit them entirely. But this answer says she knows Christian wives are in full rebellion against biblical marriage. If so, this doesn’t square with her most recent book at all.

    As I’ve said above, I’m open to being proven wrong by some quotes, and barring that I’m inclined to assume that “For women only” is a superior book in the relationship genre. This in fact fits with one of the statements she makes in her Catalyst article:

    Those of us who work with marriages may secretly wonder whether there is reason for our ministry, if the news about the divorce rate is better than we think.

  116. Dalrock says:

    @JDG

    It does to be a marriage book that quotes scripture. If the author isn’t willing to quote scripture when giving marital advice, I have to ask myself, “Why?”

    From the Amazon search feature I found that she references Ephesians 5 on page 20 (search for the word “Bible”). In that she only mentions husbands loving their wives and wives respecting their husbands. It is again possible that there are quotes of the word submission which none of us have yet been able to find, but from what I’ve found so far she even references one of the key passages on submission while failing to mention it. But this only reinforces your question; why?

  117. Bee says:

    @Lyn87, JDG,

    “Yet see how stridently FrenzyJen demands that the husband subordinate himself to his wife’s feeeeeeeelings – his grueling work schedule, plus his Master’s Degree studies, plus his C.P.A. exam, plus his having to the housework his wife isn’t doing because she’s on Facebook all day… ”

    The wife says she is working on a Masters degree yet she has two infants and a young husband trying to get established in a career (studying for CPA exam). The root of this wife’s problems is she has not embraced her role as a young wife and young mother – to be a helpmeet to her husband and his career and an involved mom to their children. She is feeling stress and envy because her priorities and goals are un-Biblical for a young wife.

  118. Lyn87 says:

    BradA says:
    June 6, 2014 at 2:11 am

    Does a book have to literally say “submission” and “submit” to be a marriage book? Though I would agree that this is not a full marriage book. It is just a few ideas, from men, on what they want and desire the most. The focus is still on a husband-wife relationship, not something else.

    Brad, the following comment is not directed at Feldhahn’s book (about which I know next-to nothing and may well be fine for all I know), but rather a straight-up answer to the question you posed. Scripture answers the question (emphasis added):

    Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

    Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-24, 33 – NASB).

    The rest of the passage largely deals with the same themes. Husbands have to do one thing – love their wives as they love themselves… as Christ loves the church (that is a tall order). Wives have to do two things – submit to, and respect, their husbands. A marriage book that doesn’t talk about wifely submission is like a book about aerodynamics that omits any reference to lift.

    If any CAF-types are lurking: any advice that runs contrary to that is heresy. To give advice that is contrary to that is sinful. Someone ought to let FrenzyJen know that, since she seems to think that the discredited Duluth Model is more authoritative than scripture.

  119. Casey says:

    @Eric & Dalrock

    “Single guys: don’t overlook the single moms. Jesus’ mom was a single mom & it went pretty well for Joseph.” – Marc Driscoll (clown)

    Eric said:

    “Not bad advice in terms of upholding social order, but from the perspective of a single guy that terrible advice.”

    Agreed – this is horrific advice for single men, and particularly single men who have no children of their own yet.

    I shunned women with children when I was dating….as it sucks rocks. Why do I, a widower with one child, want to latch on to someone else’s children? What is in this situation for me?

    I suppose I might feel differently for a woman who was put in that situation by the death of a spouse as opposed to divorce and/or out of wedlock children.

    (Cue the “Where have all the GOOD men gone?” theme.)

    Dalrock said:

    “Perhaps for the first generation or two which practices such advice, but over time it is a disaster.”

    We are in the middle of that disaster right now. The 2nd generation is right in the middle of this clusterfuck as we speak.

    You want to see the future of marriage in western nations? Look to Jamaica.

  120. jf12 says:

    Bee pointedly nails it. “She is feeling stress and envy because her priorities and goals are un-Biblical for a young wife.”

  121. BradA says:

    That must be the newer version of the book Dalrock. Mine doesn’t have any Scripture in or around page 20. I am strong on the Scriptures, but I am not sure it is as vital to have Scriptural quotes when you are reporting the results of a survey of men on what they want.

    Note that it is quite possible the results were still tainted by what men thought they were supposed to want. Some things did come through regardless, but the terms they use could fully conform to the modern feminist focus. I would have to think more about that and spend more time at it then I probably will.

    3 chapters out of 9 deal with sex. One specifically covers how much men need sex. One is on how important it is for the wife to stay attractive. A third covers how men operate visually and see things through such a lens, including at work. That seems like strong coverage of sex to me.

    I would have to agree Dalrock that this is a relationship book. I believe the principles are consistent with submission, for example, but it does not focus on that because most men think more of the results of that submission than the act of submission itself. Respect arises out of proper submission. Perhaps it would be better to say it drives a proper respect.

    It is much harder for a wife to submit if she has no respect, but it is hard to stay respectful without submission. I believe the quote I had above about not questioning a man who is trying to find his way is a practical example of submission, even if it is not called that.

    I am not sure what the newer version adds, but I doubt the main focus of the book has changed significantly.

  122. BradA says:

    Casey, you would not be the typical single male without children if you have a child yourself. I could still understand your position, but it does remain a bit hypocritical to want to be accepted with a child and yet refuse to do so in reverse. Reminds me of the “I slept around quite a bit, but I wanted a virgin when I married” idea. Probably a good idea for marital stability, but not quite balanced.

  123. BradA says:

    All of you can read the blurb at Amazon, but I didn’t find anything on the back of the book claiming it was a marriage book. The claim made is that it gives insight into what men want, not marriage itself. Any application to marriage would be implied based on that, not direct. Following many of the advice points she has would certainly help out most marriages though, which is why many would likely label it a marriage book.

  124. greyghost says:

    Nothing wrong with how Casey feels he is a widower. Also on a same note god has this strange way with widowed women with children. For some reason they seem better than a slut with meal tickets. (or as I now use on yahoo comments divorce orphans) Casey if you don’t want a chick with kids …..with confidence, don’t.

  125. Lyn87 says:

    Brad writes to Casey:

    …I could still understand your position, but it does remain a bit hypocritical to want to be accepted with a child and yet refuse to do so in reverse. Reminds me of the “I slept around quite a bit, but I wanted a virgin when I married” idea…

    While you are correct that it is hypocritical for a non-virgin man demand virginity in a wife, Casey’s position is not hypocritical in the slightest, since Casey is a single parent because he is a widower (emphasis added):

    I shunned women with children when I was dating….as it sucks rocks. Why do I, a widower with one child, want to latch on to someone else’s children? What is in this situation for me?

    I suppose I might feel differently for a woman who was put in that situation by the death of a spouse as opposed to divorce and/or out of wedlock children.

    To complete the circle – since he does not say that he would object to a woman declining to marry him because of his children, his stated position is entirely reasonable and consistent.

  126. jf12 says:

    re: Jamaica. I found these stats indicating 12% of marriages fail per year!

    http://statinja.gov.jm/marriagedivorce.aspx

    Also, demographics say that that only 22% of the population is married anyway.

  127. Casey says:

    @ Lyn 87
    Thank you
    By the way……….never married women with no children actually DO reject a man with a full-time child.

    @ Brad A
    I never said I was the typical single man without children. I said a man in that position is getting a terrible deal marrying some divorcee (or baby momma) with kids.

  128. Lyn87 says:

    I just realized that I stated something as an absolute that is actually conditional – I knew what I meant, but let me clarify before somebody quibbles with my wording. I wrote:

    … you are correct that it is hypocritical for a non-virgin man (to) demand virginity in a wife…

    Obviously I am not referring to people who are not virgins because of rape or prior marriages that ended in the death of the other spouse (or a chaste man who divorced an adulterous wife, as per Matthew 19). If Casey was a virgin groom, never cheated on his wife, and remained chaste after being widowed, and he was dating a woman who had never been married, it would not be wrong for him to expect her to be a virgin, and reject her if she was not. He would not be REQUIRED to reject her, of course, but a man in such a situation is not to be blamed or shamed if he so chooses.

  129. Dalrock says:

    @BradA

    All of you can read the blurb at Amazon, but I didn’t find anything on the back of the book claiming it was a marriage book. The claim made is that it gives insight into what men want, not marriage itself. Any application to marriage would be implied based on that, not direct. Following many of the advice points she has would certainly help out most marriages though, which is why many would likely label it a marriage book.

    Yes. This is what I was getting at way upthread when I wrote:

    Just from a quick perusal of “For Women Only”, it is very clearly another “relationship” book. It may be one of the better ones, but it does not appear to be a book on Christian marriage, and I’m not even sure it is positioned as one.

  130. JDG says:

    Dalrock says:
    June 6, 2014 at 8:10 am

    Yes. I was trying to imply that the words “submission” and “submit” (and I would add “obey”) need to be in the writings for it to be a marriage book based on Bible teaching. I often forget that other people can’t read my mind. I should really know better after all of the “bible based” marriage books I’ve seen quote scripture, yet manage to overlook Col 3:18, Pet 3:1, Titus 2:3-5, and of course Eph 5:22 (except when making the erroneous mutual submission claim).

    Here is another example of marital advice to women. The topic is “Submission”:

    http://www.girlsgonewise.com/7-misconceptions-about-submission/

    Here is an excerpt:

    Misconception #4: Submission is a right—a husband has the right to demand his wife’s submission.

    A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.

    Here is a small portion of “Misconception #5:

    A Christian’s first responsibility is to submit to the Lord and His standard of righteousness. A wife is not called to submit to sin, mistreatment, or abuse. … Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

    Well, at least she actually used the words “submit and submission” (but not the word “obey”). I did not see a single quote from the Bible in that list (not that it would have mattered I suspect as context is critical).

  131. Lyn87 says:

    JDG,

    Funny how husbands have no rights with regard to what their wives do, but the same people have no problem whatsoever in declaring that wives have rights with regard to what their husbands do.

    A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call.

    So according to those heretics, a wife gets to decide when (if ever) Ephesians 5: 22-23 applies to her, even though wifely submission in scripture has no such qualifiers, and husbands have no right to demand that she just do what she agreed to do as an explicit condition of marrying him… however, if HE doesn’t perform to HER liking, she gets to “enact consequences”:

    Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

    I wonder what consequences they had in mind. Just kidding, we all know what they are. You can bet they include withholding the sex to which he is entitled, and using the power of the state (or the credible threat thereof) to throw him out and separate him from his children, his money, and his freedom.

    These people ought to read James 3:1 (“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment..”) and tremble.

  132. Dalrock says:

    @JDG

    Dalrock says:
    June 6, 2014 at 8:10 am

    Yes. I was trying to imply that the words “submission” and “submit” (and I would add “obey”) need to be in the writings for it to be a marriage book based on Bible teaching. I often forget that other people can’t read my mind. I should really know better after all of the “bible based” marriage books I’ve seen quote scripture, yet manage to overlook Col 3:18, Pet 3:1, Titus 2:3-5, and of course Eph 5:22 (except when making the erroneous mutual submission claim).

    Your point was clear, but mine probably wasn’t. I was reinforcing what you wrote.

  133. Anonymous Reader says:

    Returning to the OP, I looked over a couple of the links and while the work is not quite in the “How To Lie With Statistics” category, there appears to be some cherry-picking going on.

    Novaseeker up thread posted a very cogent comment on why divorce in the Upper Middle Class is not the same sort of problem as it is in the middle class and lower down the socio economic strata.

    If someone were to write an article that focused exclusively on the marriages of professionals who gross in excess of $250,000 / year, it would be obvious to any honest observer that the data set was so skewed as to make it impossible to draw any conclusions about middle class people. It appears to me that the metrics used in Feldhahn’s article are somewhat similar, such as the use of the babyboom data to draw conclusions about society in general. I realize that boomers remain convinced they are the center of the universe, but it is not so. The leading edge of the boomers is over 65, the trailing edge is over 50. One cannot generalize from someone nearing retirement age and draw conclusions about 20-somethings, not legitimately. But it’s easier to be sure, just as it’s easier to vary the definition of “christian” as required to get a comfortable data set. We’ve seen the latter in more than a few ways.

    Also it is most interesting how Feldhahn and others skate around the out-of-wedlock birth rates, both broken down by race and for the US at large; if marriage is “doing fine”, then why are 40% of children born to women who aren’t married? Why are 50% of children born to women under 30 bastards?

    There’s way too much rearranging of the deck chairs going on, in these articles, and given Feldhahn’s previous polling work that was the basis of For Women Only it is disappointing to see such inferior work in the latest writings. Perhaps the pollsters mentioned in the first book were not available for more recent work, and Feldhahn doesn’t understand the fundamentals of polling in a probabilistic way?

  134. Anonymous Reader says:

    And now re-re-reading the OP I note that at the tail of the posting Dalrock points out he’s not focusing on the numbers.

    Got to agree that the premises – stated and unstated – are more interesting to ponder.

  135. Lyn87 says:

    AR,

    Your critique is spot-on. One problem with estimating divorce rates is that they change over time, and it takes years or even decades to get the numbers even close to being right, and then only in retrospect. (Disclosure: depending on where one draws the line, I’m either a Boomer or a Gen-X’er. My wife is Gen-X.) We know a lot about the Baby Boomers because they entered their original marriages so long ago that the vast majority of Boomer marriages that were going to fail have already done so, while the vast majority of 20-something marriages that were going to fail have not done so yet. Current data tells us little about how many Millennial marriages are going to fail. (That’s part of why “72%” is so misleading – she acts as if that means that all of those marriages are for life, while the data do not support that conclusion.) We can make – at best – semi-educated estimates, but it will take years before we can say anything definitive with any degree of confidence.

    That’s why I stated up-thread that the only way to keep up at all is to divide divorces by marriages over several years. It’s a blunt instrument, but anything else is asking for more fidelity from the data than it can deliver with much accuracy, although that is less true of older age cohorts than younger ones.

    … and the definition of “Christian” used in most of surveys is (Shall we say?) problematic at best.

  136. Novaseeker says:

    It seems that one key statistic is one that isn’t generally readily available for a statistically relevant set — i.e., the percentage of people who have been married once and are still married to that person, broken down by length of the marriage, age, etc. So you could slice it to say — these are people who are 50 who are currently married to the only person they have ever been married to, and the marriage has been in effect for 20 years, and so on. I don’t think we have the basic underlying info to compile that kind of stat, so we tend to use stats that divide divorces and marriages or assess divorces per 1000 people or what have you, which are trying to extrapolate a bit because we don’t have the underlying data that tells us, for a statstically relevant set of people, what percentage of them are actually still married to their first spouse.

  137. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87
    We know a lot about the Baby Boomers because they entered their original marriages so long ago that the vast majority of Boomer marriages that were going to fail have already done so, while the vast majority of 20-something marriages that were going to fail have not done so yet.

    I believe this is referred to in other contexts as “survivor bias”.

    (That’s part of why “72%” is so misleading – she acts as if that means that all of those marriages are for life, while the data do not support that conclusion.)

    The “72% still married” number is similar to the story about the man who fell off of a 100 story building, and has he plunged past the 70th floor was asked, “Hey! How ya doin’?” to which he replied, “Eh, so far, so good…”.

    Or, if you prefer, as Yogi Berra once said, it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

    … and the definition of “Christian” used in most of surveys is (Shall we say?) problematic at best.

    The Barna group survey insisted on interviewing women who were not “Easter / Christmas” church attenders. One could refine the definition so tightly as to have a tiny data set, but on the other hand…”No True Scotsman” rears his head.

    Here are links to an article discussing the survey, and the Barna page.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchformen/2013/09/the-1-idol-christian-women-worship/

    https://www.barna.org/culture-articles/585-christian-women-today-part-2-of-4-a-look-at-womens-lifestyles-priorities-and-time-commitments

    Of interest in this thread is “what comes first in the married self-described Christian woman’s life”. That is, does she identify as a mother, as a Christian, as a wife, or something else.

    I wasn’t surprised by the results, some others might be. And yeah, it affects divorce rates.

  138. feeriker says:

    Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that sherespects her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-24, 33 – NASB).

    In a blinding flash of the obvious that gives me chills to think that I didn’t notice it decades ago, note how Paul does not charge wives with loving their husbands. Leaving aside the fact that First Century marriages, like those throughout most of human history, were arranged affairs in which “love” was not even a relevant consideration, does it also seem logical that Paul’s omission of this directive is a recognition of reality similar to that of Old Testament passages concerning contentious wives? In other words, does Paul recognize that most wives are fundamentally and structurally incapable of loving their husbands and that respect and submission, the two most important wifely qualities for a successful marriage, are going to be difficult enough to obtain without asking for a superfluous “nice to have” on top of them that is generally unrealistic and all but impossible to obtain?

    Just askin’.

  139. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    And now re-re-reading the OP I note that at the tail of the posting Dalrock points out he’s not focusing on the numbers.

    Got to agree that the premises – stated and unstated – are more interesting to ponder.

    Thanks. It took some effort, but I have no question it was the right choice. I may still decide to write up a post on some of the problems with her numbers/analysis.

    The Barna group survey insisted on interviewing women who were not “Easter / Christmas” church attenders. One could refine the definition so tightly as to have a tiny data set, but on the other hand…”No True Scotsman” rears his head.

    After years of torture, the Barna data finally confessed!

  140. MarcusD says:

    So, CAF frequently brings up this verse as “debunking” of 22-23:

    Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (21)

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/ephesians/5.html

  141. JDG says:

    Lyn87 says:
    June 6, 2014 at 11:49 am

    Exactly!

    Dalrock

    Your point was clear, but mine probably wasn’t. I was reinforcing what you wrote.

    I re-read your post and realize that I misread what you wrote. My bad, but it’s all good.

  142. Martian Bachelor says:

    > …another one on Catalyst (OP)

    aaronthejust linked to that previously in the comments.

    I was going to suggest they familiarize themselves with the little known details of the story of Pandora’s box: when it was emptied, the only thing left was… hope.

    Which is exactly where they are.

    When that’s all it’s down to, one is in much worse shape than one thinks. The hope preachers don’t realize how depressing they really are, since they got nothing.

  143. TFH says:

    Opus,

    I am always happy when he does so for to receive such attention from the person whom I consider the clearest-sighted and clearest-written contributor to the Manosphere, or – as he prefers to say – the Androsphere is a great honour –

    Thanks.

    even if he fails the Cricket Test.

    Wait, I thought I passed the test, as in I root for America rather than the country my ancestors were from. I thought that meant passage of the test.

    Passage = More assimilated
    Failure = Less assimilated/less loyal to one’s new country.

    Unless it is the reverse….correct me if I am wrong.

  144. jf12 says:

    @feeriker, ” In other words, does Paul [under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit] recognize that most wives are fundamentally and structurally incapable of loving their husbands and that respect and submission, the two most important wifely qualities for a successful marriage, are going to be difficult enough to obtain without asking for a superfluous “nice to have” on top of them that is generally unrealistic and all but impossible to obtain?”

    Yes, very yes. What’s worse, to me, is I was TOLD this in my early 20s by my pastor and I nodded stupidly and thought I was agreeing with him by believing almost the exact opposite. I thought wives just naturally loved their husbands even without respecting their husbands, and that a husband’s love would make it easier for his wife to respect him, but I was wrong.

    Two more points about Eph 5:33. First, notice who is *responsible* for getting the wife to respect her husband: she is. It is NOT the husband’s job to command respect; the Bible says it’s the wife’s job to see to it herself. Second, the word “respect” there means “fear”. The Greek word phobeo is best translated “be absolutely terrified of”, i.e. to fear with overwhelming feelings of self-weakness and vulnerability.

    I’m probably making part of the case against a man actively engaging in Dread by pointing out it’s the wife’s job to see to it herself.

  145. empathologism says:

    Lyn

    I agree that that I’d prefer respect to love if choice was necessary. I also agree a woman who respects her husband will find herself able to be and do the things that make a wife a good wife and a marriage more harmonious.

    I can’t leave it at that though. To leave it at that is to beg the problem to become “man up and she will then respect you” I know you didn’t go into this so Ive no quarrel with you.

    Women, to respect a normal husband, simply MUST take control of thoughts and emotions. My wife used to concern herself with every little thing in my life that may happen to be something she would not approve of. Thankfully she left that mostly behind years back but it still manifests occasionally. For example, a churchian woman will find the man’s manner or or lack of adequate “spiritual leadership in the home” as a means to not respect him. She may find his choices of fiction reading, movies, music (and I’m not saying the guy is watching porn or even disguised porn and listening to “bitches and ho’s ” music. In other words, her approval, her blessing, on him, breath by breath, or respect falters as she squirms in her ever expanding maelstrom of irreconcilable emotions.

    This is not a submission issue per se. But it is a divorce issue for sure.

  146. mojohn says:

    feeriker at 1:00 pm:

    You are correct that in Ephesians, Paul commands nothing regarding a woman’s obligation to love her husband. However, in Titus 2:3-5, Paul instructs older women to teach the following (NASB):

    Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may [b]encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

    So, women are expected to love their husbands but it’s a learning process as to how they do so.

  147. JDG says:

    Women, to respect a normal husband, simply MUST take control of thoughts and emotions.

    I thought this was a given. Taking control of thoughts and emotions is a must do for all Christians.
    2 Corinthians 10:5
    “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,”

  148. feeriker says:

    @mojohn

    Yes, I reflected on Titus 2 before I wrote my last post, and it prompts a question: from where are these older, presumably wiser women charged with mentoring the younger ones assumed to have acquired this elusive “love” for their husbands? I find it curious that Paul mentions “love” here, but says not w word about it in Ephesians. If we suppose that Paul’s presumption in his letter to the church at Ephesus is that women are incapable as a sex of loving their husbands (and thus not commanded to do the impossible), then from where are older women believed to acquire the ability to do so, let alone teach their daughters this exceptional trait (which reason and life experience would suggest isn’t something “teachable”).

    The answer, of course, is through prayer, self-discipline, and full submission not only to the husband, but to the will of God. However, I’m compelled to believe that even as he wrote it (moved by the Holy Spirit), Paul must have viscerally assumed that, realistically, the odds of it becoming either widespread practice or conspicuously successful were miniscule.

  149. mojohn says:

    Feeriker, you may be right. However, God doesn’t instruct/command us to do things we are incapable of doing. By necessary implication, then, it must be possible for women to learn to love their husbands.

    I note parenthetically that the love older women are to teach younger women to develop is “phileo” – friendship love – rather than “agape” – self-sacrificing love (which seems to be the unspoken foundation for Paul’s instructions in Ephesians where respect and submission would be external evidences of agape).

  150. Dalrock says:

    @mojohn

    Feeriker, you may be right. However, God doesn’t instruct/command us to do things we are incapable of doing. By necessary implication, then, it must be possible for women to learn to love their husbands.

    I note parenthetically that the love older women are to teach younger women to develop is “phileo” – friendship love – rather than “agape” – self-sacrificing love (which seems to be the unspoken foundation for Paul’s instructions in Ephesians where respect and submission would be external evidences of agape).

    Is what Peter instructs wives to do in 1 Pet 3 not self sacrificing? Submitting to a husband who doesn’t obey the word, on the chance that this might inspire him to seek out Christ seems very agape to me. We tend to dismiss this today because we assume 1 Pet 3 doesn’t really mean what it says, but if you consider how hard some men can be (and this in the ancient world), and what the Apostle Peter is telling wives of such husbands to do, there is an incredible amount of longsuffering there. I think we can get too hung up on the word agape and miss agape when it is described but the specific Greek word isn’t used.

  151. Dalrock says:

    I may have missed an important part of your comment on first reading mojohn. We may well be in agreement:

    Paul’s instructions in Ephesians where respect and submission would be external evidences of agape

  152. Pingback: Father Knows Best: First June Weekend Edition | Patriactionary

  153. Craig says:

    I’d like to get married and have kids but it’s too risky. I am saving up for a surrogate as I do not want to be enslaved by a currupt family court as well as have my kids kidnapped from me. It’s not ideal but in my opinion it is the lesser of two evils. Damn you baby boomers that stood by and did nothing and because you were too cowardly to stand up to these idiots, I hope you rot in hell.

  154. TFH says:

    Craig,

    Google ‘Toban Morrison’ if you have not already. He is a guy featured in the newspaper for having hired a surrogate to become a single father..

    So there are some men doing it…

  155. Hugh Mann says:

    “These two charts from OkCupid founder @christianrudder’s new book will disturb you deeply.”

    Only if you don’t think realistically about the world, or don’t read these blogs.

    Chart 1 – “women’s age vs the age of the men who look best to them”.
    Chart 2 – “men’s age vs the age of the women who look best to them”

  156. jf12 says:

    @Craig, I think the current social system will look MUCH more favorably upon you for parenthood (giving you priorities for adopting and/or surrogacy) if you team up with another man and pretend to be gay for this purpose. Sadly, I’m serious.

  157. jg says:

    @Darlock “I may still decide to write up a post on some of the problems with her numbers/analysis.”

    Please do, her numbers/analysis do seem rather impressive.

    In other News:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/melanie-griffith-files-divorce-antonio-banderas/story?id=24028646

    and she wants spousal support even though she should be rich from her own money.

  158. Charts not deeply disturbing. The sample muct have been too small because there are odd out data points like woman 45 prefers man 30.

    Or….remember the recently parsed barna study where they concluded this:

    Still, the way women describe themselves reveals something: they seem to know how they want to be perceived by others.

    Still, the way women describe themselves reveals something: they seem to know how they want to be perceived by others.

    In a large enough sample the effects described by that quote would wash out that 45/30 data point

    It appears to be one women at each age on chart 1 and one man at each age on chart 2. But Im not chasin’ it down because its a survey, and when women are surveyed, they offer one of the magic 8 ball choices…..”ask me again later”

  159. Dalrock says:

    @jg

    Please do, her numbers/analysis do seem rather impressive.

    Which parts do you find the most compelling? This would help me focus.

  160. jg says:

    @Darlock
    the part about the boomers. I realize that “among those who have only been married once” might be a bit of slight of hand, but if its close to accurate then that would say a lot about the longer term success of marriage regardless of christian framing.

  161. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ June 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm:
    “The truth is that modern Christians are deeply invested in the new model of marriage. … As I’ve shown in countless examples, modern Christians really like the new model.”

    Can this be true? Not just the inevitable top evil-doers but the majority of priests, pastors and chaplains are acting out of malice, not ignorance and fear?

    Hmm. I left my most recent church in January when it began having women openly teaching men. I’d invested in the church and had the sympathetic ear of the leadership. I had talked repeatedly to them about female submission in church and their response was believing that the relevant passages of the Bible only applied to the first-century Christians Paul wrote his letters to, and so all other Christians were allowed to do the exact opposite. None of those people struck me as evil but I never understood how educated pastors could believe that, or not realize the consequences of “that was then, this is now” thinking.

    To think that they were inventing lies to justify disobedience… well, Occam’s Razor. It fits. They would have at least considered my words, otherwise. Nobody would believe those ridiculous false statements… unless they wanted to… not ignorant… Oh, God. This is bad.

  162. I’d like to get married and have kids but it’s too risky. I am saving up for a surrogate as I do not want to be enslaved by a currupt family court as well as have my kids kidnapped from me. It’s not ideal but in my opinion it is the lesser of two evils. Damn you baby boomers that stood by and did nothing and because you were too cowardly to stand up to these idiots, I hope you rot in hell.

    What are the two evils?

    Do you not see the irony in your post? You assign a prior generation to hell as you………
    Go get busy fixing the problem? No
    Dig in and see if the problem spiked and diminished coincident with baby boomers reaching old age? no
    Seek to better yourself, the only person you can truly control? Nope

    Make a silly comment, “I’m saving up”….and indicate that you’ve decided the opposite extreme, that mothers have no value to children

    DING DING DING

  163. jg says:

    @Craig
    Both you and the child would be better of if you at least considered coparenting.

    http://www.coparents.com/

  164. feeriker says:

    I had talked repeatedly to them about female submission in church and their response was believing that the relevant passages of the Bible only applied to the first-century Christians Paul wrote his letters to, and so all other Christians were allowed to do the exact opposite. None of those people struck me as evil but I never understood how educated pastors could believe that, or not realize the consequences of “that was then, this is now” thinking.

    Gunner, you were witnessing the churchian hamster in action, a creature that makes the generic female hamster seem like a dust mite by comparison (the churchian hamster also is arguably much more destructive than the female hamster).

    I assume that by “their response” you mean the churchian CEO’s response to your completely biblical rebuke (not to say that the church elders or other active members would have had an opinion that was any different than the CEO’s). I would like to say that the CEO really was ignorant of the truth, especially if he was a graduate of one of the ignorance factories once known as seminaries, most of which are now simply dogmatic indoctrination centers that teach accommodation to the temporal culture rather than focus on the true meaning of the Bible. On the other hand, it’s just as likely that the CEO knew good and well that the Bible means EXACTLY what it says in plain language (if this particular passage applies only to “First Century Christians,” then the logical follow-up question, to ask it in the bluntest way possible, is: then why the hell should we believe that any of the rest of the Bible, written well before the First Century, is applicable to the modern era?). He and the rest of the congregation have simply capitulated to the culture, as is par for the course for the typical churchian franchise. It’s “just too hard” to “Christian up” and follow the word as God decreed it. To do so might mean … like, well, … suffering for their beliefs or something. Ewwwww!

  165. MarcusD says:

    @Hugh Mann

    Interesting tweet. The responses are quite a read, too (i.e. hilarious :D – e.g. the guys running in to say how they’ll date much older women).

  166. amanhiswife says:

    I have seen all the christian blogs in the past couple of weeks doing exactly as you say, “being delighted with the current divorce rates” as were reported by this author. They’ve all doted on the statistics presented in this book. Their exact message by Sheila Gregoire and Paul Bylerly was “marriage done our way is successful!”

  167. Boxer says:

    Hugh Mann:

    Saw that yesterday on twitter. It seems to roughly correlate with Rollo’s old graphic about SMV, putting the women at the peak of attractiveness in a sharp curve around the early 20s, and the men in a long, broad curve, beginning in mid 20s, and ending in early 40s. Just as we’d suspect here in the androsphere.

    Boxer

  168. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Amanhiswife. Do you have any links to that?

  169. Mark says:

    @TFH

    “”Google ‘Toban Morrison’ if you have not already. He is a guy featured in the newspaper for having hired a surrogate to become a single father..””

    I remember reading about this guy in the TO Star.I wish him all the best with his endeavor.In fact,I think he will be creating a trend that will be picking up steam.

  170. Luke says:

    I’ve previously read about Toban Morrison. I approve in principle what he’s done. However, I have an issue with his using an Indian ova donor. It makes him nearly as much of a biological dead end as when a white chick has a kid by a ghetto homie, a sort of voluntary cuckold, even though the kids is technically genetically his (and will be his culturally). The Third Worlder is dominant, as a kind of rounding down. Had he stayed in his own race (or at least picked, say, a Eurasian half-Japanese, say), I’d think more highly of it. Were I alone, I could seem myself as choosing to have done similarly to him, with that alteration. (My wife and I have 23-month old twins via ova donor and gestational surrogate, so this isn’t purely hypothetical for us.)

  171. greyghost says:

    The first time I heard of a man using a surrogate were these fellas here

    http://www.whatsonningbo.com/news-675-hk-land-tycoon-s-son-lee-ka-kit-47-probed-over-surrogate-triplets.html

    I think it is cool. I would do it in a heart beat.

  172. BradA says:

    I don’t buy the idea that women can’t love. I am convinced that “love” is far easier for them. The other things, such as submission are much more difficult.

    Jesus said we were to be “perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect,” so he had not problem requiring impossible things of us. We should always strive toward many things we cannot hit.

    What Scriptures do those of you who claim women can love find that in? A lack of focusing on something does not prove it is impossible, it just proves it is not focused on.

    ====

    On the “72% of those in first marriages are still married stat” – this is meaningless as I thought someone noted above. The only baby boomers this includes are those who only had a single marriage. It completely eliminates those who have had more than one. I have no idea how big that group is, but I would guess it is significant enough to skew the number much lower. You would need to include all baby boomers to make that even somewhat meaningful. You would also need to look over their lifetime as they may be married now yet still divorce before one or both partners die, pushing its value down even further.

    Either way, a 72% number would not be anything to boast at. It would still mean 28% failed which is more than 1/4 of that population and thus is horrid. The fact it is misleading and incomplete makes that part even worse!

  173. Ras Al Ghul says:

    “Pastor Driscoll’s tweet comes to mind:

    Single guys: don’t overlook the single moms. Jesus’ mom was a single mom & it went pretty well for Joseph.”

    Making the virgin Mary out to be a single mom, emphasis on virgin there, is really offensive if you believe in her story. She isn’t a single mom.

    Second, Driscoll isn’t really thinking it through because it didn’t turn out well for Joseph in any of the traditonal senses for a man:

    1) According to catholic tradition, and the traditions of many churches, Mary remains a virgin, which would mean a) Joseph didn’t have sex b) he didn’t end up having any biological children of his own.

    2) Leaving aside the redemption side of things, from a this world perspective, Joseph ends up raising a boy that ends up spending a lot of time talking, and hanging out with his friends, but not really working, and eventually gets tried as a criminal (however unjust that is) and dies at 33, again by tradition without leaving any grandchildren.

    So frankly, while Jospeh is saved and that is certainly more important than any thing else in this world, he ends up in a sexless marriage without any biological legacy rasing a child that gets condemned as a criminal.

    This is not going “pretty well for Joseph.”

    I’m not seeing where a man should have any buy in when you are dealing with nonvirgin women where there’s isn’t even redemption available (and from a biblical perspective if they’re divorced women, you’re committing adultry which puts your soul in jeopardy).

  174. greyghost says:

    Women do not love never have. men love and are where the idea of romance comes from. Women can only gina tingle and to them that is love. Half the shit going in the world wouldn’t be possible if I were not true. Women will only submit to gina tingle. Though gina tingle is an emotional and sexually based it can be largely driven and influenced by social status in the herd and material comfort and fear. ( fear is reality based term like pragmatism comes to mind) when pedestalized the pragmatic guidance of fear is removed and the herd status delusion takes over and you have the irrational madness you have now. The other female characteristics of aversion to responsibility, solipsism, selfishness, insecurity etc. come into play. fear is still a required for gina tingle. To get it we have drama. “let’s you and him fight”, the victim at all cost, the bad boys etc. You then have the rebellion and the strong woman thing. Love has no place in any of that. Because it isn’t there to start with.
    Game and the bible taps into all of this. For both to be effective a man is to not focus on pleasing her. Women submit to their husbands out of pure wicked selfishness and for no other reason. no woman submits for the good of society or to benefit the children and the marriage for the sake of her husband. That is lazy and wicked for any man to preach that or run a society in such a way. It is what we are doing now in the west. Each OP and article that we have and discuss always in the end but up against the laws of misandry. The well being of the nation and western civilization is by law based on female submission. Not a good bet at all.The only thing a civilized society should ever depend on female submission for is that should be a means for an individual woman to selfishly find joy and happiness. They don’t love and it is normal.

  175. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Sorry, it’s not nice to post without first reading existing postings. So, maybe this link is already known. But, there are graphs on birth rates of women in the USA. And, some very clumsy attempts to explain it away as if men are non-actors in birth rates. Blechhh!!

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/women-are-having-fewer-kids-and-demographers-dont-know-why/article/2549445

  176. The One says:

    I have a better plan than surrogates. Marry a man, best friend, brother, etc. (in a different state) Then marry a woman. If years later she divorces you, the marriage will be invalid. No house or alimony for her and you might even get the child since the child will be raised by gay two parents who the media informs us are the best. It’s a win for everyone and yes I’m being serious.

  177. amanhiswife says:

    I’m not much on the internet. I know she has said more, but here is Sheila in her comments section on 5/23/14
    “Actually, Carroll, there’s a great new book out debunking the myth of the equal Christian divorce rate. The Good News About Marriage, by Shaunti Feldhahn, looks into the U.S. Census data and survey data and finds that the Christian divorce rate is 30-50% lower than the secular divorce rate. The original study that said we had the same divorce rate was by George Barna, and he simply asked people to self-identify their religion, not about whether they actually went to church. He’s gone public to say that people have misused his survey data. When you actually measure things like whether people pray or go to church, the divorce rate drops significantly, closer to 15%.”

    I’ll work on finding Paul’s comments on it.

    [D: Thank you.]

  178. amanhiswife says:

    I’m not the US Census Bureau but I did just make a list of all of our family and friends, no matter how distant and I come up with a divorce rate over 50%. The vast majority are churchgoers. I can’t imagine what I see in those I know is off over 35% from the “average”.

  179. Dalrock says:

    @Craig

    I’d like to get married and have kids but it’s too risky. I am saving up for a surrogate as I do not want to be enslaved by a currupt family court as well as have my kids kidnapped from me. It’s not ideal but in my opinion it is the lesser of two evils.

    You aren’t thinking this all the way through. Intentionally depriving a child of a mother (just like a father) is evil. Why would you ever do such a terrible thing to any child, let alone your own child?

  180. greyghost says:

    You can find a mother on any street corner. Women and mothering has gone the way of women and cooking and cleaning. Women don’t do a damn thing well because they don’t have to. Stat wise a child with his father will do as well as any child with his mother. Dams sure couldn’t be worse and besides that we are at war. And the shifting of the culture is needed not more playing house.

  181. Dalrock says:

    On the Boomer divorce stat, the claim that 7 in 10 haven’t divorced is nonsense. As was pointed out upthread, she is excluding divorces where the person went on to remarry, as if remarriage erases divorce. Tell that to the millions of kids in broken homes. This reinforces my point in the OP; she likes this new model of marriage, and remarriage erases divorce in this new model. Excluding Boomers who have never married, 45% have divorced at least once. This also explodes her claim that we’ve never come close to a 50% divorce rate (and Boomers are still very much alive).

  182. deti says:

    Brad A, greyghost:

    Women do love, and they can love. A woman is perfectly capable of loving her husband.

    It’s just that they love differently from how men love; and they love differently from how most men expect women to love them.

    A woman loves a man for what he DOES for her– gives her status, attention, and time. Provides for her and her children. But a man wants to be respected, not for what he does, but for who and what he IS. He doesn’t mind “doing”; he just doesn’t want his woman’s love and respect to be completely contingent on his “doing”. He is concerned about this because, well, what if he is no longer able to “do” for her what she’s accustomed to receiving from him?

    Note: This is not the same thing as sexual bonding. That’s a slightly different animal. Past N and female “baggage” can impair sexual bonding to varying degrees.

  183. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    As was pointed out upthread, she is excluding divorces where the person went on to remarry, as if remarriage erases divorce.

    This reveals a major insight into female psychology.

    If one re-marries, divorce does not ‘count’ (which is probably why a lot of women miscalculate how phabulous their life will be after divorce).

    Similarly, if a woman later regrets sex, it does not count towards her N. That is how many women with an N of 20 truly believe their N to be just 3. Furthermore, laws like the current rape laws (where the woman can accuse a man while herself remaining anonymous, and the man does not get due process) are designed to enable women to reduce her belief of what her N is. “It was rape” quite often is “I regret having sex with him a month after the fact”.

    Lastly, this has high correlation to the finding that when men and women were polled about the attractiveness of each other on online dating sites, men correctly rated 50% of women above average (the mathematical reality), but women rate just 20% of men above average and 80% below. Again, this is not a survey of ‘who do you find attractive’, it is merely a survey of whether someone is above or below average, and women just could not grasp what the average truly is (a lot of this has to do with the fact that women are less able to separate TV from reality, than men are).

  184. Oscar says:

    empathologism says:
    June 6, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    “What are the two evils?

    Do you not see the irony in your post? You assign a prior generation to hell as you………
    Go get busy fixing the problem? No
    Dig in and see if the problem spiked and diminished coincident with baby boomers reaching old age? no
    Seek to better yourself, the only person you can truly control? Nope

    Make a silly comment, “I’m saving up”….and indicate that you’ve decided the opposite extreme, that mothers have no value to children

    DING DING DING”

    Lots of that going around these days.

  185. Cane Caldo says:

    I bought the book after you posted this because the description said the second half was the stats and their explanations.

    Man, I hate stats.

  186. TFH says:

    Luke,

    I’ve previously read about Toban Morrison. I approve in principle what he’s done. However, I have an issue with his using an Indian ova donor. It makes him nearly as much of a biological dead end as when a white chick has a kid by a ghetto homie, a sort of voluntary cuckold, even though the kids is technically genetically his (and will be his culturally). The Third Worlder is dominant, as a kind of rounding down. Had he stayed in his own race (or at least picked, say, a Eurasian half-Japanese, say), I’d think more highly of it. Were I alone, I could seem myself as choosing to have done similarly to him, with that alteration.

    There is so much scientifically wrong with your brief paragraph that it seems almost a parody. If I were to list a few :

    1) The surrogate (the womb) is Indian, not the egg. I hope you know that the egg donor and the surrogate need not be the same person.

    2) You assume that even if the egg donor was the topmost outlier Indian (with an IQ of 140), that it is a ’rounding down’?

    3) You assume that different parts of Eurasia had the same prosperity ratios as today, and that this is part of IQ. India had the same or higher prosperity than Europe many centuries ago. Also, Julius Caesar often said that Germanics and Nordics of the time were ‘uncivilizable barbarians’, and the civilized races were Romans, Persians, Indians, and Chinese, and he insisted this would never change. Did the genetics change?

    Next, you will say that East Germany had a vastly lower IQ than West Germany until 1989, or that North Korea has a much lower IQ than South Korea, due to the gap in current prosperity. Or that the two wealthiest groups in the US (Indians and Chinese) are from very different genetic pools than the countries of origin (they aren’t).

    This, btw, obliterates the ‘IQ meme’ as an explanation of prosperity differentials within Eurasia (although it still applies to Africa, which never had an advanced civilization).

    4) The Third Worlder is dominant, as a kind of rounding down. Wait, so what you consider ‘superior’ is not dominant? Don’t genes select for dominance? You are effectively saying the superior is also inferior.

    5) or at least picked, say, a Eurasian half-Japanese, say Wait, so India is not part of Asia?

    Man, it takes tremendous effort to compact so much ‘wrong’ in a small paragraph. I couldn’t write a parody that good.

    P.S. : If you really think a Top 1%, 140 IQ Indian is genetically inferior to even the average white, then you really won’t like what happens in US sperm and egg banks (where white, Persian, Arab, and North Indian donors are bundled together in the same bucket, based on US Govt. definitions of ‘White/Caucasian’ (note the compound term, and how it is used in census forms).

  187. greyghost says:

    Deti
    A woman can and should “love” a man for who he is. The point is that it is a cultural thing for her to do so. headship for a man is to do for his wife because that is running a household (pleasing God) and not for her “love’ and respect we can agree. The desire for a man to be respected for who he is may be unreasonable in as much as it is something required of a woman. I think that respect from her is something that comes from God and faith. It is not a quid pro quo.
    The joy a woman seeks (love) comes from here submission (her pleasing God) Gods gift to her for her faith is the feeling of respect and gina tingle the natural female irrational hysteria is removed from her mind. It feeds on itself both he and she benefit and it feels like quid pro quo but it is from faith in doing it right. Both points of view require faith. PS god commands man to love his wife he didn’t tell that shit woman because she can’t. What she can do is respect fully submit and god will fill her with love.
    I do like this subject and how interesting it is. I sat down to lunch at a fairly nice restaurant And it was a good conversation. One of the interesting things about red pill combined with the bible is you can hear and understand so much with inner peace.

  188. Lyn87 says:

    TFH,

    Your take-down of Luke was good. As a mixed-race guy myself I was offended (and simultaneously amused and bemused) by his assertions. However, white-trash racists aren’t usually worth the time to refute in detail because (since my I.Q. is probably around four standard deviations above his) 20 seconds of my thinking time is worth more than 20 minutes of his.

    But what do I know? … I’m just a genetic rounding error, not an “Aryan Übermensch” like Luke.

  189. Opus says:

    My I.Q. is bigger than your I.Q. is a game I seem to recall playing at Primary School. White Trash Racist Luke (for so Lyn87 has now insulted him) will doubtless have a good reply – so I will not make it for him.

  190. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH
    Also, Julius Caesar often said that Germanics and Nordics of the time were ‘uncivilizable barbarians’, and the civilized races were Romans, Persians, Indians, and Chinese, and he insisted this would never change. Did the genetics change?

    Yes, very likely the genetics of some of the above did change. If nothing else, the Black Death clearly changed population genotypes in Europe and much of Asia.

    This book is worth reading:

    http://the10000yearexplosion.com/

    Also Nicholas Wade’s new book A Troublesome Inheritance makes a good companion to 10,000 year explosion.

    This is not to take a side in the argument over surrogate birthing, but merely to point out that population genotypes can and do change for various reasons. I personally suspect that World War I changed the population genotype of England, France and Russia to some degree – the Somme battles alone being partly responsible for the change to England.

  191. TFH says:

    Lyn87,

    not an “Aryan Übermensch” like Luke.

    Heh. Use of that term was a perfect touch. It confuses the hell out of people who think that way.

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

    “Aryan” /ˈɑːrjən/ is an English language loanword derived from the Sanskrit ārya (‘noble’).”
    “In present-day academia, the term “Aryan” has been replaced in most cases by the terms “Indo-Iranian” and “Indo-European”, and “Aryan” is now mostly limited to its appearance in the term “Indo-Aryan” for Indic languages and their speakers.[2]”

    Even *that* is borrowed.

  192. Opus says:

    … and so opening bat The Fifth Horseman leaves The Pavilion to face the opposing fast bowler on what today in Calcutta is assuredly a sticky wicket on the first day of this Test Match. There had been doubt as to whether he would be selected given recent form and the possibility that he would elect to play for another country, but he strolls out and is about to settle down for the first ball….

  193. Oscar says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    June 7, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    “Yes, very likely the genetics of some of the above did change. If nothing else, the Black Death clearly changed population genotypes in Europe and much of Asia.”

    That may be true, but there was a whole lot of innovation going on in Europe before the plague. In fact, as Rodney Stark points out in his books, there was an explosion of innovation in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

    http://www.amazon.com/Rodney-Stark/e/B000APQGM6/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

  194. Anonymous age 72 says:

    >> but it does remain a bit hypocritical to want to be accepted with a child and yet refuse to do so in reverse.

    This is the ole’ feminist, “That’s not fayer” Bravo Sierra.

    No, you don’t have to be “fayer”. There are many millions of single women in the US with no kids, a few hundred of them are probably good women.

    The man of one child should be trying to do what is best for his child, and what is best for himself. “Fayer-ness” is not an issue, and should not be.

    Ditto for a man who is not a virgin but wants the best mother for his children that he can get and believes that will also be a virgin. No woman is obliged to give her virginity to an experienced man, but if she is willing to do so, it’s not our business.

    “Fayer-ness” as an operating parameter for men is totally obsolete, just as Marriage 1,0 is obsolete.

    There is nothing about ‘fayer-ness’ today in our society in the treatment of men. And, it truly amazes me to see someone saying things like that on a men’s blog. We men lose and lose and lose and lose because we subscribe to the worst of feminist dogma. So, when was the last time you ever encountered a woman who was being ‘fayer’ to a man?

    >>Damn you baby boomers that stood by and did nothing and because you were too cowardly to stand up to these idiots, I hope you rot in hell.

    And, to you, a big **** you! We did stand up to them, and at every point were stopped by men exactly like yourself, shouting, “You’re doing it wrong! You’re doing it wrong!” While they did nothing themselves. The fact the main stream press didn’t cover anything we did, and that your generation is to d****d lazy to seek it out does not damn us to Hell. There has been a very active men’s movement since the mid-60’s.

    So, tell us, how many times have you carried signs around the court house? How many times have you met the governor of your state at his invitation? How many letters have you written to legislators? How many meetings with child support officials have you held? How many militant op-eds have you written under your own name to your local newspaper? How many demonstrations have you held in public places to highlight the mal treatment of men?

    Zero? Why am I surprised. A big **** you to you.

  195. BradA says:

    > “Women do not love never have.”

    Prove that. Bold assertion with no facts to back it up, especially nothing from the Scriptures.

    @Deti,

    > “Women do love, and they can love. A woman is perfectly capable of loving her husband.
    > It’s just that they love differently from how men love; and they love differently from how most men expect women to love them.”

    That I can agree with, but it is a very different issue.

    @Dalrock,
    > “You aren’t thinking this all the way through. Intentionally depriving a child of a mother (just like a father) is evil. Why would you ever do such a terrible thing to any child, let alone your own child?”

    I was about to post something similar. It is just as cruel and selfish to deny a mother to a child as it is to deny them a father. Both are looking out for yourself and not the child. No man can be a mother and a father any more than a woman can be both. A child needs both. Some survive without both, but voluntarily choosing that is only looking at your own desires and not what the child needs!

  196. BradA says:

    Got to get the gratuitous attack in Anon72? I just noted it was hypocritical to expect a woman to care for his child but not want to care for hers. It is. I would still probably lean toward that myself, were I in his situation, but I would freely note the hypocrisy. Don’t let the facts get in the way of your rant though.

    Casey,

    I was just responding to your post stating that you would not marry someone with a child, with no exception for a widow (for example). I would likely take your position myself as I noted above. I would never encourage you to “man up” and marry a single mother, especially one who got there from her own choice. That is a much more dangerous road than the Driscoll’s of the world acknowledge.

    This is probably stupid for me to waste time commenting on as it is the rare case however. I suspect that a man with children would have far more trouble marrying a women with her own as the Brady Bunch idea is very flawed and not real life.

    It kind of makes a bleak picture for single mothers, but that picture needs to be made much clearer up front to hopefully drive more to not choose that route. The reward system would also have to change.

    I am rambling a bit though.

  197. Oscar says:

    BradA says:
    June 7, 2014 at 9:06 pm
    > “Women do not love never have.”

    “Prove that. Bold assertion with no facts to back it up, especially nothing from the Scriptures.”

    Brad is right. From the Song of Solomon:

    Ch 1:
    7 Tell me, you whom my soul loves,
    where you pasture your flock,
    where you make it lie down at noon;
    for why should I be like one who veils herself
    beside the flocks of your companions?

    Ch 2:
    8 The voice of my beloved!
    Behold, he comes,
    leaping over the mountains,
    bounding over the hills.
    9 My beloved is like a gazelle
    or a young stag.
    Behold, there he stands
    behind our wall,
    gazing through the windows,
    looking through the lattice.
    10 My beloved speaks and says to me:
    “Arise, my love, my beautiful one,
    and come away,

    And on, and on and on they go back and forth. The husband professing his love for his bride, and the bride professing her love for her husband. Clearly, the Bible teaches that women can – and should – love their husbands.

    Titus 2:3-5
    3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

  198. greyghost says:

    I wouldn’t count on a woman’s love fellas

  199. MarcusD says:

    *sigh*

    Odds of a good marriage and risks of getting married

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=871831

    The usual people are wrong as usual.

    Dr. Helen Smith fox news interview on why men are avoiding marriage

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=876066

    BlueEyedLady is essentially a caricature of a gynocentric liberal feminist (if you have time for downright idiocy masquerading as well-educated* commentary, then her posting history is the place to go). Notice the “As long as my husband isn’t avoiding marriage, I’m fine if others want to” statement.

    *As she keeps reminding people…

    Solid pro-feminist advice to young women on how to marry smart

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866875

  200. Luke says:

    Sigh. TFH, from the article I read, apparently Toban used an Indian egg (ovum) donor as well as an Indian gestational surrogate. That does in fact make his child half Indian, genetically. (Actually, more like 51%, since only genetic mothers provide cytoplasmic DNA; it’s nuclear DNA that’s 50/50 between genetic mothers and genetic fathers.) I’ve mentioned previously that my wife and I used egg donors and a GS to create our family, so I’m hardly unfamiliar with how all this works.

    Second, having some familiarity with both, I feel more cultural and other affinity with Japanese than I do with southwest Asians. And, if a child is 3/4 (from one side being Eurasian), that makes them more like me than 1/2. People normally prefer their own; why is that coming off as novel to you? (Look around at a college cafeteria or church congregation sometime, for some rather extreme, yet typical, voluntary racial segregation.) Third World + European does favor Third World more. As one example, the singer Prince Rogers Nelson, like any mulatto, openly favors his black side more. So does Obama, who’s actually more white than he is black, yet reliably identifies more with his black ancestry. Without wishing other races ill, it’s perfectly normal to want to adopt, sire, or bear your own. Toban sired a child that’s arguably not “his” as much as it would have been had he obtained a European-ancestry ova donor. That’s a real issue for men who might consider copying what his chosen route to fatherhood was, and thus fully relevant to a discussion where someone else brought him up in the first place. (I think it’s achievable, just more complex/expensive than how exactly he did things.)

    P.S. for those interested in racial/national IQs, I suggest this book (two reviews/charts from below) as a starting point:

    http://www.isteve.com/iq_table.htm

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

  201. Luke says:

    Interesting related quote:

    from voxday.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-30-trillion-demand-gap.html

    The other skeptic June 07, 2014 9:16 PM

    “My guess is that, as self-preservation moves to the fore, people will identify with ever-shrinking social units and erect high (electrified) fences, figuratively speaking, to wall out the riffraff.

    Steve Sailer nails it:

    Political scientist Frank Salter’s 2003 book On Genetic Interests attempted to resolve van den Berghe’s quandary by employing population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s data and genetic anthropologist Henry Harpending’s math. In this era when the conventional wisdom is that racial groups are merely social constructs, Harpending was astonished to find that the typical human is almost as closely related genetically to the average member of his own ethnic group, relative to the rest of humanity, as he is to his own nephew, relative to their mutual ethnic group. Eventually, it occurred to Harpending that he might indeed have a harder time distinguishing an unknown nephew of his from a random group of children of the same race than he would have distinguishing among races.

    I am more closely related to a random white person than I am to other people in the world, and then, if modern genetics is correct, to an East Asian than I am to an African American or so on.”

  202. Lyn87 says:

    Luke,

    If you had just written what you wrote about genetic affinity, neither I nor (probably) TFH would have had a problem with it. What you wrote was this:

    The Third Worlder is dominant, as a kind of rounding down. [Emphasis added.]

    Surely you can see why people would object to that. That’s beyond genetic affinity – that’s just plain old racism. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I am a cultural chauvinist: I acknowledge that Western Civ is superior to other cultures, having been in a lot of places and having read and seen a lot of things. (I am “less-than-half” that myself, having a full-blooded Latina for a mother) But what you wrote about genetic affinity is a far cry from saying that an individual from one side of humanity’s genetic pool is presumably inferior to an individual from a different side of that same pool. We’re ALL cousins… to one degree or another.

  203. jg says:

    @Darlock
    Thanks for the real 45% stat

  204. Anonymous age 72 says:

    BradA says:
    June 7, 2014 at 9:17 pm

    BradA did what BradA does so often. Trash someone out, in this case accusing a man of being a hypocrite, then when someone calls him down, portrays himself as an innocent victim of some vile brute. In this case, me. I am going to say it again, BradA, on a men’s board to trash a man for wanting the best mother and wife he can get is simply amazing.

    Then, calling the response a gratuitous attack. It was not a gratuitous attack, BradA, it was a well deserved “attack”.

    Those days when men are supposed to follow the rules of Queensbury while women get to beat on his testicles, are past. You remind me of the song many years ago, Charley Brown. “Why is everybody always picking on me?”

    Also, using your logic, Brad, I was not attacking you, merely “noting” how inappropriate your comment was in 2014 on an MRA board.

    You are more proof that our worst enemies are not only other men, but other MRA’s.

  205. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I also am the proud inventor of an important concept. I have noted in my life a certain unmet need. You all have heard of “Seeing Eye Dog?”

    Well, I conceptualized many years ago, a Thinking Brain Dog. In Brad’s case, when he typed out that a man was a hypocrite, the TBD would have barked, “Hey, master, think that over. Calling a man a hypocrite is insulting and offensive, and it might come back and bite you. You won’t be able to pretend you were only ‘noting’ it.”

  206. greyghost says:

    Brad A, Oscar
    Ps. the scripture tells of the loving woman huh? well that is just one more thing that the rebellious one has projected onto her that needs to be addressed. Women don’t love ,women don’t cook, women don’t clean, women don’t parent, and they damn sure or proud of how strong and independent that is. Let’s take it from there and help restore politeness in the west. She is a helper and she is not needed. Once she knows you understand that politeness is restored have faith.

  207. TFH says:

    Lyn87,

    but I am a cultural chauvinist: I acknowledge that Western Civ is superior to other cultures, having been in a lot of places and having read and seen a lot of things.

    Same here.

    But a lot of when the less enlightened write things like ’rounding down’, etc. displays so much ignorance that it is funny. There were times when the less prosperous parts of Eurasia were more prosperous, and vice versa. The relative genetic IQs would have been the same.

    The ’rounding down’ idiocy can be demolished by basic logic in a dozen different ways.

  208. greyghost says:

    Lyn87,TFH
    I did a Bright Star deployment to Egypt in 1985 and on one day why were given liberty to Cairo and had a chance to see the pyramids. After being there working along with and seeing the arabs that were in the country at the time I just knew in my heart that these were not the same people built those damn pyramids no way. especially considering the time when those were built. China at one time was the techno leaders with the open ocean sailing gun powder and paper. Their social development on human nature and warfare seems to have been developed fairly highly also (Suntzu art of war, ironically the principals of the art of war are not as effective with primitive societies) The Chinese today are not the same. The west was standing on the moon at one time and now we are being gobbled up by evil from within of our own making. We just happen to be alive at this period of time to see this moment in history. If you haven’t notice I’m not a white man and I can see it. Maybe mans future will have a Chinese guy ( Or some interracial fella looking like a Cherokee indian, who knows) standing on a planet in a near solar system. One thing for certain that man will come from an advanced sustainable culture on it’s way out if human nature is what it is.
    PS I’m a western culture kind of guy myself.

  209. TFH says:

    greyghost,

    They are not the same culture as the Egypt, China, etc. of ancient times, but there are roughly the same genetics. The same goes for why Northern Europe was so far behind Rome, Persia, India, and China for a very long time.

    The point is, culture is what drives these things, which is essentially what you said.

    Not some idiotic notion that the places that are prosperous today have always been prosperous, because of higher IQ, and that places that are poorer today have always been poorer, and that interbreeding with a person from a poorer country permanently ’rounds down’ the IQ of the child. People who believe that probably believe that North Korea and South Korea have vastly different IQs (as did East Germany and West Germany, until the wall fell and GDR IQs magically rose in a single day).

  210. Opus says:

    More anti-white racism dressed in scientific garb from the usual suspects.

  211. Cane Caldo says:

    @AA72

    You are more proof that our worst enemies are not only other men, but other MRA’s.

    Man fault! Hahahaha!

  212. greyghost says:

    The point is, culture is what drives these things, which is essentially what you said.

    My wife the only thing she actually listens to me about proves this every day as a school teacher. She teaches 2nd and 3rd grade with 90 percent of her students black kids. (at risk) She does very well with them including kids that are avoided due to a history of discipline problems. Every year she is praised by parents and her students about how they liked school and her standardized test scores are always high with a high pass rate 80 to 95 percent with no discipline problems even from special ed kids that literally can’t read. Culture is where it is at.

  213. @Cane

    Man, I hate stats.

    What about them do you dislike? How many of their attributes are distasteful? Chose one.

    a. 70% disike, 30% like
    b. 50% like 60% dislike
    c. 100% dislike
    d. none of the above
    e. one of these answers is crap

    Explain your answer

  214. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    Stats jabringing is against a wallet of people’s self-sensory selection which itself jabringing round and round religious fulminations privilege.

  215. TFH says:

    greyghost,

    The point is, culture is what drives these things, which is essentially what you said.

    Yep.

    Read what I wrote here.

    The outperformance of the West is due to the Protestant religion, which emphasizes (or at least did before feminism) productivity and free markets.

    This is also why Northern Europe was, before Protestantism, very backward compared to the Roman Empire. Again, Julius Caesar routinely wrote that Germanic and Breton people were savage and uncivilizable, and would never attain the success of Rome, Egypt, Persia, or India.

    He was wrong then, as it turned out, just like people who think the status quo of today has some deep-seated, genetic basis, despite countless counter-examples.

    Opus,

    Instead of engaging in projection, given that a) Luke brought it up with a very racist statement, and b) Luke is the only one making genetic arguments, while the others are arguing against that, and c) I actually said something that might be considered anti-black, rather than anti-white…..

    …..Read this article from The Futurist. It will enlighten you (and only the strangest mind could find it to be anti-white).

    To claim any out of me, Lyn87, or greyghost has said anything ‘anti-white’, is just false, and is evidence of my other maxim :

    Anyone making a vastly off-base accusation, is engaging in projection themselves.

  216. Lyn87 says:

    Many feminists act as though anything that is not explicitly pro-woman and simultaneously anti-male is misogynistic. Likewise, Opus seems to believe that anything that is not explicitly pro-white and simultaneously anti-everything- else is anti-white racism. TFH is correct, of course: between Luke, Greyghost, TFH, and me, only Luke made a racist comment. The androsphere gets enough bad press without letting that go unrebutted.

  217. TFH says:

    Lyn87,

    Yes.

    When anyone makes a vastly off-base accusation, that is projection on the part of the accuser. When the accuser is doing something they know to be wrong, the human mind works such that it leaks out as an accusation onto others.

    Opus saw ‘anti-white racism’ in much the same was as feminists see ‘misogyny’ in everything. I thought this sort of thing was less common in England……

  218. Cane sent me jabringing, which I assumed was like snipe hunting but in the daytime. I was wrong.

    The vorvg has been proven flarb. Glop is coming.

  219. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oscar
    That may be true, but there was a whole lot of innovation going on in Europe before the plague. In fact, as Rodney Stark points out in his books, there was an explosion of innovation in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

    So? What is your point?

  220. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH
    There were times when the less prosperous parts of Eurasia were more prosperous, and vice versa. The relative genetic IQs would have been the same.

    How do you know this claim regarding IQ’s to be true?

  221. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH
    They are not the same culture as the Egypt, China, etc. of ancient times, but there are roughly the same genetics.

    Please support this claim with some evidence. Thanks.

  222. Anonymous Reader says:

    greyghost
    The point is, culture is what drives these things, which is essentially what you said.

    In some parts of Sunni Islam, it is normative for 1st cousins to marry. This results in increased birth defects, as well as a compressing of genotype IQ towards the mean. So the culture influences the genotype, and the genotype influences the culture.

    The blank slate notion ought to be dead and buried.

  223. TFH says:

    AR,

    Actually, since you initially asserted that the IQ of a populace determines their current prosperity, we should start with that.

    What GDP per capita corresponds to what IQ average? And if most nations are seeing GDP per capita slowly edge higher, perhaps the more precise question would be, what IQ delta results in what GDP-per-capita delta?

    I don’t disagree that population displacement has happened in places. The Mongols massacred many indiginous people in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and interbred with the rest, thus changing the genetic profile of certain regions.

    But that is far from proof that a) the entire IQ of the now-hybrid population changed, and b) IQ is a major factor in what GDP per capita a country will be (which has too many counterexamples against this).

  224. Anonymous Reader says:

    Actually, since you initially asserted that the IQ of a populace determines their current prosperity, we should start with that.

    Where and when did I make such an assertion, please? Provide a link to the comment.

  225. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH
    I don’t disagree that population displacement has happened in places. The Mongols massacred many indiginous people in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and interbred with the rest, thus changing the genetic profile of certain regions.

    That is an interesting choice, since we know that a substantial percentage of men in parts of Asia are descended from Ghengis Khan himself. He was, genetically, one of the most successful men in history.

    You appear to have contradicted your previous claim, that the genotype in places like India, China, Persia is the same now as it was 1,000 or more years ago. Did you mean to do that?

  226. TFH says:

    AR,

    Where and when did I make such an assertion, please? Provide a link to the comment.

    Then I am not clear what your position is…

    I *think* you are saying that the genes of a region can change over many centuries. Correct me if this is not an accurate representation of your position.

    My position towards the above (if that is your position) is yes, it can, with Mongols as one example. But the change is only massive enough to change the IQ of a region if the vast majority of the original population was exterminated, *and* even the women of the incumbent population were not interbred with (which would create a hybrid population, so less likely of a very different IQ).

    Also, the side that wins would presumably have been of a higher IQ than the loser, so wars should slowly edge IQ higher over time, under that model.
    ______________________________________

    And that is long before one can even get to a debate of whether IQ has much to do with the per-capita-GDP of a nation (in case anyone is making that assertion).

    One doesn’t even have to go back 1000 years. China and India had the same per-capita prosperity as Europe even into the late 18th century. That is recent enough to say that the genotype of those two nations was the same 250 years ago as today, as no major demographic change that replaced 50% or more of the population has occurred in that time.

  227. TFH says:

    I should add that the above is only true even *if* IQ is fully genetic, which I do not believe it is.

    IQ may or may not be genetic
    IQ is an incomplete measure of intelligence
    Even more comprehensive measures of intelligence, don’t correlate well to per-capita GDP of nations, given the large gaps between prosperity even among neighboring countries with visibly-similar people. *and* the examples of past eras where the poor of today were the advanced of yesteryear, and vice-versa.

  228. Luke says:

    TFH says:
    June 8, 2014 at 11:31 am

    “Lyn87,

    but I am a cultural chauvinist: I acknowledge that Western Civ is superior to other cultures, having been in a lot of places and having read and seen a lot of things.

    Same here.

    But a lot of when the less enlightened write things like ’rounding down’, etc. displays so much ignorance that it is funny. There were times when the less prosperous parts of Eurasia were more prosperous, and vice versa. The relative genetic IQs would have been the same.

    The ’rounding down’ idiocy can be demolished by basic logic in a dozen different ways.”

    Feel free to do so. Please begin by disproving:
    A) Detroit/SubSaharan Africa /= any nearly all-white town in the U.S.
    B) why blacks in the U.S. routinely score around IQ 85 vs. Hispanics’ 92, whites’ 100, N. Asian’s 104 (good with math, not so good with language or original thinking; see Nobel Prize rates), & European Jews’ 114, and
    C) white + nonwhite (in roughly comparable genetic proportions) = nonwhite, e.g, how Prince and Obama identify more in behavior, culture, appearance and loyalties to the white half of their ancestries than to the nonwhite fraction.

    Look I don’t want Third Worlders to be killed or anything. I just want their people and their culture to live in their countries however they want, and to stay out of mine. I don’t want the below to be typical of my country:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924795/posts

    Some of the above residing in the U.S.:

    http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2012/04/knoxville-horror-crime-and-cover-up.html

    http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/top-100-black-mob-violence-videos/

    http://colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html

  229. Luke says:

    Re why different groups have different life outcomes, an excellent hypothesis for fundamentally explaining this is differing mental time horizons. The longest TH-people think in terms of generations, while the shortest won’t work at a job today for a paycheck they won’t see for 2 or 3 weeks. An excellent discussion of this is done in Edward Banfield’s “The Unheavenly City Revisited”. An excerpt about the lowest class:

    http://thirdagematrix.com/?page_id=44

    ““The Lower-Class. At the present oriented end of the scale, the lower-class individual lives from moment to moment. …….. Impulse governs his behavior, either because he cannot discipline himself to sacrifice a present for a future satisfaction or because he has no sense of the future. He is therefore radically improvident: whatever he cannot use immediately he considers valueless. His bodily needs (especially for sex) and his taste for “action” take precedence over everything else – and certainly over any work routine.

    Although he has more “leisure” time than almost anyone, the indifference (“ apathy” if one prefers) of the lower class person is such that he seldom makes even the simplest repairs to the place that he lives in. He is not troubled by dirt and dilapidation and he does not mind the inadequacy of public facilities such as schools, parks, hospitals, and libraries; indeed, where such things exist he may destroy them by carelessness or even by vandalism.

    Measures to reduce unemployment and poverty by increasing the skills of workers through schooling can have only a very limited success. They cannot change the situation fundamentally; probably the best they can do is to hasten somewhat the movement up the job and income ladder of people who would move up it anyway.”

    “A distinction should be made between a “trained” worker and an “educated” one. The trained worker has learned how to perform certain tasks of more or less complexity – to operate a machine, say, or to keep accounts.”

    “The educated worker, by contrast, (1) possesses the kind of general knowledge, especially of reading and mathematics, that will help them to solve various new problems, and (2) has certain traits of character – especially motivation to achieve, ability to accept the discipline of a work situation, willingness to take the initiative and to accept responsibility, and the ability to deal fairly with employers, fellow employees, and others.”

    “…..but the traits of character that are equally a part of education are not learned in school – or at any rate not there more than elsewhere. For the most part, they are acquired in childhood.”

    “The lower class person cannot as a rule be given much training because he will not accept it. He lives for the moment, but learning to perform a task is a way of providing for the future. If that training process is accompanied by immediate rewards to the trainee – if it is ”fun” or if you is paid while learning – the lower class person may accept training. But even if he does, his earning power will not be much increased, because his class outlook and style of life would generally make him an unreliable and otherwise undesirable employee.”

    “The child has absorbed the elements of his class culture long before reaching school; …. The child has ”picked up” from parents and playmates an outline map of his universe, and the main features of it – the continents, so to speak – cannot be changed by anything that is said or done in school.

    “The circumstances that prevent the lower-class child (and in lesser degree the lower working-class one as well) from acquiring in school the traits of character that contribute to education also prevented him from learning how to read, write, and compute adequately. By the age of 14, according to Basil Bernstein, many such children are “unteachable” keeping them in school does not add to their knowledge; it only damages their self-respect, which is already small.”

    “Class cultural factors largely account for the conspicuous difference between the slum and the suburban school. Each school has a class character imposed upon it by the social setting in which it exists; this, and not staff inefficiency, racial discrimination, or inequitable provision of resources, is the main reason for the virtues of one and the defects of the other. The implication is one that reformers find hard to accept – to wit, that no matter how able, dedicated, and hard-working the teachers, no matter how ample the facilities of the school or how well designed its curriculum, no matter how free the atmosphere the school from racial and other prejudice, the performance of pupils at the lower end of the class cultural scale will always fall short not only of that of pupils at the upper end of the scale, but also of what is necessary to make them educated workers.”

  230. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Great posting, Luke. Over the years I have also studied at length the effects of social class on individuals. The only thing I could add is what one sociology textbook said. That it is more than school can’t change social class attitudes, but actually in most cases reinforces them.

    For example, attempts to teach kids to save for future goals works for higher class kids, because they mostly have successfully saved for things as young kids.

    The lower class kids see any accumulated savings stolen by a dishonest ‘step-parent’ or taken to bail a punk out of jail, or whatever . And, they know saving doesn’t work. So, they not only don’t and can’t learn to save but also learn that they are being “lied to” by upper class teachers. I don’t think I am explaining this very well, sorry.

  231. Anonymous age 72 says:

    it was the 5:19 pm posting I liked. At this time I am not going to comment on the earlier one.

  232. Oscar says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    June 8, 2014 at 3:42 pm
    Oscar
    That may be true, but there was a whole lot of innovation going on in Europe before the plague. In fact, as Rodney Stark points out in his books, there was an explosion of innovation in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

    “So? What is your point?”

    My point is:

    1) The explosion in cultural & technological innovation in Europe that resulted in the most free and prosperous societies in history began BEFORE the plague, which you suggested caused the explosion in innovation.

    Anonymous Reader says:
    June 7, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    “Yes, very likely the genetics of some of the above did change. If nothing else, the Black Death clearly changed population genotypes in Europe and much of Asia.”

    It is therefore highly unlikely that a genetic change due to natural selection by the plague caused that explosion in innovation.

    2) The explosion in cultural & technological innovation in Europe began just after the collapse of the Roman empire – an enormous CULTURAL change. It is therefore likely that the explosion in cultural & technological innovation in Europe was a result of a rapidly evolving culture, not a rapidly evolving genome.

  233. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Cane, let me repeat what I said before. The reason men’s groups have accomplished little or nothing in the last 48 years is because our worst enemies are other men, including MRA’s. Fight; fight; quarrel; call names, bicker over every trivial thing. And, always attack any visible leader.

    Oh, let me not forget, whenever possible tell other, older MRA’s they deserve to rot in Hell. That is always cool.

    Luke, after some thought I am going to comment on the earlier posting. My wife had many black friends over the years, and I associated with them. They were all civilized, educated people, with a high percentage of Ph.Ds in a small group.. And, they all came from two parent families.

    All of these things you don’t like, and no one else here likes, are a direct result of several generations of black boys raised in maternal custody.

    Maternal custody isn’t the worst thing that can happen to a child, but it is the worst thing that happens to most of them.

    White boys raised in maternal custody don’t do dramatically much better. THE GARBAGE GENERATION, allegedly available on line, written back in the 80’s, has documented this very well.

    if you look at historical statistics, before LBJ started paying black women to raise kids with no visible father, black families generally had a higher morality than whites. Unwed motherhood was actually somewhat rare. (Don’t ask for a link; I studied this years ago, and you can Google yourself on the topic.)

    As soon as black women started tossing fathers out to get a good check, crime and unwed motherhood soared. Today, you have black men who are a result of several generations of living with maternal custody. And, they are the animals that one expects from men from several generations of maternal custody.

    As far as SubSaharan Africa, that is also a matriarchy, so the results are the same as in the matriarchy in Detroit. Y’all want to send someone to rot in Hell, go for LBJ.

  234. Oscar says:

    Lyn87 says:
    June 8, 2014 at 7:48 am

    “I am a cultural chauvinist: I acknowledge that Western Civ is superior to other cultures, having been in a lot of places and having read and seen a lot of things.”

    Same here. I’ve lived in or visited multiple countries in South America, North America, Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa, and Western Civ is the best. Tens of millions of my fellow immigrants agree.

  235. Oscar says:

    Anonymous age 72 says:
    June 8, 2014 at 7:51 pm

    “if you look at historical statistics, before LBJ started paying black women to raise kids with no visible father, black families generally had a higher morality than whites. Unwed motherhood was actually somewhat rare. (Don’t ask for a link; I studied this years ago, and you can Google yourself on the topic.)”

    Here you go.

    http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/InfoGraphic/Warning-Married-fathers-an-endangered-species

  236. Anonymous Reader says:

    I *think* you are saying that the genes of a region can change over many centuries. Correct me if this is not an accurate representation of your position.

    In fact, it is possible that the genotype of a subgroup can change in less than 500 years.
    Harpending and Cochran demonstrate this

    http://the10000yearexplosion.com/

    Another example: what did the genotype in Virginia look like in, say, 1500? What did it look like in 1800? No change, some change, what?

  237. Anonymous Reader says:

    1) The explosion in cultural & technological innovation in Europe that resulted in the most free and prosperous societies in history began BEFORE the plague, which you suggested caused the explosion in innovation.

    Where did I make such a suggestion, please?

  238. Oscar says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    June 7, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    “Yes, very likely the genetics of some of the above did change. If nothing else, the Black Death clearly changed population genotypes in Europe and much of Asia.”

  239. BradA says:

    (Reposting this here since I originally got it in the wrong thead.)

    Anon72,

    I thought this was a Biblically-focused board, not an MRA one. But don’t let me get in the way of your points….

    > “Fight; fight; quarrel; call names, bicker over every trivial thing. And, always attack any visible leader.”

    You seem awfully quick at the name calling yourself. Is it fine when you do it? Your replies, especially targeting me have been the “you are scum since you don’t agree with me” line. I just disagree with your ideas, but you are certainly not high in my esteem as a man either due to your behavior. (Not that you or I much care how high or low you are in that. I only note it since you are claiming I am one of the worst enemies of MRA. I am a proponent of the Truth. I am glad to be considered scum for opposing anything else.)

    greyghost, I am not sure I follow your point. Is it that women can fall short in those areas? I would fully agree with that. I still think the stuff men have a harder time loving, which is why it is the command. I don’t think God spends as much time telling us to do what is easy. What “love” means to a man and a woman can vary though, and that may be the root of the disagreement.

    As to the Egyptians, keep in mind that they also worshiped the dung beetle.

    Someone said:

    > “The point is, culture is what drives these things, which is essentially what you said.”

    I missed commenting on this and I may be missing the original context, but I fully agree with this statement in many different areas. Culture shifts more things than almost anything else.

    ====

    I don’t completely buy the idea of inherent genetic differences as I believe we are all descended from the same 2 humans. I do think cultures can have huge value differences though and modern culture has been trashed in the War on Poverty and other such efforts. I actually agree with Anon72 on that point.

  240. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oscar, non sequitur. Read more carefully.

  241. Opus says:

    @TFH

    Your other maxim is far too convenient: when anyone disagrees with you, you wheel it out whether appropriate to the facts or not.

    Western Civilisation is unique (and probably irreplaceable both in its good aspects and its self-destructive qualities). I am not saying it is easy for you or Lyn 87 but I do see split loyalties (hence my repeated Cricket Test analogy – you will notice in my latest one I am ambiguous as to whether you are playing with Mark Ramprakash or against him). In my private (off-line) life I come across exactly the same type of thing from new immigrants to Great Britain – people who are frequently instantly identifiable as more English than the English and with accents more perfect and otherwise unknown in this land.

    I, of course make no claim for personal superiority, and indeed the only time I took an I.Q. test I scored, if I recall correctly, somewhere in the high 80s.

  242. jg says:

    Men inability to respect and love(agape) other men, is what leads to the rise of such ideology as feminism. Racism is one of the more popular hinderances

  243. Lyn87 says:

    Opus writes,

    I am not saying it is easy for you or Lyn 87 but I do see split loyalties

    Then you still misunderstand me, and it’s because you’re looking at me as though your “loyalty paradigm” is the “correct” one. My loyalties are not split in the slightest. To me, you seem to be loyal to the idea / ideal of the British Empire, with all that entails: stiff-upper-lip stoicism, the English class system, English Common Law, and more-or-less benevolent imperialism, all being inextricably linked to Anglo-Saxon ethnicity.

    Understand that yours is a very European – and particularly British – way of understanding one’s culture. The U.S. was not “built” on those things, and not only do I not share your paradigm, my “U.S. paradigm” has a completely different structure. I view the ideas upon which the U.S. was founded as the pinnacle of Western Civilization – so while I appreciate what the Greeks, the Romans, and the British did to move humanity toward that ideal, I view those as important cultural stepping-stones toward the American Ideal (which we have never attained in practice ourselves, either).

    But a guy like me can come along in the U.S. and fit in culturally. I’m half-Mexican and half-European by my DNA, but my family on both sides is completely assimilated culturally. It just doesn’t matter that a lot of my ancestors scratched a living from the dirt in what is now Latin America: I am an American (U.S., that is), and a product of Western Civilization. I feel far more affinity with the guys at Salamis, Zama, and Passchendaele than I do with anybody who lived in the New World prior to the 16th Century. The fact that I look like a regular white dude is a factor, and most people are surprised when they find out that I’m “half-brown.” You’ve read enough things I’ve written to know that I don’t think or communicate like a stereotypical “third-worlder.” So… my ethnicity is not something to which I feel any loyalty – it’s just an amusing fact of my existence with no more import than my eye color, and a good deal less import than my height. The reason I brought it up at all is because there are a lot of people (Luke, you, others), who seem to view DNA as destiny, and “white” DNA as superior. Frankly, the idea that I am a “rounded down” version of Luke is both offensive and absurd.

    The androsphere has enough problems without adding that sort of nonsense to it.

  244. greyghost says:

    BradA Oscar

    Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Ephesians 5:25). “So ought men love their wives as their own bodies” (Ephesians 5:28). “Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself” (Ephesians 5:33). “Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them” (Ephesians 3:19).

    God never said shit like that to women. So all of this love stuff you posted up was gina tingle from a happy woman.
    He does in numerous places remind women he is the head in charge (husband rules over her)
    Just because you have wifes that follow the scripture and you love her does mean you project that on to women as they are loving. That is the same crap of pedestalizing projected goodness that is the basis of this blog. Just because she doesn’t have the capacity to love doesn’t mean you can’t love her. You are a man, you can do it you are doing it now. I know it takes away the romance but hey we are men, (that sweat of the brow thing ) when speaking about the truth there is no love and romance. To tell a man about how loving women are is a lie and it fills his head with delusions that cause his judgment to be faulty. If you really think about the church right now is doing the same thing putting women in charge of the church. It hurts your feeling but it doesn’t mean she is not lovable it just means you are a man and she is a woman.

  245. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    Americans are very unique and special. I didn’t fully understand it until a strange moment we had in Korea. I was in the Marine Corp at the time and I was a part of a group out in town A Mexican guy 3 white guys and a black man. Even the three white dudes all “looked” different. We where all Americans. I can never be British, I will never be Russian, I can never be Japanese. anybody in the world can be American. Straight up gun totin, tobacco abusing, business owning, “this is mine I’ll kick your ass” American. And other Americans will respect you as American. America is an ideal and a culture not a race.

  246. Boxer says:

    Dear Lyn:

    I’m half-Mexican and half-European by my DNA

    I’m more than a little confused by the concept of Mexican DNA. I’ve seen both African and European types in Mexico, along with the usual Native Americans. Mitt Romney’s dad was from Colonia Dublan, for instance.

    Same could be said about Europe. I doubt the average Hungarian has many alleles in common with a random Basque, but I’m not a biologist, so I don’t know how far the differences go.

    Anyway, I find all the obsessing about race around here to be sorta quaint and silly. It’s becoming common to have zygotes genetically modified. In the near future, you’ll likely be able to order up whatever features you want on your children, and they could come out with kinky blue hair and pre-pierced ears, in anticipation of the average junior high experimentation phase of adolescence. Class is a much better predictor of performance and misbehavior than race, in my opinion.

    Best, Boxer

  247. Opus says:

    @Lyn87

    You are putting words into my mouth. You remind me of the young American woman who – one day when we were driving along in Maryland – asked me, in all seriousness, ‘Do they have motor-cars in England?’ I am sure I replied that I thought there might be a few, or like that other woman who asked what language they speak in England or for that matter yet another woman who assured me that in England people are being murdered every week at Professional Soccer Matches.

    The inevitable facts are that everything there in the world derives from Western Europe (from dead white males) – I like to think of England-Italy; France-Germany as two crossing axes – a rather appropriately designed Cross (with America as an extension thereof – I am not at all convinced that Thomas Jefferson the other founding fathers let alone the colonists would agree with your interpretation of America). Whether it is science that interests you or art, or philosophy or medicine then the only thing you can do (without drifting into voodoo or the trivial or the ephemeral) is Western. The West has no interest in anything else – except regrettably for sexual purposes. It is the West that invented and maintains representative government – something which despite the best efforts of parliamentary draftsmen providing Constitutions to newly independent African colonies will not take root elsewhere (other than India of course); it is the West that affords an exceptionally high (absurdly so, of course) status to women; and it is the West that is sentimental towards everyone else so much so that (where I am) people are punished on a daily basis by imprisonment for thought crime. The Rule of Law such that (in principle) everyone, no matter their colour, sex or wealth are treated equally under the law is thus a further characteristic as well as the abolition and enforcement thereof of the trade in slaves. The West is individualistic; so much so that Homosexuality is treated as normal – if not preferred. One does not have to be a Genetic Calvinist to observe that.

  248. greyghost says:

    Boxer
    Race topics are always a pain in the ass and will never lead to a better place than the beginning of the conversation. Everybody is offended. Overall I think we have a pretty good crew of commenters here and I sincerely how the lurkers and observers are gaining an eye opening experience and finding confidence and peace from what they are seeing.

  249. Opus says:

    @Greyghost

    You make a fine point about Americans. When I was last in California I met Roy Masters (who perhaps some might know from his syndicated Radio Programme – and I am glad to see he has since lost some weight); Roy was originally from England but is Jewish – and of course a believer in Jesus. I recall one day that Roy had a caller; a young Californian of Mexican origin, who was bemoaning his lot. He interrupted the young man in mid-flow, and said, ‘you know what your problem is; you are Mexican – stop being Mexican and be American’ or words to that effect. Roy of course had long since ceased being English. That is what I am trying to say to TFH or Lyn87.

  250. BradA says:

    greyghost,

    Women have no love because they are not commanded to do so? That is quite a logical leap.

    It seems much simpler to believe that God tells us to do the things that are harder to do. We don’t need a command to “eat lots of desert” as that can happen without much effort. We instead need the command to do things that are hard.

    The reference to Song of Solomon already showed a woman participating in love, so claiming the lack of command to love proves women can’t love is more than a bit of a stretch.

  251. BradA says:

    I would add that I am not claiming that love just oozes out of all women. Modern society encourages the selfishness so much that it is becoming rare in a great many of them. We can see many examples where a women is not living up to the need to be loving of her own children, let alone her husband.

    Sin has a way of making even simple things hard and many women have gone away from it. General commands to walk in love also abound throughout the Scriptures, applying to men and women, so we all have to watch for it to some extent.

    It is like weight. My wife has a much easier time with her weight than I do. Her metabolism and genetics works against her ever getting fat. She still has to watch it as she can gain weight in some areas much easier, but the overall trend makes it unlikely. That is not the same with me and it takes far more effort on my part to accomplish the goal of maintaining a good weight. Saying it is easier for my wife is not pedestalizing her, it is merely noting reality.

    In the same way noting that women have any easier time loving is not saying they always do it perfectly. I would grant that far fewer do it to even a passable level today, but the ability is there if the baser selfishness were not encouraged by society.

  252. greyghost says:

    The things god commands us to do are not necessarily harder to do. Ever hear of a society un aware of god and Christ basically living by god’s law by default. These are variances in human beings that is normal. That is why the only constant is faith. I’ve never molested a child it is easy for me because I’m not aroused by children. Another man is aroused by children . Out of decency kindness for others he never acts on it and lives a full life and never acted on it he is a good man and that is the way it goes. These kind of things make life worth living and just show the power of god and how no man can be righteous no matter how hard we try.

  253. BradA says:

    What specific Scripture commands the things you note greyghost? I would agree they are bad things, but I don’t find a specific command for that, but rather for the general “flee youthful lusts” and to walk in sexual integrity (more of a principle for the latter), which goes far beyond just a single way of violating it.

    The command for men to love is explicit and it is fully clarified with “as Christ loves the Church.” That makes a much higher standard. I would agree that women are not called to do this aspect of love, so perhaps I agree with you more than it seems.

    It is also why I asked for examples of what would exhibit love from both men and women. Are those identical? I don’t believe so, but I wanted input from others to see differences in expectations for what is “love”.

  254. Lyn87 says:

    Opus,

    I agree with every single syllable that you wrote to me at 09:38 and to Greyghost at 10:09, which leads me to suppose that we are largely talking past each other. My point – and my only point – is that culture matters far more than “3rd-world DNA,” which is in contrast to what Luke was saying about miscegenation creating offspring who are inevitably “rounded down” by the genetic contribution of the “non-white” parent. That is bad biology and worse religion, and it is non anti-white racism to say so. Whichever stream of humanity one’s physical DNA derives from is of trivial importance compared to one’s cultural and religious DNA. My cultural DNA is Western Civilization (in particular the W.A.S.P. – American strain), and my religious DNA is Christian (of the solo scriptura strain).

    _______________________

    Boxer,

    Not it that matters, but since you asked for clarification: I am under the impression that those of my ancestors from what we now call Latin America were of the “native tribes” category… the people the Europeans found when they got here. Other than my fascination with obsidian knives and my slightly-shorter-than-average height, I retain none of their traits that I am aware of.

  255. Luke says:

    Lyn87, the probability of a statement being true is unrelated to the degree to which someone finds it “offensive”. Further, the collapse that the bulk of us here clearly see coming will have certain effects that are sadly quite predictable using history. Among those effects is a much greater emphasis on race/ethnicity/language. You surely admit that right now, much of the mixing that is done in the U.S. is only done under dire threats from the government and its servants in corporations, media, academia, and elsewhere. (How many high-attitude poorly-spoken blacks would be hired in technically-oriented businesses such engineering or hard science, or hardline feminists in traditionally-male spheres such as construction, mining, the oil industry, the combat military, and such, but for that iron hand?) Racially-based separatism (much more extreme than the current moderate criminality by nonwhites, or permanently relocating their families entire states away by whites) is sadly typical of times when the bread and circuses end. Let taxpayer-funded access to alcohol, cable TV, tobacco, and food (to say nothing of housing and medical care) via the welfare system come apart, and what do you think the tens of millions of young useless idle are going to do? All-riot, all the time, until dead or kept behind barbed-wire fences by armed guards unreluctant to machine-gun the recalcitrant. No productive white will long live near THAT; maintaining a family is effectively impossible there, and those who made families are the only ones with a shot at tickets to the future, as it always has been.

    Now, if, as it sounds, you identify with the West in your loyalties and behavior (language and being peacefully productive being tops here), and especially if you’re are anywhere near borderline at most in your demeanor and appearance, you’re likely to be able to permanently “pass” as a white. (North Asian ancestry Americans, particularly if half, are often this way, along with part-European Hispanics.) I do suggest you soon abandon any reference to your Hispanic background, from discussion of origins, to use of Spanish. Good luck to you.

  256. Lyn87 says:

    Luke,

    I am under no delusions about the fact that many (most?) members of racial minorities in the U.S. are only loosely assimilated into Western Civilization. I live close enough to a major urban center that, when the checks stop (as I believe they inevitably will), I may be able to see the glow on the distant horizon as the city burns.

    I also suspect that, when that day comes, there will be a racial divide like no other in our history – and I would not want to be appear to be 1) a person of color, and/or 2) a member of the moocher class. My Caucasian appearance does not betray my mixed ancestry, which can be either good or bad depending on who one is dealing with and who has the larger caliber weapon and steadier aim.

    My beef with you is not to defend “my people” – they’re not my people in any meaningful sense. It was to dispute your claim that a white man who used an East Indian ovum to make a test-tube baby was necessarily creating an “inferior” descendant. Personally I’m not a fan of AI in general, and for single people in particular, but the blanket statement you made is both absurdly false and offensive. Your view tosses people like me, my brother, our cousins, my mother, and her sisters into the same cultural category as gang-bangers and Section 8 baby-mommas – do you really not see why that generated push-back from me and others?

  257. Oscar says:

    greyghost says:
    June 9, 2014 at 9:01 am

    “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Ephesians 5:25). “So ought men love their wives as their own bodies” (Ephesians 5:28). “Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself” (Ephesians 5:33). “Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them” (Ephesians 3:19).

    God never said shit like that to women.”

    Wanna bet?

    Titus 2:1-5
    But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

  258. Oscar says:

    greyghost says:
    June 9, 2014 at 9:19 am

    “Americans are very unique and special. I didn’t fully understand it until a strange moment we had in Korea. I was in the Marine Corp at the time and I was a part of a group out in town A Mexican guy 3 white guys and a black man. Even the three white dudes all “looked” different. We where all Americans. I can never be British, I will never be Russian, I can never be Japanese. anybody in the world can be American. Straight up gun totin, tobacco abusing, business owning, “this is mine I’ll kick your ass” American. And other Americans will respect you as American. America is an ideal and a culture not a race.”

    I’m a perfect example of that. I’m a Latin American immigrant, earned citizenship after I enlisted, and yet I’ve commanded American Soldiers in combat.

    Pretty much any country will make cannon fodder out of their immigrants. Very few will let them climb up the ladder to command.

  259. BradA says:

    Oscar made the point better than I did.

  260. Opus says:

    @Lyn87

    I recall that previously you had on arriving in Athens said to your wife that you had come home. Whatever sympathy I may have with Golden Dawn, Greece, being on the far side of Europe is alien to me – referring to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh as Phil the Greek is not here meant as a sign of particular affection – quite the reverse in fact as we regard the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas as lucky chancers. I see that you identify with Zama (but on whose side Carthage or Rome, Rome I suppose – I’ve always been a big fan of Hanibal Barca). This seems very strange to me. It would be inconceivable for me to go to Tunisia let alone Greece and say that I had come home. I know that the Marshes of Kent are the same now as they were when my ancestors walked the earth, yet I would not say that I felt any particular identity (beyond my own familiarity) with them. Sheep are just not that interesting; I never read Erasmus.

    America may well be a melting pot where you have taken the tired and dispossessed; forged a new nation; pursued the American dream: It is very different in England; there is no English Dream, we are homogenous; the Romans came and went; most towns and villages (I don’t think America has the concept village) have buildings a thousand years old. It is as you suggest a different way of looking at the world.

    I carefully re-read Luke’s comment from four days ago – the one that set the cat among the pigeons: apart from observing that we are more closely related genetically to Indians than to Japanese, I find it hard to see what you and TFH found so offensive – though obviously you did.

  261. greyghost says:

    Oscar
    You only reinforced my mind on this one. Titus 2:1-5 you have there is behaviors for a woman to take more than anything else. But since the word “love” is used I can add that to the list.
    Women can’t cook, clean, parent, or love like god tells them. The perfect lesson for a boys home ec class that they should have for all teen age boys. I know my son starting at age 12 is getting the message. Thank you

  262. Anonymous age 72 says:

    BradA. You repeatedly insult people, then when someone calls you on it, oh, boohoo, this idiot is picking on me, and all I am doing is trying to present the truth. Waa Waa.

    And, double down on the insults. Yeah, things get tough when you do that.

    And, it was people almost exactly like you who prevented my generation from accomplishing anything in spite of lots of work. Nothing new found with your insults. Same-O, Same-O.

    My favorite piece of comic literature is CYRANO. The story of Cyrano Bergerac. He had a gigantic nose, a terrible nose, and was also the finest swordsman of his time. From time to time someone would insult his horrid nose, usually scant minutes before their death.

    One part of the play used to be used in speech class to demonstrate speech techniques. A man has insulted his nose, in very simple terms. And, Cyrano is sword fighting with him, sort of one handed and distracted as he composes a speech on insults the man could have said, if he were intelligent. Once he has finished his speech, he says, “And, I strike home.” And, kills him.

    I am going to tell you what you might have said, if you were intelligent, to the man you called a hypocrite for daring to try to get the best wife he can, as opposed to subscribing to the demands of your inner feminist, and putting ‘fayerness’ above doing what is correct for his child. And, himself.

    “Don’t do it, man! Don’t let another woman, except for paid care, near that precious child until it is at least 15. You have every man’s dream, sole custody of a precious child. No one else has a right to that kid. No one to sue for custody and a man-hating judge to give it to her. You marry another woman, and whether you have kids with her or not, if she helps take care of that kid, WHEN she divorces you, SHE GETS THE KID!

    “It is even worse if you have kids with the new wife. She will plea for custody not just because she took care of your child, but to avoid separating siblings.

    “And, you will be paying child support for your own kid, and probably not even getting to see him. Don’t do it!”

    Don’t bother, anyone, to tell me this can’t happen. It does happen. If a second wife loves your child, and can show she took care of him, she is going to get custody, guaranteed, and you will be the absent parent.

    My “cowardly generation that deserves to rot in Hell” actually spent time learning the real issues that face men in today’s legal environment. And, their solutions.

    With all the insults that dominate the manosphere today you are missing an opportunity to learn what we learned over the last 30 – 50 years.

    Of course, BradA is perhaps not really unintelligent. But, extremely aggressive ignorance is hard to distinguish from stupidity.

  263. Oscar says:

    greyghost says:
    June 10, 2014 at 7:16 am

    “You only reinforced my mind on this one. Titus 2:1-5 you have there is behaviors for a woman to take more than anything else. But since the word “love” is used I can add that to the list.”

    I don’t understand. Can you reword or explain?

    “Women can’t cook, clean, parent, or love like god tells them.”

    Mine does. And so do our girls. Just last week I taught them to make a tasty breakfast casserole, and Sunday they made it with no help. It’s delicious.

    Yes, I realize we’re in the minority of parents who teach their daughters “to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.” But we’re also in the minority of parents who teach their sons “to be sober-minded, 7 in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility,[a] 8 sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you.” (Titus 2:6-8)

  264. Pingback: the Revision Division

  265. BradA says:

    Believe what you want Anon72.

  266. BradA says:

    Though I am not sure what your rant has to do with me. Ah well, maybe it makes you feel better.

  267. Thomas says:

    Christians are worried about Gay marriage when traditional marriage is on the way out. I don’t like to either but with all the child abuse, broken homes and working women that take jobs away from men. Those are issues that are as important than one issue. Let gays get married. This bring our savior Jesus closer to returning.

  268. Pingback: Does Shaunti Feldhahn’s rosy divorce data prove that no fault divorce is working out pretty well after all? | Dalrock

  269. Pingback: Nowhere close to true. | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s