Full of sound and fury.

Mommyish has a post by a woman* who complains about all of the nice things people do for her.  This kind of feminist ugliness is pretty standard stuff, but her explanation of why people don’t need to protect her from convicts or walk her to her car at night stood out as one of the funniest things I’ve read in several weeks:

I should start by saying that I’m not a particularly small or helpless person. Sure, I’m 5’4″ in sneakers, but I’ve always been athletic and loud, by no means a shrinking violet.

Violent thugs beware;  she may be tiny, but she is loud and sporty.  She also has sorority girl street cred:

…when I was in college and on vacation with my sorority sisters, they once told me that in the event of a burglary, I was the one they would turn to for protection and a plan of attack.

 

*Correction: After reading her post again, I realize that I was mistaken when I originally referred to her as a single mother.

This entry was posted in Chivalry, Fantasy vs Reality, Foolishness, Manosphere Humor, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

375 Responses to Full of sound and fury.

  1. okrahead says:

    Appropriate that this is posted on Halloween, since we’ve all seen enough horror flicks to know that this chick will be the first to die.

  2. Wow, she’s the least weak sorority girl! Sign her up for the UFC!

  3. “IT’S UP TO MEN TO STOP RAPE!”

    Okay, let me walk you to your car.

    “NOOO! IM A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN WHO DOESNT NEED HELP!”

    Alright then , go to your car alone.

    “BUT I MIGHT GET RAPED! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO PREVENT THAT?!?”

  4. Pingback: Full of sound and fury. | Manosphere.com

  5. earl says:

    “when I was in college and on vacation with my sorority sisters, they once told me that in the event of a burglary, I was the one they would turn to for protection and a plan of attack.”

    Really sorority sisters gave her cred huh? She is the alpha of the omegas.

  6. earl says:

    Our next example of complete disconnect.

    People Treat Me Like A Child And I’m Too Polite To Correct Them

    “but I’ve always been athletic and loud, by no means a shrinking violet.”

    Oh she’ll take your kindness and free stuff…but she will be a seething wilder beast about it.

  7. Chad says:

    oh no, people acting like loving, caring people! Men that talk about car and home maintenance, grandparents that spoil their children, mothers who keep mothering, and neighbors who are neighborly!

    What’s a girl got to do to feel oppressed in a pseudo Christian world!?

    Wait a minute…. I may have a solution…

    Whine like a child, about being treated like a child, when people show they love through actions instead of mere words.

  8. earl says:

    A continuation of the “How are you today?” = catcalling.

  9. Jimmy says:

    After being happily divorced for 9 years, I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would want todays “Modern Woman”. I of course wish I had known these truths 20 years ago. I am constantly reminded that in the eyes of women; “womens faults are many, but men have only 2, everything they say, and everything they do.”

  10. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Take note guys- women are NEVER happy. This chick is bitching like a little girl that people do things for her all the time so it makes her feel like a child. If people did NOT do things for her she would pout and bitch like a child over that. Same with the NYC streetwalker complaining that she walked around for 12 hours and for a whole of 2 minutes some guys tried to talk to her. She would complain if guys did NOT try to talk to her.

    Women are never happy. Why would anyone even bother to try listening to what women say?

    I really think The Red Pill is going more mainstream. The War on Women meme is not going o work this election cycle. We are just tired of hearing about the woe-is-me victimhood while we give up everything, our money, time, values, even our whole society is not enough. It can never be enough.

    Re-read Genesis 3 for a more complete explanation. It doesn’t matter if you give them paradise. It doesn’t matter if you give them the entire world. It doesn’t matter if you give up everything. It doesn’t matter if you create comforts the world has never known for them. I doesn’t matter if you create civilization. It doesn’t matter if you let them stay at home eating candy all day. It doesn’t matter if you let them work. It doesn’t matter if you give them equal rights. It doesn’t matter if you give them superior rights. It wouldn’t matter if we formally enslaved men and let women pick the ones they want to fuck and the ones they want to support them (well actually we already did that). It doesn’t matter what you do. Women will bitch, moan, cry, and complain. Women are never happy. God himself could not make them happy or control their insatiable demand for more.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    This sort of mindset is a logical outcome of the whole YuGoGrrl fantasy world, where Laura Croft is a real woman and all that wire-flying in modern chopsocky movies is doable. I guess watching movies where women beat up men might give people some wrong ideas. in the real world, where body mass and muscle mass matters, if some man decides to stuff her in the trunk of a car all her mighty Moxie won’t slow the events at Crime Scene A much at all. Only a supply of other people, some of them men, or a really good mindset with the right tools will prevent that.

    Unfortunately, being as Earl so excellently put it the “Alpha of the Omegas” in no way prepares anyone for a truly bad, dangerous, violent criminal actor. Nor for what happens as a rule at Crime Scene B. These two terms come from the writings of John Farnam, I did not coin them. Do a search.

  12. tweell says:

    If the person didn’t ask for the help and doesn’t really want the help, they don’t have to reciprocate or owe favors!

    An older sister would ask for an escort to her car at night. She’s 5’8″ and a black belt in karate. She had learned that she was outmatched against a man with half a clue about fighting, and had no chance against two muggers. Reality bites.

  13. Jeremy says:

    This is the end-game of the “you-go-girl” nonsense… 5’3″ tall women who think they stand a chance at defending themselves from even an average size man, much less any of the above-average ones. The depth of the societal deception is stunning, they’ve convinced women against their own true nature.

  14. Honeycomb says:

    Duplicity … the definition of every woman I’ve ever meet.

  15. “…when I was in college and on vacation with my sorority sisters, they once told me that in the event of a burglary, I was the one they would turn to for protection and a plan of attack.”

    No, dear, they look to you to be their patsy while they are making their getaway. They know that since you are so proud, arrogant, and pig-headed that you would make the perfect target. You’re perfect bait..nothing else.

  16. earl says:

    “No, dear, they look to you to be their patsy while they are making their getaway. They know that since you are so proud, arrogant, and pig-headed that you would make the perfect target. You’re perfect bait..nothing else.”

    Good point. That was an indirect way of the herd to show their hatred of her.

  17. Bee says:

    “…..but I’ve always been athletic and loud, by no means a shrinking violet.”

    “The woman called Foolishness is loud.
    She doesn’t control herself. She doesn’t know anything.” Proverbs 9:13 NIRV

  18. Bob Wallace says:

    5’4″? I could lift her above my head! I wonder what excuse she would use if some psycho threw her across the room? “He caught me unaware”?

  19. thedeti says:

    “I absolutely have no intention of helping any woman I don’t know in any way shape or form, especially if she is a single mother.”

    When I see stories like this one, and read comments like TFH’s quip above, it brings into very sharp focus how society continues to break down. Little things like common courtesies and the small amounts of trust necessary to a functioning society disappear. I might help that person pick up dropped papers blowing away in a stiff wind. I might help an older lady move a car seat back or an elderly gentleman stranded on the roadside. When I was on a road trip with several other men from my church, we once stopped to help a young college woman change a flat tire.

    About 20 years ago as a young single man starting out in my career, I was leaving a restaurant when an older lady accosted me from her late model Buick, asking if I could help her move her car seat back. I spent five minutes trying to help her, ultimately telling her she had a broken or inoperable electric switch for the seat back. She was quite kind and grateful for my efforts, and we were both patient with each other.

    Sorry to say, I don’t undertake such random acts of kindness any more. The risk is too great that I’ll be accused of some form of harassment — talking, acknowledging that she’s female, noticing that she might be an attractive female, or even just extending courtesies. But then when I don’t help, I’m accused of being a misanthropic malcontent, a hardened cynic who wants to “watch it all burn”.

    I can’t win, you see. If I try to help, I’m a sexist pig, because my offer means that I’m presuming she’s incapable of doing it herself. If I politely decline a request for help, then I’m a cruel, heartless, mean-spirited sexist pig who refuses to use my “privilege” to help others.

  20. A simple physics lesson here would help her…. size, mass, weight etc vs ‘tiny’…. simple win here also, men have more fast twitch muscles than women, again physics…..

    oy

  21. Yo go gurrl!!

    Send her to Iraq! Those IS, ISIS, ISIL bastards won’t know what hit em!

  22. The tragedy is there is an entire industry teaching her she’s a man’s equal. Yet, she’s been so protected all her life she’s never come face-to-face with real violence. That’s obvious just from her words. Think about the scene in Ironman 2: Scarlett Johannsen kicks the crap out of a dozen guys while the guy is engaged in a semi-realistic fight with one guy. That kind of garbage is everywhere and it’s a subtle indoctrination program that teaches women they’re something they’re not.

    This empowerment teaching is so pervasive and has caused so many problems that (as the comments above indicate) men are no longer willing to defend her. Thus, feminism has robbed her of both her femininity and her protection.

    There is a technical term for women like this: cannon-fodder.

  23. Anonymous age 72 says:

    >>Re-read Genesis 3 for a more complete explanation. It doesn’t matter if you give them paradise. It doesn’t matter if you give them the entire world. It doesn’t matter if you give up everything. It doesn’t matter if you create comforts the world has never known for them. I doesn’t matter if you create civilization. It doesn’t matter if you let them stay at home eating candy all day. It doesn’t matter if you let them work. It doesn’t matter if you give them equal rights. It doesn’t matter if you give them superior rights. It wouldn’t matter if we formally enslaved men and let women pick the ones they want to fuck and the ones they want to support them (well actually we already did that). It doesn’t matter what you do. Women will bitch, moan, cry, and complain. Women are never happy. God himself could not make them happy or control their insatiable demand for more.

    Priceless!!!

    I once told my wife she would not be happy if she married Jesus Christ Himself. She was not happy at my remark! Heh, heh.

    Most women are deluded about their own strength. Since most men are not capable of violence toward women, they have never been hit by a man, and have no idea what the average man is capable of doing.

    Let me repeat what I have said many times. AW think AM are pure s**t. Yet, AM are known around the world as the best husbands on the planet. You can do better in any non-English speaking country.

  24. AOA72
    “God himself could not make them happy or control their insatiable demand for more.”

    It is written: “Is there anything impossible with God?” This is just part of the curse that the women EARNED back in the garden.

  25. joshtheaspie says:

    @TFH says:
    October 31, 2014 at 11:37 am
    In general, in unarmed, hand-to-hand combat, the average man is a match for 3 average women.

    The women will always get whiteknight intervention, of course.

    Assuming the White Knights are around. Most actual rapists are dedicated attackers who wait until their prey is vulnerable.

    Oh, and btw:

    @TFH says:
    October 31, 2014 at 10:52 am
    Yep. One doesn’t have to outrun the tiger. They only have to outrun the fool who thinks they can fight the tiger.

    There are totally people who can fight tigets. They are called “people with big guns, who know how to use them”. 😛

    Odd that so many “Proud Independent Women” want to ban the one thing that could actually level the playing field a bit.

  26. earl says:

    Eve is actually the example of a woman wanting it all. When it turns out she already did. So by wanting it all…she actually removed herself from paradise.

  27. Buck says:

    The other day I was on a train, it was crowded and I noted lots of women standing, including an older woman (like 70) with a big bag. I verbally offer her my seat, stand up and a young woman slides in and plants herself….absolutely shameless…no acknowledgement, no thanks nothing. The older woman thanked me and my actions shamed another 50 something guy (like me) to give up his seat. NONE of the young metrosexual skinny-jeans-around-their-ass douchbags would even look up from their electronic devices. Mind you, I would not have given up my seat for a “yougogirrrl”, but I will honor the elderly as per the biblical requirement. I pains me to see the death of a once great country, but alas, we are living it!

  28. Frugal Nerd says:

    …when I was in college and on vacation with my sorority sisters, they once told me that in the event of a burglary, I was the one they would turn to for protection and a plan of attack.

    How very masculine of her. Unluckily for her, biology works against her and the thugs know it.

  29. thedeti says:

    “Same here. I used to do those things. No more unless the woman is someone I know and is not a single mother or a ‘feminist’.”

    Men are refusing to do these things because the level of implicit trust necessary for a man to extend these courtesies is gone.

    In days gone by, there was an implicit requirement that a man use his strength to help those weaker than he. So, a man would lift or carry something, or retrieve a high up item, help a woman change a tire, etc. The implicit tradeoff or benefit was that she would show a bit of gratitude and that the woman would at least cooperate. At the bare minimum, she would at least not lie about him or what happened. (There was absolutely NO expectation that the woman would offer him sex. Men do not AND NEVER DID go around demanding sex from every woman they come in contact with.)

    Now? That implicit part of the grand social compact is gone. Now a man has to pause every time, EVERY TIME, he is alone with a woman, every time he addresses a woman. A loud rebuke in public will draw attention and he will be blamed. Paradoxically, many women in need EXPECT any nearby man to help them0 do, get or move whatever they needs. It is female provisioning entitlement, plain and simple.

    At bottom, this is about further excluding what women deem to be “unattractive” or “undesirable” men from any level of participation in society. Most women, indeed society, want unattractive men pushed to the fringes and margins, and rendered completely irrelevant and invisible.

  30. MarcusD says:

  31. Frugal Nerd says:

    The above comments remind me of the husband store joke.

  32. BradA says:

    I like the wife store counterpart:

    http://www.funny2.com/husbandstore.htm

  33. Tam the Bam says:

    Yea let me know how that goes, Xena:Sorority Princess.
    Richard Pryor had a bit in “Live in Concert” where he decides he’s too big to be chastised like a kid any more (YT has pulled it since, about 35 mins in).

    ” And I had a fight with my father one time. You know, it wasn’t exactly a fight. but I did the best I could. I just got tired of them ass-whuppin’s. Right?
    I said, “This is it! I’m not takin’ no more ass-whuppin’s! This is it.” And he looked at me and he said, “What, you a man now, mu’fu’?”
    “Yeah!”
    And he hit me in the chest.
    Hard. [Whoooooommmmppp!]
    He hit me so hard, my chest just caved in…
    .. and wrapped around his fist. And I held onto it with my chest. I would not let it go … so he could hit my ass again. And everywhere he moved his arm, I was hangin’ on like this ….”

    All the gear and no idea.
    5’4″? OK maybe I’m judging her, but she’d have to weigh like 320 lbs. to compensate, and still somehow be mobile. Maybe she is.

  34. Gunner Q says:

    +1 to Real Peterman. Sounds like this woman is just hamstering excuses for hating unattractive men for noticing her… with a side order of trying to convince herself she doesn’t need their protection.

    It’s probably good that our society is decaying to the point where such women will be forced to confront their pride but I can’t be happy about it.

  35. PuzzledTraveller says:

    This woman is an idiot. From reading her “thoughts” you can start to come to some good guesses about her, like:

    1. She is white.
    2. Grew up in a bubble in the burbs or the right part of the city.
    3. All her life counted on white knights to rescue her from her !moxie! Even if they were icky guys she didn’t like in that way. But a girl’s gotta make sacrifices, am I right?
    4. Never been in a street fight.
    5. Never been the victim of a real violent crime. (Being forced to live under this patriarchy doesn’t count as being the victim of a violent crime.)
    6. Never seen firsthand just how bad and bloody the aftermath can be from from #4 and #5.
    7. Probably is anti-gun, cuz butterflies and unicorns!
    8. Is used to indulging in middle/upper class white girl privilege. The most privileged and pampered humans on planet earth.
    9. Doesn’t realize that if ALL the people around you treat you like a toddler, it’s likely because they recognize your personal operational limitations, even if you can’t or won’t seem them.
    10. Is probably a real peach to live with, if she still has or ever did have a husband around. I’m thinking: Proverbs 21:9 Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.

    Bonus Round: probably uses the phrase in written in verbal form, That.Just.Happened. quite often. Tweet!

    Dumb.

  36. Emma the Emo says:

    I read the article. Some of what she complains about is kinda silly (like bags of stuff grandparents give her, and people wanting to protect her from potential thugs), but other stuff seems legit (neighbors redoing her plant, micromanaging parents). I suspect her parents micromanaged her when she lived with them, and now she’s oversensitive to anything that seems like micromanaging. That’s just my guess. Nagging is really annoying, it’s no joke, and even parents can do it. It can make their kid resistant even to reasonable things. It’s a universal rule – the more you nag, the less likely they are to comply.

  37. new anon says:

    5-4 in sneakers. Sassy and athletic. Setting herself up to the get beaten into a bloody pulp one day.

    As far as I can make out the numbers…

    A typical 5-4 male carries 59 pounds of muscle, the majority of which is found on his upper body (the part of the body that is useful in fights and beating people up).

    A typical 5-4 female carries about 45 pounds of muscle, the majority of which is found on her lower body (the part of the body useless in fights unless you want to count running away).

    So, even against a male that is her exact same height she wouldn’t stand a chance in a fight. Unfortunately for her, only about 5% of men are 5-4 or shorter. 95% of men are taller than her, and thus they carry even more muscle mass. The typical 5-11 guy (average height of men in US) carries a 67 pounds of muscle.

    These are just the facts of life.

  38. Aservant says:

    @ thedeti,

    I am completely on the same page with you. My nature has always been inclined to the service of others before myself. It still is, but I just won’t act on it most of the time anymore. As you said, it just isn’t worth it for the risk, and besides that, most interactions with others these days are rather offensive. I don’t enjoy conversing or even associating with narcissists, the vain, the shallow, the arrogant, the prideful or the rest that are celebrating the pagan wickedness of today, and this is the vast majority that I encounter in public.

    Scripture tells us that we are to separate ourselves from the heathen, and that in the end days, the lovers of themselves would appear that would be full of every type of wickedness and vice. These are the people of today, so as commanded, I obey, and thus, turn away.

  39. Fred Flangesky, Der Kommissar says:

    The common law is actually on your side if you do nothing. If you have no duty to help, and in these situations you do not, then you have no liability for the consequence. If you stand on the shore and watch someone drown, you are not obligated to try to rescue. If someone has a heart attack you are NOT obligated to apply CPR. BUT: if you assume the duty, and try to assist, and cause injury, you are ABSOLUTELY liable for breaching the duty of using due care whilst interfering, helping, rescuing, offering first aid, etc.

  40. Dave says:

    There…now it is complete. pic.twitter.com/pwS7031dHB

    — Earl (@earl_earlmax) October 31, 2014

    Compared to Italian families, UK families have long gone:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2814642/Sculpture-real-family-unveiled-Birmingham-Turner-Prize-winning-artist-boasting-two-single-mothers-children-Kyan-Shaye.html

  41. Ra's al Ghul says:

    Imagine for a moment where men everywhere stopped looking, stopped giving women free stuff, ignored them when they were in distress.

    I’m looking forward to that.

  42. earl says:

    I also have discretion of who I help now. One time going to work I had one young lady stumbling drunk at 4am come up to me a complete stranger and asked for money to pay for cab fair. Said I didn’t have any. Then she goes into the cab. I take it by that action she had means to pay for her fair.

  43. easttexasfatboy says:

    Well, folks, this here’s a darwinian lesson. Let her go on her way. We’ll find out if she survives. I wouldn’t help her anyways. Too risky. Best leave her to the predators.

  44. enrique432 says:

    Without going into details, I am a long-time, armed/credentialed law enforcement officer, who carries almost 24/7. With the exception of an issue with my family, or an actual armed robbery in progress, I decided a few years ago, I wasn’t going to get involved in ANY White Knightedtry…particularly after you consider recent cases, like the guy that stepped in for the single mom, was killed, and left his 12 year old daughter behind. The fact is, I no longer feel compelled to protect any (particularly white) female, and if questioned about it after the fact, or even hypothetically…my answer is: “I was concerned about being injured, disabled and thus incapable of paying my child support”…since ANY SINGLE (particularly white) female in the US, if on a jury, would COMPLETELY SCREW any guy in a CS matter.

    Secondly, after my extremely pregnant (S. American) wife and I travelled on the metro here in DC many years ago downtown one time, and not a SINGLE WHITE FEMALE sitting in handicap (“persons in need”) seats got up to offer her a seat, I no longer give a metro seat to ANY women…and if anyone says anything (which has happened a couple times over the years), I loudly and rhetorically state (ya, I’m THAT asshole), “I’ll go back to giving my seat up when I see a white woman under 40 do it once…” Crickets dudes…not a single white woman seated cares the least that I called them out, and it plays well to the minority crowd.

    White women are destroying this country. No offense to the men married to them, but they are a fucking NIGHTMARE to deal with–everywhere.

  45. joshtheaspie says:

    @Buck says:
    October 31, 2014 at 12:41 pm
    The other day I was on a train, it was crowded and I noted lots of women standing, including an older woman (like 70) with a big bag.

    Buck, if you’re 50, then in my book you’re already an elder to learn from.

    When it comes to the really old, who look like they might be in pain from standing, then (my own condition permitting), I’ll offer my seat to that elder. It has nothing to do with the elder being a woman or not.

    I will not, however, offer my seat to any random woman any more, just because she’s a woman.

    And giving special, unearned privileges like this to women, paying for “dates”, Victorian ideas of putting women on pedistals, are all things that sowed the seeds of the destruction of the nation long it was even born.

  46. joshtheaspie says:

    @Earl

    Not necessarily. Many cab companies have taken to putting video cameras in their cabs specifically to take care of false rape claims by women who can’t pay their fares.

  47. earl says:

    I saw a rant a while ago about a woman who was pregnant being mad nobody on the bus offered her a seat. So it has even got to that point. Again they reap what they sow.

  48. joshtheaspie says:

    @Earl:

    Did I make her pregnant? Did I get sex out of the deal? Does anyone provide for me any of the traditional respect, or privileges that counter-weight the expectation that I give her my seat? Why on earth should I offer my seat to a random pregnant woman, who may well be a choice single mommy?

    If I were to do so, it would be a courtesy from me that she should be grateful for, not something she demands, feeling entitled to it. This behavior is actually a part of why no on is willing to do so any more. Let her, or whoever fathered her child provide her with comfort and accommodation.

    If we were living in a patriarchy, it would be my duty to offer her protection, just as it would be her duty to offer me succor, deference, and support. We’re not, so it is not.

    She has no more right to expect me to get up out of my seat for her, or protect her, than I have a right to expect her to defer to me (which is part of what would allow me to minimize danger to both of us as I protect her), or to go get me, a random man, some food or a nice cold lemonade because I’ve been working hard at physical labor all day.

    When I spend my time and effort for a charity, those I help express gratitude, and acknowledge that I am doing something for them. At the very least they don’t act like it’s something the charity is due, and it’s only natural that I’d do it. They are not demanding that I come down to the community center and do X, or go to the “save the whales” foundation and do Y.

    I avoid charity groups that try to impose that kind of an expectation on me as well.

    This is probably part of why those “skinny jean” kids you’re trying to shame didn’t lift a finger for the old woman, even if they won’t enunciate it. They’re used to their gestures being taken as expected instead of recognized as a gift of charity.

  49. greyghost says:

    This is what our hero chick looks like when it happens

  50. Frugal Nerd says:

    BradA:
    I like the wife store counterpart:

    The joke isn’t complete without it – as long as the wife store part is told correctly (the women aren’t advertised with femenist traits).

  51. earl says:

    @greyghost

    This is why men are better protectors in these situations. Physical strength, mental awareness, and logic and reasoning.

    If I had the option I would find some blunt object (more blunt than a purse) and try to hit the guy in the head. I wouldn’t go for the gun.

    If I didn’t have that option…stall the guy with logic and reasoning (which those guys tried to do).

  52. joshtheaspie says:

    @Frugal Nerd:

    I think floor two should have wives that love sex and are supportive (i.e. not nagging, no frivorcing, etc). I’m pretty sure 99% of men would, truely, not make it past that floor.

  53. earl says:

    Yeah 99% of men wouldn’t go past that.

    I’d bet most would be fine with supportive. Women give up sex very easily….but a supportive woman is becoming rare.

  54. Maunalani says:

    I ALWAYS offer to walk women to their cars after dark, and there is a standing offer to women in my office who may be working late (because as an owner I am usually still here in the evenings). I don’t care if I am seen as a sexist. I would rather have offered than have someone I was with ends up getting attacked by some low-life (and there are a lot around here, especially after dark).

    And I offer my seat. And let women in and out first on the elevator and through doors. And I always open the car door for women (in my case, the woman is almost always my wife).

    Again, maybe I’m seen as a sexist, but I don’t care. And sometimes you never know. Once time in a shopping center parking lot when I was opening the passenger side door for my wife, a woman who was sitting in another car nearby said, loud enough to hear, “well, that’s certainly something you don’t see any more–good for you.” I assumed it was a compliment, although I guess it could be a general complaint about men not being nice to her.

  55. earl says:

    Nothing wrong with offering. The problem is when women think they are entitled to it.

  56. Frugal Nerd says:

    greyghost,

    Excellent example of what moxie usually gets women in violent confrontations. The woman who tried to take the gunman down didn’t have a chance. Too bad most feminists will never see the video or understand the implications.

  57. joshtheaspie says:

    @Earl,

    Eh, I have friends I can get support from. Bottom line, no sex, no reason to have a wife. It’s the mirror side of no wife, no sex. That’s why I intend to die a voluntary celibate (I’ve turned down sex multiple times from women who were not wife material).

    But, as the Bible says,

    A constant dripping on a day of steady rain and a contentious woman are alike; He who would restrain her restrains the wind, and grasps oil with his right hand.

    Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.

    It is better to live in a desert land than with a contentious and vexing woman.

    So that’s why floor 2 exists.

    @Maunalani,

    Well, if you want to provide that in generosity, that’s up to you. Shaming men who don’t want to do that, however, is rather unproductive and misses the causes.

  58. Frugal Nerd says:

    joshtheaspie,

    You are absolutely correct. I tell the wife store part a little differently in that floor one has women who love sex, floor two has women sho love sex and are excellent cooks, and floor three has women who love sex, are excellent cooks, and are very good looking. We all need our sammiches and it might as well come from a woman who maintains herself properly.

  59. Frugal Nerd says:

    It is better to live in a desert land than with a contentious and vexing woman.

    As someone livving in a Middle East desert I can vouch for this one.

  60. enrique432 says:

    Mauling: they’re patting u on the head. How sweet.

    Speaking as a white hispanic who lives in a very diverse area (Washington D.C.), no woman expects giving a seat up or chivalry, generally, EXCEPT, from white men. They would not dream of rolling their eyes or guffawing at a black man or dark hispanic who didn’t rise to give a seat, or help them with their bags etc.

  61. joshtheaspie says:

    Hmm.
    Floor 1 has wives that love sex.
    Floor 2 has wives that love sex, and have the means, attitude, and self-discipline to be supportive (which also means they have the self discipline to keep themselves in decent shape). There are a variety of models that have different ways of belonging on this floor. Some can cook and sew, others have jobs or money.
    The women on floor 3 have the qualities of those on floor 2, and are split into two departments 3a. has drop dead gorgeous models, and 3b has women with enough self control to keep their libidos in check to wait for marriage.

    Floors 4-6 have never been visited, and yet everyone knows they’re empty.

  62. joshtheaspie says:

    Looking back at my previous comment, I’m wondering if floor 3 even exists.

  63. SirHamster says:

    BUT: if you assume the duty, and try to assist, and cause injury, you are ABSOLUTELY liable for breaching the duty of using due care whilst interfering, helping, rescuing, offering first aid, etc.

    Some states have Good Samaritan laws to protect an honest amateur attempt to help. But definitely know your liability and limits.

  64. joshtheaspie says:

    Got it. “The 1% of men visiting floor 3 because they have heard about it from their fathers and grandfathers see a sign saying that the western branch of the wife store has been out of stock for several decades, and are asked to please contact a foreign branch.”

  65. feeriker says:

    I can’t win, you see. If I try to help, I’m a sexist pig, because my offer means that I’m presuming she’s incapable of doing it herself. If I politely decline a request for help, then I’m a cruel, heartless, mean-spirited sexist pig who refuses to use my “privilege” to help others.

    I’d consider that a win-win, as I have no problem being labeled as either one of those things, depending on the specific situation. In fact, considering the types most like to throw such labels around, I’d consider either one to be a badge of honor.

  66. Frugal Nerd says:

    joshtheaspie:
    Looking back at my previous comment, I’m wondering if floor 3 even exists.

    The vast mahority of floor 3’s inhabitants are from outside the English speaking world. Fact is men tend to put up with a lot more bs from a drop dead gorgeous woman making 3b much more atractive. Young women who are physically fit are usually good looking enough to engender sexual attraction. I have met some women that, although not beautiful, were physically fit and would be very attractive overall with the right attitude and personality. The ones who did have the right attitude and personality were already married with kids (go figure).

  67. enrique432 says:

    TFH: Thanks. Yes, I am nearing the end of my career (last quartile I suppose) and what has been surprising to me, is the younger, very educated investigators I’ve been working with are ALREADY RED PILL.

    It hit me a while back (I am sure you all already figured this out), but the 30 and under crowd of men, see women in the workforce for what they are–competitors. White Knights seem rarer, at least it’s grotesque pedastalizing form. They’ve already been stung by affirmative action (which in raw numbers is really about white women), and they’ve already seen the White Knightetry of the older managers (the half step generation ahead of me–I’m mid 40s Gen-x, the beginning of the early MRA movement in the 90’s after more men were exposed to Family Law). They’ve seen how White Knights LOVE THEM SOME WHITE WOMEN and promote them up, early and often.

    Like any “movement”, MGTOW, MRA, anti-Social Justice Creep (SJC), all that, has it’s greatest gains along the everyday “margins”–just regular people who, over time, adopt as mainstream, the beliefs that yesterday were “radical”.

    The first marked casualty of that which I can tell–was the institution of marriage. Nevermind arguments about Child Support, MGTOW, etc etc…your average 30 year old guy, perhaps even slightly liberal is NOT GOING to get married. He has fully adopted that marriage is a racket, which leads to misery for most men (with American women at least).

  68. enrique432 says:

    As to the original Dalrock post reference: Notice the female does the typical “praise by proxy”, that American women so love to do: “My best friend always tells me…my mother thinks of me as….all the guys I date say…INSERT WONDERFUL ATTRIBUTE”

    Even this narcissist Ebola Nurse up in Maine, went full Sandra Fluke/Warhol-15 minutes in some puff piece I read online and was talking about how wonderful it is that she is a “runner” and how her mother said this and that…

    Kinda like the Yahoo recently divorced chick who climbed some Everest-like mountain and her blog was full of, NOT comments about the natural wonder and beauty around her, but the “full breath of how accomplished I was” or something like that.

    The lives of American Women are a collective portrait of Dorian Grey, a self-recognizing/praising, narcissistic, accidentally-truth telling, ‘selfie’ — writ large.

  69. embracing reality says:

    It’s a shame more men won’t read her article, so many need to catch on to the fact that their chivalrous white knightery’ needs to end, like 50 years ago. Not only do feminist women like her have nothing to worry about when it comes to my generosity, none of them do. Even if my generosity was asked for the answer is “whats in it for me?”. Thats exactly how women think. Why shouldn’t I?

  70. earl says:

    Of note…when a man asks for my help with something, I usually will help. And most show gratitude for it.

  71. Women never being satisfied you say? Men never being good enough, you say?
    Behold, the Husband Factory:
    http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/why-cant-i-find-a-husband/

  72. tsotha says:

    An older sister would ask for an escort to her car at night. She’s 5’8″ and a black belt in karate. She had learned that she was outmatched against a man with half a clue about fighting, and had no chance against two muggers. Reality bites.

    That was my experience in karate. I could easily overpower all but the most skilled women on my first day at the dojo. The skilled women I could overpower as well, but not without taking some damage. If I were the raping type I could have raped any of them. There’s no getting around Newton’s second law.

  73. Curia Regis says:

    Independent woman huh? How much of her income is derived from her own employment and not suckling the teat of welfare or the fathers of her children?

  74. enrique432 says:

    TFH: In the interest of disclosure, although I was a street cop years ago, I am a white collar investigator…most of the guys I work with who are junior to me, have never been street cops, so they don’t have that natural White Knight syndrome I know you are referring to (correctly). I was a cop almost 20 years ago, so I can only imagine some of that WK’ing has changed too..and I would bet some attitudes have changed, also, because there are even MORE women in patrol work now (competing for jobs, aggressively, while simultaneously claiming victim/protected/AA status).

    I give credit to the younger men who’ve figured things out earlier in life– my generation (GEN-X) raised on a steady diet of Top Gun (older woman are “hot”) and Purple Rain (metrosexual overtones) etc etc , along with our early 1970s Sesame Street programing, where really the first REAL, TRUE victims of feminism and political correctness. At the same time we were being indoc’d, we stood confused because our fathers and grandfathers served in Wars in strange and exotic places, they knew the value of a good car, house, and taking care of our moms…but…, our mothers bitterly came of age somewhere between baking cookies and watching other (younger) women burn their bras (my mom fits this just-short-of baby boomer generation to a T)..and resented they were still making coffee at the office, while younger women were flaunting TRADCON mores….so we grew up seeing Mad Men in our families during holiday get-togethers, but got a steady diet of anger and passive aggressiveness from Mommy Dearest, learned in our early teens (early 80s) that white men were horrible, and were told by 1992 it was officially the YEAR OF THE WOMAN.

    Being Gen-X, was truly a strange set of decades to grow up, but perhaps I ponder it all too greatly. I’ve run into SO MANY other Gen-X men whose mothers, like mine, entered their 30s (when we were kids in the ’70s) totally freaking PISSED…they’d missed the “liberation bus” by about 5-10 years (and grew up TRADCON, as my mother did). And their sons would pay for it. Listening to other men over the last 20 years, I realized we were ALL living in the same home.

    But I blather….

  75. imnobody00 says:

    @enrique

    Being 44 and being born 10,000 kms from the States, your story resembles mine a lot

  76. tiredofitall says:

    Tam the Bam says: “OK maybe I’m judging her, but she’d have to weigh like 320 lbs. to compensate, and still somehow be mobile. Maybe she is.”

    Do Rascal scooters count?

  77. Will Rieske says:

    Dalrock, I’m surprised you haven’t commented on the recent “Woman walks in NYC for 10 hours” video that’s sweeping the web.

  78. KP says:

    Dalrock, are comments broken? I keep trying to add something, but it never shows up.

  79. Novaseeker says:

    Being Gen-X, was truly a strange set of decades to grow up, but perhaps I ponder it all too greatly. I’ve run into SO MANY other Gen-X men whose mothers, like mine, entered their 30s (when we were kids in the ’70s) totally freaking PISSED…they’d missed the “liberation bus” by about 5-10 years (and grew up TRADCON, as my mother did). And their sons would pay for it. Listening to other men over the last 20 years, I realized we were ALL living in the same home.

    Yep.

    In my case, my mother was about ten years older than that, but the same attitude was there (she was in her early 40s in the 70s era). In her case, it was an odd combination of revulsion and envy at the same time, even if the latter was typically only passively expressed. And, as with all women, even the parts of liberation that repulsed her from her upbringing perspective didn’t dissuade from taking advantage of the *other* aspects of liberation (financial, etc.) — as most women of this era.

    I have also often thought that our generation (I am 46, almost 47) took second wave feminism and the sex rev on the chin, because we grew up right during the pol pot-esque indoctrination phase, and with parents who were both as you described AND at the same time totally clueless in terms of how to teach their kids how to navigate the new landscape. This is why many of us were lost as the changes began to consolidate and morph in the 80s and 90s. Today’s young guys are growing up in an age that is even rougher than that one was, but at the same time they are much less blindsided by it, because it isn’t that new, and there is the internet which is exploding with information about how to deal with it (whether people like/agree with that information or not, it was simply missing for many of us who grew up during the time Enrique is talking about). So I tend to think they will see better outcomes, even if the traditional outcome becomes much rarer, than our generation did due to not being as blindsided by things as we were.

    Before one of our guests comes in and says that the women of our generation were equally blindsided, let me pre-emptively say: “no, not to anything like the same degree.” Why is that? Several reasons. The first is that the media throughout this era was actively and aggressively creating new norms for girls and peddling them aggressively – these norms were empowering in all areas, running from school, to achievement, to sex (see, e.g., Cosmo, which started turning up at *supermarkets* during this timeframe). To the extent boys were messaged at all, which was much less common, the messaging was either the same stuff from before, or, as time went on, the SNAG type of messaging, both of which were complete set-ups and useless (actually worse than useless) for helping boys navigate what the world was becoming. The second reason is that girls share information about navigating boys much more than vice versa — the media reflects that, women’s magazines reflect that, even today women’s websites reflect that. Which leads to the third reason — the fathers started getting ditched during this era to a large degree. That is impactful because historically it was *fathers* who taught their sons how to navigate the world of women. Now, the world was changing, and many dads who weren’t ditched by their wives were giving their sons bad advice during this time (out of date advice, really), but there were also many cases where there was no dad at all due to the divorce spike that hit during the earlier part of this period — which effectively cut off millions of boys from the baseline source of advice in this area. That is only now being rectified by the internet, and the women, who have had a big advantage in this area (of being clued in) over the last few decades don’t like that, predictably. Oh well. Again, at least it is better for this young generation, in that specific sense, due to the resources we now have to pick up some of the slack from the ditched dads.

  80. earl says:

    You can look it up in the Bible…even God uses discretion in whom He helps.

    “He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He will also hear their cry and will save them.”
    Psalm 145:19

  81. enrique432 says:

    Nova, I hear ya. I’m 44, born 1970, right at the key point for Gen-X, and both my parents were born during WW2, so my mother was definitely a Betty Draper (Bored? Go bang your head into a wall…love that scene because my mother was SO Betty), while at the same time, my mom hated her lower class (mixed) white, Deeply Southern upbringing of “Patriarchy”…so once she got on board with Feminism in the late 1970s (already having two teens and me, a pre-teen), other women had already been there and enjoyed it. “Mommy” couldn’t WAIT to take out her anger on us boys. In my case as with many other similar moms of that era, she learned to talk a good game, but yet lived off my father her entire life, producing NOTHING of value whatsoever. To this day, she runs his (formerly Alpha) life to the moment. Truly remarkable what a shell of a man my father is now.

    One thing I will always relish, I cannot speak specifically to men who went to public education a generation AFTER ME, but I actually HAD those male teachers in the 70s/early 80s that actually WOULD threaten to beat your ass if you got out of line in class. One of them, a gem of a man, when he wasn’t setting us straight, read us Jack London novels for our hour of reading, outside…and had us reflect on philosophical ideas (Poe, London, other greats). Does ANY public school have a 40-something Alpha male teaching kids, reading non-PC works by non-PC authors? I shudder to think how indoc’d everyone is now.

    The (good) advice my father gave me as I came of age, about being productive, getting on with life, finding my own personal meaning…I really don’t even know how that would play for today’s teens. My oldest is MGTOW already, at 17. With little necessary input from me. I have younger children now, so I will see how the world is developing in a few years as they come of age.

  82. John Nesteutes says:

    Back in the real world, when we do street evangelism/ministry a girl is always with at least one guy. Over the years, we’ve witnessed a rape in progress (called the cops to intervene), ministered to a guy who just got beat up to a bloody pulp, etc

    None of the women whine about it. And this is in the enlightened, allegedly crime free Great White North.

    Of course we do ministry where the people who need it are which includes places besides hipster villages or suburban enclaves, like where this author apparently lives.

  83. Anonymous Reader says:

    Back in the real world, when we do street evangelism/ministry a girl is always with at least one guy.

    That is prudent, and should require no explanation. Nevertheless, perhaps you need to explain it from time to time? Don’t bother. Just state “This is how we do this”. No dialog, just fact.

    None of the women whine about it.

    Selection bias at work; the women willing to engage in street evangalism are not likely to be carrying around feminist delusions that they can be Laura Croft. The article Dalrock points to was written by a women from a different subset of women.

    Suggestion: stop using terms like “girl” or “guy” for any human above the age of majority (18 in the US, whatever it is in Canuckistan). They are “women” and “men”. Our thinking is affected by the words we use, and part of the problem socially lies in tolerating, or encouraging, or expecting people in their 20’s to behave like teenager (“teen” being an artificial concept itself). When I work with college aged people and I refer to the men as “Men” and the women as “women” often I find that higher expectations can be met. Certainly we all have the ability to descend to lower expectations…

    Calling men “guys” most of the time, then expecting them to ManUP on command is at best a set of mixed messages. I get that in some situations referring to women of any age as “girls” or “the girls” is socially acceptable, but in the androsphere we need to think clearly, and the first step to clear thinking is to call things by their right names no matter whose panties get twisted.

    Men. Women. Not “guys”. Not “girls”. That’s my suggestion.

  84. Marko says:

    Off topic but very important. A major media outlet is asking the question, “Should men’s 1st amendment rights be revoked to make women feel comfortable?” Affirmative consent was just the beginning. This is pretty serious:

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/31/do-we-need-a-law-against-catcalling/street-harassment-law-would-restrict-intimidating-behavior

  85. KP says:

    Frugal,

    The woman who tried to take the gunman down didn’t have a chance.

    Sure she did–or would have if she had known what to do.

    tsotha,

    I could easily overpower all but the most skilled women on my first day at the dojo. The skilled women I could overpower as well, but not without taking some damage.

    Indeed.

    I train with a personal friend who is an associate of Kelly Worden*. Along with other endeavors they’re long-time civilian contract trainers of unarmed combat at Ft Lewis, now JBLM.

    My friend gets invited on a regular basis to guest-teach a session of an adult Karate class at the local Y. He’s always asking us to come help him out when he does this, and so one time I did.

    I got paired up with a fairly petite gal as sparring partner–only a couple inches shorter then me, but very thin; I probably weighed 50% more than she did. I could have put my thumb and little finger around her wrist with plenty of room to spare. We were doing some kind of strikes (I forget exactly what) where one partner held pads for other to hit.

    Whoa…. talk about milli-mousefarts. I tried everything I could to get her to put some actual effort behind it, without success. I mean she wasn’t even hitting hard for her weight. I idly wondered if painting the Renee Wickland murder scenario for her would liven things up (go google it, if you have a strong stomach) but given that it was a local Y Karate class, which isn’t really billed as a Learn How To Really Defend Yourself class, I of course kept my thoughts to myself. If push ever came to shove she would be shoved all the way into oblivion… I guess just maybe living her whole life as this petite person in middle-class America and never once having to exhert herself physically, she literally just didn’t know how?

    ————–
    * (You’ll have to google him, if you care, I took the link out thinking maybe it was tripping the spam filter.)

  86. JDG says:

    Marko – From the article:

    The police may largely ignore harassment on the street because men often do not understand how pervasive it can be, but most importantly because there are no laws being violated in such encounters.

    You see the problem? Men don’t understand. One must be a woman to understand what harassment is.

    If the law has an appropriate role prohibiting sexual harassment, violence and rape in our homes, workplace and universities, why not the street?

    But these types of laws DO NOT have an appropriate role in our work places, universities, and especially our homes. The imposition of such laws has not only violated our constitutional rights, it has done more damage then good.

    Shouldn’t gender equality exist everywhere?

    Does she mean “equality of the sexes” when she writes “gender equality”?

    Either way, no it should not. It will not, because it can not.

  87. “neighbors redoing her plant, micromanaging parents”

    YeS, that would annoy me too. She has a few legit gripes, but the again don’t we all?

  88. The Brass Cat says:

    In the article posted by Marko:

    The law would prohibit “uninvited harassing speech or actions targeted toward individuals in public spaces on the basis of sex or sexual orientation when done with the intent to intimidate.”

    First of all, who says catcalling is done with the “intent to intimidate?” That doesn’t make any sense. I’m not completely sure why some men do catcalling–I don’t do it–but it certainly isn’t to intimidate. If a woman feels intimidated by a man saying “smile!” that speaks more to her own mental state than to the man’s intent.

    Second, Laura Beth Nielsen’s little article is so full of squishy words that it’s almost indecipherable. It seems her proposed law hinges on the emotional state of women. In other words, it isn’t harassing speech if it comes from an Alpha male. The result of such a law in practice would be men requiring permission from women to speak to them.

  89. The Brass Cat says:

    @JDG:

    Shouldn’t gender equality exist everywhere?

    Does she mean “equality of the sexes” when she writes “gender equality”?

    Yes, good question! What exactly does she mean about anything? She’s counting on her audience forgetting that words have meanings. Plus, she’s giving herself some plausible deniability so, if cornered about her extreme opinions, she can fall back on “That’s not what I meant!”

  90. tiredofitall says:

    Anonymous Reader said: “Suggestion: stop using terms like “girl” or “guy” for any human above the age of majority (18 in the US, whatever it is in Canuckistan). They are “women” and “men”. Our thinking is affected by the words we use, and part of the problem socially lies in tolerating, or encouraging, or expecting people in their 20’s to behave like teenager”

    Suggestion: The day I meet a late teen or twenty year old who ACTS like a goddamned grownup will be addressed as a grownup. And until then you can kindly keep your language police bullshit to yourself.

  91. Frugal Nerd says:

    tiredofitall:

    “Suggestion: The day I meet a late teen or twenty year old who ACTS like a goddamned grownup will be addressed as a grownup. And until then you can kindly keep your language police bullshit to yourself.”

    Teens and early to mid 20s peopple often act to what standards they are held to – ane it is a pretty low standard in todays society. Referring to them as men and women (or young men and women if you like) helps raise the standards they perceive themselves being expected to meet. AR is hitting on one of the fundamental problems we have today in the western world – we are shamed for callinig things and people for what they really are.

  92. Dave says:

    Real men are the ones who have their jobs cut out for them. The society is being run by Beta men, and they are being taken to the cleaners by the relentless demands of the feminazi, with everybody else being taken along.
    It is up to the Redpillers to save the day, and either wrest power from the Betas, or provide a form of refuge for them from the onslaught of the feminazi. Otherwise, we’ll all be sunk by the supplicating betas who hold the awesome powers of the state within their grasp.

  93. Marko says:

    “It seems her proposed law hinges on the emotional state of women.”
    “The result of such a law in practice would be men requiring permission from women to speak to them.”
    Exactly. That’s the intent. Just like affirmative consent requires women’s explicit permission to have sex, this proposed law is the next logical step. It starts as a wacky idea on the NYTimes. Eventually, a couple of dumb politicians are writing a “anti-harassment” law which revokes your 1st amendment rights.

    I’ve written the author to let her know she’s quite insane. This kind of article shouldn’t be brushed off. Speak up.

  94. Dave says:

    I’ve written the author to let her know she’s quite insane. This kind of article shouldn’t be brushed off. Speak up.

    If this were the attitudes of our forebears, feminism would not have reached the insane level it has reached.

  95. JDG says:

    I’ve written the author to let her know she’s quite insane. This kind of article shouldn’t be brushed off. Speak up.

    Chrome keeps crashing when I try to register.

  96. SS says:

    I dont know if anyone else has pointed this out yet, but her profile says former divorce attorney, now stay at home mom. If that doesn’t ring alarm bells, I don’t know what would.

  97. Marko says:

    JDG – don’t bother with NYTimes. Just go to her faculty staff page linked from NYtimes and write her directly. I’m also writing the president of her college.

  98. feeriker says:

    I dont know if anyone else has pointed this out yet, but her profile says former divorce attorney, now stay at home mom. If that doesn’t ring alarm bells, I don’t know what would.

    I’ll assume that “stay-at-home-mom” here means that she’s married (admittedly a careless assumption in today’s batshit crazy world), so that leads me to a serious question: is her husband a lawyer?

    For his sake I hope the answer is “of course.” Otherwise, I cannot imagine any man being stupid enough to marry a divorce lawyer, no matter how “hawt” she might be.

  99. Tam the Bam says:

    “I cannot imagine any man being stupid enough to marry a divorce lawyer .. “
    feeriker, I don’t see the bit where it says she’s “married” to a man? Even the “mom” bit can be a red herring at that level of kultural kommissar [gobblegobble turkeybaster gobblegobble]

    “I’ve written the author to let her know she’s quite insane.”
    Marko, any one who reads her tweets can make their minds up fairly rapidly, so I imagine the college is also quite aware of her long history as stakhanovite hero of ideological production.
    [cherrypicks a couple of absolute stinkers, just for a giraffe]

    Laura Beth Nielsen @ProfLBNielsen · 13h 13 hours ago
    Perhaps the racists are the ones who assume men of color would not obey a law prohibiting #streetharassment. And I did not make the video
    0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites
    Olé! With a single rhetorical twist, the tables are turned! Not. That silly cow was trolling the ‘hood, because she couldn’t get a rise out of witey no matter how hard she tried.

    Laura Beth Nielsen @ProfLBNielsen · Apr 4 a retweet of some other moron’s vapourings
    “the cost of an education should not include a 1 in 5 chance of being raped”

    Laura Beth Nielsen @ProfLBNielsen · 1 Jul 2013
    all women but esp TX Women: Stop Having Sex With Men Who Vote Against Your Best Interests

    Ah. A mistressly stroke. The old Lysistrata gambit, if I’m not mistaken.
    What are those “best interests”, and who defines them? Ooops I’m a fool. Of course, the whole scam requires that they remain relentlessly indefinable and plastic.

    She’s been pushing exactly this totalitarian “anti-street-harassment” guff for a loo-oo-ng old time, here’s a slim volume from ’06.
    “Rather than arguing whether law is the appropriate remedy for offensive speech, she allows that the benefits to democracy, to community, and to society of allowing such speech may very well outweigh the burdens imposed.” Because her personal gravy train hits the buffers, once “It” (crimespeak of the week, whatever it happens to be) is categorically illegal and the money swirling around it goes to potentially male cops. How disgusting.

  100. This is why I never vote to raise taxes for more police officers. Men don’t have the obligation to make the world safe for women to walk around unescorted. It is shameful for men to outsource their job of protecting their female family members. It’s also expensive. Better to save the money and take the day off of work instead.

  101. Frugal Nerd says:

    @LFM,

    Why should a man defend his female family members when said members show absolutely no gratitude or appreciatioin for such protection and are perfectly willing to kick the man to the curb whenever her tingle says so? That sounds very beta.

  102. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Dave says:
    November 1, 2014 at 10:30 pm

    >>I’ve written the author to let her know she’s quite insane. This kind of article shouldn’t be brushed off. Speak up.

    >>If this were the attitudes of our forebears, feminism would not have reached the insane level it has reached.

    Some of your forebears did stand up to the feminists. It was other men who knocked them down, just as you are going to accomplish nothing because other men fight you.

  103. easttexasfatboy says:

    If a woman “feels” that way, back away slowly. She’s a “feel good” lawsuit waiting to happen. Let her experience the rougher side of life…..alone. Brutal, that’s true. She could in fact get killed. But, honestly, someone that stupid is going to really mess someone over. It doesn’t have to be you. As the bible says, don’t become a proverbial saying. Feminism depends on men who enforce the rules of civilization. That ain’t what happens in a parking lot late at night. So, just supposing that “snowflake” has suffered a serious misadventure. And you didn’t stop her. Oh well….

  104. Anonymous age 72 says:

    TFH says:
    November 2, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    I hope you are correct! But every time in history, and there have been many such times in history, that women took control and destroyed the society, men were never able to stop things until too late. Once the Huns invade, it is too late. Especially with disgruntled MRA’s hanging white t-shirts out the window, hee, hee.

    I have contemplated this many years and have discussed it with other men. The only way our society can be saved is a timely disaster, such as half the population dying of Ebola, spread by a rebellious c**t, or something similar. A plasma knock-out from the sun might also do it. Or a nice asteroid…

    Something; anything which would eliminate the do-nothing, make work; over-paid jobs for women and make them totally physically dependent upon men.

    .

  105. easttexasfatboy says:

    Societal collapse of some sort….economic, civil insurrection, pandemic….or a mixture of these. Economic collapse, followed by problems on the southern border, money is worthless, can’t pay the troops, they desert…..food gets hard to come by…..ornery old codgers refuse to feed worthless feminist-marxists. Basically, post apocalypse type stuff. Strong independent women get to scratch for their own food. Might even have to fight for it. But, this time, the men who could’ve helped have been forked over by the feminist-marxists. Gunshot women…..Ya’ll got any medical supplies?

  106. Dave says:

    The only way our society can be saved is a timely disaster, such as half the population dying of Ebola, spread by a rebellious c**t, or something similar. A plasma knock-out from the sun might also do it.

    A more reversible condition, such as a severe and prolonged economic recession—long and severe enough to deplete the treasury, and to force each person to be for themselves, will likely achieve the same purpose.

  107. Dave says:

    True, but the gradual shift is beginning to be visible. The ratio of red-pill to blue-pill is slowly but surely becoming more favorable, which means that the manginas cannot easily shoot down the now more numerous red-pill men. The Internet has made this possible (which did not exist in the 80s).

    I am looking forward to the day when men will make the reformation of the family court a political issue, and hold aspiring politicians to a promise to reform the family court, the same way NRA holds aspiring politicians never to mess with the 2nd amendment . The great thing about victory is, once you have one, you get even more energized to fight for more.

  108. enrique432 says:

    Man parodies, via drag queen outfit, walking in LA…classic:

  109. Spike says:

    new anon says:
    October 31, 2014 at 2:31 pm
    5-4 in sneakers. Sassy and athletic. Setting herself up to the get beaten into a bloody pulp one day.

    As far as I can make out the numbers…

    A typical 5-4 male carries 59 pounds of muscle, the majority of which is found on his upper body (the part of the body that is useful in fights and beating people up).

    A typical 5-4 female carries about 45 pounds of muscle, the majority of which is found on her lower body (the part of the body useless in fights unless you want to count running away).

    So, even against a male that is her exact same height she wouldn’t stand a chance in a fight. Unfortunately for her, only about 5% of men are 5-4 or shorter. 95% of men are taller than her, and thus they carry even more muscle mass. The typical 5-11 guy (average height of men in US) carries a 67 pounds of muscle.

    These are just the facts of life.

    -As borne out by numerous UFC fights where women (pretend to) fight.
    Women hit each other in such fights.
    Men destroy each other.
    Men vs women = too horrible to watch.

  110. Joey says:

    If I called her a gunch and stole her coffee, I suppose she’d think highly of me.

    I suspect game theory tends to validate that hypothesis.

  111. Kal-or says:

    As a young guy, I hope she does not spread her brand of arrogance to her children.

    Most women who act like this never had anyone challenge ’em when they were younger. It does go for both sexes, though.

  112. infowarrior1 says:

    MGTOW and AVFM fallout:

  113. MarcusD says:

    “I’m willing to regret you for the rest of my life.”

    (This is not a Marvel film, BTW)

  114. bob says:

    “I’m willing to regret you for the rest of my life.” The man who says that has a suicide wish.

  115. greyghost says:

    He should just hit regularly for awhile ad let her stay single for hypergamy purposes and in about 5 to 6 months start acting like a butt hurt beta that cares about how she feels by following the principles of the yes means yes law in California and she will just leave on her own.

  116. Novaseeker says:

    I am looking forward to the day when men will make the reformation of the family court a political issue, and hold aspiring politicians to a promise to reform the family court, the same way NRA holds aspiring politicians never to mess with the 2nd amendment .

    I wouldn’t hold my breath, if I were you. Men don’t care much about reforming the family court, and never will care about it as much as they care about guns (or any number of other things). The only way the family will be reformed is when it starts to bite women.

  117. Honeycomb says:

    infowarrior1 …

    You just have to love the sandman channel. He’s right.

    Hey Paul (at AVFM) troll along or be prepared for an all-out war with us MGTOW. We are an island unto ourselves. We don’t pay union dues or take directions from nor do we need your purple pill non-sense. Piss-Off before we decide to make you enemy number 1.

    These efforts can be seen though. Tarnished Sophie has a poll that identifies 60%, of men who participated in the poll, thought as married men they were MGTOW. What crap!

    Hey ladies your efforts will not work. Men are not taking a long walk of a short pier anymore (i.e. marriage / co-habitation).

  118. Dave says:

    On another note: accepting Jesus Christ as the Lord of your life does not mean you cannot take ecstasy when having a nice time.

    “Her first choice was accepting Jesus Christ,” her father Alan Hunter said, tears welling up in his eyes. “And her second was to take this drug.”

  119. Opus says:

    A poor player that struts and frets his hour his upon a stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot [full of sound and fury] signifying nothing. – Enter a messenger – Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5

  120. Dalrock says:

    You are of course right on the origin of the title Opus. I toyed with using the full sentence for the title but decided to keep it shorter.

  121. The Spearhead had an article last year about how transvestites were starting to compete in many sports as women (including women’s UFC), and were clobbering the real women with ease, causing many manginas to be incensed

    They should be incensed. Transvestites are not women. They are just men who like to wear women’s clothes. Go fight men in the UFC.

  122. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Gosh, deja vu all over again!

    Same old crap. Any group soon enough develops a catechism of articles of faith, and if you don’t totally comply, you are excommunicated. Church. Drinking club. Youth club. Political group. Fight club. Car owners club. Tractor racing club. Spelunkers grotto.

    Some years ago, when MGTOW became visible, almost instantly the single MGTOW’s decreed that you could not at all go your own way. You had to comply with their definition of MGTOW or you weren’t MGTOW.

    Let us examine the words. MGTOW is Men Going Their Own Way. Whose Way? Their own. Not society’s “Marriage 1.0 work for ungrateful women and family until you did and never ask for anything for yourself.” Not a path from men who have decided their path is the only alternative to Marriage 1.0. YOUR OWN WAY. Whatever that may be after you evaluate all the options and decide which path is for you.

    Expat. Inpat. Single life with porn and video games. Go live in an igloo on the Arctic Ocean. Buy a small acreage with your own food plants and animals and after work stay there alone in peace.

    And, yes, even marry and have children, (even though I do not recommend it, unless you GTHO first.) But, if that is your own way, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

    To the man on the video criticizing Paul Elam, when he said, “No real MGTOW would…” he showed his true colors.

    No, they aren’t talking about MGTOW. They are talking about MGOOW. Men Going Our Own Way, Just as obediently as over the millenia millions of men obediently grew up, developed a career, and turned everything they made or gained to an ungrateful women, without really thinking it through.

    In my case, I married 40 nearly 40 years ago. According to “No-real-MGTOW-would man” I could not be a MGTOW without first getting a divorce? Hee, hee, how funny.

    No matter that over 10 years I spent around 10,000 hours working for men’s rights, and counseling for men including suicide counseling.

    No matter that I live where I want to live and not where my wife wants to live. And, from time to time she hops an overnight bus and visits those she wants to visit and I stay here where I want to be. No matter that most of the time I am doing what I want to do, not what someone else wants me to do.

    Nope, I violate the official MGTOW articles of faith, so I don’t belong.

    ****! ***!

  123. Honeycomb says:

    Anonymous age 72 …

    Doing MRA work does not make you MGTOW. In fact, I am starting to think they are not even analogous. MRA is an organization. MGTOW is not a cohesive unit but an all independent separation of organized behavior.

    So being married doesn’t allow for you to be MGTOW. Feel free to tell me again how you can go your own way with a wife or children? You have responsibilities that you cannot walk away from.

    It’s logic .. not emotions. Nor is it personal.

    As a side note:
    You can be Red-Pill and be married though.

  124. MarcusD says:

  125. thedeti says:

    Novaseeker, 11/1/14:

    “To the extent boys were messaged at all, which was much less common, the messaging was either the same stuff from before, or, as time went on, the SNAG type of messaging, both of which were complete set-ups and useless (actually worse than useless) for helping boys navigate what the world was becoming. The second reason is that girls share information about navigating boys much more than vice versa”

    Yes.

    And moms (and to a lesser but still significant extent, dads) reinforced the messaging. If we questioned the messaging, pointed out that the messaging didn’t seem to reflect reality, we were pounded on the heads.

    We were told that the boys getting all the girls were macho assholes. We were told that the girls who were attracted to those macho assholes were stupid. We were told to wait until we were older, and then everyone would see how nice and good we were. We were told that sexually attractive traits include niceness, kindness, goodness, fidelity, loyalty and industriousness.

    They told us that we must never stand up for ourselves. We must never be assertive or resolute, because only macho assholes do such things. They told us that standing up for ourselves and asserting ourselves will get us killed and that girls don’t like guys who do those things. Assertiveness and resolve are bad, because men who do those things aren’t rules followers. We were told that we needed to follow the rules, and that if we did, then good things awaited us.

    So what actually happened was that the “red pill” masculinity sometimes tried to show itself, only to have the dominant feminist narrative squelch and crush it through our adolescences and young adulthoods.

  126. The Brass Cat says:

    Honeycomb says:

    As a side note:
    You can be Red-Pill and be married though.

    Sandman seems to think otherwise. He would categorize me as a Purple Piller (“having situational awareness”) for being married.

    He said that Paul Elam is a white knight for always being the one to answer the door at his house. Paul’s reasoning is he is much bigger than his wife and therefore is more able to intimidate would-be evildoers. I do the same thing for the same reason. Protecting one’s family and home from evildoers is a traditionally masculine duty/role. It is also very Red Pill to acknowledge that the sexes are NOT the same and some jobs are best left to one sex or the other. The Blue Pill men would fret over the idea of insisting upon a division of labor.

  127. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ November 2, 2014 at 5:28 pm:
    “I am looking forward to the day when men will make the reformation of the family court a political issue, and hold aspiring politicians to a promise to reform the family court, the same way NRA holds aspiring politicians never to mess with the 2nd amendment .”

    The Constitution Party already has. Direct quote off their website:
    “We call for an end to all taxation and economic formulas that discourage marriage, incentivize co-habitation and child bearing outside of marriage or authorize or provide government funding for policies and programs that further erode the jurisdiction of the family or parental rights.”

    Dalrock, are you okay with my bringing up the Constitution Party? Boosting them is important to me but I don’t want to abuse your hospitality.

    [D: No worries.]

  128. Pingback: Dr. Helen » People Treat Me Like an Adult and I’m Too Polite to Correct Them

  129. Lyn87 says:

    A72 and Brass Cat,

    I had similar thoughts when I watched the videos by that Sandman kid. He admits to only discovering the red pill a little over a year ago (first video – 2:22 mark), so he’s basically a “Red Pill Rookie,” but feels that he himself should the arbiter of whether or not a man is living life on his terms, which is my personal definition of a man going his own way. I agree with him about one thing, though: going your own way (however defined) is not a dichotomy, but a continuum. I would go even farther and say that every man attempts to live on his own terms to some degree (even if he chooses slavery, as that itself is a choice), so the question is not whether any man is an MGTOW, but the degree to which he is.

    Having said that: no man is an island, and we’re all either slaves to sin or bond-servants of Christ, so when I write “on his terms” I’m only speaking of those decisions that are under our control. I think that if we realized how little we control we have over our circumstances we would view things a lot differently, anyway… and I include myself in that.

    I’ll admit that I didn’t watch either video all the way through, though, since his level of understanding is too basic to interest me at this point, and I generally find the stridency of newbies to be annoying.

  130. The Constitution Party already has. Direct quote off their website:
    “We call for an end to all taxation and economic formulas that discourage marriage, incentivize co-habitation and child bearing outside of marriage or authorize or provide government funding for policies and programs that further erode the jurisdiction of the family or parental rights.”

    That is not enough for me to leave the GOP. If the Constitution Party wants my political, vocal, and financial support, I want the following quote on their website:

    “We call for a Federal Constitutional Amendment to end to all state laws allowing no-fault and unilateral divorce and a Federal Constitutional Amendment to end legalized abortion.”

    That would do it.

  131. Honeycomb says:

    Lyn87 ..

    Yes sandman is a novice.

    Yes married men can be red pill. I see more purple-pill than red but it does happen.

    I would know. I’ve been red-pill since about 17 (ish) and I’m 45 years old now. And, no .. married men cannot be MGTOW. Yes, they can do MRA work. Which to me has become more about male control of male issues and thusly not MGTOW .. MGTOW only cares about his person and no one else. MGTOW can educate but doesn’t tell you how to live your life. No contradiction.

    As for the levels … who cares? It is not a binary action. By my definition only un-married men can be MGTOW. If you cross that threshold you have not lived your principles or philosophy. That makes you a mouth piece. That is how the red pill was taught to me. By a married man who was a red-pill man. He admitted that if he could GHOW he would’ve. He did pray for your vows to be fulfilled though … not sure what else that make him though.

  132. By my definition only un-married men can be MGTOW.

    That is mine as well. Only the unmarried men can be MGTOW. And ideally only the never-married men can be MGTOW as divorced men (particularly those with children) are still under the ultimate authority (financially speaking) to “the state.”

  133. Lyn87 says:

    Honeycomb,

    We might as well agree to disagree, then, as we are using fundamentally different definitions. To me, a man attempting to live life on his own terms as a man, as he judges to be best, is already going his own way. Such a man doesn’t need anyone’s permission, and he certainly doesn’t need some kid on the internet to define his life for him. If that means that he accepts certain social conventions while rejecting others, then so be it… we all accept some of them just by living in society. Such a man may or may not have discovered the red pill (knowledge about the nature of women, for lack of a better explanation). If that means that he accepts the fact of sexual dimorphism and embraces traditional masculinity as the logical response to that fact, then so be it. If one of those decisions is that marriage is right for him, then so be that too. Going my own way meant going down the aisle.

    I understand that others, including you, have a different definition – which is your right, of course – although I do not fully understand what it is. All I know from what you wrote is that it is a continuum, and requires the avoidance of marriage. Is there more to it than that?

  134. Dave says:

    And ideally only the never-married men can be MGTOW as divorced men (particularly those with children) are still under the ultimate authority (financially speaking) to “the state.”

    How about simply stating that

    only the men who can go on their own way, and who choose to do so, are true MGTOWs

    A man could be divorced (and not paying alimony), and have children (who are grown and on their own), and still be MGTOW.
    In reality though, the only men who can be through and through MGTOWs are those who are not interested at all in any romantic relationship with a woman. As long as there is a form of romantic or sexual interest in any woman, the “MGTOW” will continue to be drawn to the source of his interest, and that is not true MGTOWism. To be a hardboiled, unrepentant, biblical MGTOW, you must be functionally a eunuch. Totally uninterested in anything that has to do with pursuing even a fleeting romantic interest with a woman. Thus, PUAs are not true MGTOWs, if you know what I mean, because they still spend considerable amount of time chasing women all over the place, having meaningless sex.

    For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs….. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
    Matthew 19:12

  135. To be a hardboiled, unrepentant, biblical MGTOW, you must be functionally a eunuch. Totally uninterested in anything that has to do with pursuing even a fleeting romantic interest with a woman. Thus, PUAs are not true MGTOWs, if you know what I mean, because they still spend considerable amount of time chasing women all over the place, having meaningless sex.

    This definition would exclude Bill Maher from MGTOW (who I believed was a proto-typical MGTOW.) I suppose this is a perfect definition so long as you only sub-category these people with the term “Biblical.” There is nothing Biblical about Bill Maher.

  136. Ra's al Ghul says:

    A 72:

    “I hope you are correct! But every time in history, and there have been many such times in history, that women took control and destroyed the society, men were never able to stop things until too late. Once the Huns invade, it is too late. Especially with disgruntled MRA’s hanging white t-shirts out the window, hee, hee.”

    That’s because the natural male response has always been for the most part withdrawal, which is why as Nova points out, men aren’t fighting to change the family courts. (in fact you see this writ small in marriage itself, men withdraw to their man cave, they have withdrawn from television, and turned to video games).

    The men that get married and chewed up, go in it thinking “it won’t happen to them.” and the men that are smart enough to avoid it, are avoiding everything, including responsibility and don’t see the men getting chewed up as their problem.

    This is perfectly illustrated by TFH who sees the misandry bubble popping, but doesn’t care what happens to the men that reject the red pill after 2015 (its their own fault) and doesn’t care about the maginas “bearing the burden of higher taxes and costs”. TFH sees this as “natural.”

    Which is why the problems won’t get fixed without a complete global collapse, because the blue pill men will try to keep it propped up for as long as possible, while the red pill men for the most part just shrug, especially with the way the problems with both the system and women are intractable.

    When the barbarians come, the “civilized men” have historically been healthier, bigger and better armed but they don’t put up a fight, because they have nothing to fight for. They literally don’t care what happens to the women and children because there is nothing in it for them, or nothing worth dying for.

    Even a disaster isn’t going to really help the problem. The young red pill aware men tend to see women as two things: competitors and toys. They aren’t someone to help or rescue, they’re either avoided or used. so a collapse isn’t going to lead to a marriage revival, but slavery.

    That’s not to say that the red pill can’t cause a fundamental shift in the thinking of the entire male half of the population, because it really only takes about 10% of the population espousing it, for every single man encountering it and pieces of it from multiple places and from there it can shift rapidly to become the major paradigm.

    But think of the “truths” that aid men become aware of:

    The church(es) as a whole are apostate and are antagonistic toward men and have been lying to them about women for decades.

    The government is anti-male and so are the courts and have been for decades.

    The vast majority of women a duplicitous and predatory.

    Marriage 2.0 is a trap and a prison for the vast majority of men.

    And perhaps most destructive of all: You will not and cannot be loved in the way you want to be loved, the way you have been told you will be loved.

    What is the logical reaction to that?

    Some men will want to watch it all burn, some will want to fight it, but most will just enjoy the decline.

  137. Ra's al Ghul says:

    MGTOW is best looked at as a spectrum or continuum of withdrawing support to society in general, and women specifically.

    Refusing to white knight or help women other than friends or relatives is the start of MGTOW

    Being a sexless hermit in the wilderness eating honey and locusts would be the full extreme side of MGTOW.

    Any withdrawal, such as minimizing your work to pay less taxes and have more free time is in the MGTOW spectrum.

    The rest is just arguing about who is the “better” MGTOW.

    What is more important is teaching men how to avoid the dangerous entanglements and withdraw the support and lifeblood from anything misandrist.

  138. Gunner Q says:

    That would be foolish, IBB. Such constitutional amendments would create direct Federal regulation of marriage and reproduction. As things stand, abortion and no-fault divorce are mainly state-level concerns. The Feds are mostly limited to providing funding for such abominations which is why the principle is worded the way it is.

    A sweeping dictat is appealing but also wide open to the law of unintended consequences.

  139. feeriker says:

    That is not enough for me to leave the GOP. If the Constitution Party wants my political, vocal, and financial support, I want the following quote on their website:

    “We call for a Federal Constitutional Amendment to end to all state laws allowing no-fault and unilateral divorce and a Federal Constitutional Amendment to end legalized abortion.”

    That would do it.

    Thamk God for the Constitution Party that it lacks your stamp of approval, since what you propose is –surprise, surprise– a violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution (i.e., the federal government interfering in state governmental affairs, in this case forcing states to amend their constitutions to comply with a federal fiat).

    Another tradcon reveals their ignorance of/contempt for both the Constitution and freedom. Par.

  140. Gunner and feeriker,

    That would be foolish, IBB. Such constitutional amendments would create direct Federal regulation of marriage and reproduction. As things stand, abortion and no-fault divorce are mainly state-level concerns. The Feds are mostly limited to providing funding for such abominations which is why the principle is worded the way it is.

    Thamk God for the Constitution Party that it lacks your stamp of approval, since what you propose is –surprise, surprise– a violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution (i.e., the federal government interfering in state governmental affairs, in this case forcing states to amend their constitutions to comply with a federal fiat).

    I don’t care.

    The GOP (and Trad cons like me) hates abortion and actively strives to end it (at the Federal level.) There would be amendment in the Constitution taking this “right” away from the states (the way they took away slavery with #13) if it were up to the GOP. All 50 states are wrong as was Roe vs Wade. There is nothing more important than ending the mass genocide that is abortion, 60,000,000+ dead (souls sent directly to Heaven without ever living a mortal existance) and counting. If you want me in the Constitution Party and out of the GOP, this must be priority number one.

  141. “We were told to wait until we were older, and then everyone would see how nice and good we were. We were told that sexually attractive traits include niceness, kindness, goodness, fidelity, loyalty and industriousness.”

    We sure were.

  142. Lyn87 says:

    IBB,

    Abolishing abortion is not “Priority Number 1” for the Republican Party, either. In fact, it is not a priority at all. Since the Roe V Wade decision in 1973 (over 40 years), Republicans have held the Presidency for 24 years, the U.S. Senate for 16 years, and the U.S. House of Representatives for 16 years.

    During George W. Bush’s second term your beloved G.O.P. held the Presidency and both houses of Congress… and at no point did the Republicans even put such a Constitutional amendment to a vote. It was never even considered by a congressional committee, all of which were controlled by Republicans.

    My parents used to think as you do – that the Republican Party was pro-life enough to do something about abortion. I told them what I just told you: Roe has been with us for 41 years and 60,000,000 abortions, and the Republican Party has not made a single serious effort to do anything about it, even when they held all the levers of power.

    The Republican Party talks about being pro-life in order to get rubes to send them money and vote for them, but their actions show that they prefer for abortion to be legal – wives and daughters in Republican households get them too, and as long as nobody actually puts a halt to it, it’s a great way to raise funds and get votes from conservatives.

    You support Republicans because they are pro-life? You are being played.

  143. “We were told to wait until we were older, and then everyone would see how nice and good we were. We were told that sexually attractive traits include niceness, kindness, goodness, fidelity, loyalty and industriousness.”

    That’s right. And its wrong.

    And the stupid, fat, and ugly girls were taught that looks didn’t matter, that boys will grow up to see how pretty they are on the inside. That was wrong too, we were too focused on protecting their self-esteem than to prepare a percentage of women to the awful reality that marriage would never be in their future. Same thing. It is just that the stupid, fat, and ugly girls became feminists later in life the way the short, fat, stupid, ugly guys are learning that they should have been taught MGTOW.

    Society can’t make an individual promises. There is no real “social contract.” And the moment the unfortunate individual realizes that, the better off they will be preparing for their own future outside empty promises.

    Well we’re living here in Allentown
    And they’re closing all the factories down
    Out in Bethlehem they’re killing time
    Filling out forms
    Standing in line.

    Well our fathers fought the Second World War
    Spent their weekends on the Jersey Shore
    Met our mothers at the USO
    Asked them to dance
    Danced with them slow
    And we’re living here in Allentown.

    But the restlessness was handed down
    And it’s getting very hard to staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
    aaaaaaah aaahhhhh ooooooooh ooooooh ohhhhhhh.

    Well we’re waiting here in Allentown
    For the Pennsylvania we never found
    For the promises our teachers gave
    If we worked hard
    If we behaved.

    So the graduations hang on the wall
    But they never really helped us at all
    No they never taught us what was real
    Iron and coke,
    Chromium steel.

    And we’re waiting here in Allentown.
    But they’ve taken all the coal from the ground
    And the union people crawled awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaah.

    Every child had a pretty good shot
    To get at least as far as their old man got.
    but something happened on the way to that place
    They threw an American flag in our face, oh oh oh.

    Well I’m living here in Allentown
    And it’s hard to keep a good man down.
    But I won’t be getting up todaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy
    aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaah.

  144. enrique432 says:

    The call to criminalize cat-calling, btw, is just another White Female Privileged Feminist way of creating a Proxy War between White Men (the Cops) and men of color (Black/Latino, in Urban areas, particularly). Everyone, in passing any law, will pretend all day that men of color DON’T do this more often (of course they do, in Urban settings at least), and once passed, it will be enforced, naturally, which will result in skewed results, THEN over time, it will be used as another police state tactics (to protect precious snowflake white women)…used, rightly or wrongly (like pot laws, gang tats etc)…and eventually, we will get the obligatory “tussle” between some lilly white cop and some innocent 17 year old black kid, which will result in his death…and well, you know the rest…

    And the SAME WHITE WOMEN will be in whatever “Occupy” movement of the moment, and will be bashing “those angry white men” and all that, and standing aside as if THEY WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM…while simultaneously demanding such laws continue to be enforced…

    It’s the racist white woman that wants to keep “niggers” out of her neighborhood, but when something bad goes down INSIDE the gate, if there is any claim of overzealous legislatures (solicitation laws, vagrancy, loitering, skateboarding), or enforcement (white cops called to deal with it), she will IMMEDIATELY express how disappointed she is in her INSERT LOCAL JURISDICTION that “screwed” up so bad and came across as racist…

    how MANY TIMES are we going to have this same game play out in the America. The cat-calling laws, if ever passed, will absolutely lead to this….just wait till the first black football player is accused of “violating” Yes Means Yes…against some lilly white cheerleader.

    Yawn….wake up men.

  145. Lyn87,

    During George W. Bush’s second term your beloved G.O.P. held the Presidency and both houses of Congress… and at no point did the Republicans even put such a Constitutional amendment to a vote. It was never even considered by a congressional committee, all of which were controlled by Republicans.

    Have you ever read the Constitution? Apparently not.

    There would have been no point to try to get this much needed Amendment in there. Can’t amend the Constitution with a simple majority. The nuclear option can’t alter that document. You need two-thirds of the House of Representatives which…. which…. would never have happened…. ever. Not even in the second term of my beloved G.O.P. President Dubya. And there was ZERO CHANCE that 67 Senators would have voted for that much needed Amendment. Maybe (in the second term) they would have gotten 53 or 54, never 67. Impossible. Both must ratify with 2/3rds, and neither would have gotten that high. You know it.

    So the rest of your post is hooey.

  146. Ra's al Ghul says:

    TFH:

    “Well, yes. The unique nature of this problem means that if more and more costs get transferred onto manginas, that is one component of victory.”

    But it highlights the nature of the problem, and the inability to rectify it. The logical and rational solution is to not play the game, you don’t rewrite the rules of monopoly so to speak, you just don’t sit down and take your chances.

    And there are different modes of “winning” games, then just winning. Most people see things as binary: win/lose and act that way, but there is another way to play and that is “I might not win, but I’ll make sure you don’t either.”

    In any game you play, there are always ways to skew the results, even if you lose.

    And that is the reaction you’ll get the more red pill society becomes from more and more men. I can’t win, but I’ll make sure you and society loses. Enjoying the decline and working as little as possible is one way of doing that. Not getting married and not having children is that too.

    If our culture was a patriarchy and it was marriage 1.0, no VAWA, a rise in red pill awareness would do little to rock the foundations of society, because it would be a red pill society in many ways.

    But we don’t live in a patriarchy, and red pill awareness makes you look at the world as an illusion, the foundations of society are a lie, and while in some ways it can be freeing, it is also limiting, because although we are aware of the matrix and how it works, we are not free of it, we cannot entirely leave it.

  147. Lyn87 says:

    IBB,

    I have read the constitution: it is you who do not understand it. Of course a simple majority wouldn’t get an amendment passed, but a simple majority WOULD be enough to bring it to a vote. The spineless Republicans wouldn’t even do that in order to make people take a stand one way or the other. They would probably have lost in the short term, but they could have at least fought enough to put the issue in play. As it stands, Roe V Wade has unqualified Republican acquiescence as determined by their actions.

    But since you admit that such an amendment will never pass, then abortion is a dead issue politically. If Republicans lose, nothing changes. If Republicans win, nothing changes. Yet it is you who continue to cast your vote on the basis of an issue that will not be addressed no matter who wins. Since abortion is not in play as a political issue (as you admitted), what is the point of your stance? You have decided that because of an issue that neither party will address, one party that will not do anything about your issue is infinitely preferable to a different party that will ALSO not do anything about your issue.

    So 100% of everything you wrote is hooey. Please put your husband back on, MRS IBB: you’re using “woman logic” again.

  148. But since you admit that such an amendment will never pass, then abortion is a dead issue politically. If Republicans lose, nothing changes. If Republicans win, nothing changes.

    No point bringing it to a vote when 190 of our current 435 House Reps are in their seats specifically because they promised their constituents that they would never vote to pass it.

    Amendment wont pass now. Would never have passed in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006.

    We need 290 pro-life house reps and 67 pro-life senators. That can only happen with the GOP kicking @ss all across the country. Has not yet happened but I still hope for a day. That is all I can do (that and stand outside a clinic and try and save individual lives.)

  149. Farm Boy says:

    And the stupid, fat, and ugly girls were taught that looks didn’t matter, that boys will grow up to see how pretty they are on the inside. That was wrong too

    Two points,
    1. Nobody really believed that back then.
    2. These days, even fat women are good to go if they are young. The thirst in men is strong, and since large swaths of women are fat these days, they can have their day in the sun. Numbers can do that.

  150. Don Quixote says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    November 3, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    Society can’t make an individual promises. There is no real “social contract.” And the moment the unfortunate individual realizes that, the better off they will be preparing for their own future outside empty promises.

    {remove words to Allentown by Billy Joel}

    How ironic that you make your point with words from Billy Joel. I’m not criticising your point, but I wonder if Billy learnt anythings from his many marriages? I love his music but poor Billy is a sucker for a pretty face [arn’t we all].
    Perhaps a remake of Fleetwoods Mac’s Go Your Own Way a la Weird Al Yankovic would be an appropriate anthem for the MGTOWs?

  151. Thing #1:
    It sounds like some men are starting to whine about what being a MGTOW is or isn’t.
    In its simplest terms, the phrase “going your own way” is clearly indicative of not creating family obligations; because doing so requires sacrifice and stability. A huge loss of personal freedom. You can’t just pick up and change cities or jobs or engage in as many relationships with women as you’d like. But some seem to want to argue that having your own style in the home, or some control over your life while married, or not being “whipped” is the same thing; clearly it isn’t.
    The clearest thing to me, though, is that if you are truly a MGTOW why the crap would you even CARE what other people thought about it? *facepalm* I make, and go, my own way. Screw who doesn’t like it, or wants to engage in pedantic & semantic drivel about it.

    Thing #2:
    You can’t legislate nature.
    You won’t ever pass a law that makes assortive mating “fair” or changes the structure of ‘spread the seed, guard the eggs.’
    The only thing that can be done that will MINIMIZE damage to both men and women is returning to the old school structures; an expectation of virginity in women, spouse training, early marriage, rites of passage for men, high amounts of social and legal disincentives to divorce, breadwinner & homemaker roles, and a shared mainstream value of having a family being the biggest prize in life. That system was not, and never will be perfect. But it overall helped us in the West have a degree, notice I said, A DEGREE of stability.

    Not every one is going to win at the love game; simple as that.

  152. Thing #3:
    We were told that the boys getting all the girls were macho assholes. We were told that the girls who were attracted to those macho assholes were stupid. We were told to wait until we were older, and then everyone would see how nice and good we were. We were told that sexually attractive traits include niceness, kindness, goodness, fidelity, loyalty and industriousness.

    They told us that we must never stand up for ourselves. We must never be assertive or resolute, because only macho assholes do such things. They told us that standing up for ourselves and asserting ourselves will get us killed and that girls don’t like guys who do those things.Assertiveness and resolve are bad, because men who do those things aren’t rules followers. We were told that we needed to follow the rules, and that if we did, then good things awaited us.

    Emphasis mine, but once again, Deti nails it.

    This is what happens when you listen to women. Creatures that don’t know what they want, are not designed by God to be the heads of families, that justify every possible decision by their own emotions in the moment and by blaming men, and who can’t even accept the simple truth that their reproductive cycles & systems are not exactly the same as a man’s, and therefore have to approach life differently. This is too much for them.

    Remember…..the NFL needs more pink!

  153. Sorry, “assortative” not “assortive.”
    I always get that wrong.

  154. Bee says:

    OT

    Collection of all things Roger Devlin:

    http://devliniana.wordpress.com/

  155. greyghost says:

    I like this conversation on the definition of MGTOW (thou I am a little late, went shooting) MGTOW is more about not blindly following blue pill delusion. I like lyn87’s and Ra’s al Ghul’s take on it. It has a more mature and realistic view of the mechanics of actually living day to day. I did join the manosphere and personally progressed from an MRA type to a MGTOW as the blue turned to purple and then to red. This all occurred for me as a married man with 2 daughters and a son.. So the purist can take that for what it is worth.
    I am a watcher of “sandman’s” videos and it is nice to here a young man speak that way. And he is not the only one. There are quit a few men that are MGTOW speaking on you tube spreading the red pill. Once a man understands red pill and that involve more than calling women bitches it is a full understanding of government law and most importantly the bible becomes clear and relatable to day to day life. That is the greatest part of being red pill is biblical principles become clear and faith much easier. Dalrock has done the Lords work with his Christian faith as a part of his manosphere blog. Back on point MGTOWS are what ever the man wants. MGTOW/PUA, MGTOW/family (being MGTOW and then marrying I don’t know at best I guess you are an MRA), MGTOW/divorce, MGTOW/single MGTOW/etc. To have been red pill as a 28 year old man I would be MGTOW/family and had my kids as a single dad with a surrogate. I don’t like the idea of men not being hard charging bad asses. I have no ill feelings towards the peter pan grass eater MGTOW types for they are even with out knowing having the effect on society as a fully aware red pill MGTOW man is.
    MGTOW starve the beast provide no willful benefit to any woman other than family, no chivalry only indifference. And freely tell the truth.

  156. Dave says:

    This definition would exclude Bill Maher from MGTOW (who I believed was a proto-typical MGTOW.) I suppose this is a perfect definition so long as you only sub-category these people with the term “Biblical.” There is nothing Biblical about Bill Maher.

    My intention was not to make an all inclusive definition of MGTOW. For instance I deliberately ignored homos in my definition. I am inclined to agree with the idea that MGTOW is a spectrum, with King Solomon being on one end, and Apostle Paul on the other.
    Solomon had 1000 wives and mistresses; Paul had none. Both had something to say on the subject.

    King Solomon taught something about being a MGTOW. That is, if being a MGTOW means to put less priority on chasing women, or spending one’s energies trying to please them.

    Solomon said:
    Don’t spend your energy on women or your efforts on those who destroy kings.
    Proverbs 31:3

    Paul was an extreme MGTOW.:
    It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:1

  157. enrique432 says:

    Dave, props for the King Solomon quote. The men who built the First temple were men’s men, could count on each other, and knew how to protect men’s interests, aspirations, and secrets…and that tradition continues–whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

    On the level.

  158. Boxer says:

    I’m a bit skeptical about married MGTOW dudes too. The ones I have talked to, who struck me as sincere, were exceptions. Guys who really want to get married and go to Philippine Islands to do it qualify. There are also guys who got married before they knew about MGTOW, and for whatever reason their wives were cool with them spending most of their time on hobbies. That’s a rare woman, though, and I don’t think there will ever be enough of them to make marriage and MGTOW a mainstream phenomenon.

    But, in the end, it’s about going YOUR own way. If you want to get married, as a MGTOW, it stands to reason that you’re going to do it, without caring whether others accept it or not. I’d also argue that any MGTOW who gets married deserves absolutely no sympathy if he gets taken to divorce court later. He had access to all the facts and realtalk beforehand.

  159. easttexasfatboy says:

    Folks, one and all……MGTOW, red pill, freedom. Various definitions, various folks. One size doesn’t fit all. After swallowing the red pill, well, I was disgusted by how easily I was lied to. Didn’t appreciate to begin with that the bible tells you Llamame about a lying woman in Proverbs. Says something about how she commits adultery and then goes on her way. Says it’s like the tracks upon the ocean. No affect, no conscience. Okay, I lived thru it. All I want is peace and quiet. Garden, dogs, and thinnin’ out whitetails. :0)))))) Gentlemen, civil war is coming. In one flavor or the other. Don’t really feel a whole lot of debt to this society. I’m fully aware that shrugging is damaging to this whole situation we find ourselves in. No one was there when I lost nearly everything. No one cared. Okay, I got that. But on the other side of the coin, I’m a black knight. If things get interesting, I’m the sort of fella who mines the path. Women have the habit of changing to suit the circumstances. There are a lot of feminists here in Texas. Really won’t help them. If there’s a breakdown in law and order, well, friendly fire happens. Won’t be dealing with CSI out in the country, will we? Lots of cattle around here. We’ll eat well. This is my definition of MGTOW. Don’t really need a woman around. Problem is, my ex knows full well that I’m a survivor. So, she’ll show up with some empty mouths. Thinking that I’ll do the Christian thing.

  160. Lyn87 says:

    If MGTOW is a spectrum that starts with “avoids marriage” and goes from there, we already have a perfectly good phrase that describes that: confirmed bachelor. We are just past the 100th anniversary of the publication of “Pygmalion,” so this is apropos. The movie “My Fair Lady” is the screen adaptation of the play, and starred Rex Harrison as Prof. Henry Higgins… a Man Who Went His Own Way if ever there was one. They didn’t need an acronym to describe “MGTOW’s” then: they just used the phrase “confirmed bachelor” to describe men who never married, preferring instead to pursue other things. View this clip from 1964 (based on the play published in 1912) and tell me that any of this is new.

    Why can’t a woman be more like a man?

    Kids like Sandman think they invented this, but it’s been around forever. It’s just that before the schools stared churning out people with no knowledge of history and the attention span of gnats that these young guys would have known that they were not inventing anything new. I don’t much care if today’s young confirmed bachelors have no idea that they are treading upon well-trodden ground… and I don’t much care if they feel the need to make up an acronym to describe what their great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents called confirmed bachelors, but I do get irked when people who just discovered something ten minutes ago declare themselves to be experts, and claim that men who take a different path are not Going Their Own Way.

  161. Kids like Sandman think they invented this, but it’s been around forever. It’s just that before the schools stared churning out people with no knowledge of history and the attention span of gnats that these young guys would have known that they were not inventing anything new.

    I gotta admit; I got a good laugh from that.

  162. BradA says:

    I completely agree nothing will be done to eliminate abortion today. Too many have bought the lie that it is a tough decision that some make. They need to open their eyes that it is murder, plain and simple. We are nowhere near that, so I can’t see any party doing anything serious about it other than using it to score points (Democrats) or encourage donors (Republicans and others).

    This is an issue where I part ways with many libertarians. Allowing murder is not acceptable at any level. I am more accepting of leaving many things to the individual, but murdering a child should never be a “choice” that is permitted legally or morally. Pass that child onto Moloch, though few will admit that is what they are doing.

    Any group that will sanction depriving life will also not protect other things and that is why I see it as a key issue.

    I also think the Constitution is quite dead today and any effort to amend it is rather fruitless as what we have is not followed anyway. You can read anything into it you want if you can justify abortion or Obamacare based on it, so we are far past that basis.

    I would argue that states should be prohibited against interfering in the rights of individuals to marry without the modern one-sided nuclear threat as arising from the rights to due process and governance of laws, but that is also long gone.

    No easy answers and that is why I am almost to the point of not voting at all. Not quite, but almost there.

    Note that I am certainly no longer a traditional social conservative as I do not favor many such things, like the foolish drug war, a too strong military, etc. That is another topic though and a bit off focus from the OP, but perhaps not the direction we are headed now.

  163. BradA says:

    I would bet Sandman is a strong atheist and thus more than happy to shove his views on others and completely content thinking he knows it all. Anyone who “knows” a god doesn’t exist is fairly foolish already. I would tend to argue not being sure a god didn’t make things is rather foolish too, but at least an agnostic is admitting the limits to human reason. An atheist is proclaiming knowledge he doesn’t have.

    He was praising an atheist video blogger on one of the videos I listened to recently. That showed his bias. He also has an intent to raise a son of his own in a manner that seemed close to what greyghost has mentioned, but no mention of a daughter at all, so I suspect he would use whatever means necessary to ensure it was only a son.

    He has some good points, but I would concur with those here who note he is a bit too dogmatic on his beliefs.

  164. MarcusD says:

    Am I just being over-sensitive here??? (…)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=919009

    do children really change a marriage?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=918901

    Getting involved with a Mormon girl, concerns.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=919113

  165. greyghost says:

    I agree with Boxer on this one. If you have declared yourself MGTOW with all that it takes to get there. And you decide to get married you get no sympathy for the effects of the frivorce. That would be like when the male pill comes available feeling sorry for a single guy caught in the CS trap.
    Lyn87 a good idea is a good idea and the truth is the truth. A couple years ago I invented brining. I was one smart dude. I was telling a guy at work about my idea and he said brining.

  166. Exfernal says:

    Trolling for a response IBB? In your own words, are all MGTOW, including Bill Maher, ‘short, fat, stupid, [and] ugly’? Go on, I’m curious…

  167. enrique432 says:

    I took a bit of the Red Pill over a decade ago (while like others, I had been switching to purple pills even the decade before THAT); however, I am married, an active Sufi Muslim, have kids, a traditional wife, in a traditiona/acceptable female profession, and I pretty much do whatever I want with my boys, and my time…yes, to the degree that ANY man can do such in a marriage.
    I see MGTOW as a spectrum, and I would never claim I am on the complete edge of that spectrum, but merely sitting deeply right of center. I also quite openly, let my life (past divorce, CS) serve as a warning to other men.

    I dumped fathers rights and MRA stuff years ago. Most father’s rights guys I met (in person and online) at least ten years ago, were MAJORLY blue pill / tradcon types, would believed that men should accept suffering at ANY cost for their kids…including 14 year olds that hate them and will be adults in 4 years…that often crashes and burns..and I couldn’t agree with the advice they gave to other men on many topics, because it was all wishful thinking.

  168. PokeSalad says:

    Pure, ugly, incandescent envy. Another example of women who will rage all their lives at the ‘injustice’ of not being born male, and bitterly resent those who were.

  169. Dave says:

    Anyone who “knows” a god doesn’t exist is fairly foolish already.

    That is a modern way of quoting Psalm 14:1:

    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God

  170. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Off topic. I live in Mexico. Several years ago, a woman with a desire for a father that her mother never gave her, asked if I would be her father. Sure, why not if it costs me nothing.

    She was an illegal in Florida for many years. At one point in time when visiting my son nearby, we stopped in and visited her.

    She finally got working status and legal residency, but I have no reason to believe she has been naturalized.

    Today on Facebook she announced she was voting today. So, it’s true. They are allowing non-citizens to vote. The day Mexico allows me to vote I will agree non-citizens should be allowed to vote.

  171. Exfernal,

    Trolling for a response IBB? In your own words, are all MGTOW, including Bill Maher, ‘short, fat, stupid, [and] ugly’? Go on, I’m curious…

    No. You see, I tend to think that Bill Maher IS MGTOW. I don’t care that he is Fundamentalist Atheist. He is (to me) the prototypical MGTOW. And although he is “short” he is not fat, he is very intelligent, and for a 58 year old man, he is good looking. He could be married at anytime, but chooses not to marry.

    George Clooney (prior to his now recent marriage) I also would have categorized him a MGTOW. Not anymore. You can’t be married and MGTOW. But he is not short (not tall, just average) is very bright, and is very good looking. He could have been married at anytime, and just now took the lunge (I think for the second time.)

    That said, I would think that the above two men are the exception to the rule. They are celebrities. The majority of MGTOW are men who (I think) are doing so NOT because they want to, but mostly because no woman would have them. That’s fine. There is nothing wrong with that or with them. And I actually admire the MGTOW movement. That is gaining more and more popularity. But I think if you had to ask single women if they really cared that these men were all going John Galt on them, their response would be “it depends.” If they were all like George Clooney or Bill Maher, their response would be yes. If they are mostly short, fat, ugly, stupid, unsuccessful men, their response would be no.

  172. mikediver5 says:

    Ras al-Ghul,

    “And that is the reaction you’ll get the more red pill society becomes from more and more men. I can’t win, but I’ll make sure you and society loses.”

    I went to a military college (all male) back in the day. We would have duty weekends and with little to do would have marathon Risk™ sessions. This was long before computer games. We were all pretty smart and angled towards tactical and strategic thinking, and often sprinkled Strategy and Tactics ™ paper and dice games in with the Risk™ games. I soon noticed that one guy was winning the majority of the Risk™ games, and the strategy he used was to consistently start with Australia. For those that don’t play Risk™ a lot, this is a now well-known fact. Australia is small so you don’t spend a lot of your troops taking and holding the territory, and you get the whole continent bonus very early. The bonus is small but it builds up quickly when no one else is getting any. It also is only accessible from Asia; which no one ever even tries to dominate as it is too big. This means no one attacks you to wear down your forces and you can pick up one country a turn to get a card. You will typically be the first to turn in the trio of same cards for an additional boost.

    Anyway, I started to battle him for Australia at all costs right from the start of every game. Sometimes I lost early, and sometimes he did. Most often both of us lost the bigger game by exhausting our efforts against each other. But one thing was true; he never won again. The fact that I never won either mattered not because that was not my objective; my objective had become making sure he did not win. Eventually he quit playing. That is what MGTOW should be about, how do we deny western women the win? To think that we can win in the process is hubris.

    I went MGHOW decades ago, long before I had ever heard the term; but I am married. The way I square this circle is that I have nothing to do with western women, as they are all feminists, whether then know it or not. I guess I am ok by Boxer’s criteria, as I married a Filipina, who I met in the Philippines. Thanks Boxer for that vote of confidence and support. When all the betas (and I probably always have been one) stop providing western women with a soft landing when they are thrown from the carousel, then western women cannot win; mission accomplished. They will be forced to change their ways, or quit the game. I think of this as mutually assured destruction. The only way to win is not to play western women’s game. The world is wide, and western women are not the only women out there.

  173. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Honeycomb says:
    November 3, 2014 at 11:20 am

    All you are saying is exactly what I said you guys are saying. No one is going his own way unless he meets your personal definition. Like you have the right to make that decision. What a childish tempest in a teapot.

    I am glad to see, though, that a number of men on this thread got it. That there is a continuum of MGTOW, not a decimal point you must live on.

    And, all you bossy fella’s are doing is pissing off other MGTOW who do not share your definition as binding on them. Nor should they.

    This is EXACTLY why men of my own generation were unable to mount any resistance to the feminist/White Knight destruction of all that is good about men. Fight! Quarrel over trivia! Bicker! Please carry on the good work of my generation. [/sarcasm]

  174. Honeycomb says:

    Anonymous age 72 ,,,

    You’re funny for an old guy. And, no you still aren’t MGTOW.

  175. JDG says:

    All you are saying is exactly what I said you guys are saying. No one is going his own way unless he meets your personal definition.

    I got no dog in this fight, but I am curious. If each man gets to decide what going his own way is, then isn’t every man already MGTOW whether he chooses to be a Jeremiah Johnson type of hermit or an effeminate male feminist In Hollywood?

    On the other hand if there is a solid definition for MGTOW, what is it?

  176. Lyn87 says:

    Honeycomb,

    I fail to see any difference between the age-old definition of “confirmed bachelor” and your definition of MGTOW. Do the guys of your generation who are avoiding marriage really think that you’re breaking new ground?

  177. Honeycomb says:

    Lyn87 ..

    Nope. I was / still am referred to as a “confirmed bachelor” by most. I just moved the definition to MGTOW .. it isn’t my job to police anyone’s idea of MGTOW. I just fail to see logical, smart men think they are MGTOW when they are married.

  178. mikediver5 says:

    I think the start of any definition I would accept would be Red Pill aware. Red pill aware means you go into the marriage (if not) well aware of the risks and the nature of women. You weigh the risks and benefits and decide if it is worth it to you, or not. You do not base your decisions on following the crowd or tradition. You make your decisions based on your needs and wants with full knowledge of the costs.

    Of course, I am just one man, and if other men truly are going their own way, why would they give a damn what I think?

  179. mikediver5 says:

    I feel I have to expand my prior comment. The difference between a MGHOW and every other man is informed consent/decisions. Most men who may claim they are deciding which way they go are really just following the program women and society have given them. I know this because I did that for a good portion of my life. This is why I insist on red pill aware as part of the definition of MGTOW. The difference is that the effeminate male feminist In Hollywood is delusional. I like what someone said, perhaps on another blog, even though we take the red pill and wake up to reality, we still have to live in the matrix.

  180. Lyn87 says:

    JDG,

    I posited earlier that every man makes decisions about how he wants to live his life, so every Man Goes His Own Way to some degree. The degree to which he charts his own path (as opposed to following the path laid out for him by others) is the degree to which a man is MGTOW. It’s never either/or, but always to what degree?

    But some guys have decided to turn the age-old concept of confirmed bachelorhood into a litmus test of red-pill ideological purity, which is why I chimed in. By giving confirmed bachelorhood a new, snazzy acronym (“MGTOW”) they are pretending that 1) they came up with a new idea, and 2) they are onto something the rest of us aren’t. Both are absurd, of course.

    Words mean things, and confirmed bachelorhood is a venerable and honorable path for a man to choose, but let’s not pretend that it is something it is not, or that the men who choose that for themselves possess some superior quality or understanding that Men Who Go A Different Way possess.

    Cooking up an acronym that few understand actually works against their interests, since confirmed bachelorhood has a long and storied history, while MGTOW can be readily dismissed by its critics as a fad, or (worse yet) the angry response by men who can’t get a woman to marry them. It’s easy to poke fun at Sandman the MGTOW – it’s a lot harder to dismiss Sir Isaac Newton the confirmed bachelor. And to say that Alexander the Great did not Go His Own Way based on the fact that he was married is just insane.

  181. easttexasfatboy says:

    Confirmed bachelor, MGTOW, grumpy old man. These are just words. Actually, men have a long tradition of wandering off, and not coming back. Why argue with a losing situation? Really, just go do your own thing. As for involvement with women, each man has to decide for himself. Not any of my business. I would rather grow tomatoes and peppers and okra than deal with a woman. Okra doesn’t lie to you. Yes, I’m a black knight. I have successfully sabotaged a number of career women who were offensive. Now, I shoot bambi. Good eating. Women by their nature destroy. I figure that if only 5-10% of the productive men in society go Galt, women will destroy the rest. Older feminists are starting to worry about security. They’ve good reason. Young men need to practice how to fight. If they are feminised, they’ll run. Can you imagine a mangina in a combat harness? Those ISIS members who were trading for a female slave……feminists can’t believe WE allow that to happen. As I’ve stated before, I’ll be happy to stand by while they are beheaded. That sounds sick, right? Sounds like justice to me. The Bible repeatedly warns about women being in charge. The basic idea is that destruction follows. Islam has a strong family unit. Abortion is punishable by stoning. Strong societies control their women. We don’t. Historically, we’re destined for upheaval. The only hope we have for stability is to rid ourselves of feminism and abortion. Remember that God has said that bloodguilt must be avenged. That a blood guilty land would have to pay for all the innocents slaughtered. Do you suppose that He has changed his mind? Think of the endless number of babies that are killed. So, if some feminists run into a maltreating sword, as the bible says, I’m not going to interfere. Another biblical concept is that the wicked will be destroyed in plain sight, so the survivors may fear. That’s what’s known as an eternal viewpoint. Argue as you will, but it’s clear we’re in for some interesting times.

  182. Pingback: PJ Lifestyle » People Treat Me Like an Adult and I’m Too Polite to Correct Them

  183. Lyn87 says:

    Easttexasfatboy.

    I’m with you on the Divine Judgement thing – it’s inevitable. It’s clear from both the Old and New Testaments that God judges nations, not just people. In the U.S. alone we’re 60,000,000 abortions down the path toward judgement already, and no major political party is even a little bit interested in doing anything about it. That bill WILL come due, and when it does, it’s not going to be a happy day for feminists. (The truth is, it probably won’t be a happy day for anybody.)

    I think there are only two things keeping the hammer from falling right now:

    1) In Genesis 12: 1-3 God told Abraham that He would bless those that bless the great nation that He would bring forth from his loins (the nation of Israel). As long as the U.S. favors Israel God will refrain from smashing us… but once the day comes that we turn on the Jews (and that day will come)… we will be on borrowed time.

    2) The timing of God’s general judgement on the nations has not yet arrived. We are undoubtedly close to “The Beginning of Sorrows (Matthew 24), but several more events have to happen before the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord (foretold in Joel 2, Malachi 5, Zephaniah 1, Matthew 24, and several places in Revelations, among other places).

    But it’s coming. If God doesn’t judge America He’s going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

  184. easttexasfatboy says:

    Sodom and Gomorrah were pikers compared to today. God destroyed the ball worshippers for sacrificing their children in the fire. Don’t figure the numbers were very high. Something is coming. Older folks feel it. Prepping doesn’t sound so foolish now, does it? That silly little woman in the article will surely change her tune if she’s beaten and starving. Folks should read Jeremiah and Lamentations. Think about what the curse of clean teeth means. Of how God permitted women eating their children. Of how survivors had to choose between a quick death by the sword, or slowly starving to death. Here’s the kicker…..These things were written for our instruction….but it says worse things are coming…..worse than men have ever known. So feminists fit right in, don’t they?

  185. Dave says:

    Strong societies control their women. We don’t. Historically, we’re destined for upheaval.

    Upheaval? We already have upheaval. Feminism gave us that. What we are heading towards is total annihilation: utter ruin; nonexistence; utter destruction; total wipe out; being completely vanquished.

    Does anyone seriously think we’ll defeat ISIS? I don’t think so. What used to make America’s might unbeatable was the sheer dedication of (mostly) our men in uniform. In a society where these same men are now being relegated to the position of second class citizens based on their genders, how many of such men will be ready to fight to preserve it?

  186. new anon says:

    The majority of MGTOW are men who (I think) are doing so NOT because they want to, but mostly because no woman would have them.

    Horse hockey. What next, you’ll say that all gamers are overweight losers living in their mom’s basement?

    I can think of at least 3 categories of men that are GTOW:

    1) Men who have been burned.
    2) Men who have seen other men burned.
    3) Men who put off marriage & relationships for some other goal (career, starting a business, chasing a dream, etc…) and who found themselves in their 30’s and decided they liked their lives fine just the way they were.

    #2 is what I’m seeing with a lot of the younger men I work with (and I mean a lot). They are very aware of the dangers involved in relationships. The 50% divorce rate came up in a conversation, and one said “it’s a coin flip whether or not your life will be ruined by getting married; I’m not going to take that chance.”

    The MGTOW movement is gaining traction in other areas as well (politics, religion, education, career). It’s not that men are totally rejecting things like religion and education, but they are rejecting their institutional forms. These men are not loses. Rather they are men who have decided they don’t want to be the next bit fed into the machine. Instead, they are going their own way.

    The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again” could be the theme song for the entire MGTOW phenomenon. Men are realizing it isn’t worth fighting to replace the system, because the system changes in mane only, not ins substance. The only way to fight the system is to withdraw from it.

    “Won’t Get Fooled Again”

    We’ll be fighting in the streets
    With our children at our feet
    And the morals that they worship will be gone
    And the men who spurred us on
    Sit in judgement of all wrong
    They decide and the shotgun sings the song

    I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
    We don’t get fooled again

    The change, it had to come
    We knew it all along
    We were liberated from the fold, that’s all
    And the world looks just the same
    And history ain’t changed
    ‘Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

    I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
    We don’t get fooled again
    No, no!

    I’ll move myself and my family aside
    If we happen to be left half alive
    I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
    Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
    Do ya?

    There’s nothing in the streets
    Looks any different to me
    And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
    And the parting on the left
    Are now parting on the right
    And the beards have all grown longer overnight

    I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
    We don’t get fooled again
    Don’t get fooled again
    No, no!

    Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss

  187. Does anyone seriously think we’ll defeat ISIS? I don’t think so. What used to make America’s might unbeatable was the sheer dedication of (mostly) our men in uniform. In a society where these same men are now being relegated to the position of second class citizens based on their genders, how many of such men will be ready to fight to preserve it?

    You can’t defeat something until you properly define what the problem is. It is not ISIS that is the problem. Go deeper. It is Fundamental Islam. That is the problem. But even when Bill Maher identified that 3 weeks ago bleeding heart liberals like Ben Affleck refused to give an inch and got all indignant, called Maher a racist. It was ridiculous.

    Our nation does not fight religious wars. Ours is supposed to be an inclusive, secular nation. It doesn’t work that way, but it is what it is. And we have an enemy that declared war on us many years ago. That enemy is Fundamental Islam. But because our Constitution only allows our congress to declare war on a nation-state (never a religion) we are left trying to bullshit ourselves about what the problem really is for fear that @ssholes like Ben Afleck will call you a racist. This would also presume that a religion is also a “race.” (sigh)

    Feminism goes against the pure fundamental nature of women. Theirs not a reality of human nature. And since it is all just nonsense anyway, they can stick their head in the sand (like an ostrich) and ignore what the real enemy is for the United States and instead, ask men to “man up” and Save Our Girls. Nonsense is just nonsense.

    Ours is a 1st world nation that is wealthy enough to afford nonsense indulgences. So we have feminist subsets of society whose sole goal is to make the mainstream of society much easier for ugly women to not just survive, but thrive. And they do this by changing laws, increasing taxes, and claiming entitlement while at the same time, diminishing the choices of others. This gives their outwide lonely life purpose. Confront them with the reality that is Fundamental Islam, and you get the same reaction that Maher got from Ben Affleck. They are not serious people and they can’t handle serious problems. Only men can do that, just don’t tell feminists to acknowledge that reality. They can’t handle it. If they could, they wouldn’t have turned to feminism.

  188. new anon says:

    @Honeycomb,

    Every journey starts where you are standing right now.

    If someone has been blue-pill and married for 20 years and one day takes the red-pill, can he only be a MGTOW if he gets divorced?

    Sometimes you have to work within your current circumstances.

  189. MarcusD says:

    ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES: “Ultimately the question is, does ‘mankind’ really need men?” “That’s from the NYT, which is, of course, written for women. Stuff like this is considered light entertainment. It will be interspersed with serious articles about the ‘war on women.’ Enjoy!”

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/197602/

  190. new anon,

    Horse hockey. What next, you’ll say that all gamers are overweight losers living in their mom’s basement?

    If you never had the option of ever marrying a woman that you really wanted to marry, you can say you are a MGHOW and that’s fine, but in reality, you didn’t have much of a choice.

    That is why I took the time to identify at least two men (Maher and Clooney) who DID have choices and both (until recently) chose (of their own free will) to truly go their own way. That is meaningful. And for women who desire these men, it is terrifying. What they are doing (or were doing in Clooney’s case) was powerful. They had the power to shift our society culturally.

    For the MGTOW who are taller, thinner, good-looking, inteliigent, and wealthy, they are ALL POWERFUL. They know that women would do anything to have them. Women see these men and they want to be a “part” of their lives (if only to have access to the resources they provide.) It is these men who are the trend setters, the men whose lives younger men look to and wish to aspire to become. And the more mainstream MGTOW is, the weaker feminism gets. All these men have to do to destroy feminism is opt not to play any of their games. Feminism requires participation in order to have an existance. A parasite can not live without a host.

    For the MGTOW who are short, fat, ugly, and stupid…. well…. they know who they are. They know if they have had any real choice in their life (or not.) I know way too many MGTOW (most of them close friends of mine that I’ve known for 20+ years) and in almost every single case, they didn’t have any choices. If no woman would have you, then you don’t really shift society culturally. That is because society views you with nothing but a feeling of indifference. (Weird Al Yankovick might be MGTOW, but society largely doesn’t care because he’s not desired by women.)

  191. MarcusD says:

    Some of the selected comments:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?comments#permid=7

    When I decided to have a child with anonymous donor sperm, several men I knew were disturbed that it could be done, and I realized then there was a fear that they could become non-essential. My theory is that this fear is behind the desire to repress women world-wide, be it denying rape or forbidding schooling, lest we wake up and realize that men are superfluous! Don’t worry, most of us still like you, but it’s past time for us to truly be equals.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?comments#permid=8

    Love it! And am glad it was written by a man. I can only imagine the comments were it written by a woman. As a woman who chose to have a child on her own (using frozen sperm), I can attest to the fact that the only time I really feel the need for a man in my life is, as your colleague suggests, for entertainment (and, to be fair, occasionally moving something heavy).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?comments#permid=57

    We can count on this piece to draw out all kinds of male defensiveness. Actually, it already has. I hope to live long enough to see women playing a much larger role in our business, government, educational, and non-profit communities around the world. All the good organizations I’ve been part of over a long career were vastly improved when women were centrally involved. Look at the behavioral finance literature: women process data and make financial/investment decisions differently — and frequently better — than men. The 2008 financial meltdown and the seemingly endless Eurozone drama are almost entirely products of male wishful thinking with dreams of strutting rights. Let’s go, girls and women of the world! Mothering and enchanting us are not enough — please save us!

  192. MarcusD says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?comments#permid=180

    Thank you Mr. Hampikian! Enjoyed your article, the biology lesson, and your intention very much.

    I think that perhaps the reason “conservative” men want laws that give them control over women’s bodies is because they intuitively know what you have laid out here.. and fear that we will use control of our own bodies to wipe out the sex (the male) that causes the majority of violence (like rape, murder and war).

    They would. But we won’t; we value life and love. And “entertainment…” : )

    When more men respect women, I suspect we’ll finally evolve, as a species, to less violence. If only it could happen in this century. I am hopeful but not optimistic.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?comments#permid=212

    Men may huff and puff about how they are being marginalized, but how hard have they worked on the alternative? Few men that I know under the age of sixty know how to fix a car or do home repairs or yard work. Many of the boys I grew up with in the 1960’s and ’70’s expressed delight at the idea of women working outside the home, and quite loudly declared that they were looking forward to sponging off their working wives so that they could kick back and do what they wanted to do all day. And many of these men have gone on to do just that, and make no more of a contribution to their families’ lives than being sperm donors, tacit protectors, and using up available air space and resources. Basically, they gleefully leave all work of supporting the family, doing home maintenance, taking care of the kids, doing the household chores, getting the car fixed, and doing the yard-work to their wives so that they can flit around doing what they want and prolonging their adolescence.

    If men really wanted to be essential to the equation instead of bellowing like an outraged moose, they would actually do more instead of leaving it up to everybody else. But I guess it’s just easier to blame their wives and flap their hands and whine, “I don’t know what to do! I feel so non-essential!” than it would be to actually take the trouble to learn how to be better husbands and fathers and men.

  193. Dave says:

    In Genesis 12: 1-3 God told Abraham that He would bless those that bless the great nation that He would bring forth from his loins (the nation of Israel). As long as the U.S. favors Israel God will refrain from smashing us

    Blessing America (materially) and judging America are two completely different things. God has no qualms judging the US at all. He can easily provide safety and material riches for the Jews through a million other ways outside of America’s influence. After all, God owns the cattle upon a thousand hills.
    But, seriously, will God hold off judgement on America because the latter shows favor to the current crop of today’s Jews? I sure don’t think so. Right now as we speak, the Jews, as a people, do not believe on Christ. They killed him when he came. They are living in total rebellion against God’s clear commands. I don’t think God is obligated to spare the Jews
    If you think God has not judged America, maybe you should think again. God’s judgement is not always with fire and brimstone. Sometimes His judgement comes in form of
    > Declining rates of marriages in a country (Psalm 78:63)
    > Declining birth rates (Deuteronomy 28:62)
    > Humongous national debt (Deuteronomy 28:44)
    > When rulers are immature, and are preoccupied with the pursuit of pleasure (Eccl 10:16).
    > When God withdraws His presence (Hosea 5:15)
    > When there is a famine of true Gospel preaching (Amos 8:11)

    By this standard alone, America has been under God’s judgement. Note that God’s judgement always comes in degrees. Fire and brimstone judgments are often the last resort.

  194. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Dave says:
    November 4, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    I don’t know if Dave is correct, but I sure like his comment!

  195. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Honeycomb says:
    November 4, 2014 at 10:29 am

    >>Anonymous age 72 ,,,

    >>You’re funny for an old guy. And, no you still aren’t MGTOW.

    So, tell me, what is there about YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE IF I AM OR NOT that you don’t understand? Narcissism is involved in your life, thinking your opinions are more important than anyone’s opinion. That you get to decide for everyone.

    I have a nutty daughter just like you.

  196. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    You are missing the distinction God makes between absolute (unconditional) promises and conditional promises. God gave an unconditional promise to Abraham that He would bless those who blessed the “great nation” that came from him. That nation is the one that became known in scripture as the Children of Israel… “Israel” being the name God gave to Jacob, the heir to Abraham’s first-born legitimate son, Aaron. If God drops the hammer on a nation that favors Israel (like the U.S. currently does) He would be violating the sovereign promise He made to Abraham in Genesis 12. There’s just no escaping that that I can see. Your counter that, “He can easily provide safety and material riches for the Jews through a million other ways outside of America’s influence,” is true but misses the point of the promise… the promise God made is that He would bless the gentile nations that blessed the Jews, not just the Jews within those nations.

    Also, none of the scriptures you referred to indicate a general time of Divine judgement on the U.S.. Psalm 78:63 doesn’t deal with declining marriage rates: it deals with a judgement God sent specifically on the Children of Israel that resulted in the death of many people. The judgement in Deuteronomy 28:62 certainly isn’t happening here – the U.S. population is increasing, not falling rapidly. Deut 28: 44 is happening to a degree, but that’s something we’re doing to ourselves – that’s the only one of the scriptures you referred to that has any relevance at all. Eccl 10:16 also happens to nations not under judgement, and the current crop of U.S. leaders is no more prone to that then most leaders historically (and may be a good deal less so, considering that we still at least pay lip service to the Rule of Law). God has not withdrawn His presence from the U.S., so the Hosea scripture doesn’t help your case. As for Amos 8, with modern electronic means, true Gospel preaching may be heard in every corner of the nation on a daily basis. The U.S. is not under serious Divine judgement at this time. But when the U.S. turns on the Jews (which is inevitable), this nation will face the music.

  197. new anon says:

    The NYT author seems to think without men there would be a utopian reproductive system, where when a woman desired to have a child she would drop by the local artificial insemination center and get pregnant buy choice.

    The more likely scenario is, for the greater good, women who were biologically superior at carrying children would be designated as “incubators.” And, not necessarily their own children. A society that believes in genetic engineering to the point that they have eliminated 1/2 of the human population, would certainly believe that only the best and the brightest women should reproduce.

    The logical outcome of the NYT article has been explored many times, from “Brave New World” to THX 1138″: an artificial reproduction mechanism. Artificial wombs growing “humans” from eggs and sperm harvested (by force of law) from donors.

    And what of the humans in these stories? Cogs in a machine.

  198. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Let me remind you folks:

    Lee of DGM: gone
    Glenn Sacks: gone.
    Spearhead: seems to be gone. If not, it soon will be.
    MarkyMark: if not gone, probably will be gone soon.
    Marc Rudov: not too visible to most of us, may still be at it.

    There is a long list of guys who were doing great work. All gone.

    Yet from my generation, there are men out there still at it after 30 or 40 years, at some level, myself included. Which of you will be at it for 30 to 40 years, at any level?

    Dalrock is a great blogger, with only a couple serious failings. Do not imagine he will still be at it in ten years, not to mention 30 or 40 years. Possible but improbable.

    Which of you gentlemen will be able to replace him? Which of you stalwart gentlemen will be doing anything for 30 to 40 years?

    it is an unusual person who can stick to a program for a major portion of his life. Many are called for short term debate, but few will stick to it long enough to accomplish anything useful.

  199. The NYT author seems to think without men there would be a utopian reproductive system, where when a woman desired to have a child she would drop by the local artificial insemination center and get pregnant by choice.

    A Brave New World is right.

    Personally, I have only known two women to use sperm banks. The first was a married woman who wanted a child but her husband had a low sperm count. Her husband went along with this which means that I should. The second was a never married lawyer in her early 40s (up against “the wall”) who got sick and tired of waiting for a man (any man) to propose marriage to her (wasn’t going to happen, she was a Wilderbeast.) Unfortunately for the lawyer, her child was a Down’s child. Fortunately for the child, she didn’t murder it in utero. Either way, I never spoke to her again after what she did.

    I don’t have a problem with sperm banks per se, so much as I have a problem with a concept that men only matter for the the wallet they provide their child. The 40-something lawyer had just barely sufficent earning power to financially provide for such a special-needs child without a husband. Thus, she didn’t feel what she was doing was wrong because denying her child a father was not (in her mind) denying her child anything that he needed if she had the money. To her, a father is only a wallet or she would not have done what she did. But she wanted a child and damn-it, she was going to have one. Guys didn’t “man up” so she had to step in and fix her problem.

    I think that kid is 12 now. I weep for his future.

  200. mikediver5 says:

    being of not quite your age but close, I expect to be taking a nice long dirt nap in 30 years. I will have finally gotten over my air addiction.

  201. new anon says:

    I finally got the irony of the title.

    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
    And then is heard no more. It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing. — Macbeth

  202. Anonymous Reader says:

    And then Tom he talked along and talked along, and says, le’s all three slide out of here one
    of these nights and get an outfit, and go for howling adventures amongst the Injuns, over in the Territory, for a couple of weeks or two; and I says, all right, that suits me…

    But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally
    she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can’t stand it. I been there before.

  203. SirHamster says:

    The U.S. is not under serious Divine judgement at this time. But when the U.S. turns on the Jews (which is inevitable), this nation will face the music.

    I beg to differ. Obama is a judgement on a nation that would elect him twice.

  204. honeycomb says:

    >>honeycomb
    >>Anonymous age 72 ,,,
    >>You’re funny for an old guy. And, no you still aren’t MGTOW.

    Aa72 ..
    “So, tell me, what is there about YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE IF I AM OR NOT that you don’t understand? Narcissism is involved in your life, thinking your opinions are more important than anyone’s opinion. That you get to decide for everyone.
    I have a nutty daughter just like you.”

    @Annonymous age 72 ..

    Sir in approximately 4 hours your posts went from funny to female.

    Check yourself. I’m not your kid and no I don’t police anyone. Check my previous posts. At 45 years old I’m happy for ya. Just like every other man who has embraced the red-pill.

    And the irony of your post is measureable, in many many tons, to everyone but you.

    Straighten up and fly right. Or, just continue to act like a woman. I don’t care.

    And .. No You’re still not MGTOW. And I will never call you one. So get over it.

    Oh and that other post after this one .. screams look at me .. I Am a special snowflake. Which just continues to tell me you are way to emotional to be a man.

  205. Josh the aspie says:

    @Lyn87

    You forget that God also says that he will curse those that curse Israel.

    Also, there is Romans 11, where in it discussess how those in Christ have been grafted onto the tree that is Israel, while some of the natural branches there of have been broken off, for their lack of faith: http://biblehub.com/nasb/romans/11.htm

    So Christendom, be you descended from Abraham and David, or from Gentiles, is the tree of Israel.

    So in my understanding, if a nation curses Christians, and Christianity, then God will curse it.

  206. enrique432 says:

    MikeDiver, my older brother and I used to play RISK for HOURS on end…we finally came up with Nuclear Risk, as the game’s structure permits additional rules/regs and add-ons (like Monopoly)…we actually had it to where you could Nuke a zone and then it stayed Pink (unused color) for X amount of turns afterwards. Lots of fun…1970s, early 80s fun.

    Dave, we will NOT defeat ISIS. Although I am Muslim (Sufi) I do not agree with them on their tactics, I recognize this war as what it is. Said it before, say it again: This is a war, generally, between Alphas and Betas. People can argue all day long, as I have heard for decades “Oh, you slap your women around, Oh you have to keep them locked up, Oh, you have to put them in Burkas”…. Women are RESTRAINED in Islam. Think SHARIA is bad? Try the US Courts/Family Law as a man.

    Alphas always win, as long as they have enough women and betas along for the ride…they will TRUMP a true Beta society. We are producing LEss and LESS Audy Murphy’s and more and more Dancing with the Stars champs. Do the math.

  207. MarcusD says:

    Overall, though, the main breadwinner in the overwhelming majority of Canadian families are men. And according to Lahey’s calculations, that means nearly nine-tenths of income splitting’s benefits will go straight into the pockets of men.

    http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post/wealthy-husbands-will-cash-big-time-stephen-harpers-income-splitting-scheme

    The horror of it all.

    When the sexes are flipped, though, all is well.

    NB: That website is from the Broadbent Institute which is a Canadian, far-left/Marxist organization.

  208. honeycomb says:

    @Honeycomb,

    Every journey starts where you are standing right now.
    If someone has been blue-pill and married for 20 years and one day takes the red-pill, can he only be a MGTOW if he gets divorced?
    Sometimes you have to work within your current circumstances.”

    To GYOW you must be free to do so. Want wage a work strije for the month and go fishing. Sure if you don’t have legal obligations.

    The difference in a “confirmed bachelor” and MGTOW .. is red-pill. You use your red-pill knowledge to maje a difference of one. You priortize yourself first and everything (maybe including women) way down that list.

    My three brothers are divorced and have kids by those women. They want to be in their lives. You can’t priortize yourself when you have others you put first. Otherwise you are just back to pulling that wagon.

    Frankly I don’t care. But in the arena of ideas my opinion means just as much as the next guy.

    Prove my ideas wrong .. without name calling like a child or woman.

    Oh, at my church some of the men and ladies tried to shame me into manning up a 33 year old carousel rider and I tore them a new one. Sometimes you just gotta make do with what you’ve got while your here.

    Sorry bout my scattered posts .. I’ve had a fever and running at both ends .. tmi I know.

  209. mikediver5 says:

    enrique432 says:
    November 4, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    We eventually added connections between Australia and South AMerica so it wasn’t so dominant or easy to keep hold of. My expericnce was mostly early 70s. It is still a good game, but I can’t get my youngest two sons off the computer games to get into it. They have become masters of “Magic the Gathering” (a card game). They have both made it to regional championships and won some money.

  210. MarcusD says:

    The more likely scenario is, for the greater good, women who were biologically superior at carrying children would be designated as “incubators.” And, not necessarily their own children. A society that believes in genetic engineering to the point that they have eliminated 1/2 of the human population, would certainly believe that only the best and the brightest women should reproduce.

    The SS tried that during (and prior to) WWII. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn)

  211. Lyn87 says:

    Josh the aspie says:
    November 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    @Lyn87

    You forget that God also says that he will curse those that curse Israel.

    I forgot nothing. The U.S. has not cursed Israel, so that curse doesn’t apply to us… yet. It is you who forgot something: Romans 11 is about the Kingdom of God: it does not extend the promise of Genesis 12 to the church. Genesis 12 is very specific, and applies to the nation comprised of the physical descendants of Abraham’s grandson, Jacob (re-named Israel).

    This isn’t complicated: God keeps His promises, and one of those unconditional promises is that He would bless those who bless the nation of Israel (the physical descendants of Jacob/Israel). America still stands up for Israel, so God has obligated Himself to bless America until that changes. Anyone who thinks God isn’t blessing America should go overseas: even first-world countries are backwards by U.S. standards. In the past decade I’ve vacationed in three Western European countries, and none of them compare to the U.S. in terms of infrastructure or wealth. Practically every U.S. town or county has at least one institute of post-secondary learning. We could easily be self-sufficient in energy. Our farmers feed the world. For a few bucks a month anyone can have hundreds of channels to watch anything that strikes their fancy. We’re so rich that chronic obesity is at epidemic proportions… among the poor! We may be squandering our blessings, but they are surely all around us.

    But since God is a just God who judges the nations, once He is no longer bound by His promise to Abraham (which will occur when we turn on the Jews), His judgement will fall, and the blood of 60,000,000 + babies will cry out for redress.

  212. Dalrock says:

    @Anon 72

    Glenn Sacks: gone.

    He’s still around. Just the other day he sent me a DMCA takedown notice because someone copied and pasted some of his writing into the comments section.

    Dalrock is a great blogger, with only a couple serious failings. Do not imagine he will still be at it in ten years, not to mention 30 or 40 years. Possible but improbable.

    Which of you gentlemen will be able to replace him? Which of you stalwart gentlemen will be doing anything for 30 to 40 years?

    it is an unusual person who can stick to a program for a major portion of his life. Many are called for short term debate, but few will stick to it long enough to accomplish anything useful.

    I appreciate the kind words, and you are in all likelyhood right. I don’t know that I have a decade or more to write about.

    But I disagree with the implication that we need one man to plug away for decades. No one man is (or should be) irreplaceable. I’m a small cog, and when/if I exit out it won’t leave a hole. As Vox wrote in a recent post (emphasis mine):

    The lesson for #GamerGate is the same. Ignore the moderates, ignore the placators, ignore the tone-police, and keep doing what you’re doing. The only thing a 4GW organization has to do in order to keep succeeding is a) don’t stop, and, b) don’t centralize.

    DMCA take-down notices aside, we are more like open source software than a corporate monolith. Hawaiian Libertarian is closing up shop, but he has taught me a great deal. Even if he nuked his site tomorrow and didn’t leave it as a resource the mark will be there. To the extent that I’ve added value, it will be because I’ve either expanded the audience or helped clarify the sphere’s thinking (developed new ideas or refined existing ones). Neither of those would go away if I were to shutter the blog tomorrow.

  213. enrique432 says:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/

    Seems to be going strong.

  214. Anonymous age 72 says:

    When I click on your link, Spearhead shows last two postings 10/19 and 9/19. Unless there is a secret log-on that is not going strong. That is dead.

  215. greyghost says:

    To add to TFH red pill starting from the PUA community is damn near main stream for young men. Check out the comments on Yahoo articles and any other that have comments. More and more red pill types and the explosion of mens video blogs on you tube is awesome. Another very important point that cannot be lost ,James Yeager a you tube gun guy had a friend on that as a joke did a very red pill joke video that for the gun crowd was huge. Most of the men into fire arms and shooting are big time white knight mangina types. This was very unusual for this kind of video genre but it was a hit.

  216. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Dalrock, of course your going will not leave a hole. Or, maybe it will. You generate a lot of traffic here and create a lot of creative work. Who is going to do that? You have an almost unique view. Others do the same stuff, but you have so much on just one blog.

    I was on DGM-2. It was a very large, very active board. When Lee folded it temporarily while moving to China DGM-3 came back much much smaller. There were split offs, true, but it was like throwing a handful of sand in the air. The sand is thick when it leaves the hand, but it goes all over the place until there is no bulk. Yes, there thousands of pieces of sand are all over the place, but no one can see them in the dirt.

    Each of the split-offs viewed itself as the center of the universe, and all other split-offs as inferior. A lot of time was and is spent criticizing and insulting others, such as a small portion of MGTOW attacking Elam and vice-versa.

    The viewpoint of most men here is rather short. Things that looked one way at the time look different over a 30 or 40 year period. That is why it matters if no one stays at it very long. How many of you even know there was an active men’s movement back in the 70’s?

    If there are no long-termers for reference, you see the same B.S. over and over again, each generation thinking it is breaking new ground, even as the horse simply follows the old furrow.

    MRA: MGTOW; this blog and others, remind me of my own life. I just came back to Mexico from a 4400 mile trip to the northern USA. I told them I do not expect to be back. Several people were upset to hear that.

    The thing is since I retired in 1997, I have driven around 300,000 miles, including 50,000 miles in Mexico. When one begins, it is exciting seeing new places and new geography and new flora. After 300,000 miles, all one feels is boredom.

    Yes, financially and physically I can get in the car and start another 2 month 11,000 mile expedition as I did a few years ago. But, I am not going to do it. Enough already.

    The men’s movement is much like that. Most of you are, and will almost always be, fairly new. Everything is exciting and new, and you have, or think you have, such great new ideas. But, in the end, your time here is just part of the “300,000 mile trip of the men’s movement.”

    So it has been since the 70’s in the Men’s movement. A lot of motion, but no new ground exposed As someone pointed out, the traditional confirmed bachelor today calls himself MGTOW, and thinks he owns the entire concept, and can decree who dares call himself MGTOW.

    So, does anyone have MGTOW as a registered trade-mark? If not, STFU.

    The Internet manosphere, even with tens of thousands of participants, involves a very minor percentage of the millions of red pill men in the USA. Most men get the red pill by personal experience, or men talking among themselves, careful that none of the dearie slave holders hears them.

    On the other hand, if you only save one man a year from Marriage 2.0, that is a good thing. In my activist years, I didn’t help a lot of men get custody from abusive women who otherwise would not have. But, it sometimes gives me goose bumps to think those few kids are now well into their 30’s and most are doing fine.

    ###
    I have two comments for the man who posted a comment about Grumpy Old man. Do you have any idea just how boring such childish personal ad hominem attacks really are, after 40 years?

    Also, you are helping a sick society which hates all men, but especially hates old men. Good job, fella. It’s not like you are going to be old some day, right?

    You can do better.

  217. honeycomb says:

    “So, does anyone have MGTOW as a registered trade-mark? If not, STFU.”

    “Do you have any idea just how boring such childish personal ad hominem attacks really are, after 40 years?”

    Yep .. I see it clearly.

  218. The feminist zeitgeist idolizes this kind of girl power, but if a 5’4, 120 lb. man wrote this article he would be derided as having short mans syndrome and ridiculed accordingly, by men and women. That kind of entitlement is only possible with the constant protection of large men with guns from other large men with guns. What reality do these people live in?

  219. honeycomb says:

    MRM’s always fail. And always will.

    Anon 72 is upset he isn’t viewed as top dog and whatever he says goes. He is just like all the MRA men I’ve met. They think this is a union and I should be a good boy and take orders and pay dues. Fat chance.

    Hey Anon .. you’re senior to me .. NOT surperior to me.

    You (Anon 72) and Paul E can get a room for all I care. Frankly you’re not my type.

    Hey Anon 72 .. I will do my part .. just like I’ve always done. So you aren’t a special snowflake Anon 72. As noticed by men coming to the decisions they do without a “centralized movement” .. movements are easily co-opted and destroyed. Men acting independently are un’stop’able.

    Hey Anon 72 .. for a seasoned red-pill man .. who claims is GHOW .. you sure don’t act like one.

  220. ballista74 says:

    Hawaiian Libertarian is closing up shop, but he has taught me a great deal.

    Actually he’s not. He’s stated as much in the comments on his site, and as of about a couple of hours ago has a new post on his blog.

    [D: Good to hear.]

  221. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    “The only way the family will be reformed is when it starts to bite women.”

    It’s been biting them for years already. The only winners from second-wave feminism are the lesbian eunuchs who pushed it and those who bankrolled them.

    Regular women have been begging for strong men to fight back for awhile now…

  222. desiderian says:

    Abortion is a grave sin.

    As long as the majority of aborted babies are black, abortion isn’t going anywhere. It may well be the last line of defense.

  223. hoellenhund2 says:

    Regular women have been begging for strong men to fight back for awhile now

    Screw them. Either shut up, or do something themselves.

  224. desiderian says:

    Hellhound,

    “Screw them.”

    Oh, I have, often and well. Found me a fine one. Perhaps you’d no longer be locked in Hell if you’d do likewise. Yes, yes, there are not an overabundance of good ones, but then again most of your competition is still locked in there with you.

    We were fooled, while we were young, into trying to find a wife by acting like women. At least we had time to figure things out before our prime. Our women wasted theirs’ being fooled into trying to be the Man. I’d say they’re primed now for a good healthy fight if turned in a productive direction…

  225. desiderian says:

    Dal and Nova,

    I implore you to see The Judge. Duvall, Downey, Jr., and Thornton all see things very much as you do and as with all great art, they may allow many others to do so for the first time.

    In the penultimate scene, the Judge confesses the core (white male) Boomer Sin, the very one you’ve convicted them of, and it casts the first, brief, courtroom scene, which is about everything this blog is about, in an entirely new light. This is not a spoiler – you won’t notice this while watching the movie, only upon reflection, but it profoundly vindicates your point of view.

    As is the function of confession, I now am able to see that Sin in its fullness and understand it for the first time, and thus begin to forgive. Perhaps others will as well. The final shot suggests where that may lead.

  226. Anonymous age 72 says:

    David was a black intellectual who moved out of the Chicago inner city ghetto to work in a high tech factory in a small Midwestern rural city. He wanted a better life for his children, away from the ghetto which was part of his childhood.

    I liked David, He was a good technician working his way up the experience ladder. Also, he was proud of his family. Well groomed and presentable. There was nothing not to like about David.

    He and I sometimes talked about racial conflict. I told him that my family background was racist, but in 1957, a book by a white newspaper editor, book called BLACK LIKE ME, told of the editor’s experiences when he dyed himself to look like a black man and traveled around the south. Reading this book completely changed my view of such things. I found somewhere a copy of that old book and gave it to him. All should read it, black or white, IMO.

    I once asked him why on earth black women used make-up. White women need it, because they are often so white their faces disappear in a white, flat surface. But, black women have nice color anyway. The whites around us all acted like they wanted to crawl in a fox hole, heh, heh. But, he did understand me and said he thought it was a social issue, they wanted to use make-up like other women.

    David believed that racism is purely ignorance, a belief I cannot disagree with. The only place he and I disagreed, by that time anti-white racism was already becoming obvious in the USA, but he refused to realize it.

    The union selected him to be union representative on some community function, a thing which was commonly done.

    His wife decided, so to speak, to take the family back to the inner city type life and filed for divorce. He simply disappeared. I have always wondered what happened to David, if he died a drunk in the inner city or in a shoot-out. Another very good man wasted by divorce and stupid, evil, narcissistic women.

    I hope those responsible for giving David’s wife the ability to destroy him, do not suffer from cold in the next life.

  227. Dave says:

    Regular women have been begging for strong men to fight back for awhile now

    It has been my observation also. Western men seem to have given up the fight without even lifting a finger. They gave up their freedom, their women, and their way of life, because the feminists asked them to. Frankly, it is pathetic.
    The blame for stupid laws, gynocentric family laws, and marginalization of American men, lies squarely on the men themselves. No, not the blue-pill men (they are too dense and to do anything about it), but on the so-called red-pillers.
    One thing I am pretty certain about: feminism will never succeed in Africa and in the Middle East. Why? Because the men in those areas simply won’t put up with it.

    Screw them. Either shut up, or do something themselves.

    It is a grave mistake and injustice to expect feminine women to stand up to feminazi women, and all real redpillers know that. For one, these feminazis are masculinized, and are not true women, and could therefore deal roughly with the feminine women. Secondly, once feminine women get into the habit of dealing with the feminazis, they will likely have to become masculinized themselves to succeed against them. Truly masculine men protect truly feminine women, not expose them to unnecessary danger. I assure you, I am not being a White Knight here.
    Western men, particularly the redpillers, are the ones to stand up to the feminazis, and deliver their (feminine) women from the claws of these jezebels.

  228. Dave says:

    Lyn,

    I think you are the one conflating material blessings with God’s judgement for sin.
    First, God can bless and judge the same people, and He has done so many, many times throughout history. God judges a person or people in one area for obedience, and He blesses them in other areas for disobedience.
    God even judges His own children when they sin against him, if they do not turn from sin, even though He also blesses them in other areas. As a matter of fact, God is often stricter in judging those He considers special to him. The story of the children of Israel bears this out.

    Nevertheless, when we are JUDGED in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world. 1 Corinthians 11:32

    Secondly, God never promised not to judge any nation which blesses Israel, should that nation commit other types of sins against Him. He promised to bless such a nation (usually materially) because of its kindness to Israel. No more; no less. To think that any nation can escape punishment for other sins simply by being nice to Israel is contrary to scripture. If we were to follow the premise of your argument, it means that any nation can trample all other laws of God under their collective feet, and still escape judgement, as long as the nation is nice to Israel. That sentiment is simply absurd.

    Again, as stated earlier, God’s judgments do not always involve fire and brimstone. He often tries to win over the wayward children, and nations, sometimes through inducements, and sometimes through threats. That is why “the goodness of God” is supposed to “lead us to repentance” (Romans 2:4). Ever wondered why some really bad guys live long, and good guys sometimes die young? This might explain that “unfairness”.

    Failing in this, He sends gentle rebukes, then escalates as necessary—until the breakpoint, when resistance of the rebellious against Him becomes futile, and His will can no longer be resisted (Romans 9:19). This should be clear to most if we consider God’s aim in punishing His creatures anyway. God almost never punishes anyone or any nation just for the fun of it. His goal is usually to reform the wayward, so He uses the minimal force necessary to achieve this. It is when all these gentle means fail that He shows Himself as “the Man of war”, and a “Consuming fire”.

    That America is already under God’s judgement is clear. I will address address your response to my earlier piece later.

  229. Dave says:

    Error:
    God judges a person or people in one area for obedience, and He blesses them in other areas for disobedience.

    I meant to write this:
    God judges a person or people in one area for disobedience, and He blesses them in other areas for obedience.
    Obedience in one area does not atone for disobedience in another. As a matter of fact, partial obedience is, as far as God is concerned, disobedience in everything.

    For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

    America may have God’s blessings for being good to Israel, but America surely will be punished for thumbing her nose at the God of the Universe, and that punishment is already begun, and will be escalated until God can no longer be ignored.

  230. Dave says:

    For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
    James 2:10

  231. Dave,

    feminism will never succeed in Africa and in the Middle East.

    Correct.

    Why? Because the men in those areas simply won’t put up with it.

    Incorrect. It will never succeed in Africa because that is a poor continent filled with 3rd world nations just trying not to murder each other or murder themselves with Ebola and AIDS. Feminism requires MASSIVE financial transfers of huge amounts of surplus wealth created for it even to exist. A parasite can not survive withotu sucking off a host.

    In the Middle East it will never succeed so long as those nations do not become secular. It has nothing to do with men putting up with it. Feminism runs contrary to Islam.

  232. sunshinemary says:

    Thought the readers here would find this of interest…the woman in Dalrock’s OP was an ungrateful single mommy, but some married mothers can be just as ungrateful:

    https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/my-husband-is-the-perfect-dad-and-it-almost-killed-101677779087.html

    In this story, the woman explains how her husband was too good of a father and wasn’t doing enough to make his wife happy, so she threatened to detonate the marriage, thereby bringing him to his knees and coercing him into date nights.

  233. Lyn87 says:

    Dave wrote,

    “I think you are the one conflating material blessings with God’s judgement for sin.”

    If you think I am conflating, then it’s up to you to show that God showers a nation with blessings (as the U.S. is blessed), while simultaneously judging them for 60 million cases of legalized murder (which would require severe judgement indeed). You cannot. We are certainly “filling the cup of His wrath” by our actions, but if you think THIS is judgement, you should spend more time in the Old Testament and the last half of the Book of Revelation. The cup is filling, but is not yet full… and because God is long-suffering and bound by His promises, He has yet to pour out His wrath on our nation.

    Otherwise, you are long on generalities but short on specifics. You answered my specific statements with the most general of disagreements – I can’t call them rebuttals because you didn’t actually rebut anything I wrote: you just declared your disagreement and quoted a couple of scriptures that don’t negate my point. I’ll have to wait for you to advance specific arguments before I can answer, but I will respond to one thing you wrote now:

    “If we were to follow the premise of your argument, it means that any nation can trample all other laws of God under their collective feet, and still escape judgement, as long as the nation is nice to Israel. That sentiment is simply absurd.”

    You are thinking in term of time, but God exists in eternity. God will both keep His promises and execute righteous judgement. I never said a nation could escape judgement, but I did say that God may delay it. (I’ll give specifics: Habakkuk 2: 1-3, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 12: 25, and Zephaniah 3:8, among many others).

    Anyway, Satan hates the Jews above all the nations, and I will posit that no nation under satanic sway will bless the Children of Israel indefinitely, so the judgement will fall in any case. Nonetheless, God will refrain from smashing them while they do so – not because they deserve it – but because He said so. But once that support is withdrawn (as it inevitably will be) God will hammer that nation according to His timing and His will.

    I am not saying “God won’t judge.” I am saying “God won’t judge until the time is right.” Even the demons in Matthew 8:29 knew that God was going to judge them – their complaint was that it was not yet time for that judgement to fall. Even the ultimate judgement of the demons is on hold until God’s timing is satisfied, and our worst leaders are not actual demons.

  234. Dave says:

    IBB says:

    [Feminism] will never succeed in Africa because that is a poor continent filled with 3rd world nations just trying not to murder each other or murder themselves with Ebola and AIDS.

    If all you know about Africa is all you wrote, I assure you, you are grossly misinformed. Many third world countries in Africa may have their issues, but they are far wealthier than the west give them credit for. Nigeria is the world’s 26th economy. South Africa, Ghana, etc, are also doing relatively well.

    Moreover, there are feminist movements in Nigeria as we speak, though, as I stated before, African men will not put up with what their western counterparts are putting up with. That much is clear.

    In the Middle East it will never succeed so long as those nations do not become secular. It has nothing to do with men putting up with it. Feminism runs contrary to Islam.

    Feminism runs contrary to Christianity too. And the supposedly Christian countries in the west are the ones who have been decimated by feminism.

    You can go on giving excuses after excuses. The fact still remains that of all the places in the world, only western countries are being overrun by this cancer called feminism.

  235. SSM,

    I miss your blog, by the by… but I understand why you had to shut it down.

    In this story, the woman explains how her husband was too good of a father and wasn’t doing enough to make his wife happy, so she threatened to detonate the marriage, thereby bringing him to his knees and coercing him into date nights.

    Terrible. If there was ever a perfect reason as to remove unilateral divorce law, this would be it. Under no circumstance should she even mention this to her husband. Invoking threatpoint like this, it would only make sense to her because she not only does she not love her husband, she never did. In her life, everything is about her. With all the pre-marital counseling the got, I get the impression that she is extremely bi-polar, maybe even bpd.

  236. Dave,

    Feminism runs contrary to Christianity too. And the supposedly Christian countries in the west are the ones who have been decimated by feminism.

    Western nations are filled with Christians but the nations themselves are secular. That is why the west is decimated by feminism, the laws were influenced by the feminist imperative. Look at the post right above what you just wrote. SSM shows a feminist harpy of a wife who was willing to use the secular laws of our nation to frivolously blow up her marriage because her husband was spending all his free time with their children and not her. She could do that because ours is a secular nation, not a Christian one.

    Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, UAB, these nations may be growing wealthier because of oil but they are not secular. They are Islamic first and foremost. That is what keeps the feminism in check. The women there have no government authority to turn to, to keep their patriarical husbands in line with the feminist imperative.

    You can go on giving excuses after excuses. The fact still remains that of all the places in the world, only western countries are being overrun by this cancer called feminism.

    Of course. That is because the laws in the wealthier west are secular. And government has the authority to incarerate men and confiscate their wealth.

  237. The Brass Cat says:

    SSM,

    The yahoo article brings up a good point. Which comes first: the relationship with one’s spouse or the relationship with one’s children?

    My vote is for primacy of the marriage–the union between the husband and wife. Without that to form the nucleus of the nuclear family then there is no family. Placing the marriage first is better for the children in the long run if that results in no divorce.

    But the woman in the article should have been grateful for her husband’s child rearing work instead of dropping a threat point bomb on him.

  238. Dave says:

    Lyn says,

    I never said a nation could escape judgement, but I did say that God may delay it…..
    I am not saying “God won’t judge.” I am saying “God won’t judge until the time is right.” …
    God will refrain from smashing them while they do so
    [i.e. while they support Israel, irrespective of the type and quantity of their other transgressions]

    You are suggesting that as long as a nation supports Israel, God’s judgement against that nation’s other sins will be delayed? If so, then you’re wrong. Can you quote any promise of God to support that assertion?

    The reason why what you referred to as “the judgement” is delayed is because God has not exhausted less catastrophic means to drive home His will. In His mercy, He is still trying to hope against hope that the wayward country will repent. We may use different terms to describe this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with America’s dollars going to Israel, or of our military’s bombs falling on Israel’s enemies. Nothing at all.

  239. JDG says:

    It has been my observation also. Western men seem to have given up the fight without even lifting a finger.

    Maybe you’re not old enough to remember. There was a fight, or at least some skirmishes, but those that fought lost their jobs and reputations.

  240. JDG says:

    In this story, the woman explains how her husband was too good of a father and wasn’t doing enough to make his wife happy, so she threatened to detonate the marriage, thereby bringing him to his knees and coercing him into date nights.

    The problem here has nothing to do with how good of a husband or father the man is. The problem here is a rebellious wife who thinks she has a right to sit in judgment over her husband, which is further exacerbated by gyno-centric laws that allow and encourage insubordination and immorality among women.

  241. If I may interject, Ms Emma Watson has an important message.. about guys having to do things for wimmenz again..

    So… you have all been cordially invited to be assfucked, right in the kisser, by feminism.

    You’re welcome!

  242. JDG,

    The problem here is a rebellious wife who thinks she has a right to sit in judgment over her husband, which is further exacerbated by gyno-centric laws that allow and encourage insubordination and immorality among women.

    As Dalrock would say, this is the system working exactly as it is designed, a transfer of headship.

  243. BradA says:

    The reason why what you referred to as “the judgement” is delayed is because God has not exhausted less catastrophic means to drive home His will.

    While I certainly believe judgments come, you fail to realize that judgment for all sin was laid on Jesus, thus I see modern consequences as more than, consequences of stupidity, rather than OT judgment. You would have to provide NT Scripture to validate such judgment now.

    We are headed for a time of such judgment, per the Book of Revelation, but that is on the entire earth at some point in the future.

    God doesn’t need to do anything specific. He just has to stop withholding some things He has restrained and we will face more than we can think of now.

  244. Dave says:

    That is because the laws in the wealthier west are secular. And government has the authority to incarerate men and confiscate their wealth.

    My point exactly. The western men allowed themselves to be pushed into writing laws which are harmful to their cause, because feminism demanded it. While we could understand the Bluepillers for going along, what excuse do the Redpillers have for allowing themselves to be made second class citizens in their own land? I understand that “Blue-pill” and “Red-pill” are relatively new terms, but the concepts, and the people they refer to have been around from the beginning of time.

  245. Dave,

    My point exactly. The western men allowed themselves to be pushed into writing laws which are harmful to their cause, because feminism demanded it.

    No.

    Western women got the vote. Once they did that, politicians (who understand women but don’t give a damn about the health and wealth of the nation they live in) realized how they could get (and keep) jobs in legislature, by creating laws that accomidate the feminist imperative. The only thing western man allowed is it allowed women to vote by voting for a congress (in 1918) that as a majority, thought that was a good idea. By doing that, they sealed their own fate.

    That is why it drives me crazy when men in the manosphere keep telling me that I am wrong to say that women are moral agents. They are NOT moral agents, have never been moral agents, and will never be moral agents. The majority of women who click on that link that SSM so kindly put up on this blog about a woman invoking threatpoint to get her husband to take her out on “date night” would see absolutely nothing wrong with what she did. That is because they are in full rebellion of God and/or full rebellion of their husbands (if they ever had one to begin with.) You are (by your very nature) an AMORAL BEING without submitting to a position of ultimate authority of which you have no control over (that being God.) Women can’t vote God or Christ out of office because He says that she must submit to her husband, so she rejects utterly any law imposed by Him. That is where we are at in the western world with our secular democracies. And our most Christian politicians (if there could be such a thing) could never say this because to do so would mean to end their own political careers because they will never get another job because women vote.

  246. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic, but you’ll enjoy… a hypergamy happy ending story!

    “He Didn’t Leave Me for His wife,” by Gloria in Texas, on Ms. Vicki column at Military.com, 5 Nov 14
    http://www.military.com/spouse/relationships/ms-vicki-he-didnt-leave-his-wife-for-me.html

    ‘Gina tingles rule her life, so she’s bored and “lonely” with hubby…

    “I was proud of him, but I wasn’t happy with him or my marriage. Living with deployments and his long absences left me lonely, and I started building relationships in other places. ”

    Soon, a-ha!

    “Then I met and fell in love with an officer. He was the man of my dreams. He, too, was in the process of a divorce.”

    So, of course…

    “I divorced my husband as I had planned to do, but I did so in a hurry because I wanted to be the woman who was waiting for my new man when he divorced his wife.”

    But…

    “Then he decided that he wants to try and work things out with his wife for the sake of his children. … My ex-husband is also dating another woman, and they appear to be very happy.”

    Ha ha, sucks to be you, beyatch! (Enjoy at the link above.)

  247. honeycomb says:

    Anon …

    I (just) love happy endings.

  248. Lyn87 says:

    Dave says:
    November 5, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    … If so, then you’re wrong. Can you quote any promise of God to support that assertion?

    [I already have. See Genesis Chapter 12: 1-3.]

    The reason why what you referred to as “the judgement” is delayed is because God has not exhausted less catastrophic means to drive home His will. In His mercy, He is still trying to hope against hope that the wayward country will repent.

    [That is one of the reasons I listed several hours ago in this post (end of the second paragraph). I’m glad to see that you are now in agreement with me about that being a factor.]

    We may use different terms to describe this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with America’s dollars going to Israel, or of our military’s bombs falling on Israel’s enemies. Nothing at all.

    [Another unsupported assertion on your part. Everything I wrote derives directly from scripture. I quoted scriptures and gave context – to date you have only made assertions. If I’m wrong, I’m willing to retract, but I’ll need scriptural arguments that demonstrate that I am taking the scriptures I quoted out of context. Simple assertions won’t do.]

  249. Lyn87 says:

    Feministhater write, “So… you have all been cordially invited to be assfucked, right in the kisser, by feminism.”

    I dunno’… I’ve always been pretty flexible, but I’m pretty sure that’s not anatomically possible.🙂

    @ Anon,

    Great link, and I’ll echo Honeycomb: I love the way the story ends. What makes it even better is that she probably won’t get any of his military benefits or the retirement he’s about to become eligible for. As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon” – she bailed out before she was vested.

  250. The Brass Cat says:

    Gloria in Texas’s solipsism is so over-the-top that it is almost hard to believe she is real. But, sadly, she probably is.

    Hamster: “Why would he need to work things out for the sake of his children?”
    Translation: “I’m way more important than his children and I’m ok with pushing them out of his life.”

    Hamster: “I wonder if he was seeing this woman while he was still married to me?”
    Translation: “Because then I could prove to everyone what an awful man he is! Oh, but when I was cheating it was justifiable self-defense.”

    Hamster: “my officer, who is not a gentleman.”
    Translation: “How dare he ruin my master plan! If he was a gentleman he would know that he owes me a relationship.”

    Hamster: “He is heartless to put me through this pain and agony.”
    Translation: “Putting ME, ME, ME through pain and agony is an act of cruelty. Obviously I am above doing anything so heartless to another. My ex? Well, he was (possibly) cheating on me anyway!”

  251. Dave says:

    Genesis 12
    1 The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

    2 “I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
    I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.
    3 I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
    and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you.”

    I still cannot see where God said He would suspend judgement on any sinful nation simply because that nation showed favor to Israel. There is no such promise in the Bible. None. If God were to make such a promise, He cannot be a just God.
    What! You mean the only thing a nation needs to do is to be careful to be nice to Israel, and that nation can violate God’s other laws with impunity, and such a country can delay judgement indefinitely? Does that even make any sense at all?

  252. Gunner Q says:

    Dave, the idea that God is punishing the United States these days makes no sense. The purpose of punishment is to correct poor behavior. Doing so requires informing the person/group being punished about what they did wrong. Divine punishment would therefore involve God showing up, naming the guilty parties and their crimes, informing them what their punishment will be and then dishing it out. That isn’t happening.

    Suppose God is angry with a man who just stole something valuable and punishes him by inflicting a painful toothache until he returns the loot. How is the thief supposed to know he’s being punished, or that setting things right will stop the pain? He probably doesn’t even believe God exists. All he knows is he made a good haul and now needs to spend it on the dentist.

    Christ isn’t passive-aggressive like that. In fact, he isn’t big on punishing unbelievers in general. That’s what Judgment Day is for. Otherwise, back in the day Christ would’ve been whipping Pharisee backsides left and right.

  253. Anonymous Reader says:

    The western men allowed themselves to be pushed into writing laws which are harmful to their cause, because feminism demanded it.

    Once again, some and all are not synonyms. The apex fallacy remains a fallacy.

  254. ballista74 says:

    Dave, the idea that God is punishing the United States these days makes no sense. The purpose of punishment is to correct poor behavior. Doing so requires informing the person/group being punished about what they did wrong. Divine punishment would therefore involve God showing up, naming the guilty parties and their crimes, informing them what their punishment will be and then dishing it out. That isn’t happening.

    If you look to Scripture and the example of Israel, this was the pattern. But divine punishment involved the prophets showing up, naming the guilty parties and crimes, informing them that God isn’t pleased, and calling for repentance.

    Today, this is in the form of God’s people, the ones who haven’t bent knee to Baal. His prophets are speaking, but I fear as before that very few are listening.

  255. Tom C says:

    Anonymous age 72,

    The men’s rights movements go back farther than the ’70s. There was a men’s rights organization in Vienna in 1926 that spoke out about the injustice of alimony back then. There is a lot of related historical information at the Unknown History of Misandry blog.

  256. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Be sure to watch an excellent response to Emma Watson’s nonsense. It was on the page but you can see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o0euhM6bjg . He says before men are men they are boys, and on average young boys are hit 900 times a year by women. If women want to stop the violence they must STOP HITTING BOYS.

  257. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Tom C says:
    November 5, 2014

    I am well aware that men’s movement occurred long ago. But, we can’t consult with men from 1926 and most men aren’t even aware there was a movement as recently as the 70’s. Men from the 70’s can be consulted.

    Most men today don’t know there is a history, and obviously don’t want to know.

  258. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    At the risk of repeating myself: nobody – least of all me – is saying that God will withhold judgement on a sinful nation because of their favor for the Children of Israel. What I did say, and what is confirmed by both scripture and history, is that God will delay that judgement as long as that nation favors His chosen people – not because they deserve it – but because He said so. You are thinking in time, while God exists in eternity. He is not obligated to follow your timeline.

    Again, if you have a scripture-based argument to show that I have taken any of the half-dozen-or-so scriptures I referred to out of context, please share them. Telling me that God’s promise the Abraham strikes you as irrational is getting us nowhere.

  259. honeycomb says:

    Uh Oh .. even gay men are on th outs .. or are they being outted? LOL

    Once again the gay men must be restrained by the feminist impair’ed’I’tive..

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rose-mcgowan-attacks-lgbt-community-for-failing-to-campaign-for-feminism-gay-men-are-more-misogynistic-than-straight-men-9841873.html

  260. BradA says:

    [2Co 5:17-21 KJV] 17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

    Note that God is not imputing people’s sins to them under this system, the one we are walking under now. I know some are glad to proclaim His judgment, but this clearly shows that the ministry of a Christian is to reconcile, not proclaim judgment.

    I do not believe this indicates anything wrong about standing against unrighteousness, but it does cover whether God is judging the world today.

  261. I dunno’… I’ve always been pretty flexible, but I’m pretty sure that’s not anatomically possible.

    feminists will find a way. Emma Watson is on the case – with a strap on – right in the kisser! Just remember, it’s your duty! Heforshe!

  262. Novaseeker says:

    Uh Oh .. even gay men are on th outs .. or are they being outted? LOL

    Once again the gay men must be restrained by the feminist impair’ed’I’tive..

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rose-mcgowan-attacks-lgbt-community-for-failing-to-campaign-for-feminism-gay-men-are-more-misogynistic-than-straight-men-9841873.html

    What she says isn’t really untrue. The coalition between the women’s movement and the gay male part of the LGBT movement has been generally one of convenience and mutual advantage rather than true love, if you will. Strength in numbers. Lesbians and the women’s movement obviously fit together like hand and glove, but for gay men it’s been more about the coalition for additive power in numbers. Individually, while you have the flaming gay guys who love to act like girls and be one of the girls, the average non-flaming gay guy (and I’ve known a fair few professionally over the years) — the one who isn’t “obviously gay” to the rest of us straight people — has no great interest in women (obviously), issues relating to women, or relationships (even friendships) with women, and prefers the company of men — what a surprise. This isn’t really misogyny, but in our day and age anyone who has no interest in women, issues relating to women or relationships with women counts as a misogynist regardless of whether he is sexually attracted to women. Such is the lunacy of our age.

  263. Honeycomb says:

    Nova …

    “What she says isn’t really untrue. The coalition between the women’s movement and the gay male part of the LGBT movement has been generally one of convenience and mutual advantage rather than true love, if you will.”

    Actually, the Feminists attacked the Gay Men a while back (a good number of years ago; I’ve forgotten the details now .. recall saturation happened a long time ago) to put them in their place. They have to re-educate them every so often. This is one of those occasions.

  264. thedeti says:

    Re: MILF arrested for rape:

    Here’s the skinny on that. Same old same old, really. Very attractive for her age 47 year old woman married to beta shlub, allegedly has tryst with 15 year old boy. Interestingly, she became an NFL cheerleader at 38. which should give you some idea of her attractiveness.

    The linked article below has photos of the woman and her estranged husband. I’ll leave it to the reader to draw conclusions as to why she might have looked elsewhere for sexual satisfaction.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2011/09/26/mayo-and-molly-shattuck-aim-to-raise.html?page=all

    She turned herself in on statutory rape charges.

    The funny thing is that the article Nova linked is the very first one of these kinds of “older woman accused of raping underage boy” articles that did NOT contain a photo of the accused. These articles always have photos of the accused so that the reader can evaluate her attractiveness.

  265. Novaseeker says:

    Yeah I think she was separated from her husband last year, before this happened over the summer. it’s still odd, though. Cougar may look for a 24 year old but a 15 year old, when she herself has a 15 year old son? Pretty creepy, I think.

    In other news, it was great seeing Wendy Davis get her ass well and truly kicked on Tuesday. Kind of a poster-girl for modern femnista and so, despite my dislike for both parties, nevertheless an entertaining loss to witness.

  266. Anonymous Reader says:

    Wendy Davis

    This loss is significant if for no other reason than the M$M gave her all the support that could be found for over a year, from soft-balling the tactics used in the Texas lege on the abortion bill to doing soft-focus bios on her “self made Grrrlpower” past to playing up the Travis County persecutor political games against her opponents, etc. etc. and…she lost anyway by a wide margin.

    Davis seems to have had the full support of the boomer feminists in business, in finance, in the media, and it wasn’t enough. I’m not near Texas but I had the impression she was being pushed on the public as the inevitable winner by all the above and it failed, bigtime.

    Feminism, Inc. will downplay this result but make no mistake, this was a big loss. The guy in the wheelchair was supposed to lose to the perky, brave, strong, independent, SingleMom.

  267. Dave says:

    Again, if you have a scripture-based argument to show that I have taken any of the half-dozen-or-so scriptures I referred to out of context, please share them.

    I really hope to do this, possibly over the weekend. But the crux of my arguments are:
    1. Being nice to Israel will not delay judgement on a nation that disrespects God’s other laws. At least, we have no biblical basis for that notion.
    2. America is already under God’s judgement. It is now a debtor nation, with declining influence all over the world. If righteousness exalts a nation, sin has surely brought this once great country into reproach among nations.
    3. God’s judgement is not always characterized by spectacular events, such as fiery rain that came upon Sodom and Gomorrah, or worldwide flood as in the time of Noah, or turning waters into blood as He did in Egypt.

  268. Novaseeker says:

    Feminism, Inc. will downplay this result but make no mistake, this was a big loss. The guy in the wheelchair was supposed to lose to the perky, brave, strong, independent, SingleMom.

    The reporting is blaming an inept campaign. Oh well. It’s significant that she lost because she is kind of the heroine of much of what is wrong with contemporary women, really.

  269. Lyn87 says:

    Dave, I give up. I requested a SCRIPTURE- BASED answer rather than your assertion. Once again you responded without doing so. From that I can only conclude that you cannot.

  270. thedeti says:

    Wendy Davis:

    I knew that name rang a bell. She’s the woman who married a lawyer, then got accepted to Harvard Law from Texas, left hubby in Houston to go to law school while hubs paid for it. ONE DAY after hubby made the last payment on her school loans, Davis left her husband.

    There is justice in the world.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/22/Wendy-Davis-Gave-Up-Custody-of-Youngest-Daughter-in-2005-Divorce

  271. easttexasfatboy says:

    Wendy Davis is a cold canine. She was generally despised here in Texas. A real piece of work. Abortion is very distasteful here, and leftist-marxists pushing it here are sickening. See, everyone that has a functional conscience knows it murder. Actually, it’s eugenics practiced out in the open, as most babies killed are black. You’d think that the black clergy would have something to say about that. MGTOW isn’t composed of joiners, as I understand it. Misandric behavior destroys societies. Islamists execute women who act that way. Clear cut penalties, and if a woman is to be stoned, her family has to help kill her. Barbaric, right? Well, historically, barbarism overwhelms soft, emasculated societies. The castrati can’t or won’t fight effectively. Typically, the barbarians are greatly outnumbered. But, they stand and fight, when the castrati flee from the slaughter. Humanity is violent. Feminism tries to ignore human nature. They just end up feeding the dogs. Actually, in my experience, there’s always a lot more dogs around than buzzards. So, I can’t stop the de line. The rot is mult-generational. Young women are raised feral. Basically, that’s why the Lord commanded certain groups of people to be exterminated. There wasn’t any way of saving folks who were mental degenerates. Baal worship, live child sacrifice, bestiality, temple prostitution are some of the hilights. He required ALL to be devoted to the sword. Even the livestock. So, where does America fit in with all of that? We aren’t the good guys anymore. The very blood of the aborted cries out. Young women who agree with abortion are quite simply murderous. Men’s rights organizations are ineffectual in the face of that. This is civilization ending stuff here. If a woman will kill a baby, men don’t have a chance. Most people can’t make that connection. If a man truly understands that, then he realizes that the only way this changes is how the Lord views it. That’s why I won’t feed a feminist or help one in a shooting situation. I don’t want to share in their works. Most men won’t share this viewpoint. That’s why I go my own way.

  272. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, there’s more about Davis than that if you dig. The Texas governor’s race came up on some other fora I read on RKBA rights, and the more you learn about Wendy Davis the nastier it gets. In a way, she’s a good example of the truths of the androsphere, as much as Jenny Erickson. It isn’t as obvious at first glance, probably due to Davis’s Upper Middle Class status, but it’s there.

    Wendy Davis uses and discards people, quite plainly, but in the female way so it’s blurred a bit.
    And to tie back to the OP, she’s another strong, independent, woman who would never have gotten where she is without men (plural). She stands on the glass floor.

  273. Leonidas says:

    That is the best way to put the female dilemma in such simple sentences. Its funny to think that even in the fallen world we live in they remove themselves from whatever paradise men offer….

  274. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Davis seems to have had the full support of the boomer feminists in business, in finance, in the media, and it wasn’t enough. I’m not near Texas but I had the impression she was being pushed on the public as the inevitable winner by all the above and it failed, bigtime.

    Feminism, Inc. will downplay this result but make no mistake, this was a big loss. The guy in the wheelchair was supposed to lose to the perky, brave, strong, independent, SingleMom.

    This was the narrative the left wanted to sell, but here in Texas she never was considered as having a serious shot at winning. Texas is very conservative, to the point that most political ads involve each side claiming to be the real conservative while calling the other a liberal. Democrats calling the Republican a liberal while claiming themselves the true conservative is SOP for all but the most liberal local races. Even Davis tried this, quickly changing her claimed stance on abortion and trying to move to Abbott’s right on guns.

  275. Dalrock says:

    The funny thing about the race for Governor was the general lack of media coverage and campaign ads. It wasn’t a very important race because everyone already knew the outcome. There were very few campaign ads. Most of the focus was on how badly Davis played her role as also ran.

  276. greyghost says:

    If a woman will kill a baby, men don’t have a chance.

    I figured this out a few years ago and it is very head clearing and does close the idea of activism that is an appeal to the sensibilities. (there are none they will kill a baby)

  277. Leonidas says:

    Because black and Hispanic men do not take crap from their women especially if their really pushing their luck. White men tend to just take it all, to the detriment of their sanity…

  278. Leonidas says:

    It does but then you would have literally won the lotto, bonus ball included.

  279. Honeycomb says:

    Hehehehehe …

    Seems a lot of people (59% to be exact) didn’t stand with wendy … good job Texas.

  280. thedeti,

    I knew that name rang a bell. She’s the woman who married a lawyer, then got accepted to Harvard Law from Texas, left hubby in Houston to go to law school while hubs paid for it. ONE DAY after hubby made the last payment on her school loans, Davis left her husband.

    This story needs to be repeated over and over and over again. Sadly, I don’t think the majority of women will give a shit (or they will just jump on their hamster wheel and run real fast in an effort to justify the unjustifiable.) But men will care, particularly those who were needlessly frivorced.

    Texas is too good a state to have someone like this monster Wendy Davis, have any kind of authoritative control over it. She is not a good enough woman to live in Texas.

  281. Novaseeker says:

    Remember that was husband #2. She’s twice divorced.

  282. Gunner Q says:

    “2. America is already under God’s judgement.”

    Dave, what do you mean by “under God’s judgment”? America is failing because of the logical consequences of our leaders’ choices, not supernatural intervention. I’m sure God judging the nations wouldn’t take the form of sitting back with a beer and watching the inevitable play out.

    And doesn’t judgment imply punishing the guilty, not the innocent? Our elites will be the last to suffer from being “under God’s judgment”.

  283. I know. That woman desacrates the sacrament of marriage and acknolweldges NO moral authority from husbands, absolutely none. The only possible use she has for men, is the resources they provide for her when she needs it. When she no longer needs those resources, she systematically (coldly, calculatingly) removes those men from her life. That’s it.

  284. Dave says:

    That woman desecrates the sacrament of marriage and acknowledges NO moral authority from husbands, absolutely none.

    And who do you blame for this? In my opinion, it’s the men who wifed her up. They knew what they were buying. She did not deceive them. And if she did, it was their fault for not screening her well. If we blame the women who have kids for thugs for not picking good guys to procreate with, we must blame guys—well educated guys—who wifed up Jezebels.

    It is obvious, from the story, that the second husband was merely coasting through life. he started dating the girl after her father asked him if he cared for younger women. For one, it shows that he did not have a unifying life goal to help him in making long term decisions. A woman is supposed to be a help-meet. It is nearly impossible to pick the right woman when you, as a man, do not have an all-encompassing life purpose. What is the woman to help you to achieve? What role is she to play, when you have no consuming goal? You will only choose based on her vain appearance.

    “Yeah, I enjoy her company! I like the way she does her hair! She’s very sexy!”

  285. Dave says:

    All that a woman needs to do is to flash her pearly white teeth and push up her heaving bosom, and the purposeless man will respond. Solomon captures the picture more clearly:

    Suddenly he follows her As an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as one in fetters to the discipline of a fool, Until an arrow pierces through his liver; As a bird hastens to the snare, So he does not know that it will cost him his life.

    Proverbs 7:22-23

  286. Dave says:

    Lyn87 says:
    November 6, 2014 at 10:39 am

    Dave, I give up. I requested a SCRIPTURE- BASED answer rather than your assertion. Once again you responded without doing so. From that I can only conclude that you cannot.

    Sure I’ll give it to you. I am currently at work; I only take a few minutes here and there to loin and post. I don’t have a lot of time to delve into scripture right now. But be assured I’ll get back to you.

  287. greyghost says:

    Yeah I see where you are going Dave. He should have just hit it and rolled. Like a hard stone cold blooded brother would have done it back in the eighties.

  288. Dave says:

    greyghost says:
    November 6, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    Yeah I see where you are going Dave. He should have just hit it and rolled. Like a hard stone cold blooded brother would have done it back in the eighties.

    Nope. I said no such thing. He should have picked the right woman. Contrary to popular opinion, women are not very good at hiding their intentions from a truly observant man. Spend enough time with any woman and you can almost always predict her next moves. In the end , it all depends on what you would like to put up with. But to say the second husband did not see it coming is not totally correct. She divorced the first husband before she turned 24! What gave the second husband the belief that she was a keeper?

  289. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    http://iamenroute.tumblr.com/post/101795519143/ten-ways-to-serve-single-moms

    From the other post he links from that one:

    Recently I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about how we as the Church, the Family of God, can come alongside and tangibly love the single moms both in our local churches and in our neighborhoods.

    My sensitivity to this is in part due to the fact that I am engaged to be married to a single mom. As I’ve spent time with her and her four kids I’ve been opened up to the world of what being a single mom looks like. And it’s been an eye opening, paradigm shifting experience for me. Two major things have stood out to me:

    First, I’ve realized that single mom’s are indeed heroes…

  290. greyghost says:

    That ten ways to serve single moms was terrible Dalrock

  291. thedeti says:

    Actually the 10 ways to serve single moms is really only 3.

    1. Buy them stuff
    2. Watch their kids for them
    3. Be the kids’ surrogate father/stepfather/”special uncles”/”father figure”/”special guy”

  292. Dave says:

    …As I’ve spent time with her and her four kids…

    O brother!

  293. greyghost says:

    The best a modern man can do for a single mom is to give her an opportunity to be a regular booty call. If she wants or thinks she deserves more fearlessly let her know the fact she is a single moms shows she is lucky to get the chance to be a regular booty call. Leave a bag of skiitles on the kitchen table if you are one of those really kind and loving types

  294. enrique432 says:

    I saw the article in the UK Daily Mail, or whatever it was, about some White Female Privileged Actress complaining that gay men don’t support feminism (“misandry”), etc etc etc…I always knew they would eventually target ANYONE that isn’t doing ALL they can, all day long, to help white women…b

    but what I didn’t expect, was the full dose of red pill that proceeded in all the comments. Men really ARE sick of it all, aren’t we? It seems regular Joes are pushing back, everywhere.

  295. Dban says:

    Sorry for the off topic but does anyone know of good articles on how to best be a spiritual leader for your family? I find that I fail in this area alot and I’m trying to improve but most advice I’ve found online is given from the churchanity point of view of leading by submitting to your wife or being equal co-leader nonsense.

  296. Al says:

    OT, but I think the host will like it: a tradcon, Anthony Esolen, calls out the Church – the Catholic Church, in his case – in an article, “Who Will Rescue the Lost Sheep of the Lonely Revolution?” published today at Crisis Magazine.

    He even directly mentions the suffering of men:

    What about the innocent men who, after they have been abandoned, become in effect slaves to a corrupt and lawless regime? Have you stood up for them? Founded a society for mutual support?

    I think he deserves a shout-out.

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/will-rescue-lost-sheep-lonely-revolution

  297. The Brass Cat says:

    This one is my favorite:

    1) Take them out for coffee and ask them to share their story. Everyone has a backstory and single moms often have a story they long to share. Listen.

    Some stories are best left untold, especially if there are children present!

  298. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    Do you have a post dealing with all New Testament passages addressing submission in marriage? (Perhaps pointing out how the feminist interpretation of Eph. 5:21-33 contradicts other passages.)

    Thanks.

    (I’m currently discussing the usual passage (i.e. Eph. 5:21-33) with someone (unsurprisingly, on CAF).)

  299. Everyone has a backstory and single moms often have a story they long to share.

    1) I didn’t know how to pick a suitable husband and father for my children.
    2) I take no responsibility for that.
    3) Now I’m looking for a ̶c̶̶h̶̶u̶̶m̶̶p̶ ̶n̶̶i̶̶c̶̶e̶ ̶g̶̶u̶̶y̶ certified Beta Buxxer to pay for another man’s children.
    4) I will have no problem having affairs and/or leaving said ATM because it’s not my fault that I was never sexually attracted to him.
    5) If no man wants me, clearly it’s misogyny and you men just need to grow up.

  300. JDG says:

    The best a modern man can do for a single mom is to give her an opportunity to be a regular booty call.

    Not if he is a Christian. The best thing he can do is share the gospel and ask her to repent of her sins. No booty calls for unmarried Christians.

  301. Lyn87 says:

    Ten Ways to Serve a Baby Momma (Red Pill Translation):

    1) Be a celibate boyfriend by taking her on de-facto dates that you pay for, with not even a kiss at the door when you drop her off.

    2) Find out what she lacks so you can provide it or otherwise arrange for her to get it – i.e., assume the duties of the husband she decided she didn’t need, without her picking up any of the duties of a wife.

    3) Look at the kind of ministry the Bible advocates exclusively for honorable older widows – and create such a ministry for young baby-mommas.

    4) Become her chauffeur.

    5) Arrange for her to have frequent “Girls Nights Out” – because, you know, that always ends well. (Isn’t that how she ended up as a single mother in the first place?)

    6) Send her on vacations so she can experience the company of lots of other men, because that could never end badly either, right?

    7) Be a father figure to another man’s kids, thereby enabling her to further alienate them from their father.

    8) In case the widow’s ministry isn’t doing enough, do more of the same yourself.

    9) Repeat of #7.

    10) Remind her of the gospel (the only one of the ten that has much merit).

    Basically, the author has accepted his role as a pre-cuckholded husband as he is engaged to a baby-momma with four(!) children (we don’t know how many fathers)… and he thinks that she’s a hero. I am nearly at a loss for words. That’s like praising a person who murdered both his parents for his perseverance in living as an orphan.

  302. JDG says:

    MarcusD says:
    November 6, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    For what it’s worth Marcus, here is my input on the subject:

    God maintains His created order.
    1 Tim 2: 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

    Here are a few facts concerning the hierarchy in marriage:
    1 – Adam was created 1st (Gen 2:7, 2:18-23; 1Tim 2:13).
    2 – Adam, not Eve, represented the human race (1Cor 15:22, 45-49; Rom 5:12-21).
    3 – Adam named Eve, not the reverse (Gen 2:23).
    4 – God named the human race “Man” not “Woman” (Gen 5:2).
    5 – God called Adam to account 1st after the fall (Gen 3:9).
    6 – Eve was created as a helper for Adam (Gen 2:18; 1Cor 11:9).
    7 – The curse brought a distortion of previous roles not new roles (Gen 3:16).
    8 – Salvation in Christ in the NT reaffirms the Creation order (Col 3:18-19).
    9 – Marriage has been a picture of Christ and His church since creation (Eph 5:32-33).
    10 – The relationship in the Trinity reflects the relationship in marriage (1 Cor 11:3).
    11 – Wives are to submit to their own husbands.

    Here are some scriptures concerning wives submitting to their husbands:

    Ephesians 5:22
    Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

    Ephesians 5:24
    Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

    Colossians 3:18
    Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,

    Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

  303. JDG says:

    Ten Ways to Serve a Baby Momma (Red Pill Translation):

    What??? No foot rubs on that list?

    #2 is kind of like alimony and CS all over again.

    #3 makes me cringe.

    #10 gets smothered by the other 9. “What me repent? I didn’t do anything wrong. It just sort of happened.”

    Basically, the author has accepted his role as a pre-cuckholded husband as he is engaged to a baby-momma with four(!) children (we don’t know how many fathers)

    These types of ministries are putting the cart before the horse IMO. Where is the repentance, accountability, and the desire to change?

  304. greyghost says:

    Not if he is a Christian. The best thing he can do is share the gospel and ask her to repent of her sins. No booty calls for unmarried Christians.

    No booty call for you bitch. One of the boys had to come in and tighten me up. You are going to have to find some chump to marry you.

    TFH
    As soon as that jack ass says “I do” that heroic broad is getting knocked up to make sure their love is real. If not that she will get that idiot to sign some adoption papers.

  305. Lyn87 says:

    JDG asks, “Where is the… desire to change?

    Oh… she’s changed alright. She changed from AF to BB… right on schedule. That’s not to say that girls who rode the carousel shouldn’t abandon the AF, of course: repentance is for everyone and Jesus died for baby-mommas as much as for any of us (I know you know that, but not everyone seems to think so). But it’s awfully convenient for a woman to ride the carousel as long and as hard as the author’s fiance has, then suddenly find a nice guy in church who wants to show that he is so super-special that he can look past the fact that his fiance has four bastard children as if that were of no consequence… As if those children did not already have fathers who could also benefit from some Christian charity. I’ll admit to not having looked, but I would be very surprised if that guy has written anything about helping men whose wives and girlfriends took their children away from them and inserted another man into the “father” role.

    I mentioned recently that one of the things I find irksome is when some newbie declares himself an expert (like Sandman does). The soon-to-be BB provider who wrote the article strikes me in a similar fashion: he doesn’t have the slightest idea of what he’s leaping into, yet he feels qualified to lecture the rest of us on what we ought to be doing to enable baby-mommas.

  306. JDG says:

    No booty call for you bitch. One of the boys had to come in and tighten me up. You are going to have to find some chump to marry you.

    Sorry I can’t tell if you are parroting the slut, the cad, or some other party. IMO only a gullible fool would marry a slut, and only a fornicating fool would have intercourse with her.

  307. Blake says:

    @Dal, I read the “single mom” article you linked and if that guy was anywhere near me, I’d shake him hard and ask him just what in the world he is thinking.

    I know people make mistakes, but, this guy thinks the best way to help single moms is to follow in the footsteps of government and have the church support them. Yeah, nothing cures bad behavior quite like rewarding bad behavior. Absolutely astounding.

  308. greyghost says:

    I guess I won’t be getting any righteous glory I’m making her a night shift ride home booty call. No rings for sluts Y’all I’ m giving it up for team and fucking what’s left of the slut’s fertility away one booty call at a time.

  309. Dave says:

    That’s like praising a person who murdered both his parents for his perseverance in living as an orphan.

    Classic quote.

  310. enrique432 says:

    Lyn,

    I’ve really enjoyed Sandman, because I’ve found that despite his relative “youth” in dog years (I don’t believe he’s been married or had kids), he got OUT of the matrix so fast and with such remarkable clarity, he naturally demands an audience. I like Barbarossa too, as well as Stardusk (ThinkingApeTV).

  311. greyghost says:

    I’m a sandman fan myself and watch each new video before work everyday

  312. enrique432 says:

    Gents:

    This can’t possibly be real: http://iamenroute.tumblr.com/post/101441928038/engaging-the-single-mom-among-us#notes

    WTF?

    “First, I’ve realized that single mom’s are indeed heroes. My respect for single moms has reached an entirely new level as I’ve observed my fiancé give her life away for the good of her kids. I just can’t grasp how she does it and it remains a mystery to me.”

    Like young women who cock carousel their potential to have a stable marriage and kids, apparently this guy doesn’t get it: HE COULD grasp it, if he married a regular gal without kids and HAD HIS OWN CHILDREN. It would no longer be a “mystery” to him. FFS!

    “Second, I recognized that she was primarily alone in this challenge. Now she isn’t really alone and she would tell you this. She would tell you that God is with her and near to her and that He is her identity and strength. However, it doesn’t appear that the local church (which is God’s Body!) is near or with her much throughout the week. And if we aren’t near it makes it difficult to see the challenges single moms face. And further, if we can’t see their challenges, it makes it difficult to meet their challenges tangibly and accurately. ”

    No, she wouldn’t tell you this…HE would tell you she would tell you this. She’s busy doing something else, while he’s writing love letters to oblivion on the internet(s). I am so sure GOD is her “identity and strength”….is she a fan of Lisa Whelchel ?

    Christian Princess Lisa Whelchel fell in LOVE with her Beta Male:

    “I figured that since I had decided to marry this man whether the feelings were there or not, I could probably use all the help I could get.” Lisa Whelchel
    http://www.crosswalk.com/1090966/

    “It’s about balance. I’d read all the books about being a great help meet and I implemented all the right things. But somehow as I was offering all that I thought a good wife should be…I stopped offering myself. If we change ourselves too much to be their help meet, we can make it too easy for our husbands and they can’t grow. We have to be honest – that’s what being a good help meet is.” …Lisa Whelchel
    http://heavenlyhomemakers.com/chatting-with-lisa-whelchel-about-marriage

    And then one day: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20651783,00.html

    “But then, when asked about the breakup of her 24-year marriage to Steve Cauble, Whelchel gets quiet. “Of course I still believe in marriage,” she says. “I never thought divorce would happen to me. But Steve is still my best friend. We just couldn’t be married.” Lisa Whelchel

    TRANSLATION : Now that I’m on Survivor and my career is revamped (in my mind) and I still look good…I finally dumped Steve, like I should have in my earlier Christian walk. Divorce just kinda “happened” ya know? But he’s still my BetaBux buddy, kinda like he always was. That hasn’t changed.

    “We still see each other every day; we go out to dinner and movies. At one point [our daughter] Clancy said, ‘Mom, I think you’re going to have to let me know when you get divorced, because I won’t be able to tell when it happens.’ ” Adds Cauble: “We spend normal family times together – holidays, birthdays, and of course, watching Survivor.”

    TRANSLATION : Chump. Nuff said.

    “I personally have much more understanding and empathy now,” says Whelchel. “You don’t know what people are facing in their lives, so it’s important to love and not judge them. That’s the whole Christian message: that we fail and forgiveness can happen. It’s a sad commentary of many Christians that we shoot our wounded. So I’ve learned how important it is to be more encouraging and understanding, no matter what people are going through.”

    TRANSLATION: I want you to be sweet to me, and Christ-like, and let forgiveness “come upon us” (cause it just “happens”, it’s not like anyone in this narrative needs to ASK for forgiveness or repent). Also, don’t shoot me…because I am the center of MY universe, I’ve learned how important it is that YOU…yes ALL YOU FANS and stuff, be more encouraging and understanding. Send me some love and don’t judge, y’all. WWJD?

  313. MarcusD says:

    (NB: Some swearing)

  314. MarcusD says:

    @JDG

    Thank you for your response – that was helpful.

  315. enrique432 says:

    http://iamenroute.tumblr.com/about
    “My name is Sam, I live in Chicago with my New Family”

    I can barely bare it. This is why I am so glad I am Muslim. No offense to my Christian brothers…but Holy Shahada…

    “Serve Them // Single moms have a long list of to-do’s from doing laundry, cleaning their home, lawns that need mowed and cared for and many other duties. As they are responsible for these everyday projects they are also trying to raise children, provide for their family, develop relationships and even serve their local church. No one person was ever meant to do all this alone, and it is nearly impossible to do these things well alone. How then can the Church enter into the life of a single mom to serve? Who can we send to mow the yard every other week or how many folks can we gather together from our Missional Community or Small Group to clean the house every two weeks as an act of love displayed in servanthood? Instead of always expecting single moms to show up at our Gathering and attend and serve how can we go to their turf and serve them? ”

    I mean, I cannot believe what I am reading. This guy doesn’t just want to be a slave HIMSELF (and I bet she’s not putting out anyhow, he looks like a major chump)…he wants OTHER MEN to do so, also, under the guise of “Servanthood”.

    OK, someone needs to watch this blog, because this is going to be too good…

    Second: Of all the people he wants to go and clean the single mom’s house…how many women will he ask, and how many will agree? How many, I wonder, women who’ve had kids, let alone Christian women who have NOT had kids, feel like getting their ass up on Saturday to go clean another woman’s house, who has four kids?

  316. Lyn87 says:

    enrique432 and greyghost,

    To each his own.

  317. MarcusD says:

    Age at marriage, college and earnings for women
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=919525

    Looks like the feminists don’t really know what’s going on. I mean, the answers are perfectly apparent, and yet Marxism-infused Catholicism gets in the way.

  318. Exfernal says:

    Re: http://iamenroute.tumblr.com/about
    I can’t even begin to imagine how it feels to become a willing host of a nest parasite. Mind recoils in revulsion and horror….

  319. Exfernal says:

    Legends about changelings might serve as some kind of illustration.

  320. enrique432 says:

    Re: http://iamenroute.tumblr.com/about
    Exfernal, although it would be way too petty, I almost want to write the guy and ask him:

    1. How many women has he recruited to go clean the homes of single women? And what was their demographic (married with kids, older, single, etc).

    2. How many rallying cries has he given at church for a group to go help non-custodial fathers, and do things like, cobble together some cash for a guy’s (qualified) financial need to pay his child support.

    Even in 2014, we live in a world (as expressed through this form of Liberal Christianity and often TRADCON XTIAN) where single moms (and women) can do no wrong, be no wrong, and never be wronged. They must be catered to, at ANY social cost, and NEVER socially outcast, as warnings to others. In the Masjid, such women aren’t treated as equals to married women. A premium is placed on being married (it’s “half the Deen as we say) and it’s reflective of our culture.

    Btw, I’m truly saddened to think how wrecked this guy is going to be in 10 years (maybe sooner) if he truly keeps up this liberal-cum-white-knightedry. The burnout rate HAS to be comparable to an upper class white female Smith college grad doing social work in the inner city.

  321. Luke says:

    Single mothers should have their children put up for adoption, or failing that, put into foreign service as janissaries, where they never come back to the U.S. Those women should either marry or be sterilized (and frivorcing their husbands brings sterilization.

    Frivorced mothers should lose custody of the children to the father, of course.

    Widowed mothers should remarry if possible, but if not, are left alone as long as they control their children.

  322. Spacetraveller says:

    Enrique432,

    A reader at my blog asked me to do a post on the encyclical “Casti Connubii” decreed by Pope Pius XI in 1930. To my utter surprise, look what I found at paragraph 122:

    “122. We are sorry to note that not infrequently nowadays it happens that through a certain inversion of the true order of things, ready and bountiful assistance is provided for the unmarried mother and her illegitimate offspring (who, of course must be helped in order to avoid a greater evil) which is denied to legitimate mothers or given sparingly or almost grudgingly.”.

    This was 1930!!
    Wow, I am truly shocked that this was already an issue in 1930.
    And 84 years later, this issue has only grown and grown.
    Will we never learn?

    I note, by the way, that married mothers in the UK were in uproar last year when the government proposed financial ‘sanctions’ on them, whilst the single mothers were having cash thrown at them. This problem will never go away with corrupt governments perpetuating it.
    (I am not saying that the children of single mothers must be made to starve just to ‘teach the mother a lesson’ – far from it – but what I am saying, and what Pope Pius appears to be saying, is that it is regrettable that those who do the right thing are penalised in favour of those who don’t, and by the looks of things, this gentleman you refer to is doing the same thing…)

    The whole document (Casti Conubii) is here:
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

  323. enrique432 says:

    Interesting indeed. Stephan Meleneaux (however you spell it) had a surprisingly good Youtube vid on Downtown Abbey where he talked about this very issue. It happened to be about a Season on the show my wife and I actually watched (we discontinued/got bored with it). A “single mom” on the show was completely shunned, after being knocked up by an Army dude who went on to die in the War (WW1), meanwhile, I widow with a child, whose husband was killed, was treated as normal and welcomed to the fold.

    His point was that BOTH women were single moms and BOTH had husbands killed in WW1…but as the scriptwriters accurately captured, the woman who was knocked up by the Army dude (Pump and Dump) prior to his shipping out, was shunned as an outcast and WARNING to other women.

    Somehow, that got lost in the Anglosphere in the last 100 years.

  324. Boxer says:

    Single mothers should have their children put up for adoption, or failing that, put into foreign service as janissaries, where they never come back to the U.S. Those women should either marry or be sterilized (and frivorcing their husbands brings sterilization.)

    That’s a pretty nifty theoretical punishment for both parties, in the event of a divorce with young kids. (No fault, no one gives a shit who started it, before the divorce is granted, you get sterilized permanently).

    It would surely cut down on the number of bastards, if both the divorcing husband and wife were spayed and neutered before knocking up others.

  325. Dave says:

    Frivorced mothers should lose custody of the children to the father, of course.

    This is what happens in many African countries by default. The thinking is, if she came in without children, she must go out without children. Fathers almost always have custody of the kids, unless he does not want them.

  326. enrique432 says:

    If you removed child support from the total equation (except for health care for the kids), you’d see mothers dropping their sweet, precious “could-never-live-without-them” children off at the father’s house asap.

    Although I have no personally experienced the following, I’ve had my radar up in case it starts with me (my oldest is a near adult): I’ve known MANY men, and women, who through their personal stories, just talking about divorce/custody freely, have made it clear that it is VERY common for custodial mothers to start the slow “migration” of their eldest children, particularly if they are a problem, BACK to Daddy’s house, once the kids hit about 13-15, depending on the circumstance.

    Over the last 20 years, after hearing of these situations over and over, despite their various differences in the details, the general narrative is: Women realize around teenage years that they are going to need the FATHER to be locked in for college or any “slacker” costs of a 17ish to 20-something kid, so they start the process of extended custody, the “talk” about college financing (meaning, dad opens wallet) and start laying down the narrative that the father was “always in the game” and had better “man up” and “pay for college for these kids” etc etc. Momma ain’t no dummy…she milked the CS for years, and as it prepares to wind down and if particularly the kids don’t look like they are going to be rocket scientists, Momma starts the whole “you know, you should have them ALL summer (and pay me CS of course)” in those teen years…getting Daddy re-committed, emotionally, financially and for later legal claims (“How is he NOT responsible for XYZ, they live with him now…all summer, etc”) They want to have the 17 or 18 year old dumped off clean…unless of course they can play the whole “She’s going to college and lives with me and pays rent” stuff. Given that states sometimes force fathers to pay PAST the 18th birthday.

  327. Lyn87 says:

    Exfernal, Enrique432, et al,

    I was thinking the same thing WRT brood parasites. It’s clear that Sam (the iamenroute guy) is immature, Biblically unmoored, and terribly blue-pill. For a man to leap into marriage with a woman who has four bastard children is… I don’t actually have a word for it. The kids are not at fault, of course, but the mother certainly is, and he’s rescuing her from the consequences of her bad decisions. It’s pretty clear that he is inexperienced with women and she is VERY experienced with men – specifically love-’em-and-leave-em types, so the odds of him being able to trip her triggers for very long are poor. She’s been rode hard and put up wet a lot of times, and his natural tendency to put her on a pedestal is very likely to backfire, as she will accept his pedestalization as her due, while faulting him for his lack of manliness. I don’t know what he’s been taught, but if the wheels come off somewhere down the line, he’s going to have to shoulder some of the blame himself – that chick has more red flags than a May Day parade, and he’s leaping in headlong.

    I like the questions e432 came up with, and I would like to ask another two:

    1) After you are married, who will make the final decisions with regard to the children? He probably hasn’t thought much about it, and he will almost certainly default to her, as they are “her” kids. But as the head of the household, HE should be the final authority regarding whatever goes on in the household, and that includes all decisions regarding the children under his roof (although he should probably include their fathers as much as practicable and encourage the children’s relationships with their fathers, even over his wife’s objections if need be). If the fathers are unsaved, he can demonstrate Christian behavior by not allowing his wife to use the system to unjustly subjugate the men, and by allowing them liberal access to their children as long as it is safe to do so (I had to add that since we know nothing of the baby daddies). On the off-chance that he answers that question correctly, my second question would be:

    2) Have you told that to your fiance in no uncertain terms, and gotten her explicit intent to submit to you in that regard?

  328. enrique432 says:

    Seriously, I feel for this guy, because he is so deep in the matrix he is a hologram of a picture of an avatar. Curious if this woman’s four children are all from the same man (which might tell us her age and that she was married a long time), or if she is the traditional cock hound who rode many and had a few “surprises”.

    The Driscollian brand of Christianity he appears to be trying to set up in his “travels”, is the type that attracts young, naïve white yuppies, so he may do well financially at first…to be certain the woman in question, is and will be paying attention to his market value.

    You know if she dumps him anytime soon, having found another BBux male, he will write the obligatory “What I learned from dating a single mother, and why I’ll do it again”. It will be RIFE with anecdotal red flags that he will interpret and relate to the reader as his failure to live up to her standards and the Gospel.

  329. Josh the Aspie says:

    @enrique432

    ” A “single mom” on the show was completely shunned, after being knocked up by an Army dude who went on to die in the War (WW1), meanwhile, I widow with a child, whose husband was killed, was treated as normal and welcomed to the fold.

    His point was that BOTH women were single moms and BOTH had husbands killed in WW1…but as the scriptwriters accurately captured, the woman who was knocked up by the Army dude (Pump and Dump) prior to his shipping out, was shunned as an outcast and WARNING to other women.”

    No, one was a widow, the other was a woman that slept with a man outside of marriage, and got knocked up. The “army dude” was not her husband.

    There was the further social stigma (which was routinely brought up in the show) because she and the man that fathered her child were of very different classes, so had the army guy lived, it’s fairly sure they would not have been married, and he would have gone on to marry a woman of his own class, and have a child by her to be his heir.

  330. enrique432 says:

    Widows were treated better than women who got knocked up, unmarried, I think was the point. (Social class is too, of course).

  331. Lyn87 says:

    e432,

    It’s true that Sam’s story does not include any details regarding the paternity of his fiance’s four children. But since blue-pill men rarely miss an opportunity to demonstrate that women are victims (especially women they want to get into bed), it stands to reason that we may infer some probabilities from his omissions.

    If she is a widow Sam would almost certainly have told us that. He’s writing as a Christian, and there is no shame or stigma with widowhood. On the contrary, widows and their children really are to be pitied.

    If she is divorced (and the children legitimate) Sam probably would have told us that as well, if only to point the finger at the “bad man” before him who lost his family because he’s not as deserving / nice / righteous as Sam is. In the Churchian world where Sam and his audience live, a divorced woman with a brood of minor children is generally considered to have been “wronged” by a man, and thus deserving of pity.

    Since he didn’t identify her condition as a single-mother-of-four as being due to either widowhood or divorce, it is very likely that she was a carousel-rider, who may or may not have had an LTR or three that resulted in her four children.

    She’s a manospherian cliche: she had her fun while she was young, and now that she’s at the end of her AF fertility window she found a nice churchian BB guy to give her respectability and provision. He, on the other hand, gets her at the tail end of her peak attractiveness and fertility (past it, really: four kids takes a toll) – so he gets to pay full price for what she gave to every guy before him for free.

  332. enrique432 says:

    Excellent breakdown and agreed. He would have most certainly have mentioned those (missing) items had they been true. Curious how recently she “came to Christ”. May have coincided with her prowl for a BBguy.

    I posted earlier about Lisa Welchel, but it’s still waiting moderation from Dalrock. Here’s a major Christian gal who bragged for years about her marriage, and later dumped her husband of 20-plus years…but an earlier online article about her, shows that she was already admitting (while still married back in 2001) that she had to basically force herself to love her husband.

    Once it’s cleared for moderation, you can see the quotes and her links. It’s truly remarkable.

  333. Lyn87 says:

    e432,

    your comment cleared moderation. I think it’s because of the hyperlinks. Your second one came out wrong – the correct one is here

    A couple of things struck me in the first link. The first was the multiple references to female ministers – that can’t be good. She mentioned one woman (mistakenly referred to as an “elder” – an office reserved for men), but it sounds like her role may have been something along the lines of what Paul wrote about in Titus 2: 3-5, but not doing a very good job at it. The other thing that jumped out at me was this:

    The way I saw it, either this was all a big joke and God had capriciously manipulated our lives for His own sick entertainment, or this was all my fault for not having the courage to say no or this was God’s plan for my life and I was destined to marry a man for whom I felt very little attraction.

    The obvious answer is #2 – she was a coward who let herself get swept into a marriage she did not want to a man for whom she felt no attraction. Once she said her vows, though, she should have stuck with #3 and stayed married, because her vows are more important than her attraction level.

    It’s too bad – she was young and dumb and got some spectacularly bad advice and treatment from her church’s leadership. She seems to have been sincere, though, and was genuinely mistaken about the actions she should take – in other circumstances she might have been a success story. But one thing that is obvious is that she clearly craved a husband who is a good deal more masculine then the guy she married. Before the engagement the only time she ever felt any attraction for him was on the rare occasions that he did something bold.

    Still: 24 years of marriage down the drain – just as her acting career is perking up after all these years. THAT certainly doesn’t look good.

    … and I had such a crush on her when she played the part of Blaire on “Facts of Life.”

  334. enrique432 says:

    I liked the fat one. Does that make me weird?

  335. Think about how high the average girl’s expectations are; then imagine how much more that would be inflated by being the pretty blonde on a hit TV show, being photographed for all sorts of magazines, being wined and dined by Hollywood agents and actors, etc. No wonder she had a hard time finding a guy attractive enough, especially if she was Christian enough to limit herself to the type of guys likely to be found in the typical church these days. Too bad, she does strike me as a basically nice girl, gone down the typical slowly destructive path of you-go-girl empowerment and marital ennui.

    I did get a kick out of this claim from her daughter: “When Mom gets something in her mind to do, she does it.” Except stay married, I guess.

  336. enrique432 says:

    She’s a strong, independent…graduate of a Hollywood TV Show boarding school.
    Wonder if “Jo” got married.

  337. Lyn87 says:

    enrique432 says:
    November 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    I liked the fat one. Does that make me weird?

    Mindy Cohn? Duuuuuude…

  338. Lyn87 says:

    It occurs to me that my comment at November 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm might appear self-contradictory at first glance. I think Lisa Whelchel was in over her head, but had every intention of following God’s plan for her life, even if she didn’t particularly like it. But she allowed herself to be carried along rather than standing up to something she felt and thought was the wrong thing to do. Her blame for her unwillingness to just say “No” at any point of the process was on her, but the blame for the process itself was on the very people she was counting on to help her… she was, after all, pretty sheltered, and the people who might have advised putting on the brakes were the ones telling her to stomp on the accelerator. I can’t say I wouldn’t have made the same mistake in her position – I allowed a couple of marginal-to-bad relationships to get farther down the track than was wise, and I didn’t have my church leadership pushing hard like hers did. I imagine this was a case of her being in God’s permissive will while thinking this was God’s specific will. It wasn’t a sin for her to marry her husband, but it clearly wasn’t the best choice she could have made.

    Having said all that, I would bet money that she was a virgin on her wedding day, and appears to have soldiered on for a long time. We don’t know the reason for the divorce, although there is some speculation that her husband might be attracted to men, in which case she would be justified in leaving and even re-marrying if he actually did the deed. If the divorce was not justified, then that’s a different matter, of course. I’m unwilling to drop her into the same bucket as Janine Turner or Jenny Erikson without knowing more, but since I don’t follow celebrity gossip and she’s keeping it classy by not airing the sordid details, I guess we’ll never know.

  339. enrique432 says:

    Yes, I’ve heard that too, and if he is gay, then she was justified. Period.

    “Jo” apparently has stayed married forever and lives in Austin, with her husband/kids, so that’s good.

    Hollywood can be brutal on kids I am sure.

  340. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    So you are not one who says women are stuck forever and men have an out?

    Neither am I though,

  341. Dave says:

    …he is so deep in the matrix he is a hologram of a picture of an avatar….

    Hehe.

  342. Lyn87 says:

    BradA,

    Nope, I’m not. IF Steven Cauble was having gay sex (which is speculative: nobody who’s in a position to know has publicly confirmed it), then Lisa Whenchel was perfectly justified in getting a divorce, and would be free to re-marry. Unlike Jenny Erikson who trumpeted the fact that she frivorced a good husband, Whenchel is keeping the reasons mum – which is as it should be.

  343. Don Quixote says:

    Lyn87 says:
    November 7, 2014 at 8:10 pm

    BradA,

    Nope, I’m not. IF Steven Cauble was having gay sex (which is speculative: nobody who’s in a position to know has publicly confirmed it), then Lisa Whenchel was perfectly justified in getting a divorce, and would be free to re-marry.

    So where do you draw the line Lyn?
    What if Steven Cauble was looking at porn? Would that fit with your guilty party policy?
    There is no provision in the Bible for a woman to divorce and remarry.
    BTW…I know I’m a scratched record, but it seems that nobody bothers to check the details. http://oncemarried.net

  344. Lyn87 says:

    DQ asks, “What if Steven Cauble was looking at porn? Would that fit with your guilty party policy?”

    To which I reply: Straw Man Fallacy. I never wrote that and you know it. And it’s not MY policy anyway. Take it up with God if you think He’s wrong.

    Adultery is grounds for divorce and remarriage. Spend less time on “oncemarried.net” and more time in Matthew Chapter 19. If you’re getting tripped up by the idea that Jesus was referring to husbands and not wives, make sure you read Verse 7 as many times as it takes to sink in – the Pharisees specifically asked about the Law of Moses, which only addressed husbands divorcing their wives. Nowhere in scripture does God hold men and women to different standards of righteousness – because both men and women have moral agency. Jesus did not address separate grounds under which a wife could divorce… we don’t know why: perhaps because He wasn’t asked. But in the absence of specific scripture, the next step is to look at overarching principles. By that reasoning, it stands to reason that a sin that would permit a husband to divorce and remarry would apply to wives as well in those places where the law allows it. If there is some scripture that suggests that some things are more sinful for women than they are for men, or vice versa, by all means present them.

  345. Don Quixote says:

    Lyn87 says:
    November 7, 2014 at 10:40 pm

    DQ asks, “What if Steven Cauble was looking at porn? Would that fit with your guilty party policy?”

    To which I reply: Straw Man Fallacy. I never wrote that and you know it. And it’s not MY policy anyway. Take it up with God if you think He’s wrong.

    The problem I have with your thinking here is the ‘threat-point’ divorce thing. You are saying that women are justified to divorce and remarry if hubby is guilty of sexual misconduct. I disagree. That isn’t “God’s” policy.

    Adultery is grounds for divorce and remarriage. Spend less time on “oncemarried.net” and more time in Matthew Chapter 19. If you’re getting tripped up by the idea that Jesus was referring to husbands and not wives, make sure you read Verse 7 as many times as it takes to sink in – the Pharisees specifically asked about the Law of Moses, which only addressed husbands divorcing their wives. Nowhere in scripture does God hold men and women to different standards of righteousness – because both men and women have moral agency. Jesus did not address separate grounds under which a wife could divorce… we don’t know why: perhaps because He wasn’t asked.

    2 points here:
    1stly: I agree that Matt. 19 is talking about husbands and wives.

    2ndly: There is no Biblical provision for a wife to divorce and remarry. The question wasn’t addressed because it wasn’t asked. It was understood by both Pharisees and Jesus that women didn’t have the option to initiate divorce.

    Finally, different roles have different rules. see below.

    But in the absence of specific scripture, the next step is to look at overarching principles. By that reasoning, it stands to reason that a sin that would permit a husband to divorce and remarry would apply to wives as well in those places where the law allows it.

    Please don’t think I’m picking a fight here, I’m not. I humbly suggest you have misunderstood the exception clause. Please consider the concluding sentence of the ‘exception clause’: “whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” This is vital to understanding the clause. The reverse is not true. Jesus never said whosoever marries a divorced man commits adultery, its only adultery if you marry a divorced woman. Please consider this, it is the key to understanding the ‘exception clause’. Different roles have different rules. Whatever provision there is in the Bible to divorce and remarry it is only given to men. Never to women.

    From the many examples in the OT we see that it is possible for a man to have multiple wives and remain in right standing with God. The reverse is not true. No woman can have more than one [living] husband and remain in right standing with God.

  346. Lyn87 says:

    Jesus was not asked about either wife-initiated divorce or polyandry. He was asked about husband-initiated divorce since that was the only kind the law allowed. That is no longer the case, and since both men and women are moral agents capable of breaking their vows, the burden of proof is on you to show that God treats male infidelity differently than female infidelity. He didn’t do so – the subject is simply not addressed in scripture, which means that you cannot build your case except to invoke an argumentum e silentio.

    Sadly, we are both left with argumentum e silentio, but in such cases the person making the greater claim has the heavier burden (“God made an important exception to a general principle that He didn’t tell us about”) than the one making the lesser claim (“God didn’t say anything about exceptions or lack thereof at all, so the general principle may be assumed to apply”).

  347. Don Quixote says:

    Lyn87 says:
    November 8, 2014 at 12:05 am

    Jesus was not asked about either wife-initiated divorce or polyandry. He was asked about husband-initiated divorce since that was the only kind the law allowed. That is no longer the case, and since both men and women are moral agents capable of breaking their vows, the burden of proof is on you to show that God treats male infidelity differently than female infidelity.


    Female infidelity = exception for fornication aka: loss of her virginity [Deut. 22:13-21] She can be divorced and he can remarry.
    Male infidelity = repent of sin or die. She is and always will be his wife until death.

    He didn’t do so – the subject is simply not addressed in scripture, which means that you cannot build your case except to invoke an argumentum e silentio.
    Sadly, we are both left with argumentum e silentio,


    No we are not, the clue is in the clause you claim. Read it again.
    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    Its the last bit I’m trying to draw your attention to. She can never remarry if her first husband is alive, but he can. It is not possible for a divorced women to remarry and be in right standing with God, you must understand this.
    Your insistence that the ‘exception clause’ ~could~ apply to women is the foundation of the threat-point divorce that is so often discussed here. Get this straight: whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery every time, every where, every age, every circumstance.

  348. Gunner Q says:

    Don Quixote @ 2:55 am:
    “She is and always will be his wife until death.”

    Are you saying that when a man cheats on his wife, he’s really just practicing polygamy?

  349. Jesus was not asked about either wife-initiated divorce or polyandry. He was asked about husband-initiated divorce since that was the only kind the law allowed. That is no longer the case, and since both men and women are moral agents capable of breaking their vows, the burden of proof is on you to show that God treats male infidelity differently than female infidelity. He didn’t do so – the subject is simply not addressed in scripture, which means that you cannot build your case except to invoke an argumentum e silentio.

    Thank you. I find arguments based on single scriptural excerpts boring, especially between people who aren’t agreed on the same authority to interpret it. But arguments based on what’s not mentioned in scripture are even worse. I don’t want to sound pro-divorce, but saying that wives have no right to divorce an adulterous husband and remarry because we don’t have Jesus on record saying so isn’t convincing.

    Besides, the context here is Jesus saying this exception was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts, but he also makes it clear that God would be a lot happier with no exceptions for divorce at all.

    No we are not, the clue is in the clause you claim. Read it again.
    9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    That’s still talking about the woman who was put away because of her own sin. It doesn’t address what a woman may do when her husband is the adulterer. Nor does it say she is an adulterer if she remarries; it says the man who marries her is committing adultery. The whole context is about what a man may or may not do, because that’s the way the old laws on the subject had been written.

  350. Don Quixote says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    November 8, 2014 at 10:56 am

    I don’t want to sound pro-divorce, but saying that wives have no right to divorce an adulterous husband and remarry because we don’t have Jesus on record saying so isn’t convincing.

    Jewish society in Jesus’ time was not monogamous. Polygamy had a long standing place in Jewish history and many of the Patriarchs were such. If a man wanted a second wife it was not considered adultery, it was considered polygamy. The reverse in not true.

    That’s still talking about the woman who was put away because of her own sin.


    Partial agreement here.
    Jesus introduced a new school of thought into Jewish culture with the words; “whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” This was previously unheard of, remarriage was possible for a woman if she received the certificate of divorce from her estranged husband. But now Jesus makes the blanket statement that any and all remarriage of a divorced woman equates to adultery. Period. Regardless of the reason, or the actions of her husband. This point is echoed so often in the NT that its a wonder that it could even be debated. Rom.7:2&3 etc etc.

    It doesn’t address what a woman may do when her husband is the adulterer. Nor does it say she is an adulterer if she remarries;


    But doesn’t need to address what to do with a misbehaving husband. She doesn’t have the option to divorce and remarry in Jewish law, and Jesus didn’t give her the option. However, it does explicitly make the point that whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    Finally, the repeated insistence that a woman has grounds for divorce and remarriage based on the exception clause is feminised thinking. I am amazed at the number of men on this board that entertain this type of mindset!

    The whole context is about what a man may or may not do, because that’s the way the old laws on the subject had been written.


    Here we agree. It is for men only. Not for women. To try and read between the lines and suggest that a woman can divorce and remarry based on the exception clause is just hamster talk.

  351. Don Quixote says:

    Gunner Q says:
    November 8, 2014 at 9:34 am

    Are you saying that when a man cheats on his wife, he’s really just practicing polygamy?


    No.
    The sexual act doesn’t equate to marriage. If / when a man cheats on his wife he is guilty of cheating on his wife. He should repent and confess. If you are interested I have a page that addresses polygamy in the context of remarriage: Twice Married Always Married http://oncemarried.net/twice-married-always-married.html

  352. Finally, the repeated insistence that a woman has grounds for divorce and remarriage based on the exception clause is feminised thinking. I am amazed at the number of men on this board that entertain this type of mindset!

    You’ll find that many of the men here are interested in discovering the truth, and pursue it where it leads them even if it means someone might try to shame them by saying they sound like girls. A strange concept, I know, but you get used to it.

    Anyway, I didn’t say the exception clause gives women grounds for divorce. I said it doesn’t rule out the possibility that women would have been allowed the same exception, if anyone had thought to ask.

    It’s not religion, it’s logic: if I ask you if blue-eyed people can come into your house, and you say, “Yes, blue-eyed people can come into my house,” that doesn’t tell me anything about whether you welcome green-eyed people. Jesus was asked about a rule that at the time only applied to men, and he responded to it. No one asked about women (as far as we know), because at that time all such decisions were made by men — whether to propose marriage, whether to accept (her father), whether to divorce, etc.

    When an argument begins to be used to support the idea that men are unable by definition to commit adultery because polygamy, that suggests to me that it’s been stretched to the point of silliness.

  353. Don Quixote says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    November 8, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    It’s not religion, it’s logic: if I ask you if blue-eyed people can come into your house, and you say, “Yes, blue-eyed people can come into my house,” that doesn’t tell me anything about whether you welcome green-eyed people. Jesus was asked about a rule that at the time only applied to men, and he responded to it. No one asked about women (as far as we know), because at that time all such decisions were made by men….


    Yes, agreed. I think the question wasn’t asked because it would not have crossed their minds. However Mark [10:12] did record the following: And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” That verse must surely resolve any lingering doubt about whether of not a woman can initiate a divorce. I think Mark’s target audience wasn’t Jewish.

    When an argument begins to be used to support the idea that men are unable by definition to commit adultery because polygamy, that suggests to me that it’s been stretched to the point of silliness.


    I agree.
    But it does help understand the context of the discussion if we bear in mind the culture was very tolerant of polygamy [polygyny].

  354. Proper exegesis requires not only that one looks at what is said, but who is saying it, their position as the speaker, who they are speaking to and the relationship of what is said with respect to other passages that speak to the same subject.

    Genesis 2:24 states that it is the man (not the woman) who has the authority to initiate marriage. The headship doctrine is laid out by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:22-24. This is not a new doctrine, it is a statement of the headship authority of the husband that has its foundation in Genesis 2:24. A careful reading of Matthew 19 in conjunction with the law will reveal that when the Pharisees came to Jesus (the man, in His earthly ministry) with the question about divorce, everyone understood that it was not part of the Law that God gave to Israel, it was a judgment of Moses that interpreted the Law.

    That said, it becomes instructive to see that Jesus said “What therefore God has joined together let no man separate. There was no formal divorce proceeding at that time. The elders and judges were not involved. It was the man who had the authority to initiate marriage and after that, based on the judgment of Moses, the man who had the authority to dissolve the marriage. After Jesus said that, the Pharisees immediately brought up the judgment of Moses saying “Why then did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    No-where in this discussion is there any hint or admission that a woman had the authority to divorce her husband. None at all, because she didn’t. She was not in authority and had no authority to end a marriage. This is reflected in Romans 7:2 and 1st Corinthians 7:39, which both state that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. Check out the meaning of the word “bound” if you’re curious.

    When Jesus answered the Pharisees second question, He again made it clear that divorce was not part of God’s plan. “…but from the beginning it was not this way.”

    Others have tried to say that in Matthew 19 Jesus first laid out the rule and then gave the exception to the rule. The text does not support this. According to Matthew 23:1-3 by His own words, Jesus was under the authority of the Pharisees and certainly under the authority of Moses. At that point in His earthly ministry, He had no authority to overturn a judgment of Moses. Therefore, He finally stated that divorce was only for reasons of immorality and any man who married a divorced woman committed adultery.

    Let’s delve into that a bit deeper, and compare this with Matthew 5:31-32. The only way a divorced woman could be committing adultery is if she is still married. In other words, God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. If you were an attorney, you might see in Matthew 19 a foreshadowing of a reversal on that ruling by Moses.

    In 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul clearly states that the teaching is not from him, but from the Lord. This is the risen Lord speaking to His bondservants through His apostle, Paul. The wife is not to separate from her husband, but if she does, she is to remain single or be reconciled to her husband. Not her ex-husband, her husband. The husband is not to divorce his wife. Period. What follows is a restatement of the law of the bondservant, in which Paul (for the first time in all of Scripture) provides a married Christian woman with the authority to divorce her husband: if he’s an unbeliever who will not stay with her. That is the ONLY point in all of Scripture that allows a wife to divorce her husband, if he’s an unbeliever who will not consent to dwell with her.

    Many here think that adultery on the part of the husband is grounds for the wife to divorce him. Not so. Examine 1st Peter 3:1 and see what it has to say. The wife is to submit to her husband even if he is disobedient to the Word. I think we’d all agree that adultery is disobedience to the Word. Yet, the wife is told to submit to him and win him over without a word by her quiet and chaste behavior.

    In Matthew 19, Jesus the man is speaking to the Pharisees under the Law. In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord and Savior is speaking to His bondservants who have received the Holy Spirit and are living under Grace. In Matthew 19, Jesus the man HAD to go along with the judgment of Moses, but in 1st Corinthians 7 He didn’t. In both cases, the rule is no divorce. However, speaking to His bondservants, the “exception” that fell under the judgment of Moses is no longer present. For two married believers, there is to be no divorce.

  355. Don Quixote says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    November 8, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    [remove comments I agree with]

    What follows is a restatement of the law of the bondservant, in which Paul (for the first time in all of Scripture) provides a married Christian woman with the authority to divorce her husband: if he’s an unbeliever who will not stay with her. That is the ONLY point in all of Scripture that allows a wife to divorce her husband, if he’s an unbeliever who will not consent to dwell with her.

    Hi Toad.
    I disagree with your statement above. Jesus said: And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Mark10:12
    You imagined loophole is not grounds for a woman to divorce and remarry.

  356. @Don Quixote

    Again, who is speaking to whom, what is their position and authority. The Apostle Paul, writing in 1st Corinthians 7:12-17 makes it clear that if a believing wife has an unbelieving husband who will not consent to stay with her, she is free. As in free to remarry, but only in the Lord. That’s what it says. However, he maintains the rule that a wife is bound to her husband for as long as he lives. (1st Cor 7:39)

    This isn’t a loophole, it’s the plainly stated text of the Word. Yet, it’s a very narrow and closely hedged point. Not a loophole through which some might want to leap, but a concession to a believing wife who’s unbelieving husband has left her.

  357. Don Quixote says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    November 8, 2014 at 5:35 pm

    Again, who is speaking to whom, what is their position and authority.


    If it comes down to an authoritative pissing competition then Jesus trumps Paul every time, every place under all circumstances. Making a claim of apostolic position falls flat on its apostolic face.

    The Apostle Paul, writing in 1st Corinthians 7:12-17 makes it clear that if a believing wife has an unbelieving husband who will not consent to stay with her, she is free. As in free to remarry, but only in the Lord. That’s what it says.


    Interesting compilation of verses you have there, starting with verse 15 and adding the end of verse 39. This is first time I’m seeing it. Perhaps the New Toad Paraphrase says that, but you added the bit about remarriage. It aint in the text at all. Here it is again for the 4th time in the New Living Translation:
    But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace.

    This explanation better reconciles with the rest of Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching on the subject. Readers can make up their own minds.

  358. shammahworm says:

    For weeks Artisanal Toad and now Don Quixote have continued to spread lies regarding biblical divorce and remarriage. Matthew 5 and 19 both make it clear that a man may divorce and remarry if his wife is or has been sexually immoral. Jesus uses the word porneia to describe sexual sin in these passages and this same word is used to refer to adultery in 1 Corinthians 5: 1. Jesus is without a doubt referring to adultery in addition to premarital sex in these passages. Therefore a man has a RIGHT to divorce and remarry in cases of adultery(and other forms of porneia).

    Both of these men have been shown this repeatedly and both of these men have chosen to lie and spread false doctrine.

    My discussion with AT can be read in the comments section of my own blog post titled “Yes, there is Biblical Divorce and Remarriage” and also in a number of comment sections on this blog(though I can’t recall the specific articles).
    http://shammahworm.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/yes-there-is-biblical-divorce-and-remarriage/

    AT has repeatedly claimed passages in Deuteronomy were merely a “judgment” of Moses and not the direct command of God. That is naked heresy.

    My discussions with Don Quixote can be found in the comments section of Dalrock’s post titled “Single men with jobs are becoming a scarce commodity.”
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/single-men-with-jobs-are-becoming-a-scarce-commodity/

    Don Quixote also uses Bible “versions” which alter the translations of the Greek. He was shown how the Greek words don’t mean what his “versions” say they mean. Anyone who cares about sound teaching is welcome to read the walls of text(they’re at the bottom of the comments on the above post).

    @Don Quixote
    “Female infidelity = exception for fornication aka: loss of her virginity [Deut. 22:13-21] She can be divorced and he can remarry.”

    This is an outright lie. Adultery IS fornication(porneia). As evidenced by 1 Corinthians 5:1 in which these same words are used to refer to adultery. You were shown this repeatedly and now you’ve chosen to lie. You’ve also failed to fix your site with the correct definition of porneia as you were shown last month. You’ve shown yourself to be a liar, Don.

    Also, to whom it may concern, 1 Corinthians 7: 15 allows a believing woman to remarry in cases of an unbelieving husband leaving her.

    1 Corinthians 7: 15(KJV), “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”

    Don Quixote’s fake Bible “versions” alter the reading to change the situation in order to give the impression the believer still has a choice as to whether or not to live with the unbeliever when in the actual reading the unbeliever has already left. In this situation, a woman may remarry.

    “Here it is again for the 4th time in the New Living Translation:
    But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace.”

    I looked up the definitions in a lexicon and posted various Greek words and definitions demonstrating this and still you persist. Here is the CORRECT reading again. 1 Corinthians 7: 15(KJV), “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”

    A woman is no longer under bondage in this situation and she can remarry. Since the unbeliever has already chosen not to live with his wife and departed, the only possible bondage the woman would have left to the unbeliever is her obligation to not remarry. God is giving her the right to remarry in this case as indicated by “is not under bondage in such cases.”

    Anyone reading this who cares to look up the posts in which these men have been corrected can do so by following the instructions I left above. They are knowingly spreading false teachings. Sound doctrine matters and that’s why the lies of AT and now Don Quixote must be brought to everyone’s attention.

  359. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    Somewhat my fault for stirring this up again, but it is interesting watch the variants of the modern day Pharisees argue about the issue. They proclaim the Scriptures demand unbearable burdens on those they judge then proclaim their own rightness.

    Kind of funny that I am often accused of being the dogmatic one!

  360. Don Quixote says:

    This thread is turning into another train wreck. My apologies to the host.

  361. @Don Quixote

    It isn’t your fault. WormTongue is one of the internet wackos that have an agenda, probably related to their past actions. Ignore him. You said:

    If it comes down to an authoritative pissing competition then Jesus trumps Paul every time, every place under all circumstances. Making a claim of apostolic position falls flat on its apostolic face.

    I think you are missing a serious point here. Jesus, the man, in His earthly ministry, was under the authority of Moses. Later, the risen Lord was not operating under any such impediments. If you can comprehend the difference in position and authority, it brings new meaning to what is being said. Matthew 19 was Jesus the man, but 1st Corinthians 7 was the Risen Lord. There is a huge difference in who is speaking and their authority to speak.

    In Matthew 19, Jesus the man made it very clear that divorce was not part of God’s plan. However, He was subject to Moses and after making two very specific objections to divorce, was forced to support Moses. As the Risen Lord, speaking in 1st Corinthians 7, He was under no such burden and the “exception” for immorality is not stated. Again, Jesus the man speaking to the Pharisees under the Law and Moses, He supported Moses at the end. Christ, the Risen Lord did not include the “exception” when speaking to His bondservants.

  362. Lyn87 says:

    I hear ya, BradA. I’ve been too busy with work to comment much lately, and I see that there are a few news posts up. People can – and will – believe what they want. I’m bailing out of this discussion.

  363. BradA says:

    All of Scripture is Scripture. Any foolish argument making Paul’s writings less than those of the Gospel writers is fairly ignorant of Christian doctrine. Or an intentional liar.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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