Mentu’s moving vasectomy post.

Mentu put up an outstanding post earlier this week on why he chose to get a vasectomy.  Predictably it drew the standard smug.  While the standard traditional response to the great violence being done to marriage (including innocent men and children) is at best a shrug, when an individual man elects not to sign up for the chance to be kicked out of his kids’ lives there is hell to pay.  Why won’t he man up and marry those sluts!  The predictable cry goes out.  If only the smug brigade had the same outrage when Christian leaders express hostility for biblical marriage.  In the smug brigade’s defense, their feminist overlords tend to make their lives very uncomfortable when they get out of line.

As a literary work, I especially appreciated the duality of the married with kids hoax.  Mentu played the hoax on the clinic, and the church and state played the hoax on the real father.  Brilliant.

Check it out if you have a spare moment.  If you are inclined to smug, order in an extra delivery so you don’t run out.
Edit:  Ulysses has his own take on Mentu’s post and the discussion below here.

This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Divorce, Fatherhood. Bookmark the permalink.

285 Responses to Mentu’s moving vasectomy post.

  1. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    You know, I was getting ready to write some lengthy comment to explain the hoax the church and the state perpetrate on fathers and husbands. I was preparing to use my cudgel, my rapier wit, and my scalpel-like flair with words (heh).

    But then I went back to Mentu’s vasectomy post at U of Man. And I saw this comment by “Tom” which sums it up pretty well.

    “These are the women who use their own children as leverage in family court with zero regard for the well-being of anyone else… then they actually have the nerve to call themselves “good mothers” and behave as if they know more about your ability to be a “good father” than YOU do. Women are the gender that steal money and children from “good fathers” simply because they are “not haaaaaaaaaaaapppy.””

  2. deti says:

    Is the new slogan from the church and state going to be

    “Man up and knock up the sluts!”?

  3. okrahead says:

    It just made me sick… not angry sick at Mentu, just sick that the whole situation exists. I have decided I will not go that route, however, it just reeks to much of nihilism and surrender. If the one candle I light against the darkness is my own child, then I’ll take my chances.

  4. CL says:

    Understandable, but unspeakably sad.

  5. Cane Caldo says:

    As a literary work, I especially appreciated the duality of the married with kids hoax. Mentu played the hoax on the clinic, and the church and state played the hoax on the real father.

    There is only one person who was not only in on both hoaxes, but central to them. The church (supposed to be in service to God), the doctor (supposed to be in service to the patient), and the state (supposed to be in service to the whole people) are actually serving at the whim of the woman. Mentu took a place in line next to the previous three, to sever at her whim.

    I’m still holding out that this story ends differently that it began, but even if not, it’s not the end of all things.

    As an aside, it angers me that there’s the general inversion of the old days when a man had to take his wife to the doctor, and the doc told him the problem. Now the wife takes care of the husband. HIPAA applies to everyone but wives.

  6. deti says:

    Cane:

    Yes.

    A woman has a constitutional right to abortion, or to give birth. She has the right to kill her baby or to give it life; the very power of God over the most defenseless and voiceless of us. And the man has nothing to say about it: his legacy snuffed out; or tethered to her and her child for 20 years; all at her whim. She may have any medical procedure done. Medical confidentiality laws prohibit disclosure to anyone, even a husband. A woman can abort or have sterilization done and the husband has no right to know of it.

    But a man has no concomitant right to a confidential medical procedure affecting his reproduction. He has to engage in elaborate machinations, feigning marriage and fatherhood, to get a vasectomy. He must engage in a bit of light fraud to have a simple medical procedure on HIS body, by HIS choice, expending HIS money on HIS time. Where I live, most urologists won’t perform a vasectomy on a man unless his wife consents. Most urologists won’t perform vasectomies on single men.

  7. Zorro says:

    I am a big fan of Dr Mentu. He’s a great writer and a good member of the manosphere.

    Having said that…

    In less than 2 years we will have the male pill. It’s unstoppable. They’re testing it in Israel and Brazil. The fembots can NOT stop it any more. Non-hormonal (made from cottonseed).

    Ever hear of PVPS? Google it. Vasectomies are for morons. Wait two years and your semen is worthless and reversible.

    No offense. Seriously.

  8. What an odd twist on darwinism. Good breeding stock takes measures to not reproduce, in order to thrive.

    Yay, feminism.

  9. Cane Caldo says:

    One more thought: I wonder about the ex-husband. I cannot imagine if my (hypothetical) ex-wife took another man to get his nuts cut (“I thought we covered that at the court, Honey?”), and used my children to sell the deal.

  10. ybm says:

    The reason the so called traditionalists get mad at men when they make the (correct) decision to prevent themselves from procreating almost ALWAYS comes down to either one of the following duties:

    1.) Christian
    2.) Ethnic (this is a big one in the so-calledmanosphere)
    3.) Cultural

  11. deti says:

    Here’s another thought. My tongue in cheek “man up and knock up the sluts” might only be half-sarcastic.

    Right now we’re hearing cries of “where have all the good men gone” and “you men need to man up, stop playing those video games, get jobs, and get married”.

    Twenty years from now all the alphas will be shooting blanks. The cry will then be “you men need to get those late 20s-early 30s women pregnant and give them the babies they want!”

  12. “As a literary work, I especially appreciated the duality of the married with kids hoax. ”

    How did you know it was a hoax? I’m not familiar with Mr. Mentu so maybe that;s why I missed it.

  13. >>The cry will then be “you men need to get those late 20s-early 30s women pregnant and give them the babies they want!”<<

    Could be. Maybe you've heard about this:

    "Wife whose husband became secret sperm donor calls for change in the law to require partners' consent"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193780/Sperm-donation-Wife-man-secretly-donated-sperm-calls-spouses-consent-mandatory.html

    "My body, my choice" apparently only applies to women.

  14. ybm says:

    The Real Peterman says:
    September 12, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    I think sperm donation should be outlawed so I’m not bothered by that at all.

  15. Opus says:

    @ybm

    I am with you on sperm donation (which is one of the reasons I am contemptuous of Mrs Deech – see previous thread).

  16. Why do you two think sperm donation should be outlawed?

  17. JoeS says:

    Television shows like Home Improvement and Everybody Loves Raymond have episodes where the wives nag their husbands to have vasectomies. There is a cultural war, these people are full of venomous hatred.

  18. ybm says:

    The compensation is often inadequate for the actual gift of genetic material being given and the fact that it is so available devalues man’s reproductive role itself with the banks getting the lion-share of the profits for freezing and impregnation.

    The fact of literal sperm donors lends credence to the flawed mentality that a man can just be a “sperm donor ” in the figurative sense (i.e. because he doesn’t get pregnant his role in conception is derided).

    The existence of sperm donation deprives many children from being adopted and the choice of using sperm donors no doubt emasculates sterile males.

    Sperm donors are subjecting baby boys (and girls) to the possibility of being ‘unborn’ through sex selective abortion/sex selective IVF or even worse a selfish “single mother by choice” – left to grow up without a father. I also believe men have a moral responsibility to only procreate if they want and are responsible for the new life.

    Society at whole ignores the hypocrisy of sperm donation in conflict with their own morality, they believe that while a man is morally culpable for an accidental (or deception caused) pregnancy he is not morally culpable for a deliberately caused pregnancy. In recent times this part has been worked back to expose anonymous donors “in the interest of the children” – primarily to ease pressure off the selfish single mothers who don’t know who the father is.

  19. I have given this some thought and decided that there is no good or bad in this decision by Mentu to exclude his own child production.

    I dismiss the idea that any of us has an obligation to the future generations to produce them. Or that any one of us has an obligation to “produce more of our kind” so that the other kind doesn’t dominate us demographically. The future will take care of itself and the people who live then will do what they must, as they should.

    Having a child, regardless of it being your own genetic line, is a blessing that brings with it lots of joy… just like having a puppy. But some people don’t want a puppy.

    The only relevant argument to be made about producing children is, “do you personally want one”? If the answer is “no” then the choice to get a vasectomy is perfectly reasonable and no one else’s business. Mentu could also have chosen celebacy to achieve the same end, but I am guessing he like the sex part and wants more of it, just not the conception part. Since sterilization is the best form of birth control, no one should fault his choice. he could also demand proof from his dates that they are sterile, but that is less certain than knowing his own junk is non productive.

  20. Opus says:

    I concur with ybm.

    Sperm Donation reduces men to a status of homo sacer. [slave]
    Sperm Donation deprives children of Fathers and thus is anti-family (and anti-civilisation).
    Sperm Donation enables women to avoid reality and thus pedestalises them still further and thus is inherently Misandrist.

    There are sad cases of course but life is sad – cryogenics is equally repulsive. Do I have a right to purchase a womb (artificial or otherwise)? The disgust people feel for that equals the disgust I feel for women who seek sperm donors, and indeed the use of men generally for that purpose.

    I once had a girlfriend who tolds me (as we were driving along) that there was some man who had always said that if necessary he would provide her with a baby. That is hardly what a man trying to court a woman needs to hear – if the guy would not marry her then one can only assume that his offer of sperm was a calculated ploy to get free pussy. I was disgusted by her attitude – and gullibilty.

    As for Prof Mentu, I have read his essay twice now, and still don’t understand it.😦

  21. an observer says:

    Sad.

    Here we see the steepening decline of western civilisation, at the hands of cultural marxism.

    I applaud Mentu for his honesty and commitment to principles. I have no issues with his using deception to achieve such.

    Just deeply saddened. It is a symbolic act prompted by the madness that passes for equality and fairness, which only ever favours women.

  22. WHS says:

    He made a huge mistake. Despite what they may say, women aren’t attracted to men who have had vasectomies. He may as well be a castrato. If you are married, never, ever get one. Your wife will know that you can’t leave her and impregnate someone younger and hotter. The threat that you can do so gives you a degree of power in the relationship, even if only implied. Of course, wives hate that their husbands have that power, which is why they press so hard for vasectomies, often in alliance with their female doctors. Those wives who prevail treat their husbands like garbage after the procedure. They are repulsed both by the lack of virility and because the husbands allowed themselves to be pushed around. Some of these shrews will even admit this if pressed.

  23. Joseph says:

    While Mentu’s post is sad, the need for it is still no less real. We are spinning out of control as a society and the end of it will not be pretty, but Mentu has chosen to at the very least make sure that children are not born into a broken household and left to the tender (crazy) care of their single mothers. Hypergamy doesn’t care and, not being a christian, I don’t see why he should either.

  24. How did you know it was a hoax? I’m not familiar with Mr. Mentu so maybe that;s why I missed it.

    Mentu stated he had a fake wife and kids go with him to sell the idea that he has already “Manned up.”

  25. The Right Hon. Msgr. Fred Flange says:

    It’s not just the “involuntary” sperm donor who has a problem (i.e., sperm turkey-bastered from discarded jimmy hat, see above). Those “anonymous” money-makin’ donors may not get to stay anonymous or money-makin’ for long if there’s a problem with the “product” – like autism or Down’s. A chilling article in Oprah’s magazine blithely discussed how some thirteen moms figured out their mildly Aspberger’s kids all came from the same donor guy – and the bank’s records were good enough to ID him. They claimed they weren’t interested in suing him for support — but since he had “fathered”, maybe, 100 other snowflakes, maybe one of those other moms with an ASD kid might someday think otherwise. As the undisputable bio-dad, he would get to pay and pay. Far in excess of the $2000 or so in beer money he got for his “deposit”. Whooops.

    You guys know that the USA treats sperm/egg donation like any other commercial commodity, right? Most other countries strictly regulate it.

  26. Tanner says:

    These traditionalists are the same men who wil villify another man for filing divorce after taking the red pill and realizing he could never raise children with the woman he chose to marry. Got hell for that myself and I don’t regret that decision for a second.

  27. ybm says:

    WHS says:
    September 12, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    I don’t anyone has ever thought that women find infertile men attractive. Unless they are super rich and willing to be cuckolded I’m sure most anglo-women would prefer he simply give his money over to them and then eat a 12 gauge.

  28. WHS your comment is ignorant and uninformed. I got my vasectomy in 1997. Had 2 stepsons and 2 of my own sons. Had to do it, or I would have had #5 for sure.

    My wife was thrilled with it. I lost no function (if anything it got better) and since then, the girls I have been with have loved it as well, except for the few that want kids/marriage right up front. I am 42, no more kids for me regardless. I’m too damn tired, and I raised 4 boys and got wiped financially once already. I’ve done my part. I have enjoyed strong success with women as much as I please, and I can still bring it like I was 21, with no worries at all.

    The men with “power” are the ones that women cannot get leverage against, ala Mentu. Your statement is backwards to the point of absurdity.

    I have no problem with Mentu getting the vasectomy. For me it was absolutely brilliant. I thank myself every damn day that I didn’t have any more kids with Ms. Shitstorm, and I haven’t spawned any other kids unintentionally either. Because of that fact alone, I have hope that I will actually get to do what i want to do with my remaining years.

    Mentu has preempted having his children be held hostage, or even having himself thrown in jail or financially destroyed or blackmailed (or all four). As CL said, it is sad, the observation that a vasectomy for a man with no kids is his most prudent option.

    I find it disgusting that he had to operate such a ruse just to get a Doctor to perform the operation. Are doctors the arbiters of how we should or should not form a family? The same doctors that slaughter fetuses won’t do a vasectomy? How the hell does that add up?

  29. sunshinemary says:

    deti wrote:

    Where I live, most urologists won’t perform a vasectomy on a man unless his wife consents.

    Haha, I just posted an anecdote about this on Mentu’s post, and then clicked here to read the comments on Dalrock’s thread, where I saw that you had already written almost the exact same thing. Here is the little story I related:

    A man in our Bible study small group got a vasectomy last year. He told my husband that his wife had to sign a form saying that she agreed to the procedure (which she did). My husband said, “You had to get a permission slip from your wife?” When he told me about it, I burst out laughing, but then I realized…can you imagine the reverse? Can you imagine if a woman had to get a permission slip from her boyfriend or husband to murder his unborn child? Women would be marching in the streets, bellowing about “Get your laws off my body!” Yet at the local hospital here, apparently a man’s vas deferens are community property.

    It’s sad that someone as bright as Prof. Mentu won’t have his own children, but I can’t blame him. The stories men have posted here about their frivorces has convinced me that many (most?) women are not a good bet for marriage or parenthood.

  30. Kai says:

    “WHS says:
    He made a huge mistake. Despite what they may say, women aren’t attracted to men who have had vasectomies.”
    Perhaps women aren’t attracted to men who *say* they’ve had vasectomies, but it’s not stamped on his forehead.
    He mentions that he has every intention of playing the ‘interested in starting a family’ line now that he knows he’s not in danger.

    I understand why many men may see sperm donation as a poor idea (especially with the recent erosion of protection, I think you’d be nuts to consider it), but I question why you would want to legally prevent other men from doing so, especially in conversations related to men keeping rights over their own bodies.
    Or is it not a desire to legally prevent, but simply intending to influence other men for the betterment of men in general?

  31. CoffeeCrazed says:

    Samuel Solomon wrote: Are doctors the arbiters of how we should or should not form a family? The same doctors that slaughter fetuses won’t do a vasectomy?

    Texas law, at minimum, does seek to inform women of what they are doing.

    Texas law requires women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram exam and to listen to a physician’s detailed description of the fetus, including whether it has developed limbs or internal organs.

  32. Johnycomelately says:

    Vasectomies are ‘REVERSIBLE’, there is a greater chance of getting a divorce and being financially ruined for life than having an unreversible vasectomy.

    The Professor will have children when he wants to have them not through some ‘accidental’ pregnancy.

  33. but the doctors never tell them no, just because they don’t agree with the decision, as they are doing for vasectomies.

  34. WHS says:

    Men with power in a relationship are those who are capable of spreading their seed around with other women. Most men have this power but don’t know how to use it, either actually or impliedly. Women might say that sterility attracts them, but it doesn’t, and their actions typically demonstrate that. There are other ways to prevent pregnancy.

  35. Men with power in relationship are those who will not hesitate to walk away if necessary.

    Men who spread their seed around cannot walk away, and become hostage. (in bondage, powerless)

    seriously, WHS, I cannot compute how you are coming to your conclusion. There can be no doubt, however, that you yourself do NOT have a vasectomy, and I would suggest that therefore you are not qualified to speak on it, as to how things are or are not for a man who had had it done.

    Seriously, its AWESOME.

  36. van Rooinek says:

    Vasectomies are defeatist.

  37. I wouldn’t have a vasectomy for moral reasons, and also personal preference. My wife chose to have a tubal ligation instead, after our third child.

  38. Cane Caldo says:

    This thread has taken an even darker turn.

    @Samuel Solomon, you let your emotions run away with you, man.

    Men with power in relationship are those who will not hesitate to walk away if necessary.

    Yes, I often ruminate on the overwhelming power of a two-year old to just walk away when called. What a pathetic metric for power.

    Men who spread their seed around cannot walk away, and become hostage. (in bondage, powerless)

    Of course he can. Why do you think you raised two step-sons? And if vasectomies are so empowering, why does mama have to approve the doctor’s visit? This is equivalent of lesbians celebrating a “man-less” insemination…you know, with sperm…with technology a man created.

    seriously, WHS, I cannot compute how you are coming to your conclusion. There can be no doubt, however, that you yourself do NOT have a vasectomy, and I would suggest that therefore you are not qualified to speak on it, as to how things are or are not for a man who had had it done.

    We hopefully won’t see another comment from you about women and their motivations until you withdraw this inanity.

    Finally:

    My wife was thrilled with [my vasectomy].

    Which wife would that be?

    @DC

    Are tubal’s approved by the Church? How is it immoral for you, but not for the other half of you? Or did she do this in rebellion?

    Nevertheless, some starlight breaks through the gloom, and ybm and I find ourselves in agreement.

  39. greyghost says:

    Mentu is helping us all. Involutary Childless Spinsterhood. Now if he could just get back on that cock carousel and get a real bitch of a woman gamed out of her last years of fertility it would be highly appreciated by me the military wing of the MRM.
    WHS you Bill Bennette and Gilligan of Giligan’s island fame need to sit down over a few beers and discuss marriage and family in the modern age of the woman.

  40. As I said at UofM, I don’t understand this at all. Mentu says:

    “I thought about the Manosphere. In my opinion, pro-marriage and Christian bloggers in these parts talk far too much about how to find a good wife, and not nearly enough about how to find a good mother. After a long and exhaustive search, I have finally given up. I actually gave up about three years ago, to be perfectly honest. Women who might make decent wives pop up every now and then, but women in the 21 to 31 year old age range who would make good mothers have gone the way of the Dodo Bird. It’s not as if they’ve rejected the idea; they’re not even aware that the concept exists.”

    The Manosphere is largely about hypergamy (Heartiste, Athol Kay, yourself, Mentu etc). That’s teaching or reminding men how to punch way above their weight and find the type of girl they want. For you to just ‘give up’ is frankly, astonishing. Women’s brain makeup and chemistry changes enormously when they have children. It changes in a massive way for men as well – men who didn’t think they’d ever be capable of loving and caring for their child find themselves growing into the capacity. The Male Brain explains it here: http://www.amazon.com/Male-Brain-Louann-Brizendine-M-D/dp/0767927532

    So if we can find some girls worthy of being wives, chances are they’d also grow into wonderful mothers. I just can’t believe anyone would throw that opportunity away.

  41. Cane Caldo says:

    @greyghost
    If I’m understanding you right, greyghost, you’re cheering on a man’s act of sobering desperation–not to mention risking his beloved father’s respect–as good because it’s useful to your pet cause of hating the current SMP, is that right?

    Not only is he banging women for you, he’s now not-impregnating them for you, too?

    Are alphas safe from no one?

  42. greyghost says:

    Cane Caldo
    You need to get off Samuels dick.

    Yes, I often ruminate on the overwhelming power of a two-year old to just walk away when called. What a pathetic metric for power.
    As long as you have been here you can still make comments like that. And this wasn’t out of ignorance either you made that comment to scold a man that is aware.
    ————————————————————————————-

    Men who spread their seed around cannot walk away, and become hostage. (in bondage, powerless)

    Of course he can. Why do you think you raised two step-sons? And if vasectomies are so empowering, why does mama have to approve the doctor’s visit? This is equivalent of lesbians celebrating a “man-less” insemination…you know, with sperm…with technology a man created.
    ———————————————————————————

    This response here is what is known as burying his head in the sand and playing. The father didn’t walk away asshole she walked and took her meal tickets with her. That is how it is

    This last one is total bullshit here
    —————————————————————————————————
    Finally:

    My wife was thrilled with [my vasectomy].

    Which wife would that be?
    ————————————————————————————————–

    Now mutha fucka let me tell you this out loud and in front of everybody. You are nothing but a pussy worshipping churchian hiding behind the bible. Sam like we all are and were was a blue piller that wanted a family. And I’m sure you are one of those marry them slut churchians. I bet if he was in your church you would have talked big churchian shit about this guy marry that piece of ass. The man is here due to being jacked over in a divorce and he is sharing his experiences to save other men. And you are playing christian chuchian serving up another beta chump thinking you are pleasing to god. You are playing house and what pisses me off the most real beta men are going to kick the asses neccesary to restore real christian love and clowns like you are going to step like you are some kind of cultural leader like you always maintained the faith. And your biblical proof would be you didn’t get your hands dirty like Samuel or some Pick up artist using up some sluts fertile years leaving her childless in front of some 16 year old thinking about getting on the cock carousel. I don’t like you Cane Caldo because I hate cowardly bullies

  43. greyghost says:

    @greyghost
    If I’m understanding you right, greyghost, you’re cheering on a man’s act of sobering desperation–not to mention risking his beloved father’s respect–as good because it’s useful to your pet cause of hating the current SMP, is that right?

    You are goddamn right.

  44. van Rooinek says:

    Mentu’s moving vasectomy post.

    Oh, yeah, really moving. About as moving as “Sundown at Coffin Rock”….
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/sundown.html

  45. JoeS says:

    @David Collard:

    “I wouldn’t have a vasectomy for moral reasons, and also personal preference. My wife chose to have a tubal ligation instead, after our third child.”

    You need to stop boasting about your “game” serving your marriage. Your wife made a mockery of you and Catholic marriage.

  46. whatever says:

    Cano whined:

    Yes, I often ruminate on the overwhelming power of a two-year old to just walk away when called. What a pathetic metric for power.

    That’s cause Cano is scum. And when the hard sell of “I, Lord Cano, have given you Glorious and Wonderful RIGHTS in return for this absurdly long and insanely burdensome list of Responsibilities” is laughed at, Cano immediately flies into a rage at those who don’t accept his con. They are “children” who must be FORCED to accept his con.

    Kind of like the women who are big on how “men need them to have children” and “men compete for my glorious vagina” immediately go into an hysterical fit when a man decided to get a vasectomy… thus walking off from their hard sell.

    Obviously, this is very traumatic for either scumbag. A REAL MAN would sit there and take it NO MATTER WHAT. After being convinced to take it, the hard sell immediately starts again.

  47. whatever says:

    Oh, and on Sperm Donation. What’s wrong about it?

    So many things it’s very difficult to say what path(s) any particular incident will take. It’s a problem reactor! It generates problems and with high efficiency!

  48. ybm says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    September 12, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    When university of man opened up I was quite open about the fact that it was likely another attempt to peddle PUA garbage, mock MRAs, and sell books, to puff up the owners self-esteem. I now see why.

    I make no moral pronouncements nor will I debate the merits of self-sterilization. I simply think it is a sad indictment of society, and precisely the symptom of the things I care deeply about.

    Even aside from the fact I think the uman webmaster is a fucking douchebag, I will mourn for him.

  49. Cane Caldo says:

    @greyghost

    You and Samuel have both identified as Christian; otherwise, I would not bother you. I won’t comment any further on Samuel’s situation unless he returns.

    About my unworthiness: I have never denied being beta, and have given up on defending my assumed and/or demonstrated churchian-ness–which is the shaming language of the manosphere. I just don’t care. Worse: I am a current, former, and reforming adulterer. I am a hypocrite.

    But you are foolish.

    Every day you decry us betas. You demand we “man up” in the way you would prefer. You deplore our wives, and our child-rearing ways. Daily you rail that not only do we churchians not live up to the standards, but won’t even hold it forth.

    Well I do. I stand there in my beta-shabby appearance, and I say to myself, and my wife, my kids, my friends, my re-married mother, and my re-married father and any other Christian who talks with me about Feminism or the current SMP, and I say: “This is not right. We should not do this. Christians are sabotaging marriage.”

    But if I sully myself with a harlot, then you are sympathetic; even delighted.

    I told my wife about my affairs, and I told her it was her fault, too; for rejecting me over and over again, and for getting fat. And when she responded that she wasn’t rejecting me, that it was her weight that made her feel unsexy, I said, “Well, the message came through. You’ve convinced me: I no longer find you attractive.” What you call “playing house”, I call daily murdering my pride to honor my commitment; which (I’ll share with you in case you ever decide to try it) is often excruciating, and never complete.

    Perversely, if I had divorced her, you’d be giving me Internet high-fives. Plus I could go out with all the coworkers and talk about what a bitch my ex-wife is, and we’d all laugh, and hope they rot in Hell. Hateful, like you.

    A week ago, my mother came to bid me farewell from her house. Crying, she asked me: “You love me, don’t you? You love me just because?”

    “Yes, Mom”, and kissed her cheek. When we drove off, my kids asked, “Dad, why was Grammy crying when she talked to you?”, and I told them, “Because she’s always known that I blame her for divorcing Pa-Pa, and last night she disrespected my grandpa (her father) for not making her feel comfortable (unhaaaappy) all the time, and I called her on it. That made her uncomfortable, too, so she’s afraid I won’t love her anymore because that’s what she would do.”

    “You do love her, don’t you, Dad?”

    “Of course. She gave birth to me.”

    Love among family is very important and painful to children; as it is to us, but fresher for them as they are more tender. So I have to walk the hard road of not only telling them the truth, but living the truth for them; loving my mother when I don’t feel like it. It is hard.

    You should know this by now that, as tempting as it is, our feelings alone cannot be our guide on what to say, or do. This isn’t your pet project, and as long as you confess Christ I will say something about your hate–which is not of God–just like I do everywhere else.

    Motherfucker away. At least I am a man who lives with his own decisions, and not vicariously.

  50. I stand with Samuel Solomon on this one

  51. Cane Caldo says:

    @whatever
    You forgot to call me a crypto-racist.

    Cano was the coolest character in Mortal Kombat. That reminds me: I need bigger knives.

    @ybm
    It saddened me, too. Like I said, I’m hoping it didn’t take…or something.

  52. Cane Caldo says:

    Small adjustment when I said this: “Worse: I am a current…adulterer”, I did not mean to imply I am engaging in it, but that I am an adulter in the way that if one murders someone, they are always a murderer.

  53. @Okrahead said: “It just made me sick… not angry sick at Mentu, just sick that the whole situation exists. I have decided I will not go that route, however, it just reeks to much of nihilism and surrender. If the one candle I light against the darkness is my own child, then I’ll take my chances.”

    If more men would just end their disagreements with “I’ll take my chances” instead of some Ovarian Biblical bullplop like Caldo always does, we might just be able to have a discussion around this place. The difference is that guys like you recognize there’s a choice, and make it (even if you disagree with my choice) but the Caldo’s of this world want everyone to think God has made that choice for them.

    Don’t want to have a vasectomy? Then don’t do it. Fully realize you’re taking a risk and choose to do it anyway? Ok. Thanks for being one of the few men who disagree with me, but can still make sense about it.

    Respect.

  54. @Cane Caldo said: “…you’re cheering on a man’s act of sobering desperation–not to mention risking his beloved father’s respect.”

    Cane, when my dad meets men like you at church for the first time, he leans over to my mom and says “He’s the kind of guy who should take over the women’s missionary club.” It’s an inside joke at our home that is meant as the ultimate slam.

    I can maintain my “beloved father’s respect” by calling you a bitch and a White Knight Pharisee. He wouldn’t like the “B” word, and I’d have to introduce the two of you for him to know what a White Knight is, but I’d still get an “amen” out of him.

    See? I can still make my old man proud.

    Red Pill vs. Gos-pill arguments never go anywhere, but I’m thinking that’s the point; guys like you hide behind a Bible that demands death by stoning for the same women you suggest we marry and knock up because the Bible tells us to. I think circle-jerk logic jokers like you are more of a danger to young men than the entire feminist machine combined. You’re the guy saying “Yes, Russian roulette can be dangerous at times, but a man can still pray to God for the wisdom to choose a gun with the least amount of bullets possible.”

    How the hell do you sleep at night saying shit like this in the presence of young men? What’s more, you do it on a Christian man’s blog who actually gets it right and stays biblically and logically congruent. You have an excellent example in Dalrock, and you still don’t get it.

    Screw the 50% divorce rate; if there’s even a 0.0001% chance my son would turn out like you, I’m glad I got the snip.

  55. greyghost says:

    Nice Story Cane
    First off hate has nothing to do with anything when dealing with feminism. It is about game and what it takes to kill the beast That is all that matters. Now if you are still married to your woman and have your kids living good that is how it is supposed to be. Now she stayed with you reward her with a secure and stable life and get her on the red pill. And ensure any woman mom included that doesn’t make the choice Mrs cane made is punished. Women have the vote and as we all have seen women are not and will not be logically argued into virtrue. So based on the nature of women waht we beta men do to correct this damaged world appears wrong and hateful and bad in a sane world and it is. Some men are having a hard time with it and that is good. This thread is about a healthy man giving up his fertility in a sane world it is a tradgety in the world we live in today it is something needed.
    Also being beta outside of the PUA community is the best compilement a man can get. I consider myself a beta. I never thought of you as beta. ( i figured you were just some christian mangina, far from a beta) We have a beast to slay and killing a beast is ugly. And women have the vote. And women make terrible wives and now mothers we have to fix that. to change that is not pretty and doesn’t look biblical, but what does now with feminist chuchianity being the word of the day. Faith is all we have and actually all we need, the approval of men is not actually needed.

    Now I want to leave you with one thing to understand who I am and where I want this train to go. Think of where we would be if churchian leaders openly advised men not to marry modern women due to their unworthiness as wives and mothers. That would make them christian to start with. What would happen if wether or not a woman could give birth was determined by when a man allowed it. (beta man)

  56. unger says:

    Some of you people need to lighten up. I probably shouldn’t speak for Cane, but I will anyway, and, point out what he isn’t saying, and restate in a nutshell what he has been trying to say.

    What he’s not saying: 1: man up and marry those sluts. 2: give in to your wife’s every stupid whim. I’m absolutely certain he’s never said that it’s a good idea to marry a slut, or denied the danger in marrying a supposedly-reformed slut, or said that Christians are obligated to obey their ditzy wives and grant their addlebrained requests, and if I’m wrong about any of that, it should be pretty easy to demonstrate.

    What he’s actually saying: 1: play-masculinity, masculinity-as-imagined-by-feral-women, is not a viable long-term substitute for genuine masculinity supported by church teaching and church culture. 2: said genuine masculinity does indeed contain a sacrificial element, a willingness to lose, so far as the world is concerned, in order to gain something eternal. 3: said sacrificial element does include a refusal to walk away from one’s vows, even to the undeserving.

  57. whatever says:

    Cano whined/growled:

    About my unworthiness: I have never denied being beta, and have given up on defending my assumed and/or demonstrated churchian-ness–which is the shaming language of the manosphere. I just don’t care. Worse: I am a current, former, and reforming adulterer. I am a hypocrite.

    But you are foolish.

    Every day you decry us betas. You demand we “man up” in the way you would prefer. You deplore our wives, and our child-rearing ways. Daily you rail that not only do we churchians not live up to the standards, but won’t even hold it forth.

    You are about ten times to mouthy to be a “beta”. You are a straw-boss. Stick to elucidating the “way of the world” to people you can fire when they talk back.

  58. JoeS

    People are not perfect.

  59. Cane Caldo says:

    @Mentu

    You started your post with “”A man aint no kind of man at all unless his blood lives on in his children and his children’s children.” ~Dad Mentu”. I just took you at his word.

    Not because vasectomies are necessarily a sin–I have not said that*–, but because you did so out of desperation that you would ever find a worthy mother for your children that you would trust. I don’t care how you cut it, that’s saddening.

    You misdirect that we’re not having a discussion (you must have meant a “real Mentu-approved” discussion) when you commented twice in a row, 40-50 comments into a thread. Conversational sleight of hand is not your forte. Your “respect” is all based on never disagreeing with you. Oh, it’s ok to not agree–to go your own way–but you get all bent out of shape like a hanger in the washing machine when someone says you’re wrong. That’s, literally, not wise.

    And of course I hide behind the Bible. It’s God’s word; it is the blood of Christ dripped onto the page for my salvation. It is in there that I find my rock, and my shelter. It is the two-edged sword that defends me when I don’t deserve it, and cuts through the schemes of my opponent’s defenses without my skill. I am far from ashamed of it. Yet, you see this as weakness. Meanwhile, you rely on your own strength, which led you to a charade in a doctor’s office with another man’s wife. (Given the current state of affairs, it’s likely that she divorced him, and uses the kids as leverage. As in: pay for these kids’ clothes; I need to let another man pretend to be their father while a third man symbolically cuts his balls off.) Welcome to Mentu’s paradise of self-direction!

    No. I will choose to do what my Father asks of me, and leave the consequences to Him.

    You scoff at me because you think I fail to appreciate the depths of my unworthiness. You call me a pharisee when I’ve already admitted being a hypocrite. This doesn’t bother me because this world is not the end, and you are not my Judge.

    I disgust you, and yet I’m the one that merely pities you (and greyghost, and Samuel) because I don’t think I’m any better than you, and I am angry at the situation, too but we should neither hate, nor despair, because that is a losing proposition; because this world is not the end, and I am not your Judge.

    *If this was a reference to my questions to David Collard: those were questions. I do not know the circumstances of her decision, (perhaps she was at risk in future pregnancies) or the nuances of Catholic birth control issues.

  60. I believe that having a vasectomy is a sin, and I also dislike the idea. My wife wanted not to have any more children. Because I would not have a vasectomy, she chose to have a tubal ligation, which is not acceptable to the Catholic Church, but she is a less serious Catholic than me. I told her I didn’t want her to. She disobeyed me.

  61. Cane Caldo says:

    @whatever
    Beta is as beta does. I’ll let you work out whether I’m a learned beta, or a natural. Just know that you’re messing with the primordial forces of evolution and psychology beyond the ken of us mere mortals. You may implode the entire Gamesphere in a single puff of logic. (h/t Douglas Adams; whom I never liked.)

    @unger
    Yes, I’d like to see such evidence myself. Thank you for the very fine defense.

    @greyghost
    It is not my place to disrespect my mother, or father. Even when I want to, this is not a good idea. “Honor you father and mother, that it may go well with you.”

    It’s amazing how you’ve changed. I was the one saying Mentu’s decision was a tragedy, and you were celebrating it: “You’re god-damn right.” I don’t know what to attribute it to, except that somehow my reminding you that I live in the same fallen world as you queued up some sympathy?

    I don’t mean to be off-putting; I’m just confused. Nearly everything you’ve said to do is what I’ve said to do, but you usually argue against me. Might I suggest that you have a caricature of me in your head that does not match what has been typed out before you?

    Aside from that, I would say the same thing to you that I said to Samuel, and I say to myself: “Don’t let your emotions run away with you.” We all say things that are wrong, but only we when emotionally respond out of proportion to the situation do we say things that we regret.

    There I go again; getting all churchian.

  62. Cane Caldo says:

    I thought that might be the case. Sometimes they do that.

    People are not perfect.

  63. @Cane Caldo: Say what you will. I’ll be here to fight manginas like you every chance I get. “Men” like you are public enemy #1 in my book, and all the hiding behind the Scripture won’t save you from the judgment and contempt of the men who curse your name 10 years from now when they follow your advice.

    Keep on trying to cleanse the temple without overthrowing the money changer’s tables. Keep on trying to kill the giant without picking up 5 smooth stones. Keep on trying to raze the walls without marching 7 times around. Keep on having a form of godliness while denying the power thereof.

    There’s no fourth man in your fire, you fucking fraud.

  64. greyghost says:

    Cane you are strange dude man.

  65. Cane Caldo says:

    I am well aware of your target, Mentu. Long before Game was a term, it existed, and it’s never been about men dominating women, but men dominating other men. Game operates in a buyer’s market.

    You reference those acts as if they should mean something, but from your mouth they are empty words, and so harmless. It is your body still has the form of godliness (as we are all made in His image), but you are dead inside because you abandoned the faith. You denied the power. You are not the first to think that the power should reside with you, or be jealous that it was given to another.

    And it burns the fire out of you that anyone would pay attention to what I say. You are not so attempting of abuse towards others; but that a loser like me would even be entertained is more than you can stomach. I agree with you: who am I? I’m no one, and yet here you are…

  66. unger says:

    …can’t help but point out that before picking up the five smooth stones, David tried on Saul’s armor and sword – i.e. the things the world thought were necessary for battle – and found them unsuitable.

  67. van Rooinek says:

    5 smooth stones

    IIRC, Goliath had 4 giant brothers. David just wanted enough ammo for the whole family, if it came down to that.

    Nobody will ever have to worry about having enough ammo to wipe out Mentu’s family. He himself has seen to that.

  68. Cane Caldo says:

    @unger
    You might like my blog. I do not say it is good, but if I had more input it would be better.

    http://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/cane-reads-the-ysv-bible-1-samuel-17/

    My latest post brings this full-circle, in comparing the available weapons and arms.

  69. unger says:

    I do read it, daily, and would say it’s good. I don’t have a wordpress, twitter, or facebook account, though, so I can’t comment on it.

  70. “I am well aware of your target, Mentu.”

    Good.

    “Long before Game was a term, it existed, and it’s never been about men dominating women, but men dominating other men.”

    Game is about dominating. Period.

    “Game operates in a buyer’s market.”

    You still have no clue how any of this works.

    “You reference those acts as if they should mean something, but from your mouth they are empty words, and so harmless.”

    Ok.

    “It is your body still has the form of godliness (as we are all made in His image), but you are dead inside because you abandoned the faith. You denied the power. You are not the first to think that the power should reside with you, or be jealous that it was given to another.”

    Still can’t figure out how men are men without God’s or a woman’s permission or validation, huh? This, my friend, is why you’re a hazard to the Manosphere.

    “And it burns the fire out of you that anyone would pay attention to what I say. You are not so attempting of abuse towards others; but that a loser like me would even be entertained is more than you can stomach.”

    Yeah, it rubs me the wrong way. Is that supposed to be a revelation or something?

    “I agree with you: who am I? I’m no one…:

    At least we agree on something.

    “and yet here you are…”

    And I’ll be here for a while. History is littered with influential idiots who needed a smack-down, so don’t flatter yourself.

  71. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    lozlzlzolzozol

    i tink dat da only way out dese dayz is to have a buttsectomy

    cut your butt off so dat way dey can’t butthext u through da church nor da state nor da school nor marriage nor da fiat dollarz zlozzzlzozzl

  72. Steve Canyon says:

    Re: shows like Home Improvement and Everybody Loves Raymond having wives that push their husbands to get vasectomies.

    Kind of makes me wonder if there’s some psychological trait in women that desires the emasculation of a man to be complete, total, and irreversable. It starts at the altar and ends with him getting snipped at her behest. He’s completely renounced his manhood and his ability to procreate should she meet her wifely demise (literally or through divorce). She’s essentially triumphed completely over his manhood.

    It makes a whole lot of sense to me given that the concept of beating out other women for access to the alpha male is thoroughly ingrained in her biology, that the logical progression of that is to salt the earth after she gets what she wants (kids) so that no one else may have access to his genes.

  73. unger says:

    FFS, where is he saying that men aren’t men without a woman’s permission or validation? If anything, he’s quite clearly on record as shouting the contrary (see beginning of ‘Christians don’t need game’ subsection in That Essay). In fact, it’s the second most important point in his objection to game. (First being ‘a big chunk of it is very explicitly forbidden in scripture’.)

    Has Cane posted some recantation, visible only to some chosen few, such that I’ve missed it?

  74. Chuck Groin Punch says:

    Part of me weeps that this MAN. M. A. N. MAN!!! Felt it was necessary to take such drastic measures to protect his future. The other part of me wonders if maybe I should do the same thing.

    This is nothing more than the chickens coming home to roost. Men are superfluous, right? Men have no place in modern society, right? We’re tertiary throwbacks to a time that has passed, right? (Hi Caldo!)

    Life is a duality of tragedies. Not getting what you want, and getting it. You don’t get to demand something, and then act all pissy when you get it.

  75. @unger: Dig through the comments section at UMan. Cane is on record as being a White Knight mangina who cannot describe himself outside of a relation to God or Woman.

    I’m not doing your homework for you.

  76. judgehogg says:

    Interesting factoid:
    The state of Massachusetts has provided over 200,000 artificial inseminations,eggs,and sperm to poverty striken women with the tax payers dollars,whilst men who want children have to leave the country.
    Yes,THIS.

    Lesbo’s get the free ride,and God fearing men have to leave a “Christian Nation.”

  77. Matthew says:

    The ultimate problem with Cane Caldo is that he is a Knight of Infinite Resignation, but we are called to be Knights of Faith.

  78. Steve Canyon

    Very good points. I have the same suspicions.

  79. Matthew says:

    And of course I hide behind the Bible. It’s God’s word; it is the blood of Christ dripped onto the page for my salvation. It is in there that I find my rock, and my shelter.

    On the other hand, it’s also possible that Cane Caldo is merely a bibliolater.

  80. unger says:

    Ah. I see. My ‘homework’ involves scouring every comment thread on every blog on earth before developing an opinion on an author, and especially on his take on a particular controversy. It’s not enough to read said author’s own blog, and his frequent comments on the site whereupon he became infamous for his take on said controversy, because maybe he has a bizarre blogosphere-only MPD, and…

    I take it, then, that everyone saying he’s a mangina is saying so because of these comments at uman? Their reluctance to spill the beans on what, exactly, he said that marks him as a mangina, is just a principled unwillingness to ‘do other people’s homework’, even when it would embarass their enemies? Perhaps it’s the Seventeenth Commandment of Poon: don’t do another man’s homework.

    Well, thanks for your help, and this valuable education in manliness. Let me drop everything else I have to do and spend the next few hours reading comments at your blog. I’m sure it’ll clear this little question right up.

  81. an observer says:

    I cannot believe women desire vasectomies to inhibit hubby spreading his gene pool.

    As always, it is about the woman and what she wants.

    No more pregnancies. Fewer children means more me-time. Just a couple of sprogs means guaranteed child support. Plus more opportunity to waste resources on stuff for her. Its always about her.

    Finally, hubs getting snipped means no chance of another woman claiming child support. So more cash and prizes in case she decides to yank the exit chain.

    Win win. For her, of course.

  82. FuriousFerret says:

    I don’t know if you guys have already seen this but this is too good to be true.

    It’s like a parody but it’s the actual title followed by the same logic.

    I present:
    ‘You Can Tell Evolutionary Psychology Isn’t True Because It’s Not True’

    http://jezebel.com/5941433/you-can-tell-evolutionary-psychology-isnt-true-because-its-not-true

    It’s like they don’t even try to pretend to think logically in feminist land anymore.

  83. Matthew says:

    unger, we are no more impressed by flippancy than was C.S. Lewis. Try arguing instead of copping an attitude.

  84. Matthew says:

    FuriousFerret: If a Simpsons’ quote is obviously unmutual, its negation must be true.

  85. unger says:

    FF: From TFA: “Researchers cross-referenced people’s self-professed desires in a mate-”

    …despite the actual controversy being over manifested desires, not what people claim to desire…

    The problem is illiteracy, not logical error.

  86. It’s called “preference falsifying”. People do it all the time, including women. Well, especially women.

  87. unger says:

    Matthew: I ask for evidence, and I get crickets, then ‘I won’t do your homework for you’. I’m pretty sure Lewis would agree that I’m entitled to an answer.

  88. FuriousFerret says:

    You can win any argument now if you can just make statements like that.

    You can tell that ‘Smashing Pumpkins’ are awesome because they are awesome.

    BAM, case closed. How do you refute that?

  89. WHS says:

    Steve Canyon and David Collard, you are correct. And they have no respect, and thus no attraction, for men who cave to those demands. They want to be stood up to and told no on this issue.

  90. CL says:

    I cannot believe women desire vasectomies to inhibit hubby spreading his gene pool.

    Me neither, although I guess I can (sigh), but vasectomies can cause autoimmune disorders and weird chronic pain. Sperm are not meant to be in your blood stream. Don’t they worry about their husband’s health? It seems this is another point in favour the idea that women don’t see men as fully human. WTF?

    No doubt you’ve all heard the stories of women who get their husbands to get a vasectomy and then hit him with divorce papers… Sick. So if your wife starts pushing the idea, start digging for the motivation.

  91. WHS says:

    As to the issue of doctors requiring notification of or consent from the woman, there are medical privacy laws and doctor/patient confidentiality provisions that absolutely forbid this practice. I have no personal knowledge of how physicians in this area conduct themselves. But if one is hell bent on getting the procedure and runs into recalcitrance from the doctor because the woman is not involved, I suggest reminding the doctor of these privacy provisions and asking that the matter be clarified with the licensing board. It is unethical to condition treatment on waiving these privacy provisions, just as it would be for an abortion doctor to require spousal consent before doing the procedure. Men really need to learn to stand up for themselves.

  92. Cane Caldo says:

    @unger, matthew, and mentu

    What I’m on record for is being a married Christian man, who has struggled with sexual sin. If that moves a couple (dozen, hundren, whatever) players and MRAs to call me a mangina, then it’s on them to get me to care. I don’t disagree with (for example) Glenn Stanton because he’s been called a mangina by all the right people, but because he elevates women above men in holiness, morality, beauty, and utility…basically in every way.

    Note how those who seem to be allied against me, here, cannot decide in what way I’m in error. The important bit is getting others to believe me to be so. (Whatever sticks, guys, just throw it all at him!) It’s pathetic, because all it takes to remove the sting of being thought wrong is: “I’m sure I was wrong. We done here?”

    I am also on record for saying several silly things lots of places; some simply not thought-through, and some flat wrong. That’s not the point; which is why no one is in a hurry to go looking through the detritus of my comments for a scrap of condemnation. The point is that my opponents (argumentatively speaking) are baffled: Why won’t Cane just shut up already? Because that’s not a very good way to learn. Because iron sharpens iron only when one is scraped against the other. Because Dalrock is wiser than me; as is Desiderius, GKC, Matt King, and many others. Because I am knocking on the door asking for three loaves of bread, and it is my impudence that will get me food.

    Conversely, answering the implicit question “Should a man get a vasectomy?”, with, “My ex-wife loved mine.”, seems very like giving a man a scorpion when he asked for an egg.

  93. CL says:

    notification of or consent from the woman

    Yet a woman can have child in the womb killed, no questions asked.

  94. The ultimate problem with Cane Caldo is that he is a Knight of Infinite Resignation, but we are called to be Knights of Faith.
    Could you elaborate? First I’ve heard the term “Knight of Infinite Resignation.”
    ———————–
    Regarding Mentu’s decision, I still don’t see what the “problem” is.
    My vasectomy ended any and all discussion about more children. We had our boys in the first three years of marriage. No chance of “oops” baby that may or may not have been mine. I was the one that decided it was going to happen. Looking back, I don’t think my wife has to consult or sign anything (Pennsylvania, circa 2002).
    Looking back, it was one of the wisest decisions I made while married and I think it’s the one I least regret because it was my decision solely. I didn’t take her input at all.
    I became born-again years later. I really don’t think that would’ve changed seeking her input or letting her tell me “Yes” or “No.”
    Good grief, blogs like this and others exist because women have leveraged reproduction to destroy men. A man made a conscious and informed decision to take that leverage off the table. Do you really need to have your life destroyed to say, “Ohhhhh, now I get why.”

  95. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    The point is that my opponents (argumentatively speaking) are baffled: Why won’t Cane just shut up already? Because that’s not a very good way to learn. Because iron sharpens iron only when one is scraped against the other. Because Dalrock is wiser than me; as is Desiderius, GKC, Matt King, and many others. Because I am knocking on the door asking for three loaves of bread, and it is my impudence that will get me food.

    What I don’t understand is what you are looking for from/with Mentu. Are you looking to save his soul? Stop him from harming the culture? Convince him to reverse his vasectomy, marry, and have children? It doesn’t appear to be the first, and if it is I would argue that you are going about it the wrong way. As for the culture, Mentu clearly mourns the loss of righteous Christian culture even with his own loss of faith; it is one of the more prominent themes in the post in question. If it is the last item, I truly don’t understand. The reality is large numbers of women aren’t fit for marriage; I don’t think you disagree with this. So the question becomes:

    1) Which men will marry and which will do without?
    and
    2) For those who don’t marry, how do they live their lives?

    Moving Mentu from the “do without” category into the “marry” category only pushes another man out, or (even worse) means he marries a woman who isn’t fit for marriage. Moreover, with Mentu’s sexual history is he a good fit for marriage himself?

    Shouldn’t we focus our energy on reforming Christian culture, instead of grading how well the men who are harmed by its loss are dealing with that harm? We could be 100% successful in training men to be good at handling the Church’s stab in the back of biblical marriage, and we won’t be any closer to solving the fundamental problem. If you really want to stick it to Mentu, starve him out. Stop the culture from sending him hordes of women looking to have sex out of wedlock (before or after a wedding/divorce combo). Start with men like Stanton, Mohler, etc. They are the ones who are destroying our culture, and unlike Mentu they are effectively doing it in Christ’s name.

  96. I guess that’s my issue. Mentu doesn’t profess to be a devout Christian.

    If someone isn’t going to try to be a good Christian, the best I can hope is that they live responsibly. Whether this is the “most responsible” act is a little pointless, since I have a plank or two in my eye. His act reduces the “harm” his lifestyle can do. To reduce it further would mean he would need to adopt a new lifestyle.

  97. Aww, “that” in my post refers to Dalrock’s post, not Mentu’s spirituality. The second sentence was meant to clarify why I don’t have an issue with Mentu’s decision.

  98. Entropy is My God says:

    Does getting a vasectomy make you an annihilationist? And not the wishy-washy, feel good, no one goes to hell because there is no hell, bad people just die, kind of milksop, churchian mangina, and annihilationist. The real annihilationist knows, believes and lives a life where it is better that everything goes exactly as it is because that is the quickest way to the end. They know that fighting is useless, futile, frustrating and turns around no lasting results. Everything we accomplish is undone when we die. ” Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.” Ecclesiastes 2:17
    @Cane Caldo
    Why care? Why do you care? Why should any man care? What does caring grant you? I don’t want to enjoy the decline poolside like the famous PUA Roissy, Heartiste, etc…. I want to become the decline.

  99. whatever says:

    Cano rambled:

    @whatever
    Beta is as beta does. I’ll let you work out whether I’m a learned beta, or a natural. Just know that you’re messing with the primordial forces of evolution and psychology beyond the ken of us mere mortals. You may implode the entire Gamesphere in a single puff of logic. (h/t Douglas Adams; whom I never liked.)

    oooohhhh, he is letting me figure out why he is a beta after I explicitly say he is not. Is it the cheating? That isn’t beta. Is it the really, really smart mouth? That isn’t beta. Is it the desire to be the center of attention, good or bad? That isn’t beta. I know, I know!

    It does not look like a duck, it does not quack like a duck, it does not walk like a duck, because it is not a duck.

    Mystery solved.

  100. Steve Canyon says:

    Maybe you can’t fathom a woman desiring/demanding the man’s vasectomy to inhibit his spreading his genes until you look at the phenomenon from a larger prospective.

    The man biologically wants variety in mates partly because childbirth was such an iffy proposition way back before medicine that he needed to spread his genetic material far and wide not only to ensure the propogation of his line but also to limit those genetic problems that arise when the gene pool is limited and everyone is related to everyone else.

    And fundamentally, let’s assume that the man in question is the stereotypical alpha. She’s ensuring that his genes have only been passed on to her children and thus would have greater access to his resources and his wealth than they would should the spawn of competing women enter into the picture. If she’s still of mating age, she can always find another man to reproduce with and obtain resources from another male.

    I’m no scientist, I’m not trained in any anthropological fields, and I sure as hell don’t rate up there with guys like Roissy in terms of having game or alpha cred. However, even the most cursory observation of society shows that the modern equivalent of this is divorce and eliminating the father entirely from the picture. She gets his resources, her vindictiveness cuts off his ability to procreate with another without paying a severe penalty in resources (think of all those second wives “suffering” under the weight of his oppressive alimony payments), thus guaranteeing that she gets the lions share of the fruits of his labor.

    Just because women don’t conciously acknowledge that this desire lies within them, just because it doesn’t enter their concious, does not mean the desire doesn’t exist.

  101. Just because women don’t conciously acknowledge that this desire lies within them, just because it doesn’t enter their concious, does not mean the desire doesn’t exist.

    I wouldn’t deny the desire existed for my ex.

    I’m saying I didn’t give a shit.

    I had a vasectomy because I had two boys and didn’t want any more children.

  102. Shouldn’t we focus our energy on reforming Christian culture, instead of grading how well the men who are harmed by its loss are dealing with that harm?
    ——————————————————————–
    Dalrock…now you are flirting with my ubiquitous comments when the trad con categorization happens.

  103. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    What I don’t understand is what you are looking for from/with Mentu.

    I’m not looking for anything from him, but a warning to others of where the idea of being your own man leads; of the disorder inherent is subjecting yourself to your own whims. I didn’t comment on his blog, and I didn’t address him directly here until he showed up and challenged me. In fact, I mourned for his decision.

    Are you looking to save his soul?

    No. I cannot do this; even in the common sense of leading someone to Christ. First off, he left of his own accord. Second, If someone can, I don’t think I am the person. Again, I didn’t seek him out. He came to me.

    Stop him from harming the culture?

    Mentu is not harming the culture, he’s forwarding it. Mentu is the culture. This is not a Christian society; this is a post-Christian society. Mentu is a post-Christian.

    Convince him to reverse his vasectomy, marry, and have children?

    As you read correctly: No.

    Mentu clearly mourns the loss of righteous Christian culture even with his own loss of faith; it is one of the more prominent themes in the post in question.

    I’ve thought about this a lot in reference to many of his past posts. I’ve even prayed about it–no joke. His “mourning” is a camouflage spread on the ground to cover a hole. It is literally his assumption of the form of godliness, and explicit rejection of its power–which is precisely why he is so quick to project it onto me if it seems that I will expose the hole. If we have to see the hole, perhaps he can make me disappear.

    1) Which men will marry and which will do without?

    I honestly cannot say, and I have no wish to.

    2) For those who don’t marry, how do they live their lives?

    Christians must be chaste. Period. I’m still compiling a list of the number of times the Bible makes claims on our sexual activity; either directly, or as metaphor to explain the importance of a thing. It is staggering. To go back to the the mourning of culture, what Mentu does is to say,

    “Listen to me, you Christians: Even though I’m not a Christian now, I come from the best of Christian traditions–you know, the awesome kind with lots of personal pride–so I know what I’m talking about. Pussy ain’t nothing but a thang, and sluts are not to be sweated. They deserve whatever they get, and you deserve to get whatever you can. Fuck them, or don’t; either way it’s not about you being a Christian, but about how unworthy they are. They are so unworthy, that even the Christian will be forgiven for dumping a fuck in them.”

    That is the sum of Mentu’s advice to Christian men. It is a recurring theme; every time predicated on the charade that he has sympathy he has for us poor, Christian-but-lost, beta souls. (And it is true that many of us Christians are lost, as it concerns masculinity) At best, if I take him at his most earnest: he represents the folly of pouring new wine into old wineskins.

    Shouldn’t we focus our energy on reforming Christian culture, instead of grading how well the men who are harmed by its loss are dealing with that harm?

    If we do not start from the premise that the new lump must be unleavened, we are doomed. Even as Mentu mocks our inability to cleanse the temple of moneychangers, he reveals his foolishness that he thinks this starts with a beam-eyed people casting specks of pastors out of their churches. The churches are not the Temple. The moneychangers are in our souls, and one of them takes the aspect of a professor; urging us to exchange our scriptural mandates for man’s (i.e. “hypergamous”, i.e., woman’s. see Mentu and Rollo) wisdom.

    If you really want to stick it to Mentu, starve him out. Stop the culture from sending him hordes of women looking to have sex out of wedlock (before or after a wedding/divorce combo). Start with men like Stanton, Mohler, etc. They are the ones who are destroying our culture, and unlike Mentu they are effectively doing it in Christ’s name.

    In this regard, (and in an unusual reversal of position) I think you have a blind-spot. First of all: The culture of Mentu and the culture of Stanton are one in the same. Mentu is not a victim of Stanton. They are both subject to (1) the sins of the generations before them; (2) more importantly, of their own free will to disregard the word of God. They just disregard different verses, and you happen to have more sympathy to the Mentu variant of rejection. He is not a victim. He was born into a Christian family, and raised to be a Christian. He explicitly rejects Christ–he was in the light, and he left it because he wanted to–and now he urges other men–particularly Christian men to check out the benefits of the darkness. He specifically rouses the specter of Christianity to give weight to his claims and decisions.

    Secondly, we are not talking about two different idols (you: Stanton, me: players); we are talking about two faces of the same Feminist idol. Stanton worships Artemis as the mother goddess: the single mom of single moms. Players like Mentu worship Artemis the huntress: ever youthful; committed to no man; She is the original Callisto–who becomes a single mom; transferring smoothly from Mentu’s purview, to Stanton’s.

    Proverbs 1:10-20

    10 My son, if sinners entice you,
    do not consent.
    11 If they say, “Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
    let us ambush the innocent without reason;
    12 like Sheol let us swallow them alive,
    and whole, like those who go down to the pit;
    13 we shall find all precious goods,
    we shall fill our houses with plunder;
    14 throw in your lot among us;
    we will all have one purse”—
    15 my son, do not walk in the way with them;
    hold back your foot from their paths,
    16 for their feet run to evil,
    and they make haste to shed blood.
    17 For in vain is a net spread
    in the sight of any bird,
    18 but these men lie in wait for their own blood;
    they set an ambush for their own lives.
    19 Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain;
    it takes away the life of its possessors.

    His words urge others to lie in wait for the blood of men and women (“Game is about dominating. Period”); but in the end he lies in wait for his own blood–as he has begun to demonstrate, but surely is not finished.

    Dalrock, you have a gift for exposing the grave-trap that is the Feminist Church (to encourage us to be wise as serpents). I am compelled to expose the grave-trap that is Feminist-inspired masculinity (to encourage innocence as doves).

  104. Pingback: The Gatekeepers « Hidden Leaves

  105. I have to weigh in on the Cane dust up.

    I do not see Cane as any form of mangina or white knight no matter how I stretch the definition. Because of the time I intentionally spend in the white knight/mangina end of the Christian swimming pool I think I can detect them at parts per million, aqueous or in air. I suppose there are forms of rhetorical mercaptans that could mask it….I allow that possibility. But I do not think so.

    Who cares if Cane is high beta or any of the other beta subtypes? Why care about that part?
    Therein lies a little bit of the answer for us Christians here in general. The non Christians keep it restrained pretty much but I am certain there is an urge to denigrate us that is hard to keep tamped down. It may be manifesting in some of this.

    There is the intellectual peacocking we men do that generate a lot of angst as well, and its not productive.

    But finally, Cane, you once told me my syntax was awkward or some such thing, and I can see that and I also know why it is. May I suggest a similar observation could be made about the things you write. It often appears you wish to communicate only in parables when the thing could be stated straight up. There is some peacocking in that (again we all have that urge because its a male thing for average or above intelligent men), but there is more to it than that, maybe you want to be intentionally nebulous? Maybe you like to make work out of work?

    All food for thought Cane, and hopefully not offensive.

  106. In this regard, (and in an unusual reversal of position) I think you have a blind-spot. First of all: The culture of Mentu and the culture of Stanton are one in the same. Mentu is not a victim of Stanton. They are both subject to (1) the sins of the generations before them; (2) more importantly, of their own free will to disregard the word of God. They just disregard different verses, and you happen to have more sympathy to the Mentu variant of rejection. He is not a victim. He was born into a Christian family, and raised to be a Christian. He explicitly rejects Christ–he was in the light, and he left it because he wanted to–and now he urges other men–particularly Christian men to check out the benefits of the darkness. He specifically rouses the specter of Christianity to give weight to his claims and decisions.

    Secondly, we are not talking about two different idols (you: Stanton, me: players); we are talking about two faces of the same Feminist idol. Stanton worships Artemis as the mother goddess: the single mom of single moms. Players like Mentu worship Artemis the huntress: ever youthful; committed to no man; She is the original Callisto–who becomes a single mom; transferring smoothly from Mentu’s purview, to Stanton’s.
    ———————————————————-
    Cane, the above is excellent.

  107. Elspeth says:

    In this regard, (and in an unusual reversal of position) I think you have a blind-spot. First of all: The culture of Mentu and the culture of Stanton are one in the same. Mentu is not a victim of Stanton. They are both subject to (1) the sins of the generations before them; (2) more importantly, of their own free will to disregard the word of God. They just disregard different verses, and you happen to have more sympathy to the Mentu variant of rejection. He is not a victim. He was born into a Christian family, and raised to be a Christian. He explicitly rejects Christ–he was in the light, and he left it because he wanted to–and now he urges other men–particularly Christian men to check out the benefits of the darkness. He specifically rouses the specter of Christianity to give weight to his claims and decisions.

    Secondly, we are not talking about two different idols (you: Stanton, me: players); we are talking about two faces of the same Feminist idol. Stanton worships Artemis as the mother goddess: the single mom of single moms. Players like Mentu worship Artemis the huntress: ever youthful; committed to no man; She is the original Callisto–who becomes a single mom; transferring smoothly from Mentu’s purview, to Stanton’s.

    Excellently stated, leaving no ambiguity.

  108. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for your response Cane. I suspect this is one of those areas where neither will convince the other, but at least we can hopefully understand the nature of where we disagree. With that, I think you identified the first part here:

    I’ve thought about this a lot in reference to many of his past posts. I’ve even prayed about it–no joke. His “mourning” is a camouflage spread on the ground to cover a hole.

    I read him as being sincere in his respect for both his father and his grandfather. I don’t see another way to read him in this. He isn’t claiming to teach Christians how to follow God. He doesn’t deny that his father and grandfather are right in this respect.

    Secondly, we are not talking about two different idols (you: Stanton, me: players); we are talking about two faces of the same Feminist idol. Stanton worships Artemis as the mother goddess: the single mom of single moms. Players like Mentu worship Artemis the huntress: ever youthful; committed to no man; She is the original Callisto–who becomes a single mom; transferring smoothly from Mentu’s purview, to Stanton’s.

    This is the other area we disagree. Mentu doesn’t believe but also isn’t twisting the Bible. From what I have read he seems very clear on what the Bible actually says. I’ve never seen him try to convince Christians that God wants them to follow his own path. Mohler on the other hand is a teacher of Christian teachers, a leader of Christian leaders. He is teaching Christians that when the Bible clearly says “up”, it secretly means “down”, and he is doing it on the very subject which matters most in this discussion (Christian marriage and sexual morality). I have no idea how you can put them in the same camp. The Bible is very clear that the responsibility of a Christian leader is much greater. Even worse, Stanton and Mohler represent the wings of Christianity people look to in order to see what those who won’t waver from the Bible say. They are far more dangerous in this respect than a leader from a liberal Christian organization known for flaunting the rules. This is the dangerous camouflage. Mentu makes no claim to lead his readers to Christ.

    Put another way, could Mentu fix the problem with the Church? Can he as a non believer lead Christians back from the catastrophe and to biblical marriage? Mohler could, if he were true to the Bible. Same with Stanton. You are comparing men who wear the robes and speak in the name of Christ with a non believer. There is simply no comparison.

    Lastly, consider how we got here. How have Christians (as a whole) passed the last 40+ years as marriage was repeatedly assaulted? They have avoided accepting the parts of the Bible they were ashamed of and instead convinced themselves that they were righteous by pointing out men like Mentu. This is the drug Christians are addicted to, and they (we) need to kick the habit before anything good can occur.

  109. Jim says:

    Again, snipping your balls yet investing in this society via taxation makes no sense. Seems to me the solution is to snip the establishment instead.

  110. Dalrock says:

    FYI, Ulysses has a post covering Mentu’s original post and the discussion here. I’ve edited this post with a link.

  111. Dalrock, I see what you mean that parts of the men are different. But I do not think that negates the comparison when, regardless their life station, who they seek to influence, who they are set up to influence, etc. even the foundation of the beliefs they hold, in very general terms they are harmful, lacking better word. It is impossible for readers like me not to sense some underlying reason for the differentiation you SEEM (could be my perception I suppose) to make on the various actors. It can seem as if there is some extra measure of respect afforded one, while there is an extra measure of derision for the other. In a purely Christian metric context……WHY?

    Its a reasonable question. It goes to the Is sin sin idea?

    I make a similar judgement when I suggest a man marry a non Christian woman who has a teachable heart. That is counter to biblical admonition and I know that and I own that. But I won’t try to lay a case why I consider one more or less wrong than the other….its a loose analogy for illustration only.

  112. Men like Mentu are and have been that smokescreen for over 40 years. It is the easy out, the cheap way to feel like one is doing right without offending the feminists in the pews.
    ———————————————————————-
    OK, thats from your post over there. Men like him have been the smokescreen. Fair enough. But does that change the relative wrongness? Its a mistake to progress past the observation that they have been used as a smokescreen to implying a value difference to the overall community

  113. Entropy is My God says:

    If men like Mentu are a smoke screen men like Cane Caldo are those who sell other men into slavery.

  114. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    His rejection of Christ–and I don’t mean this in the way that he’s not doing what a Christian should–but that he was a confessed Christian, and is now a confessed Atheist, is the greatest possible rejection of his father and his grandfather whether he, or they (if the grandfather were alive) realize it or not. There can be nothing more important. If we do not believe that, we believe nothing. It is an error to consider a former Christian in the same light as someone who has never known Christ.

    I’ve never seen him try to convince Christians that God wants them to follow his own path.

    Me either; which I attribute to the fact that Mentu is anything but dumb. Christian men within themselves, are drawn to the sin or pride. Mentu (always keeping in mind that he is in chosen exile from the Church) encourages that.

    In addition to the vasectomy post:

    He posted an old sermon on his blog, inviting us to think: (“This is how church used to be, and if it were still this way, I’d be a Christian.”) He ejaculates verses from his mouth in disgust and derision; a two-pronged attempt to profane both the hearer, and scripture itself. The Christians commenters on his site who complain in the right way about women–and approve of his mistreatment and antics–are provided succor with an understanding head-pat. Anyone who disapproves is scorned. If they happen to be Christian, then they are ridiculed too. The list goes on.

    Regardless, you brought up his plight knowing we would be here. Some of us (I don’t believe I was included in that, but maybe) you rightly warned against smugness in considering the situation. I commented on the sadness and despair of it, and took to task two currently professing Christians for abusing Mentu’s (and all our) pathetic situation as an excuse to encourage others to sin; by way of foolish thinking. It was then that Mentu came to attack me; to be their champion. Do you have to wonder why? It only makes sense if my read on his purpose (whether he is conscious or not) is good.

    Lastly, consider how we got here. How have Christians (as a whole) passed the last 40+ years as marriage was repeatedly assaulted? They have avoided accepting the parts of the Bible they were ashamed of and instead convinced themselves that they were righteous by pointing out men like Mentu. This is the drug Christians are addicted to, and they (we) need to kick the habit before anything good can occur.

    Indeed. 40 years in the wilderness; despairing; fashioning idols; and fornicating. Now the children of those previous generations stand at the border of an occupied land: The Holy Roman and Protestant Church of Canaan. Mohler should not be allowed to enter: We agree. Now what? What of Rollo? What of The Private Man? What of Christian Player? What of Elihu-FreedomTwentyFive? They are becoming legion. I could name others who blog, and many more who don’t. What of all these men who you say are simply victims of the reality we live in?

    50 And the Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying, 51 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 52 then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places. 53 And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it. 54 You shall inherit the land by lot according to your clans. To a large tribe you shall give a large inheritance, and to a small tribe you shall give a small inheritance. Wherever the lot falls for anyone, that shall be his. According to the tribes of your fathers you shall inherit. 55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. 56 And I will do to you as I thought to do to them.”

    Either the tree is bad and the fruit is bad, or the tree is good and the fruit is good. All I have said is that this fruit you presented to us is bad, and when I am asked to defend why I said the fruit is bad, I am accused of focusing on the wrong people. How many Sunday School classes do I have to literally shut down for Feminist heresy; how many times can I drive a priest to take a sabbatical before it’s ok for me to warn Christian men from being influenced by the right-sounding but spiritually-dead men? I’m working on the cases as they are presented to me.

  115. Cane Caldo says:

    If men like Mentu are a smoke screen men like Cane Caldo are those who sell other men into slavery.

    I would see you all sold into Christ’s slavery.

  116. In a purely Christian metric context……WHY?

    Speaking for me alone, it’s because the professionalization of pastoring and Christian elders has led men to outsource their prayerful consideration of actions. Men are more likely to default to church elders because they have important national positions, titles, and published works.

    Mentu is just a guy on the internet.

    Christians who follow Mentu’s directions (however tongue in cheek some are) operate under no delusion that their mentor is godly.

    Christians who follow elders do so in good faith. Therefore, I think we should hold elders and “professional” Christian commentariat to a standard we shouldn’t hold for non-believers. Their sins may be equal, but if you present yourself and your teachings as Christian, you must be far more responsible and accountable for the direction you lead.

  117. gdgm+ says:

    Some quick thoughts on “l’affair Mentu et Cane”: From my observations, they are talking at cross-purposes (no pun intended). Cane is a fervent, “in God all things are possible” believer — that’s integral to his commentary. I respect that. Mentu is not such a believer. But Mentu seems to understand Cane’s view, better than Cane understands Mentu’s, from my reading. (I disagree with Cane’s assertion that Mentu and Stanton are worshipping different sides of “Artemis” – it didn’t make sense to me.)

    Cane is also relatively silent on some key side points:
    – While taking on Mentu, he has comparatively little to say about the corresponding women that Mentu would otherwise possibly partner with. “Women sin too” would be accurate, but tepid compared to how he takes on Mentu.

    – Cane, in his fervency of faith, also seems to *imply* something we need to think about. Like many of us, I’m sure Mentu’s seen Bible-believing, churchgoing married fathers have their unhaaaappy wives file for divorce. I wrote about a co-worker/friend on a past Dalrock blog entry here.
    What would Cane say to this man: that he didn’t have enough faith in God and/or show enough leadership? He didn’t try hard enough?

    And what of the people *watching* such? “If you believe as deeply as I do, this won’t happen to you?”

    Lunchtime’s over, back to work – darned Internet!

  118. Cane Caldo says:

    @whatever

    Then start reading my blog and imitating my success.

    Some of you have wanted to know what it looks like when the churchians start waking up to the Red Pill.

    You may expect more where I came from. Freedom TwentyFive has it all wrong. He is not headed to invade the churches. We are meeting for war.

  119. Speaking for me alone, it’s because the professionalization of pastoring and Christian elders has led men to outsource their prayerful consideration of actions.
    ———————————————————————–
    I know what they do, I know the difference in efficacy or how big the net is cast.
    So, shall we get relativistic then when considering the preacher in a church of 50 members vs Stanton? Im just trying to point out that there is no need for assigning this relativism at all. Whats the debate FOR? Why do we care if one is marginally or much more effecyive in damaging something?

    And, in a strictly Dalrockian sense, if the Christian leaders have a wider effect across more men, (trad cons anyone) and therefore a corrective in the church and among the infected trad cons would impact more lives, why then are they not seen as where the action is in correction….if there is even possible correction? Its a little conflicted, the whole package of rhetorical treatment of the two groups.

  120. Cane Caldo says:

    @gdgm+

    I am stuck in a room watching people work, so I have too much time on my hands.

    Cane is also relatively silent on some key side points:
    – While taking on Mentu, he has comparatively little to say about the corresponding women that Mentu would otherwise possibly partner with. “Women sin too” would be accurate, but tepid compared to how he takes on Mentu.

    1) I have said much more than that.

    2) I am speaking to men. What would you have me do: talk about women who aren’t here, and could not hear me if they were?

    3) There’s an error in thinking that splits generally along these lines: Pastors of The Single Mother remove all moral agency from women. Players of the Huntress equate women’s moral agency with men’s. They are both wrong. Read Numbers 30

    – What would Cane say to this man: that he didn’t have enough faith in God and/or show enough leadership? He didn’t try hard enough?

    Whatever she does, the man is to be faithful. It’s not that he can stop her from rebellion, but that his responsibility over her is to tell her “No”. Again, read Numbers 30. What I see all around my family and friends are men who won’t tell their women “No”, and stick with it. This is huge part of “manning up”, as it relates to marriage. The manning-up doesn’t come by getting married to a slut or a virgin. Manning-up comes from discipline.

    What the Pastors of the Single Mother tell us is to say “Yes”; perverting the order. What the Players of the Huntress say is “Yes” now, “No” later; they lack discipline.

    But, largely, you ask the wrong question. I would say nothing to that man, except as he asked, beyond, “It’s not your fault she left.” There is no magic thing to say, but we must spend time with them. Invite them over into our homes. Get beers with them. Encourage them to spend time with their extended families.

    Conversely, whoever leaves should be shunned. Drive them back into the homes of their fathers, in disgrace. If any of my friend’s wives, or non-blood family left their spouses, I would have nothing to do with them.

  121. Cane, you have got to change that background on your blog. Old guys like me (40) can only read that white text on black background for about a minute before throwing in the towel.

  122. Entropy is My God says:

    @Cane caldo,

    I would be a slave for Jesus before a slave for any woman, feminism, the state, child support for some one else’s children etc. You have made no distiction. If they are the same then what you are saying is that Jesus is Feminism. Is that your assertation?

  123. AnonS says:

    I think Dalrock is right. Church leaders are held to a higher standard than unrepentant sinners or those that abandon the faith.

    Those outside the faith would have their ideas challenged.

    Those inside the faith leading people astray are supposed to be strongly rebuked.

  124. I would be a slave for Jesus before a slave for any woman, feminism, the state, child support for some one else’s children etc. You have made no distiction.

    But he has. He’s said that a man should not be a slave to his wife or serve her. If she rebels (spurred on by feminism), he should react as Christ would act. Christ let people walk away from His message because not all are saved. When the rebellious wife walks, a godly man keeps walking with Christ.

    I don’t see a problem with that and, even though he may bristle at the assertion, it is a mannerism that neo-Red Pill, post Churchians can adapt from game.

    The man’s “mission” is to be Christ-like. Christ met sinners who repented and craved leadership. He also met sinners who refused to sin no more and thought they were immune from judgment and accountability. He let them go and continued His mission on earth.

  125. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    So, shall we get relativistic then when considering the preacher in a church of 50 members vs Stanton? Im just trying to point out that there is no need for assigning this relativism at all. Whats the debate FOR? Why do we care if one is marginally or much more effecyive in damaging something?

    James 3:1 is relevant here. Teachers are held to a higher standard. This seems in line with what Paul focused his energy on in his Books as well. Those who were claiming to be Christians and teaching false doctrine were the focus of his attention, not the gentiles. Now it is the other way around. Like I keep pointing out, this is the source of comfort which allowed us to get where we are. Even if you can avoid this stumbling block, we have seen that 99% of Christians can’t. Repenting should be humbling. Blaming the players isn’t humbling, it is puffing up. It is the shortcut to pretending the hard work Christians have before them is already done. It is a way to pretend that Christians are fighting the culture war on the side of the Bible instead of feminism. That it is so difficult to get so many to unlock their jaws on this issue should be proof enough.

    We can discuss how bad the players are for not entering into the institution of marriage that Christians are ashamed of for another 40 years. I’m sure everyone here knows several pastors who could and will make a living doing just that until they retire. Or we can confront the log in our own eyes. One is easy and feels good (smug). One is humbling.

  126. Entropy is My God says:

    @Rock Throwing Peasant
    “Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    September 13, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    I would be a slave for Jesus before a slave for any woman, feminism, the state, child support for some one else’s children etc. You have made no distiction.

    But he has. He’s said that a man should not be a slave to his wife or serve her. If she rebels (spurred on by feminism), he should react as Christ would act.

    Please don’t smugly act like most men can do that and not be destroyed and possibly literaly enslaved (prison work, alimony, child support). But I don’t believe you are pulling a Star Violet and acting like that never happens. No, what you and Cane are saying is, do it and suffer the consequences, go to court, get imputed alimony, get a DV against you, lose your ability to work or own guns. And why? For Jesus, no, for that special unqiue snowflake, suffer so she can see just how much Jesus loves her through your pain. Pass.

  127. Please don’t smugly act like most men can do that and not be destroyed and possibly literaly enslaved (prison work, alimony, child support). But I don’t believe you are pulling a Star Violet and acting like that never happens. No, what you and Cane are saying is, do it and suffer the consequences, go to court, get imputed alimony, get a DV against you, lose your ability to work or own guns. And why? For Jesus, no, for that special unqiue snowflake, suffer so she can see just how much Jesus loves her through your pain. Pass.

    Sorry, what?
    What the heck are you talking about? My marriage dissolved because my wife simply wanted a divorce. I could do nothing. You cannot stop a woman from divorcing you in Pennsylvania or anywhere there is no fault divorce. You seem to think that a man can do this. I’m living this scenario. My sons were taken and I am fighting to get them back. My income has been severely reduced. My guns were taken from me, even though I have never been charged with a crime in my life.
    My response is to continue living as Christ lived. That doesn’t mean roll over. Christ never rolled over.
    I honestly don’t think you understand the angle I (and likely Cane) am coming from. There is no “serve the wife” mantra. There is no “give it all away.” There is an understanding that you simply cannot control women and even the most “alpha” guys can be flaked on. To wit, the more I reviewed my lifestyle, the less I actually saw “beta” tendencies. I simply married a woman with multiple red flags and mental health issues. You cannot “game” your way through minefields like I faced forever.
    Finally, if the difference is between serving a sinful and rebellious wife and leading my life as a Christian and leading my sons to Christ – there’s no question which direction I’m going to go. I’m going that direction.

  128. Oh, do you think I am with Cane on the vasectomy thing?
    I’m not.
    I’m in agreement with the later point.

  129. Cane Caldo says:

    @RTP

    Amen!

    @Entropy

    I never said get married. I said be chaste.

  130. Entropy is My God says:

    @ Rock throwing Peasant

    We are arguing different things. I am NOT arguing that you can game your wife into not crushing you with the power of the state. I am arguing that you should mitigate her doing that as much as possible by any means neccesary.

    Cane seems to be arguing that (please correct me if I am misunderstanding your words here Cane) that you should not mitigate those chances in any way, just MAN UP and be a good little christian boy, tell your wife no and if she doesn’t go along and has the state destroy your life, ah well thats what god wants.

  131. Dalrock, I get that and agree.
    The players etc have been and are picked on about their proclivities, they have no Christian cover to hide behind so to speak. Its not unlike the fact that I think Christian feminists are more dangerous than secular ones because they have the flowery house dress of Christianity to hide behind.
    There is a difference though. Here we are men talking to men about men, and intentionally or not, the combination of game esteem, and implied lack of esteem for the average Christian man (some deserved indeed) makes the gamer/PUA have a soft light aura around them and a chorus of “Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!” when they are mentioned. Its in the juxtaposition where the problem resides, or its in my own cortex somewhere, always a possibility, and anyway, this is likely a distraction.

  132. I am arguing that you should mitigate her doing that as much as possible by any means neccesary.

    Ahhh, I agree (though “any means neccessary” comes with some caveats for me). In fact, I’m in the final stages of editing a book that incorporates the Red Pill and elements of game that are compatible with Christian patriarchy. I should have it wrapped up by next Friday. It just seems like an ongoing discussion and I wanted to give it a thorough examination. It’s more of a How-To guide.

  133. Cane seems to be arguing that (please correct me if I am misunderstanding your words here Cane) that you should not mitigate those chances in any way, just MAN UP and be a good little christian boy, tell your wife no and if she doesn’t go along and has the state destroy your life, ah well thats what god wants.

    ———————————————-
    Wow I do not see that at all in what Cane says.

  134. Martian Bachelor says:

    Kind of makes me wonder if there’s some psychological trait in women that desires the emasculation of a man to be complete, total, and irreversible. (Steve Canyon et al)

    From another thread at a different site (now Forbes Woman) about half a dozen years ago:

    Romance novels. Women love em. In the book “Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women” (what makes a successful romance novel) the formula is described.

    “Why?!” I hear you ask am I talking about some lovey dovey crap that women always tell us about and bemoan that we don’t provide them with?

    Because I’m not going to that’s why. The most successful romance novel formula hardly includes that stuff. The most successful romance novel formula is one where a powerful dangerous man is castrated.

    Here’s how they go:

    Take a man, let’s call him Lord Ravenscroft, not exactly a pushover, the villagers near his castle live in fear of him due to a few years ago him running the town crier through with a rapier for some off-hand remark.

    Anyway, Lord Ravenscroft has just inherited a gift, VERY IMPORTANT THAT THIS IS AGAINST HER WILL AS SHE MUST BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER SITUATION, a young woman, let’s call her Virginia.

    Naturally, Lord Ravenscroft, the macho, misogynistic fellow he is puts Virginia hard to work scrubbing floors and cooking meals. Naturally, being a paragon of virtue, AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT VIRGINIA IS A PARAGON OF VIRTUE, Virginia does not really have a problem with hard work and in fact saves one of the Lord’s lambs from drowning in the river.

    Eventually, of course, Lord Ravenscroft goes a little too far and offends Virginia’s delicate sensibilities. This is a very important part: SHE ACTS DEFIANT TOWARDS HIS BRUTAL DOMINANCE BECAUSE OF HER VIRTUOUS SENSIBILITIES.

    At this point, like a true man’s man, Lord Ravenscroft beats her down and rapes her silly, and of course THE READER MASTURBATES AT THIS STAGE, but nevertheless the idea is that he is an evil **bleep**, and she stood up to him.

    The main body of the novel involves the above being sort of washed, rinsed and repeated, with Lord Ravenscroft slowly more and more impressed by Virginia’s paragon of virtuehood and her lamb saving graces, whilst at the same time being worn down by her incessant nagging, I mean virtuous defiance, and begins acting more and more kindly towards her until eventually raping her silly is not enough and he must win her love to be happy. IN ORDER TO DO THIS, HE MUST NOW DEMONSTRATE THE LOVEY DOVEY ROMANCE GARBAGE WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH. IT’S ONLY APPEARANCE IS TOWARDS THE END OF THE BOOK.

    At this point the tables have turned and Lord Ravenscroft’s arse belongs to Virginia. His dangerous power is hers to control as her provider, protector and all round tamed arse biitch. The book ends in marriage. NOTE THAT THE MARRIAGE SIGNIFIES THE END OF THE BOOK AS IT SIGNIFIES VICTORY, THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER OF INTEREST TO THE ROMANCE READER.

    So we have a couple of interesting things here. Generally the reader puts themselves in Virginia’s shoes and Virginia must do whatever they fantasize as themselves doing. I.e., being virtuous, defiant against sensibility-offense, and attractive. Not only is there the castration of an alpha male involved, but there’s a little ego trip in the sense that the character they identify with is virtuous and thus irresistibly attractive (men can only be a woman’s second love, you see, as they are already more in love with themselves and their own perceived virtue and perceived attractiveness).

    Interesting you say. You can see historical reference in this story you say. So then, how is it that things have gone a little awry and this sort of thing no longer happens with such frequency?

    Well it stopped bloody happening when women lost the ability to be virtuous. Instead they rely on some politically correct expectation that people treat them as if they are virtuous, even if they are stupid, entitled, skank whores.

    Thus women’s power to attract men is greatly diminished in modern times while their “defiance” more resembles the assholery of Lord Ravenscroft than the sensibility guarding Virginia. Note that this is only realized by external parties and not by the deluded idiots themselves due to the effect of the politically correct media, ego-gratifying hate speech of feminazis and so forth.

    How they’ve TRIED to put out more “progressive” romance novels and actual lovey dovey ones, but they quite simply just do not sell in such massive numbers as the ones that follow the formula outlined above.

    You can see women trying to act out this fantasy in real life and even on this forum. That they are completely impotent to do so due to their patent lack of virtue appears to be most frustrating to them.

    Oh and some of the biggest arsehole guys on this forum would appear to be their biggest fantasies come to life!!

    Thank you for listening HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    – “Happy_Bullet”

    That’s actually Part I of two. Part II by request…

  135. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Dalrock, I get that and agree.
    The players etc have been and are picked on about their proclivities, they have no Christian cover to hide behind so to speak. Its not unlike the fact that I think Christian feminists are more dangerous than secular ones because they have the flowery house dress of Christianity to hide behind.
    There is a difference though. Here we are men talking to men about men, and intentionally or not, the combination of game esteem, and implied lack of esteem for the average Christian man (some deserved indeed) makes the gamer/PUA have a soft light aura around them and a chorus of “Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!” when they are mentioned. Its in the juxtaposition where the problem resides, or its in my own cortex somewhere, always a possibility, and anyway, this is likely a distraction.

    Thanks Empath. BTW, I should have been more clear that I’m not calling you smug. The problem is it is such a powerful crutch, something we see is at the heart of the problem. It is in my view one of the most dangerous stumbling blocks at the heart of our problem, right up there with mistaking love and/or serial monogamy for sexual morality and the dreaded “double standard”.

    As for painting gamers in a soft light, I think I understand. This post in specific I think doesn’t fit with that though. Mentu is clearly framing his choice as a sort of tragedy. There are many examples in the manosphere of men representing their vasectomy as a sort of triumph against the stupidity of having children. The post I linked to is something entirely different. It acknowledges in full relief how beautiful what he is electing not to pursue is, or at least should be. His critique of marriage isn’t a condemnation of the institution itself, but a contrast of the disfigured modern view with the marriage of his parents. Likewise he clearly has an appreciation for the meaning of fatherhood. He has none of the scorn for these things which is so common. He is in my reading saying what I have written multiple times. Something terrible has happened. I don’t advocate his choice, but I share in his grieving what we have so cheaply sold.

    To be honest I’m surprised there isn’t more attention given to Mentu’s unexpected frame here. Certainly this doesn’t fit the stereotype.

  136. I didn’t even see the word smug….
    Yes this is off kilter for this thread.
    I admit I have not seen much about vasectomies so I have no perspective regarding that in the sphere. I had one myself, had it reversed and had a 4th kid, then had another. That’s a whole new level of bizarre I know

  137. An exclusively male form of hormonal birth control (the male pill) would set the present SMP on its ass. The primary reason for the SMP as it is today is largely due to women being afforded unilateral control of their birthing (and ultimately provisioning), entirely excluding men from determining when they will have a family, and with that the control of male sexual strategy.
    Exclusively female hormonal birth control for women has had a more significant impact on humanity than the advent of nuclear weapons.

    Feminine-discreet birth control and the sexual revolution has made hypergamy the only game in the SMP. When a woman wanted a family prior to the pill it was up to the man to deliver on her sexual imperative. Once that prerogative was implicitly put into the control of women, the balance of both gender’s sexual strategies listed entirely over to feminine hypergamy.

    This is exactly why you will see feminists and soccer moms alike, along with their mangina enablers, fight tooth and nail both legally and socially against the development and distribution of a form of birth control that uniquely grants men the power to once again allow them the prerogative to deliver on the female sexual imperative. The doctors, like the one Mentu had to fool, aren’t hesitant to perform a vasectomy without a wife’s permission because of any law that forbids it – they are terrified of the legal repercussion that could be brought against them by the man’s wife! The feminine imperative doesn’t even need a law, all it needs is a threat of legal action. That is how important maintaining the control of birthing is to women’s power dynamic.

  138. The doctors, like the one Mentu had to fool, aren’t hesitant to perform a vasectomy without a wife’s permission because of any law that forbids it – they are terrified of the legal repercussion that could be brought against them by the man’s wife!

    I agree. The doc may say, “It’s the law” and he could be completely full of it. I really don’t think my ex had a say or had to sign and she never went with me. They did the normal counseling (which is responsible), but I was 30 and had two sons.

  139. Cane Caldo says:

    Fair warning: I’m going to be using the symbol of Artemis quite a bit from now on. I believe I’m onto something.

    Cane seems to be arguing that (please correct me if I am misunderstanding your words here Cane) that you should not mitigate those chances in any way

    Of course you should. It’s a question of how and when. The topic came awhile on several blogs about how to deal with a wife’s Girl’s Night Out: Should you let her go?The Pastor of Single Mothers response is to stop her. The Players of the Huntress’ response was: It’s too late. You’ve either Gamed her appropriately, or not. Let her go, and and if she strays then it’s on her. The answer is that you should have discovered and approved of her friends before GNO ever came up. People are sheep, and women are the sheepiest of sheep; even good ones can be goaded and tempted into sin, and Game can be AMOG’d. What happens when George Clooney shows up? What about the old high school quarterback, who is now a corporate exec with the same build, grey temples, a Rolex, and swank shoes? You want her to be around people who support your values. Your spirit can influence you wife through them, if your spirit is Christ’s spirit. But to do that, you have to penetrate her circle of friends before GNO.

    It’s not even about GNO. One of my friend’s fiancee’s (would seem a good Christian girl) got drunk at his birthday party. She started getting touchy-feely with me, so I made my excuses to leave the party. As I was saying my goodbyes, she snaked her arm around my waist and said–with my friend ten feet away–“Awww, I was gonna fuck you later.” I just smiled and pulled away. When I got home, I told Mrs. Caldo; who was appropriately angry…but inappropriately at me. This is going to happen, because she’s confused on how to judge. It gets worse.

    I never saw her again, but months later, she dumped my friend because he wouldn’t marry her. “Good choice by him.” I said,when I heard of it, reflecting on that party. Mrs. Caldo got mad and made the typical man-up argument. “Well he should have married her instead of stringing her along!” I replied, “Have you forgotten that she wants to fuck me later? On second thought, maybe we should have her around more often, to see if things work out.”

    All day long, women condition each other to not notice the sins of women. It’s introduced and enforced by the media, but it is accepted by women because they don’t want to judge their friends, who they see as equal, or lesser. They want to judge men, good or bad. You see it here all the time.

    The media: Another thing you can do is not entertain foolishness. Back when Friends was popular, there was an episode where each of the characters wrote a “cheat list” of the five celebrities they could cheat with, and it didn’t “count”. Everyone was aping this: my friends, people at work, etc. I refused to participate, and when it came up in the presence of my wife, I ridiculed it hard; which no one understood: “It’s just a silly game.” No. It’s training. Learn to recognize this.

    Do not let your wives make idols of celebrities. Penetrate her entertainment options. So, the other thing you can do, is throw out the TV out.

    just MAN UP and be a good little christian boy, tell your wife no and if she doesn’t go along and has the state destroy your life, ah well thats what god wants.

    Manning-up is about taking authority (in a marriage that is: assume the right to tell her to be quiet, and listen), and the responsibility (in a marriage that is to get involved in every aspect of her life. Nothing of hers is out of bounds for the husband; as nothing in a man’s life is out of bounds for God.). It is not about taking on blame, and it’s not about accepting undeserved responsibility. But at some point, if she cheats, or leaves, then I have to accept that it was God’s will that she not be in my life. That’s His responsibility.

  140. Mitchell says:

    I applaud Mentu’s decision 100%, and I hope and pray that his post is truthful. The future belongs to those who show up, and we can all agree that Mentu is truly a dead end. But don’t take my word for it- he’s the one who made the cut😀

  141. Fair warning: I’m going to be using the symbol of Artemis quite a bit from now on. I believe I’m onto something.
    ————————————————-
    Fair Warning?

  142. Jimbo says:

    He decided to get a vasectomy although he isn’t married and didn’t have sex for over a year with someone who plays his wife, but not really. It doesn’t make sense. It’s money spent on nothing unless the intent is to be a player regardless of him being a Chrisitan, which is contrary to his religion.

  143. Very clever, Martian Bachelor. In my ideal world, every husband would be an untamed Lord Ravenscroft in his own home.

  144. Joshua says:

    ‘The future belongs to those who show up”

    You know im sick of hearing this. Every human on this planet comes from the same man and woman.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

    No the future belongs to those two.
    /endofthatshit

  145. LOL Martian Bachelor

    my novels definitely don’t play out like that. Romance novels/Love stories by a red-pill man-

    we’re gonna find out real soon how it plays with the ladies.

  146. FuriousFerret says:

    I don’t understand when people say that the male birth control pill will be a game changer.

    Women don’t even want kids in their 20s. They want fun times and career and a rug rat is the last thing that is on their mind.

    The female fantasy is play Sex and the City until 30 and then marry a unicorn (the alpha with the perfect amount of beta qualities that only has eyes for her) and then pop out a couple of kids.

    We know the reality is that after they get off the carosel they find the most attractive beta to wife up and then hope they can still get pregaent.

    The fact remains is that the beta who marries the aging woman thinks he has won the lottery and will do his damn best to give her babies.

    How does the male pill change this process?

  147. Joshua says:

    “How does the male pill change this process?”

    http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=male+birth+control+a+game+changer%3F

  148. Hey, Cane Caldo

    thanks for your pity sir. Very generous. It’s a notch better than all-out disdain.

    anyway, I know dudes like you LOL

    you pontificate.

    good luck with that.

  149. FuriousFerret says:

    Ok I looked through the results and found the post at CH on it and I believe that this is conclusion:

    ‘A male Pill robs women of the option to ensnare men in gotcha pregnancies, and that is a dilution of female power that feminists just won’t tolerate.’ -CH

    So basically women won’t be able to take control of alphas through pregnancy anymore.

    I still don’t think it changes things that much though. Women will still ride alpha cock until they age and the beta will still try to please the woman by wifing her up and getting her pregnant.

  150. Joshua says:

    “I still don’t think it changes things that much though. Women will still ride alpha cock until they age and the beta will still try to please the woman by wifing her up and getting her pregnant.’

    But over the next decade there will be less betas. Men are onto women and just because there is no organized(a la feminism) movement doesn’t mean changes aren’t coming. Male birth control is an absolute game changer.

  151. Legion says:

    Entropy is My God says:
    September 13, 2012 at 11:27 am

    +1 tothat twit cc

  152. Cane Caldo says:

    Male birth control is an absolute game changer.

    Sure, one pill was terrible for the SMP, but two has to make it great, right?

    All hail science.

    Samuel Solomon, the known dude who pontificates would still like to know if it was your ex-wife that loved your symbolic castration?

    All hail science.

  153. James B. Oakes says:

    But at some point, if she cheats, or leaves, then I have to accept that it was God’s will that she not be in my life. That’s His responsibility..

    So, God’s will is that I should be collateral damage if my “wife” decides to cheat or leave. I should, of course, play Russian roulette with my life by marrying a modern woman – or I should remain single and celibate, which would give me the exact same number of descendants Mentu will now have. That’s the deal you’re offering, CaneCaldo, and I daresay no one will knowingly take it.

    I hope that, at least, God will own up to “His responsibility” and take care of the alimony I’d have to pay to finance ex-wife’s new “alpha” boyfriend(s).

  154. Joshua says:

    Hey cane things are the way god wants them. Know that.

  155. whatever says:

    Cano accidentally gives the game away:

    Manning-up is about taking authority (in a marriage that is: assume the right to tell her to be quiet, and listen), and the responsibility (in a marriage that is to get involved in every aspect of her life. Nothing of hers is out of bounds for the husband; as nothing in a man’s life is out of bounds for God.). It is not about taking on blame, and it’s not about accepting undeserved responsibility. But at some point, if she cheats, or leaves, then I have to accept that it was God’s will that she not be in my life. That’s His responsibility.

    A Christian would say it was HER responsibility for being an adulterer and leaving her marriage.

    Cano, you can be honest with us bro, how long have you been a Churchian Mangina? When did you decide to put women before God?

  156. greyghost says:

    Cane if you can pull off a red pill christian church you will be historic.

  157. I don’t understand when people say that the male birth control pill will be a game changer.

    Women don’t even want kids in their 20s. They want fun times and career and a rug rat is the last thing that is on their mind.

    I completely agree. The “male pill” will only change things for the alphas and the ensnared others. I brought this up on Dr. Helen’s blog (pjmedia) a month or so ago. As awful as it sounds, what would really change the SMP is the majority of the beta/omega/whatever dropping out because they have sexually satisfying experiences with…whatever. When they drop out, in large numbers (and it is coming in a decade or so, because those men do the “programming and developing”), then women will find 1) scarcity of men and 2) men who have already devalued female “shame.”

    Is it godly? No. Do I lay my money on humans working toward worldly passions before godly passions? Yeah, I do. Doesn’t make it right or desirable, but it is more likely. When it happens, and it will happen given the creative nature of man, men will check out.

  158. Keoni Galt says:

    There used to be something far more effective than Male Hormonal Birth Control could ever be in mitigating all the problems related to the current female monopoly on reproductive decisions:

    Default Father Custody for children born in wedlock. To go back to that would be a game changer far more effective in rolling back the supremacy of the female imperative in our society, than a male pill ever could.

    If a woman married a man and had his children, they were his. That was what marriage meant.

    If she were unmarried, they were hers, and the Father had no responsibility for the children they spawned out of wedlock.

    Please….read Dr. Amneus’ seminal work, The Case for Father Custody. Here. It’s a Free PDF download.

    That WAS the ultimate birth control, because it ultimately held women accountable for their choices, and it also made her think thrice before frivolous divorce or fornicating outside of marriage, because she knew she’d lose the kids, or she’d have to go it alone raising her out of wedlock kids.

    So many problems we are all dealing with can be traced back to the late 1800’s change in societal attitudes and mores in which Default Father Custody changed to Default Mother Custody….even before Female Suffrage or any other Feminist travesty became the norm.

    The answer so many of us are looking for, has always been there.

  159. CC not sure why its relevant, but I got the V in 1997, when I was with my wife of ten years. She was pleased because we were struggling for money and couldn’t even afford the 4 we had. We didn’t have to be concerned for #5 anymore. All four of her kids occurred despite birth control, so something permanent was our only hope. Further, we didn’t have to concern ourselves with birth control anymore, or ‘worry’ during sexy-time, which made it dramatically better.

    Better sex, better money, less worry, less work- what’s not to like?

    I’m sure you’d like to speculate how it was something other than what it was, how I’m wrong, and then convincingly drive home your point or try to deconstruct mine. Any commentary on the matter from you would be coming from a place of ignorance, since you were not there. I would encourage you to demonstrate enough wisdom to not presume or assume in ignorance, and reveal yourself as foolish for such a thing.

    seriously, don’t bother. There’s got to be better uses of time for you.

    or you could tell me how I’m worshipping Artemis somebody LOL

  160. greyghost says:

    What better tool for involuntary childless spinsterhood than a male pill. When the pill for men comes out I’ll sell the hell out of mra style. The next day I’ll be a feminist mangina selling divorce ,eat pray love and hooking up smart with numerous christian momogamous relationships with out judgement. The 35 to 47 year olds are going to be fun to watch with no personality and only sex to offer lesser and lesser men in her eye will be takers and most likely the men will already have kids from a previous man upping so no good sperm for you. All of those carousel riders at their last pussy exam being told they are at risk or just plain infertile and they can’t even trick a guy. The youger ones in the late teens and early twenties will be the hit miss pregnant oops types. If the rate of those births drops 20 to 30 percent we will have hysteria. especially if the numbers arte clustered in smallish area giving the empression of even greater numbers. Imagine the dumb chicks that can’t go to college not able to make a welfare meal ticket. The possibilities are great for a guy that wants to see the female to male suicide gap closed. win win for me.

  161. greyghost says:

    Keoni Galt
    Father custody will be one of the things women vote in to relieve themseves of the hysteria of childless spinsterhood.

  162. Keoni Galt says:

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen, grey.

    Default Father Custody IS Marriage 1.0.

    Women will never vote to rescind Marriage 2.0…

    …until it’s too late and TSHTF. At that point, voting will not be the means of re-establishing that lost custom.

  163. unger says:

    @James B et al.: Yes. The same way you’re supposed to suffer gracefully in all the other cases where you’re hated and persecuted for doing what’s right. “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

    You’ll note that it doesn’t say ‘rejoice and be exceedingly glad: for great is your alphadom, and you are therefore granted leave to bang sluts silly’. It doesn’t even say ‘rejoice and be exceedingly glad: for great will be your rewards in the divorce courts when I cause them to side with you instead of your ex, since you did what I asked of you’.

    Someone else who got a particularly unpleasant opportunity to practice what he preached wrote: “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.”

    Curious, no? It’s almost as if God is more concerned with your character than your sexual enjoyment and financial well-being. Of course, Jesus and Peter were a couple of no-good beta chick-supplicating manginas, and hopelessly behind the times, too, right?

  164. Joshua says:

    Keoni you are right. But whats gonna happen first repealing the 19th amendment, mandatory father custody or male birth control? You know its a rhetorical question.

  165. Matthew says:

    Rock Throwing Peasant: the faith vs. infinite resignation dichotomy is one of Kierkegaard’s little tricks, from Fear and Trembling. As with most of his works, that book was pseudonymous, which suggests we shouldn’t take it as a representation of what SK actually thought. Groovy.

    In that work, Agamemnon is praised for the infinite resignation required in his act of sacrificing Iphigenia, whereas Abraham is praised for his faith in sacrificing Isaac.

  166. Matthew says:

    Note, friends, that unger does not argue, he merely sneers.

  167. unger says:

    Matthew: Yes, because pointing out, by way of Scripture, a truth taught by every church in history save the grossest of the prosperity-gospel apostates, isn’t arguing, but sneering.

  168. Matthew says:

    You can’t help it. I understand.

  169. unger says:

    It’s a pity that’s the limit of your understanding. If you weren’t semiliterate, you would’ve detected the argument in the 11:30 post, and then if you also weren’t a stubborn adherent of feel-good cafeteria-line Christianity, you’d have recognized the argument’s validity, since it came, in no uncertain terms, from the mouth of the one you claim to worship as God. Since you can’t read, and wouldn’t accept the authority presented anyway, can you please do us both a favor and go inflict yourself upon someone else, since I was addressing myself to those who can read and do accept the authority of God?

  170. Aaron says:

    I take Dalrock’s point but it was still pretty horrific to read. The choice is his to make obviously but just doesn’t sit right with me. Is this the male version of bra burning? Once one gender adopts nihilism the other antes up?

  171. unger says:

    ANYWAY.
    James: I’ll turn your question ’round on you. What would you advise? You’ve listed two options, which you consider unworkable, and which nobody here denies are difficult and unpleasant: marry someone (with all the risks that entails), or remain single and celibate. Is there a third option for Christians? If yes, it would solve a lot of problems if you’d be so kind as to share it. If no, then do you advise Christians to abandon their faith?

    At the very least, I’d like to know where you stand.

  172. Steve Canyon says:

    It’s not a male version of bra-burning. That’s just some emotional outburst of a woman caught up in the moment. This is something far more profound and if it doesn’t sit right with anyone it shouldn’t. This is a man who has looked at society, at women, at the current state of affairs between the genders and has thrown in the towel. This is something that is more on par with Gandhi’s hunger strike or Buddhist monks immoliating themselves in protest of the Vietnam War.

    This is about a man who has renounced the thing most important to him, the part of his anatomy that is his express purpose for being on the planet: to reproduce and perpetuate his lineage. The average man is just that, average, and his only contribution to the planet is going to be his next generation. He’s not going to cure cancer, he’s not going to win a Super Bowl, and he’s not going to write the Great American Novel or develop the next big electronic breakthrough. His progeny is it.

    You’re not seeing women voluntarily electing radical hysterectomies without giving birth or without that surgery being necessary to avoid death from ovarian cancer. A woman electing to have her tubes tied without having kids is also a rare phenomenon. If it wasn’t, such a statement and her rationale to not have kids would be plastered in every liberal rag out there and rate a guest spot on Oprah.

    This man has gotten a vasectomy without passing his genes along. He’s made a concious and rational decision to do so because he’s assessed the situation and thinks this is the best course of action he should take. In a sane society, no man would even consider doing this. It’s an apt commetary on the state of affairs in America that men are even considering this option.

  173. freebird says:

    This blog is my 12 stepper,being single I get to enjoy my day,sleep well, and when I need to be reminded
    about the true nature of *nature* I swing on by,confess: “Hi-I’m freebird and was a clueless beta hetero.I still crave female interaction,but I can change!
    There:No need to skirt chase for another 7days.Perhaps the church of reality would be a better analogy.
    In any event,it keeps me on a steady diet of red pills and off the joy juice.
    Thanks groupies!
    Thanks for sharing!

  174. freebird says:

    I realize I’ve gone “genetic dead end” too,I just do not care.I have lots of relatives out there breeding and they look just like me.
    I don’t feel it’s my obligation to make this world abetter place by leaving (more) of my DNA floating around,no indeedy,let it all go idiocracy all up on in here.Orwell would be proud.Very proud.

  175. Steve Canyon says:

    It’s no one’s obligation to procreate, but it is part of our genetic makeup. One of the things that separates us from beasts is that we have the ability to act differently when we deduce that our biological instincts are not acting in our best interests.

    You see female hypergamy as one example of this. Her hypergamy never has gone away and has been with her since day one. A combination of societal restrictions, “patriarchy” (a term I hate), and legal reprocussions for her acting in accordance with her biology has kept the hypergamy in check. In other words, like the subject of this post and his vasectomy, it wasn’t in her best interests to act in accordance with her nature.

    We’ve removed all that and women have regressed to her baser instincts. Arguably, we’ve gone a step further and given creedance to her base instincts being far superior to the male’s base instincts as well as his traits of logic, reason, and accountability. Hence, the abundance of hypersexual women and men behaving as women.

    The desire to pass along one’s genes is there. Even the most hardcore man who refuses to admit his desire for a family has it. He might spend 99% of his time perfectly content without that desire, but there will be that one time when he sees a father playing catch with his son, or sees how a 3-year old boy reacts when his father comes home and will regret not being able to pass along his wisdom and life experience, and the lessons passed down to him from the men in his life to someone new.

    The rational male in today’s society might look at the situation and think that maybe things just might get better, that the pendulum will swing back (albeit with much pain to all), and have some optimism for tomorrow and simply sit out the game until it gets better. I have a snowballs chance in hell amount of hope that it will. But I look at my two nephews, both under the age of 5, and hope to God that this crap finally blows over and that they may be able to prosper in a society that merits there contribution. I’m quite pessimistic and just about certain that it won’t, that doesn’t stop me from hoping though.

    It takes someone who has truly lost all hope that things will get better to resort to something as drastic and potentially irreversible as a vasectomy.

  176. Twenty says:

    I’m puzzled by those who view the “male pill” as an unambiguously good thing. Since it’s pretty widely accepted ’round these parts that hormonal birth control messes with the women’s minds, doesn’t it seem likely that a “male pill” would have similar ill effects?

    For my part, no way I’m taking anything like that. (But then, I avoid even aspirin, so YMMV.)

  177. greyghost says:

    Keoni Galt, Joshua
    A woman can justify and rationalize anything. As crazy as it sounds or looks with the eyes we have to see with and the experiences we have had to reference with it may seem like a pipe dream. The cultural shift can be made. Just as game is used by a beta male(PUA) as a tool to appear alpha (a defective guiltless man) for sexual reasons. An beta male (MRA christian with game) uses game as a tool to simulate a SHTF type emotions and directs traffic to a sustainable society and civilization. I believe it is possible. Hell it was beta men the wrote the constitution and the whole principle of rule of law is beta male supreme in it’s foundation. Cane Caldo is trying to do a red pill christian church. Reguardless of anything said here in the comment section of this article that is a great thing A month or two ago not going probably not a thought of what red pill is. (Just a guess)
    Over all i think it would be very interesting to see the men hee take a look at what is possible and the mechanics of actually acheiving the goal of a sustainable culture and civilization.

  178. Entropy is My God says:

    @Steve Canyon

    “and hope to God that this crap finally blows over and that they may be able to prosper in a society that merits there contribution”

    I feel for you, however, think about it, don’t you realize that a society that merits their contribution is going to be one that tears this current monstrosity down. As human beings, Christians, citizens of the US (pick one) we have all collectively failed in allowing what exists now. All of us are equally at fault. Our penance is coming.

    Cane, if god wants me to suffer, he will get it but not from the courts and justice system, and beta white knight apologists, churchian manginas. He will get it when water, power, food and other supplies run out. When hoards of hungry people drink from puddles and die of dysentery, when angry mobs loot and rape and steal, when survivalist run out of bullets, then there will be some suffering to own up to.

  179. Joshua says:

    “mechanics of actually acheiving the goal of a sustainable culture and civilization.”

    That is an utter impossibility. All empires fall, its a question of when not if. But i still agree with everything you say. I truly feel our planet is headed for another dark ages. It wont be a couple centuries but maybe 50 or so yrs of something not good for women.

  180. Joshua says:

    ‘As human beings, Christians, citizens of the US (pick one) we have all collectively failed in allowing what exists now. All of us are equally at fault. Our penance is coming.’

    Im 26 yrs old, born in 1986. None of this is my fault and it damn sure aint my responsibility.

  181. Entropy is My God says:

    @ Joshua

    Once again I feel for you, but once you hit majority (18 in USA) it became your fault (I am only a few years older and I take responsibility as well). And fault, blame, etc. are all red herrings. Why, who caused it, original source, none of that matters now, only how we react.

  182. The Right Hon. Msgr. Fred Flange says:

    Respect Rollo’s writings a lot but I must differ that the male BC pill will be fought “tooth and nail” by feminists. I am not sure they would fight it at all, at least credibly. After all, they – or most anyone on the left – are hardly able to speak, since the male pill would be a personhood choice the state can’t regulate, just like the female pill, IUD, condoms, tube-tying, etc. , as they have been saying for decades. Plus there’s money to be made in the male pill, like in fertility treatments, so the market will shout down the naysayers and ban-hammers. I am hard pressed to think how a legal ban on the male pill could ever happen without also outlawing all BC. The frame would have to be like the pro-birth policies in Russia or Singapore, where the state has to offer cash and prizes to those having teh babiez, since the birthrates are so low there they have to try to force the issue (not working, apparently).

  183. Joshua says:

    No entropy. Just no.

  184. Joshua says:

    The only lawful way for a legitimate ban would be failure in FDA process. I expect this initially.

  185. I dont think male BC will be fought by feminists either, for quite some time, because they and their useful idiots have shown that they do not understand cause and effect at all. That’s the smarter ones. The rest will be blissfully unaware something is even happening, gaggles of gigglers repeating the witty observations in Letterman’s monolog. He he he haw haw haw that man and his pill came a long way baby Gfaw haw he haw.
    One day when effect is widespread, still blissfully unaware of cause, they will throw a tantrum.

  186. I note that cane’s use of the term “act of desperation” is simply a manbitch version of feminist shaming language.
    Nice try.

  187. Fitz says:

    Dalrock..

    I believe I understand your approach and I hope I understand your motives. I do believe however that you could be more charitable towards conservatives/traditionalists who diverge from the line held in the man-o-sphere concerning these issues.

    Most who would not immediately empathize with Mentu’s decision are doing so for a variety of reasons not emanating from hostility with the plight of modern men and their children.

    A variety of legitimate impulses and idea’s are at the core of much of the resistance to the tactics of MGTOW when it comes to marriage and family. The most important of these is the very survival of western civilization.

    Every time one hears the message “man up and marry the slut” – some part of a reasoned persons brain should translate that into… “damn…we need to rebuild are broken marriage culture…and relations between men and woman”..

    The goals, language, and motives of the manosphere are still not manifest to the general public including mainstream Christians, conservatives, traditionalists, and the like. In short they have not taken the red pill and don’t know of what the speak..

    These are strong potential allies who need education more than derision…

  188. Entropy is My God says:

    @ Fitz

    “The most important of these is the very survival of western civilization.”
    I honestly cannot believe that you have read these comments and can type those words. This western civilization that is the “Most important” is a plague (as all are other civilization none get a pass) that has spawned and promulgated Feminism. To be more blunt, this civilization is feminism. USA=FEMINISM. It must collapse, it will collapse, and if there is anything worthwhile that springs from the ashes then so be it. IF not, good riddance.
    How dare you consider yourself a men’s rights activist, or a Christian, when this western civilization is the “Most important” thing to you?
    Defend yourself.

  189. Entropy…..you responded to something he didn’t say. It never fails to fascinate when this tact is taken, point to the extreme extrapolation of what was said, then use that to discredit the person.

    Now, it may indeed require that everything collapse, that is a reasonable assertion to make. But then what you are doing is arguing the mode in which the repair/rebuild occurs, and that means you are on the same page.

    Splitting hairs like that is why men have so much trouble ever really, truly cooperating.

  190. Fitz says:

    Joshua (writes):

    “I’m 26 yrs old, born in 1986. None of this is my fault and it damn sure aint my responsibility.”

    No..none of it is your “fault”… However it is and will remain your “responsibility” in the general sense that you must both understand it well & proper and use that understanding to combat it effectively… Anything less and you lose your honor.

  191. You can choose to not take responsibility.

    How long will the generator power your x-box before you run out of fuel?

  192. Jeremy says:

    My feeling is the reason (but not excuse) so many women in their adulthood are capable of rationalizing anything is that their parents did not hold them to the same standards of rational thought they held their sons to. This does not excuse the behavior in adulthood, nothing could. It’s up to the individual to grow up.

    It always warms my heart when I see a father/mother correcting a daughter in the same way they might correct their son, so many parents get away with just patting their daughters on the head and moving on.

  193. Anonymous Reader says:

    Fitz
    Dalrock..
    I believe I understand your approach and I hope I understand your motives. I do believe however that you could be more charitable towards conservatives/traditionalists who diverge from the line held in the man-o-sphere concerning these issues.

    Dalrock is already quite charitable towards them. He’s a lot more charitable than some other men. And for good reasons.

    Most who would not immediately empathize with Mentu’s decision are doing so for a variety of reasons not emanating from hostility with the plight of modern men and their children.
    A variety of legitimate impulses and idea’s are at the core of much of the resistance to the tactics of MGTOW when it comes to marriage and family. The most important of these is the very survival of western civilization.

    As it happens, I’m rather fond of the civilization I live within. I came to the conclusion some time back that said civilization rests upon the quiet, competent men – the educated beta man – who go to work at the electrical generating plant every day & make sure that the lights stay on. Or who make sure the oil drilling rig keeps on running. Or who keep the gasoline coming out of the refinery. And so forth.

    These are the men who everyone else takes for granted, especially women take them for granted, but also churches take them for granted. It takes time to learn how to run a power plant or a refinery or a drilling rig or a semi-truck or a thousand other things, and if the benefits of that time and work can be taken away for good in a matter of weeks by a vindictive woman and a mangina judge, then some number of men are going to decide that it’s not worth their time. Do this enough, and The Machine Stops. Then manginas and women can point fingers all they want, and whine and stamp their feet, and demand that Some Man Should Do Something and there still won’t be enough electricity or gasoline. Petulant fits won’t get oil out of the ground. Endless mooing “manUP’ preaching by some gelding with a closed Bible won’t put electricity in the wires.

    Stop punishing men for being men, and we’ll all be better off. That’s one message of the ‘sphere. Stop beating men for being men.
    Stop trying to make us into women.

    Every time one hears the message “man up and marry the slut” – some part of a reasoned persons brain should translate that into… “damn…we need to rebuild are broken marriage culture…and relations between men and woman”..

    Thanks for demonstrating my point.You clearly regard men as some kind of robot, rather than an actual human being. Every time one hears the message “man up and marry the slut”, some part of a man’s brain should translate this into “Damn, another misandrist who looks at me as nothing more than a walking wallet and a sperm vending machine. No thanks, jerk, I ain’t your mule..”.

    You want to defend this civilization? Stop pissing on my shoes and telling me that it is just an April shower…

    The goals, language, and motives of the manosphere are still not manifest to the general public including mainstream Christians, conservatives, traditionalists, and the like. In short they have not taken the red pill and don’t know of what the speak..

    So what? People who repeat lies are called…what?

    These are strong potential allies who need education more than derision…

    Since those strong potential allies utterly and absolutely refuse to pay attention to the most obvious of educational efforts, going so far as to shout down any man who tries, then derision is a natural next step. Since they won’t pay attention to logic, then a clue-by-four may get their attention. Or maybe it won’t, and they are so bound up in supporting the existing submission to women, they can’t break out of it. In that case, laughing at them as the losers they are is a fit and proper response.

    As long as these strong potential allies insist on supporting more and more harm be done to men, as long as they keep pissing on men’s shoes while marvelling about the lovely fall rain, they are not acting like allies. Actions speak louder than words.

  194. Fitz says:

    Entropy is My God (writes)

    “Defend yourself”

    Much to much of a point for you to draw when the only words used was “Western Civilization”… When I said that I meant the best of our civilization, patriarchy, a reasoned public order, classical liberalism…and the like. Not the rot of feminism or the last 40 years of manifest decay.

    As for your assertion… I find the diagnosis that recommends that we first allow collapse or await total collapse before rebuilding to be naive. It wont work like that.. Base economic interests will sustain a public order that can carry on for decades even centuries to come.. It will fall because it is knocked down… Outside that, the current ideological interests are sufficiently pragmatic and unscrupulous enough to maintain their grip on power and continue to ignore or apologize for the social decay they caused.

    P.S. – Dont troll for arguments…

  195. Dalrock says:

    @Fitz

    A variety of legitimate impulses and idea’s are at the core of much of the resistance to the tactics of MGTOW when it comes to marriage and family. The most important of these is the very survival of western civilization.

    I’m in general agreement with Anon Reader’s response above, but I wanted to respond to this part specifically. This shows a profound lack of understanding of what Mentu is doing. He is not MGTOW. He isn’t on strike to punish the system, or rejecting outright the concepts of marriage and fatherhood. He isn’t boycotting the system. He took an honest look at the costs and benefits and decided that while the potential benefits are extremely high, the risks still outweigh them.

    This is important because conservatives normally get this kind of decision. If the consumers aren’t buying what you are selling, deal with it or offer something better. In this case society has removed the authority and rights which for thousands of years have come with the responsibility of being a husband and father. On top of all of that, the potential wives on offer are (more or less) aging career women who far more often than not aren’t virgins. Social engineer all you like conservatives, but understand that men will make their own decisions on the margins. I think the reason for the negative reaction is at their core conservatives understand that this is a much more serious threat than MGTOW.

    The question is how will conservatives react to the consumer demanding less of what they are selling (marriage to an aging career gal slut, and fatherhood with 100% responsibility and 0% authority and rights). Will they try to find a way to make a sweeter offer or do like the left does and try to shame or otherwise coerce the consumer into a choice they don’t want to make. Those who respond like true conservatives have my respect. Those who respond like radical leftists don’t. Am I really wrong here?

  196. Anonymous Reader says:

    I wrote too many words. I’ll summarize.

    Dalrock is asking why so many men and women would rather expend their energy attacking a few men like Mentu, than attack the millions of women who frivolvorce and the preachers who support them. Any time a church going man sees an androsphere posting like this and gets all worked up about the speck in Mentu’s eye, he should wonder if there’s a log somewhere in his vicinity, right?

    I’ll put it another way: traditional conservatives are the people who would rather send a man to prison for a crime he did not commit, than say “no” to a woman and make it stick.Before you puff up and say “Oh, not me!” reflect that there are many forms of “prison” and not all of them have bars. But all of them do have guards. And some of those guards preach “Man Up”, regularly.

    Lastly, I’ll use the Socratic method a bit.
    Question: How many of the people foaming over Mentu’s decision have taken the time to say one word to any other person, especially a preacher about frivolous divorce, ever?

    [D: Well put.]

  197. Fitz says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    Fine…agreed.. I cant really argue with your points because I share them.

    My point is simply that within the man-o-sphere your/my point can be understood without much argument.. Outside it however is a different matter..

    Be it patient education or (as you say) a “clue-by-four” – most of these are still potential converts and allies and we need all the allies we can get.

    When I say “charity” I dont mean neccesarily kind words or a soft approach. Rather I am saying that we need to understand the goals of these misguided allies in an effort to get them to take the red pill.

  198. Entropy is My God says:

    @Fritz
    “Base economic interests will sustain a public order that can carry on for decades even centuries to come..”
    That was not a troll, you were overly generic, you were taken at your word. As for your assertion that some order will carry on you are once again being overly generic. Maybe after a 90% die off. Anonymous Reader just threw out a detailed post about how interconnected systems fail with minimal input reduction. Please read about system dynamics and get back. Regardless we are both postulating about the future, a fool’s errand.
    Fine, you don’t agree with current rot of last 40 years. What about suffrage, that is fine? What about wife custody? That works for you to? No I think you showed your hand with that earlier statement. You do think this civilization is worth saving. I disagree.

  199. Dalrock says:

    Fits,

    The problem is blaming men like Mentu is the very drug that conservatives are addicted to (as I explained above). They need an intervention.

  200. Cane Caldo says:

    @Fitz

    It is a blessing to suffer the rod of correction. You see this with children: the ones who don’t get spanked are the worst kids. The wise parent makes the connection: the children are bad because the parents don’t love them. People in church should be blessed more.

  201. Fitz says:

    Dalrock.
    “Those who respond like true conservatives have my respect. Those who respond like radical leftists don’t. Am I really wrong here?”

    No your not..and thanks for the clarification..

    My frustration lies not in your approach but in the lengthy unpacking almost any conversation like this requires… I fully understand the cost/benefit analysis that many men are making and agree that this is a threat to both left and right..

    My point…and only point… is that this understanding has yet to spill over into the general public conversation in such a way that allows for ease of conversation..

    Considerable forces exist that are preventing this critical mass from coming to fruition. Both feminism and current mainstream Christianity are at fault.

    That is (again) my point concerning charity. I can only assume (and do) that if you were writing for an uninformed general audience your approach would be different. For inside the manosphere I think it is acceptable. For outside the sphere I think most readers would never see the forest at all..and ergo rant against this or that tree..

  202. Fitz says:

    Cane Caldo

    My frustration only lies in the fact that this rod is not effectively being used against the manginas and Church officials who need it. More needs to be done on the subject of tactics, organization, and targeting our audience. Its not a conceptual problem but one of application.

    Entropy is My God (writes)
    “Fine, you don’t agree with current rot of last 40 years. What about suffrage, that is fine? What about wife custody? That works for you to? No I think you showed your hand with that earlier statement. You do think this civilization is worth saving. I disagree.”

    No to wife custody… and yes to suffrage.. Interestingly enough one of the arguments used against female suffrage at the time was the politicians would use it to attack the family by pitting each sexes interest against the other…Did not take long did it..?

    Perhaps system failure is possible and even inevitable. Never the less I still believe the civilization is worth defending and reforming.

  203. Entropy is My God says:

    @FITZ

    Then as gentlemen we agree to disagree.

  204. gdgm+ says:

    WF Price over at _The Spearhead_ also weighs on the Mentu decision here, “Is It Selfish To Avoid Fatherhood?” He states another perspective on the Mentu case elegantly:

    In his post, Mentu mentions the attachment he feels toward children, who represent the future. It’s clear that in his heart he cares about them, and wants to do well by them. I think we can count on most childless men to feel the same way, and perhaps because they do not have any of their own they are in a better position to help them in aggregate. When a woman has no children, it’s often because she doesn’t like them (if she’s infertile that’s an entirely different matter), but I’ve found that not to be the case for men who have no children of their own. They tend to have a pure appreciation of little ones, untainted by the jealousy and possessive attitude that characterizes maternal instincts which, although good in their own way, are far more particular than they are universal for quite practical reasons.

    So, rather than allow bitterness about our plight to consume us, I think we fathers should see these men as slaves saw escapees, and cheer them for breaking through into freedom. What good would it do us to hate and tear down the ones who got away? They give us hope for a future; for a new, free world for our sons. A world for which we’d gladly sacrifice ourselves to give to those little boys who bear our names.

  205. I have no idea why people are bothered by Mentu’s action, or his write up. I’m shocked that this thread of posts even exists. There truly is nothing to see here folks. Goodness. If the responses that are critical of him are originating from the more conservative side then the criticism of same is perfectly justified. But seriously, this is a non controversy, and with all due respect I thought the entire event and article was yawn inducing. Whatever layers people saw in there, I must be too thick to see. The only interesting thing was the intentional fraud perpetrated, and that is not even that interesting except for the fact that one would even need to do such a thing in an effort to get around the influence of women on a mans “right to choose”. THAT is the operative thing here.

    For the record, though I am not objecting to Mentu….I feel 100% confident when i say that from the group that posts here, no one can even come close to the activism (call it what you like) I have done regarding challenging pastors and Christian leaders on frivorce. If such a thing exists…..that is my calling.

    Fitz, I ggree on one thing, the men and manosphere is stuck in this as you say bantering and unpacking things like this to the nth degree….amen on that. I struggle internally with any notion that bogs down in debating definitions, wrangling nebulous language, fussing over whats implied and what isnt, defining sub-sub-subsets of ideologies, etc. Still, in a very general sense its how men bond.

    [[That opens a side bar that I will mention very briefly, that men are stratified in their bonding, meaning men develop lots of superficial relationships expressly because that allows them to not address these types of things with their pals (not friends)…..or that could be the converse, the fact that they are only pals is why they never address these kinds of things, be they gender, politics, religion, or all three and more. SOME men however bond deeply as we do get into these things, and those are friends indeed. ]]

    It is also catharsis for the frivorced man to read and write these things, if he is a thinking man.
    There is nothing wrong with doing both. Since I showed up here, and made some effort even to write my own limited blog, the efforts I put outside have been much more focused, and more importantly, strategic. Its tempting to lay all the facts out in an explosion of truth, and right or wrong that almost never works. If everyone would pick a target and get busy working it, even this number of guys could make some difference.

  206. James B. Oakes says:

    @unger

    You did engage in quite a bit of mind-reading in your first response. I don’t blame you, the tone of my comment did invite misreading. Besides, I rarely comment, so I don’t have a track record. So I’ll answer your question: yes, Christianity demands either marriage or celibacy, no third way. I’m clear on that.

    But I think CaneCaldo, and maybe you, is living in a dreamworld, or engaging in an “apex fallacy” all of your own. Marriage and family no longer exist. What goes today by the same name is another thing entirely. We may mourn them all we want, and it won’t make them come back. Cane fancies himself a defender of traditional marriage, but he might as well defend the dinosaurs. It’s gone. It’s over. We the living now have to deal with it.

    We might agree that we should try to bring back the dead. Sign me on. But individual people, even more the very few people who actually want marriage and family to return, are incapable of doing this alone. Marriage and family, are social affairs, not individual decisions, and depend on societal mores and law which, for us, are not only nonexistent but actively harmful – EVEN IN CHURCH. Of course we should spread the word and keep pointing out the failures of the present system and the traitorousness of those who should be leading; we might get a rebirth further along the road. But it won’t happen in my lifetime (and I’m young). OK, I might be part of the lucky, and low, percentage of men able to find a woman willing to live a virtuous life, AND STICK WITH IT. But I have to give some thought to the possibility that I might be part of the 99%, not the 1%. And even if I’m the lucky one, the society in which I’ll live will, obviously and inevitably, shaped by the 99%.

    If the options are marriage and celibacy, and marriage no longer exists, we’re left with lifelong celibacy. What Cano and others need to come clear is that THIS is what they’re defending. Not because they don’t realize it and would change their minds if they understood, but because they try to frame their option as “support for marriage” when this option is no longer in the table. I get that they support marriage in a sense; I do myself. But as I said, they might as well support T. rex. After recognizing this, they must accept that it’s a strategy for a very select few. We’re never going to have a large proportion of the male population voluntarily choosing to be untonsured monks. It may work for me, it may work for you; I even liked the “I’ll endure hell in this life if I gain Heaven in the next” speech you gave. But not only you have to walk the walk, you have to recognize that it isn’t a workable strategy. Cane thinks recommending men to shoot for the 1% is a winning strategy because he’ll be saving souls for Christ. He may be right for the 1%, but the 99% will not conclude, “it’s so good I’m being punished for being virtuous”. They will leave Christianity and become the very players, successful or otherwise, the Cane hates so much. Early Christianity had plenty of martyrs, but those who apostatized were far more numerous, and they were welcomed back after the persecutions. Think about that.

    /END RANT

  207. James B. Oakes says:

    And just to illustrate my post above:

  208. Lib Arts Major Making $31k a Year at an Office Job (Got a raise) says:

    Mentu is a disgusting mass of a human being, but him getting a vasectomy is about as irrelevant as his fantastical, self-fulfilling PUA bedtime stories made of faeries and unicorns.

    It’s irrelevant to me whether or not Mentu, Krauser, Rollo, Roosh, or anyone internet famous has vasectomies. They effect my day-to-day reality about as much as Winnie the Pooh does – which is to say not at all. It would be different if a large percentage of men in my local community started getting Vasectomies, but they’re not.

    Does a Lion living on the Savannah care what happens to a Polar Bear living in the Arctic? No. Why should I care what Mentu does or what happens to him? The context of his life is so far removed from mine that he and his ideas are wholly irrelevant to me. Aside from us sharing some biology, his reality has no correlation or effect on my own.

    To summarize: People need to relax and understand UMan and Mentu is about 95% Entertainment related content that is ultimately irrelevant to your life. Mentu espouses tons of ideas – but before even arguing these, ask yourself if they matter to you at all, given the source.

  209. Cane Caldo says:

    @JB Oakes

    You’re where I was several months ago. Don’t worry: there’s still time for you to avoid my fate.

    “Cane fancies himself a defender of traditional marriage”

    Biblical

    marriage. The current tradition is the problem. I’m looking for a new formation.

    “You might as well try to raise the dead.”

    If only Christ had something to say about such nonsense as raising the dead, I could have avoided my conundrum…

  210. Anonymous Reader says:

    FITZ
    Considerable forces exist that are preventing this critical mass from coming to fruition. Both feminism and current mainstream Christianity are at fault.

    The second sentence contains redundant words.

  211. Lib Arts,
    You seem to have a strong opinion for a guy that doesn’t affect you. Just saying.

  212. ybm says:

    I agree with that post 100%

  213. Anonymous age 70 says:

    I had my vasectomy in 1976, a month or two after my last son was born, to make sure he was healthy. Not once has my wife complained about it. It was more like, Wheeee!! Let’s boogy!

    In the ole radio factory at that time, large numbers of men were having vasectomies. All had kids, and did not want more. Not one of them was ever observed to say they wished they had not done so. Not one said his wife left him for another man because of it.

    In this era of men’s movement it surprises me how many men measure their worth by their ability to impregnate women. Blechh!

    I also knew men who had no children but had vasectomies. One man said he had no desire to reproduce, the world already had too many people.

    For me, a vasectomy meant freedom. In the sense of: Free at last; free at last; Thank God almighty free at last.

    The only time I have any pain is when my clothers run amok and cause inflamation in the sutures. This is not often, and I would not take on more child support slavery to avoid it. WE ARE MORE THAN BABY MAKERS!

    Note I am 70 years old, in great health, and b.p. runs around 108/64 or less. A lot of stuff you guys worry about from vasectomies are in your own imagination.

    As far as reproducing your genes, there is a myth out there that certain people’s genes are more important than others. Let me tell you about my own family history. Great-grandfather, a poor dirt farming Irish man who had to come to the US to survive. My grandfather, a quarry worker, and a dirt farmer.

    My dad, a very poor farmer, who worked as a laborer in a grocery warehouse.

    I did get a college degree,but lacked courage to use it and never left the factory job until I retired.

    My eldest son, a math Ph.D. Youngest son, finished med school, is working as a resident in Internal Medicine.

    Eldest daughter, a bachelor’s degree in something, got a teaching certificate, is now back in nursing school to be an R.N.

    Stepdaughter, has Master’s in Science Education, has been asked to teach science teachers at PanAm Texas, will be helped to get her doctorate.

    My genetics would have been eliminated from the gene pool long ago, by the people who evaluate worth of genetics. But, here we are, my descendants suddenly are high achievers.

    Most failure to achieve is social and bias related. There is plenty of room for others to also produce high achiever kids, out of no where.

  214. Fitz says:

    Anonymous Reader (writes)
    feminism and current mainstream Christianity are at fault.
    “The second sentence contains redundant words.”

    As a practical matter most Church’s don’t do anything to counter & often promote feminist idea’s both explicitly and more often implicitly. However: as a theoretical matter, as a Roman Catholic the intellectual resources as well as leadership from Rome and the Magisterial gives Christianity a basis for countering the heresies of the sexual revolution and feminism. I have myself (as others above mentioned) encouraged and chastised Priests, Woman Religious and lay leadership for this failure.

    As a practical political problem getting the Church’s of this country both Catholic & Protestant to address these twin heresies seems the most viable avenue of redress. Obviously secular authorities are even more deeply invested in this denial, and lack even a theoretical basis for redress.

  215. Fitz says:

    James B. Oakes

    I agree with the general thrust of your post above (with the exception of your comments on Cane Caldo – a fight I am not aware of or care to enter)

    Its correct in many ways to say marriage simple doesn’t exist…no real meeting of the minds is possible between men & woman on marriage when the concept itself is so debased and in contention.

  216. greyghost says:

    Joshua
    I see you are 26 years old. Think of yourself as a black man born in Alabama in 1827 or jewish born in hungary in 1923. Not your fault and not your responsibility but you are subject to misandry. You have no rights to your child, and no civil rights in any interaction with women. Being alive is good enough reason to hate you. One more thing you will never know life with out misandry and based on your age have never known freedom from misandry.
    Take a look at a 4 -6 year old little boy. What you choose to do and actions you take with determine if that boys lives the life of sure misandry we are living.

  217. Fitz says:

    Dalrock & All

    Just some good news & a link to a documentary that is also available on You Tube by a Nordic comedian Harald Eia (but a serious documentary) skewering “gender” ideology.

    From the article…
    “A devastating blow for “Gender Theory”: the Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) has decided to close down the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute. The NIKK had been the flagship of “Gender Theory”, providing the “scientific” basis for social and educational policies that, from the 1970s onward, had transformed the Nordic countries to become the most “gender sensitive” societies in the world.”

    “The decision was made after the Norwegian State Television had broadcast ed a television documentary in which the hopelessly unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed”

    http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2012/homosexuality/nordic-countries-defund-gender-ideology/

    The link also contains a series of links to the documentary itself as well as the key words necessary for a You Tube search to be successful…

    I watched the whole thing and found it to be both informative and inspiring… It certainly worth the watching and the whole story could be post worthy.. It can be filled under “progress”..

    One thing the U.S. has going for it is the that Europe has pretty much done everything the feminists have wanted…it has run its coarse over in Europe and is increasingly debunked. Here in America our “academic” elites still have a laundry list of changes that have already been tried in Europe.

    Slaves to the continent that they are, our cultural left are increasingly finding themselves irrelevant and outdated. Look for changes in Europe to be felt in the minds of feminist here…

  218. Jeremy, good point about the need not to over-indulge daughters and to make sure they learn to be rational. This is something fathers should focus on.

    AR, the beta technical type men have been incredibly patient with the feminist bullshit. I have been waiting for Atlas to Shrug. The fact is men like that (not unlike me) tend to like their work, although getting constant rudeness, disregard and unfair treatment from bratty women may eventually sour them on their tasks. A man who can run a generating plant can just as easily play a video game all day.

    Some Manosphere ideas are going mainstream. I saw the list of female shaming tactics quoted yesterday on a scientific discussion list, to counter a feminist.

  219. Cane Caldo says:

    I’m cross-posting this here from my comments at Society of Phineas, as it sprung from the discussion here.

    @ballista (and everyone else)
    As for why I let that stand in Dalrock’s thread: I quit responding to that post because I realized that I had allowed myself to be baited into anger. Now, that anger did cause me to err, and in erring to make my case badly. In my defense I have been continuously maligned with the intent of causing me to err. I am sinful like everyone else.

    So, here is my full response: In no way do I absolve the women of the reality and guilt of abusing men; particularly husbands. To wit: If she cheats, or is a slut, that is her fault. Nevertheless, as I won’t be married to a cheater, and God allows it to happen, then I must accept that it is God’s will that I not be married–provided He does not change my heart.

    A woman does NOT have the same moral culpability that a man does. That is not to say they have none at all. Scripture is clear that women as a sex were given a mediator because of this weakness; first the father and then the husband. Numbers 30. Should a woman reject her prescribed mediator, she is on her own. She has this ability; which nearly all modern women practice.

    Scripture is also clear that women as a race–mankind–need a Mediator because of mankind’s moral depravity. Christ does not go His own way, in regards to us women that repent. Having heard of our sins, He pleads our moral vacuity (we know not what we do) before the Father, and so absolves us of them. We become blameless not because we do not sin, but by recognizing we are guilty and weak, and so subject ourselves to His blameless rule. He pleads our case of: not guilty by reason of insanity…lack of reasoning; lack of Logos. We cast our sins upon the Sinless, at His offering. This is remarkably unfair to the Man–which only makes since in an inherently unfair world. It is not justice, but mercy.

    Compounding the problem, in their cowardice, earthly fathers have created a moral hazard for wives and daughters by not informing them of their one true choice: submit to your father until you marry and then to her husband, or submit to herself and prepare to suffer her own consequences.

    So who is more to blame here? It is men. By our sin of abdication is the ground cursed, because we would not stand up against sin, for our women, and before the Lord. No change will come until fathers begin to incline their hearts to their women in true love and understanding of their nature.

    I will repeat what I said there: celibacy is righteous option. However; insofar as anyone rejects that it is a problem to first be sorted out by fathers and husbands, by explaining and maintaining the scriptural order, they are in error because we are men under authority.

    We do not need a men’s rights movement (does the Bible ever speak of rights?); we need a true men’s responsibility movement; one that informs women of their options, and also casts out those that choose to go their own way, to be disciplined by Satan. This is the error of the Christian fathers of the world (best demonstrated by Stanton and Driscoll), the Christian MGTOW movement (best demonstrated by male commenters eager for women to suffer), and Players (best demonstrated by blogger eager to suffer and cause suffering). No one wants to be the man.

  220. Phil says:

    What is more tragic than Mentu getting snipped is having to read Cane Caldo’s posts. He sounds like an adult convert to low class evangelical protestantism. In his own mind, he has discovered the truth and now thinks he has the knowledge and authority to lecture us all. Everyone else is wrong and he is correct! Dalrock- why do you allow this guy to pollute your blog?

  221. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo, how is this different from Man Up , Marry The Sluts, If She Blows Up Your Marriage It’s All Your Fault?

    I don’t see how you can claim error on the part of Stanton, Driscoll and Mohler: you’re standing with them, once again.

    And by the way, you’re standing with feminism, when you deny that women should be held responsible for their actions, and any bad thing is All Men’s Fault.

    Did you mean to say all that?

  222. Pingback: “Game” as postmodern feminism; or why women like bad boys « Zippy Catholic

  223. GKChesterton says:

    @Cane,
    Are tubal’s approved by the Church? How is it immoral for you, but not for the other half of you? Or did she do this in rebellion?

    As a medical treatment they are. This story was pathetic. It is an abdication. It is also an assault on Christian moral principals.

  224. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    This story was pathetic. It is an abdication. It is also an assault on Christian moral principals.

    I would reword that to:

    This story was a tragedy. It is the reaction by a non Christian to the assault by Christians on Christian moral principles.

    Never forget that Christians are driving this mess. There is a myth that Christians in general are fighting the good fight but the culture is winning out. It is a lie. The most conservative Christian voices are leading the charge to stab biblical marriage in the back, and they are effectively doing so in Christ’s name. See Glen Stanton of FOTF and Dr. Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for just two examples.

  225. Cane Caldo says:

    @Phil
    The question you have to ask yourself is: Why are you such a glutton for punishment? Who knows what dark horror I will utter next, that you should gaze upon my comments.

    @AR
    You must have missed this. It was at the beginning of my last comment.

    So, here is my full response: In no way do I absolve the women of the reality and guilt of abusing men; particularly husbands. To wit: If she cheats, or is a slut, that is her fault. Nevertheless, as I won’t be married to a cheater, and God allows it to happen, then I must accept that it is God’s will that I not be married–provided He does not change my heart.

    Now, if you could go argue with the other commenter who is very sure I said if a woman cheats that it is God’s fault, we could probably come to an understanding much faster.

    @TFH

    The comments you directed at me specifically are abysmally uninformed–at best. However; this bit from your comment on Republicans and SoCons is very good:

    The easiest way for the left to get conservatives to support leftism is to package it as chivalry. Carbon taxes? Tell conservatives that women suffer more than men from Carbon. Higher taxes on productive people? Package it as ‘child support’.

    So their highest value is not free markets or personal responsibility or moral values. It is groveling to women (or at least avoiding shaming language from women). Note that most conservative actions tend to take a ‘path of shaming-language avoidance’ direction.

  226. Dalrock says:

    Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo, how is this different from Man Up , Marry The Sluts, If She Blows Up Your Marriage It’s All Your Fault?

    I don’t see how you can claim error on the part of Stanton, Driscoll and Mohler: you’re standing with them, once again.

    And by the way, you’re standing with feminism, when you deny that women should be held responsible for their actions, and any bad thing is All Men’s Fault.

    I think Cane did a better job explaining his position on his post. The key point I took away was that biblically women are seen as needing protection from impulsive behavior (specifically making an oath). They are biblically afforded this protection, but only in cases where they are submitted to either a husband or father. So those who want to give feral women a pass for biblical reasons are leaving out the need for them to submit to a father or husband. Only when submitted to a man do they have some limited moral protection against their own impulsiveness. Today’s feral woman is not under submission to any man.

  227. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo, you must have forgotten that you wrote this:

    A woman does NOT have the same moral culpability that a man does. That is not to say they have none at all. Scripture is clear that women as a sex were given a mediator because of this weakness; first the father and then the husband. Numbers 30. Should a woman reject her prescribed mediator, she is on her own. She has this ability; which nearly all modern women practice.

    You are giving a free pass to any and all bad behavior by women, providing them with a get-out-of-trouble free card that says “It’s all the fault of the nearest man I can blame: it’s All Daddy’s Fault, or it is All Brother’s Fault, or it’s All Hubby’s Fault, but I Am Woman, and I do NOT have the same moral culpability that a man does.

    That is no different from Mohler, Driscoll, and all the other men who put women onto a pedestal, make idols out of them, and bow down in worship before them.

    No difference that I can see. None.

  228. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, I don’t see what you are seeing. I see the same old thing; let women mouth some words, and give them a free pass on their actions.

    Suzie Slutcheeks can go get drilled by a different alpha every night of the week, then come into church on Sunday, wave her hands in the air while she chants the sinner’s prayer, and she’s a Good Churchian Girl. Any time anyone calls her on her bad behavior, why, she just points to Daddy or Brother or Hubby – it’s all their fault, she’s a woman and she does NOT have the same moral culpability that a man does so far as Cane Caldo is concerned. This is the stinking “weaker vessel” ploy in a different wrapper, that’s all.As long as she mouths some words about “being in submission”, he gives a free pass to any and all behavior, because she’s “flawed” and can’t be expected to be perfected except by endless sacrifice from some man, who is duty bound to accept her no matter what she does and clean her by his own endless efforts.

    How is this not enslaving men to the whims of women? How is this not demanding that men submit their entire lives to women? How is this different from Mohler or Driscoll?

    I do not see it.

  229. Dalrock says:

    Anon Reader,

    The Bible verse he quotes states that women are morally responsible for what they say, with the exception that their husband or father can nullify something she says that he objects to. If he doesn’t nullify it, she is responsible (not him). If she isn’t in submission, no one can add this layer of protection for her. It is very different than what we commonly hear.

  230. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, show me the actions, not the words.

    I can walk into many, many churches in this country and find married couples that claim to be living the Bible-style marriage. They’ll be good at mouthing words. But watch what they do. He’ll hold her purse on command. He’ll “lead her” by asking what she wants, and working to deliver it. If she wants to go to a Sheila Gregoire weekend, he’ll trot right along at her heels and praise the event when it’s over. He and she will pretend that he’s “leading”, but actually he’s just a chauffeur.
    If she decides to cheat, that will be his fault. If she decides to frivolorce, his fault also. Lather, rinse, wash her clean and repeat.

    All she has to do is mouth words. So far as I can tell, Cane Caldo would approve.
    This is exactly what Mohler, Driscoll and Stanton preach.

    And if anyone tries to call her bluff, on go the waterworks and the weaker vessel is not to blame for anything. Because she does NOT have the same moral culpability that a man does . It’s in the Bible…along with “judge not” and “let those without sin cast the first stone”, and any man who tries to read the entire set of quotes in context will get shut down by some AMOG who will sound just exactly like Cane Caldo.

    It’s enslavement of men to the whims of women.

  231. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    Without understanding this, we cannot blame this problem on the fathers and husbands of feminist women–which is where the blame belongs. except in an amoral way that we don’t like the Redskins because we like the Cowboys.

    You have a preference for patriarchy. Feminists (including men) have a preference for Feminism. Who can judge which is best–by statistics?

    What if Feminism just hasn’t reached peak operating efficiency yet? What if those folks hoping for the male pill are right, and it brings balance to the SMP? We can give women who want to be men better steroids, and men the pill, and the perpetual poor SOMA, and we’ll return to the gold standard, and stop interventionist wars for oil…and then we’ll all learn to love our relatively working Feminist society…right? Will you be satisfied if we bring the divorce rate down, and the out-of-wedlock birth rate down; by any means possible?

    Fathers and husbands and potential, ah, suitors have almost all done either one of two things:

    1) Abdicated their responsibility to judge what their women promise or practice. It’s one thing to say men need to protect women from their own judgment; it’s another to call into question their ability to make good judgment about themselves at all; and subject women to their ordained authorities. See my blog for examples straight from the horse’s mouths.

    2) Continued to give their women cover when they go against their father of husband’s judgment. Did he tell his daughter he was no good, and she married him anyway? Why in Hell is dad paying for the wedding? Why even attend? Why listen to her complaints five years later? Did he recommend the local ju-co, but princess demands state school? Get out and goodbye, and don’t call asking for food money. You had pre-marital sex with a man, and it’s ok because you loooove him? Get out. She obviously knows how to make a living. She won’t quit herr job to take care of the baby? He should quit his job, stop sleeping with her, and maybe throw her things out of the house. IT’S HIS HOUSE. Make her get the law and come take it from you. Change back accounts, or close them altogether. I’ll pay 2% cashing fee over over giving her a cent.

    What are the implications of fathers and husbands being able to nullify the vow of a women, as it pertains to democracy, or a representative republic? It would mean the repeal of women’s suffrage. That alone is huge. Not that I think it will happen, but the implications demonstrate how far the church has fallen.

    That churchian AMOG will sound like me; I do not deny it. They are fraudulent Christians, who look and sounds like men, but are not.

  232. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is a confused and confusing set of statements. It all seems to boil down to “Man Up and throw yourself onto the burning pyre of feminism” to me. Maybe if you take more time and think before you post, you can make sense.

    Fathers and husbands and potential, ah, suitors have almost all done either one of two things:

    1) Abdicated their responsibility to judge what their women promise or practice.

    Correct.

    It’s one thing to say men need to protect women from their own judgment; it’s another to call into question their ability to make good judgment about themselves at all; and subject women to their ordained authorities. See my blog for examples straight from the horse’s mouths.

    Snort. Cane Caldo, there are always men faster than you, bigger than you, and better armed than you. If cupcake decides that her judgement is just fine, and she dials 911 to report you for Domestic Violence, you will get to meet those men, and if you try to fight them, you will live to regret it, or possibly die on the spot. Fat lot of good you’ll be to any children or community then. Not every man who reads this blog is ready to sacrifice himself to the modern lions, you know, and you really should bear that in mind when you write. Your audience, even here, is broader than at your own blog.

    2) Continued to give their women cover when they go against their father of husband’s judgment.

    Is that not exactly what you are calling for? That a woman should be free to do what she wants, so long as she can suddenly claim some man is to blame? I see your vision as this: I visit your church, your wife darts out and kicks me in the crotch, then runs over and grabs your arm – which is Kings X, she’s “under your authority” (snicker) and not responsible for her actions.

    And given what you have told us in various places about your own life, I do not doubt you’d put her behind you and threaten me for daring to limp over towards her demanding an explanation and apology.

    What are the implications of fathers and husbands being able to nullify the vow of a women, as it pertains to democracy, or a representative republic? It would mean the repeal of women’s suffrage. That alone is huge. Not that I think it will happen, but the implications demonstrate how far the church has fallen.

    Pfui. Let’s discuss energy policy in terms of “what if we had perpetual motion machines”, while we are at it.

    That churchian AMOG will sound like me; I do not deny it.

    And they’ll say the same empty words as you, too, while writing out pussy passes to cupcake and snowflake. Because they are “not responsible”, they’re just li’l women who can’t understand anything at all, tee hee, including how that knife got in some man’s back.

    Really, Cane. You should take off all that White Knight gear ASAP.

    They are fraudulent Christians, who look and sounds like men, but are not.

    They look like you, sound like you, and their women likely act like yours. Explain the difference, because I can’t see any.

  233. Cane Caldo says:

    That a woman should be free to do what she wants, so long as she can suddenly claim some man is to blame? I see your vision as this: I visit your church, your wife darts out and kicks me in the crotch, then runs over and grabs your arm – which is Kings X, she’s “under your authority” (snicker) and not responsible for her actions.

    You fundamentally misunderstand the principles in play. Numbers 30 is about under what circumstances a woman can be held account to her vows; not to her kicking someone in the balls. It is what she can commit to.

    Explain the difference, because I can’t see any.

    As you said earlier, the difference cannot be explained, it must be lived. That is a foolish demand to make, if it is sincere. I think you just don’t like the answer, so you resort to baiting me.

    Not every man who reads this blog is ready to sacrifice himself to the modern lions, you know, and you really should bear that in mind when you write.

    This is the crux of the matter. You think death is the end. I do not. If this is the case, then I do not speak to you, but to whoever will listen. You think I should care what you think is fair. Further, you think I should care what I think and feel is fair. I try very hard not to do so because I don’t think you have the least idea what fairness, justice, or goodness are. Neither do I.

    And expecting fairness is a fool’s errand; as you illustrate with the cop scenario. Doing good is not the answer; nor is establishing a fair republic, or kingdom. That is impossible, and one of the things that seems so obstinately stupid about the Manosphere–the idea that the old days were better than this. Some, maybe for a very short while, but the history of mankind is one long dark night of imprisonment, with short bursts of starry freedom.

    The fundamental problem with America and the world is NOT a legal or cultural problem. It is a spiritual problem, and to look for answers in customs or laws is foolish.

    Only obedience to the One who resurrects life is worthwhile. Not our pursuit of a fairness which we’ve never know.

  234. Cane Caldo says:

    Case in point about doing good not being the answer: Dalrock’s latest post about uncle’s caring for their sisters offspring is good. How can caring for blood-family children be bad? But it has been roundly rejected as it is recognized that doing such human versions of good can only encourage the problem to continue.

  235. Anonymous Reader says:

    You fundamentally misunderstand the principles in play. Numbers 30 is about under what circumstances a woman can be held account to her vows; not to her kicking someone in the balls. It is what she can commit to.

    So she “commits” to your authority, takes a “vow” to obey you, then decides that she isn’t haaapy and invokes the legal system to claim her various rights. What now?

    Explain the difference, because I can’t see any.

    As you said earlier, the difference cannot be explained, it must be lived. That is a foolish demand to make, if it is sincere. I think you just don’t like the answer, so you resort to baiting me.

    I’m not a mind reader. But I can see and observe human behavior. I’ve pointed out before that it is trivial to find families who will earnestly and stoutly claim to be living exactly in the way you claim to be The Solution To All Social Problems, and yet a few hours, or even minutes, of observation will reveal that the woman is the boss of the family, the man serves at her pleasure, and any time she wants to get rid of him she can do so very easily. These people look, and act, just the same as you and yours. Again I ask you to explain the difference.

    A difference that is no difference is not a difference. You claim a difference that cannot be seen? Then you are playing word games, just like Driscol, Stanton, Mohler and the rest.
    You would have men play one role, but live another. You would have men play at leadership, but act as slaves to women.

    Not every man who reads this blog is ready to sacrifice himself to the modern lions, you know, and you really should bear that in mind when you write.

    This is the crux of the matter. You think death is the end. I do not. If this is the case, then I do not speak to you, but to whoever will listen. You think I should care what you think is fair. Further, you think I should care what I think and feel is fair. I try very hard not to do so because I don’t think you have the least idea what fairness, justice, or goodness are. Neither do I.

    Your mind reading skills are not very good. This entire thread has been about a set of problems, and how to respond to them. It appears to me that your “solution” is to double down on all the foolish behaviors that got us here – giving women a pass for any and all bad behavior if they are willing to mouth some words, but never expecting let alone demanding any change in behavior. You would have men double down on catering to women’s whims, so long as they are willing to play-act at submission.

    Show me where in this thread I have ever used the word “fair”. I do not think you can do so.

    Now, explain to me how repeating the same mistakes that got us here – catering to women’s whims, submitting to them as slaves, etc. but dressing it all up in a pretend-game of “patriarchy” will fix anything. Explain to me how a man holding his wife’s purse, saying essentially “Yes, dear, I’m the leader of the house because you say so, is there anything else you want me to do right now, dear?” is going to make any difference.

    Explain to me how you are different from Mohler. Because I can’t see a sliver of light between the two of you.

  236. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo
    Case in point about doing good not being the answer: Dalrock’s latest post about uncle’s caring for their sisters offspring is good. How can caring for blood-family children be bad? But it has been roundly rejected as it is recognized that doing such human versions of good can only encourage the problem to continue.

    I have not read the thread. Skimming it I see a number of real world objections, such as the fact that babymommas would thrive under such a system to the detriment of all. I’m not convinced the idea is all that good.

    Now, explain to me how repeating the same mistakes that got us here will provide different results.
    Alternatively, explain to me how you are different from Mohler.

  237. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo
    The fundamental problem with America and the world is NOT a legal or cultural problem. It is a spiritual problem, and to look for answers in customs or laws is foolish.

    Only obedience to the One who resurrects life is worthwhile. Not our pursuit of a fairness which we’ve never know./

    I’m sure that Dr. Mohler would preach exactly that message. I can find any number of Souther Baptist churches where that message would get a big “Amen!”. Mohler and the SBC, as Dalrock has clearly shown, also preach that men should be in submission to their wives, catering to them as slaves, and surely we don’t have to go around yet again about how that has led to the current mess?

    Explain how you are not the same as Mohler, because right now I can’t see any difference.
    That is the bottom line. You seem to have rolled around on the deck yet again, and come to rest close to where you started some time ago – in a kind of neo-Victorian pedestalization posture, where men’s purpose is to serve women, no matter what. If I’m wrong, explain how.

  238. Scott Johnson says:

    There is nothing better than your own children. I like my nieces and newphews but nothing like my own kids. I don’t understand why any childless man would want to get a vasectomy.

    Move to the Philippines and marry a native. Divorce is illegal in the Philippines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_around_the_world

    I think mentu has his own 456 bullet point list…

  239. The key point I took away was that biblically women are seen as needing protection from impulsive behavior (specifically making an oath). They are biblically afforded this protection, but only in cases where they are submitted to either a husband or father. So those who want to give feral women a pass for biblical reasons are leaving out the need for them to submit to a father or husband. Only when submitted to a man do they have some limited moral protection against their own impulsiveness. Today’s feral woman is not under submission to any man.
    —————————————————————-
    Darock I used your response as a jump in point for whats discussed there after.

    I wich I had at my fingertips (as some appear to, or maybe they do the quick look up) the names of even the less frequently cited logical fallacies because Cane is digging deeper and deeper into at least one, maybe two of them.
    The main one is there independent of content, meaning AR and Cane back and forth and Cane is somehow using his own confessed fallibility to make an assertion then deflect its rebuttal. When Cane says something like “I too am a fallen created being who cannot claim these things for myself either, nor can I answer with authority and what we all need to do is simply follow the One who resurrects life-the One who ___________” in the context of here it is like saying hey i cannot offer the response that assuredly rebuts that but I can tell you that if we’d all follow Jesus HE would be able to rebut that, which not only suggests but unequivocally asserts that there IS a rebuttal and that said rebuttal is unquestionable because it comes from God himself, not from me because I am flawed and imperfect and read over my writing and see that I do not try and say that I am perfect because I too am a sinner.

    Its starting to read like another similar thing I used to read from women on Christian forums. If someone started to write about how bad unilateral no fault divorce is, every single time some woman or women would say “Its not divorce thats the problem, its sin, if we’d just take sin out of the marriage and the individuals this issue would not exist”
    I liken this to Canes statements that no system torn down or rebuilt, no rules or procedures will ever fix this.
    Both those things, the one about sin in marriage, and Cane’s statement about systems/governments etc…..they are 100% true, and they both utterly lack utility. They only thing they are good for is stating them.

    I will be brave enough to say something so simplistic it could be called silly, but if we were to put an action , ANY action that logically flowed from such statements we would have to say things like, “no reason for laws against crimes, the answer is for all to follow the One”

    There is a fallacy, and there is a failure to recognize that the perfect IS an enemy of the good as it is being set out.

    Personally, Cane may I ask for some help understanding what you are getting at, in a sort of bottom line manner? If possible, a statement or two with a couple of examples, all contemporary references too please. I may know some of the references you use and others not, but Im sure Im not the only reader who misses some which makes me wonder why use them in the first place?

    I am often left puzzled when (very silly simple example) someone is wanting to convey that Jim Bob decided that life was worth living, even after Elly May left him, and they convey that by writing “:when in ( obscure literary reference) the protagonist (insert name here, extra points if Italian or German stand, double extra points if Greek) stands
    atop/amid/beside (mount X, The XYZ forest, or ABC sea) and realizes life without Elly may was not worth (refer to ancient battle here where thousands died) . Goofy example, yes,but as
    (insert modern idiot who is famous for being famous) says…….”I’m just sayin’.”

    I’m not picking in you Cane, this is standard fare, meat and potatoes for the manosphere.

    Dalrock doesnt do it and yet conveys his thinking clearly, very clearly. Agree or disagree with him, the information comes right through and is available prima facia. I am wildly off topic here , sorry

  240. unger says:

    Not wildly off topic at all, and I have the same question.

    What I think he’s saying, though, is that no matter what the world looks like, there are certain weapons and courses of action, that, regardless of their effectiveness, we are forbidden to use; that at some point, we must find the courage to do what’s right, hope for the best, and be prepared for the worst – and find the faith to keep in mind that in light of eternity, ‘the worst’ won’t even rate as a passing daydream.

  241. Pingback: Masculinity’s Misdirection (True Sight) « All Else Is Halation

  242. an observer says:

    Empath,

    I see no need to apologise. This is for discussion, after all. . .

    In that vein, i have been pondering the culpability issue. If we say women have limited responsibility for their qctions, we make a theological assertion as to calvinism vs armenianism, and the outplay of God’s will vs our choice.

    If we experience a frivorce and ascribe it to His will, that decries individual choice to live out temptation. State sponsored divorce is a temptation to be sure, but in seeing more women strike at it, suggests more desire to embrace sin, rather than resist it, aka Rom 6:1.

    As such, the state is simply sponsoring temptation. I guess that reveals my perspective on the legitimacy of government. Don’t get me started on the mis interpretations of Rom 13…

    Accepting sin as His will seems rather nihilistic, or if you prefer, calvinist at its core. That i find hard to come at. That government encourages women to embrace sin, in the name of self actualisation, is detestable.

  243. GKChesterton says:

    @Anonynmous,
    You are giving a free pass to any and all bad behavior by women, providing them with a get-out-of-trouble free card that says “It’s all the fault of the nearest man I can blame: it’s All Daddy’s Fault, or it is All Brother’s Fault, or it’s All Hubby’s Fault, but I Am Woman, and I do NOT have the same moral culpability that a man does.

    Bull. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say women are fundamentally different _AND_ that they have the same responsibilities

    Nor does it follow that this is a “man’s fault”. Degree of culpability does not change root culpability. A man may be murdered by another man who is insane. The insanity reduces but does not change the culpability. This is logic 101. For all of your fine parsing of words you fly right over this.

    This is a confused and confusing set of statements. It all seems to boil down to “Man Up and throw yourself onto the burning pyre of feminism” to me. Maybe if you take more time and think before you post, you can make sense.

    Your inability to comprehend this when Dalrock corrected you is _his_ fault? Talk about blame shifting.

    I visit your church, your wife darts out and kicks me in the crotch, then runs over and grabs your arm – which is Kings X, she’s “under your authority” (snicker) and not responsible for her actions.

    And given what you have told us in various places about your own life, I do not doubt you’d put her behind you and threaten me for daring to limp over towards her demanding an explanation and apology.

    Not only is he _not_ saying that you are being a dick of epic proportions.

    So she “commits” to your authority, takes a “vow” to obey you, then decides that she isn’t haaapy and invokes the legal system to claim her various rights. What now?

    And here we go. Not only is he not mentioning this you are setting up a straw man. So what if she does? Do you have no personal responsibility ever because someone might abuse the system? Should I never walk outside the door because I might get hit by lightening? You are way brighter than that. Don’t go sophmore.

    @Dalrock,

    I would submit that absent Christianity and the Christians that believe in it you wouldn’t even know a marriage problem existed. Therefore no, I disagree that this is specifically a Christian problem. I believe many alpha cads are making it such, but they are lying as they oft do. I think Stanton et al are making a classical Christian mistake in that they are elevating “nice” into a virtue. It is not. Nor is this problem new. The sexual abuse problem resulted from the same way of thinking.

    I also don’t give a twig if he’s Christian or not. Christianity proposes universal moral principles as can be recognized in Natural Law. Mentu violates those universal principles and betrays his entire species. I do not find it touching or sad. I find it barbaric. Mentu has done this not some vague society.

    @Empath,

    I’ll agree. Cane has a tendency to word his responses in a non-useful way. This weakens his argument. He’s right in the absolute sense, and on a Christian blog I think that has merit as there is a tendency here towards utilitarianism here and in the manosphere in general. In fact Anonymous is a great example of this. He cares not a whit, as he stated in this thread, about anything that doesn’t work.

    @unger
    that at some point, we must find the courage to do what’s right, hope for the best, and be prepared for the worst – and find the faith to keep in mind that in light of eternity, ‘the worst’ won’t even rate as a passing daydream.

    World without end. Amen.

    Indeed at some point it doesn’t matter if we do throw ourselves on the pyre as Anonymous put it. In fact, the anti-martyr language from a supposed Christian is a bit shocking. Sometimes it won’t work out. That doesn’t change what we _should_ do. The system in 200AD was really rough on Christians doing the right thing. They didn’t bitch about it.

  244. an observer
    Apologize for what? Im lost

  245. I’ll agree. Cane has a tendency to word his responses in a non-useful way. This weakens his argument. He’s right in the absolute sense, and on a Christian blog I think that has merit as there is a tendency here towards utilitarianism here and in the manosphere in general. In fact Anonymous is a great example of this. He cares not a whit, as he stated in this thread, about anything that doesn’t work.
    ——————————————————————————
    Of course he is correct in an absolute sense. I agree fully, and I think I even said so in my mini rant. Your added statement that it weakens the argument is another point I wish id made too because that is also true.
    On the tendency to utilitarianism….eh…..sure there is, and tons and tons of scenerio development, pontification of the possible manners in which things can work or fail, etc. Looked at one way that endless pontification lacks REAL utility too, BUT, by its nature it is something that not only COULD happen, of course it COULD happen that suddenly more/even all people decided to follow God too, the difference is, the pontificators go on and take some guesses what it looks like, maybe throw out an idea how to usher something or avoid something else, but they put some sskin in the guessing game where the (true) statements from Cane state something that he doesnt take a shot at putting in a word picture….and any of of Christians could attempt to put that into a word picture but his wording suggests something like “we are too imperfect to even speculate what perfection would translate to in the observable realm, or we are too imperfect to say anything more than we ought to follow God (I realize my wording is overly simplistic, especially describing what Cane says, Im just trying to keep it bracketed a bit)

    I have seen what he is saying used way to many times as a cop out, as a defacto argument for status quo…..or worse, for hopelessness. Im pretty sure he intends neither per se. Those rebuking him as a white knight see it as a status quo intimation for sure, that functions as not an excuse, but an excusING of an entire set of actors with actions presently. On top of that, making things less easy to follow but for no good reason, IOW it doesnt advance anything, ignoble or noble, to reside amongst anachronisms and the like.

    There are lots of things that will make a man really the smartest guy in the room or seem to be the smartest guy in the room. Wisdom from being over read can do either or both of those things. There is an inordinate amount of that in the manosphere, in various ways. There is little room for generalists to truly participate because of it, this is one way an argument is weakened, because the argument may be for a compellingly good thing or a clearly bad thing, and folks have relevant input but maybe don’t know a particular character who, for those familiar with him, conveys a steady and predictable (for those in the know) idea. For those who dont, they can get things in context….look things up….or not get it at all. Being the smartest guy in the room because others cannot follow you is tricky. They may have profound things to add, if they only knew who
    Iluphisiacis was (let alone his crest or seal) and what the inclusion of his name implies. They may even have a cool solution to posit, or insightful inquiry to add, but for not getting the meaning of what was written because it was conveyed in some classic philosi-literary code. Do not read this as dismissive of these things, Im not slicking my hair back with a wet thumb sayin “we don need no book learnin”. I am saying that communicating in an above average group of men, mostly men who have passionate beliefs on these things, and men with disparate expertise, may be better done straight forward, or, if the references are used, explain them. I confess I know about half of it, being curious I go looking things up. What i find is even more troubling. I find the obscurity of the thing is proportionate to its likelihood for use.
    On the main stage….TV….folks like Pat Buchanan do this, always quoting someone from history with a clever zinger about a miss matched army or something, I’m never sure why he does that but he mostly leaves his meaning clear via explanation or context.
    Writting without clarity starts to be like reading parables. Some writers write in parables all the time. Some, like me, frequently ramble and miss my own points….its not a one man problem.

  246. an observer says:

    Empath,

    Your apology for being off topic.

  247. an observer says:

    The bit at the end where you say “I am wildly off topic here. . . Sorry.”

    Why apologise for exploring interesting issues?

  248. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    Did you read my point 2, from above?

    2) Continued to give their women cover when they go against their father of husband’s judgment. Did he tell his daughter he was no good, and she married him anyway? Why in Hell is dad paying for the wedding? Why even attend? Why listen to her complaints five years later? Did he recommend the local ju-co, but princess demands state school? Get out and goodbye, and don’t call asking for food money. You had pre-marital sex with a man, and it’s ok because you loooove him? Get out. She obviously knows how to make a living. She won’t quit herr job to take care of the baby? He should quit his job, stop sleeping with her, and maybe throw her things out of the house. IT’S HIS HOUSE. Make her get the law and come take it from you. Change back accounts, or close them altogether. I’ll pay 2% cashing fee over over giving her a cent.

    Do you think Mohler or Driscoll would prescribe any of those things?

    It’s not that fathers should absolve their daughters of a commitment they made, but that they can. This ability is being abused my the fathers and daughters in the same way that the force of law is being abused by cops and women, generally. Stupidly and to all our detriment, Daddy is covering every lying vow and soon-to-be-broken commitment that Daddy’s Girl (DG) commits. Daddy needs to stop.

    When Daddy’s Girl sleeps with Boyfriend she is lying. She is knowingly making a false vow/commitment to Boyfriend. This is evil and stupid on the part of Daddy’s Girl. It’s evil because her intention is to extract commitment from Boyfriend; not to give it. It’s stupid because while extracting commitment is part of her reason, the other part is simply to have sex for the pleasure of it without counting the cost.

    Daddy has told Daddy’s Girl that fornication is a sin, so there is another aspect here: Daddy’s Girls is a lying whore not just to Boyfriend, but to Daddy. When Daddy finds out what Daddy’s Girl has been up to, he needs to understand that Daddy’s Girl has not “made a mistake”–she has rejected Daddy. When He confronts her, and she responds:

    “You don’t understand.”
    “It’s my body.”
    “I didn’t know.”

    What Daddy hears (rightly) is:

    “I don’t care what you think.”
    “I don’t care what you think. I hate you.”
    “You’re stupid. I don’t care what you think. I hate you.”

    Here is where Daddy–if he is a Churchian in the mold of Mohler or Driscoll–goes wrong. He thinks he understands that women have worse judgment, (if for no other reason than she just proved it) but he think that her lack of judgment necessarily means Daddy’s Girl didn’t know what she was doing was wrong. Daddy says to himself, “She doesn’t understand how much I love her. Why would she betray me, and then tell me I’m stupid? She must not know any better. I will prove to her that I love her, and then she’ll see.”

    Which is a very stupid thing for Daddy to say to himself or anyone, because Daddy’s Girl just told him that she doesn’t care if he loves her or not. This is because she takes Daddy for granted (there’s that bad judgment); because he has let her. It is–by definition–impossible to show someone who doesn’t care what you think, that you love them. The primary reason Daddy is stupid is because he views Daddy’s Girl as if she were like him. (Here is how Feminism crept into the Church.) Men inherently understand and experience authority and responsibility in a way that women do not. The worst thing my father could say to me was, “I’m disappointed in you.” The spanking was nothing. Girls tend to get angry or confused when told they’re a disappointment; because they’re 1) not designed for it, 2) sinful. This looks like what we call solipsism, narcissism, and sociopathy.

    There is only one solution to the problem of a rebellious female adult, and it’s to remove the provisions and protections that Daddy has been supplying. Daddy’s Girl must recognize, admit, and ask forgiveness for her evil and abuse of Daddy, Boyfriend, and everyone else involved before she can enjoy any benefits.

    If she’s 18, and lives at home: kick her out.
    If she’s in college: stop all funding immediately. Throw whatever is left in the house away. She has just moved out.
    If she’s younger than 18, then all privileges are immediately revoked; car, phone, extracurricular activities, perhaps school–they are all gone. When she’s 18, she’s gone.

    If the father does NOT have the frame of reference that he is the provider of good things in her life, and the arbiter of what is acceptable behavior, then you cannot blame the father for the daughter’s bad behavior. But we do, and we should because fathers have overwhelmingly accepted this blame by giving succor to a daughter in rebellion.

    This gets more difficult when we speak of wives, but essentially it boils down to we shall know people by their fruits, and allowing those who persist in rotten fruit to go their own way. If the wife’s behavior (fruits) are unwaveringly rebellious, then the husband should remove all support from her. In response, she may detonate. Men should not let that stop them. Her fruits reveal her to be a non-believer, and we should let them go.

    We have to cast them out for destruction so that their souls may be saved. This necessitates having a place to cast them out of, and of it being worth wanting to be in. That is the problem with the Church: it is not exclusive. It is stupidly nice and accepting when Christianity is a decidedly exclusive religion, and God is a decidedly exclusive Father. In all this is how it cannot be overestimated how important it is 1) to choose the proper wife to begin with 2) how important it is to surround yourself and your family with those who will agree with and support the father. Specifically: Those that will support a father or husband applying discipline to his daughter, and to his wife–and will NOT support a daughter or wife in rebellion.

    What good is it if Daddy kicks Daddy’s Girl out, and Mama gets mad at Daddy; sending cash to Daddy’s Girl?
    What good is it if Daddy’s Girl runs to another family in the church, and they provide resources of time and money to Daddy’s Girl?
    What good is it if Daddy’s Girl’s doesn’t have a family and community to get shunned from?
    What good is it if Daddy let’s Daddy’s Girl hang out with friends who are not authorized in the first place, and so not only don’t, but can’t, have Daddy’s Girl’s best interest at heart?
    What good is it if the state coerces Daddy to pay for Mama’s rebellion?
    What good is it if Mama meets up with Player for some pleasure and affirmation?
    What good is it if Mama is still received at church after taking her kids away from their father?

    There’s nothing we can do about the last three now. It’s too late. We must concentrate on the remaining daughters. In the sense that we were born into this situation, yes, that is in God’s hands. “YOU’RE COVERING FOR HER, AND BLAMING GOD FOR HER ADULTERY, YOU NO-GOOD CHURCHIAN!” Well, he married a slut. Men control access to commitment, and he married a slut. Who’s fault is that? If it’s the slut’s fault that the player has access to the vagina, then it’s the man’s fault the the slut has access to marriage. It’s MRA 101. But taking all of this together: This is a barbaric, post-Feminist, and post-Christian (never forget that) society, and God, who creates all things, set the foolish-marriage man, the slut, and the player loose into this. I have to trust that He knows what He’s doing.

    Which brings us to the charge that I am the same churchian as everyone else because they say some things that I have said, and because I say pulp Christian things like: “It is a spiritual problem, and to look for answers in customs or laws is foolish.” To that charge specifically, I will say that I cannot help it, and I do not wish to change it. It seems that every time I crack open the Bible I see the proper way we should live, and I see the folly and destruction of the way we actually live, instead. It is so apparent that I cannot believe you do not know what I’m talking about. I pity you, if you do not. And if you do, then I stand by my charge that you’re just baiting me.

  249. Pingback: Rebuking Cane Caldo’s Churchian Man-Up Rant (Part 1) | The Society of Phineas

  250. ballista74 says:

    While Dalrock might pingback this, I thought I’d mention that I’ve been working on dealing with this comment as it appears on Cane Caldo’s blog. Rather than coming here and throwing up the wall of text that it’s going to become, given the legion of errors, I would rather just link it here:

    Part 1 of I don’t know how many.

    If I determine the need to respond to any specific comments here, I will when the time becomes available.

  251. Pingback: Debunking the Case Against Getting a Vasectomy

  252. GKChesterton says:

    @Balista,

    Actually Balista I find your analysis wrong. You assume that much like Anonymous that reduced culpability is a culpability shift when it is most definitely not. Nor, given what I think you’ve been clear about, do you explain given the status in the Divine Hierarchy that men have and our knowledge of women’s clustering on the mathematical mean why they would have equal culpability. Scripture most definitely establishes a mediator role for the father/husband. If this were _not_ true then women would have offered familial sacrifices prior to the Law. They did not. Also, the blessing of the mother would be equivalent to the blessing of the father. It is not.

    The sin of our age is not recognizing this which leads to feral behavior.

  253. ballista74 says:

    Trying to argue the following of Old Testament Jewish Law is almost always heresy and it is indeed so in this case.

    Scripture only assigns ONE mediator (1 Tim 2:5) to all under Christ, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Not just men as your book of Oprah cites, but women as well. Your and Caldo’s exact attempt at justifying your own ways instead of justifying God is exactly identical to the justification Driscoll, Stanton, et. al use in their pronouncements. Driscoll rails into the men involved for pre-marital sex ONLY because he assumes them to be responsible over the women they are with, for instance. In other words, the sin is HIS and HIS ALONE. Besides if your definition holds, getting married means certain eternal death and renders it fit for no man to enter into.

    What has led to feral behavior is not that men won’t bear the consequences and burdens of women’s sins, it’s that women haven’t been made to bear their own sins for at least two generations now, and has even extended to the heresy that women are sinless and do not need to either fear God or accept Christ. As I write now, and on my blog previously, this is the grievous sin that is born on the backs of married men today. They are as Adam, who chose to listen to his wife rather than to listen to God.

  254. unger says:

    …isn’t he saying that women do need to be made to bear the consequences of their sins? I wot not how else to read “There is only one solution to the problem of a rebellious female adult, and it’s to remove the provisions and protections that Daddy has been supplying. Daddy’s Girl must recognize, admit, and ask forgiveness for her evil and abuse of Daddy, Boyfriend, and everyone else involved before she can enjoy any benefits” – or what follows that, for the whole rest of the post.

    I agree, the word ‘mediator’ was too strong, or at any rate too loaded with Christological import, to convey only what it was intended to. ‘Moderator’ would have been better.

  255. ballista74 says:

    I can only go off of what was written and copied to Cane Caldo’s blog. Any comments made elsewhere would need to be addressed where they are made if necessary, and possible. I can’t go reading everywhere to find what people have written (another post in the pipeline regards an incident here that I know was posted about to 3-4 other blogs), and if I have him wrong on something he is proposing he needs to clarify that. Given the only response I’ve received is this one which only reinforces Caldo’s lack of understanding of Numbers 30 (and yes, just for sake of completeness I checked a number of commentaries after I wrote that and they all agree with my interpretation – the Scripture really isn’t *that* difficult), it’s been made abundantly clear what will come to pass.

  256. ballista74 says:

    I agree, the word ‘mediator’ was too strong, or at any rate too loaded with Christological import, to convey only what it was intended to. ‘Moderator’ would have been better.

    The whole concept is still erroneous no matter what word you choose to apply to it. Each stands before God alone to answer for their own sins. Their only saving grace, mediator or moderator is Christ Jesus alone.

    BTW, Part 2 of I don’t know how many.

  257. unger says:

    Sure, they stand before God alone to answer for their own sins, but, that doesn’t negate household authority, and responsibility for its proper use, any more than ‘neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ’ does. I believe that is what he is talking about here: that the heads of households have authority to corral women’s daft impulses, and should do so, and will someday answer for the use, misuse, and non-use of that authority; I believe the intended thrust of his ‘man-up’ argument is that men are refusing to use their authority out of fear of usurping earthly authorities, and thereby are allowing feral women to have a much easier time of it than they otherwise would.

    It’d be nice if Cane would pop in with a ‘yes, I meant exactly what unger said’ or ‘no, unger’s got it all wrong (with elaboration as necessary)’, because either way, somebody’s misreading him, and if I’m wrong, I’d prefer to eat crow sooner rather than later.

  258. GKChesterton says:

    “Trying to argue the following of Old Testament Jewish Law is almost always heresy and it is indeed so in this case.”

    Really? I mean _really_. The Old Testament was just a joke with no bearing at all? God made a mistake? Jesus was just joshing about that whole Matt 5:17 bit. It isn’t I don’t know, a tutor (Gal 3:24)?

    And “mediator” is not that strong. This is “Solo” Scriptura gone wild. What St. Paul is mistaken in his use in Galations of the implications of multiple textual mediators?

  259. GKChesterton says:

    I’ve posted my last comment now to your second article which is ill conceived. I won’t be reading more.

  260. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Anonynmous,
    You are giving a free pass to any and all bad behavior by women, providing them with a get-out-of-trouble free card that says “It’s all the fault of the nearest man I can blame: it’s All Daddy’s Fault, or it is All Brother’s Fault, or it’s All Hubby’s Fault, but I Am Woman, and I do NOT have the same moral culpability that a man does.

    Bull. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say women are fundamentally different _AND_ that they have the same responsibilities

    I can and I do say that women are not the same as men, but men are not their keepers, or their endless Daddy-figures. Cane Caldo appears to be claiming that a husband is responsible for the bad behavior of his wife. But men have no legal authority over women. So Caldo is setting men up for a lose-lose situation.

    Nor does it follow that this is a “man’s fault”. Degree of culpability does not change root culpability. A man may be murdered by another man who is insane. The insanity reduces but does not change the culpability. This is logic 101. For all of your fine parsing of words you fly right over this.

    That isn’t what Cane Caldo is saying, so far as I can tell. He’s saying that men can and must be the “sin eaters” for women. That’s an interesting variation on standard “men bad women good” Churchianity, but it is still a huge setup for men, and a get-out-of-trouble-free card for women. No surprise to me that you would like it.

    I observed:
    This is a confused and confusing set of statements. It all seems to boil down to “Man Up and throw yourself onto the burning pyre of feminism” to me. Maybe if you take more time and think before you post, you can make sense.

    Your inability to comprehend this when Dalrock corrected you is _his_ fault? Talk about blame shifting.

    If you bothered to read in context you would not write such a childish, passive aggressive thing.
    But if you did that, you would have much less to say. I’m sure that would be a great tragedy to you .

  261. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo, that later remark is clearer, but it seems to me you have just contradicted yourself, because either women are responsible for their own actions, or they are not. Which is it to be? Elsewhere I can see you claiming that men are somehow to have responsibility for women’s bad behavior, here you are stating clearly that Daddy’s girl has to pay for her own bad behavior. You are still rolling around the deck, bouncing from position to position.

    Are adult human beings responsible for their own actions, or not? Yes or no? That’s the question.

    I admit that I am very quick nowadays to jump on anything that I perceive to be a version of “men bad, women good” or “men are responsible for women, but cannot have authority over them”, because both of those serious errors are very widespread in the culture.

  262. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKC
    I’ll agree. Cane has a tendency to word his responses in a non-useful way. This weakens his argument. He’s right in the absolute sense, and on a Christian blog I think that has merit as there is a tendency here towards utilitarianism here and in the manosphere in general. In fact Anonymous is a great example of this. He cares not a whit, as he stated in this thread, about anything that doesn’t work.

    So, GKC, what you want is for men to continue to do, over and over again, things that do not work, is that correct? Therefore you want what? More pedestalization and worship of women, more laws punishing men merely for being men, more power given to women and their mangina allies, eh?

    Here’s the motto for GKC: “You men! Don’t do anything that would actually work! Only do useless stuff!’ Anyone want to bet he tells his doctor, or lawyer, or mechanic, or plumber those instructions? “Gee, doc, you seem to not care a whit for medical procedures that don’t work. Why is that?”
    “Gee, lawyer, you seem to not care a whit for writing a contract that won’t stand up in court. How come?
    “Gee, wrenchmaster, why so interested in using the shop manual to fix my car? ”
    “Gee, pipe man, why do you not use a solution to my drains that assumes water flows upwards?”

    There are problems. Some solutions may exist. Testing those solutions would help us to deal with those problems. So sorry that a rational approach is offensive to you.

    Be sure to tell your doctor, your lawyer, your electrician, your plumber, your mechanic, your dentist, your IT administrator, and every other problem solving person in your life “No, thanks, I don’t want you to use any approach that might work. It’s against my religion!”. Oh, but wait. That would be different, that would have a negative effect upon you, rather than tens of thousands of other men.

    And there’s the difference, eh, GKC? It’s ok to prescribe a path for other men that is all but certain to lead them into a bad place, but not for you. You’re a Special Snowflake…you deserve the best. Just like the women whom you bow down and worship…

  263. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKC, it’s very good of you to come out and admit that you are opposed to rational thought.
    Now is the time for you to Man Up and walk the walk.

    Turn off all the electricity to your house. The men and women who run the generating plants, maintain the lines and switchyards, keep the various fuels feeding to the generators, etc. care not a whit about anything that doesn’t work. So you should avoid all electrical systems and devices Most especially including the Internet; the admins and techs care not a whit about a router that doesn’t work – it gets fixed or scrapped.

    Abandon your car. It was designed and built by people who care not a whit about machines that don’t work. Take off your clothing, for the same reason.

    Go live in a ditch or a field or under a tree, and eat whatever you can find. Don’t worry about whether a plant or insect is harmful; that would be caring about something that doesn’t work. Don’t worry about toxic or polluted water; only someone who cares not a whit for anything that doesn’t work would do that. No fire, and no shelter either; to make fire, you would have to do things in a way that has likelihood of success, and avoid doing things that don’t lead to fire. The same for shelter. Only someone who cares not a whit about anything that doesn’t work would know which foliage in which location is most likely to work best.

    Go, and live like an animal, eschewing all reason, and rational thought. Because that is what you are demanding all other men should do.

    PS: Be sure to find a relevant quote from the BIble on the way. Because you don’t get to take one of those with you, either.

  264. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    I read your responses to me, but not to GKC.

    You asked:

    Are adult human beings responsible for their own actions, or not? Yes or no? That’s the question.

    To which I must respond that you are ignoring what have to be your own experiences, if you’ve ever worked for someone else. This isn’t hard to understand–it’s typical authority structures that men have used since there have been men.

    If you screw up, and your boss doesn’t catch it: Who gets fired?
    If you screw up, and your boss doesn’t catch it, but your president finds out: Who gets fired?
    If you screw up, and your boss knows, but he says, “We’ll take care of it in-house.”: Who gets fired?
    If you screw up, and your boss knows, and he doesn’t say anything, but your president finds out, and finds out that your boss let your screw-up pass: Who gets fired?

    Now, if that’s not a strong enough environment for you, put it in a military context. Think of all the military movies where the drama is centered on the good lieutenant covering for the weak soldier, and taking his sins onto the group–and handling it in the squad. Is this wrong? Is it immoral? Is it justice? These questions hold the answer to your understanding of authority, responsibility, justice, and mercy.

    There is no question that we find ourselves in enemy territory, and the wages of women’s insubordination could therefore be death not just to her, or the husband, but the whole squad. Or, as the disciples said: If this is the way it is between a man and a woman, it is better not to marry.”

    It is that way between a man and a woman, and this man cannot accept celibacy.

  265. Anonymous Reader says:

    You asked:>

    Are adult human beings responsible for their own actions, or not? Yes or no? That’s the question.

    Cane Caldo:
    To which I must respond that you are ignoring what have to be your own experiences, if you’ve ever worked for someone else. This isn’t hard to understand–it’s typical authority structures that men have used since there have been men.

    In those structures, responsibility and authority were, and are, more or less balanced. Are you claiming the same for Marriage 2.0?

    If you screw up, and your boss doesn’t catch it: Who gets fired?
    If you screw up, and your boss doesn’t catch it, but your president finds out: Who gets fired?

    Been there, a long, long time back. My boss called me in and I was fired on the spot. I was held responsible for my actions. I did not like it, but it was just. What is your point?

    If you screw up, and your boss knows, but he says, “We’ll take care of it in-house.”: Who gets fired?
    If you screw up, and your boss knows, and he doesn’t say anything, but your president finds out, and finds out that your boss let your screw-up pass: Who gets fired?

    It would depend on many factors. But I’ve always taken responsibility for my own actions. That’s called “being an adult”. What is your point?

    Now, if that’s not a strong enough environment for you, put it in a military context. Think of all the military movies

    It is obvious that you don’t know a thing about the UCMJ, so this part of your posting is moot.

    I can cite a situation where I cost my employers a chunk of money due to an accident – about a month’s pay for me, or more. My boss at that time quizzed me on what happened, I was called to explain myself to higher up authority, and disciplined but not fired. Once again, I took full responsibility for my actions – and I was careful to avoid that accident or ones like it ever after.

    What is your point?

    Are adults responsible for their actions, or not? Yes, or no? Stop rolling around the deck, stop waving your hands, and answer the question.

  266. unger says:

    Responsible in the wages-of-sin-is-death sense? Yes. Responsible in the solely-responsible, incentives-are-whiny-liberal-commie-excuses, yes-actually-every-man-is-an-island sense? No.

    Next.

  267. Anonymous Reader says:

    unger
    Responsible in the wages-of-sin-is-death sense? Yes.

    Looks like you and Cane Caldo are in disagreement. Have at it.

    Responsible in the solely-responsible, incentives-are-whiny-liberal-commie-excuses, yes-actually-every-man-is-an-island sense? No.

    Ok. So if your car gets stolen, It’s All Society’s Fault, because “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs” and someone else obviously needed it more than you – so you don’t bother to call the cops, you just go buy another one. And leave it unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, because someone else might have a Need that you can provide the Means to fulfill. Right?

  268. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    In those structures, responsibility and authority were, and are, more or less balanced. Are you claiming the same for Marriage 2.0?

    You’ve either never worked with women, or you’re a damned liar. I don’t peg you for a liar, so reconsider this assertion in light of Affirmative Action, TItle IX, and all the other rigamarole that is the business and educational equivalent of Marriage 2.0. Then, go try to fire a woman. Let me know how much paperwork HR requires.

    It is obvious that you don’t know a thing about the UCMJ, so this part of your posting is moot.

    You dismiss me too easily, friend. Not only do I not know about the UCMJ: for my argument I don’t have to, because I’m not appealing to it. In this case, the UCMJ is the equivalent to the laws that create the situation for Marriage 2.0.. It is to what women who frivolously divorce appeal. I do know about discipline on a boat, and woe to the man caught stealing on a submarine.

    Are adults responsible for their actions, or not? Yes, or no? Stop rolling around the deck, stop waving your hands, and answer the question.

    You think this is a valid question because you’re making the same colossal category error the state made, and that has led us to this problem in the first place. I might as well answer the question: “Should adults breastfeed or not? C’mon Cane, stop beating around the bush!”

    The second problem is that you’re equating Marriage 2.0 with biblical marriage; which is what a good chunk of churches and the state is doing. What do I mean? It means that if my wife were to divorce me, and marry another, that she is an adulteress–no matter if First Baptist Hellhole or Hellhole City Hall says it’s legal for her to get married or not. It means that the husband and his fellow church-mates ought to be answering those announcements in the paper about whether it is ok for Miss Roundheel to marry Mr. Douchenozzle. At the very least, Mrs. Roundheel-Douchenozzle should never get another Xmas card from a former acquaintance, friend, or non-blood relative again.

    I’m beginning to doubt the efficacy of this Red Pill…

  269. unger says:

    Actually, I’m pretty sure Cane and I are in agreement. Exactly where has he said that women get a free pass on the Last Day, courtesy of their menfolk?

    I’m not sure what you were trying to get at with the stolen-car analogy. You seem to think that either It’s All Society’s Fault or society has absolutely nothing to do with anything, such that the fact that a criminal came from a certain background has no more relevance to his actions than the phase of the moon. Neither are so.

  270. Cane Caldo says:

    Unger and I agree. You must not be understanding me, AR. I’m not trying to be obtuse.

  271. Anonymous Reader says:

    @AR

    In those structures, responsibility and authority were, and are, more or less balanced. Are you claiming the same for Marriage 2.0?

    You’ve either never worked with women, or you’re a damned liar. I don’t peg you for a liar, so reconsider this assertion in light of Affirmative Action, TItle IX, and all the other rigamarole that is the business and educational equivalent of Marriage 2.0. Then, go try to fire a woman. Let me know how much paperwork HR requires.

    Been there, and done that, and fully documented the partly empty bottle of vodka hidden in the back of the lower desk drawer, plus the fact that the volume declined on a daily basis. Obtaining a BAC by calling in the police proved not to be needed. HR declined to divert her into a rehab program.

    Now, answer the question: the structures of hierarchy that you refer to are the same as Marraige 2.0, or not?

    It is obvious that you don’t know a thing about the UCMJ, so this part of your posting is moot.

    You dismiss me too easily, friend. Not only do I not know about the UCMJ: for my argument I don’t have to, because I’m not appealing to it.

    True, you were appealing to movies as some sort of authority on human behavior. That’s not even sophomoric, it’s high school. Don’t waste my time with that kind of argument.

    In this case, the UCMJ is the equivalent to the laws that create the situation for Marriage 2.0.. It is to what women who frivolously divorce appeal. I do know about discipline on a boat, and woe to the man caught stealing on a submarine.

    Back up, Cane Caldo, and try to remember your own argument. You were arguing that women should get a pass for bad actions because of some “take one for the team” scene from a war movie. Is this what you consider to be any kind of an adult argument for something?

    Are adults responsible for their actions, or not? Yes, or no? Stop rolling around the deck, stop waving your hands, and answer the question.

    You think this is a valid question because you’re making the same colossal category error the state made, and that has led us to this problem in the first place. I might as well answer the question: “Should adults breastfeed or not? C’mon Cane, stop beating around the bush!”

    That is a stupid answer. You can’t make up your mind. One minute, you’re asserting that women who transgress your code should be kicked to the curb, the next minute you are claiming that they are biologically< unable to be held responsible for their actions.

    Pick a position, and stay with it. Either women are responsible for their actions, or they are not. If they are, then like all other adults they need to be held responsible, and you cannot be your wife's "sin eater", no matter how much she may want you to do that as compensation for your adultery. If they are not, then there is no point in pushing a slut daughter out of the door when she gets knocked up – it is as cruel as dumping a pregnant cat outside of town to fend for herself.

    Are adults responsible for their actions, or not? Quit wasting our time by hopping from one foot to the other, rolling around the deck like a loose cannon in a storm, and just deal with reality.

  272. Anonymous Reader says:

    Actually, I’m pretty sure Cane and I are in agreement. Exactly where has he said that women get a free pass on the Last Day, courtesy of their menfolk?

    Cane Caldo claims that it is impossible for women to be held responsible for their actions, as impossible as it is for a man to breast feed. So there is no way to hold any woman to account for any action, at any time, in any place, in the world. This contradicts the quote from the Bible he was waving around from Numbers earlier (yes, I looked it up), by the way, but that’s just Cane, he can’t hold a consistent position for more than a few hours it seems. Given that women are apparently more like animals than humans in that model, I fail to see how they can be held responsible for anything by God, unless Cane is drifting towards a conversion to Islam. The Koran manages to hold women to a lower standard of behavior and evidence, while condemning most of them to burn.

    I’m not sure what you were trying to get at with the stolen-car analogy. You seem to think that either It’s All Society’s Fault or society has absolutely nothing to do with anything, such that the fact that a criminal came from a certain background has no more relevance to his actions than the phase of the moon. Neither are so.

    I asked if adults are to be held responsible for their actions. You replied, verbosely, “no”. If you want to revise that particular statement, feel free to do so. Absent that, you’ve taken a clear enough position.

  273. ybm says:

    It sounds more like he’s saying women will never take responsibility, not that they have none. Its a pretty significant distinction but its one that pretty much all of your manosphere blogs agree with.

  274. Anonymous Reader says:

    Why don’t you let Cane and unger write their own responses, since guessing is a waste of time?

  275. ybm says:

    So I am only permitted to draw conclusions with you agree with them?

    Right got it. I’m out of this thread.

  276. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    Cane Caldo claims that it is impossible for women to be held responsible for their actions, as impossible as it is for a man to breast feed.

    You’re looking at this from the wrong perspective. One of her father’s/husband’s rights is to say, “Her punishment is mine.”

    As far as the movie/UCMJ: I don’t know whether each reader was in the military or not. Yes, movies are fiction. They are art, and art imitates life. It was to illustrate the concept of handling it in-house. My mistake.

    Here’s a real-life high school (watch out!) example: If I got in trouble at school, (say, for too many absences) according to the rules, I was to be suspended from extra-curricular activities. What would actually happen is the coach would talk to the vice-principal, suspend the suspension, and make me run a bunch of laps on Saturday. This dynamic is what I was referring to; the immediate supervisor both taking responsibility for the discipline, and removing the penalty.

    To answer your final question: Yes, adult women are to be held responsible for their actions. The question is by whom? The father or husband has a right to accept that responsibility himself, and thus take away the dispensing of the penalty from higher authorities.

  277. Anonymous Reader says:

    @AR

    Cane Caldo claims that it is impossible for women to be held responsible for their actions, as impossible as it is for a man to breast feed.

    You’re looking at this from the wrong perspective.

    I’m reading the words that you write. Is English your native language?

    One of her father’s/husband’s rights is to say, “Her punishment is mine.”

    That isn’t the message you have been sending. What you have been sending is that this is a requirement, an ironclad, unavoidable duty. That each and every man must take any punishment that his wife, or sister, or daughter, or mother, may incur due to her behavior. That is pedestalizing garbage, it issues a permanent “get out of trouble, free” pass to girls and women. And that appears to be your intention, due to guilt over your own past behavior and a determined effort to project your own behavior onto other men without any limit.

    As far as the movie/UCMJ: I don’t know whether each reader was in the military or not. Yes, movies are fiction. They are art, and art imitates life. It was to illustrate the concept of handling it in-house. My mistake.

    Then what was the purpose of demanding events from my own employment history?
    Or did the results – I own my mistakes – not fit in with your schemes? Is the fact that I take responsibility for my actions, and I can, and have, demanded the same from co-workers and subordinates somehow not fit in with your pedestalization of women, your self-abnegation due to your own past, and so you just dismiss it ?

    You ask lots of questions, get answers that don’t fit your scheme, so you ignore those answers – and then have the gall to lecture me on manliness?

    Here’s a real-life high school (watch out!) example: If I got in trouble at school, (say, for too many absences) according to the rules, I was to be suspended from extra-curricular activities. What would actually happen is the coach would talk to the vice-principal, suspend the suspension, and make me run a bunch of laps on Saturday. This dynamic is what I was referring to; the immediate supervisor both taking responsibility for the discipline, and removing the penalty.

    But that is not what you have been going on, at great, tedious and increasingly boring length, about. Your model is this: the student gets in trouble over absences, and is suspended from sport. The coach is required to plead with the vice principal, and then the coach goes and runs laps while the student goes and plays videogames or some other fun thing. That is the model you have been pushing endlessly, and tediously.

    What you have been saying over and over and over again is this:

    * Women are the weaker vessel, and so whenever they behave badly, they are not to be punished, but rather some man in their life – husband, father, brother – must step up, Man Up, and take the fall. Your version of “The Maltese Falcon” has Sam Spade going to the electric chair for a murder he did not commit, because “Bridget O’Shaunessy” has a vagina & thus should never, ever be punished for any deed, no matter how foul. Spade goes to his doom, in order that Bridget can be left free, to go murder some other man and steal someone else’s property. Evil women are to be rewarded for their evil actions, thereby encouraging them to commit more evil, and good men are to prove their goodness by sacrificing themselves for evil women. Therefore, Cane Caldo, you are stating that “Real Men Marry Sluts”, and so your idea of virtue is that a man must be as self-destructive as possible, preferably destroying his children’s lives as well if at all possible.

    * When pressed on the above, you switch to your version of some old testament patriarch: women should be under the control of a man, and if a daughter or a wife disobeys, should be cut off without any resources at all. This is, of course, a different path to self destruction because as I have made clear, and you don’t seem to grasp, this model is doomed to failure in the modern world of Marriage 2.0.

    So you want men to fail. You want as many marriages as possible to fail. You want as many children to grow up in busted homes as possible. You want more babymommas. You wand more of all the bad things in the current society. Look, just admit that you hate yourself, and you want other men to be as miserable as you have been, and get it off of your chest, why don’t you?

    To answer your final question: Yes, adult women are to be held responsible for their actions. The question is by whom? The father or husband has a right to accept that responsibility himself, and thus take away the dispensing of the penalty from higher authorities.

    That is not what you have been saying. You have been saying that women have the right and authority to dump the outcomes of their actions on their fathers, husbands, brothers, etc. and the men must accept that. The men have zero choice in the matter. You accord utter freedom and no responsibility to women, and make men their slaves. You make men slaves of women. That is what you want.

    Any many who follows your guidance is committing suicide, in a slow fashion.

  278. Anonymous Reader says:

    Take the case of the woman who got fired – the example you demanded of me, and then ignored when I provided it. She was drinking alcohol on the job, in a place where the employee handbook clearly stated in writing “Anyone drinking alcohol while performing duties as assigned and on our property can be dismissed immediately”.

    Your solution: Let her continue to work, and to drink on the job, and go fire her husband from his job. She was divorced, and her husband lived 300 or so miles away in a different state, but I doubt that would make any difference to you, Cane Caldo. You’d surely demand he “take one for the team” and fire him for behavior he has no control over, wouldn’t you?

    My solution: Document the infraction, report to HR, urge diversion into a rehab program. Hold her to account for her own actions, in the same way that I am held to accound for my actions.

    You claim your way is better. I do not see why. Your way punishes the man for the wrongdoing of the woman. If you were a Pharisee, when a woman committed adultery, you’d let her go free and stone her husband to death.

    I can only assume that your guilt over past actions has consumed you so much, you desire self-destruction, and now wish it on all other men. Suggest you work out your own problems in private, and stop projecting them onto the rest of us.

  279. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    As a courtesy, I inform you that I won’t be answering this thread anymore.

  280. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo, a while back you asked about how I see the concept of mercy. It is simple.

    Justice first, reconciliation second.

    I mentioned above that on one job, an action cost the operation the equivalent of what they paid me for one month. The details don’t matter. An event happened during the weekend night shift, I had no supervisor, I solved it as best I could and some equipment was damaged.

    My supervisor first asked me what happened. Then, satisfied that I had not deliberately sabotaged equipment, he asked me about a certain maintenance schedule. I had followed that schedule. Later, I repeated that interview in the presence of a high level manager. I was disciplined for having damaged equipment by accident, but not otherwise. The maintenance schedule was changed, in order to prevent re-occurance, and I was then – only then – lightly praised for initiative in attempting to solve an unforeseen problem that should never have occurred, not on my shift, not on any shift.

    I took responsibility for my actions first, took my discipline, and last received mercy.

    Justice first, then mercy. It is irresponsible to offer mercy first, and put justice off forever. It is rewarding to bad behavior to offer mercy first, last, and always.

    You appear to clearly be a very modern man, in that you wish for mercy for all, and justice for none. If this is how you would raise children, I pity them.

    Justice first, reconciliation later. Sometimes reconciliation takes the form of “we won’t fire you this time”, and that’s just fine with me. A job is a privilege, not a right. I’m not modern enough to need an endless rain of head-pats, hand-holdings, attendance awards, happy stickers, and so forth. Maybe you don’t understand this?

    Justice first, reconciliation later. A man who has been insulted, or attacked, or otherwise offended by his wife should insist on an admission of error from her first, and then reconciliation later. If she never has to admit error, if she never has to ‘fess up to what she’s done, if she never has to apologize, if his duty is to extend mercy and compassion to her at all times, in all places, no matter what she does, then what is he? Certainly not her leader. Not her “Captain”, not her “general”, not her master, not her husband.

    He is her slave. Slaves have to take any shit that someone wants to give them, without demurring.

    Justice first, reconciliation later. That’s how I was raised, by old fashioned people, some of whom I daresay knew as many, or even more, Bible quotes than you do.

    Now you know my position on mercy. It comes after justice, not before, and never in lieu of justice or instead of justice. The latter way is the modern way, and it is leading us to disaster.

  281. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cane Caldo
    As a courtesy, I inform you that I won’t be answering this thread anymore.

    Ok by me. Be aware that stepping out of this thread won’t take away anything that has been written here.

    You won’t be able to avoid the issues I’ve raised in this thread forever.

  282. Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock

  283. Pingback: More of Zippy on Game | Malcolm the Cynic

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