Now he knows.

Earlier this week Bill Frezza rhetorically asked at Forbes why drunk female students are never described as irresponsible jerks.

In our age of sexual equality, why drunk female students are almost never characterized as irresponsible jerks is a question I leave to the feminists.

Frezza quickly received the answer to this question when Forbes immediately removed the column and severed their relationship with him as a contributor.   No one characterizes drunk female students as irresponsible jerks because this isn’t permitted.

Unfortunately Frezza caved and said that Forbes was right to pull the piece.  But after caving he followed up with a hard point to argue with:

Any woman on campus knows that she is safe in our house, which is perhaps why some choose to behave with such reckless abandon

This entry was posted in Feminists, Feral Females, Frame. Bookmark the permalink.

171 Responses to Now he knows.

  1. Pingback: Now he knows. | Manosphere.com

  2. Lyn87 says:

    It seems like the author knew he was going to be “disinvited” by Forbes when he wrote his piece. It’s not like that’s his actual job, so he suffers no significant backlash. He obliquely acknowledged as much when he admitted that Forbes was right to take it down as he violated their editorial standards. Classy move, by the way. The real take-away to that is that the standards are absurd.

    But he performed a service nonetheless. It’s like when one of us goes to a feminist website and spills a little truth on them. The comment will be quickly pulled and the ban-hammer will fall, but at least they had to face – even for a moment – their folly. This is even better, since it was Forbes rather than Jezebel or some other geyser of dreck.

    He made people look at some truth feminists don’t want them to see, and he pointed out their complicity and hypocrisy. Pulled or not, the article started a discussion that the feminists do not control, and now they have to defend the indefensible on more-or-less neutral territory. That doesn’t generally work out well for them like it did on the 60s and 70’s. And the fact that the piece was pulled – and that the pulling is a story all by itself – gives it even more traction than it would otherwise have.

    That’s some red-pill jiu-jitsu right there.

  3. Bee says:

    “Unfortunately Frezza caved…..”

    Rule #1 Do not apologize.

  4. greyghost says:

    Salon had an article on that story and my comments got the boot.
    http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/mit_frat_alumni_president_forget_rapists_drunk_female_guests_are_the_gravest_threat_to_fraternities/
    The main stream feminine imperative culture hates men speaking truthfully to each other. Big time. .

  5. ladonai says:

    The contents of the whole original article are getting harder to find (apparently wiped from google cache), so for the record here is Frezza’s entire article:

    [D: I don’t know the copyright status of that so I’ve removed the text.]

  6. The Brass Cat says:

    I was watching a segment on the Hannah Graham case on the news yesterday and it brought to mind how parents are failing their children by not passing along age old, common sense survival strategies. Hannah was apparently not taught to not:
    1) Dress like a prostitute.
    2) Walk alone to a bar at night.
    3) Get drunk and leave with a stranger.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a sad case for all involved, but I see it as a failure on the part of multiple parties. If we are to assume women have agency and are liberated to make their own decisions then Hannah played a role. If her parents failed to teach her some truisms then they played a role. If her university is teaching men “not to rape” but holding women to no account then the university played a role.

    One can easily observe that many young people today are lacking in the wisdom of elders. Divorce is a large part of this because the family becomes fragmented and connections are lost. Passing on life lessons is a major role of the father but society is flush with single parent (i.e. single mother) households. In all of this dysfunction the kids suffer the most. And on top of that they are indoctrinated in school with Leftist theory that often contradicts reality and human nature.

    Bill Frezza has observed the lack of common sense survival strategies:

    Any woman on campus knows that she is safe in our house, which is perhaps why some choose to behave with such reckless abandon

    “Reckless abandon” is an apt description. The kids live in a bubble-wrapped world complete with an inverted sense of right and wrong. It is likely that Hannah never paused to consider that there existed any threat to her safety in a bar at night.

    —————————————————–
    Dalrock, since you appreciate grammar and spelling corrections: “Noone” should be “No one.”

    [D: I do. Thank you. Fixed.]

  7. Why is a drunk woman driving a car treated as an irresponsible adult, but treated like a naive child when she’s drunk on a college campus?

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Femhater

    http://www.xojane.com/sex/after-nearly-20-years-im-finally-ready-to-kick-my-bad-boy-habit

    You can’t make this ship up!

    Right on schedule. According to this page she must be 31 now. No word on if she has saved something special for her future husband.

  9. Just Saying says:

    Noone characterizes drunk female students as irresponsible jerks because this isn’t permitted.

    Yep…. They aren’t responsible for their actions – just like retarded children…. Of course, if you take advantage of them, you are treated just like if you took advantage of a retarded child. Just accept it – you aren’t going to change it by bitching about it. So make sure your a** is covered, when you bang her. Even if she’s drunk off her a**, if she is yelling “F**k ME!” it’s hard for her to say she was raped – and if you have it videoed – when your lawyer says it will become public record, she will slink away… But expect if… Woman hate to be held accountable for their actions…

    This guy should have known better. The US is pretty much in it’s death-throws… So figure out how to use it’s death to your advantage… That is the BEST outcome you can expect today… Of course, since I’m MUCH older, even if she is in college, I’m immune from all of the college non-sense as I’m not a student. I advise all men, to bang chicks that go to another college – or just go for the older women till you’re out.. Yeah, it sucks but hey – that way you don’t care what some college admin bozo says…🙂

  10. earl says:

    “Right on schedule. According to this page she must be 31 now. No word on if she has saved something special for her future husband.”

    I’m sure she has plenty of farts for him.

  11. earl says:

    Also everytime I point out when a drunk woman gets ‘raped’ about the fact she was willingly pouring down too much of a substence which lowers inhibitions…I get called a victim blamer. Women should have the right to do any stupid thing they want with no rammifcations whatsoever.

    Try giving feminists a dose of reality and out comes the ban hammer or insults.

  12. Eidolon says:

    @The Brass Cat

    It’s amazing to me the extent to which nobody teaches young people anything sane. I remember watching a show that was about the moments leading up to someone’s death. Short version was, college kid and girl he was sort of with get drunk at bar, meet some people, go to their house, party for a while, guys at said house (who are thugs) get jealous because they want the girl, girl leaves and thugs stew about it, house owners shoot college kid as he tries to leave.

    They had a cop at the end who said “There was no real lesson to learn here, it was just a tragedy.” My jaw dropped.

    I could’ve picked out a hundred things that would’ve saved the dumb college kid’s life. Don’t get drunk at bars; don’t ever go to a stranger’s place, especially when you’re drunk; don’t take a girl to a situation you don’t know is safe; don’t get passed-out drunk when your girl is there such that you can’t protect her; don’t assume people are your friends because you partied with them; etc.

    It’s amazing the extent to which liberalism in general expects reality to accommodate its beliefs, and refuses to modify the beliefs to reflect reality. You can bully every man in the world into submission, but that’s only going to affect the ones who are decent, who probably wouldn’t have done anything anyway. All this anti-rape stuff is the same as gun control. You can have “don’t rape” meetings and “gun-free zone” signs all you want, but they only apply to the people who follow the rules. If you suggest that maybe you should prepare for people don’t follow the rules then you’re accused of not being serious about the rules.

  13. Martin says:

    Frezza also said he was glad the piece “kicked off a national conversation on the subject.”

    That’s the kind of thing that gender and race hustlers say after hate crime hoaxes are exposed. But they have the national media on their side to tell the nation what their national conversation is about or should be about.

    If you don’t have the media on your side, the incident will go down in history as as sexist remark by a sexist male egging on trolls and internet hate groups.

  14. The Brass Cat says:

    Eidolon says:

    It’s amazing the extent to which liberalism in general expects reality to accommodate its beliefs, and refuses to modify the beliefs to reflect reality.

    That’s the problem in a nutshell. So these brainwashed college students can go into a dangerous environment and mentally shout down their own instincts in an effort to appear non-classist, non-racist, more inclusive, etc. Putting themselves in danger is literally a lesser priority than maintaining the liberal/PC worldview.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    I could’ve picked out a hundred things that would’ve saved the dumb college kid’s life.

    But three are more than enough:
    1. Don’t hang out with stupid people.
    2. Don’t go to stupid places.
    3. Don’t do stupid things.

    Yeah, this means missing some fun. In the short term.

  16. earl says:

    “1. Don’t hang out with stupid people.
    2. Don’t go to stupid places.
    3. Don’t do stupid things.”

    Yup…9/10 problems can be solved by being aware of people around, the situation at hand, and actions going on.

    Don’t get into stupid situations…and should you get into one, be in a good state of mind to figure a way to get out of them. Drunkeness is not a good state of mind.

  17. deti says:

    “Why is a drunk woman driving a car treated as an irresponsible adult, but treated like a naive child when she’s drunk on a college campus?”

    Because the worst thing that can happen to a woman nowadays is not getting injured or killed in a drunk driving accident. It’s not getting arrested, or fined, or losing your driver’s license, or even breaking a nail while doing community service.

    The worst thing that can happen to a woman nowadays — a fate worse than death — is having sex with a man she claims she otherwise wouldn’t have had sex with while sober.

    It’s having to take responsibility for and be accountable for one’s sex partners when the booze freed her up to do what she wanted to do anyway.

    It’s having sex while not in full control of one’s faculties.

    It’s having sex with a hawt man who won’t “respect her in the morning” by giving her the commitment she demands.

  18. The Brass Cat says:

    Rollo Tomassi says:

    Why is a drunk woman driving a car treated as an irresponsible adult, but treated like a naive child when she’s drunk on a college campus?

    I’m convinced we are seeing the rise of a new life phase: post-adolescence. More and more we will see examples of adults age 18 to ~26 being treated by the legal system and media as something less-than-adult. “Well, yes, he broke a law but come on, he’s still young!” “They are experimenting and learning from their mistakes.” “She’s finding herself.”

    Right now this status is mostly applied to college students. It’s like if you go into college after high school you aren’t considered quite an adult yet. A drunk woman driver isn’t obviously a student so the cop assumes she is an actual adult.

    The post-adolescent phase will spill over into the non-college population. Just give it a few more years.

  19. deti says:

    Back when I was in college, at least most of the girls I knew owned their shit. They fessed up to it when it was their fault. When they screwed up, they admitted it, mostly. When they had sex with a guy, or had too much to drink, or both, they owned up to it. When they succumbed to a pump and dump, they knew it, they owned their own actions, and they (at least gave the appearance of trying to) learn from it. They took their lumps, they walked the walk of shame, they held their heads high, and they faced up to what they did.

  20. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Unfortunately Frezza caved and said that Forbes was right to pull the piece.

    I would not say caved. In the interview you linked he says he stands by every word he wrote. He wasn’t quoted saying “Forbes was right to pull the piece”, but rather that is the interviewer’s conveyance. Putting myself in Frezza’s shoes, I can imagine saying something like, “Forbes had to pull the article.”, with a (said or unsaid) qualifier that Forbes is in the business of selling magazines to the wanna-be wealthy and business-class, but not in speaking truth about young women.

  21. greyghost says:

    Nailed it Deti. The comments on the related Salon article pretty much say it over and over. The only concern is the integrity of the drunk chicks pussy. All else be damned.

  22. @feministhater
    From the article you so helpfully linked to, about the woman who’s giving up on bad boys after nearly 20 years of chasing them:

    I realized I was Dick’s booty call pretty early on, but it didn’t stop me from earnestly hoping that it might develop into something more. That happens, sometimes, right?

    I am not capable of being a booty call because I only ever sleep with men I like, and if I like them, I also like to convince myself that this booty call thing might be something more than what it is.

    The hamster is strong with this one…

  23. earl says:

    Sluts can be as romantic as beta males sometimes.

  24. Escoffier says:

    Regarding the danger of drunk girls to frats, this is an age-old problem. Not that I have studied it carefully, but in the handful of anecdotes that I know, no matter how irresponsbile the girl was, the frat always gets blamed.

    One of my college buddies was in a frat that I called “the Hun.” They were really the worst behaved louts on campus, but so far as I know stopped well short of rape or anything like that. One time (I was told this but did not witness it), a girl was at one of their parties and encouraged some guys to take her upstairs at which point she began negotiating the terms of a gang bang, how many could participate, who could do what acts, etc. Somehow my friend and another brother got wind of it, rushed upstairs before any action started, and kicked her out, along with the guys who were not brothers. She was subsequently banned from all their parties, with pictures of her face put up to ensure that everyone knew who she was and would not let her attend on punishment of expulsion.

  25. Novaseeker says:

    True about frats and drunk girls — the smarter ones are smarter about it.

    The Hannah Graham case, though, was about something even more stupid. 18 year old upper middle class white girl “finds herself” alone in an off-campus bar and leaves with an obvious thugland type. That’s just very, very bad child raising right there. How dumb can you be?

  26. deti says:

    “Frezza, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is president of the Beta Foundation, …”

    *Facepalm

  27. Pingback: Dalrock  Earlier this week Bill Frezza rhetorically asked… | Honor Dads

  28. The European Union is considering making it illegal to criticize feminism. I’m sure the USA won’t be far behind.

  29. Dalrock says:

    @Zippy

    Cited without comment:

    Frezza, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is president of the Beta Foundation, …

    There’s the problem right there. If he was alpha, he could have gotten away with it.

  30. Lyn87 says:

    From the comments section of the XOJane article linked above,

    “… I feel ashamed to admit it, but even in the midst of my wonderful, loving relationship, I get strong twinges of attraction toward the kind of emotionally unavailable guys I dated in the past. There is one guy I am really crushing out on who had a difficult time with his parents (split up when he was young) and I just KNOW if I wasn’t with my boyfriend I would be in some horrible codependent ‘situation’ with him. Thank heaven for well adjusted guys!”

    She ends with a word of thanks that she has a well-adjusted guy now, but in her first sentence she admits that she is still strongly attracted to the bad-boys she used to date (a euphemism for “rode her hard”). Lucky guy, that one… If he’s dumb enough to put a ring on it, I wonder how long before she decides that she’s in the sweet spot for cash-n-prizes and decides to dump him, take their kids, his house, and half his future income, and go for one last spin on the carousel.
    ________________________

    I see Rollo put his “Epiphany Phase” link there. Nicely done. One way to gain confidence in a theory is to show that it can predict events. That “Epiphany Phase” article does just that for sluts approaching the Wall. It like Rollo wrote their biographies before they lived them.
    ________________________

    One thing I couldn’t help but notice in the Carla Ciccone article was that she never once even mentioned what she brings to the table herself. Her bio says that she’s 31, but her picture has, “rode hard and put up wet” written all over it, although I suspect she was pretty in her early 20’s. And NOW she’s going to start being picky? Why in Heaven’s name would the kind of guy she now wants want her? All she brings to the table is alpha-widowhood, fading looks and fertility, an entitled attitude, a banged-out body, and enough baggage to overwhelm Heathrow Airport. The kind of guy she wants can have a woman who is younger, hotter, tighter, and “less striving, less volatile, less successful, less intimidating, less questioning, less pressing, less complex, less damaged, and less opinionated” then she is.

  31. greyghost says:

    Beta Foundation Ha ha ha ha ha

  32. deti says:

    “All she brings to the table is alpha-widowhood, fading looks and fertility, an entitled attitude, a banged-out body, and enough baggage to overwhelm Heathrow Airport.”

    The pump and dumps will continue until demoralization is complete.

  33. Lyn87 says:

    I like Frezza’s retort,

    Any woman on campus knows that she is safe in our house, which is perhaps why some choose to behave with such reckless abandon

    The harpies were shrieking for his blood the moment the article went up, and we immediately saw the predictable “rape culture” myth thrown out. His reply was masterful – he used the women’s own conduct to prove that they themselves knew they were safe, hence their willingness to act like slags. I’m telling you guys, Bill Frezza has a black-belt in red-pill jiu-jitsu. He’s playing white knights and feminists like a Stradivarius.

  34. armenia4ever says:

    It’s incredible as to how spot on his piece actually was. It’s a simple no BS explanation of how to avoid getting into bad circumstances.

    For that, Jezebel was in an uproar because he had the balls to suggest that drunken females in a frat house these days are a recipe for getting strung up by a college kangaroo court.

    The gall!!!!

  35. icallahan120493 says:

    Here is a screenshot of the Frezza article in question:

    Screenshot

  36. JDG says:

    I am not capable of being a booty call because I only ever sleep with men I like, and if I like them, I also like to convince myself that this booty call thing might be something more than what it is.

    When I read this I see:

    “I am not capable of being that kind of a slut because I’m only the kind of slut that sleeps with men I like, and if I like them, I also like to convince myself that being that kind of slut might be more than what it is (which if it where then I would be a better kind of slut).”

    Woman, stop being a slut.

  37. John Nesteutes says:

    “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit[.]” (Eph. 5:18 ESV)

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    It would be an interesting bit of black knighting if some legislator in a state house were to offer up a law removing all penalties for DUI if the offender is a woman. It would only work if the proposal had to go before a public hearing, but it would be comedy gold to invite prominent feminists to testify on the bill – for or against, makes no difference, either way some great quotes would be available for future use.

  39. feeriker says:

    No word on if she has saved something special for her future husband.

    Chlamydia? Genital herpes?

  40. earl says:

    “Woman, stop being a slut.”

    She’s a caring slut. She’s just as charming as a caring *sshole.

  41. mikediver5 says:

    Reading the whole article makes it impossible for me to see how anyone can honestly be opposed to it. Clearly the opposition is dishonest. I can only assume the usual feminist mantra of there must be criticism of women, direct or implied, ever.

    The whole point the guy was saying is that please take care of drunken women. What were his suggestions? Put her in a cab and send her home. Call the campus police to escort her home. Give her water to dilute the alcohol. Make sure she is not taken to a bedroom under any circumstances by anyone. And the feminists found this to be cause to have the guy tarred and feathered?

  42. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Another great post!

    @deti

    “”The worst thing that can happen to a woman nowadays — a fate worse than death — is having sex with a man she claims she otherwise wouldn’t have had sex with while sober.

    It’s having to take responsibility for and be accountable for one’s sex partners when the booze freed her up to do what she wanted to do anyway.

    It’s having sex while not in full control of one’s faculties.

    It’s having sex with a hawt man who won’t “respect her in the morning” by giving her the commitment she demands.””

    You nailed this one! I attend about 3 cocktail parties a week(in fact,I am going to one in about 1 hour).I have 1 beer,or I do not drink at all.Ice water or fruit juice is usually the norm.I love to watch the women.They bang back the double martinis,Manhattans,screwdrivers etc.Then they get “sociable”.Courage in a glass.Then they start their lousy pickup lines,like “we have to get together sometime”….Translation…”Let’s F***”.They are a hoot.Then they get into their cars and drive home impaired.Again,no responsibility.The one thing that I have noticed in the last 10 years is the amount of alcohol that these “career women” consume! “Lush” is an understatement! Like my friends and I always say……”How does a good woman hold her liquor?……right by the ears”.

  43. mikediver5 says:

    Make that no criticism in the final line of the first paragraph.

  44. JDG says:

    And the feminists found this to be cause to have the guy tarred and feathered?

    Yes, because of patriarchy.

  45. JDG says:

    Patriarchy and sammiches!

  46. mikediver5 says:

    Justsayin at September 25 11:43

    If you think that video of you having sex with an intoxicated woman that shows her hollering how much she wants to have it will protect you, then you are behind the times. At least on campuses across this country, if she has had one drop of alcohol you are a rapist and nothing else matters. She is unable to consent. I think that even in most legal courts if she was visibly and obviously drunk it would hurt your case more than help it. The difference between the treatment of a DUI female and a FUI female is stark and instructive. Feminists have been working tirelessly to make rape a strict liability law. That means even if you had no idea she was incapable of giving consent you are still guilty. For instance, if she was taking psychoactive drugs as part of a doctor ordered program of treatment which made it impossible for her to give legal consent, and of which you had no knowledge, you would still be totally guilty of rape no matter how much positive assent she gave. This is likened to the speeding laws. If you were unaware that the speed limit had been dropped significantly on a road you traveled often, and you obeyed the prior limit, you are still guilty of speeding. Lack of knowledge that you were breaking the law and the lack of intent to break the law is of no consequence. You are strictly liable. Of course this is the goal of the lesbian leadership of the feminist movement; to make heterosexual sex so risky for the male that few will engage. This is a sexual strategy to get them more access to women. They are predators of the first order; much worse than any PUA out there.

  47. Mark says:

    @mikediver5

    “”Of course this is the goal of the lesbian leadership of the feminist movement; to make heterosexual sex so risky for the male that few will engage. This is a sexual strategy to get them more access to women. They are predators of the first order; much worse than any PUA out there”‘

    Agreed! Carpet munchers are the biggest predators of women.Toronto is full of them.

  48. anonymous_ng says:

    http://www.inquisitr.com/1474808/science-confirms-wifes-happiness-more-important-than-husbands/

    OR, it could be because if a wife is unhappy, she’ll blow up the marriage, but a man will not because of his character.

  49. gdgm+ says:

    On a related topic, there’s now the recent Twitter hashtag and YouTube campaign for #ItsOnUs.

    ‘Pro’ view from a liberal / feminist site saying “more needs to be done”:
    Why #ItsOnUs Is Not Enough

    ‘Con’ view (and links to the videos) from Captain Capitalism:
    The Ass Kicking of “It’s On Us”

  50. #heforshe isn’t enough, so they’ve started #ItsOnUs too?

  51. Susan says:

    I can remember growing up my Dad used to give advice and he was always hammering into my head not to put myself in situations I couldn’t handle. Not getting it, partly because I was a teenager and also because I was swallowing the feminist crap at the time, I would argue with him and he would say, “Yes, you are right but you are also dead”. Or raped, etc.

    I got drunk like every other girl I hung around with in college but there was always one girl who maintained. Sometimes that was me but I was always aware of that voice in my head that told me, “Don’t put yourself in situations you can’t handle”.

    If you were stupid enough to lose all control and have sex with a guy it wasn’t called rape it was called “getting lucky”. If you woke up and regretted it you didn’t call the cops and blame others you blamed yourself and didn’t do it again. End of story. Just don’t do it.

    Like a lot of Dad’s advice “Don’t put yourself in situations you can’t handle” has stuck with me throughout my life.

    Thanks, Dad.

  52. Phillip Allen says:

    Great song by the Fifth Dimension from a few years back – Carpet Man.

  53. Snowy says:

    That xojane article linked by feministhater is hilarious. Notice she says she has made ‘dating missteps’, not mistakes. Apparently she allows herself to be used as a ‘booty call’ for ‘bad boys’ who are not really bad because she only sees what little good they have in them, in the hope of changing them into something closer to her model of perfection. And she ‘can’t keep [her] heart locked in an emotional compartment separate from [her] vagina’, so her heart must be connected to her vagina. She can’t see that her supposed serial monogamy is simply serial sluttery. Amazing that these women still expect an amazing man to simply happen into their lives and sweep them off their feet. They confirm the red pill truths espoused about them. Their rationalisation hamsters truly are on steroids.

  54. SlargTarg says:

    That xojane article linked by feministhater is hilarious. Notice she says she has made ‘dating missteps’, not mistakes.

    Here is another of her hilarious “dating missteps”

    It Happened To Me: I Accidentally Went On Date With A Presumed-Gay Canadian C-List Celebrity Who Creepily Proved He Isn’t Gay

  55. SlargTarg says:

    Whoops, broken ling on the above:

    http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/non-date

  56. Tom C says:

    Remember what happened in 2005-2006 when Lawrence Summers, then-president of Harvard, criticized women on campus? He spoke at the Conference on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce but made the mistake of pointing out that women score lower on cognitive tests at the highest and lowest ends of the test score distribution. He said a lot of other things too in an effort to address and analyze the problem and hopefully try to help women to succeed, but not much else is remembered. He resigned and possibly lost the opportunity to become U.S. Treasury Secretary.

  57. Snowy says:

    The ironic thing is that Ciccone is right that the heart is connected to the vagina in women, as the heart is connected to the penis in men. She still doesn’t get that it’s what is in the heart that makes all the difference; she needs a new heart and a new spirit of God, which only God can give her; poor, pitiful soul.

  58. Johnycomelately says:

    Examine the common anti male pejoratives and the memes being presented.

    Rapist, Sexual harassment, Inequality, Discrimination, Bad boys, Dead beat, Boy, Man-boy, Frat boys, Irresponsible, Players, Abuser, Violent etc.

    Compare with the female victim complexes being promulgated.

    Loved too much, Vulnerable, Gave my hear away, Heart broken, Caring, Scarred, Lost, Used etc.

    Articles like this are inculcating the meme of IRRESPONSIBLE men USING vulnerable women, the semiotic (symbolic) template is being established.

    The reason? Marriage is dwindling and ‘child support’ will longer suffice as the sole transfer mechanism, steps are afoot to establish ‘opportunity cost’ transfer mechanisms to match changing sexual patterns. Sexual consent contracts are just a beach head to normalise cohabitation or temporary partnerships as a default status.

    http://www.wbur.org/npr/351304276/with-egg-freezing-so-expensive-should-long-term-boyfriends-chip-in

  59. she ‘can’t keep [her] heart locked in an emotional compartment separate from [her] vagina

    Maybe she should get her brain involved.

  60. earl says:

    “Articles like this are inculcating the meme of IRRESPONSIBLE men USING vulnerable women, the semiotic (symbolic) template is being established.”

    Yeah when we all know that women are the ones choosing to be vulnerable to irresponsible men…then taking it out on the responsible man who comes along and decides to commit to her.

  61. Voltaire was correct: “If you wish to discover who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

  62. HawkandRock says:

    http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/non-date

    My gosh that was despicable!

    The number and tone of supportive comments make me think there is just no hope left for women.

  63. JDG says:

    Voltaire was correct: “If you wish to discover who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    The one who truly rules over you is the one you obey.

  64. JDG says:

    Johnycomelately says:
    September 26, 2014 at 1:09 am

    From Aliana Blue in the comment section:

    This is a great idea. But I think it doesn’t go far enough. In truth, this only makes it so that one man is stuck with the entire bill, the man that happens to be in the relationship at the time. In truth, to make it more fair, every man that is in a relationship with a woman should pay a fee per every menstrual cycle.

  65. earl says:

    “My gosh that was despicable!”

    No kidding…goes to show how beta males can act a lot like the gays.

    At least she got her unlimited victim card and bitchy resting face as her reward.

  66. Bucho says:

    “The post-adolescent phase will spill over into the non-college population. Just give it a few more years.” The Brass Cat

    It would be interest to see how this plays out. Right now, college is the conduit to live out this lifestyle. Get some student loans and maybe show up to some cupcake classes every once in a while. Spend the rest of the time goofing off and most people won’t question that. Tell people “I’m still in school.” and that’s a good enough excuse. After all, no amount of money and time are ever a waste when it comes to education…..

  67. BradA says:

    Cane,

    > Forbes is in the business of selling magazines to the wanna-be wealthy and business-class, but not in speaking truth about young women.

    I would think that would be all the more reason to tell them the truths about life. You can’t succeed if you don’t account for how people really are.

    Of course that is clearly no longer their goal, if it really ever was. Pushing the social agenda is far more important.

  68. BradA says:

    BTW Cane, I thought you had sold out to be a rep pill hater based on posts at the end of another recent thread…. /sarc

  69. e says:

    There were a series of links I followed from that article. I ended up on a piece about women in business and some seminar that is making the rounds where they assert, gasp, “women added to the mix improves profitability” Not to step too far into the tangent but there is not has not and will not be a way to ever empirically prove that. Every study Ive looked at is apples vs oranges. They are by definition.
    Then the next link went on to talk about some training the women could get to boost up their shot at management. Being a few years behind on trends amongst those with too much time and money on their hands and too low an intellect to see the silliness, I had to go look up one thing they were teaching. It was mentioned in a list of things…..”and skills like mindfulness”. What the hell is mindfulness? Maybe many of you know. I didn’t.
    If you look it up you’ll see that anyone suggesting that teaching mindfulness as a way to better produce at work is utterly lost as a functioning member of a workforce. It should be limited to Housewives of Beverly Hills.

  70. gdgm+ says:

    Also related to Johnycomelately’s comment at September 26, 2014 at 1:09 am: There was a TV ad for “nomore.org” during the Giants – Redskins NFL game last night.

    http://nomore.org/about/

    So (per The Real Peterman’s past question), #heforshe isn’t enough.

  71. Tam the Bam says:

    JGD, I have a hunch that “Aliana Blue” was merely formulating ‘A Modest Proposal’, as the sign-off kinda makes clear.
    “I’m a big fan of Jonathan Swift, by the way.”
    It’s a Poe, and not a bad on at that.

  72. Lyn87 says:

    Johnnycomelately and HawkandRock,

    Good links. At this point, watching feminists is like an entomologist watching a colony of ants under glass – you know exactly what they’re going to do before they do it. Shoot, they’re frequently surprised by their own reactions, whereas red-pill men could have predicted the consequences far in advance. In fact, if they had read some of the readily-available red-pill truth out there, they could have avoided the mistakes and subsequent heartache entirely…

    … like the woman whose fertility is crashing…

    The egg-freezing thing is actually somewhat amusing. These women are going through their most fertile years spreading their legs for guys who don’t want to marry them or reproduce with them, then when the fertility window is about to close with no “provider” is sight, they want someone to pay for their expensive fertility-elongation procedures. My question is this: we’ve been teaching sex-ed for decades and the biology is well-understood – why do these women find themselves in this situation? This is as predictable as the sunrise. We’ve all heard the crap about “girls maturing faster than boys” (total hogwash), but if that’s true, why is it that 30-year-old women with advanced degrees and “fabulous careers” and a long string of lovers have less awareness of reproductive reality than 16-year-old boys are expected to have? They are actually proposing to levy fees on men in “relationships” with women, because those women choose to spend their fertile years pursuing things other than motherhood. Obviously that’s going nowhere (how would the law define relationship?), but their next logical move – and one they openly discuss in the article – is having taxpayers foot the bill for freezing the eggs of childless sluts about to hit the Wall. As a taxpayer, I’m not sure why I should have to pay a woman to artificially prolong her fertility when she could have used it but chose not to. What’s next? Since I spent several of my best years preparing to be a soldier and a provider, are we going to levy a “sex tax” on young women to compensate guys like me for our lost youth? Will the government set up a contract with Victoria’s Secret to provide them with their “uniforms” when they report for duty? As absurd as that is, the case for that sort of “compensation” is actually better than theirs is – what I spent my 20’s doing is useful to society, whereas “womanchildren” partying through their fertile years is a net drain on society.

    Obviously that’s not a serious suggestion, but it’s on par with theirs: these women are very clear that they think that they are entitled to be financially compensated for the use of their reproductive systems. That’s not a new idea – for thousands of years we’ve called that sort of exchange prostitution. But these women want to be able to extract money from all men and only sleep with the ones they find attractive, and even then only when they feel like it. It’s one thing to choose to be a whore – but they should at least be honest about it. If prostitutes are paid from the public purse, they should serve the members of the public just like the Fire Department… “put out the fire” whenever the phone rings. Seems fair.

    For the quote-miners, again… that is not a serious suggestion. I don’t think anyone should be forced to compensate anyone else for goods not delivered or services not rendered, nor do I think the government should be involved in the prostitution business for the “benefit” of either men or women. I’m just pointing out that since these feminists have clearly linked female sexuality with a requirement for male provision, that it doesn’t make sense to stop half-way… that only serves to infantilize grown women. My “Modest Proposal” serves only to point out the absurdity of their position. And when feminists demand that women have the rights of men and the responsibilities of children… I reserve the right to mock them for it.

    (In before the armchair internet psychologists. No, I’m not a loser who can’t get laid. No, I don’t live in anyone’s basement, attic, or garage. No, I have not been greatly abused by a woman. No, I have never visited a prostitute. And no, I don’t need a magnifying glass to find any of my appendages.)

  73. Opus says:

    I have a new theory:

    America is a large country with a large agriculture, indeed despite its large cities many people are country folk – ‘shit-kickers’ as one of your country-women disparagingly once to me described people living south of the Mason-Dixon line. America is also a highly religious country and specifically religious in a Christian and Protestant Fundamentalist way. Christianity (Protestant or Catholic) has tended to put women on a pedestal. Liberalism – by reason of its equality ideology – also places women on pedestals and secular-style liberalism is in evidence in the big cities. As a result young men in the countryside tend to worship women from afar; and women in the cities think far too highly of themselves thus intimidating many men: this leads to much Beta-like behaviour, which a small number of men either through natural caddishness or learned behaviour, overcome.

    I certainly will not claim that I have never fallen into Beta mode or probably Gamma or Delta behaviour when faced with failing relationships, but I rather doubt that I have ever felt in awe of women so as to do their bidding in the way we so often see in the Androsphere for the purpose of attaining or impressing a woman with a view to dating, neither do I think that such abasive behaviour is common in England, and for these reasons: the town and country are cheek-by-jowl and no one ‘does religion’ beyond ‘hatched matched and despatched’; equally although liberalism is dominant our comparative poverty prevents women from heading into the stratospheres of entitlement and privilege and the genuinely privileged – the aristocracy – keep an effective lid on social pretention by the nouveaux rich – accent is all and the all too common estuary-English on even the hottest of females is akin to a boner-killer – and how often does some woman boasting one or more degrees reveal in her language, dress or behaviour her lower-class origins. One is hardly going to put that on a pedestal.

    Perhaps this is too obvious.

  74. The Brass Cat says:

    Lyn87 says:

    As a taxpayer, I’m not sure why I should have to pay a woman to artificially prolong her fertility when she could have used it but chose not to.

    Women see their individual liberty as a negative right; namely, freedom from unpleasant consequences. In turn this negative right confers a duty upon others: keep women free from unpleasant consequences. The “others” being all men, of course.

  75. MarcusD says:

    In other news:

    These Christian swingers like sharing Bible verses, sex partners
    http://nypost.com/2014/09/25/these-christian-swingers-like-sharing-bible-verses-sex-partners/

  76. Lyn87 says:

    Re: SlargTarg and HawkandRock’s most excellent link.

    Carla Ciccone is despicable. She accepted a date from a guy she wasn’t interested in because 1) she wanted to see the concert he offered to take her to and didn’t want to pay for a ticket and 2) she thought he would be able to help her professionally, since he’s a celebrity and she would like to become one. Her excuse? She claims that she thought he was gay.

    Really?

    Homosexuals make up about 1-2% of the population, so the odds of even a random man being gay is probably no higher than 50:1 anyway. I would venture to say that if one is a semi-attractive younger woman and man asks you out on a date, that he’s firmly placed himself in the 98-99% of men who are not gay. And a bit of self-reflection about her situation should have told her that the only reason a successful older man would want to spend time with her is to get into her pants – it’s not like she brings anything else to the table. But feminists and libtards believe their own lies: 10% of people are gay, we can borrow our way to prosperity, incentives don’t matter except when we think they ought to, 1-in-5 women will be raped in college, women are just as physically capable as men but we need special laws like VAWA because men are more physically capable than women,… you know the drill. This chick actually thought that a gay male celebrity would ask a cute little nobody like her out on a date because he actually wanted to hear her childish opinions(!)?

    Then she got all butt-hurt and outed him as a “creep” (her description of him left no doubt as to his actual identity) when he assumed that she was an adult who knew why they were there and put the moves on her accordingly. Pro-tip, Carla, if an older man who is well above your station asks you on a date to see some mediocre hipster-pop band, it’s probably not because he wants to chat about whatever nonsense is bouncing around in your pretty little head. He’s much more likely to be interested in what’s in your pretty little panties. But this is the same womanchild who wrote the “After 20 Years I’m Finally Ready to Kick my Bad-Boy Habit” that was linked up-thread. She’s obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree.

  77. JDG says:

    Opus says:
    September 26, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Other than among the elites, I don’t think we have much of a class system here (unless you count victim class). I think distinctions here tend to be religious, political, victim/minority status, or tribal.

    To the point of manosperians bending over backwards to win women (be it for fornication or marital bliss), I have to agree with your observation (though I still can’t see why this occurs under current circumstances). If I were still single, I would not change one dot or cross one t to coax these women into a relationship of any sort. Over at Vox’s AG site, I think I would be considered a ‘gamma’ for thinking this way. So what.

    My goal is to be more like Christ, not to make myself attractive to a woman or women in general. I’m not saying the two have to be mutually exclusive, but I am saying there is a big difference between being God centered and being anything else centered.

    When I was single, I really didn’t care when women were not interested in me. I knew that if I were to marry, it had to be with someone as serious about their Christian faith as I was. Although there were women interested, most of them were really feminists (though they did not know it). They would not have long submitted to a husband once the euphoria was over. I did not care if I attracted them or not, I was more concerned with what kind of wife they would be.

  78. Gunner Q says:

    Opus @ 1:26 pm:
    “Christianity (Protestant or Catholic) has tended to put women on a pedestal.”

    Christianity tended to not enslave women or put subhuman status on them. That isn’t the same thing as pedestalization. The Bible clearly grants no special status to women. Rather, there’s a good number of warnings about female conduct.

    There isn’t much distinction left between rural and city life thanks to the Internet. The claim of England not being devout is, at best, a recent phenomenon. They cared enough to have their share of religious wars… or come to America.

  79. Just Saying says:

    http://theantifeminist.com/anti-feminism-to-be-made-illegal-in-europe-on-october-24th/

    Saw that in France it’s already illegal to get a DNA test to see if you’re the Father of a child… What did you expect from such pansies? All of Europe is a basket case… America is soon to follow… Sad, but too true…

  80. earl says:

    “Christianity (Protestant or Catholic) has tended to put women on a pedestal.”

    The only women I know of that Catholics put on the pedestal are the ones whose actions deemed them to be put in places of honor. We call them saints.

    Most would include the Virgin Mary and other devout religious women.

  81. cynthia says:

    @ earl

    I think, more to the point, Christianity places the virtuous woman on a pedestal and holds her up as example to others, just as they do with the virtuous man, while still acknowledging we are all fallen creatures. None of us will ever be on the level as the Virgin Mary, but we can still look to her for guidance and intercession. The problems come from the churches that are more concerned with retaining their congregations than being honest about the faith.

  82. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    Where in the hell are they going to put that frozen egg. I’m just some dumb guy so Let’s take a non professional look at this. If a woman needs to go to the bank to get an egg her younger cock carousel rider self left. Doesn’t that mean her stink hole can’t support an egg and that is why her body stop making them (eggs). Which is the reason to store some frozen eggs.

  83. easttexasfatboy says:

    Actually, folks…..ahem….being a fella who believes in God…..but this situation with young stupid women is in fact darwinian. Biblically, a stupid person is one who denies God, right? Not really a matter of intelligence so much as a atheistic viewpoint. Young women who act out drunkenly are much more likely to have some sort of fatal incident. Not an accident….weedin’ out the unfit. Consequences, right? In today’s legal climate, I must confess that I wouldn’t try to help. Sad, isn’t it? But who wants to be accused of rape? Snowflake would have to blame someone, right? So she aspirates her own vomit, because she is a young feral female who is too dangerous to help. That is the bitter truth. I must admit that I wouldn’t help her, because I don’t want to pay the price. Dalrock, this is reality, I wish it wasn’t so.

  84. Lyn87 says:

    cynthia says:
    September 26, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    @ earl

    I think, more to the point, Christianity places the virtuous woman on a pedestal and holds her up as example to others, just as they do with the virtuous man, while still acknowledging we are all fallen creatures. None of us will ever be on the level as the Virgin Mary, but we can still look to her for guidance and intercession. The problems come from the churches that are more concerned with retaining their congregations than being honest about the faith.

    The part that is highlighted only applies to Catholics. Protestants esteem Mary as a virtuous woman, but no more divine than anyone else. The term “Virgin Mary” is also a Catholic thing, since she was not a life-long virgin. Matthew 1: 24-25* tell us that she had sex with her husband Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and Matthew 13: 55-56** tells us that she bore him at least six additional children.

    Also, she herself declared her need for a savior in Luke Chapter 1. Verses 46-48 read as follows, “And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Obviously a sinless person would have no need of a savior.

    Also, Protestants don’t pray to dead people (communication with the dead was punishable by death in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy Chapters 18-20 and Leviticus Chapter 20). Finally, we view Christ as our only intercessor (as per Romans 8:34).
    ______________________

    * Matthew 1:24-25 removes any doubt as to the consummation of her marriage to Joseph after the birth of Jesus, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”

    ** Matthew 13: 55-56 declares that Mary bore at least four sons and at least two daughters after the birth of Jesus. “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” The words used for “brothers” and “sisters” mean literal brothers and sisters, not just kinsmen (that is a different word in that language and ours). She was Joseph’s wife and the mother of his children, not a life-long virgin.

  85. Lyn87 says:

    Greyghost,

    I’m no kind of expert on fertility treatments (I don’t even have kids of my own), but from what I’ve read, the eggs can be used even after the “egg pantry” runs dry, up to a point. Also, a surrogate can carry the eggs if the women herself cannot. I think the whole idea of party girls and career women missing their natural fertility windows and unfreezing their eggs later is a bad idea, but that’s just me. One thing for sure, though: I don’t want to get the bill for it.

    Your body, your choice, your problem.

  86. MarcusD says:

    Just from the past week:

    http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/09/catholic-answers-forum-collection-of.html

    I dropped two links out since they were so entirely beyond atrocious.

  87. Spike says:

    Ive just read Frezza’s article. I would use words like “pragmatic”, commonsense” and “wise” to describe it.
    Who exactly does this feminist Pink mafia think it is?

  88. Craig says:

    Dalrock, new pew research study on marriage came out 2 days ago… plenty of gold in there. The majority of the focus is on overeducated women not being able to find suitable men.

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/

  89. Novaseeker says:

    @Craig —

    This right here will be the source of much bitterness among “people who matter”, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the years ahead:

    There are 77 never-married men ages 25 to 34 with post-graduate degrees for every 100 women with similar educational credentials.

  90. James K says:

    @Gunner Q:

    The claim of England not being devout is, at best, a recent phenomenon. They cared enough to have their share of religious wars… or come to America.

    In the 16th and 17th Centuries England went from Catholic to Protestant, back to Catholic, then back to Protestant again. This not only left the English apathetic towards religion: apathy was actually a survival strategy, and many people with strong religious convictions were killed as the official religion changed one way and then another.

    Scotland had a different history, and changed once from Catholic to Protestant. To English eyes the Church of Scotland appeared dour and uncompromising, and the differences persisted until the mid-20th Century. We sometimes joked that the Church of Scotland had no need for Purgatory in the afterlife, because they had managed to perfect it in Scotland.

  91. Exfernal says:

    Are divorced men more likely to remarry than divorced women? If so, it would explain in part the ‘marriage gap’ in the Pew survey.

  92. Tam the Bam says:

    England only changed once after Bluff King Hal’s axeathon.
    The later Stuarts (not wee Jamie 1st-and-6th, redhot prod, that boy) were indeed suspected of romish sympathies, but the chief (English) branch of my own family, among many others, was fairly comprehensively beggared by the swingeing annual fines and land-confiscations imposed on “out” recusants by a loving King Chuck v1.1 and v1.2, never mind the Lord Protector, in the name of the protestant religion.

    There was a deal of outward “conformity” by less ethical (or less stupid) people, but for a long time to be caught in possession of popish paraphenalia or hobnobbing with his agents (usually Jesuit priests in hiding) got you a one-way trip to the gibbet and brazier, which eased up under Elizabeth (“I will not make windows into men’s soules”) and the second Chaz.

    Scotland meanwhile disappeared in a maelstrom of inter-protestant faction-fighting which made ISIS look rational. Any remnant Catholics “conformed”, fled or died.

  93. Robert What? says:

    As ever, and as others have noted: women get the rights but not the responsibilities, men get the responsibilities but not the rights.

  94. earl says:

    @Lyn

    You are taking literal molehills and making them into mountains.

    She was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. She gave birth to Jesus. She was also called full of grace by the angel Gabriel. Those are the important things.

  95. earl says:

    And when God presented her the oppurtunty…she seized it. That’s something we should all aspire to.

  96. Lyn87 says:

    Earl,

    I said that Mary was a virtuous woman, which she clearly was. It is those who wish to place her in the Roman pantheon who have made a mountain out of a molehill, or rather a goddess out of a human woman. Mariolotry is the idolatrous elevation of Mary to the status of co-redemptrix with Jesus Himself, as well as a mediator between God and men, despite the clear teaching of scripture (“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: – I Timothy 2:5, among others that I quoted up-thread).

    Also, there is no reason to refer to a good wife who gave her husband Joseph at least six natural children as “The Virgin Mary.” I’m not the one who suggested attempting communication with the dead and intercession from someone who is not divine: perhaps you should take up your complaint with the woman who spoke falsehoods (Cynthia) rather than the man who spoke the truth (me). Anyway, white-knighting isn’t normally your style, so I will chalk this up as an isolated indiscretion and move on. But if speaking out against idolatry is “taking literal molehills and making them into mountains,” then we should all grab our shovels.

    (One last thing: there are no “literal molehills” here. The word you’re looking for is “figurative.” I make editing errors myself, but that’s a pet peeve of mine.)

  97. earl says:

    “rather a goddess out of a human woman”

    Nowhere is that ever stated in Catholic theology.

    Mary was what God intended humanity to be.

  98. Lyn87 says:

    Earl, if a person bows down before a statue, and recites prayers to the being that the statue represents, and declares her to be a co-redemptrix with God, you can call her position in the pantheon by whatever name you like, but the word that has described such beings since Nimrod and Semiramis walked the earth is “goddess.” To say otherwise is to play at semantics.

    Only a goddess could be a co-redemptrix. To declare otherwise is to say that Jesus’ blood is insufficient without the work of Mary, his fully-human mother when He was on Earth. It has to be one way or the other – either she is a goddess, or she is not a co-redemptrix. The Catholic Church has gone with “co-redemptrix”… and thus declared her to be a goddess.

    And while Mary was an extremely virtuous woman, she is not what God intended humanity to be. God created humanity in a sinless state, and it was Mary herself who declared her own need for a savior. She was so virtuous that God Almighty chose her – among all the women ever born – to give birth to the Messiah… isn’t that enough of an endorsement?

  99. The Brass Cat says:

    Bucho says:
    September 26, 2014 at 9:52 am

    “The post-adolescent phase will spill over into the non-college population. Just give it a few more years.” The Brass Cat

    It would be interest to see how this plays out. Right now, college is the conduit to live out this lifestyle. Get some student loans and maybe show up to some cupcake classes every once in a while. Spend the rest of the time goofing off and most people won’t question that. Tell people “I’m still in school.” and that’s a good enough excuse. After all, no amount of money and time are ever a waste when it comes to education…..

    Right now one can simply move into an apartment with roommates who are in college, and just work part time to pay for rent and beer. This is the college life sans classes. One can go to bars/clubs frequented by college students and one can rent a hotel room at a spring break destination. Instead of saying “I’m still in school” one says “I’m figuring out what I want to do with my life.” And there’s always, “well the economy is real bad for young people.”

    Post-adolescence is the college lifestyle minus college. All it requires is the tacit approval of society. Obamacare has taken the first legal step by expanding the age through which a parent’s insurance policy must cover “children.” The lowering of expectations for young adults is not limited to college students and this is what I expect will become more obvious and more approved. And this is what will create a new life phase that shouldn’t exist and will be a drag on the economy.

    Another factor that feeds this is the emerging marriage strike. When Beta males stop striving the results can only be bad.

  100. Dave says:

    Another factor that feeds this is the emerging marriage strike…

    It is even more scary when you consider that the so-called marriage strike is a fundamental cultural shift in society with far-reaching ramifications. With this strike, what will motivate young men to work hard and produce more than they consume? Nothing. What will the few, virtuous but non-Christian young women look forward to that will help them keep their sexual purity? Nothing. What will even motivate these young people to stay in college in the first place? I can’t see a whole lot.

    Once the strike becomes established, it does not revert even if the original stimuli which caused it are corrected through legislation or a change in the women’s behaviors, making the whole process very tough to handle. The effect on society will be huge.

  101. Bee says:

    @Lyn87,

    “I’m no kind of expert on fertility treatments (I don’t even have kids of my own), ,,,”

    Did you and your wife choose to not have children?

  102. Lyn87 says:

    Bee asks, “Did you and your wife choose to not have children?

    After my wife reached puberty (and long before I met her) her doctor told her that she was probably never going to have kids, and trying would be very dangerous. She didn’t want kids anyway, so it was no big deal to her. I never wanted kids either, so when she told me about it I didn’t have a problem with it either. Since even pregnancy could be life-threatening for her, the logical choice was for me to get a vasectomy, which I did shortly after we were married… best $158 I ever spent.

  103. The Brass Cat says:

    Dave says:
    September 27, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    It is even more scary when you consider that the so-called marriage strike is a fundamental cultural shift in society with far-reaching ramifications.

    It is all part of Feminism’s long game: female supremacy.

    Imagine a civilization where the class structure is not economic but instead is sex-based. People would be born into their class based on XX or XY; this would be a caste system. The lower class (men) would do the unpleasant work like collecting garbage, programming computers, and lower levels of law enforcement. The upper class (women) would be the administrators (directing the men), paid stay-at-home moms, government employees, or whatever they feel like doing.

    It sounds like the crazed scheme of a lunatic–and it is–but all the necessary groundwork for female supremacy has been established.
    1) K-12 schools are discouraging normal male behavior and this translates into fewer boys going to college.
    2) The institution of marriage–the bedrock of Western civilization–has been gutted and turned against men, thus men and women are becoming competing tribes rather than complementary teammates.
    3) Women have been given legal rights beyond those of men.
    4) Gynocentrism and misandry have been normalize so that all discussions about any issue eventually reduce to their effect on women only.

    Consider all four of the above points as ongoing movements, not static events. Projecting these into the future reveals the Feminist long game.

    The fatal flaw in this scheme is it requires men to play along. But when men realize they’re being used as plow horses they will decide to stop working so hard. They’ll do only enough to get by. A whole building full of (female) government pencil-pushers won’t be able to replace one garbage man!

    The economy can’t handle men going on strike plus post-adolescence. But maybe it’s a good thing… creative destruction.

  104. “With this strike, what will motivate young men to work hard and produce more than they consume? Nothing.”

    I’m a Christian MGTOW, and I don’t necessarily think this is true. God commanded us to till the soil after the Fall, and that’s motivation enough for me.

    “What will the few, virtuous but non-Christian young women look forward to that will help them keep their sexual purity? Nothing.”

    Good. Let them struggle.

  105. Dave says:

    But, seriously, are western men so powerless against feminism? I mean, will they simply watch, as their world is mowed down by an army of godless women? Will they simply stand by the side, and lament about this inevitable plight that is coming upon their land?

    @Chris Dagostino:
    By our very nature, we are equipped with the ability to produce much more than we will ever need. When you have no dependents, and you know that the fruit of your labor will be used by a godless government to feed a godless society to despise the God that you love and respect, what will be your motivation to till more land than you really need? You mean you will keep toiling, day after day, while those who get all the “government subsidies” at your expense (as if the government has any subsidies; all that the government “has” it took from someone else!) are lounging around, having fun? Well, the children of this world, are, in their generation, wiser than the children of light.

  106. Dave says:

    Women have been given legal rights beyond those of men.

    Last I checked, it was (ready for this) the men who gave all these rights to the women. And if we are to take these rights back, it is the men that will have to take them back.

  107. The Brass Cat says:

    Dave says:
    September 27, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    But, seriously, are western men so powerless against feminism? I mean, will they simply watch, as their world is mowed down by an army of godless women? Will they simply stand by the side, and lament about this inevitable plight that is coming upon their land?

    Yes.

    It’s too late to stop a train wreck when the wheels are off the track.

    Few men are even lamenting because most can’t see the coming plight. The men’s rights movement and the manosphere are very, very marginal.

  108. The Brass Cat says:

    Dave says:
    September 27, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Women have been given legal rights beyond those of men.

    Last I checked, it was (ready for this) the men who gave all these rights to the women. And if we are to take these rights back, it is the men that will have to take them back.

    Absolutely. But name one politician who won’t bend over backwards to get the female vote.

    As long as women vote they will continue to vote for ONLY more rights/privileges/benefits for women. The politicians will be tripping over each other trying to out-supplicate the other.

  109. Bee says:

    “Absolutely. But name one politician who won’t bend over backwards to get the female vote.”

    True. Look at how the Republicans caved and renewed VAWA. Look at how Joe Biden cheerlead for it’s renewal.

    Look at how everyone abandoned the Senate candidate from Missouri when he tried to distinguish between, rape, real rape, and regret sex.

    Look at TradCon Steve Forbes removing Bill Frezza’s column. Etc, etc, etc…….

  110. Gunner Q says:

    “what will motivate young men to work hard and produce more than they consume? Nothing.”

    The ability to keep what they earn will motivate them, which is how it ever was… even pre-feminism. (“I want MY wife, MY kids, MY home…”) Now that marriage is off the table and gov’t is ramping up extortion, I expect ambitious young men are even now building the black market that will keep America alive despite the best efforts of our leaders. They just won’t be making their fortunes on society’s terms anymore.

    earl @ 12:05 pm:
    ““rather a goddess out of a human woman”

    Nowhere is that ever stated in Catholic theology.”

    True enough but Lyn’s point is also valid. Most Catholics worship Jesus but some worship Mary; otherwise, the co-redemptrix heresy would not have gotten nearly as far as it did in the 90’s. Why is she even considered a saint? Christ directly refuted veneration of his mother in Luke 11:27-28 by stating that anybody who obeys God is more blessed than she.

  111. Dave says:

    But name one politician who won’t bend over backwards to get the female vote.

    The politicians have to bend to feminism because the real men are not backing them up. If real men stood up, and organize themselves into a pressure group, their voices will be respected just the same way feminism’s voice is respected.
    It seems like the feminists know how to play politics, while the men only know how to complain.

  112. Gunner Q says:

    Dave, don’t tell us politicians are scared of the female vote. This is a democracy. Our leaders are self-selected for their skill at manipulating people.

  113. bicklerain says:

    I don’t understand Frezza’s article. Is he saying it’s important to protect drunk woman because that’s the right thing to do or to protect his frat?

    Having sex with a drunk woman on a college campus is like playing Russian Roulette these days, but the question of whether he’s agreeing with feminists that drunk women can’t meaningfully consent is left weirdly unresolved.

  114. bicklerain says:

    “One time (I was told this but did not witness it), a girl was at one of their parties and encouraged some guys to take her upstairs at which point she began negotiating the terms of a gang bang, how many could participate, who could do what acts, etc. Somehow my friend and another brother got wind of it, rushed upstairs before any action started, and kicked her out, along with the guys who were not brothers.”

    Good. You have to have some kind of standards.

  115. bicklerain says:

    “Because the worst thing that can happen to a woman nowadays is not getting injured or killed in a drunk driving accident. It’s not getting arrested, or fined, or losing your driver’s license, or even breaking a nail while doing community service.

    The worst thing that can happen to a woman nowadays — a fate worse than death — is having sex with a man she claims she otherwise wouldn’t have had sex with while sober.

    It’s having sex with a hawt man who won’t “respect her in the morning” by giving her the commitment she demands.”

    Actually that’s 100% true. From both an evolutionary and emotional standpoint casual sex is a much bigger threat to the welfare of women than car accidents. Hell, per capita it’s probably a bigger threat to women than cancer, car accidents, and getting killed combined.

    Feminists pried open the Pandora’s Box of Patriarchy, releasing the repressed female sexual id. Now they’re trying to manage the damage the only way they know how: castigating men.

  116. easttexasfatboy says:

    The coming ww3 will change a lot of things. Man’s nature is to fight and struggle, and we have had an artificial peace for quite a while now. Feminists have no sense of history, and that’s why they will suffer terribly in the coming war. Western men may not have enough balls to fight the jihadiis off. What will happen to snowflake when she gets caught behind enemy lines? I don’t help my enemies. Counter survival, ya know…..see, a feminist can read this and never understand that a man can watch her die. Equality is a harsh mistress, isn’t it? Yeah, I know……jeremiad, right? We are gonna see land action in this country. Those who survive ain’t gonna have any tolerance for a feminist. Would you share what little food you have with someone who brought all this on? If I see a feminist being attacked, I’m gonna look the other way. Yes, I understand that civilization can’t bear up under such behavior from the men, but, really, how else are we gonna get rid of the problem? Don’t have a problem “shrugging”. This happened a lot during the Spanish civil war. Radical feminists suffered appalling loses. Wonder how much was friendly fire? All men have to do is quit protecting women. Seriously. Most of the older folks around here can feel something is gonna happen. A man doesn’t understand just how rigged the deck is until he undergoes a divorce. So, men’s rights will come back when enough feminists have truly met up with reality.

  117. bicklerain says:

    Drunk women can be raped, of course. The question is whether drunk women can also consent. College’s are increasingly acting like they can’t.

  118. bicklerain says:

    If you look at homosexual men you see what happens when there aren’t any females to put the brakes on casual sex happening. That’s why traditional societies concentrated more on shaming sluts than cads, though they certainly shamed cads as well. It’s easier to get a woman to stop sex from happening than a man, assuming the man isn’t a rapist, and the small percentage of men who raped in traditional societies were handled quite easily with the death penalty.

    The feminist playbook of only shaming cads and giving sluts a free pass is laughably inefficient and isn’t really gonna stop casual sex from happening. But that was never really the point.

    The rape culture thing is just a giant shit test to sniff out the men Alpha enough not to fear a woman would ever regret having sex with them, and to then ride them hard until they get chaffed.

  119. earl at 12:05 pm

    “‘rather a goddess out of a human woman’

    Nowhere is that ever stated in Catholic theology.”

    It certainly isn’t in the Catechism, but in making her co-redemtrix, and that doctrine has been stated repeatedly, that’s exactly what they are making her. Many things supposedly about her have been promulgated as dogma, bodily assumption, etc, that simply are not true. JP 2 was a paid up member of the cult of Mary, and much is published about the “blessed mother.” The matter of the Brown Scapular is one such bit of nonsense, a typical example of the accretions that took place after Augustine that would render the church unrecognizable to the Apostles.

    What is said in the catechism about Mary is bad enough. The “unofficial” stuff is even worse.

  120. Mark says:

    @Craig

    Thanks for the link………a really good read!

  121. Mark says:

    @Lyn87

    http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/25/toronto-doctors-acquitted-of-sex-assault-charges

    This was in our local papers the other day.I was speaking to a doctor friend who knows these guys and he told me that they are innocent beyond a doubt.Yesterday I was down on the third floor of the office tower where I work as I had to see someone and had a shocking surprise.I walked by a doctor’s office and lo & behold he had a sign on the door to his practice.It read ..”Dr.************ is now accepting male patients only”.I took a step back to made sure that I read that correctly.At the same time the elevator door opened down the hall and sure enough the doctor exited the elevator and proceeded down the hallway to his office where I was standing.I inquired as to the sign and he replied…””No more women patients.They are not worth the risk”…..I agreed with him,and replied that …”I hope that you do not get a discrimination suit for this”….he replied ..”I will risk it”.We also discussed the two doctors addressed in the above link.He told me that this is the reason for the sign and to get used to it as more male doctors all over the city are going to be refusing female patients as they are not worth the risk.I told him…”GOOD!…….it’s about time guys like yourself said ‘enough’ of these frivolous lawsuits”.Doctors 1……Feminazis 0.

  122. Isa says:

    @bicklerain
    It’s time to be real. As a woman, the only, and I mean only, way to reduce the amount of blame you feel about sexual assault is to behave properly. Dress properly, act properly, be in safe areas, etc. This isn’t something you do because of “rape culture,” but simply the fewer things you have to blame yourself for, the better you will feel after a terrible event and the quicker you can heal. I have experience in this particular area of the criminal nature, and believe me, the turtleneck sweater outfit helped me out a lot more than feminist #$%

    The rest of this is nonsense. If you get drunk then get in bed with a guy, what the heck does anyone think will happen? My only similar experience in that is having to take seizure medication. After, I am pretty out of it and unable to indicate what I do and do not want. On a couple occasions after having an attack in public I was taken home by a boyfriend. I took the medication, and after my memory is quite fuzzy, with basically the out of body experience of viewing events as if they were a movie. Did things occur that I didn’t like? Yes. Did I feel violated? Yes. Did I feel it was rape? No. I wasn’t able to communicate what I did and didn’t want, and afterwards on each occasion I received an apology.

    A man going overboard != rape. A man ignoring what a woman clearly says and indicates with her behavior == rape.

  123. Prof. Woland says:

    This author did us a service. Like it or not, parents of male college students need to know what will happen to their sons if they are ever in a “he said, she said” situation with a drunk co-ed. Not telling them the consequences would be like not telling them to wear their seat belts. Two weeks ago my son was in his Freshman college orientation where this was discussed. The women were described more like a hazardous force of nature such as a rhino or elephant to be avoided rather than adults with a free will.

  124. Don Quixote says:

    Dave says:
    September 27, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    The politicians have to bend to feminism because the real men are not backing them up. If real men stood up, and organize themselves into a pressure group, their voices will be respected just the same way feminism’s voice is respected.
    It seems like the feminists know how to play politics, while the men only know how to complain.

    Dave I think you may have a misplaced faith in democracy. Politicians come in a variety of shades of evil. Some/many are just spineless parasites, others are clever manipulators and full of $hit. I think the conditions required to make a change for the better will be catastrophic and take a long time. Not in our generation. I could be wrong but I don’t think I am. Try to make a difference in your circle of friends, family, church, whatever.
    All the best.

  125. MarcusD says:

    Need Advice on Abstinence
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=911621

    Some of the replies are just idiotic…

  126. Opus says:

    I am indebted to JDG at 03.46 on the 26th for clarifying my observations on America, for he sees America as being divided by religion, politics and also by those able to claim victim/minority status. In England no one advertises their religion, without running the risk of being accused of being a ‘nutter’ and the same goes for the stridently anti-religious – Dawkins is simply embarrassing. Politics is treated similarly, as enthusiasm, is always regarded as suspect – only the faithful (how strange we should use a religious term) who attend the annual party conferences at this time of year – and that just for one week – ever advertise their allegiances. The only acceptable political view that one may voice is a general dislike of all things European – or of politicians and their claimed ‘expenses’.

    Your constitutional ban on aristocracy has certain negative consequences – no one not politically involved to launch your ships – for example, and this lack has brought about the invention of a new aristocracy of beautiful well-dressed people of considerable wealth: Hollywood. Why Clooney wants to marry an aging victim/minority status lawyer-cunt defeats me. I smell gold-digger as strong as skunk.

  127. infowarrior1 says:

    @Quartermaster

    ”It certainly isn’t in the Catechism, but in making her co-redemtrix, and that doctrine has been stated repeatedly, that’s exactly what they are making her. Many things supposedly about her have been promulgated as dogma, bodily assumption, etc, that simply are not true. JP 2 was a paid up member of the cult of Mary, and much is published about the “blessed mother.” The matter of the Brown Scapular is one such bit of nonsense, a typical example of the accretions that took place after Augustine that would render the church unrecognizable to the Apostles.

    What is said in the catechism about Mary is bad enough. The “unofficial” stuff is even worse.”

    Then the church should deny what the unofficial stuff teaches for they are blasphemy.

  128. infowarrior1 says:

    @Quartermaster

    John Paul II repeatedly called for help to Mary to save him when he should be calling for Christ or God when he was shot by an assassin certainly adds to the issue.

  129. earl says:

    “It certainly isn’t in the Catechism, but in making her co-redemtrix, and that doctrine has been stated repeatedly, that’s exactly what they are making her.”

    State to me in the doctrine where Mary is mentioned as a co-redemtrix.

  130. earl says:

    “John Paul II repeatedly called for help to Mary to save him when he should be calling for Christ or God when he was shot by an assassin certainly adds to the issue.”

    A person can cry out to help whomever they choose. When I was a little kid I cried for my mom when I got in a bad situation.

  131. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t understand Frezza’s article. Is he saying it’s important to protect drunk woman because that’s the right thing to do or to protect his frat?

    A bit of both, but primarily trying to protect the frat.

  132. Novaseeker says:

    But, seriously, are western men so powerless against feminism? I mean, will they simply watch, as their world is mowed down by an army of godless women? Will they simply stand by the side, and lament about this inevitable plight that is coming upon their land?

    Sure, as long as there is enough beer, video games, ESPN and they get laid every now and then (and enough internet porn to tide them through), men will just keep doing what they have been doing. This neck of the woods is a very marginal neck indeed, and one with a very low population. Most men have no problem with current social order at all, and are quite satisfied with it.

  133. Novaseeker says:

    It is even more scary when you consider that the so-called marriage strike is a fundamental cultural shift in society with far-reaching ramifications. With this strike, what will motivate young men to work hard and produce more than they consume? Nothing. What will the few, virtuous but non-Christian young women look forward to that will help them keep their sexual purity? Nothing. What will even motivate these young people to stay in college in the first place? I can’t see a whole lot.

    Once the strike becomes established, it does not revert even if the original stimuli which caused it are corrected through legislation or a change in the women’s behaviors, making the whole process very tough to handle. The effect on society will be huge.

    It may or may not be. It’s hard to tell. Europe has had a “marriage strike” in terms of lowering marriage rates for decades. Obviously, the economies are not as good as they could be, but neither is the US economy, with higher marriage rates. The decline of marriage hasn’t really cratered their societies or economies, it has just changed the way people live, and families are much less stable and more fluid. European cohabiting couples are more stable than US cohabiting couples (but less stable than European married couples), and lots of people are raised in situations that are not “ideal” from the Christian perspective, but Europe is also post-Christian at this stage.

    Looking at Europe, I tend to think that the future for the US, which seems clearly to be moving in that direction, is more muddled than calamitous. It will be a very different society, with much less marriage, much more relationship fluidity, much more open homosexual and bisexual behavior. It will be very unappealing from the Christian perspective, but not necessarily completely dysfunctional from the secular perspective, if we look at what Europe is doing.

  134. desiderian says:

    NS,

    “Sure, as long as there is enough beer, video games, ESPN and they get laid every now and then (and enough internet porn to tide them through), men will just keep doing what they have been doing. This neck of the woods is a very marginal neck indeed, and one with a very low population. Most men have no problem with current social order at all, and are quite satisfied with it.”

    Those who hire the (fakeLeft™) influencers/enforcers have seen their stock portfolios/corporate profits do very well. That they’ve done well by selling future generations into slavery to the tune of $1 trillion per annum is just the price of $ocial Ju$tice. Men are naturally hierarchical, and the dogs in the manger on top of our hierarchies are rotting the rest.

    These will be known as very evil times, akin to the book of Amos/late Israel in the Bible, or late Númenor if Tolkien is more your thing.

  135. desiderian says:

    NS,

    “more muddled than calamitous. It will be a very different society, with much less marriage, much more relationship fluidity, much more open homosexual and bisexual behavior”

    Care to cite a historical example where such an arrangement was not calamitous? We certainly have the example of the culture in question being characterized by the opposite during its rise…

    Seems more prudent to focus on maintaining safe havens for faithfulness and gathering seeds for planting after this winter passes.

  136. Lyn87 says:

    “State to me in the doctrine where Mary is mentioned as a co-redemptrix.

    Too easy. The Second Vatican Council declared it as official Catholic doctrine: “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix.” (“Lumen Gentium,” n. 62.)

    In addition, the following are official Catholic doctrines regarding Mary. All four of these heresies have been “infallibly” defined by the Pope or by an Ecumenical Council, and are thus considered to have been directly revealed by God Himself.

    Mary is the Mother of God (First Counsel of Ephesus in 431 A.D.)
    Mary as Ever-Virgin (Council of the Lateran, 649)
    Mary was immaculately conceived (Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution “Ineffabilis Deus” – December 8, 1854)
    Mary was assumed into Heaven and crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth (Pope Pius XII in his encyclical “Ad Caeli Reginam” – October 11, 1954)

  137. JDG says:

    Opus – I hope no offense was taken. I was merely throwing in my 2 cents.

    …and this lack has brought about the invention of a new aristocracy of beautiful well-dressed people of considerable wealth: Hollywood.

    Yes, these folks seem to be in a class of their own.

    I read that Europe is getting ready to make criticism of feminism illegal. How will that effect your neck of the woods? I suppose over here it will be one more reason for the elites to change US policies to further emulate Europe.

  138. Johnycomelately says:

    “With this strike, what will motivate young men to work hard and produce more than they consume? ”

    That’s assuming men are behind the strike but the evidence is otherwise. Women are delaying marriage and women are divorcing at higher rates, women not men are eschewing marriage, at least temporarily, this gives the illusion of a male marriage strike.

    I’m yet to see the evidence of an avalanche of male slackers, men will always compete one way or another.

  139. earl says:

    “Too easy. The Second Vatican Council declared it as official Catholic doctrine: “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix.” (“Lumen Gentium,” n. 62.)”

    All those titles mean helper. Not a redeemer.

    Besides when it comes to picking and choosing stuff…why not put the whole thing out there.

    “62. This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.(15*) By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix.(16*) This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.(17*)”

    Mary is the Mother of God (First Counsel of Ephesus in 431 A.D.)

    Also said by Elizabeth Luke 1:43

    Mary as Ever-Virgin (Council of the Lateran, 649)

    http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-case-for-mary%E2%80%99s-perpetual-virginity

    Mary was immaculately conceived (Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution “Ineffabilis Deus” – December 8, 1854)

    Mary was assumed into Heaven and crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth (Pope Pius XII in his encyclical “Ad Caeli Reginam” – October 11, 1954)

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

    Apostolic Tradition

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/aofmary.htm

  140. Feminists would have us believe that these kinds of false accusations never happen. That is why they have conveniently forgotten all about Tawana Brawley.

  141. Opus says:

    @JDG

    No offence was taken – and I could not see that any had been offered.

    Sadly we do not have the equivalent of the First Amendment so if the government decides that no one may say otherwise than that the Moon is made of cream cheese then not only will we all agree but assert that it is very runny too: agree and amplify, anyway, with a bit of luck we will be out of Europe ‘ere long.

    There is more than one way to skin a cat, and the devil is in the detail.

  142. The Brass Cat says:

    Novaseeker says:
    September 28, 2014 at 8:09 am

    It may or may not be. It’s hard to tell. Europe has had a “marriage strike” in terms of lowering marriage rates for decades. Obviously, the economies are not as good as they could be, but neither is the US economy, with higher marriage rates. The decline of marriage hasn’t really cratered their societies or economies, it has just changed the way people live, and families are much less stable and more fluid. European cohabiting couples are more stable than US cohabiting couples (but less stable than European married couples), and lots of people are raised in situations that are not “ideal” from the Christian perspective, but Europe is also post-Christian at this stage.

    Looking at Europe, I tend to think that the future for the US, which seems clearly to be moving in that direction, is more muddled than calamitous. It will be a very different society, with much less marriage, much more relationship fluidity, much more open homosexual and bisexual behavior. It will be very unappealing from the Christian perspective, but not necessarily completely dysfunctional from the secular perspective, if we look at what Europe is doing.

    Apples and oranges. It is a mistake to think Europe is reflection of the US. Their population is a bunch of shiftless underproducers who consume more social services than they produce (but we’re getting there). Their governments have been able to afford this, at least temporarily, because they spend very little on defense (thanks to the US). And the countries that are actually productive (Germany) are called on to prop up the economies of the non-productive countries (Greece). Europe–the EU–is in fact a calamity but it is happening in slow motion, arising from the post-WWII reconstruction. Our calamity is happening much faster, and there’s no bigger country to prop us up.

  143. Lyn87 says:

    Earl,

    You wrote, “State to me in the doctrine where Mary is mentioned as a co-redemptrix.

    I have done so. You responded with non-doctrinal references by unofficial sources trying to explain away those official doctrinal positions. If you are going to argue against the official doctrinal positions of the Catholic Church (that she has all the attributes of a goddess) while claiming that the Catholic doctrinal position is still somehow correct (that she’s not really a goddess.. wink, wink), you have to provide official doctrinal positions of the Catholic church that supersede the officially-adopted positions of the Second Vatican Council, the First Counsel of Ephesus, the Council of the Lateran, and in “Ineffabilis Deus” and “Ad Caeli Reginam.” You have not done so – you merely provided links from “Catholic.com” and an unofficial paper by a Catholic priest who has no authority to create official doctrine. Anyway…

    Mary is not a co-redemptrix. [I Corinthians 2:5]
    Mary is not the Mother of God – God has no mother since He is eternal. She was the fully-human mother of Jesus in His incarnation only. [Isaiah 41:4, Revelation 1:8, among others]
    Mary lost her virginity. [Matthew 1:24-25 and 13: 55-56]
    Mary was not immaculately conceived (born without original sin). [Luke 1:46-48 and Romans 3:23]
    Mary was not assumed into Heaven and crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth. [Hebrews 9:27]

    It is abundantly clear from scripture that every major Catholic doctrine about Mary is wrong. The thing is, there is no reason to accept any of them if one simply places Mary in the place that scripture specifies – the virtuous and blessed fully-human mother of the incarnate Messiah. There is no reason to elevate her beyond what God Himself does. Granted, RCC doctrine declares her to be subordinate to Jesus, but the “office” she supposedly fulfills places her firmly in the “goddess” category – subordinate to Jesus, but a goddess in her own right nonetheless. If Catholics don’t want to be accused of elevating Mary to the status of a goddess, all you have to do is to stop treating her like one… A good place to start would be to stop bowing down before statues of her image and praying to her. Exodus 20:4 says, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” Nothing in the New Testament rescinded that command.

  144. ballista74 says:

    On the Catholic doctrine of Mary, Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori seems the most logical place to go. In looking at his work The Glories of Mary (emphasises mine):

    “If Jesus is the King of the universe, then Mary is its Queen. And as Queen, she possesses by right the whole Kingdom of her Son.

    “But it’s not that way with Mary. She is a Queen, but not the Queen of Justice, punishing the guilty. She is the Queen of Mercy, full of compassion and pardon for sinners. This is why the Church makes us call her expressly “the Queen of Mercy .”

    ” Is it likely that God will refuse her anything? Is there anyone who has never heard of the power of Mary’s prayers? The law of clemency is on her tongue (Prv. 31:26). Every prayer of hers is like an established law for our Lord, obliging Him to be merciful to everyone for whom she intercedes.”

    “Our Blessed Lady once said to St. Bridget in a revelation: “I am the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of Mercy. I am the joy of the just and the door through which sinners come to God.

    “Always turn to this most tender Queen and you will certainly be saved. Are you alarmed and discouraged at the thought of your sins? Remember that Mary was made Queen of Mercy to save the most abandoned sinners who recommend themselves to her.

    Does the Catholic Church rightfully proclaim this man a heretic and silence him? No, rather he is canonized as a saint in 1839 and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church in 1871. His teachings have influenced multitudes, including popes.

    Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that “[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she
    herself redeemed mankind.”

    Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin… so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.”

    Says enough about the matter to make the Catholic doctrine rather clear on this matter.

  145. Wow. And they call me a heretic because of my views on polygyny… just wow.

  146. Dave says:

    I never had any doubt that Catholicism is nothing short of idolatry.

    Exodus 20:4-5
    Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
    Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

    This means even the image of Jesus Christ must not be worshiped.

  147. Dave says:

    @Johnycomelately says:

    I’m yet to see the evidence of an avalanche of male slackers, men will always compete one way or another.

    By the time you see that evidence, it is already too late. It is close to being late these days anyhow.

    @The Brass Cat says:
    Our calamity is happening much faster, and there’s no bigger country to prop us up.

    That is why it is so very scary. We not only don’t have a country to prop us up, but the world actually has no other country to prop it up if the US goes down at the rate it is going. Russians defected here. Where will Americans defect to?

    @Don Quixote says:

    I think the conditions required to make a change for the better will be catastrophic and take a long time.

    That is just one way to look at it. Where is the spiritual? Imagine if the US were swept away in a genuine spiritual revival that goes coast to coast. We’ll have such changes within a very short time, and it will not be nearly as catastrophic as you imagined.

    Not in our generation. I could be wrong but….

    I think you are.

  148. infowarrior1 says:

    @Lyn87
    ”A good place to start would be to stop bowing down before statues of her image and praying to her.”

    They are praying to her to ask her to pray for them. But as catholic theologians say. “They are not praying to her they are asking her to pray for them no different from asking a friend to pray for them”

  149. Lyn87 says:

    infowarrior1,

    That’s why I stated at the outset that anything other than an admission that they view her as a de facto goddess is merely semantic. Anyway, she’s dead and buried… why pray to a dead human? Do Catholics make statues of their dead friends and pray to them? Of course not.

  150. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Greetings Earl and Lyn I love your argument on Mirriam worship and chime in with a unique perspective. I am a Protestant who prays the entire Rosary every week.

    There is an interesting story behind that. I am a big fan of the writings of Pope Benedict who is a first rate scholar- his “God Is Love” is profound and the Jesus Narratives (all 4 volumes) are exceptional. I sent him a letter when he retired and asked him a question about my own salvation and basically how do you find God in the darkest times which were even shared by Jesus on the Cross (recall in one of Bennedict’s last official statement he said “at times it has seemed God has been asleep”). He responded with a form letter from the Bishop in the Vatican assuring me his “Holiness was praying for me and my family.” I took it as a form letter and put it away but it bothered me. It was a couple weeks before I realized the postcard portrait that came with the form letter had his personal signature on the back. Written in latin with a pretty shaky script were the words: “Bennedictus XVI” and above the signature, from the same pen he had written the word “Oret.” It didn’t take Google Translate long to let me know this was Latin for “Pray.” When I realized this was a personal answer from no less than the Pope to my very personal spiritual question it changed something. Beyond doubt when I started reciting the Rosary every week everything changed in my life.

    As an objective Protestant I can find nothing wrong with praying to the various Saints for several reasons. Scripture makes clear the Saints hear our prayers and that they themselves continue praying in Heaven. Asking a Saint like the Mother of Jesus to pray for us just doesn’t seem unreasonable especially if we remember Christ is the only redeemer. Especially when your path to Christ is blocked, perhaps by your own anger or pride, why is it such a stretch to think you can reach Him through the human who He knew best on this Earth? How many Christians have come to Jesus through various Christian leaders and thinkers? All we have of Mary is a short bit of literature and her behavior but surely she is as valid a way to Jesus, our salvation. as any could possibly be. Would you elevate Paul and all of his writings above Mary and her kneeling as the servant of the Lord asking for it to be done to her as has been said? Would Peter’s leadership of the early church be more of a contribution than the fact it was at Mary’s knee our Lord learned the text of scripture and the religious arguments. Read the Magnificat with it’s 16 or so references to obscure OT passages if you are unsure of this young girl’s intelligence and knowledge.

    However, I did not convert to Catholicism in part because I agree with the Mirriam worship objections, and certainly the elevation of Mary to being the sole deliverer of grace and co-redemptrix with Christ. I have issues with any number of Catholic doctrines- most relevant to the point of this blog I always thought the Catholic doctrine of Mary being a perpetual virgin was absolutely ridiculous and contradicted by scripture. These old incel Priests could not- and still can not- wrap their heads around the concept of a GOOD woman having sex with her husband. The anti-sex meme of the Church and most of Christianity is tiresome.

    I guess that makes me a heretic for both Catholics and Protestants. Or maybe I am the only one who is going to make it to Heaven?

  151. Lyn87 says:

    BPP Says, “Scripture makes clear the Saints hear our prayers and that they themselves continue praying in Heaven.

    That’s a pretty bold statement, and since your stance either stands or falls on it, would you tell me which scriptures say that? I know of none, although I know of plenty that say that people should not attempt to contact dead people (Deuteronomy Chapters 18-20 and Leviticus Chapter 20). I also know that Jesus Himself specifically spoke against doing things like praying the rosary, “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” As for your questions about comparing Mary to the actual apostles… I don’t pray to them, either. There is only one mediator: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” – I Timothy 2:5.

    If sin blocks your way to genuine communion with God, the answer from scripture is clear – repent of it: don’t look to do an end-around by going through Mary because you think she’s more of a “softie.”

    Anyway, let’s start with the one question: what scriptures “make clear the Saints hear our prayers and that they themselves continue praying in Heaven?”

  152. pb says:

    How’d the thread devolve into a debate between Catholicism and Protestantism?

  153. @BluePillProfessor
    I guess that makes me a heretic for both Catholics and Protestants.
    No, actually, based on what you wrote, you’re an idiot. You base (at least) a large part of your theology on the basis of a postcard? I recognize the type… you want someone to tell you what to do. You seek some authority to submit to. You want to bow down and worship, you just can’t do that for God.

  154. MarcusD says:

    I am going to file for divorce!
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=911702

    Heartbroken and confused
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=911758

    Strong arguments against Christopher West’s marriage/sexuality books
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=911739

  155. Don Quixote says:

    Dave says:
    September 28, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    That is just one way to look at it. Where is the spiritual? Imagine if the US were swept away in a genuine spiritual revival that goes coast to coast. We’ll have such changes within a very short time, and it will not be nearly as catastrophic as you imagined.

    I hope you are right Dave.
    But a genuine spiritual revival seems so unlikely, perhaps I’m too pessimistic. Anyways I am sure that even in a catastrophic situation there is plenty of room for God to move, so maybe we could get both. Nothing like a bit of pain to make people cry unto God.

  156. infowarrior1 says:

    @pb
    You think we let this fly?
    cynthia says:
    September 26, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    @ earl

    I think, more to the point, Christianity places the virtuous woman on a pedestal and holds her up as example to others, just as they do with the virtuous man, while still acknowledging we are all fallen creatures. None of us will ever be on the level as the Virgin Mary, but we can still look to her for guidance and intercession. The problems come from the churches that are more concerned with retaining their congregations than being honest about the faith.

  157. Dave says:

    I am sure folks here have seen this before. I recently came across it:

    The text of the interview is here:
    https://mcalvanyintelligenceadvisor.com/demoralization-destabilization-insurgency-normalization

  158. desiderian says:

    “How’d the thread devolve into a debate between Catholicism and Protestantism?”

    Idle hands…

  159. Gunner Q says:

    Two divergent, Christian approaches to the same problem of feminism. Mary worship is relevant in that context.

    infowarrior1 @ 3:41 am:
    “None of us will ever be on the level as the Virgin Mary, but we can still look to her for guidance and intercession.”

    What exactly were Mary’s virtues? Getting pregnant? She didn’t even have to perform duty sex for that one. The Bible doesn’t record Mary doing much beyond giggling with her girlfriend in the early parts of Luke, accidentally leaving town without her kid and nagging Christ into performing his first miracle. That makes her a normal woman, not a virtuous one. *evade rotten tomato barrage*

    Why does Almighty God need the dead for prayer-forwarding services, anyway? Even if the dead saints are aware enough to act (the NT compares death to sleep–stoning of Stephen, for example), wouldn’t we do just as well to pray with our fellow, living churchmen? The saints can inspire us but Christ is our priest and intercessor (Book of Hebrews).

  160. craig says:

    I don’t know why I should bother to wade in to these arguments that generate only heat and no light, but here goes anyway:

    1. “What exactly were Mary’s virtues? Getting pregnant?”

    Are you one of those people who thinks the Holy Spirit would have impregnated Mary regardless of her own will? That would be abhorrent. There is an important parallelism here, of the kind the Bible is filled with; just as sin entered the world by the free consent of a woman and the action of a man, redemption entered the world by the free consent of a woman and the action of a man. Mary’s virtues were that she willingly took upon herself the measure of suffering predicted by the angel.

    2. “Why does Almighty God need the dead for prayer-forwarding services, anyway?”

    He is God of the living, not the dead. I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

    And because He took on human form and is Himself alive, as are those saints now in Paradise having died in Christ’s mercy, there is no idolatry in representing them in images and praying in front of them as reminders of those we know who are indeed alive. Or else, if you believe there is, there is also idolatry in every portrait in the Louvre, every family photo on the mantel, every selfie on the smartphone, and every child’s crayon drawing lovingly displayed on the refrigerator. Destroy them all, and when the place has been swept clean and put in order, it will then be ready for Islam. Those were the fruits of the iconoclast movement in the East.

  161. Lyn87 says:

    craig says:
    September 29, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    I don’t know why I should bother to wade in to these arguments that generate only heat and no light,

    Speak for yourself. Bowing down in front of statutes and praying to the beings they represent has been known by the word idolatry for thousands of years. Every cult that practiced it claimed it wasn’t praying to rocks ad stumps, but rather to gods. They were wrong, too, and the Bible minces no words about the subject – it’s a simple test: if you’re praying to an object you are committing idolatry. We’re not talking about children’s drawings in Art class, we’re talking kneeling to statues and images and asking physically-dead people for favors because the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God apparently isn’t up to the task of handling His own affairs. And it is not Bible-believing Protestant religious leaders who are tripping over themselves to extend the olive branch to Islam… is it recent popes.

    As for the idols, you make it sound so innocuous… “there is no idolatry in representing them in images and praying in front of them as reminders of those we know who are indeed alive”. If they are not idols, why pray to them at all? The only reason to pray to them is because you think they have power – that they are not mere images, like paintings in the Louvre. The fact is that this idolatry was carried over from Roman polytheism when Constantine became the first real pope by wearing the twins mantles of Pontifex Maximus and Emperor of Rome. The Romans were very practical about this sort of thing: they didn’t care what gods their subjects worshiped as long as they acknowledged the religious supremacy of Rome (that’s why the Jews gave the Romans such a hard time – they are monotheistic). They knew that the one thing that really gets conquered people up in arms is to declare their religion forbidden. When Constantine declared that “Christianity” was to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, he carried that pragmatism forward. He maintained the polytheistic structure of Roman religion… you could still worship the Queen of Heaven, but now instead of calling her Juno or Hera, you had to call her Mary. The gods and demi-gods were given new names as patron saints, but they performed the same types of functions, and were worshiped in similar ways. Polytheists within the Empire could adopt Roman Catholicism fairly easily – all they really had to do was call their existing gods by their “Christian” names.

  162. SirHamster says:

    None of us will ever be on the level as the Virgin Mary, but we can still look to her for guidance and intercession.

    Jesus begs to differ:
    “I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

    Consider that both were alive in those days, with Mary being the older of the two. Unless you believe that Mary came down fully formed from heaven …

  163. SirHamster says:

    What exactly were Mary’s virtues?

    She does deserve credit for submitting to God’s will. “I am the Lord’s servant, May your word to me be fulfilled.” Contrast that with say Gideon who dragged it out with many tests before getting to action.

    Nagging Jesus to do a miracle also demonstrated faith in his power, which is not something to sneer at.

    Nothing that deserves worship, but she did have some actions worthy of admiration and imitation.

  164. Gunner Q says:

    “Are you one of those people who thinks the Holy Spirit would have impregnated Mary regardless of her own will?”

    Yes. God does a great many things to us without asking our permission, let alone forgiveness. That’s a perk of being sovereign.

    Do you think God would have allowed the fate of humanity to depend on the whim of a woman? The Bible repeatedly discusses what a horrible idea THAT would have been. Remember how Queen Esther refused to save the Jews until Mordecai threatened her?

    Lastly, the visiting angel’s words are recorded in the Bible. He did not ask Mary’s permission. SirHamster is right about her submitting but free will wasn’t a factor.

    “Mary’s virtues were that she willingly took upon herself the measure of suffering predicted by the angel.”

    Citations, please? None of her Bible-recorded suffering appears noteworthy.

    “…there is no idolatry in representing them in images and praying in front of them as reminders of those we know who are indeed alive.”

    You argue that it isn’t idolatry, I argue that it isn’t necessary in the first place. Why do you pray to people other than Christ?

  165. Collegeguy says:

    I’m going to be frank here, so forgive me of I hurt your feelings. I’m a 27 year Old guy who went back to college. I’m surrounded by thousands upon thousands of young women, on a daily basis. Do some of the women get drunk? A small minority do. Are the only men getting sex part of the magical 20%? No. Most of the men i see around are in relationships. I’m not good-looking. I don’t have “game.” I am not tall(5’7″”). I don’t have money. And yet i always have multiple signals of interest from attractive to very attractive women basically every day. Have you ever considered that most women Night not be sexually interested in most men because most men are grossura overweight and don’t shave their faces? I’m not muscular. I’m skinny. I take a shower everyday and i talk to women like they are human beings instead as seeing the “hypergamous slut that only wants 6’6″” Brad pitt bad boys in their 20″ ya buddy, that’s your problem. You only lool at the top 1% women in looks and then claim all women only want the best-looking men. You are all middle-aged men. Behavior according to your age. Oh, and still hitting on women young enough to be your daughters, that’s the key here. I always have 40 year Old women + eating me with their eyes. You guys aren’t doing your job proper.

    [D: Haven’t you done this schtick before?]

  166. Pingback: Not a SJW true believer. | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s