Men and women are both more trusting of men

Forbes.com has a new article up titled:  Men Cooperate More with Each Other than Women Do (H/T Uncle Elmer). The article is by Victoria Pynchon, who is responding to a meta analysis of studies which looked at the differences in cooperation between men and women.  The press release for the study which found that men and women have different patterns of cooperation is helpfully titled:  Men and Women Cooperate Equally for the Common Good.  Of course.  What else could they have titled it?  Here is the key finding from the meta analysis:

While there was no statistical difference between the sexes when it came to cooperating when faced with a social dilemma, when the researchers drilled down they did find some differences.  Specifically, women were more cooperative than men in mixed-sex studies and men became more cooperative than women in same-sex studies and when the social dilemma was repeated.

The lead author of the study offers an explanation for why men are more cooperative with each other than women:

“The argument is that throughout human evolutionary history, male coalitions have been an effective strategy for men to acquire resources, such as food and property,” said Balliet. “Both hunting and warfare are social dilemmas in that they firmly pit individual and group interests against each other. Yet, if everyone acts upon their immediate self-interest, then no food will be provided, and wars will be lost. To overcome such social dilemmas requires strategies to cooperate with each other.”

Evolutionary theory may also explain why women are less cooperative with other women when faced with a social dilemma, according to Balliet. “Ancestral women usually migrated between groups and they would have been interacting mostly with women who tended not to be relatives, and many were co-wives,” he said. “Social dynamics among women would have been rife with sexual competition.”

The Forbes author concludes that since the differences between men and women are biological, this is something women can fix:

There you have it, ladies. Proof that we are more competitive with one another than we are with men. This explains so much, including the bitter complaints of women in business and the professions about the lack of support they feel from their female colleagues.

This is something we can change. It is completely within our control. And if you say, I’m cooperative but she’s a bitch, then you have some conflict resolution work to do.

Makes sense to me. You ladies should get right on that.  I’d offer to help, but it would be sexist of me to do so.

What they were looking at is a series of studies involving the prisoner’s dilemma.  This is classic Game Theory (think Nash, not Mystery) and it involves the ability of multiple individuals to have enough trust to cooperate when there is an incentive for cheating.  If one party convinces the other to cooperate, and then cheats, the cheater wins big and the sucker loses.  If both parties cheat, they both lose.  If both cooperate, they both win modestly.

Crucial to this process is to be able to trust the other party.  Being trusting in the face of treachery means failure;  if you can’t trust your partner you may as well cheat.  But both cooperating is a better mutual outcome than both cheating, so if trust can be achieved then both parties win.

So what does this really mean when we strip away the feminist doublespeak?  Both men and women were more willing to trust a man not to sell them out.  Women didn’t trust women.  Men didn’t trust women.  Men trusted other men.  Women trusted men.

Is it even possible the academics who did the study didn’t understand this?

This entry was posted in Feminists, Scientific Paper. Bookmark the permalink.

241 Responses to Men and women are both more trusting of men

  1. RL says:

    “Women tend to revile women bosses

    It might be expected that, with the separate social organisation of the sexes, having a boss of the opposite sex might be problematic, and that with women sticking together the most benign arrangement is women working for a woman boss. Paradoxical though it seems, nothing could be further from the truth. Organisations function best where bosses are male—whether their underlings are male or female—and worst when bosses are female. They function worst of all when a woman manages women.

    Research reveals that women overwhelmingly prefer not to work under another female. This is a profoundly negative feeling about women as line managers and not a positive feeling about men in the role. A useless male boss is preferred to a competent female one. It’s not just an issue of women not liking working for women superiors, but that they don’t want to cooperate with or even acknowledge them (Molm, 1986). Some female secretaries actually walk out of recruitment when they find that their prospective boss is a woman. (The squabbling on The Apprentice came to a head when Miranda Rose got the boot for disloyalty after being appointed P.A. by the power-hungry Adele Lock. The job appeared to have no purpose other than to improve Ms. Lock’s level of self-esteem and had disastrous consequences for the female social network as well as for the ‘enterprise’.)

    A survey for the Royal Mail in 2000 reported that only seven percent of women preferred a female superior. In a 1991 survey, of women who had worked through the Alfred Marks agency under both men and women, less than a fifth said they wouldwant a woman line manager in future, and two-thirds said they would never work under a woman again and wanted their boss to bemale. Almost the same proportion (three in five) expressed just the same to researchers for Harper’s Bazaar magazine in 2007—and these were professional women in top jobs. Women’s unwillingness to work for a woman line manager is greater compared to men’s (Mavin, Sandra & Lockwood, 2004; Mavin, Sharon & Bryans, 2003). Women can positively welcome work beyond their job description when it’s for a male boss. However hidden, it appears that a
    sexual frisson—which can be very widely manifested, inmany not overtly sexual ways—makes a dull job sparkle. Inter-sexual social reality is what is most salient.

    Women complain that female bosses have favourites and are inconsistent because they deal in personal relationships instead of focusing on the job, whereaswomen feel they get fair treatment from male bosses. The predominantly personal dimension of women’s managerial style leads to sniping or awkwardness; or a sense of superiority and trying to prove a point when giving out work. Something powerful is at play here. Women have an acute awareness of
    the separate worlds of the sexes.Underlying the negative feelings women have for same-sex bosses, is that they are aware of the instrumental motivation of women to try to travel up organisational structures, of being more in the company of higher-statusmen. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, women don’t acquire status, except in the sense of
    acquiring it indirectly from their long-term mates; so women placing themselves over other women according to the criteria of a male competitive status hierarchy may be seen by their female underlings as incongruous— cheating even. Women’s natural predisposition to networking exacerbates this. A female boss is not centred on the work place as a coalition as are men; instead being more concerned with what she perceives as her ‘in-group’ of women, most of whom are likely outside the organisation, with whom the women under her may well have no connection.

    The women bosses with their favoured women underlings stick together, and the selective bias women have for other women will come out in interviews for promotion. There is an irony that women, as the people women least want to see manage them, will tend to end up with positions
    of responsibility, thus driving further workplace discord amongst women, and further discrimination against men.” (Steve Moxon, TWR)

  2. Opus says:

    1. Why, if women co-operate less, do they seem to be the ones to build large support groups (Facebook – Diaries booked up for months in advance) whereas men are perfectly happy with a small group off friends or none?

    2. The optimal response in Prisoner’s Dilemna is to play Hawk yet (I observe) on the version of it on British T.V. (Deal or No Deal) when a man plays against a woman he will always, being the trusting White-Knight he is, play Dove – to his cost.

  3. RL says:

    “There are major implications of the radically different social psychologies of the sexes in terms of the ‘in-group’. Men make more natural team workers and can better assimilate new workers, whereas women’s personal networks can get in the way of this. The use of both work and sexual modes by women is bound to lead to crossed wires and unfairness to men in harassment claims.

    The work hierarchy is antithetical to the female personal network, so women tend to view those women who climb the hierarchy as ‘breaking the rules’ and resent them accordingly. So there are intra- as well as inter- sex problems that come from women in the workplace. That women tend to prefer their own sex to men by a factor of four, whereas men have no preference for their own sex, cannot but impact seriously on the workplace, notably in recruitment and promotion. Men are not welcome in female sex-typical jobs, whereas women don’t suffer the reverse.

    Sex discrimination law produces preferential treatment of women and sex discrimination against men; notably by equal-pay law regarding jobs supposedly of ‘equal value‘. It also allows for either special treatment for women or treatment identical to men, whichever is advantageous to women in the particular case. Employers now unfairly favour women four times as much as men for professional jobs – even those where men have always tended to excel more than women.” (Steve Moxon, TWR)

  4. Desiderius says:

    Opus,

    “The optimal response in Prisoner’s Dilemna is to play Hawk”

    You share that delusion with many (including the overwhelming majority of single) women. Tit-for-tat is optimal – starting with “Dove”. Trust but verify. Reputation is important. The key finding of the study that Dalrock hasn’t touched on yet is this:

    “men became more cooperative than women … when the social dilemma was repeated.”

    [D: Good point.]

  5. deti says:

    “Both men and women were more willing to trust a man not to sell them out. Women didn’t trust women. Men didn’t trust women. Men trusted other men. Women trusted men.”

    The conclusion to be drawn is that in today’s society, men are more trustworthy than women, all other things being equal. It’s not a long stretch to extrapolate that to the SMP.

  6. Gorbachev says:

    We all know this is true; all women know this is true.

    But somehow, we need studies to show it. Because just observing it is sexist.

  7. TarHeelDude says:

    This issue of trust is not a new thing. Adam trusted Eve to do what she was supposed to do in the Garden of Eden. We all know how that turned out. There is nothing new under the sun.

  8. deti says:

    “men became more cooperative than women … when the social dilemma was repeated.”

    From this one can conclude men are more prone to cooperate for their own good and for the good of others/family/friends/society. And, it seems, men observe the detriment when they do not cooperate and make appropriate course corrections for their own good and for others’ good.

    Women are more prone to act in their own self-interest and in the moment, for short term gain.

    To me this just points up the myth and pretty lie that men are often sold: women are more family oriented than men, women are more empathetic and care more for others than do men; women are the “socializing” and “civilizing” force in families and civilizations. It just doesn’t seem to be true when you observe the way many women operate.

    This also seems to explain why men fall into the “yes dear” trap: erroneously concluding that wife or GF is usually a rational actor and motivated to cooperate for her good and the family’s good, the man/husband concludes that cooperation with and capitulation to her will lead to her cooperation. He does not account for her acting in naked self-interest.

  9. Jennifer says:

    “Adam trusted Eve to do what she was supposed to do in the Garden of Eden”

    *sporfle* Worst example ever: he ate the damn fruit too, and not a word is recorded of HIM resisting. Plus, he blamed her, while she blamed the serpent; she could easily have said, “But my husband didn’t protect or lead me properly!” if the bs concept that men must control and/or “lead” women all the time was true. Especially if the suspicions of many are correct, and he was with her the whole time. As for men being more trustworthy in the SMP, that’s just cute; they’re far more likely to have quick sex for short-term gain. Consequences for their actions? Like the Roissy/Tucker Max kind? Not even remotely.

  10. detinennui32 says:

    Simmer down, Jennifer.

    Regardless of what anyone believes or interprets about the biblical account of the Fall, the fact remains that Adam followed Eve’s lead, instead of the other way around.

    No one talks here about “controlling” women “all the time”. The term “lead” does not mean “control”. They are not interchangeable. No one is trying to turn women into Stepford wives. The manosphere talks about women following men’s lead. This is a topic for good reason here– because women find the leading instinct in a man to be attractive. I know you don’t like the terms “dominance” or “dominant”. But women respond to male dominance. It is an attractive trait. You’ve been around these parts enough to know that is an accepted truth here, supported with mountains of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise. In years past my own wife has literally begged me to lead and make final decisions for her. And my wife is by no means a shrinking wallflower either.

    Or, if you prefer: “The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church.”

    I think men are more trustworthy in the SMP. They tend to be more honest and straightforward about what they want and why they want it. And when you get down to it, Game is not all about tricks and subroutines. It’s simply unleashing what men are, and freeing them up to be men after it having been suppressed for decades.

    Every woman knows why men talk to them. It’s silly to think it’s all about intellectual stimulation and platonic friendship. Of course that’s not what it’s about. It’s because we ultimately want to find out if you are a willing and compatible sex partner; or it’s about flirting, plain and simple.. Any woman over the age of 13 instinctively knows that’s why men approach them.

    Men are far more likely to have quick sex for short term gain? Without consequences? Seriously? Does female hypergamy mean anything to you? You’ve been here long enough to know that any woman a 4 or above can get sex anytime she wants it, on any terms she wants, with whatever consequences she wants. Men have to work for sex. He has to display. She has to select him. All she has to do is show up and have a functioning vagina.

  11. John says:

    I have three sisters who at one time or another have worked for both sexes. All three have stated that they prefer working for men. I worked for one female boss in my career. Women bosses are catty, will not forget an injustice and will go to any length to get even. Men tend to see the big picture while women generally can’t see the forest for the trees.

    I believe as the economy deteriorates further, the hostility will increase even further among those women already employed.

  12. Joe Blow says:

    Bro’s before ho’s.

    There are exceptions. My wife definitely comes first. And I’m good friends with a two top notch women who work with me on some community organizations I’m part of. But they aren’t exactly girl’s girls. They’re more like gal-bros in how they act, if that makes sense. Long on character and loyalty, very formidable women. Warrior chicks? I dunno. Very grown up, mature women; the usual foibles one gets in any human but way steadier, more reliable than the average woman. Hard to describe them. “*Really* good wife material” is how a married friend of mine described one of the single ones. The consensus in my circle of friends is they’re both 6-7 on the looks scale, but their character makes them ~9’s for overall attractiveness. Both had trouble finding serious, quality guys to date. The married one divorced a guy who totally flaked out on her, re-married a Super Beta friend of mine whose wife had ditched him for a seriously rich scumbag who is now facing fraud charges. The single one is at her wit’s end with the Peter Pan guys she meets, who are 35 and don’t act like grown ups. It’s possible that because she’s not super sexually competitive, it puts her at a disadvantage. Not sure…

  13. jack says:

    Joe Blow-

    Interesting point – no one ever said bros before wives or other women close to you. Just hos.

  14. Opus says:

    @ Desidirius

    You may be right, but it is clear that the first time you and I play Prisoner’s Dilemma, I will win and you will lose.

  15. jack says:

    *sporfle* Worst example ever: he ate the damn fruit too, and not a word is recorded of HIM resisting. Plus, he blamed her, while she blamed the serpent; she could easily have said, “But my husband didn’t protect or lead me properly!” if the bs concept that men must control and/or “lead” women all the time was true. Especially if the suspicions of many are correct, and he was with her the whole time. As for men being more trustworthy in the SMP, that’s just cute; they’re far more likely to have quick sex for short-term gain. Consequences for their actions? Like the Roissy/Tucker Max kind? Not even remotely.

    I’ll bet it all went down in The Garden with God looking disappointedly at Adam, Adam giving a guilty look, and Eve blathering on in the manner displayed in the quote above. ^ ^ ^

    But you’re right, he never should have followed his wife’s lead…. disaster!!!

  16. jack says:

    By the way, I have had female bosses quite a bit, and the MEN are the ones who never have a problem with them. The women? Meee-owww.

    [D: Good one!]

  17. Dalrock says:

    @John

    I worked for one female boss in my career. Women bosses are catty, will not forget an injustice and will go to any length to get even. Men tend to see the big picture while women generally can’t see the forest for the trees.

    It is funny because I don’t have any problem with women bosses. I’ve had specific ones I didn’t care for (2 come immediately to mind), but I haven’t been thrilled about all of the men I worked for either. One female boss I had in particular was outstanding. Super rational, had my back or told me what I needed to change, helped me further develop my skills to climb the ladder, etc. I’d work for her again in a heartbeat. I don’t know if this is related or not, but I’m pretty sure she is a lesbian.

    Most of the women I work with or manage in project teams are also very competent. I may just be very fortunate based on the organization I work for. I don’t recall this being the case with my female peers in college, for example. The only thing I’ve noticed at work is that some women colleagues seem very eager to find new work for me to do. They will find one issue or another and decide it needs to be urgently addressed at all costs, and they are sure I’m the one who needs to own it. Strangely if it turns out that they or someone else other than me is the proper owner, the issue suddenly becomes much less important, no longer worth addressing. But this is fortunately only a small minority of my female colleagues. The rest are very competent and I truly enjoy working with them.

  18. Prof. Woland says:

    My experience as an employer is that many female workers fit into the “worker bee” category. By WB, I mean that they tend to identify with subordinates more than their superiors.

    Men are primarily interested in climbing up the dominance hierarchy. As such, they tend to form natural chains of command. The rewards are power and promotion up the hierarchy.

    Many women have no real desire to go anywhere. Having other alternatives, many are interested in making their jobs as comfortable and secure as possible. The result of this the alliances and networks women form to protect their status examples being Unions, FMLA, workplace harassment laws, EEOC etc. Anything which casts women as victims at the hands of the nasty male managers is fair game.

  19. Brendan says:

    1. Why, if women co-operate less, do they seem to be the ones to build large support groups (Facebook – Diaries booked up for months in advance) whereas men are perfectly happy with a small group off friends or none?

    In a work setting, men tend to see the workplace as something akin to a sports team. You collaborate with each other toward the common goal. You may not like all of your teammates. You may be competing with some of them to be the best player, to be the one who gets promoted to team captain and so on, but you are all on the same team. It’s a collaborative style that is akin to the military and sports and other male hierarchical cooperative structures, and does not rest on personal friendship as its basis.

    Females tend to rest things much more on personal relationships as the basis — also at work. That is what Moxon is pointing out. And this means, especially among intra-female relationships, if the women underlings are not members of the “personal relationship/friends” network of the female boss, they feel (and probably are to some degree) “shut out”. It’s not that women don’t network — they do, and much, much more than most men do. But the issue is that this personal networking is a more strong sense of loyalty and the fundamental foundational orientation, even at work, whereas with men their work affiliation is more like the kind of affiliation you would feel in a military or athletic setting — that is, one based on tasking together as the basis rather than personal relationships as the basis.

    It’s a huge difference between most men and women. Not all — there are women who are like the typical man here and vice versa, but the general observation still holds much of the time.

  20. John says:

    Brendan…excellent comment. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  21. Country Lawyer says:

    Dalrock:

    “It is funny because I don’t have any problem with women bosses. I’ve had specific ones I didn’t care for (2 come immediately to mind), but I haven’t been thrilled about all of the men I worked for either. One female boss I had in particular was outstanding. Super rational, had my back or told me what I needed to change, helped me further develop my skills to climb the ladder, etc. I’d work for her again in a heartbeat. I don’t know if this is related or not, but I’m pretty sure she is a lesbian.”

    Her being a lesbian had something to do with it. There have been studies that lesbians outperform straight women in terms of income (they are similar to men) and gay men tend to earn less than straight men (similar to women) .

    Over the years I have had bosses of both genders that I have respected, I have had bosses of both genders that I didn’t.

    But when I think of the few bosses that I believe should never have been put in any position of authority ever, they were women.

    Opus:

    “1. Why, if women co-operate less, do they seem to be the ones to build large support groups (Facebook – Diaries booked up for months in advance) whereas men are perfectly happy with a small group off friends or none?”

    Facebook has nothing to do with cooperating. Its all about status. The larger your group, the higher the “preen” value. That is all. If you ever listen to a female support group you soon realize that the “support: is only partial, and too much success and the immediate subtle sabotage begins to take place. I imagine Hell is filled with support groups.

    The prisoner’s dilemma comes up all the time for people accused of a crime. Often if no one talks, the accused would all walk, but if one talks, the outcome for the others is harsh and the sentence is often reduced for the talker. If they all talk it is usually better for the first person to betray his co-conspirators. This plays out all the time.

    I bring this up Opus, because you mentioned that you would win First. And I am sure you would, but in the end you would lose with that kind of thinking.

    What invariably happens is that a person that ratted out people in the past, finds himself in trouble with the law again, and often the system is much less sympathetic at this point. Now the person is looking at incarceration in a setting where there are several men that know, and have told others, that they’re a snitch.

    Not a good long term strategy.

  22. Chels says:

    Her being a lesbian had something to do with it. There have been studies that lesbians outperform straight women in terms of income (they are similar to men)

    That’s only valid if she was a butch lesbian, and not a femme lesbian–like Ellen vs Portia.

    In any case, yes, professionally, I trust men more than women because I’ve got burned more often by women than by men (although it has happened), and women tend to focus too much on personal things.

  23. Leonidas says:

    1. Why, if women co-operate less, do they seem to be the ones to build large support groups (Facebook – Diaries booked up for months in advance) whereas men are perfectly happy with a small group off friends or none?

    Because men tend to only count people as truly in our support groups if they’re people we can trust, and that we act trustworthy back toward. Your average woman will count the 13th cousin of her son’s best friend’s cat’s former owner as a member of her “support group” – until that person does something minor and gives her a reason to get all grumpy and petty in response.

    OK, I exaggerated a bit for comedic effect. But the point holds. Most men I know have “smaller” social groups than most women I know. But they’re also far more constant, which is highly in keeping with the results of this study.

    This study doesn’t directly show, but is consistent with, another difference between men and women that most of us are aware of but afraid to say in “polite company.” On average, it’s harder to gain trust and acceptance from a man than from a woman. But it’s also harder to lose it. I’ve seen women drop their “friends” over the pettiest bullshit imaginable – and seen men stand by their friends through craziness you wouldn’t believe.

    In regards to the discussion of female bosses, my current boss is a woman – and one of the best bosses I’ve ever had. But if anything, she’s the exception that proves the rule. Though not actually a lesbian (as someone else mentioned above), she’s not exactly a very girly girl.

    Regarding my female coworkers, however… although there are specific exceptions, I prefer working with other men. My female coworkers have definitely had a higher tendency toward office politics, forming factions, creating drama where none exists, getting way overemotional, taking things personally, and flaking out. I hate to say it, but they also have shown a definite tendency toward mediocrity – neither being horrible at their jobs nor truly very great.

    Of course, one of the worst parts is maternity leave. If I had a dollar for every woman I’ve seen get pregnant, take maternity leave, come back for a week, and then quit… OK, I wouldn’t be that rich. But it’s happened to almost every woman I’ve seen get pregnant at work.

    Except for that one poor girl who got pregnant when the company was downsizing. Management wanted to go ahead and lay her off (nothing to do with the pregnancy; her role was pretty unessential), but they were afraid of a lawsuit if they laid off the pregnant woman. So they waited until right after she got back from maternity leave, and then laid her off. Poor girl had no clue it was coming, but half the office knew it months ahead of time. That game isn’t cool no matter which direction it’s played in.

  24. Odds says:

    The thing about the Prisoner’s dilemma that often gets left out is the solution to the trust problem – playing the game many times over with the same people. Let’s do some math. If you defect and your partner doesn’t, you go free; if you both defect, you both get three years; if neither of you defects, you get one year; if you don’t defect and they do, you get five. Assume that for whatever reason, when you get out of prison you get caught with the same person again (maybe you’re dumb enough to work with them, or maybe Captain Renault just rounds up the usual suspects).

    If you screw the person over the first time, they will never cooperate with you. Playing the game ten times, you would be in prison 5 + 9(3) = 32 years, while they would be in prison 0 +9(3) = 27 years.

    If neither of you screws the other person over, you’re both in prison 10(1) = 10 years.

    Repeated plays are the key to trust. Anyone with the slightest ability to plan long-term can see that. Tie it into marriage – if one party can walk away (defect) at any time and never play again, then the incentive is to take the short-term advantage and seek out a new sucker. That incentive is going to overcome emotional attachments at least some of the time (when the value of defection surpasses the utility of emotional attachment, the latter of which will vary greatly from person to person).

    In trying to fit the problem to hookups, we run into the problem of uncertain victory conditions. Some women just want that hot alpha sex, some want relationships, and some only want sex until they discover they actually have an emotional investment in the guy. Same is true for guys (I’ve been that beta boy who hooked up with a girl he wanted to date, it happens and it sucks), though probably in very different ratios since hookups will tend to self-select for mostly alphas, who will mostly just want sex.

    What gets interesting with hookups is when you take an actor who views the other gender as a group (effectively one “individual”) or as a collection of individuals. Viewing the other gender as a group (“All men/women are like that!”), one quickly discovers that the most rational option is to defect every time – in other words, screw them over, so you’re facing a loss of 0 or 3 instead of 1 or 5. If you view the other gender as a collection of individuals (“I got burned, but I’ll give the next one a fair shake”), your incentive is either to screw them over if you only want to see them once, or to trust if you hope to see them again – because, if you screw them over, they will not want to play with you again. So if you see the other gender as a group of individuals, your incentive is to trust every time, and you will tend to get burned unless you run into another trusting individual.

    Throw attraction into the hookup mix. If a girl is very attracted to a man, she will want to see him again, and her incentive is to trust. If a girl is not attracted to a man (or to betas as a group), or if she has come to see “all men” as a group, her incentive is to screw them over.

    This dilemma is far, far from the only game theory thing out there, but it’s an easy one to explain and apply. The formulas are pretty easy to set up; what’s tough is determining the utility of each choice, since it varies from person to person and is rarely set by a fictional prison warden (maybe one person likes the free room and board, so five years in prison is a good deal).

    One last thing. As I said, our personal lives are beholden to game theory, but not specifically to the prisoner’s dilemma, because our “win conditions” are personally set, rather than being set by a fictional warden. If you’re happier in a relationship with someone, and they are happier in a relationship with you, then the “defect” option ceases to be the one in one’s self-interest. Take two people who love each other and view it as being in their best self interest to stay with one another – and of course, set up marriage such that getting out of one is difficult, and so that there is no significant financial or social incentive to do so. Applying the same numbers with the right incentives, you could set up the square such that mutual loyalty would yield 0 years for both parties; one party defecting would yield 5 years for that partner and 3 for the other (meaning a miserable marriage, since under this scheme there is no no-fault divorce), and both parties defecting (divorce) would yield 1 year each. Just have to have the right incentives, both internal and external – the utility of each term would vary based on emotions.

    I haven’t had my coffee yet, so my proofreading may be off on that, but you get the point. Under that system, one could play a maximum of, say, ten times, but quit any time.

    A couple that always remained in alliance would get 10(0) = 0 years. A couple that play for any number of years before mutually defecting would get X(0) + 1(1) = 1 year. And a couple that was happy until year X before one started acting against the other would have the choice between remaining together miserably for X(0) + (X-1)(5) years = (5X-5) for the bad actor and X(0) + (X-1)(3) = (3X-3) for the faithful actor, meaning the bad actor is going to get it far worse over time, or just getting 6 and 4 when the put-upon party agrees to divorce – giving the faithful actor the option of departing with a minimum of pain or of making the unfaithful actor miserable, which puts an incentive on the unfaithful actor to… well, not be an unfaithful actor.

    All we need to do is find the set of social, economic, and legal incentives to create a square fitting that description, and life is good.

  25. Richard says:

    “Is it even possible the academics who did the study didn’t understand this?”

    I remember watching Johnny Carson a long time ago – his exact quote from a news story:

    “Scientists have discovered that men and women are different”.

    He was not making a joke – this was an actual headline.

  26. Opus says:

    I seem to have provoked some very interesting reponses to my 2 points at 7.39

    My own observations are that:

    1. Female friendships are instantaneous, but shallow, insincere and easily broken. Men are careful of each other but friendships once formed do not tend to break so easily. I have no experience of female bosses and none of team work so I have little idea of men bonding for the purpose of a project. I must say however that I have found male bosses petty, insecure, and frequently bullies.

    2. I am facinated by Game Theory although I see there are those here who understand it better than me. In practise, with a woman, I am likely to play Dove but if she plays Hawk I will change to Hawk. Women can happily play Hawk as there are so many men interested in them that there is little long term loss in their doing so (and of course to their new lover they can always claim that they played Dove but were let down, and will be believed).

  27. Desiderius says:

    Opus,

    Any woman who understands how good marriages work (and wants one) will not lead with Hawk and will avoid men who do so. That’s why women who so lead or are attracted to men who do are such a turn-off to good men. They’re clueless about marriage.

    The delusion that they can “happily play hawk” with no consequences is a very bad one for young women to have, as the only men they then have access to are those who don’t understand marriage either. The availability of “so many” such men is useless to them, if what they seek is a good marriage.

  28. Desiderius says:

    “Viewing the other gender as a group (“All men/women are like that!”), one quickly discovers that the most rational option is to defect every time”

    This (feminist) sort of thinking is what is driving the single female delusion to which I referred above. Good spot, Odds.

  29. anonymous x says:

    Yep, that is my experience too. A couple of anecdotes.
    My ex repeatedly told me she hated working for female bosses. Took pains to explain to me about female competition. Way too much drama there. She didn’t like female coworkers all that much either. Always preferred working with and for men. She was a workout fanatic with a good body so she experienced a lot of jealousy at the various health clubs she worked out at.
    My sister is normally a warm, extroverted and feminine person with very little competitiveness in her. She once told me about getting together with other women in volunteer settings when they’re supposed to get something done. The other women started off by exchanging gossip and one-upping each other, this goes on awhile. Then my sister stepped in and said enough! let’s get this done! And they complied out of respect for her. She also prefers working with and for men though she is easy going enough to get along with most women.

  30. Lovekraft says:

    And of course the typical Feminist response to all this data will be, firstly, denial and/or attack the messenger, followed by demands for even more protection/coddling of said females.

    Meanwhile the true purpose of any company/organization – to flourish – gets pushed to the wayside.

  31. Eric says:

    If women trust men so much, why do they end relationships (including marriage) around 90% of the time? Or why are so many of them single mothers, if they think men can be trusted?

    The sad fact is, most women were doing in the ‘Forbes’ survey, what they do in most other surveys: they lied to the interviewer. Just like when they say in survey after survey how much they revere and desire a ‘real man’ who’d make a responsible husband and father in a traditional way—then drop their panties for the first bum they see panhandling out in the parking lot.

    The real relevance of studies like these is to alert men that women shouldn’t be trusted.

  32. Uncle Elmer says:

    Great commentary and interesting explanation Dalrock. But my brief foray into the Forbes Woman jungle has left me emotionally and physically exhausted. You can see some of the recent conversation at :

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/09/28/commenting-policy-reminder/

    Now regarding men and workplace “teams’, that brings to mind that it takes a lot of maturity to learn how to get knocked on your ass at work and get up and act like nothing happened. Took me many years while working for Encorpera. As several posters have noted women tend to hold a grudge over some slight far longer than a man, and will exact revenge some how, some way.

  33. anonymous x says:

    Another story about the difference between men and women in the workplace:
    I used to work with a guy in procurement who was responsible for purchasing the items I needed for my latest project. He had this responsibility with a bunch of us project managers. Well now and then, he’d fall behind and then we’d have a fight about priorities. Then we might run into each other at the lunchtime roach coach a couple of days later where we would greet each other as friends and make pleasant small talk while waiting for our orders. Neither of us took the fight personally, it was just that situation and we were past it. We remarked on that one time where we both agreed there was no way this could happen with a woman. She would always remember the fight, always take that fight personally and always have it in for us down the road as a result.

  34. Kai says:

    “Eric says:
    September 29, 2011 at 4:50 pm
    If women trust men so much, why do they end relationships (including marriage) around 90% of the time? Or why are so many of them single mothers, if they think men can be trusted?”

    “But I’m not haaaaaaaaappy…” says nothing at all about trust.

    While people do tend to lie in studies, this sounds like a decent one. They are not asking people “do you trust men or women”, but actually putting the in the situation where they can gain or lose and choose to trust or distrust their partner in the scenario. So while it is definitely a fictionalized situation, they are testing behaviour, rather than reported behaviour.

  35. Kai says:

    “anonymous x says:
    Another story about the difference between men and women in the workplace…….”

    I’m unclear on the specifics. Are you saying that you once had a big fight about it and then went back to being buddies, or are you saying that periodically he would screw up and you would fight about it?
    I won’t take a work error as a personal affront, but if someone screwed up in a way that affected my ability to do my work, I’d have a future caution. If they did it again, I would lose professional respect for the person.
    While I could still make small talk, I do find that my professional interactions with a person will affect my personal interactions to some degree. I think this relates to different people having differing ability to compartmentalize.

  36. ruddyturnstone says:

    “This also seems to explain why men fall into the ‘yes dear’ trap: erroneously concluding that wife or GF is usually a rational actor and motivated to cooperate for her good and the family’s good, the man/husband concludes that cooperation with and capitulation to her will lead to her cooperation. He does not account for her acting in naked self-interest.”

    This is so true!
    Also, men understand that they are not perfect, and that their wives are not perfect either. The way men figure, the best way to get along in a marriage is to acknowledge the above, but to keep to a minimum a calling to account of these imperfections. Men let a lot of what their wives do wrong “go,” but women don’t seem to understand that concept. Rather, they say they want to “talk about” what their husband does wrong, so they (or “we,” as they put it) can “work” on those problems. And the same time, they SAY that they wouldn’t mind if the husband did the same with them, ie “talk about” what she does wrong so they can “work” on her imperfections. In reality, however, women bridle the moment their husbands even so much as intimate, or hint, that she is less than perfect in any way. What they really want is to talk about his imperfections only, and change or “improve” him. It almost never works, because adults are usually stuck in their ways and don’t change easily, and almost never because of outside pressure (unless, perhaps, their very survival depends on it). Men realize all of this, and know that not only is it a waste of time to catelogue his wife’s faults to her, but it will almost certainly backfire. He takes a live and let live attitude, keeps quiet about his wife’s faults, and hopes that his wife will do the same with regard to him and his faults. But so few wives do. They nag and complain, and then, when the guy can’t take it anymore and lashes out, they act surprized and offended. If his outburst contains a complaint about her, she says something like, “we aren’t talking about my problems now, we are talking about yours, you are bringing up my faults only to deflect or evade discussing your own, I would happy to talk about my faults at another time (even though she wouldn’t)…” Etc, etc.

    Women simply don’t understand the first thing about co operation. They see the world and everything in it through the most critical lenses imaginable, while never considering their own imperfections.

    “Women have an acute awareness of the separate worlds of the sexes.Underlying the negative feelings women have for same-sex bosses, is that they are aware of the instrumental motivation of women to try to travel up organisational structures, of being more in the company of higher-statusmen. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, women don’t acquire status, except in the sense of acquiring it indirectly from their long-term mates; so women placing themselves over other women according to the criteria of a male competitive status hierarchy may be seen by their female underlings as incongruous— cheating even [etc, etc]”

    It all sounds too complicated to me. My take is simpler. Women are simply harder to please. They don’t make good bosses and they don’t make good subordinates either. Women prefer male bosses because men make better bosses, just as men make better subordinates. Women, as we all know, have been told they are hot stuff simply for being women. That being the case, it makes perfect sense that they can’t get along with anyone. And, far from being an exception to that rule, a female-female relationship (business, personal, whatever) is twice as likely to go wrong precisely because both parties have been raised as entitlement princesses, have been told that they are “special,” have been assured that they deserve “only the best,” etc, etc.

    Men by and large, get along. They get along with their siblings. They get along with both of their parents. They even get along with their in laws. They get along with people of both sexes. Women, to the contrary, can’t get along with anyone. They resent their mothers. They resent their daughters. They resent all of their male relatives. They hate their husbands. All of their friends and colleagues are flawed. They only like one of their parents if it means “taking sides” against the other one. They fill whole web sites with their anger at their mothers in law and sisters in law. But they don’t get along with their own sisters, mothers or other female blood relatives either.

    Again, becuase nothng and no one is ever good enough for Ms. Entitlement Princess.

    “By the way, I have had female bosses quite a bit, and the MEN are the ones who never have a problem with them. The women? Meee-owww.”

    Totally proves my point. A female boss who is loathed by her female subordinates is considered to be “OK,” at the least, by her male subordinates. NOT because she treats them differently, but because men realize that bosses, like people in general, are not perfect. They also realize that they, themselves, are not “special,” nor do they “deserve only the best” and so on. A woman boss may be worse than a male boss, and both the male and female subordinates recognize that . But the male subordinates still think the female boss is OK because they have realistic expectations about other people, whereas the female subordinates don’t.

  37. Jennifer says:

    “Men are far more likely to have quick sex for short term gain? Without consequences? Seriously?”

    Yes, seriously. Women have more to worry about physically and emotionally in sex.

    ” I know you don’t like the terms “dominance” or “dominant”. But women respond to male dominance. It is an attractive trait. You’ve been around these parts enough to know that is an accepted truth here, supported with mountains of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise. In years past my own wife has literally begged me to lead and make final decisions for her.”

    There’s a difference between a man being dominant of his sphere and being dominant of his partner; I’ve also seen mountains of evidence that the best marriages come as close to mutuality as possible. Leading in a relationship and making all the decisions in marriage are two different things. I find the need some women have to be subordinate and indecisive a weakness, not a Godly trait, and people have abused the term “head” for years. There’s also a difference between the woman WANTING the husband to take care of some decisions, and deciding that he must have the final word in everything because he’s the male.

  38. Jennifer says:

    “I’ll bet it all went down in The Garden with God looking disappointedly at Adam, Adam giving a guilty look, and Eve blathering on in the manner displayed in the quote above”

    Typical brush-off bullshit. She was deceived, he KNEW what he was doing.

  39. Jennifer says:

    “By the way, I have had female bosses quite a bit, and the MEN are the ones who never have a problem with them”

    Wow, so women leading doesn’t hurt men. Good to know.

  40. John VI says:

    I find it interesting that the “scientists” in this study went to Evolutionary biology as a source for thier results, rather than, say, a sexual harrasment training manual. Its not like men and women, in ANY job, anywhere, are not pounded every year with the message that they should not trust women, and that women should not trust men.. Its ON THE JOB TRAINING for heavens sake.

    Perhaps a study as to why MEN take anti harrasment training seriously (devastating, permanent consequences perchance?) and why women dont (no consequences whatsoever maybe? ) should be done. Wouldnt want to leave that question up in the air after all…

  41. Jennifer says:

    “Every woman knows why men talk to them. It’s silly to think it’s all about intellectual stimulation and platonic friendship. Of course that’s not what it’s about. It’s because we ultimately want to find out if you are a willing and compatible sex partner; or it’s about flirting, plain and simple.. Any woman over the age of 13 instinctively knows that’s why men approach them”

    No one contested that.

    “You’ve been here long enough to know that any woman a 4 or above can get sex anytime she wants it, on any terms she wants, with whatever consequences she wants”

    Good one, Detinn. There is where you, and numerous gamers and non-gamers alike, strongly disagree.

  42. Jennifer says:

    “@John

    I worked for one female boss in my career. Women bosses are catty, will not forget an injustice and will go to any length to get even. Men tend to see the big picture while women generally can’t see the forest for the trees.

    It is funny because I don’t have any problem with women bosses. I’ve had specific ones I didn’t care for (2 come immediately to mind), but I haven’t been thrilled about all of the men I worked for either. One female boss I had in particular was outstanding. Super rational, had my back or told me what I needed to change, helped me further develop my skills to climb the ladder, etc. I’d work for her again in a heartbeat. I don’t know if this is related or not, but I’m pretty sure she is a lesbian.

    Most of the women I work with or manage in project teams are also very competent. I may just be very fortunate based on the organization I work for. I don’t recall this being the case with my female peers in college, for example. The only thing I’ve noticed at work is that some women colleagues seem very eager to find new work for me to do. They will find one issue or another and decide it needs to be urgently addressed at all costs, and they are sure I’m the one who needs to own it. Strangely if it turns out that they or someone else other than me is the proper owner, the issue suddenly becomes much less important, no longer worth addressing. But this is fortunately only a small minority of my female colleagues. The rest are very competent and I truly enjoy working with them”

    Awesoe Dalrock. I think women are just more competitive with EACH OTHER.

  43. Chels says:

    Jenn, before I start a discussion on it, what problems do you have with the whole leading/following or dominance/submission thing?

  44. Jennifer says:

    Chels, I don’t want a discussion on that. But I think I already explained the blurring of different aspects that I hate; leading, in fact, does not necessarily mean dominating. Our Bible study leader, for example, leads, without dominating our group like a priest over a church. I also explained the difference between a man making most of the decisions and deciding he should always have the final word on everything because he’s the guy. The truth is, men and women both lead in relationships, but very differently: the man directly, the woman often very subtly. She may even “lead” him to lead! No one tells women to lead though, even by example, because it’s considered a bad and unhealthy thing. It’s no wonder women aren’t always “honest” about what they want, because dominating a relationship has come to be seen as identical to “leading” a relationship, and this makes them fearful (and yes, feminism’s partly to blame). True equality is not about who makes the most decisions, but about whether both partners value each other’s voices equally; if one can always outvote the other by rule, or sees their voice as inherently more faulted in judgement, it’s not very mutual. I’ve seen harmful examples of this for years, and it’s seen strongly on blogs where men are warned NEVER to let their wives have too much input. That’s the long and short of it; I do not want to derail the blog with this, please.

  45. Jennifer says:

    “If you ever listen to a female support group you soon realize that the “support: is only partial, and too much success and the immediate subtle sabotage begins to take place. I imagine Hell is filled with support groups”

    “Though not actually a lesbian (as someone else mentioned above), she’s not exactly a very girly girl.”

    This kind of stuff-women being only good workers if they’re masculine-is just depressing to me. Dalrock’s awesome, but so many of his readers are incredibly jaded. We’re living, however, in a very jaded time; feminism’s wrecked many. Moral looseness always, ALWAYS does this. Stephenie Rowling made a brilliant point: our culture right now is attracted to ugly, negative people.

    Leonidas, thanks for putting a lighter shade on everything.

    “Scientists have discovered that men and women are different”.

    He was not making a joke – this was an actual headline”

    That’s frighteningly hilarious. Seriously.

    “Opus,

    Any woman who understands how good marriages work (and wants one) will not lead with Hawk and will avoid men who do so. That’s why women who so lead or are attracted to men who do are such a turn-off to good men. They’re clueless about marriage.

    The delusion that they can “happily play hawk” with no consequences is a very bad one for young women to have, as the only men they then have access to are those who don’t understand marriage either. The availability of “so many” such men is useless to them, if what they seek is a good marriage.”

    Brilliant observation.

    Wow Ruddy. Thanks for reminding me how not to be.

  46. Chels says:

    Well, I think this thread is pretty much done, so I don’t think we’ll be derailing anything. I only mentioned it because I saw it mentioned frequently on this blog, but I haven’t seen an actual discussion on it, so it seems like a lot of people seem to be interested on it, only it’s such a “icky” subject that most steer clear of it.

    However, and this is a very short take of my view on this is that perhaps women should learn to trust men more, not to assume the worst about them, and not to be so competitive in the relationship that really counts the most. And just like you said, there’s a huge difference between being benevolent and malevolent.

  47. Svar says:

    “Our Bible study leader, for example, leads, without dominating our group like a priest over a church. ”

    So you’re saying that your Bible study leader doesn’t perform his duties as well as a priest?

    “There’s a difference between a man being dominant of his sphere and being dominant of his partner”

    A man’s woman(partner?) is a part of his sphere.

    Funny thing about this headship and ruling deal; Gott says otherwise(Genesis 3):

    To the woman he said,

    “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children.
    Your desire shall be for[w] your husband,
    and he shall rule over you.”

    And to Adam he said,

    “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
    and have eaten of the tree
    of which I commanded you,
    ‘You shall not eat of it,’
    cursed is the ground because of you;
    in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
    18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
    and you shall eat the plants of the field.
    19By the sweat of your face
    you shall eat bread,
    till you return to the ground,
    for out of it you were taken;
    for you are dust,
    and to dust you shall return.”

    I would love to see you explain this away. I think He explicitly says “he shall rule over you”.

  48. Desiderius says:

    And this idea that leading with cooperation/trust is somehow being a chump is beyond stupid.

    Semper fidelis, motherfucker.

    Kinda tough to be always faithful when you start faithless, tough guy.

  49. Svar says:

    I know that you’re seething in rage right now, but when you decide to write in a coherent manner and stop menstruating all over the keyboard, I would love to clarify the points of contention.

  50. Jennifer says:

    “However, and this is a very short take of my view on this is that perhaps women should learn to trust men more, not to assume the worst about them, and not to be so competitive in the relationship that really counts the most”

    I do trust men, Chels, but I also distrust any system that claims only one partner should make final decisions based on gender. And this thread? Dalrock’s tend to go for four days strong.

    “So you’re saying that your Bible study leader doesn’t perform his duties as well as a priest?”

    HER duties. She gets that the world’s idea of priests is screwed up and Bible studies are different anyway. All my primary Bible study leaders have been women, though men have led too at different times.

    “A man’s woman(partner?) is a part of his sphere”

    LOL A wife should be dominant of HER spheres as well, like household tasks and teaching the children. Does this mean she should dominate her husband? By “sphere” I mean areas of work and personal duties.

    “I would love to see you explain this away”

    That prediction of God’s was a prediction of sin and hardship.

  51. Jennifer says:

    Quite right, Desiderious. The tingling-over-brains crap is a RESULT of the Fall and evolutionary biology. The Eden tale is a bad example anyway: it wasn’t a matter of Adam listening to Eve, but listening to the serpent and not stopping either one of them from sinning. Once again, people tend to abuse that story as a “never listen to women!” horror story, when it’s fact it’s better used as a “never expect a man to be God for you” caution.

  52. Chels says:

    I do trust men, Chels, but I also distrust any system that claims only one partner should make final decisions based on gender. And this thread? Dalrock’s tend to go for four days strong.

    Oh, I’m sure you generally trust men. But that’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying to fully trust one, which requires a great deal of vulnerability. I was only talking about the personal domain, about one woman’s relationship with one man, and that’s it; I’m not one to support one way of doing things over the other, each couple decides on their own how their relationship works best and what each is comfortable with.

    And if Dalrock minds, he can just delete all the offtopic comments.

  53. Anacaona says:

    I will like to know if there are variables is an older woman that is not longer on the market (happily married for example) better at being a boss than a woman that is still in the dating field? Given the lesbian examples maybe it has to do a lot of how threatened the other are over her sex appeal.
    Also, it seems in that study women are more paranoid about other women than anything else. So if you think that all women in position of power are going to screw you over you are going to read everything they do as bad somehow, the same with subordinates if you think that person wants to take over your post or make you look bad “because I’m a woman” says a feminist, that colors the way you deal with them, IMO.

  54. Svar says:

    “HER duties.”

    LOL.

    “She gets that the world’s idea of priests is screwed up and Bible studies are different anyway.”

    Unfortunately, real Churches like the Protestant ones have Pastors and the Orthodox ones have Priests, so her argument lays invalid. Thomas Fleming:

    “All my primary Bible study leaders have been women, though men have led too at different times.”

    Explains quite a bit.

  55. Svar says:

    “That prediction of God’s was a prediction of sin and hardship.”

    Ahh, what a fool was I… for underestimating the power of the Hamster.

    I thought this was a mandate, not a punishment. So, answer this question, Jen, if a man works, is he sinning? If a person dies, is he sinning?

    I don’t see anywhere where it says that a woman submitting is sinning. Seems to be the opposite. Regardless, this isn’t a big deal considering that most submit anyway.

  56. Svar says:

    Thomas Fleming: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/02/18/jerks-on-a-shopping-spree-ii/#comment-207722

    “We know too little about the services of the early church, say, in the first two centuries. What we do know indicates that the people gathered, the Lord’s Supper was administered with dignity, prayers were made and hymns sung. By the time of Pope Gregory the Great, roughly 600 AD, the canon of the Mass was complete in the West, and in the East the liturgy of St. John was substantially worked out some centuries earlier. If we compare the earliest surviving services, we see nothing like the free-form camp meeting approach so common today. What began as a revolution against the Mass has now been fulfilled in a revolution against all order, tradition, restraint, reverence, dignity, and taste.”

  57. Svar says:

    “not a punishment.”

    Correction, “not a prediction.”

  58. Jennifer says:

    Your comparisons often surprise and amuse me, Svar.

    “By the time of Pope Gregory the Great, roughly 600 AD, the canon of the Mass was complete in the West”

    Indeed, and things began changing long before then.

    “Explains quite a bit”

    Knew you’d say that. Svar, the sum of your comments is about screwing women, being an ass, swaggering and sneering at anyone who disagrees, and making fun of everything; you take nothing vital seriously except when it threatens an aspect of absolute male power. I don’t think you know much of anything about faith.

    “each couple decides on their own how their relationship works best and what each is comfortable with”

    I totally agree, which is why I hate people telling men they must run everything. Truth is, Chels, you advise the wisdom of spouses being open with each other for everyone, me and the men on this blog alike, and you’ve been met with resistance from is both; we’re all scared of being vulnerable, though I accept this need in marriages. I’m glad you have such wisdom, but don’t be too shocked or strain yourself resisting the negative reactions you get; men around here have been hurt and many permanently darkened.

  59. Svar says:

    “Your comparisons often surprise and amuse me, Svar.”

    Interesting… OTOH, your feminine hamsterizations amuse me, but they don’t surprise me.

    “Indeed, and things began changing long before then. ”

    Lol, wut? Did you happen to miss this whole deal?:

    “If we compare the earliest surviving services, we see nothing like the free-form camp meeting approach so common today. What began as a revolution against the Mass has now been fulfilled in a revolution against all order, tradition, restraint, reverence, dignity, and taste.”

    “Knew you’d say that.”

    Didja, now?

    “Svar, the sum of your comments is about screwing women, being an ass, swaggering and sneering at anyone who disagrees, and making fun of everything;”

    And?

    “you take nothing vital seriously except when it threatens an aspect of absolute male power.”

    From all I’ve learn from Roissy, Paleocons, and the AltRight, nothing really threatens any aspect of absolute male power. It just gets in the way of it. Patriarchy will return soon. Feminism was cute and all, but it, like all of the revolutionary social tides will reach their twilight and die. In the meantime, we have Roissy and the 16 Commandments of Poon to bring about somewhat of a return to normality. Thomas Fleming weer: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/02/26/three-weddings-and-a-funeral/

    “Liberalism dug the grave of Christian marriage, but it is high time conservatives arrange a funeral for liberalism in all its forms.”

    “I don’t think you know much of anything about faith.”

    Heh, that would mean something if a trad were say that.

  60. Jennifer says:

    “Heh, that would mean something if a trad were say that”

    Incidentally, they have; repeatedly they’ve told you your view of women is unhealthy and your attitude unpleasant. You don’t listen, and I’m beyond finished with talking to you about the purpose of womanhood.

  61. Odds says:

    Looking back, now that I’m awake, my algebra apparently doesn’t work before I’ve had my coffee. Not going to do a full re-write of the math; just going to point out that the conclusions are accurate even if the work isn’t.

  62. Anacaona says:

    Feminism was cute and all, but it, like all of the revolutionary social tides will reach their twilight and die.
    Hey! There is no need to drag Twilight into this…Oh wait the original meaning of twilight…nevermind, nothing to see here, carry on😀

  63. Svar says:

    “Incidentally, they have; repeatedly they’ve told you your view of women is unhealthy and your attitude unpleasant.”

    Red herring, much? We weren’t even talking about my view of women. Besides, that was over Deti’s deal, that had all of us pissed off and we’re cool about it now. Those trad women are alright with me again and the trad men always have been. They(including Deti) agreed with me throughout our argument over Deti’s deal.

    As for my attitude, remember what the ladies over at TC had to say the last time you gave me a loooong lecture on why I was being a bad boy and should stop being such a meanie-head?

    “You don’t listen, and I’m beyond finished with talking to you about the purpose of womanhood.”

    We weren’t even talking about the purpose of womanhood. Whatever. Arguing with a woman is like getting a dog to fuck a football: hilarious, but ultimately pointless.

  64. Svar says:

    “Hey! There is no need to drag Twilight into this…Oh wait the original meaning of twilight…nevermind, nothing to see here, carry on :D”

    Hahaha!

  65. Fred says:

    I’ve had five female bosses over my career in the US government. Two were excellent and a pleasure to work with; one was excellent, but a screamer; one was a clown; and the last was a clown and a screamer. That didn’t distinguish them from male bosses, but one of the major differences I’ve noticed between men and women is that the women tend to see the work world in personal terms (I want this, I’ll be disappointed if you don’t do this, etc.), whereas men tend to be more group centered (we have a new project, let’s get our butts in gear, etc.). I’ve also noticed that women easily make commitments and just as easily break them, often for what seems to be reasons of emotion or personal whim.

  66. Jennifer says:

    “We weren’t even talking about my view of women”

    Yes, we were. Just because they’re cool with you now (like they’re cool with me) doesn’t mean that they’ve changed their minds about how you should be, anymore than it means they’ve decided to agree with me about all my views. They scolded you far more harshly than I, and one of the women was amused when she told me how pissed some of the guys got about the Deti thing. Go ahead and be an asshole, but recall they usually get screwed and spew sh*t.

    “Those trad women are alright with me again and the trad men always have been”

    At least one trad man warned you too about your attitude; none of this means they’re not ever “cool” with you.

    “Whatever. Arguing with a woman is like getting a dog to fuck a football: hilarious, but ultimately pointless”

    My Christ, you’re messed up. How often do you even consult the Scriptures and God, Svar? You listen more to PUA’s and societal doomsday speakers than Christians, and I think the reason you were thrilled when the other guy brought up the Scripture from Timothy, on Terri’s blog, was because you weren’t even aware of its existence before then.

  67. Jennifer says:

    You know what, forget it. Arguing with you is, indeed, useless and it’s hard to know when you’re tongue in cheek and when you’re scathing; we both end up saying disgusting things. And yes, we have been discussing a woman’s place and point in life; her relationship is part of her life.

  68. Kai says:

    Jennifer, it’s one thing to discuss personal opinions if you don’t base them from the bible. Not everyone does.

    But how can you really claim that the bible does not say that the man is always the final authority, and that women should submit to their husbands? It says that all over the place! I believe it is expected as a loving leader, as Jesus is said to lead the church to its own good, rather than the leadership of a dictator out for personal gain, but it’s still clear on who is in charge.
    There is all that ‘equal but made for different roles’ bit, but it too clearly states that the leadership role belongs to men.
    How can you possibly be reading anything other than male leadership and dominance from the bible?
    I could disagree with the bible’s relevance if I so felt, but to disagree on what it says requires a deliberate misread.

  69. jack says:

    Men created facebook; women just occupy it.

    A large facebook network is nothing more than a substitute for a telephone gossip tree. This can hardly be compared to men collaborating to create the miracle that was the industrial revolution.

    This betrays foolishness in and of itself – comparing a digital coffee klatch with a collaboration of innovators.

  70. Jennifer says:

    “But how can you really claim that the bible does not say that the man is always the final authority, and that women should submit to their husbands? It says that all over the place!”

    Really? Where does it say that men get the final decision in marriage every time? Where does it say they’re the boss and should dominate their wives?

  71. Jennifer says:

    I don’t intend to sound mocking Kai, my position is serious. Also, it’s clear in history and elsewhere that women have made many good leaders. Adam and Eve were made to rule together.

  72. Kai says:

    “Jennifer says:
    Really? Where does it say that men get the final decision in marriage every time? Where does it say they’re the boss and should dominate their wives?”

    I’m not sure if you are taking ‘dominate’ to mean something bad rather than as the neutral ‘in-charge’ that it is, but I’ll ignore that for now.

    I’m not speaking here to the capability of women as leaders, that is irrelevant. My point is as to what the bible says. If you don’t think the bible is a good authority, that is arguable. But to claim the bible says anything other than that men are to be in charge is deluded.

    Eve was made as a helper to Adam. Perhaps to rule together, in different spheres, but with the leadership firmly in his hands.

    I’m not going to quote and make this pages long. Look up a few to start:
    Genesis 1:18
    Ephesians 5:22-24
    1 Corinthians 11:3
    Titus 2:1-5
    1 Peter 3:1-7

  73. Kai says:

    “TFH says:
    Kai,
    Because feminism is about changing the rules as suits a woman’s present circumstances. Christianized feminism differs from secular feminism on perhaps 5% of issues, but agrees on the other 95%.”

    It’s annoyingly deluded. The logical thing to do is to question whether the bible is the correct authority – not claim that it says things it doesn’t.
    There is all kinds of room for debate as to the capabilities and roles of women, but if one of the premises is “the bible is the ultimate authority”, there’s little room left.

  74. Jennifer says:

    “Remember that most women will believe anything that makes them feeeeel good about themselves (a core reason why Game works so well)”

    LOL I believe that many women are bitches, many men worthless, that women want bad boys and men want sluts, and neither makes me feel in the least good.

    Kai, no passage calls Adam the leader. Women are told to submit, men are told to die in marriage; both require a huge death of self, and you’d be amazed at how easily the Bible’s been blindsighted by people; I couldn’t begin to tell you. Some use it to claim that grown women should obey fathers and that bride prices are cool; deluded indeed. So is claiming he gets the last word, he has the sole veto power, his authority over her is like that of a child, and how entitled of women to expect mutuality! That’s not even close to feminism. It’s amazing how far it can go to any extreme.

    Anyway, it’s almost 3 a.m. and this will go nowhere, so I’m dropping out. Have a good weekend.

  75. Jennifer says:

    “Remember that most women will believe anything that makes them feeeeel good about themselves (a core reason why Game works so well)”

    Incidentally, it makes you feeeel good down below to think that any woman who disagrees with you gets a sexual charge. Even though it’s bullshit. That’s what I call the male sex hamster.

  76. Jennifer says:

    Sorry for that last comment, TFH; me getting rankled again, and I don’t want to leave in a spirit of vitriol. Have a good night, guys.

  77. greyghost says:

    Man that last exchange was text book. TFH,Kai there is a lot of work ahead of us Jennifers responses are “normal” in todays world.
    Also christians today as displayed have nothing to add to the conversation. PUA, MGTOW and some of the most non PC types will do more to glorify god than any so called christian. I have full faith that involuntary childless spinsterhood will save the church. The beta male and his tendancies are extremely powerful, feminism has used that power for misandry that same power minus misandry will restore politeness.

  78. gabriel says:

    Once again, people tend to abuse that story as a “never listen to women!” horror story, when it’s fact it’s better used as a “never expect a man to be God for you” caution.

    I guess then the stoning parable means “every whore is marriage material”

  79. CL says:

    There’s a difference between a man being dominant of his sphere and being dominant of his partner; I’ve also seen mountains of evidence that the best marriages come as close to mutuality as possible. Leading in a relationship and making all the decisions in marriage are two different things. I find the need some women have to be subordinate and indecisive a weakness, not a Godly trait, and people have abused the term “head” for years. There’s also a difference between the woman WANTING the husband to take care of some decisions, and deciding that he must have the final word in everything because he’s the male.

    What rubbish! Jennifer needs a spanking, that’s her trouble.

    You misunderstand the relationship between a Captain and First Officer. I don’t want to lead and make all the decisions but that doesn’t make me weak. I can sit in the Captain’s chair if it’s necessary and I can see when it’s necessary and grab the wheel before anyone tells me to because it’s freaking obvious. Being subordinate doesn’t mean weakness and indecision; you are still part of a team and your duties are many. You think a First Officer never takes charge of the ship and is weak and indecisive?

    Your position is weak. I don’t need to prove my strength by one-upping my man and putting his balls in my purse. If you let a man be a man, you’d be surprised what can happen. Oh, and make sure you know the difference between dominant and domineering; one is a position of strength, the other, weakness.

  80. Chels says:

    From my knowledge, the Bible does say that a woman is to submit to her husband and that he is the leader. However, it also says that a husband is to love his wife as Jesus loved the Church, which basically instructs men to die for their wives, placing a greater burden on men.

    Assuming that you picked a good man and not an asshole, then it’s really not hard at all to follow him, and it’s not about him doing what’s best for him alone, but for his wife and his family. I think that what’s provoking such a visceral reaction is that people assume either that the woman becomes a doormat or that she has to follow a jerk.

    And this should go without saying for the people that expect wifely submission—the men have to be worthy of it.

  81. CL says:

    Exactly Chels.

  82. grizzledwolf says:

    “Kai, no passage calls Adam the leader.”

    Its implied all over Genesis. Adam is the raked over the coals because he made the decision to believe his wife instead of his own instincts. He should have kept her in line.

    And when did being the head and the leader mean he had to make all the decisions? I think you’re creating straw men in your head and plinking them down. If he was making all the decisions, he has a pet, not a wife. Even the evil overlord has to assume his underlings know how to do their jobs, and he’s far closer to that definition of “dominant” you seem to have in your head.

    “Incidentally, it makes you feeeel good down below to think that any woman who disagrees with you gets a sexual charge. Even though it’s bullshit. That’s what I call the male sex hamster.”

    Irrational self-confidence in men is not a hamster. Its a ferret.🙂 Gets in all the holes, though sometimes not the right ones.

  83. CL says:

    The single one is at her wit’s end with the Peter Pan guys she meets, who are 35 and don’t act like grown ups.

    Maybe she should try looking for someone older. How old is she? I totally understand this frustration.

  84. Svar says:

    Look, men like Ferdinand Bardamu, the Manosphere, and the AltRight have done far more for Christianity than Evangelicals and Christian liberals ever have. The former have accurately described the cancer within the Faith. The latter are the cancer.

    There is a reason why AltRighters and even some nihilistic palecons like Sam Francis call Christianity the “ideological carrier of Bolshevism and liberalism”. They are right in that Modern “Christianity” is a disgrace, a religion of weakness.

    Nothing like the true and pure form of Christianity of course.

    Ons sal dit orleef

  85. Opus says:

    Trust is what is crucial here. I do not trust women – not even in intimate relationships 100% per cent – I always fear that I am about to be shafted. Why is this?

  86. Sedulous says:

    Chels said:
    “And this should go without saying for the people that expect wifely submission—the men have to be worthy of it.”

    I agree, but women can use that argument as a loophole to avoid submission.

    If the husband is a drunkard who physically abuses the wife and kids, gambles or drinks his paycheck away, and constantly tries to get his wife involved in illegal or immoral activities, then YES, you must obey God over men.

    But good men are still imperfect. How many women will magnify those imperfections, then use them as reasons to justify their lack of submission? It becomes nothing more than a convenient cover for their spiritual rebellion. How imperfect does a man have to be before he loses his worthiness?

    I can cite imperfection in government leaders and my employer, but men are still commanded to submit and pay taxes to civil government (Rom 13), and submit to earthly masters (employers). My pastor is also imperfect but I still submit to him as well. There’s also the military.

    Fact is, there’s plenty of places in life where men have to submit to imperfect leadership.

    Why does it only become an issue when women are commanded to submit to their husbands.

  87. CL says:

    Opus, as a woman, I don’t really trust myself. I consider myself to be pretty trustworthy as far as people go but then, I don’t think most people are trying to screw each other over anyway and I certainly don’t go out planning to screw anyone over, but I always have this kind of “I feel sorry for anyone who really falls for me” thing in the back of my mind. This is because without some kind of external boundaries keeping me in place, I know I might flake at any time. I don’t see men acting this way – not in the same way as women do. They may screw around or whatever, but it’s not emotional flaking the way affairs are with women (to take one example of many possible). Men don’t sit in a marriage contemplating leaving while the wife is oblivious; women do this often.

    As this study shows, men are more trustworthy no matter what woman say – everyone trusts a man more than a woman for a reason. Perhaps women’s apparent lack of trust in men is simple projection.

  88. Jennifer says:

    “Jennifer needs a spanking, that’s her trouble”

    LOL Someone hankering for erotica has arrived. Spanking, blech, there are actually asshole types who believe in corporate punishment for wives, and I don’t mean playfully. Yes, I’ve heard of all the levels of marriage, yours and the “taken in hand” type. If you had the knee-jerk reaction that I must want to “weaken” and one-up a man, it’s your position that’s weak. However, I apologize for implying that all women who are “First Officers” are weak; I don’t believe that. I just hate the tendency of some to pedestalize the notion that if men don’t always lead, they’re weakened; I have every intention of letting a man be a man. In any case, not leading or making all the decisions doesn’t make you subordinate in and of itself anyway.

    “Adam is the raked over the coals because he made the decision to believe his wife instead of his own instincts. He should have kept her in line”

    Listening to someone when you shouldn’t and being scolded for it doesn’t mean that you’re their leader. I always found it funny that handing him some fruit was supposed to be so dominant; Eve’s spoken of by some like she was a freaking whip-wielder.

    “And when did being the head and the leader mean he had to make all the decisions? I think you’re creating straw men in your head and plinking them down”

    Nope, I’m reacting to what I’ve seen, and your belief in Genesis proves the belief I’ve seen in limiting and sometimes fearing women’s input. It’s really not about making all the decisions, but believing that he has veto power over her in everything.

    Fair enough, male sexual ferret, not hamster😛

    “Jennifers responses are “normal” in todays world”

    Sadly they’re not; instead we have embittered men and women trying to make the rules. I hope that your life gets better, I hear it’s unhappy in some areas. Elsewhere on this blog, Detin made some meaningful comments to women and several guys swooped in and attacked it. I defended his words, there were naturally some arguments when I responded strongly to such strong words against marital vulnerability, and he says because of my responses he wishes he’d never spoken. I guess men circle wagons too sometimes. I picked the right day to leave, all right.

    Chow. Chels, I don’t know when I’ll see you again, I’m not returning to TC. If you want you can get my address from Dalrock.

  89. Gwen says:

    “Opus, as a woman, I don’t really trust myself”

    Oh good heavens. Maybe this is why some see it as a weakness when women give all responsibility to their husbands for leading; they don’t even trust themselves.

  90. Chels says:

    Awwwww don’t leave Jenn, I enjoy talking to you, you make valid points, and you shouldn’t have received such flack from other commentors here or at TC😦

  91. Gwen says:

    It’s nonsense for people to say women are not trustworthy based on Genesis. Eve was deceived, Adam wasn’t, he KNEW he was sinning. So it could be said that men do wrong often and know that they do it, based on Adam’s example. Should we not trust men then?

  92. Chels says:

    Why does it only become an issue when women are commanded to submit to their husbands.

    Sedulous, of course men make mistakes and I don’t expect them to be perfect, nor does that cancel their leadership. It’s not really “wifely” when a woman throws in his face the mistakes that he made–chances are he’s already beating himself up over it pretty badly, and there’s no need to make it worse.

    Some women do use his mistakes to point out that he’s not worthy of being the leader, but then those women don’t really believe in submission either, and just wait for a mistake to happen before they point out that she’s better qualified than him.

    People make mistakes, that’s to be expected as no one is perfect, but as long as the good outweigh the bad, then it’s all fine.

  93. jack says:

    Jennifer-

    In the workplace, women can be leaders.

    Wrt to the Garden of Eden, yes she WAS deceived. As many women are. Like you. Eve has cursed all of womankind with this dissatisfied apple-grabbing tendency.

    Seriously, I think your hamster is doping.

  94. Svar says:

    Well, this has been entertaining.

  95. Jennifer says:

    Chels, you’re so sweet🙂 but I get too attached to arguments like this and it’s not good for me. Please don’t worry, I’m not upset at anyone at TC; they’re mature and don’t hold grudges. I just know that I’d get uptight again at the different philosophies shown all over there. Thanks for being kind🙂 You can reach me anytime at ceebcorry@aol.com

  96. Svar says:

    “Seriously, I think your hamster is doping.”

    Wouldn’t be surprised. Looks like a mix of ‘roids and meth.

  97. Chels says:

    Yeah Gwen, I’ve seen many women stating about themselves that they think they’re inferior and are not capable of making decisions, which basically means that she’s of no help to the man and she uses it as a rationalization for being “taken in hand” or something similar *barfs*rolls eyes*barfs again*

  98. Svar says:

    “Eve was deceived, Adam wasn’t, he KNEW he was sinning.”

    Women have been easy to deceive from the very beginning.

  99. Lily says:

    @CL
    “Men don’t sit in a marriage contemplating leaving while the wife is oblivious; women do this often.”
    Of course they do. If there were less financial repercussions to them, real or perceived, more would actually do it.

    If you’d said fewer men than women think about it, I wouldn’t have said anything but do you live in a parallel universe? One where just your female friends have contemplated leaving their spouse and not the men? One where none of your female friends mothers you grew up with were completely blindsided?? And this is leaving aside the men who have affairs with every intention to keep the status quo running.

  100. Chels says:

    Oh and Sedulous, I should add that he’s not making the decisions all by himself which means that the woman is also to blame, unless she was right on every single account but just went along with it, which I find kind of hard to believe and it makes her a hypocrite.

  101. Lily says:

    Hey Svar, hope you’re well! Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a traditional Christian?

  102. CL says:

    Oh good heavens. Maybe this is why some see it as a weakness when women give all responsibility to their husbands for leading; they don’t even trust themselves.

    Yeah Gwen, I’ve seen many women stating about themselves that they think they’re inferior and are not capable of making decisions, which basically means that she’s of no help to the man and she uses it as a rationalization for being “taken in hand” or something similar *barfs*rolls eyes*barfs again*

    Perhaps I should qualify this statement. It’s not that I think I’m weak, it’s that I know my limits. I put up barriers for myself – in other words, I try to avoid situations that might tempt me into doing something I’ll regret. Why do you two choose to see this as some kind of inferiority? Everyone has blind spots so it’s good to know where those are and act accordingly. Men have to work to avoid temptations, and so do women, but somehow a lot of women seem to think they are superior to men and more empathetic and yadda yadda, and it’s simply not so.

  103. CL says:

    I get the sense here that the women who are responding to my comments are being deliberately obtuse. No, I don’t think men are perfect and without sin; no I don’t think women are a bunch of weaklings who need corporeal punishment to keep them in line… Some people can’t take a joke!

    How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    That’s not funny!

  104. Chels says:

    Well CL because you replied to Opus when he said that he doesn’t trust women by saying that even you don’t trust yourself, which basically leads people (men) to believe that women are not trust worthy.

    As well, there’s a huge difference between saying that you have limits and saying you’re not trustworthy. I think, I hope you just picked your words wrong.

  105. Gwen says:

    You said you don’t trust yourself, CL, and that everyone trusts men more; I’ve seen women actually say, “We’re so easily deceived, we can’t be trusted to lead.” That’s why; saying things like that isn’t exactly the same as admitting common blind spots. Thanks for clarifying.

  106. Chels says:

    You might be into the whole Christian Domestic Discipline thing, but to most other people, it’s disgusting and repulsive *bleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah*

  107. CL says:

    Also, why is it that people who are all for choice and freedom of expression are so derogatory about something like “taken in hand”? I’m not particularly into that myself, but if it works for some people and they have a good marriage out of it, what’s it to you? Why do you think everyone should measure up to your idea of what marriage is all about?

  108. CL says:

    I didn’t say I wasn’t trustworthy. Go back and read it again.

  109. Sedulous says:

    “Nothing like the true and pure form of Christianity of course.”

    Agreed. But remember that the church has had problems since the beginning. Read the book of Acts and most of the N.T. epistles and you’ll see problems; BIG problems in the church.

    Things like sexual immorality, false doctrine, idolatry, strife and factionalism.

    The Jewish believers were originally very bigoted against the early gentile believers. The apostle Peter even stumbled on this point.

    Remember too, that feminism had an O.T. antecedent with Israel — Jezebel and her cult of Ashteroth/Baal worship. She devastated the priesthood to the point that they had to hide in caves to avoid her. Elijah had to keep his distance as well. They finally threw her out of a window and ran her over with a chariot.

    ““Eve was deceived, Adam wasn’t, he KNEW he was sinning.”

    Amen. Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the serpent. We all got screwed.

    Now men get to pull weeds while their pregnant wives scream in the delivery room.

  110. CL says:

    You might be into the whole Christian Domestic Discipline thing, but to most other people, it’s disgusting and repulsive *bleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah*

    Nice assumption there. I find homosexuality pretty gross but do I go around saying nasty things about homosexuals? No, I don’t. I know some(!) who are really lovely people and I wouldn’t dream of insulting them like that. I may think what they do is wrong, but that doesn’t give me the right to be an asshole about it.

  111. 7man says:

    @Jennifer,
    I have every intention of letting a man be a man.

    It doesn’t work this way. This is you assuming that you are in control and “letting” the man be a man. You keep using your imagination of extremes to rail against what works. Men figure it out. In order to straighten a bent stick, it must be over-bent in the opposite direction before it becomes naturally straight. So a “too beta” guy becomes “too alpha” and then returns to a balanced condition. Men tire of all your objections and disagreement. You seem to have an inkling of about “balance” but little understanding of the “reality of paradox.” CL understands things quite well. The fastest most effective way to help you see this is for the 80/20 (beta/alpha) man to give you a spanking and then a hug.

    Also a man needs to learn calibration and to feel a woman’s heart. He must be more dominant (alpha) at certain times in her cycle (ovulation) and more compassionate (beta) at other times in her cycle. He calibrates to her, but does not let her moods control the relationship.

  112. deti says:

    Jennifer:

    I’ve read your comments on this thread. You obviously will believe what you want to believe about leading, “dominance” and the manosphere’s views on these topics. No amount of explication, scientific evidence, anecdotal evidence, or discussion will ever persuade you. Dominance, as that term is used here, has been explained numerous times here and elsewhere. You don’t understand the Captain/First Officer model. Moreover, a man’s relationship with his wife does not mean he gets to impose his will on his wife and family with an iron fist. No one here is saying that. I certainly am not.

    You claim to come here to learn, you read a few blog posts, and suddenly you believe you’re qualified to be the teacher. Frankly, it is exactly this kind of holier-than-thou, anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better, intensely competitive and strident, coarse, in-your-face attitude that men find so offputting and insulting.

    You obviously aren’t listening, and instead want to come here to impose your views on others. You aren’t interested in learning what others have learned. Instead you are convinced you must be right, that everyone else here is wrong, and that you must somehow “correct” learned manosphere bloggers and commenters.

    Good luck with that.

  113. CL says:

    I swear, every time I come back to these boards and attempt to talk to the women, I get a little taste of what men have to deal with. No wonder they stop in at the pub with their mates/buddies/mistresses on the way home from work.

  114. Sedulous says:

    (Re)read the 31st chapter of Proverbs regarding the virtuous woman.

    She clearly submitted to her husband, but he also gave her a pretty wide berth for making many of the decisions in the household including buying land, engaging in commerce, instructing the servants and caring for the children.

    As far as I’m concerned, this is the best example of “having it all”.

    Women today are killing themselves over nothing, and men are scrambling for cover to avoid the fallout.

  115. Jennifer says:

    “Why do you think everyone should measure up to your idea of what marriage is all about?”

    I said I know about it and don’t like it, not that I’m trying to OUTLAW it. But I guess I’m tired of the attitude they and other major trads take too about marriage and what it should be.

    7Man, I’ll assume the spanking stuff is more silliness and extreme examples.

    “This is you assuming that you are in control and “letting” the man be a man”

    No, assuming that I won’t try to restrain him.

    “Men tire of all your objections and disagreement”

    Then it’s mutual.

    “This is you assuming that you are in control and “letting” the man be a man. You keep using your imagination of extremes to rail against what works”

    You guys really think I use my imagination to come up with extreme views. I only WISH some of the extreme sh*t I see on the darker gaming and fundie sites was from my own dark fears. It ain’t. I fear because of what I’ve seen, just like any man afraid to be vulnerable. I’ve stayed now longer than I meant to or said I would; nipping that in the bud now.

  116. Brendan says:

    Kai, no passage calls Adam the leader. Women are told to submit, men are told to die in marriage; both require a huge death of self,

    But not nearly the same thing, as you would have it be.

    Here is Paul in Ephesian 5:

    22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
    25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

    The model here is clearly that women are to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord” — Paul says that right at the outset of the passage. Think about that. When you think about your relationship with “the Lord”, is it one where you make the decisions and lead together with him? Or is it one where you submit to his leadership and his rules?

    Paul makes this even more explicit, saying that “the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior”. It’s certainly correct to say that this places an extreme burden on men, as they are to imitate Christ (Paul details what this means in 5:25, 28 and 33) in self-sacrificial love, but it also places the burden of submission on women, as they submit to Christ himself. Again, unless women see themselves in a co-leadership role with Christ, it seems highly suspect to read this passage as implying a co-leadership role between men and women, or that men are not “leaders”. If the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, yet one takes this to mean that “nowhere in the Bible does it say that men are to be the leaders of their wives”, then I take it that the Christian reading it this way must also believe that Christ is not her leader, either — which would be quite odd for a Christian, really. In fact, one need not really even interpret this, as Paul, again, makes it quite explicit in 5:24: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” — that is the submission of a wife to her husband is supposed to be the same as the submission of the Church to Christ, and is explicitly said to be “in everything”.

    I know feminists hate this, and they should — it is some of the most profoundly anti-feminist sentiment that has any remaining influence in the West. But to twist/interpret this to mean “nowhere does it say that husbands are to lead their wives” or that “men and women are meant to rule together” doesn’t merely distort the intended marital relations between men and women, but demeans the entire faith by distorting the relationship between the Christian and Christ. For if these verses are taken to mean co-leadership, then the Christian is also a co-leader with Christ, and not submissive to Christ, not seeing Christ as her “leader” and so on. Because Paul clearly, explicitly and repeatedly equates the two relationships in Ephesians 5.

  117. CL says:

    7Man, I’ll assume the spanking stuff is more silliness and extreme examples.

    A light spanking is extreme now?

  118. CL says:

    And this from the woman talking about spears through necks. Are you off your meds or something?

  119. Svar says:

    “Hey Svar, hope you’re well!”

    Thanks, Lily, How’ve you been?

    “Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a traditional Christian?”

    Uhh… I’d describe myself as a Christian(I consider traditional Christian to be a bit redundant) and I do have an intense disgust for liberal “Christianity” as you can probably tell. Politically, I’d describe myself as a paleocon, but I’m not really that strict on many issues and very hardline on some.

    I used to be a mix between a Ferd, Scott Locklin, and Richard Spencer-type(basically a sort genetic-reductionist nihilist) and a Roissy-type(in that I thought All Women Were Like That) but then I started to believe.

  120. Chels says:

    Nice assumption there. I find homosexuality pretty gross but do I go around saying nasty things about homosexuals? No, I don’t. I know some(!) who are really lovely people and I wouldn’t dream of insulting them like that. I may think what they do is wrong, but that doesn’t give me the right to be an asshole about it.

    Well, no one gives you the right to want to impose your lifestyle upon others (“Jen needs a spanking to straighten her out), and even making that comment makes you an asshole.

    A light spanking is extreme now?

    It is for those who are not into that sort of thing, and who don’t believe that a woman needs to be physically disciplined

    (I just barfed what I ate yesterday night and this morning, and I lost my appetite for the next week just typing the above)

  121. Jennifer says:

    Great points, Sedulous.

    Detin, you still don’t get that many see dominance more extremely than you do, and I often go by their terms and the HUGE abuse I’ve seen of it; my experience is as valid as anyone else’s. Why should I assume every man goes by your definition of matters?

    “You claim to come here to learn, you read a few blog posts, and suddenly you believe you’re qualified to be the teacher”

    This isn’t about being a teacher, it’s about being pissed when I see extremists and fearful men telling women they know how all of us really want a marriage to work. As for reading a “few” blog posts, I’ve wasted hours of my life scouring those f*cking blogs, and you know what? They still often contradict each other. You’ve read much of the trash yourself, then act surprised when I’m repulsed.

    “Frankly, it is exactly this kind of holier-than-thou, anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better, intensely competitive and strident, coarse, in-your-face attitude that men find so offputting and insulting”

    Right, I’ve seen this attitude numerous times from men and have gotten scalded for disagreeing with it, or accused of having some sexual attraction to it, and my defensiveness is so offensive and harmful to men’s ears. How dare I tell them not to be jerks or assholes to women! Because whether you realize it or not, not everyone shares your views of NOT being like that to women, Detin; you don’t seem to have any idea how crazy some of the advice is out there. I love it how some guys tell me their definition of game, then when I repeat others’ versions of it that I’ve heard elsewhere, I get the, “NO stupid, I just TOLD you what it really means” lovely reaction. I get conflicting messages and then blamed for repeating them; fuck that and screw this.

  122. Jennifer says:

    “A light spanking is extreme now?”

    Who said it was light? He described alpha and beta as spanking and then hugging, like that’s what it means, a daddy relationship; of course, I assumed he was being relatively light about it, and you swoop in by making that extreme. Yes sweetie, spears through necks, I’m all about metaphors, and they work well when you’ve heard what I’ve heard.

  123. Svar says:

    “Well, no one gives you the right to want to impose your lifestyle upon others (“Jen needs a spanking to straighten her out), and even making that comment makes you an asshole.”

    Nein, Fraulein. Making that comment doesn’t make her an asshole at all. She has a point. Jen needs someone to straighten her out.

    You and Jen are proof that some women just need to be tamed.

  124. CL says:

    Don’t lose your sense of humour now, you charming ladies!

    Irony: Man spanking woman joke makes me an asshole according to Chels. Woman putting spear through man’s neck (Jennifer talking to TFH) goes unnoticed by Chels.

  125. Svar says:

    “It is for those who are not into that sort of thing, and who don’t believe that a woman needs to be physically disciplined ”

    You do realize that CL and 7man are not talking about physical discipline, but sex?

    I just love how the feminist-chicks are such prudes. Another reason to never go out with a feminist!

    “Irony: Man spanking woman joke makes me an asshole according to Chels. Woman putting spear through man’s neck (Jennifer talking to TFH) goes unnoticed by Chels.”

    I found that lulzie too. The disturbing part about the spear comment is that she considers it to be some sort of sex-play.

  126. Jennifer says:

    Brendan, as far as being subject to husbands in everything, do you really think that means women must do everything their husbands say? That’s an exhausting, losing strategy. http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/

    Chels, thank you for the defense. Better bail, I’m becoming the #1 undesirable around here..

  127. Svar says:

    “HUGE abuse I’ve seen of it”

    Tingles is now abuse? Quick, someone lay a DV charge on all the men here!

  128. Jennifer says:

    “The disturbing part about the spear comment is that she considers it to be some sort of sex-play”

    That was sarcasm, idiot. He said that women come to blogs to disagree because we get a sexual thrill, and that was my way of saying, “No, I stay here arguing because people piss me off. And this is the verbal equivalent of what I want to do when people piss me off. Does that LOOK like a sexual desire to you?” I hope someone other than a divorce attorney pulls your head out of your crotch, Svar.

  129. Chels says:

    Since when is spanking code word for sex? I must have missed that, sorry lol

    As well, I didn’t read that part about Jennifer to TFH, but it’s just as wrong.

    And no, Jennifer doesn’t need to be straighten out, she has her opinions which simply differs from yours, and not every relationship has to follow the same rules in order to be successful.

  130. Chels says:

    He said that women come to blogs to disagree because we get a sexual thrill, and that was my way of saying, “No, I stay here arguing because people piss me off. r.

    Jenn, don’t bother with TFH, he’s made the same comment about me, but I really only come here because I like Dalrock, which is why I don’t even bother replying to TFH’s comments.

  131. CL says:

    Ah, Jennifer bails without really addressing the issue. Is this where the man is expected to follow her out the door saying, “No, honey, don’t leave!”?

  132. deti says:

    And why, Jennifer, do you feel the need to respond to and push back on every single critique of your views? Is it perhaps that you feel you have nothing to learn, but everything to teach us? Perhaps a little more listening might help.

    Case in point: Your response to Brendan. Are you, going to argue with God’s Word? Really? Seriously? If you’re a Christian, you’re traipsing into extremely treacherous territory now.

    Oh, forget it. See you round the interwebz, Jennifer.

    *Ducks for cover*

  133. Gwen says:

    “Ah, Jennifer bails without really addressing the issue”

    It’s been addressed, and argued ad nauseum, among her and these same others elsewhere. I got a headache reading their endless silly exchanges. She said she was annoyed when people keep addressing her, not enjoyable, but I imagine it’s satisfactory to see people who piss her off keep throwing bullets at her back. Last I saw, though, she and TFH were talking calmly last night.

  134. Svar says:

    “And no, Jennifer doesn’t need to be straighten out, she has her opinions which simply differs from yours”

    Opinions don’t really matter in the big picture. Clyde Wilson: reality is that thing that still exists even when you stop believing in it.

    I don’t really care if someone deludes themselves into believing in equality, but I reserve the right to have a few lulz at their expense.

  135. Brendan says:

    Brendan, as far as being subject to husbands in everything, do you really think that means women must do everything their husbands say?

    So, then the Church is also not subject to Christ in everything, either.

    Again, Paul is explicit here in explaining what the relationship is, and what the burdens on both the husband and wife are. He didn’t exactly mince his words.

  136. Svar says:

    “not every relationship has to follow the same rules in order to be successful.”

    I actually agree. Submission looks different in every marriage. But female-submission is the main and sole rule.

  137. Jennifer says:

    “And why, Jennifer, do you feel the need to respond to and push back on every single critique of your views?”

    Part of the OCD and anxious thing. Why do others need to push back so hard on mine, even when I simply say that men shouldn’t be cold in marriage; that got some thorns. My ears have bled from listening endlessly to different bloggers’ game theories. See you in the Ozland of the web, I’ve run out of time, and succumbed to my damn compulsive demands to return. What I get for squandering replacement-sleep time on net arguing.

  138. Svar says:

    “That was sarcasm, idiot. He said that women come to blogs to disagree because we get a sexual thrill, and that was my way of saying, “No, I stay here arguing because people piss me off. And this is the verbal equivalent of what I want to do when people piss me off. Does that LOOK like a sexual desire to you?” I hope someone other than a divorce attorney pulls your head out of your crotch, Svar.”

    She’s cute, ain’t she?

    “Does that LOOK like a sexual desire to you?”

    It seems that you and TFH are in the throes of a whirlwind romance. Gott segne TFH!!

  139. CL says:

    If she doesn’t want people addressing her, why is she posting on the Internet? She seems to be chronically annoyed from what I’ve seen. I might as well point out that the visceral reaction a few of you have had to the idea of a spanking is quite telling. It only riles you so much because you are fighting your own desires. That doesn’t mean your desires are for a D/s relationship, but that you actually want a strong man who can handle you properly. First though, you will have to swallow the red pill and cleanse yourself of your feminist indoctrination.

  140. Chels says:

    But female-submission is the main and sole rule.

    Even if it’s something like 49.99/50.01? I think Jen can handle that lol.

  141. Gwen says:

    Brendan, are you saying then that husbands have the same authority over their wives that Jesus has over us? Do you see where that leads?

  142. CL says:

    Gwen, we are still free under Jesus. He doesn’t rule us with a iron fist – we follow Him of our own free will. By doing so, it is possible to find a greater freedom within boundaries than we had without Him (that has certainly been my experience). Why is that so bad in marriage?

  143. Gwen says:

    I think she meant people repeatedly addressing her, CL. Basically, it’s annoying when lots of people address you, you send lots of replies, and then they say they’d wish you shut up..and keep posting responses. It’s happened to me too. I like the initial responses, but once things are understood and proceed into endless arguing, it’s pointless.

    “but that you actually want a strong man who can handle you properly”

    Revulsion always means attraction, then? That’s the blue pill of “no really means bang me” that many masculine/trad people love, right there.

  144. Gwen says:

    We have to obey Him absolutely, to the letter, no questions asked, CL. That’s a lot to expect in a marriage. Besides, Jesus explicitly says, “My way or the hellway”, basically; is that what husbands should say?

  145. 7man says:

    @Chels
    Even if it’s something like 49.99/50.01?
    I have not seen that work. Women in that model do not feel safe, treasured or protected. Such a woman ends up bitching a lot because she seeks to control in order to feel safe.
    Your Girlfriend Is a Product, and You Are Too

  146. Svar says:

    “Brendan, are you saying then that husbands have the same authority over their wives that Jesus has over us? Do you see where that leads?”

    LOL. Brendan quoted Scripture that said as much. How are you going argue against Scripture.

    Ideological carrier of Bolshevism and liberalism, indeed. No wonder why many so young men leave the Church.

  147. gabriel says:

    Besides, Jesus explicitly says, “My way or the hellway”, basically; is that what husbands should say?

    No, that’s the wife’s “line”!

  148. CL says:

    Jesus also forgives us when we screw up and doesn’t expect us to be perfect, even though we are to strive for that (“be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect”). (That’s why Catholics have confession). It’s a process, and the same applies to marriage. You are being too proscriptive here; each couple will work it out differently just as each Christian works out his salvation somewhat differently. We’re still individuals.

    As an aside for Gwen, Chels and Jennifer, you are all coming across as strident and too much as if all you are doing is trying to score points. That gets boring after a point. Sometimes it’s a good idea to just think a little while before responding. You don’t have to defend yourself against every atack; let some things go, think a little and see if there’s anything to take away from what’s been said.

  149. Gwen says:

    Women in that model do not feel safe, treasured or protected.

    Well I happen to know many who do, and many who don’t feel cherished in a system where it’s determined that one, by virtue of gender, gets to overrule the other without exception.

  150. Svar says:

    Good article by Delusional Damage, 7man. Funny, too.

  151. Chels says:

    I have not seen that work. Women in that model do not feel safe, treasured or protected. Such a woman ends up bitching a lot because she seeks to control in order to feel safe.

    Although I personally disagree with Jen on this, I give her a break because she’s not currently in a relationship, so perhaps she doesn’t know what works for her, only what she thinks she prefers, so her mind might change.

    And she has a point when resisting this model, because submission does sound pretty ugly, even though it’s not to any random person, it’s to the man she loves, so that should change the dynamics.

    However, dominance/submission is not the only way a relationship can work, I have plenty of counter examples of successful marriages that come closer to egalitarianism.

  152. Chels says:

    I have not seen that work. Women in that model do not feel safe, treasured or protected. Such a woman ends up bitching a lot because she seeks to control in order to feel safe.

    Although I personally disagree with Jen on this, I give her a break because she’s not currently in a relationship, so perhaps she doesn’t know what works for her, only what she thinks she prefers, so her mind might change.

    And she has a point when resisting this model, because submission does sound pretty ugly, even though it’s not to any random person, it’s to the man she loves, so that should change the dynamics.

    However, dominance/submission is not the only way a relationship can work, I have plenty of counter examples of successful marriages that come closer to egalitarianism.

  153. Gwen says:

    You are being too proscriptive here; each couple will work it out differently just as each Christian works out his salvation somewhat differently. We’re still individuals.

    I agree completely. I don’t think you know how often we’ve seen the attitude in others towards us that you describe. Your advice is good.

  154. Gwen says:

    Chels, people sometimes do know what they want ahead of time. Giving in to another isn’t the same as obeying them, and the latter is what I personally don’t want. But the former is vital.

  155. Svar says:

    “Revulsion always means attraction, then? That’s the blue pill of “no really means bang me” that many masculine/trad people love, right there.”

    LOL. The complexities of a woman’s mind, ja? You do realize that most women pretend to be shocked and outraged at the thought of being with an asshole but then end up going out with assholes, heh. It always makes me Ell O Ell when I see a girl basically cream her pants because I’m being an asshole to her. Love how that works.

    What “no” really means is “convince me”.

    “Women in that model do not feel safe, treasured or protected.”

    Nope, they actually do. They say they don’t, they say they want equality, but what they do is completely different from what they say.

  156. CL says:

    “Women in that model do not feel safe, treasured or protected.”

    Nope, they actually do. They say they don’t, they say they want equality, but what they do is completely different from what they say.

    He meant in the 49.99/50.01 model that Chels proposed (in other words, egalitarian).

  157. Chels says:

    Oy, there’s too much focus on equality, and not enough on getting along, trusting one another and doing everything necessary to make a relationship successful. Perhaps if the focus was changed, our divorce rate would go down.

  158. Gwen says:

    What “no” really means is “convince me”.

    And the women here have not been convinced. If you keep picturing women getting wet over you, I suggest you start expecting an ugly reaction.

  159. Svar says:

    “He meant in the 49.99/50.01 model that Chels proposed (in other words, egalitarian).”

    CL, this was a response to a comment by Gwen who was telling 7man that women do not feel safe, treasured, or protected in the complementarian/Captain-First Officer model(which they do).

  160. CL says:

    Well I like Svar. He cracks me up. A fine young man.😉

  161. Brendan says:

    Brendan, are you saying then that husbands have the same authority over their wives that Jesus has over us? Do you see where that leads?

    Again, Ephesians 5 places heavier burdens on men than it does on women in terms of self-sacrifice, but it does place the burden of submission and subjection on women when it comes to their husbands. Rewriting the text to meet contemporary relationship standards is nothing short of second-guessing Paul (and for Christians that means second-guessing God).

  162. CL says:

    Oh, OK Svar. It was unclear. The Captain/FO model is best. Athol nailed it with that analogy.

  163. Chels says:

    women do not feel safe, treasured, or protected in the complementarian/Captain-First Officer model(which they do).

    Ummmmm we most definitely do, why would you say such a thing Gwen?

  164. Svar says:

    “And the women here have not been convinced.”

    So? I’m not banging/trying to bang any of the women here am I?

    “If you keep picturing women getting wet over you”

    I’m talking about IRL not online over here. And picturing? I’ve seen tingles short-circuit a girl’s brain before. Explains the deal between TFH and Jennifer.

    “I suggest you start expecting an ugly reaction.”

    Ooooh, I’m sha-a-a-kin’. But seriously, Gwen, from who exactly am I supposed to expect an ugly reaction from? You or the the girls I know IRL?

  165. Gwen says:

    I was talking about many who do fell protected in non-hierarchal relationships, Chels.

  166. 7man says:

    @ Svar
    CL clarified what I meant. Practiced right dominant male leadership works out. Two people of equal worth get along well when the man is dominant. He must feel her heart and when he does this, she has great influence. Sometimes she shows her toughness. He better listen and understand. Relationships involve give and take. There is a variety of emotions and it works well when things get hot sexually and then cool down to friendship. Neither runs away and trust is built for the next cycle. A man must be vulnerable at times and realize that his woman has his best interests at heart. Then she is leading for a bit because he trusts her. She trusts him more because when necessary, she can lead and he is not domineering over her and dismissing her. After this, he again assumes the leader role and each trust the other more.

    Maybe some others don’t want this type of relationship or can point to couples that appear to have a good happy relationship without this dynamic. As for me, this is what I want and therefore what the woman I want must want too.

  167. Svar says:

    “Well I like Svar. He cracks me up. A fine young man. ;)”

    Thanks, CL.

  168. Chels says:

    I was talking about many who do fell protected in non-hierarchal relationships, Chels.

    I see, well then, you’re right, of course women feel “safe, treasured, protected” in non hierarchical relationship; that should be really common sense. I don’t see why there’s this fight over complementarianism and egalitarianism–whatever works for each couple, some people don’t do well in complementarian ones, just like others don’t like egalitarianism, but that doesn’t make one more right than the other.

  169. CL says:

    There is a variety of emotions and it works well when things get hot sexually and then cool down to friendship. Neither runs away and trust is built for the next cycle.

    Ah yes, this is true. It follows that the more this is done successfully, the better the trust, the less need for bickering and shit tests, and the more solid the marriage/relationship becomes. Sign me up!

  170. Jennifer says:

    So you’re trying to bang women, Svar; how Catholic.

    Chels, I’ve got an appointment to go to, but I’ll say this: I’ve been listening to, stressing, losing sleep, praying, and wondering over the hierarchy model for years now in regards to marriage; my defensiveness doesn’t come from reading a few things, it comes from major internal battles and many discussions with some decent people, and battles with jerks. I’ve seen the mild and the major, the balanced and the insane, the condescension of some of the more balanced ones; whatever way you frame hierarchy, I will never want that, not ever; there’s a difference between submission and obedience, and feminism and egalism, which severe trads will never understand and I didn’t either at first. As for spanking and then being given a hug, I’ve read accounts of that, of men beating their wives’ behinds until they’re red and then hugging them, like demented fathers. Some of these women write stories about women being anally raped by said hubsands or having their hands tied while being spanked, crying (like they do in real life) and being ignored. Then the shitty monsters embrace them and comfort them. Every time I share a view that comes from reading someone else’s extremism, I’m told I’m exaggerating and don’t REALLY understand, then they often proceed to give an example or statement somewhat similar to the extreme one I just shared (spanking and then hugging, for ex, or warning men never to give their wives too much). So frankly, I don’t give a damn if I sound argumentative or sarcastic over these things; that just makes me like greyghost, Jack, svar and so many males here and elsewhere. That’s why spanking and hugs disgust me; that’s why I think of spears in throats sometimes. I said some pretty violent things to a man who beat his wife’s rear and bragged about keeping her in line this way, even when she didn’t do anything wrong, and I wasn’t being metaphorical then. I’ve seen how easily people can slide into insanity on both sides, and have little patience. As far as I’m concerned, the fundie-trad model and the feminist one alike can shaft themselves to hell.

    CL, thanks for the advice, I don’t want to sound like I’m just scoring points; I’m defending what’s sacred to me. Nice talking to you, Chels.

  171. Chels says:

    Sign me up!

    Since both of you guys are divorced, why don’t you just get together then?😉

  172. Svar says:

    “Practiced right dominant male leadership works out. Two people of equal worth get along well when the man is dominant. He must feel her heart and when he does this, she has great influence. Sometimes she shows her toughness. He better listen and understand. Relationships involve give and take. There is a variety of emotions and it works well when things get hot sexually and then cool down to friendship. Neither runs away and trust is built for the next cycle. A man must be vulnerable at times and realize that his woman has his best interests at heart. Then she is leading for a bit because he trusts her. She trusts him more because when necessary, she can lead and he is not domineering over her and dismissing her. After this, he again assumes the leader role and each trust the other more.”

    I agree with this, 7man. This is very true.

    “As for me, this is what I want and therefore what the woman I want must want too.”

    Same here.

  173. Chels says:

    Jennifer, I completely get what you’re saying, forget about what everyone is saying and do what’s right for you. I don’t think you’ll have any trouble finding a man who also prefers a more or less an egalitarian marriage.

  174. Jennifer says:

    He must feel her heart and when he does this, she has great influence. Sometimes she shows her toughness. He better listen and understand. Relationships involve give and take. There is a variety of emotions and it works well when things get hot sexually and then cool down to friendship. Neither runs away and trust is built for the next cycle. A man must be vulnerable at times and realize that his woman has his best interests at heart. Then she is leading for a bit because he trusts her. She trusts him more because when necessary, she can lead and he is not domineering over her and dismissing her”

    That’s awesome, 7Man.

    “As for me, this is what I want and therefore what the woman I want must want too”

    Fair enough.

    REALLY gotta go now. Happy weekend, guys.

  175. Jennifer says:

    Thanks Chels🙂 Love ya. I will give my all to the man who has my heart and not stress over who’s “in charge”. But it’s good right now for me to define what i want.

  176. Svar says:

    “So you’re trying to bang women, Svar;”

    Yes, I am a heterosexual male.

    “how Catholic.”

    Why do think Catholics have so many kids?

    “Some of these women write stories about women being anally raped by said hubsands or having their hands tied while being spanked, crying (like they do in real life) and being ignored. Then the shitty monsters embrace them and comfort them.”

    Lol, wut? I like how she’s implying that trads are doing this. I’m pretty sure trads are opposed to BDSM.

    “I’m told I’m exaggerating”

    Hahaha, this is fucking rich! Didn’t you read what you just wrote above this line?

    “and don’t REALLY understand,”

    You don’t.

    “that just makes me like greyghost, Jack, svar and so many males here and elsewhere.”

    Nein, maedchen. To be like greyghost, Jack, and me, you’d have to get your hamster surgically removed.

    “a man who beat his wife’s rear and bragged about keeping her in line this way”

    If you’re talking about the man I think you’re talking about, all he said is that his wife gets off on spanking and therefore, he spanks her. I never heard him “beat” his wife’s rear.

  177. Svar says:

    “I don’t think you’ll have any trouble finding a man who also prefers a more or less an egalitarian marriage.”

    Yeah, from the weenie-bin.

  178. Oak says:

    There is a certain ironic humor in seeing several Westerners argue over the rewriting of a rewriting of a rewriting of a text sacred to messianic mediteranian jews of 2,000 – 6,000 years ago, and somehow apply it to their modern lives. I keep waiting for someone to accuse the other of ‘wearing clothing of mixed fibers’ or growing more than one type of crop in their field. Anyone here cut their beard? It’s stoning time.

    Seriously folks, this is comic gold for an atheist.

    My advice to Jennifer is: The sexist interpretation of the Genesis story can probably be taken at it’s word. The Original Sin is in fact the basis of female subjegation used by many. I would suggest you reexamine your morals, and decide if you really want to use this obsolete stuff as the moral compass in your life.

    Personally, I’m an egalitarian and reformed feminist. I gave up on most feminist tenents when I realized it wasn’t so much pro-woman and anti-man. I’m not at all surprised that women don’t trust other women. We have societally groomed women to be entitlement princesses, and everyone knows there can be only be one princess in any room.

    Being an activist against Misandry does not require a religious argument.

  179. Svar says:

    “There is a certain ironic humor in seeing several Westerners argue over the rewriting of a rewriting of a rewriting of a text sacred to messianic mediteranian jews of 2,000 – 6,000 years ago, and somehow apply it to their modern lives.”

    We could go by the pagan ways of the native Europeanvolk instead. Still more sane than secular liberalism. Pagan Rome worked. Liberal America doesn’t. Sorry, frau.

    “Seriously folks, this is comic gold for an atheist.”

    Good that you got your lulz, but we could care less what an atheist has to say.

    “Personally, I’m an egalitarian and reformed feminist.”

    LOL.

    “The sexist interpretation of the Genesis story can probably be taken at it’s word. The Original Sin is in fact the basis of female subjegation used by many. I would suggest you reexamine your morals, and decide if you really want to use this obsolete stuff as the moral compass in your life.”

    It’s either that or this: http://www.alternativeright.com/

    If Christianity isn’t true, then the logical position on reality is those taken by the AltRight.

  180. Chels says:

    I’m pretty sure trads are opposed to BDSM.

    That’s why I don’t like dominance/submission, they immediately evoke BDSM in people. I prefer leading and following, which at least for me, it means that a couple takes decisions together, but the man has veto, that’s all it really is.

    That’s not sick or twisted, but the puck must stop with someone in order to move forward. Not to mention that of course, a lot of women just don’t want that captain role (*raises hand*).

  181. CL says:

    “I don’t think you’ll have any trouble finding a man who also prefers a more or less an egalitarian marriage.”

    Yeah, from the weenie-bin.

    Ha ha ha ha! I ain’t going back to the weenie-bin.

  182. Svar says:

    To my beloved feminists: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/what-has-the-left-done-for-women/

    Tell me pinkos, why are jour fraeun so much more uglier than ons? That alone clues a man in why some women become feminists.

  183. CL says:

    Chels, I see no reason not to use those terms because the world has twisted them. I refuse to use my opponents’ frame of cow-tow to it by using less descriptive terms like “leading and following”. Those terms don’t work very well either and can be just as easily misconstrued, leaving “us” to come up with yet more terms. Forget it. We can agree that we’re not talking about BDSM here so why do we need to muck around like that?

  184. CL says:

    Tell me pinkos, why are jour fraeun so much more uglier than ons? That alone clues a man in why some women become feminists.

    They won’t like the answer to that one, Svar.

  185. slwerner says:

    Lily (regarding the question of whether men also sit around contemplating divorce just as much as woman seem to)- ” Of course they do. If there were less financial repercussions to them, real or perceived, more would actually do it.
    If you’d said fewer men than women think about it, I wouldn’t have said anything but do you live in a parallel universe?”

    Not true. Unless there is some point of conflict, a man is much more likely to find a sense of contentment in a marriage. (I will agree on the point that many will contemplate having affairs. But earlier surveys of women – by women – have shown that as many 75% of all married women either have had, or would consider having affairs; so that issue seems to be pretty much a “wash” between the genders).

    What surprised me was the number of “happily” married women who never-the-less still contemplate divorce. This is something that happily married men don’t do – and would not be likely to do even if they didn’t face financial repercussions. Men are just more able to be content in a given situation than are woman.

    And, you know what else men don’t do as much as women? Get together with their friends to bash their spouses. But, women sure do – even many good Christian ones.

    Interestingly, Katrina Fernandez has a post up discussing just that:

    Shrews

    Maybe that has something to do with supposedly happily married women sitting around contemplating divorce so much more than their men do.

  186. CL says:

    Actually Svar, I think it more to do with the fact that women with men from the weenie-bin are not getting a good roguring. They might as well be dating another woman for all the sexual satisfaction they’re getting. Notice how many of those couples look kind of androgynous?

  187. Svar says:

    “They won’t like the answer to that one, Svar.”

    Hoekom? Maybe we should ask Herr Robert Spencer hoekom: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/libido-of-the-ugly/

    I like nihilists like Spencer mainly because they’re smart, but atheists are a bunch of tools bitching about an evil conservative God that they don’t believe in: http://www.corrupt.org/news/the_psychology_of_liberalism

    “This is the psychology of liberalism, leftism, progressivism — whatever you call it, the origin is crowdism, or the will of the mob to have it be Not Our Fault. Instead of simply fixing themselves, they’re seeking external scapegoats and self-esteem builders. The scapegoats are the powerful (God, Kings, corporations, Nature) ”

    Feminism, leftism, and the lulzie belief in ekwalitee didn’t lead us into this shithole At All. It was God, the King, the corporations, das Juden, the Evil White Man, and worse, but not least Nature. Therefore what we need is MOAR ekwalitee.

    The funny thing about the liberal atheist’s struggle against God is that even if God doesn’t exist, Nature definitely does. And there is nothing in Nature to back up the theory of ekwalitee. Nature’s on our side, bitchez.

  188. Svar says:

    “They won’t like the answer to that one, Svar.”

    Hoekom? Maybe we should ask Herr Robert Spencer hoekom: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/libido-of-the-ugly/

  189. Svar says:

    I like nihilists like Spencer mainly because they’re smart, but atheists are a bunch of tools bitching about an evil conservative God that they don’t believe in: http://www.corrupt.org/news/the_psychology_of_liberalism

    “This is the psychology of liberalism, leftism, progressivism — whatever you call it, the origin is crowdism, or the will of the mob to have it be Not Our Fault. Instead of simply fixing themselves, they’re seeking external scapegoats and self-esteem builders. The scapegoats are the powerful (God, Kings, corporations, Nature) ”

    Feminism, leftism, and the lulzie belief in ekwalitee didn’t lead us into this shithole At All. It was God, the King, the corporations, das Juden, the Evil White Man, and worse, but not least Nature. Therefore what we need is MOAR ekwalitee.

    The funny thing about the liberal atheist’s struggle against God is that even if God doesn’t exist, Nature definitely does. And there is nothing in Nature to back up the theory of ekwalitee. Nature’s on our side, bitchez.

  190. Chels says:

    You’re right CL, maybe those terms should be “reclaimed”, I hate that it’s not only associated with BDSM, but also that the man must be a monster, this demonization of men is painful.

  191. Svar says:

    “ask Herr Robert Spencer ”

    I mean Herr Andy Nowicki not Robert Spencer. This is the article by Spencer: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/feminism-and-dysgenics/

  192. Svar says:

    “Actually Svar, I think it more to do with the fact that women with men from the weenie-bin are not getting a good roguring. They might as well be dating another woman for all the sexual satisfaction they’re getting. Notice how many of those couples look kind of androgynous?”

    Good point. Women say that they want equality, but then again, women say alot of stuff. What I’ve noticed is that they want to follow and get rogered hard by a strong man. Feminism and equality just died gruesome deaths.

  193. Chels says:

    Who said women need men? This is what a strong woman does these days, she marries herself instead:

    http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-09-29/the-bold-single-bride-who-married-herself/

  194. CL says:

    But Chels, where is she going to get her roguring? I’m hoping you posted that as a joke, because you tend to be all over the map and it makes it hard to tell when you’re joking and when you’re not.

    Svar, the hard roguring is best when she’s ovulating, fyi. Also the best time for spankings.

  195. deti says:

    7Man, 9/30 at 10:32 am:

    Exactly right. Now why can’t I write stuff like this?

  196. Chels says:

    LOL yes, I was joking. And the Hitachi Magic Wand is going to take care of her roguring😉

  197. CL says:

    And the Hitachi Magic Wand is going to take care of her roguring

    Ew! What a life!

  198. Kai says:

    “Jennifer says:
    Kai, no passage calls Adam the leader. Women are told to submit, men are told to die in marriage; both require a huge death of self, and you’d be amazed at how easily the Bible’s been blindsighted by people; I couldn’t begin to tell you. Some use it to claim that grown women should obey fathers and that bride prices are cool; deluded indeed. So is claiming he gets the last word, he has the sole veto power, his authority over her is like that of a child, and how entitled of women to expect mutuality! That’s not even close to feminism. It’s amazing how far it can go to any extreme.”

    Jennifer,
    how else do you interpret ‘eve was made as a helper’ other than that adam is the leader?
    Yes, both require a huge amount of work. If anything, the burden place on men is probably higher – but the burden placed on men is that of leadership, and I am still not seeing you acknowledge that or otherwise explain the verses I gave you.
    It doesn’t matter how the bible has been misinterpreted. Yes, there are all kinds of fucked up things everywhere. That is completely irrelevant to the point at hand – namely, the bible is clear on the (benevolent) leadership role of men. You’ve been avoiding the subject all over the place. Any follow-up?

  199. Kai says:

    “Oak says:
    There is a certain ironic humor in seeing several Westerners argue over the rewriting of a rewriting of a rewriting of a text sacred to messianic mediteranian jews of 2,000 – 6,000 years ago, and somehow apply it to their modern lives. I keep waiting for someone to accuse the other of ‘wearing clothing of mixed fibers’ or growing more than one type of crop in their field. Anyone here cut their beard? It’s stoning time.
    Seriously folks, this is comic gold for an atheist.
    My advice to Jennifer is: The sexist interpretation of the Genesis story can probably be taken at it’s word. The Original Sin is in fact the basis of female subjegation used by many. ***I would suggest you reexamine your morals, and decide if you really want to use this obsolete stuff as the moral compass in your life.***
    Personally, I’m an egalitarian and reformed feminist. I gave up on most feminist tenents when I realized it wasn’t so much pro-woman and anti-man. I’m not at all surprised that women don’t trust other women. We have societally groomed women to be entitlement princesses, and everyone knows there can be only be one princess in any room.
    Being an activist against Misandry does not require a religious argument.”

    ***I would suggest you reexamine your morals, and decide if you really want to use this obsolete stuff as the moral compass in your life.***

    This is the exact point I am making. If you don’t agree with the biblical position on women, it’s reason to reevaluate whether you think the bible should be the authority on your life.
    But IF you are going to take the bible as your compass, then you have to deal with what it says. Trying to claim that the bible doesn’t call for male leadership is deluded and silly.

    I by no means think that the bible is a necessary part of this argument. But when someone uses the bible as their standard, it’s extremely easy to meet the person on the terms they’ve already set.
    My own personal beliefs are irrelevant here – It’s not necessary to be a Christian to understand what Christianity says.

  200. jack says:

    Jennifer-

    Do you spend a lot of time thinking about spankings?

    Kinda sick, but I admire your openness about your “interests”.

  201. Jennifer says:

    “Yes, I am a heterosexual male”

    Catholic males are supposed to limit themselves to one woman and then in marriage, secularist. Of course you accuse me of exaggerating when I quote, point blank, what I’ve read in stories of abuse. Written by women who claim they love it.

    Great points, Oak. The Bible’s been abused for centuries; funny how some claim that nature dictates women wanting to be ruled, when in fact we’re quite dominant. So are men; hence the Christian need for us to control ourselves. Dominance and the desire for it are like the desire for sex, or in some cases, polygamy or hypergamy. Looks like some men really do love women playing hard to get, since the nastier I get here, the more I’m accused of having a thing for a resident male. Or maybe that’s just the male ferret/rejection coping mechanism going.

    Hi again. Chels. I wanted to clarify that I don’t think CL, or 7Man, or most trads beat their wives or want to be beaten in any fashion, face or rear end; but this is why I’m wary of any sliding down the slope when it comes to dominance. Incidentally, as I said before, I do understand a man just leading in general, especially with money and stuff as Detin said. I think this is why his wife begged him to do so and why many women like men leading in the relationship: it’s very stressful for us to do so. Among other reasons, we need the security of knowing he’s interested enough to pursue and keep things going. After all, we know how we feel, so we need to know how he does; once he shows it, that step of the relationship is completed or maintained. Since women are more emotional, it’s comforting to have the reassurance of the less emotional male by his showing that he’s interested, and therefore leading us to a place of confirmation. Plus, we lust to be pursued. Our feelings and confirmation of the relationship rely on what his feelings are; we need that affirmation to be secure.

    Then there are issues with money and stuff; I much prefer my husband to have control over that. Again, less stress, and spheres of authority are good for a marriage. True equality is, again, not having the same number of decisions, but valuing each other’s input equally. Taking this into consideration, I can see why some would go, “WHAT is the big deal?” With what I just described, nothing at all. But, the rub for me is when it’s assumed that the man gets to overrule any decision the wife makes, because he’s the male; that’s going too far. This is what people often mean by “leading”: he’s in charge and makes all final decisions. And I’ve seen trads and egals both practically measure the amount of authority a husband has by a yardstick, stressing and straining over inches and millimeters; has he got too much?? No, too little, pull the belt tighter on the wife! It’s just silly, and I’ve been prone to this too. I do want people to work things out for themselves, and just as no one wants me imposing my personal rules, I don’t want others telling couples that it’s dangerous for there to be no hierarchy and that the man MUST be in primary control, or there will be disaster, and that’s just the law of things; puh. That’s what I fight against.

    Being at Alte’s blog taught me a lot; I learned to talk, even laugh and pray, with people I never thought I could get along with. We fought hard, then forgot it the next day and teased each other again; I’ve never experienced that before! But being around people with such strong views opposing my own, some putting down women’s spiritual and intellectual capabilities, did cost me; I started to droop, and sometimes become more aggressive when I saw suggestions of trad-ism. Plus, it became harder to tell when people were more extreme or mild. Likewise, if I heard one man with a strong definition of dominance, I became wary of another who used the same word. If they’re describing the same thing, it’s hard to tell what their levels of severity are, or even where exactly all our disagreements may lie; I know women love dominant men, but that doesn’t mean I agree that all women love being dominated (or do you mean “led” when you say “dominated”? Or just “claimed” as his special lady? Or in fact kept in line by him since he’s the one in charge? What level of dominance are we discussing?) It’s weird how we can use the same terms for different things and disagree on different levels of nuance; both egalitarian marriages and complimentarian ones are very, very nuanced, and so can the term “equality” be. Still, it gets ridiculous; in general the term dominance is pretty clear in its meaning.

    I do want relationships and marriages to improve, and once I extract myself from the mass here, I hope this thread can refocus and think of ways to improve the issue of trust between men and women. Have a good weekend, Chels🙂 You can email me if you want to answer personally.

  202. Chels says:

    Ew! What a life!

    Cats make it all better

  203. Jennifer says:

    Kai, to briefly answer your question, I don’t see helping as following; God often helped Israel and called Himself by the same old word, ezer or something similar, that described Eve, to describe Himself when He did so. I generally avoid that topic because it goes on monkey trails. Like this one has.

  204. Jennifer says:

    But you can email me, Kai, if you want anymore discussion on that subject.

  205. Chels says:

    Jen, the problem with what you’re saying is that the woman comes as the leader—SHE decides that he’s better with money so SHE lets him take care of that, it’s all about what’s best for her, with no input from the man; she decides when he’s useful and when he’s not, which is why women have such a problem with the man having the veto because she wants to have it, and in your scenario, she does.

  206. Chels says:

    What level of dominance are we discussing?)

    That’s for each couple to negotiate with one another, and do what’s best for both of them.

  207. CL says:

    or do you mean “led” when you say “dominated”? Or just “claimed” as his special lady? Or in fact kept in line by him since he’s the one in charge? What level of dominance are we discussing?

    It will look different with each couple. If they are intellectual equals, it’s going to appear very egalitarian when in reality, he’s still the Captain and she’s the First Officer. I think that’s healthy. As I said, a kind of D/s thing doesn’t appeal to me – and occasional spankings for fun does not a D/s relationship make and it isn’t central to the relationship but a mutually enjoyable side activity. Some of y’all need to lighten up a bit and not worry so much about what other people enjoy in their relationships. I agree that it gets creepy with that domestic discipline stuff, but I don’t let it bother me if that’s what someone else likes to do for one reason or another. It’s really impossible to know someone else’s actual relationship beyond appearances.

  208. Kai says:

    One could argue that meaning of the ‘helper’, but that’s the least relevant of the passages listed.
    You brought up the topic when you said that nowhere in the bible are men stated as the leaders, nor that women should submit (words used directly in many of the other passages).
    I don’t need any more discussion – I have reading comprehension skills, and can see what is written in front of my eyes. I also happen to be not a Christian, and do not consider the bible my moral authority. I simply have a background there and find it irritating when people try to claim any view they come up with as Christian despite clear evidence to the contrary, rather than questioning either the view or the Christianity.
    Really, what I hate most is positions that lack logic and internal consistency.

  209. 7man says:

    @deti, 9/30 12:48PM
    I only can articulate my comment at 9/30 10:32AM because of what I have been experiencing lately. This insight only comes in relation to the “right woman” and is revealed in the initial stages, while two people get to know each other but have not developed a “faulty script.” Total honesty is necessary. I don’t plan a particular path, but I look back at what has transpired and then figure it out. That gives me an “Aha!… that worked, this is why” and I can write it. (So I am sharing the credit for what I wrote.)

  210. Svar says:

    “Catholic males are supposed to limit themselves to one woman and then in marriage, secularist.”

    But, Wotan says I can bang all the hawt sluuts that I want to. What about Lebensborn? Und die Fate of Norns?

    “funny how some claim that nature dictates women wanting to be ruled, when in fact we’re quite dominant.”

    Nein, mein fraulein. There is scientific proof that normal human females lose their shit over dominant men. Common sense, however, has long dictated this before the Left decided to get rid of that pesky deal.

    Nature is good, a love of Nature is something innate in healthy humans. Only the intellectual descendants of the Gnostics like the Puritans and the Leftists believe that Nature is to be suppressed. But, you can’t fight Nature.

  211. Svar says:

    “Looks like some men really do love women playing hard to get, since the nastier I get here, the more I’m accused of having a thing for a resident male.”

    Why does that bother you so? Maybe coz you do?

  212. CL says:

    (So I am sharing the credit for what I wrote.)

    Yes. I should say the same. We learn in relation to each other, not as an island, which can only take you so far.

  213. grizzledwolf says:

    “However, dominance/submission is not the only way a relationship can work, I have plenty of counter examples of successful marriages that come closer to egalitarianism.”

    I’ve seen one not work, up close and personal. This type of marriage “not working” is far worse than when the more hierarchical type of marriage “doesn’t work”, if only because the former is more likely to lead to divorce. I truly believe that even in so-called egalitarian marriages that work, the success occurs in spite of, and not because of, egalitarianism. Everything else about the marriage saves what noxious egalitarianism would have destroyed.

  214. Anacaona says:

    I like Svar too. He took my Twilight joke and laughed I just wanted to make the thread a little bit lighter…attempt miserably failed😦

  215. Oak says:

    @Svar: I disagree that the ‘left’ has much to do with the rejection of nature. We get that from our religious roots. Think about it: According to Judeo-Christian tenents, every spontaneous act is in sin unless one is baptized, circumscised, and forgiven. Nature is something to be subjegated in this line of thinking, and the references to the ‘beasts of the field’ treats nature, and nature religions with a certain deregation. Sound like an acceptance of nature to you?

    Eastern religions will state overtly that the processes of nature cannot be evil, by their very nature, and the fact that they exist.

    You are taking a very narrow interpretation, and applying it to a specific political stance. I call ‘straw man’ fallacy. Neither the right, nor the left have any advantage over the other in accepting ‘natural’ laws.

  216. Oak says:

    @Jennifer: While I find the wording foul, I tend to agree with the men you are arguing with, in that dominant males have all the advantages in relationships. I wish it weren’t so, but nice guys really do finish last.

    In fact nice guys don’t even make it to the race. Now, I seriously considered the concept of developing ‘game’ but in the end I find the thought nauseating. However dominance is something I need just to get treated semi-decently by women. Women are contemptous of non-dominant men. They may ‘hate’ the dominant man, but they respect him far more than any man bending over backwards to please a woman.

    Case in point, I’m 43, never married, live in girlfriend. She recently came back from vacation and started treating me like crap. Who knows why? I know I didn’t deserve it though. So I gave her the option of apologizing, or staying at her parents for a week while I moved my stuff out.

    She chose to apologize, and quit treating me like a doormat.

    I would LOVE to meet that woman who really, really appreciates the fact that I’m head over heels in love with them, and want them to be happy. But the bottom line is, that stuff is like a crucifix to a vampire to the vast majority of women. Hell, if I had asked her ‘What’s wrong honey? What did I do wrong?’ she’d probably dump me in a heartbeat.

    As a man, I had to find that place where I demanded a certain amount of respect, and walked away when I didn’t get it.

    So in a supreme twist of irony, the only way to have an egalitarian relationship, is to DEMAND it from a woman, and end the relationship if she doesn’t deliver. It’s either LTR on my terms, or MGTOW for me. No marriage (an innate state of submissiveness for men).

    Sounds awful, doesn’t it? It is. But the ‘nice guy’ approach never got me anything.

  217. deti says:

    Oak:

    “live in girlfriend. She recently came back from vacation and started treating me like crap. Who knows why? I know I didn’t deserve it though. So I gave her the option of apologizing, or staying at her parents for a week while I moved my stuff out.”

    No. “I gave her the option of apologizing, or her moving out.”

    FIFY.

  218. Oak says:

    @deti: LOL. Ahhh, but THAT would have been an empty threat, and I don’t threaten. Women have all the leverage in DV laws… in fact all she’d have to do is say she FELT threatened, and now who’s moving out with a shiny new set of cuffs and some new orders from the judge?

    It’s never a good idea to confront drama with more drama. What I did was state: The drama ends here, or it goes on without my participation.

    What I actually said was: ‘If you ever treat me this way again, I’m leaving and I won’t even leave a note . You don’t need a note, I’m writing it now.”

    Now this is basically shitty behavior on my part, in any reasonable interpretation of conflict resolution. But learned through trial an error that the man in the relationship can NEVER tolerate contempt. And by doing the chest thumping, ‘Me Man, you be nice, or me go away’, I somehow gained status in her eyes, and she lost the contempt.

    I can’t explain this. To me, it’s completely irrational behavior… I just know for a fact it works with women, but not at all with men.

    Honestly, I wish it didn’t work. I have no desire to be ‘right’ in this argument. It is what it is.

  219. Svar says:

    @ Oak

    You’re a male feminist? LOL. Normally, I would continue to engage in a “debate” with the likes of you, but the schadenfreude and the lulz are unbearable. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster smile kindly upon ye!

  220. CL says:

    She recently came back from vacation and started treating me like crap. Who knows why?

    Where did she go? Maybe she got a good roguring from one of the natives, or the bellhop.

  221. deti says:

    @ Oak: Whatever works. If it got the job done and ended the crappy treatment, fine.

  222. Oak says:

    Svar: Please quote where I said I was a feminist. I specifically stated I had reformed those points of view. You actually have some good ideas. Perhaps people would listen if you weren’t such an asswipe.

    So which version of the ‘word of god’ do you read from? The ‘original’ written 100 years after Jesus’s death, the one written by the King who wanted to get divorced in the 1400’s, or one of hundred other interpretations of “one true word”? Let me guess, you just take the parts you like and discard the rest, correct?

    @ CL: She was actually banging your wife, which we agreed was OK. That’s not the problem, it’s the venereal disease she came home with. Enjoy your genital warts.

    So, we done, or can we actually have a reasonable discussion?

  223. CL says:

    LOL Settle down oak, I’m female and not a lesbian, thus, do not have a wife. It just set off alarm bells for me – sort of weird to come home from a vacation and treat you like shit all of a sudden, don’t you think? You might be the one who ought to worry about genital warts. No need to hurl juvenile crap like that around here.

    Sorry if it’s not a thought you want to contemplate, but women going on vacation without their bfs/husbands and then coming home like that sounds not good to me. I’ll leave it at that and hope for your sake I’m wrong.

  224. CL says:

    Also if she went with her gfs, maybe her gfs are a bunch of complaining tarts who don’t like men and she’s now finding fault where there was none before. Which also isn’t good. You can tell a lot about a person from their friends….

  225. Lily says:

    Perhaps she told her friends about Oak didn’t want to marry her and they asked why and she got upset? Or something else? Who knows. Oak didn’t ask for any advice on why she may have acted in a certain way. It’s a bit off to start talking about her having sex with bellboy and talking about her friends like that, especially with that sort of language.

  226. Oak says:

    @CL: Well, I appreciate you clarifying your comments and apologizing. There is often a strong tone of nastiness in these conversations that I don’t understand. I mean, I can tear people a new one with the best, but it’s not the game I come here to play.

    She went on vacation with her family, I had work obligations. Her stated reason was that I threw a B-day party for my 22 year old daughter, and didn’t ‘consult her’ on the details which she showed zero interest in before. Also, since when does a father consult his girlfriend on throwing a birthday party for his daughter? Get involved or get out of the way. I’m not going to simper up to her and whine to be treated fairly.

    In other words, she had no reason to mistreat me, she just thought she could get away with it, and I called her on it in the strongest words I could use.

    And I think I really hurt her feelings in the process. But once again, if I back down, I’m back to the contempt and silence.

    It definitely galls me that I tend to agree with many points by the most crass, vulgar and inarticulate posters here. They have good points, and they say it in the most hurtful, mean-spirited and insulting manner possible. It’s definitely a problem for the MRM. Especially when the God-Nuts start proclaiming they are the only true herald of the creator… Oh the hubris…

    But you know what, they probably have no problem finding a date.

  227. Svar says:

    “You actually have some good ideas.”

    Danke. Wish I could say the same about jou.

    “Perhaps people would listen if you weren’t such an asswipe.”

    Awww, look at poor Oak… seems that his dick shot up his ass.

    “She was actually banging your wife, which we agreed was OK. That’s not the problem, it’s the venereal disease she came home with. Enjoy your genital warts.”

    Obviously, since CL is a straight woman, this was someone else’s wife. But it begs the question, is your girlfriend so desperate that she has to scissor chicks? Hahahah

  228. CL says:

    Her stated reason was that I threw a B-day party for my 22 year old daughter, and didn’t ‘consult her’ on the details which she showed zero interest in before. Also, since when does a father consult his girlfriend on throwing a birthday party for his daughter? Get involved or get out of the way. I’m not going to simper up to her and whine to be treated fairly.

    Well that is ridiculous and you shouldn’t put up with that.

    Again, sorry for being flippant. It’s best not to take some of this stuff too seriously or personally – insults are unnecessary. If you found it flippant, just say so, it’s not like we’ve encountered each other here before so that really was uncalled for.

    As for inarticulate posters, I disagree. Some of the smartest people I’ve “met” on the Internet have been in these forums and you mischaracterise many of the posters in this corner of the web because of a few and because of your dislike for a certain amount of vulgar language. That’s fair enough, but not much you can do about it and lashing out certainly won’t help your case.

  229. CL says:

    OK Svar, go easy on the poor guy. His gf is shit testing him, that’s all.😉

  230. Oak says:

    @ CL: I’m not apologizing. You started it, and you know you started it. But I thank you for your words. There’s a certain irony in telling me not to take your words seriously, while implying that you took mine seriously. Either we’re both joking, or you started a conversation by implying my girlfriend is a whore. Take your pick.

    I have no problems with vulgar language, (obviously) it’s the lack of coherent logic. Look above, I agree with Svar, and what I get is: ‘well I don’t agree with you’. How exactly can both of us have the same opinion, yet he doesn’t agree with mine?

    This is 2nd grade, schoolyard stuff. Contrarianism. His return insult doesn’t even make any sense. Of course you’ll notice that people like never actually address the questions I pose… Let’s see how he explains which version of the Bible he reads, what interpretation he uses, and how he knows it’s superior from a thousand contradictory opinions using the same text as guidance. He won’t… just more dick jokes.

    Yet where he fails in basic debate and communication skills, the man has real insight on female behavior. So I had to post in support of him. Even if he’s exactly what I said he was.

  231. ruddyturnstone says:

    Jennifer:

    “I’ve been listening to, stressing, losing sleep, praying, and wondering over the hierarchy model for years now in regards to marriage; my defensiveness doesn’t come from reading a few things, it comes from major internal battles and many discussions with some decent people, and battles with jerks. I’ve seen the mild and the major, the balanced and the insane, the condescension of some of the more balanced ones; whatever way you frame hierarchy, I will never want that, not ever; there’s a difference between submission and obedience, and feminism and egalism, which severe trads will never understand and I didn’t either at first.”

    Good for you. You want what you want, and don’t want what you don’t want. But why all the angst and agonizing? Why the battling with the decent and the jerky?

    ‘As for spanking and then being given a hug, I’ve read accounts of that, of men beating their wives’ behinds until they’re red and then hugging them, like demented fathers. Some of these women write stories about women being anally raped by said hubsands or having their hands tied while being spanked, crying (like they do in real life) and being ignored. Then the shitty monsters embrace them and comfort them. Every time I share a view that comes from reading someone else’s extremism, I’m told I’m exaggerating and don’t REALLY understand, then they often proceed to give an example or statement somewhat similar to the extreme one I just shared (spanking and then hugging, for ex, or warning men never to give their wives too much). So frankly, I don’t give a damn if I sound argumentative or sarcastic over these things; that just makes me like greyghost, Jack, svar and so many males here and elsewhere. That’s why spanking and hugs disgust me; that’s why I think of spears in throats sometimes.”

    Well, again, different, er, strokes for different folks. You don’t want to spanked? Really and truly? And not as a “don’t touch me there” kinda thing? Good for you. But what business of yours is it if other couples do? Believe or not, some folks actually like being on the receiving end of bondage and what appears to be anal rape, like to be tied up and ignored when they cry and so on and so forth. All without any “shitty monsters” being involved. Even if it “disgusts” you, why make a big deal out of it? Why the need for arugment and sarcasm? Just let it go, as you would let go any number of other things that (1) don’t concern you, (2) involve consenting adults, and (3) you don’t like personally and would not engage in yourself.

    “I said some pretty violent things to a man who beat his wife’s rear and bragged about keeping her in line this way, even when she didn’t do anything wrong, and I wasn’t being metaphorical then. I’ve seen how easily people can slide into insanity on both sides, and have little patience. As far as I’m concerned, the fundie-trad model and the feminist one alike can shaft themselves to hell.”

    And so let them, let them “shaft themselves” to hell. No need for you to get into a lather and say violent things either IRL or over the internet. That guy you are talking about, he lived in the West, right? Well then, if his wife didn’t like her undeserved spankings, she could leave at any time.

    “I’m defending what’s sacred to me.”

    Maybe that’s the problem. You’re a Christian. Well, the Bible which you presumably believe is the word of God is pretty clear about the nature of the husband/wife relationship. Sure, it doesn’t explicitly call for spankings, much less simulated anal rape, but it is what it is. You either believe in or you don’t . If you do, then there is trad con Christianity, in which the husband dominates, leads, is to the wife as God is to the man, etc. If you don’t, there is the liberal, “explain it all away,” squishy, feminist influenced, “what it really means is that we are all equal,” Christianity. It seems to me that you don’t like either choice The former one is clearly the correct one, if one really believes in the Bible, but it leads you into the trad con camp, where you don’t want to be. The second one is more to your liking, but is clearly incorrect Bibllically and, if you adopted it, would also lead into the feminist’s camp, where you also claim you don’t want to be.

    Unless you choose one or the other, you end up contradicting yourself and making no sense whatsoever.

    Or, if it were me, or someone asking me, I would say dump the whole thing and think for yourself. Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass what “Saint” Paul said or didn’t say. It seems to me that you are more or less the same. You WANT to think for yourself, but you are trapped, as a Christian, into having to pay lip service to ideas you don’t believe in. So then you have to find a way to weasel your way out of them. And that leads to you making bad arguments. It leads to arguments in general, online and IRL. If you weren’t a Christian, then it would be no skin off your back what the “monsters” claim is the Christian way of doing things.

  232. CL says:

    @ CL: I’m not apologizing. You started it, and you know you started it.

    Oh dear.

  233. Oak says:

    @ruddyturnstone: Well written post. I agree.

    She’s allowing herself to get worked up with obvious trolls.

    Anytime one calls an ideology ‘sacred’ you’ve already painted yourself in a logical corner, and you might as well give up any debate on the subject. There is not such thing as ‘logical faith’. You either believe it, without reservation, or you only believe what logic indicates is the best available theory.

    One is changable though debate, the other is not, so why bother?

    If anyone could ‘prove’ a religious belief, what exactly would be the value of Faith?

  234. Dalrock says:

    FYI, I’ve zapped a number of Svar’s recent comments, as well as replies to them. I haven’t been closely monitoring the discussion so I don’t know the full history of the discussion (nor do I need to). Please don’t reply further to any remaining comments in the discussion which got out of hand.

    Sorry to the commenters who had the discussion hijacked while I wasn’t closely monitoring. I’ll watch a bit more closely here and hopefully meaningful discussion can resume.

    I tend to take WF Price’s slant on moderating. I don’t like playing ref but will step in if things get out of hand. By the same token, I’d rather ban someone outright who causes me to continue to have to moderate than offer much direction. Almost everyone here knows how to handle themselves properly and I appreciate that.

  235. ruddyturnstone says:

    Sorry Dalrock.

    Posted before I saw your comment. Feel free to delete. And sorry about the flame war.

    [D: NP. Thanks for understanding.]

  236. Alat says:

    @Oak
    There is not such thing as ‘logical faith’. You either believe it, without reservation, or you only believe what logic indicates is the best available theory.

    Just for the record: to Catholics, the opinion you give on faith and “logic” (that is, reason) is anathema. Not only can we “believe what logic indicates is the best available theory”, we are enjoined to do so, for – according to the theory – reason will lead to Catholicism.

    “Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 2: DS 3026

    If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of reason: let him be anathema.”

    Only posting this because the thread is already way off topic.

  237. Brendan says:

    Off-topic, but very interesting:

    Mexico City considers temporary marriage licenses

    “Mexico City lawmakers are proposing legislation that would allow newlyweds to apply for temporary marriage licenses, instead of making the plunge into wedded life a lifetime commitment.

    The change to civil code was proposed this week and would allow couples to decide the length of the commitment, with two years as the minimum. If couples are still enjoying wedded bliss when the contract ends, then they would be able to renew the license. And if they’re unhappy, the contract expires and they are both free without going through a divorce.”

    The conservative Catholic press has taken this up, now, as well, with what would be an expected critical tone. However, what I found interesting was the admission, in one of the comments at the following link, that the basis for protecting traditional marriage, from the female point of view, was to protect women (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/marriage-a-covenant-is-never-temporary?utm_source=NCRegister.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=36565f7435-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL#When:2011-10-3). It certainly does seem that the link between traditional Christian women and feminist ideas (in substance, in many respects, if not in name/theory) remains quite evident. There is undoubtedly an overlap between feminist ideas and trraditionalist ideas, and the nexus is treating women as a specially protected class, it seems to me.

  238. Reality says:

    From MY personal experience for the last 25 years working with women either in the same company or as clients?

    Bottom line- who even knows how well women could even do? They never SHOW UP! They’re either not in yet- coming in late, leaving early, taking the day off, vacation, maternity leave- and on and on – and if they ARE at work they’re never really at their desk or simply ‘unavailable.’ One way or another they are always AWOL. And let’s not kid ourselves the ONLY jobs they will ever be working at 99% of the time involve an office.

    I find that the only true genius women have in the workplace is making excuses- they are expert MASTERS at inventing ways to simply not be there. Women simply BULLSHIT they’re way through life.

  239. Cristalexi says:

    I agree with Reality although I would only say SOME women bullshit their way through life, the ones that come from well-off families, this includes middleclass. I think women who come from working class backgrounds are hard working and will do an honest day’s work and get on with other female (and male) workers.

    An example of this is where I work there’s this senior woman and about a month after she started working here she announced she’s pregnant; so six months later she’s on maternity leave for a year. A month or so before she is due to return to work she is promoted and now about six months after returning to work she’s announced she’s pregnant again. So she will be off for another year. What kind of job is that, that someone works for a few months, leaves for a year and gets promoted. These women usually come from well off families and I don’t think they are doing real jobs which is probably the reason why they have problems relating with other workers. They are not doing an honest day’s work.

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