She wanted to run with the bulls.

Drudge has a news story up today about a woman the local Tennessee media celebrated back in July of 2015 for showing that women can be in combat just like men.  At the time Erika Lopez was the first woman in the state to enlist in the Army as a combat engineer.  The story is in the national media because Lopez is now considered a deserter.

Lopez was in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. An Army spokesperson tells Local 8 News that Private Lopez was scheduled to return from convalescent leave on January 4th. She was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on January 5th after she failed to return.

Spokesperson Tiffany Wood issued a statement saying, “After 30 days in an AWOL status, a Soldier is considered a deserter and a federal warrant is issued for his or her arrest.”

This story and others like it are bad for the narrative, but they won’t change the political decision to open all combat roles to women.  In the end it really isn’t all that bad for the narrative either, because for nearly all feminists this isn’t about actually having women perform at the level of men, but about disgracing the institutions that they see as conferring status on men.  Nearly all women understand at a deep level that they can’t actually perform the same roles;  feminists know they can’t attain the honor and respect that they are so envious of, so instead they set out to mark the space as feminine to ensure that men can’t either.  From this perspective Lopez is accomplishing the feminist mission whether she sticks around long enough to join a unit or makes a laughingstock of the whole process.

On the other side we have conservatives, who tend to fall into two camps*.  The first conservative camp is dedicated to showing that they embrace opening all roles to women so long as the military holds women to the “same high standards as men” and pretends this is about finding the best talent for every job.  This isn’t really serious though.  This is a plea to feminists to maintain the fiction conservatives see as their tacit bargain with feminists.  We saw the same nonsense last summer when the Republican leadership telegraphed their willingness to open the military to transgendered.  As House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) put it at the time:

The department “needs to look at a variety of policies. As long as they look at it objectively, based on what’s best for the security interests of the country, then we’ll oversee or review what they do,” he told The Hill.

“When there’s a sense that there’s some extraneous social or political agenda … people get concerned,” Thornberry added.

This wasn’t a new argument, as it was the same rationalization Republicans have been using to first accept women in the military and then later women in combat.

The second conservative camp relies on a different fantasy to get them through the day.  They start with the same lie the first camp of conservatives uses to rationalize the process, and then pretend it is the other conservatives who have driven the feminist process all along.  This is an extra level of psychosis, but is their only way of claiming to support biblical sex roles while avoiding confronting the feminist rebellion that surrounds them.

Both groups are in full denial of what feminists have been entirely open about all along.  This is about envy of men.  The Lopez story of women’s empowerment is the same story feminists have been selling all along.  Her desertion wouldn’t be of any interest to Drudge if she hadn’t been sold as a feminist hero from day 1.  While both camps of conservatives have been denying that pushing women into the military is about feminism, we were all being bombarded with messages of feminist empowerment like the original local Tennessee news story:

A Knoxville woman has signed up for a job that could lead her straight into battle, and she is the first in Tennessee to do it. She hopes her journey will inspire her children and women around the world.

After delivering her first son at 16 and staying home to raise the next one that came along, Erica still found a way to follow her dreams.  She stepped out of her role as a housewife and enlisted in the Army as a combat engineer.  But Erica had no idea that her choice would be so unique.

Yet in the same piece her decision to leave her husband and two sons in order to “follow her dreams” is presented not as selfishness, but as a sacrifice she is making for them.  No one notices the contradiction because feminism is now one of our highest values as a society.  Promoting it even at the expense of her family is seen as a sacrifice she is making for her family:

She left her husband and two children in September of 2015 for basic training where she was learning to build bridges, detonate artillery, and detect roadside bombs under combat conditions. She said, “You make sacrifices your whole life for your children and for your family, this will be a sacrifice… Women can do anything they set their mind to just as well as men I don’t really see any difference at all. I hope women will want to join.”

Here is the video of the original news story from Youtube.  Some of the audio cuts out on the youtube version but the version on the Local8 page has the audio intact:


*Drudge and the WND story he links to are of course proof of a remnant of conservatives still pointing out that putting women into combat is a game of politically correct theater.

Update:  Private Lopez has turned herself in.

Posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denial, Envy, Fantasy vs Reality, Feminist Territory Marking, Military, Running with the bulls, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists | 129 Comments

How to tell if you are a godly man.

Sunshine Thiry decided to test to see if it is true that when complementarians say “listen to your wife” what they mean is “do what she says”.

Is it true that what complementarians mean by “listening to your wife” is agreeing with your wife and doing what she says?  This is actually a very serious accusation, and therefore all of us who take biblical marriage seriously should be concerned about this charge because if it is true, what complementarians are teaching is directly counter to what the Bible says about the marital hierarchy of headship and submission

This caused Sunshine to think back to the video series The Art of Marriage, and specifically the message from Pastor Dave Wilson and his wife Ann (clip 1, clip 2).  In the video segments we learn about the time Ann gave Dave a wake-up call in order to get him to spend more time with the family.  In modern Christian theology wives are closer to God than husbands are, and therefore need to periodically do or say things to threaten and/or hurt their husbands in order to bring them to heel.  In this case the wake-up call was Ann telling Dave she didn’t love him anymore:

Dave: So, I leaned over to kiss Ann. As I leaned over to kiss her in the passenger seat, she sort of pulls away.

Ann: “Ugggghh!” I was just like, “Honey, I can’t even!” In my head, I was thinking, “I cannot even go there.”

Dave: So I pulled back, and look at her, and said, “Is something wrong?” She looks at me—and I’ll never forget this—she goes, “Well, yes, there is something wrong.” I am like, “What’s wrong?” And she says, “Well, to be honest with you, I’ve lost my feelings for you.”

In the second clip Dave explains that God spoke to him then and there, telling him to “shut up and listen” to his wife.  Dave followed this command and started working less and spending more time with his wife and family.  As Sunshine Thiry points out, this is yet another example of complementarians meaning do as your wife says when they say “listen to your wife”:

Looking at their story now, two years later, it clearly seems to support Dalrock’s charge.  The Wilsons’ story is eerily similar to the Kellers’ except that Mrs. Wilson doesn’t violently smash anything.  But there is still a veiled threat implicit in telling your husband that you no longer love him on your tenth anniversary date night.  Pastor Wilson even talks about getting the sense that he was supposed to “just shut up and listen” to his wife, as Pastor Keller had with Mrs. Keller, while she told him what she had told him repeatedly before.

From wake-up call to divine tingle.

The Wilsons take this a step further in a two part series* they did for FamilyLife.  They use this same story to teach that a wife’s attraction to her husband is determined by how godly he is.  Here is how FamilyLife explains the message when selling the series (all further emphasis mine):

Pastor Dave Wilson and his wife, Ann, explore the complex and wonderful dance of martial intimacy as they share their own unique dance experience. According to Pastor Dave Wilson and his wife, Ann, a man’s relationship with God is key to unlocking the mystery of marital intimacy.

In the FamilyLife series the Wilsons explain that Ann’s wake-up call to Dave that night was even harsher than presented in the Art of Marriage clips.

Ann:  I basically said, “I have been so angry, and you haven’t heard me.” And even when I thought I was going to bring this up, I thought he would get angry again because he would say, “I am home!”

Dave:  Yes, I usually fought loud.

Ann:  Yes. So, I told him that: “I was angry, and then my anger turned to bitterness, and then my bitterness turned to numbness, and now I don’t even care. I’m not even mad at you anymore because I’m not going to divorce you, but I feel like I don’t have anything for you.”

They explain that when she said this, God was speaking to Dave through Ann:

Dave:  Yes. Here’s all you need to know about that night—the thing that changed our marriage is when Ann was sharing with me what she felt—I had a pretty unique encounter with God. I sensed God was speaking to me, through Ann;

This is when he realized that a wife’s attraction toward her husband (or lack thereof) is a barometer of the man’s godliness:

and the word I heard from God was only one word: “Repent.” I knew, when I heard that word, what it meant—it wasn’t “Repent of being a bad husband,” or “…being gone too much.” It was:  “Repent of your relationship with Me,”—God / vertical. See, I had been so busy that my walk with God was sort of on the fly—I wasn’t sitting with Him / I wasn’t studying His Word. I got into His Word—why? So I would have something to preach. I hadn’t been intimate with God in months.

At that moment, Dave started praying and dedicated himself to God.  This is what turned around Ann’s long time revulsion at the thought of having sex with Dave:

Ann:  I think God was saying: “When we are okay, I can get you through anything. I will catch you.” And I knew it, too, because our sex was terrible. I was so resentful when he touched me—it didn’t take a crockpot / it took for eternity. I could never, ever get used to Dave’s touch. It was a red signal going off, like: “We need help! We need counseling.  Something needs to happen.”

So, for me, I got down on my knees too. Dave and I grabbed hands together, and we both repented and re-surrendered our lives to Jesus and our marriage to Jesus.

Dave:  I’m telling you—it changed. I’m not saying we’re perfect and the last 25 years haven’t been without difficulty…

If you want a better sex life—and that’s just one part of your marriage—you’re not going to get it by taking three points from us. The only thing that’s going to change your marriage or your sex life is bringing God into your bedroom /bringing God into your marriage.

Part of their message is good;  surrendering to God, repenting, and praying are extremely important.  But this is only part of their message, and it conceals a very harmful theology.  They aren’t just advising to pray for improved sex/marriage, and this isn’t even just a sort of sexual prosperity Gospel.  They are teaching that women are designed to respond sexually to godly husbands.  This is unfortunately a fairly common modern teaching, but even here they are taking the error to the next level:

  1. Ann knew Dave wasn’t right with God because she was repulsed by the idea of having sex with him.
  2. God spoke to Dave about his lack of Christian obedience through Ann’s lack of desire to have sex with him.

Moreover, a generic focus on prayer is being used to avoid complying with the clear instructions in the Bible to husbands and wives.  The most relevant instruction is in 1 Cor 7, which tells husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sex.  They cover this in part one of the series, but the stress is on rationalizing Ann’s failure to follow this command.  They turn it into a yuk yuk moment where Ann chastises Dave for having “used this against her” in the past:

Ann: Here’s what it says in 1 Corinthians 7: “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband.” You used to use that against me a little bit too: “It’s not just your body; it’s mine.” Do you remember that?

Dave: I never did that.

Ann: Yes, you did.

Dave: Hey, you’re supposed to just read the Word of God. [Laughter]

Then together they gloss over the command by focusing solely on the unifying properties of sex in marriage:

Ann: “In the same way the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time so that you may devote yourselves to prayer and then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

You know, I read that and here’s what I think: “Before we’re married, Satan will do everything in his power to try to get us to have sex; and after we’re married, Satan—who wants to destroy our marriages—tries to do everything in his power for us not to have sex. Isn’t that true? Yes! Here’s what the promise is—that I think that God is saying for us to come together—it unites us, spiritually/emotionally. It’s what makes it so special and, yet, it’s so hard; but I love that the Scripture talks about this.

Dave: Yes; and the Scripture isn’t giving you a number of how many times a week that you’ve got to make love—it doesn’t do that—but it does give us a pattern that says it should be somewhat regular.

Scripture isn’t giving a number because it is saying to have sex whenever either of you wants.  This is very clear, but it is extremely unpalatable in our feminist age.  In tossing aside this very clear instruction and instead focusing on the wife’s arousal, Dave and Ann are effectively arguing that couples should only have sex when the wife is in the mood.  This then is connected to their claim that wives will want to have sex if their husbands are godly.  Where Scripture tells us Ann was sinning by defrauding her husband, Dave and Ann turn this around so that Dave was sinning (even in a yuk yuk way) by washing his wife in the water of the word.  Then they explain that the reason Ann wasn’t aroused was because Dave wasn’t godly enough.  Pointing out sin becomes the real sin, and what the Bible tells us is the sin of the wife (in the case of a defrauding wife) is turned around to indicate a sin of the husband.  This is especially toxic because the target audience of the series is married couples where the wife is either denying sex or strongly tempted to do so.

The other relevant instructions in Scripture are the repeated command to wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5-22:24,  1 Pet 3:1&5, Col 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11 & Tit 2:5).  Dave and Ann have turned this relationship around, and their cross-dressing theology is at least part of the reason Ann was repulsed by the thought of having sex with Dave.  They present it as being the opposite, that Ann is turned on by Dave doing as she says (which ends up being God’s will since speaks to Dave through her).  Yet this is both of them following her rationalizations.

*I have quoted from the transcripts, but if you listen to the audio you will find that at times the transcript left small parts out.  Here are the detailed links:  Part 1 mp3, part 1 transcriptPart 2 mp3, part 2 transcript.



Posted in Complementarian, Crossdressing Theology, Dave and Ann Wilson, FamilyLife, Frigidity, Game, Marriage, Miserliness, New Morality, Romantic Love, Turning a blind eye, Wake-up call, Wife worship | 235 Comments

He was like a little boy that night.

Christian sex experts Pastor Dave and Ann Wilson inadvertently explain how to kill your wife’s attraction in The Art of Marriage:

Dave:  On May 24, 1990, it was our ten-year anniversary—I sort of surprised Ann with a ten-year anniversary date. We dressed up and went to a really nice restaurant. I sort of set it up with the waiter, while we were having dinner / when I would queue him—sort of give him a look—he was supposed to bring a rose over. So, I queued him early in the dinner—he brought over a rose and laid it on the table. We talked about year one.

Ann:  He was like a little boy that night—like waiting for the next thing to happen.

Dave:  Then I looked over later, and he brought another rose. So, anyway, every rose was a year; and we would talk about that year.

Ann:  He was so sweet—he even planned what he was going to say when each rose arrived.

Little boys are indeed sweet, but they aren’t sexy.  Later that night Dave tried to kiss his wife, and she explained that she no longer had feelings for him.

Dave: So, I leaned over to kiss Ann. As I leaned over to kiss her in the passenger seat, she sort of pulls away.

Ann: “Ugggghh!” I was just like, “Honey, I can’t even!” In my head, I was thinking, “I cannot even go there.”

Dave: So I pulled back, and look at her, and said, “Is something wrong?” She looks at me—and I’ll never forget this—she goes, “Well, yes, there is something wrong.” I am like, “What’s wrong?” And she says, “Well, to be honest with you, I’ve lost my feelings for you.”

Pastor Wilson was an All-American quarterback at Ball State and a leader of men, but by supplicating to his wife he took on the form of a little boy and killed his wife’s attraction for him.


Hat Tip Sunshinethiry (followup post pending)



Posted in Closeness, Dave and Ann Wilson, Frigidity, Game, Marriage, Romantic Love, Uncategorized | 157 Comments

Supplicating to rebellion

Solomon challenged my definition of the word complementarian in the last post:

Dalrock, you said “This is the very definition of complementarianism.”

I think maybe you meant this is the definition of today’s upside-down, backwards, unholy complementarianism currently touted.

Normal complementarianism is God’s actual order. Man is authoity, woman complements/helps

This isn’t true.  Complementarianism is a term coined a little over twenty five years ago by Christians who wanted to preserve what they saw as feminist progress while avoiding what they saw as feminist excess. John Piper and Wayne Grudem explained this back in 1991 in the preface to their seminal book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism.  Piper and Grudem explain that their purpose is to push back against the evangelical feminists arguing that there should be no difference between the roles of men and women.  However, they are largely sympathetic to the feminist position, seeing it not as rebellion but as the understandable pushback from thousands of years of Christian error (emphasis mine):

…these authors differ from secular feminists because they do not reject the Bible’s authority or truthfulness, but rather give new interpretations of the Bible to support their claims. We may call them “evangelical feminists” because by personal commitment to Jesus Christ and by profession of belief in the total truthfulness of Scripture they still identify themselves very clearly with evangelicalism. Their arguments have been detailed, earnest, and persuasive to many Christians.

What has been the result? Great uncertainty among evangelicals. Men and women simply are not sure what their roles should be. Traditional positions have not been totally satisfactory, because they have not fully answered the recent evangelical feminist arguments. Moreover, most Christians will admit that selfishness, irresponsibility, passivity, and abuse have often contaminated “traditional” patterns of how men and women relate to each other.

Note their adoption of the feminist frame via the claim that traditional marriage is contaminated by passivity and abuse.  Here they are referencing their creation of the new feminist sin for wives (the sin of servility to husbands), as well as the feminist claim that traditional marriage is characterized by abuse of wives.  They explain that their primary purpose is convince Christian feminists that complementarians have banished the errors of the patriarchal past.  Complementarianism is a new vision that incorporates the best parts of feminism while retaining separate gender roles (emphasis mine):

But our primary purpose is broader than that: We want to help Christians recover a noble vision of manhood and womanhood as God created them to be -hence the main title, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Our vision is not entirely the same as “a traditional view.” We affirm that the evangelical feminist movement has pointed out many selfish and hurtful practices that have previously gone unquestioned. But we hope that this new vision-a vision of Biblical “complementarity”-will both correct the previous mistakes and avoid the opposite mistakes that come from the feminist blurring of God-given sexual distinctions. 

We hope that thousands of Christian women who read this book will come away feeling affirmed and encouraged to participate much more actively in many ministries, and to contribute their wisdom and insight to the family and the church. We hope they will feel fully equal to men in status before God, and in importance to the family and the church. We pray that, at the same time, this vision of equality and complementarity will enable Christian women to give wholehearted affirmation to Biblically balanced male leadership in the home and in the church.

This is not a call to end feminist rebellion, because they are largely sympathetic to feminism.  When complementarians encounter the most overt feminist rebellion they go to laughable extremes to deny feminism and blame men and men alone.  This is a plea to Christian women in rebellion to come back without fear of having their feminist sensibilities challenged.  You can almost hear the music playing in the background as Piper and Grudem wrote the preface:

Baby come back!  You can blame it all on me!

I was wrong, and I just can’t live without you!

A bit further down they reiterate that they have coined a new term in order to avoid what they see as the stigma of traditionalism:

A brief note about terms: If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. We are uncomfortable with the term “traditionalist” because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence.

This is the origin of the term from the founders of the CBMW, one of the two flagships of the complementarian movement*.  The other flagship of the movement is The Gospel Coalition (TGC), founded by D.A. Carson and Tim Keller.  Here is women’s studies professor Mary Kassian explaining the origin of the term at TGC:

Though the concept of male-female complementarity can be seen from Genesis through Revelation, the label “complementarian” has only been in use for about 25 years.  It was coined by a group of scholars who got together to try and come up with a word to describe someone who ascribes to the historic, biblical idea that male and female are equal, but different. The need for such a label arose in response to the proposition that equality means role-interchangeability (egalitarianism)—-a concept first forwarded and popularized in evangelical circles in the 1970s and 1980s by “Biblical Feminists.” I’ve read several articles lately from people who misunderstand and/or misrepresent the complementarian view. I was at the meeting 25 years ago where the word “complementarian” was chosen. So I think I have a pretty good grasp on the word’s definition.

Kassian emphasizes that the term is designed to conserve the progress of the 1960s:

2. June Cleaver is so 1950s and so not the definition of complementarity.

In our name-the-concept meeting, someone mentioned the word “traditionalism,” since our position is what Christians have traditionally believed. But that was quickly nixed. The word “traditionalism” smacks of “tradition.” Complementarians believe that the Bible’s principles supersede tradition. They can be applied in every time and culture. June Cleaver is a traditional, American, TV stereotype. She is not the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like 60 or 70 years ago. So throw out the cookie-cutter stereotype. It does not apply.

*These two groups aren’t entirely separate, as there is much overlap among the major movers of these organizations.   John Piper is featured in the TGC overview video, and Mary Kassian is a member of the CBMW Council.


Posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Feminists, Mary Kassian, Rebellion, The Gospel Coalition, The Real Feminists, Tim and Kathy Keller, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye | 144 Comments

Not listening.

A few readers have challenged my observation that when complementarians say husbands are guilty of “not listening” to their wives what they mean is husbands aren’t doing what the wife says.  I’ve recently offered multiple examples where complementarians do this (here and here), and so far no one has offered any counter examples.  I’ll offer some more examples in a followup post, but we should also consider the different meanings of the expression itself and the context in which complementarians are using it.  We should also consider the practical implications in real life marriages of what is at best a terribly vague charge.

Saying someone “isn’t listening” very commonly does mean the person isn’t doing what you told them to do.  The distinction comes with the position of the person using it in relation to the person they are talking about.  If a boss complains that his employees aren’t listening to him, he isn’t saying they won’t hear him out;  he is complaining that they aren’t doing as instructed.  The same is true for a parent who complains that their children aren’t listening to them.  Outside of feminised Christianity there really is no controversy here.  The term does mean not doing as they were told if the person doing the telling is considered to be in a position of authority.

Moreover, while they like to be coy about this fact, modern Christians do see the wife as being in a natural position of authority over the husband.  This is why we frequently have Christian wives exhorted to tell their husbands no, set boundaries, and enforce consequences.  If a husband were to “set boundaries” and enforce consequences on his wife, the term for this is abuse.  Even pointing out that this would be abuse if the sexes were switched is itself a form of abuse.  This is the complementarian position.

I have shared a long list of examples where wives are taught to give their husbands the wakeup call when the husband isn’t doing what the wife wants him to do.  Joel and Kathy call this lowering the boom.  Kathy Keller “submitted” to her husband Tim by throwing a “godly tantrum” and breaking their wedding china.  Dr. Mohler explains that it is God’s plan for wives to deny sex if their husbands aren’t doing what they should be doing.  In Fireproof the wife brings about God’s will to fix her husband by filing for divorce and starting an affair.  In the advertisement for ReEngaged the wakeup-call came in the form of the wife having an affair.  In the case of Bill and Vonette Bright, Vonette gave Bill a wake-up call by threatening to leave him and take the kids.  FotF’s Glenn Stanton explains that civilization exists because wives make their husbands do the right thing.  FotF’s president and Dr. David Clarke explain that God’s plan is for wives to teach and lead their less astute and less virtuous husbands.  I could go on further because the examples are everywhere, but will stop at this point.

Having established both:

  1.  The term does mean “doing as I say” when used by someone in authority.
  2.  Complementarians present wives as being in authority over their husbands.

There really can’t be a question as to how complementarians are using the term except for the cloak of deception complementarians use to deny #2.  “Listen to your wife” is the perfect expression here, because complementarians can play Motte and Bailey with the two established meanings until everyone tires of the game.

But there is another advantage for complementarians in stealthily selling female headship with this term.  When wives disagree with what their husband is doing, their natural inclination is to demand to continue to discuss the question forever.  Children do this too, and the effect (even if not done consciously) can be to wear out the decision maker with objections until they relent.  In the case of the Kellers, Tim and Kathy tell us that they had discussed the issue of his workload for months before Kathy threw her “godly tantrum”.  Tim listened to her concerns about his workload for months, he just didn’t agree to work less.  It wasn’t until he agreed with her that he was finally listening.  Likewise in the complementarian threesome the couple had discussed the issue for weeks before the husband finally made a decision.  For making a decision his wife disagreed with he was deemed unloving and guilty of the sin of not listening.

Even if “not listening” didn’t have the commonly accepted meaning of not doing as told by a superior, this would still be a deviously clever way to enact feminist headship while pretending to honor biblical marriage roles.  Wives would be free to continue objecting to every decision they disagreed with forever, and husbands would be in sin if they didn’t continue to listen.  The husband would retain full responsibility for all decisions, but the wife is the one who is really in charge.  This is the very definition of complementarianism.







Posted in Armchair Husbands, Attacking headship, Bill Bennett, Complementarian, Denial, Domestic Violence, Dr. David Clarke, Fireproof, Focus on the Family, Glenn Stanton, Headship, Joel and Kathy Davisson, Lowering The Boom, Not Listening, Rebellion, Submission, Theological Crossdressing, Threatpoint, Tim and Kathy Keller, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Wake-up call | 107 Comments