Stanton’s wake-up call.

Ballista74 shared a youtube video where Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family explains why marriage is important.  The title of the video is “Marriage is a Feminist Institution”, and the caption on youtube reads:

“Research shows marriage is what truly has done the most not only to level the playing field between the sexes, but to actually shift the balance of power in women’s favor.” Surprised? Watch this video!

The video is over an hour long, and the message of the lecture is that women are naturally moral while men are not, and therefore we need to put men under the leadership of women.  This is, Stanton claims, how God made us and how marriage should work.  I will only quote small portions of the video, but I encourage you to watch as much for yourself as you can so you can see that I’m faithfully representing Stanton’s teaching.  See also Ballista74’s take on the video here and here.

Core to Stanton’s theology of the family is that women are naturally good, while men need to be taught to be good.  This is an idea Stanton has advanced in lectures as well as his book on parenthood.  Stanton explains that without women telling them what to do, the men of the original Jamestown colony were a bunch of clueless layabouts.  Fortunately the bumbling men were eventually saved by a contingent of women sent to direct their operations:

…what is the fundamental role that women, the most positive powerful role that they had in building america?

She said that was very easy, very simple: “making men behave”.

What happened was the mother country said we know how we can get the men working.  We’re not going to send drivers, you know crack the whip and get them working, we’re going to send women. And the women, the men will be interested in the women, and the women will set the tone for what the men should do.  You know what, before you have access to me, I want a nice cabin, and I want to be able to cook stew, tomorrow. So the men have to start doing, and that’s what they did. And one thing led to another, the women got men to work, they got them to buckle down, and 200 years later, boom. We have America, one of the greatest nations, the greatest nation in the world. Why? Because women showed up, and got men doing what men are supposed to do. That is what marriage does.

Stanton is confusing women with marriage.  Traditional marriage is a powerful motivating force for men.  It gives men a stake in society, in part by allowing them to lead their own family.  But Stanton has twisted this to mean that the mere presence of women is a civilizing force, with women firmly at the head of the family.

In Stanton’s view women’s sexual desires if left to express themselves naturally will automatically bring about both sexual morality and good men.  Stanton offers up the example of the feral boys in Lord of the Flies.  All those boys needed, Stanton explains, was one girl to set them straight:

It is like Lord of the Flies. I mean, I love that example, if you’re familiar with that story. There’s all these little boys, and they just turn into savages.

If there had been one little girl on that island, she would have changed the whole nature and there would be the cocky, arrogant boys. I’m going to win you over just by my absolute coolness. What is she going to do? You know what, you’re an idiot, okay. So, the other boys see him get shot down.  You’ve got the other boy over here. You know what, he’s kind, he’s nice, he’s not a Betty, he’s got some masculinity about him, but he’s not super-macho. He’s considerate, he’s thoughtful. He asks her about her day. He’s watching out for her. He’s the one who’s going to get her attention. And the other guys are like “it’s actually working”. I’m going to start being like that. Manners exist because women exist. Just absolutely plain out. And so, the bargaining chip is for the man is becoming the man that a woman wants him to become.

This isn’t just bad theology, it goes against what secular scientists observe as well.  Women’s sexual/romantic desires aren’t divining rods leading the way to righteousness.  Women left to their own devices will tend to fall for the rogue over the upright man, although they will rationalize to themselves that it is because the rogue would make a great father.  In our post sexual revolution era women spend a decade or more picking the men they are attracted to before confining themselves (if only temporarily) in marriage.  If Stanton’s view of female sexuality were correct, our current generation of young men would be the best mannered in history.  But well mannered men isn’t what we have received with young women calling the shots.  What we have instead is a generation of douchebags.  If you want well mannered men, then make sure young men need to impress the woman’s father to be successful.  If you want douchebags, leave the choice up to the daughter.

But in Stanton’s world fathers are just as hopeless as the boys in Lord of the Flies.  Fathers need to be kept in line by their wives, and Stanton offers up his own marriage as the template*:

My situation, I grew up as a skateboarder in the panhandle of Florida. Surfer. I was a good kid, didn’t get involved in drugs, didn’t do bad things. But that was my life. School, I didn’t spend a whole lot of time in that. So I continued in that, after I got married and Jackie said, “you know what Glenn, here’s how it’s going to be” and what did I do? Okay, I guess I’m going to have to go to college. I was scared to death of college. Didn’t think I could survive there. Didn’t think I could compete there. But this woman was making me do something, this either or, so I went and did it and I became a better person.

Again, I would have never imagined that I get to do the things that I get to do today. Written a number of books, things like that. But I am who I am because Jackie said not you can do it, you will do it.  And every man here knows that that’s true. So the bargaining chip for the man is, it’s going to work out better for me if I be what she wants me to be.

It’s quieter at home, she’s more likely to make the kind of food I like, I’m going to get physical access to her more often, and that sound simplistic, but there are those things. So the guy’s bargaining chip is to be a guy, and guess what he finds out it works pretty well for him. And that he’s happier than his “free” bachelor friends.

Note the implied threat of divorce if Stanton hadn’t followed his wife’s orders (emphasis mine):

But this woman was making me do something, this either or, so I went and did it and I became a better person.

Note also that Stanton has not only reversed the roles of headship and submission, but that he is explaining that the sins of wives are actually virtues.  Wives denying sex, threatening divorce, being contentious, etc are shown as acting out God’s plan.  As you can see, women can truly do no wrong in Stanton’s view, because women’s sin is actually virtue.  When women sin, it is only because they are so much more virtuous than men.

The biggest problem with this teaching is that Stanton isn’t really teaching something new.  What Stanton is teaching is what is already conventional wisdom in modern Christian culture.  Christian culture is gravely ill, which is why Stanton can come to a random church and comfortably spout this very unChristian view of women and marriage without any fear of being challenged.

But there is a bright side here.  While Christian culture has been corrupted, the battle hasn’t been lost simply because it has never been fought.  These ideas flourish in the darkness, because they aren’t capable of standing up to scrutiny.  The view of marriage that Stanton is advancing is what I’ve dubbed the wake-up call view of marriage, and is found across modern Christian teaching.  What is different with Stanton however is he is less adept at hiding what he is selling.  He forgets to pretend that he really isn’t overturning everything the Bible teaches about men, women, and marriage.  Where others are more circumspect, Stanton outright explains that wives dominating their husbands is the reason for marriage.  He goes too far, states it all too plainly, and this is the mistake.

In stating this so openly Stanton gives us an excellent opportunity to discuss our sick modern Christian culture with our fellow Christians.  These ideas slithered into Christian culture over decades, so we shouldn’t expect to overturn them quickly.  But we should try wherever we can, as it is cruel to deceive young women by telling them they are morally superior, and cruel to families to inject subversion and strife into Christian marriage.

*Stanton likes the story of his wife taking charge of his life so much he shared it two separate times during the lecture.  Here is link to the other time he describes it.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Book of Oprah, Church Apathy About Divorce, Focus on the Family, Glenn Stanton, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

261 Responses to Stanton’s wake-up call.

  1. Pingback: Stanton’s wake-up call. | Manosphere.com

  2. What can we expect from an organization that prides itself on focusing on family? This is what happens when you neglect husbands in favor of mothers. Eventually, these folks will end up with very little families to focus on. And even then they will blame men for “manning up”.

  3. I often say that the conventional wisdom today, especially among conservatives, is that women are pure creatures, incapable of doing serious wrong without a man forcing or tricking them into it.

    Sometimes I worry that I’m exaggerating. Then someone like Stanton comes along, and I stop worrying.

  4. Zippy says:

    If you want well mannered men, then make [sure young] men need to impress the woman’s father to be successful. If you want douchebags, leave the choice up to the daughter.

    Gold.

    [D: Thank you. I’ve fixed the original now too.]

  5. okrahead says:

    Dalrock,
    This is OT, but in an earlier post you had discussed the book Wild, being developed into a movie starring Reese Witherspoon. If you want to observe just how strong a connection there is between many alleged social conservatives and toxic feminism, just read Ross Douthat’s glowing review of the film and Ms. Witherspoon in National Review. At one time NR was a Catholic magazine; I wonder what WFB would think of its praise of a woman who ditches her family for heroin and hedonism; with the moral of her story being how she became a Strong, Independent Woman by (literally) having sex with ANYONE who asked and shooting up. The path to enlightenment, as now endorsed by the Socons.

  6. Opus says:

    Sadly William Golding is no longer with us to explain why the situation on the island [Dalrock they are children not men] is resolved by the arrival of an officer from The Royal Navy rather than a pre-pubescent girl. Clearly a major plot flaw.

    Some years ago a British Television company arranged for a number of boys to live together in a house and filmed the proceeding – to see whether Golding was right about the likely outcome. My recollection is that after a few days they had to intervene to prevent serious injury to the participants.

  7. theasdgamer says:

    Doctrines of demons….

  8. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    If you want well mannered men, then make sure young men need to impress the woman’s father to be successful.

    So true, but I think it’s even more than this. To succeed as a husband, a young man needs backup, and he has a powerful ally in his father-in-law.

    I suspect that it’s not just the move from male to female leadership, but also the move from people growing up in small towns, with extended family close by, to contemporary urbanization, which has weakened the role of the husband.

    A woman’s father (if he’s worth a damn) is the one man in the world who knows all his daughter’s tricks, who knows what she’s capable of. In the old order, he was also in a position to be grateful to her husband, for taking her off his payroll. It was a naturally beneficial arrangement which doesn’t much exist any longer.

    Best, Boxer

  9. Bango Tango says:

    Women a civilizing force huh? Reminds me of the documented story from Ridley’s book The Red Queen. In the 1700’s a group of 17 men and 15 women sail off to a deserted Island to start their own colony on the HMS something (forgot the name of the ship). The colony was discovered 18 years later and 2 of the women had died making it now 13 women….and the total number of men left on the Island? One…the sole “survivor” of the violent sexual competition between the men. And the sole survivor who was now obviously head of the colony converted to Christianity and made monogamy mandatory for all new members of the colony. Apparently he saw first hand what women’s “civilizing” influence actually has on men and decided he didn’t want to go through that again. lol

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060556579/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1420919198&sr=8-1

  10. ARL says:

    Bango Tango, that sounds like the HMS Bounty mutineers who settled on Pitcairn island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Pitcairn_Islands

  11. DEN1 says:

    Perhaps they should change their name to Focus On The Feminine (FOTF). It would be lot closer to the truth and, they wouldn’t have to change their initials. Everybody wins.

  12. JDG says:

    Everybody wins.

    Except for the folks who listen to the FOtF poison and mistake it for genuine Christian teaching.

  13. tz2026 says:

    There is a strong parallel with the “name it and claim it” wealth “gospel”.

    The husband, as the head, is to image Christ to the family.

    So Jesus Christ should just fold and give the church whatever it wants when it threatens to backslide or even convert away?

    The “douchebag” is merely the warped version of what the man should be. Men are supposed to be heads, dominant. Assertive. I supposed the voices are reversed in that in a choir the women sing the melody, and the men the harmony, but in marriage that is supposed to be reversed.

    Women want men to lead, but the problem in the feminized society (starting with the destruction of Fatherhood) is that men are told to be agreeable, passive, and if not actually weak, at least back down “in the name of equality”.

    So women go looking for a “real man”, and with few exceptions, the only assertive, headship, leadership men are the “bad boys”. Long before the term “Game” was coined, I occasionally listened to Dr. Laura. Several women callers each day had the exact same pattern, one of two: 1. My nice husband is boring; 2. I love my abuser.

    Also in the past, a book “Dress for Success” was published. It said to wear a blue suit. Or black. The way they determined it was to take nearly identical or identical men, dress them in various styles and colors of suits or other clothing, and ask “who would you hire”?

    Someone needs to do the experiment asking women using pictures from “revenge of the Nerds” v.s. “Sons of Anarchy”.

    And one critical change was the invention of the pill. More or less reliable contraception. Women could control their fertility so didn’t need to control their bodies. Before the pill, women couldn’t ride the cock carousel – they would eventually get pregnant or get an STD or something else. Women didn’t have “choice”, at least not without severe consequences. Mothers and motherhood is what civilized men.

    The first act of a feminized church is to sever marriage and motherhood. It is not marriage that civilizes men, it is fatherhood. It is not about children, or the miracle of a new soul, but becomes about sex – and only sex. There is a vast difference between potentially procreative sex and sterile sex. The proposal “I want to have sex with you” and “I want you to be the mother of my children” is different.

    What goes unnoticed by most is that when motherhood is severed from marriage, fatherhood goes with it. You cannot have a marriage with a Father but not a Mother. And if motherhood is reduced or erased from marriage, fatherhood is destroyed even more – the woman’s biology makes motherhood more obvious and critical if/when it happens.

    So although FotF’s blurry vision totally ignores motherhood as such, the response that doesn’t restore fatherhood fails because it already has conceded most of the important points of the argument. It is not Focus on the Family, but focus on childless couples, or ignoring the children.

    If it is just going to be a man and woman without children, then divorce and headship and the rest don’t really matter much. No daughters, means there is nothing to do right or wrong as a Father who is supposed to protect his daughter. So why bother discussing or going on about an increasingly rare “edge case”?

    Exactly what would Stanton do if his feminist daughter brought home some bad boy with satanic tattoos and wanted to bring him up to her room to have sex? Have a nice, gentle, discussion conceding she has some valid points and really is closer to God so knows best? I know, he’d say “I’ll tell your mother!”.

    When you go back to the traditional large families (I’ve pointed to the biblical case before), headship doesn’t merely make sense, it would seem stupid or insane to try to follow the feminist model. But without that context, “intentionally childless marriages of convenience” being thought equal, they become the least common denominator. Not an aberration. Hence the Stantons and their lectures.

  14. mdavid says:

    What Stanton is teaching is what is already conventional wisdom in modern Christian culture.

    I’ve never seen this sort of thing. Most Christian men are beta as hell, but no.

    The closest I’ve seen? Exhorting wives to nag their husbands to protest at abortion clinics…but that was a men only group that excludes women, so it makes more sense.

  15. Wibbins says:

    Deserted island, presumably with no influence of Christianity, with 1 female and 1 or more male(s)? She gets forced into submission(read: Raped) and starts popping out babies.

  16. Dalrock says:

    @tz2026

    When you go back to the traditional large families (I’ve pointed to the biblical case before), headship doesn’t merely make sense, it would seem stupid or insane to try to follow the feminist model. But without that context, “intentionally childless marriages of convenience” being thought equal, they become the least common denominator. Not an aberration. Hence the Stantons and their lectures.

    Stanton has five children.

  17. Seriously – what is wrong with that man?

  18. Church is for Girls says:

    “Core to Stanton’s theology of the family is that women are naturally good, while men need to be taught to be good…” That is simply wrong. From the book of Ecclesiastes:

    With all my wisdom I have tried to find out how everything fits together, 28 but so far I have not been able to. I do know there is one good man in a thousand, but never have I found a good woman.

    If you disagree with that you disagree with the Lord God.

  19. greyghost says:

    Stanton has five children.

    That explains the supplication. She has the threatpoint over a man that leads a church. Other women have men that spend money on them or come straight home from work so she can keep track of them and basically lick her ass. Some women have affairs and just do as they please and the man takes it and she respects him less. So this guy strokes his wife everytime he speaks and is basically destroying the Christian church to please his wife. In other words he is fucking up the Christian church for pussy. Every day it seems you fellas here are the only men that care about Christ and actual biblical principal.
    Based on this last posting here I don’t see anything wrong with MGTOW/family through surrogacy. Worshipping pussy as a need to even please God is always a sin. If you have one love her (that doesn’t mean project goodness on her) If you can get it don with out her do it with out her.
    BT Stanton should have chosen faith over pussy and he would be in a better place. He is on his way to losing the church and his family to some stud with game.

  20. That’s an interesting view of the struggles at Jamestown. Here’s another view:

    “the island was swampy, isolated, offered limited space and was plagued by mosquitoes and brackish tidal river water unsuitable for drinking. The ample wetlands on the island proved to be a breeding ground for mosquitoes. In addition to the marsh the settlers arrived too late in the year to get crops planted.[17] Many in the group were gentlemen unused to work, or their manservants, equally unaccustomed to the hard labor demanded by the harsh task of carving out a viable colony.”

    Then drought struck, Spanish troops attacked, etc. Later waves of colonists saved Jamestown not by bringing women, but by bringing craftsmen willing to get their hands dirty, and tobacco seeds.

    Or, you know, maybe feminism saved Jamestown like Dr. Stanton says.

    source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia

  21. “Eventually, these folks will end up with very little families to focus on.”

    Well, as long as there are women getting knocked up by cads, in a way there will be families, sort of.

  22. Matamoros says:

    New Living Translation, Gen: 3:16: Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

    The reality of the curse of Eve hidden by mostly bad translations of Genesis 3:16.

  23. Lyn87 says:

    Maybe I’m just wallowing in nostalgia, but I seem to remember a time when a man would have been embarrassed to say that his wife is the one in charge. I’m always a little taken aback when I hear a married man refer to his wife as “The Boss,” but most of the guys I know do so all the time. The also have no problem saying that it is their wives who civilize them. I don’t know… maybe it’s just humble-bragging, as in, “I could be a bad-ass if I wanted to, but I choose to be a good man instead.”

    Maybe it’s a little of both. Still, I find it oddly disconcerting. It’s one thing to solicit your wife’s input, it’s another thing entirely to reflexively defer to her, especially one the grounds that women are inherently more responsible and moral than men. The Bible and all of human history suggest otherwise. I would never make a major decision without my wife’s input, but we both know the decision is, ultimately, mine to make and hers to follow.

  24. Dalrock,

    Stanton has five children.

    4 of which are daughters. All he sees in boys are Xbox using drug addicts who wear their pants down around their ankles, nothing righteous.

    He also has a wife who thinks nothing of invoking threatpoint. So of course, women have headship to Stanton. You and I should just be glad we didn’t marry Stanton’s b*tch of a wife. Yes I said it.

  25. JDG says:

    Maybe I’m just wallowing in nostalgia, but I seem to remember a time when a man would have been embarrassed to say that his wife is the one in charge.

    I remember it to, and it was no small thing. Maybe I’m dating myself, but there it is.

  26. Look at another way Dalrock, there is zero chance you would even be ALLOWED to have this forum if you married Stanton’s wife. She has headship. That affects EVERYTHING that Stanton has to say.

    Marriage 2.0 is the work of Satan.

  27. Opus says:

    Well, you learn something new every day: Stuart England was a bastion of Feminism. Who’d have thought it and yet are not some of the women in the late plays of Shakespeare rather bad tempered; Pauline in Winter’s Tale for example and consider how Marina tames top-guy Lysimachus in Pericles.

    Notice also how Stanton refers in his writing to Mrs Stanton by her maiden name.

  28. Crank says:

    Shorter Stanton: “My wife foolishly married me when I had not demonstrated any ability or inclination to head and support a family – perhaps because she was desparate and none of the men who had demonstrated those qualities were interested in her. She then threatened unbiblical divorce if I didn’t start demonstrating those things. Despite this sin on her part, and her poor judgment in marrying me, this was all part of God’s plan for us, so it worked out ok, because I sort of like being submissive and obsequious toward my wife. Since this bizarre approach worked out ok for us, you should follow my (and her) lead.”

  29. I’m not attacking JDG or anyone else with my comment, but I was taken aback by his remark, “Maybe I’m dating myself, but there it is.” It reminded me of something a former (nancyboy) pastor of mine used to say whenever he talked about something he remembered from his past: “I guess I’m giving away my age here, but…” And I used to look at him in horror, the same reaction I had when I read JDG’s “Maybe I’m dating myself” remark. I wonder when men began using this sort of woman’s language? Women used to commonly say this sort of thing, but men never did until recently. Since when did men start worrying about someone knowing how old they are??? It strikes me as effeminate. I suppose it’s one more example of how influenced society is by feminism and its architects.

  30. DeepThought says:

    As a immigrant to this country who lived for his first eight years among the poor and welfare recipients, I read this with alarm. I recollect many days of screaming families, men fighting and strutting trying to get the upper hand, and young and old women fighting and bickering among themselves trying to get the nearest man into their bed.

    We had one neighbor in particular, wife was Hispanic and father was Italian. The whole neighborhood could here every argument. At one time our neighborhood was a typical middle class neighborhood but as the welfare recipients moved in the demographics changed. We went from a neighborhood that displayed such cheerful houses during the holidays (Christmas and Halloween) to a dark and very loud neighborhood made up of teens and parents who laid no ground rules for their kids. Our neighborhood became a much more dangerous place. Eventually my father made the decision to move out of the city.

    As i got older, I was able to piece together the puzzle that had been in swirling in my mind. I realized once I put all the pieces together, the one common thread was single mothers. As the number of single mothers increased civilization receded. A recent visit by me and my children to my old house was depressing. House after house with men and women lounging around during the workday. It was sad to see the once thriving neighborhood in such a dilapidated state.

    I witnessed first hand the destructive nature of “women” leading house holds. If this is the future for America, it is doomed.

  31. Boxer says:

    As i got older, I was able to piece together the puzzle that had been in swirling in my mind. I realized once I put all the pieces together, the one common thread was single mothers. As the number of single mothers increased civilization receded.

    That’s exactly right. It was a shocking realization when I had that same epiphany, too.

    Boxer

  32. JDG says:

    wheelermacpherson says:
    January 10, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    It doesn’t seem effeminate to me. I suppose because I have no memory of only women using the phrase. I don’t recall the phrase being used at all when I was young. It’s something I’ve picked up fairly recently I suspect.

    Regardless, I’m not quite sure why you think acknowledging that I’m no longer a young man equates to not wanting people to know it.

  33. Boxer says:

    Hassling Glenn Stanton with inappropriate twitter accounts is fun…

  34. mrteebs says:

    You’re batting two for two out of the chute in 2015 Dalrock. Keep it up.

    I knew there was a reason I stopped supporting Focus on the Family years ago. I think its time for them to change three letters and re-brand: Focus on the Female. It better aligns with their shareholder values.

  35. Bluepillprofessor says:

    This pathetic wretch gets a pity Frack and an ovulation Frack every month like clockwork. That is all he gets. Seriously who would want that skinny, whiny voiced feminized man. Is his wife a lesbian?

    Butch and fem. Guess which is which.

    If the dude wants to restore his sex life he needs to repent, accept Jesus and follow his teachings. Also, ‘She “Cracked the whip” and told me what to do’ is not very seductive. Unfortunately, this guy SCREAMS low T so he doesn’t care. He’s probably sore from getting pegged anyway and just tries to avoid it until his wife tells him what to do.

    This video made me sick. I wretched watching this. Thanks Dalrock. This is the guy who speaks for Christians on the family?

    Somebody said something about Anti-Christs among us. I now it is written down somewhere.

  36. Lyn87 says:

    JDG,

    Don’t sweat the comment that wheelermacpherson directed at you and, indirectly, me. He’s a racist, Bible-hating scumbag, as I quickly discovered when I browsed his blog to see who was so upset about grown men acknowledging that we have been around the block enough times to remember when things were different.

    Not only does he casually toss around terms like “nigger,” and enthusiastically agrees with a poster who refers to black people as sub-human “citizens of satania,” but he also disagrees with Luke 10:7 and 1 Timothy 5:18 regarding pastors.

    He’s also the self-appointed Chief of the Language Police, as evidenced by both his comment here and on his insignificant little racist blog. Waste no more time on him – I don’t intend to.

  37. Bango Tango says:

    Deserted island, presumably with no influence of Christianity, with 1 female and 1 or more male(s)? She gets forced into submission(read: Raped) and starts popping out babies.

    You know it’s interesting you say that because the story related in The Red Queen does not mention anything about children after 18 years but only there was one lone survivor and tons of women. There must have been children if the story was true because men would be getting busy in all those years and popping out kids. Bottom line it is well documented the kind of murderous jealously that goes on over women even in primitive societies to this day. Women are the opposite of a civilizing force when their hypergamy is allowed to run unchecked and monogamy is not strictly enforced. That’s why I endorse the burqa (over the head at least, not covering the face) and don’t understand why Christians who know what female nature is don’t advocate borrowing this excellent idea from Muslim culture. Limiting female freedom for their own good and the good of society is not in anyway misogyny or anti-women. They definitely should not have the right to vote IMO.

  38. Lyn87 says:

    BT writes, “They definitely should not have the right to vote IMO.”

    Just the other day I stumbled across a comment left by some little cupcake who was complaining that men never had to fight for the right to vote, but women did.

    I couldn’t believe it – that is exactly the opposite of what actually happened, as any competent historian could have told her. This year marks the 900th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, one of the pivotal steps on the long road to political freedom. The only reason King John signed the thing was that he was forced to by an army. It was not until the early 1970’s that the franchise was extended to all adult men (over 18 and thus subject to conscription) in the United States and the United Kingdom, meaning that men who were too young to vote were drafted and sent into combat… long after most American and British women were voting for the politicians who sent those men into combat.

    As far as voting and the extension of political freedoms, no woman has ever been forced to fight for anything. No woman has ever taken to the field of battle to force dictators to yield political power. Men had to fight and die for nearly 900 years to earn the right to vote – women were given the right to vote by simply asking for it a few years after it was secured by the blood of men.

    To bring it back to Stanton and his belief that women are more naturally fair, responsible, morally pure, and selfless than men: men fought and died for the franchise for nearly 900 years, then gave it to women shortly after securing it from the dictators, kings, and assorted tyrants who denied it to them. On the other hand, in every place where no-fault divorce is implemented and women can walk away with cash and prizes – betraying their vows and destroying their families in the process – the rate of female-filed divorce skyrockets almost immediately.

  39. BradA says:

    Did Stanton really reform his ways because of his wife’s threats or rather because it pointed out an underlying truth? Marriage can civilize men, as Dalrock notes, and that is proper. Women using it as a threatpoint is wrong and is definitely the wrong message for any church to promote.

    The outcome does not validate the methods used to achieve it and that is a key flaw in the message. Men maturing to take care of their family is good. Women controlling their men with threats is not, even if it seems to promote the other.

  40. embracing reality says:

    I’ve talked to many and dated a fair few Christian women, mostly from the interweb, over the last decade and can tell you Christian women long for take charge, dominant men. I’ve heard them refer to the likes of “John Wayne” in positive aura . They’re looking for and in some cases even say “a man who will take” them and belittle ‘weak boys’ as they perceive the average hipster, effeminate weenie to be. Stanton clearly hasn’t the foggiest idea what normal young or even normal mature women want men to be, he’s to busy groveling for the approval of women like his wife. She’s clearly one of the subset of women, dysfunctional ball busters, who set out purposing to find a man she can control and in his case chose very well. I know women like her and their husbands and it’s so disgusting I can’t be around them even when they’re in my own family.

    Where’s the voices of young women railing against this feminizing of Christian men? Most of them do not want this! I suspect it’s so pervasive in the church that many of the decent women see their own God given desires toward dominant men as wrong and the rest are busy riding the alpha carousel until it’s time to find a beta chump like Stanton to cuckold.

  41. Johnycomelately says:

    Stanton’s views aren’t inherently incorrect, more the case that he suffers from cultural lag, his views represent a cultural paradigm that used to be prevalent but no longer is the case.

    Economic ecology, needs, roles and symbiosis.

    When women couldn’t self provision they indeed did civilise men, out of necessity women restricted sex and chose providers. Out of necessity men became providers to gain access to sex. Women submitted and men lead.

    Stewardship and headship are all based on the male role of providing, takeaway that role and men will not ascend to becoming stewards. They will provide for themselves and concern themselves with their own interests, they will naturally trend towards listlessness and aboulia or carnal pursuits.

    Women no longer need providers and ergo men have no incentives to become providers.

    Stanton is locked in the provisioning paradigm and is obviously surrounded by like minded people, conservative large family types (good honest people) and has missed the cultural and economic paradigm shift.

    Stanton’s sin isn’t worshipping at the feminine, if anything it is cultural myopia. He has put the cart before the horse, he sees a sea of listless men and correctly diagnoses it a lack of marriage and providership. However, his solution is directed at the effect rather than the cause.

    Blaming women and invoking the old order won’t have any effect either, the economic ecology has changed, technology has lifted the wealth floor and equalised income distribution between women and men. The providership model (and Stanton’s world view) is in the dustbin of history.

  42. Bango Tango says:

    As far as voting and the extension of political freedoms, no woman has ever been forced to fight for anything. No woman has ever taken to the field of battle to force dictators to yield political power. Men had to fight and die for nearly 900 years to earn the right to vote – women were given the right to vote by simply asking for it a few years after it was secured by the blood of men.

    Oh but they had to march with signs though (the liberal equivalent of fighting on the battlefield) and didn’t one woman once throw herself under a horse or something? Yeah, see both genders fought equally and paid the price equally for the right.

    No that is actually a very good point you made. Wonder why we were never given that perspective in public schools huh? The mainstream narrative of history is just lies and never ending distortions.

  43. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dalrock
    ”But there is a bright side here. While Christian culture has been corrupted, the battle hasn’t been lost simply because it has never been fought. These ideas flourish in the darkness, because they aren’t capable of standing up to scrutiny. The view of marriage that Stanton is advancing is what I’ve dubbed the wake-up call view of marriage, and is found across modern Christian teaching. What is different with Stanton however is he is less adept at hiding what he is selling. He forgets to pretend that he really isn’t overturning everything the Bible teaches about men, women, and marriage. Where others are more circumspect, Stanton outright explains that wives dominating their husbands is the reason for marriage. He goes too far, states it all too plainly, and this is the mistake.”

    Don’t give them any ideas Dalrock😉

    As a response they will be more subtle about subverting Christian marriage.

    ”In stating this so openly Stanton gives us an excellent opportunity to discuss our sick modern Christian culture with our fellow Christians. These ideas slithered into Christian culture over decades, so we shouldn’t expect to overturn them quickly. But we should try wherever we can, as it is cruel to deceive young women by telling them they are morally superior, and cruel to families to inject subversion and strife into Christian marriage.”

    Right on.

  44. infowarrior1 says:

    As an offtopic comment. Has anyone watched Gone Girl?

    Its a great movie. And very red pill.

  45. Boxer says:

    We *must* find a way to reach the people who are being misled by Stanton, Driscoll, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, among others.

    Stanton doesn’t really have many followers on twitter, despite the fact that he uses it a lot. Be that as it may, there are a few people who kiss his ass there this week, and speaking to these people directly is a good tactic, in my opinion.

    As with Jenny Erikson, the most effective way to neutralize these feminist bozos is not to get drawn into time-wasting conversations with them. Instead, look for anyone who is being “counseled” by Stanton, and publicly warn them that he’s a radical feminist. Make sure to post a prominent link to this article here in your message, that his intended victim might have more information on him.

  46. JF says:

    You got it half-right, Johnnycomelately.
    Stanton and his ilk are indeed culturally myopic; however, they are also pathetic castrottos who are indeed espousing FEMINISM.

  47. Lyn87 says:

    embracing reality,

    Your point is pretty good as far as it goes – women are attracted to dominant men. If spending a decade as an overlooked “nice guy” while women spread their legs for one d-bag after another isn’t enough to teach that lesson, spending five minutes on any PUA website will do the same.

    But there are problems that go beyond good men not realizing that they need to be more like John Wayne and less like Justin Beiber: it’s still a minefield. Odds are that most of the church girls you dated had lost their virginity long before you met them. Sure, they may want a good strong Christian man now, but they had spent several years laying down with not-so-good, very non-Christian men in the past… and maybe not just in the past. In any case, every one of those women will still have cultural, legal, and churchian backing against her strong, Christian man who takes charge if she gets tired of him or decides that “take charge” is really “abusive controlling behavior” – which it is according to the satanic Duluth Model that guides social service personnel, family court judges, and police departments all over the country.

    The only thing can can turn this mess around is a return to Judeo-Christian morality and sensibilities on a wide scale… wide enough to change the culture and the law back to one that supports the only system that has ever been shown to work in building and preserving advanced civilization: patriarchy (that includes the vast majority of men).

  48. Lyn87 says:

    Edit – the Magna Carta was signed 800 years ago, not 900 years ago. Apologies Opus and Tam.

  49. Don Quixote says:

    infowarrior1 says:
    January 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    @Dalrock
    Don’t give them any ideas Dalrock😉
    As a response they will be more subtle about subverting Christian marriage.

    Holding them [FOTF] up to scrutiny is a good way forward. This will produce better results even if it only creates division amongst the ranks of the unenlightened. Shine the light, the darkness must flee. Any attempt at greater subtlety will provide endless entertainment for the christian manosphere.

  50. My brothers, can I not get 100 downvotes on that youtube video?

  51. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice post.I am familiar with this guy as I have read quite a few of his articles.The Christian Church that I attend subscribes to the FOTF magazine.My take on this guy.He is a spineless,pussified mangina whose wife carries around his balls in her purse.Maybe he should get his head out of his ass and take a good look around him at today’s “modern wimminz”.Tattoos,piercings,alcohol,drugs an N count in the stratosphere.They are always right and can do no wrong? What a joke! It is morons like this that help breed contempt for these “modern wimminz”.

  52. Boxer says:

    My brothers, can I not get 100 downvotes on that youtube video?

    I did my part.

  53. JDG says:

    archerwfisher says:
    January 10, 2015 at 11:58 pm

    I was number 9. Still, I suspect the down votes will just be credited to folks who oppose the Christian message rather then folks who oppose the false teachings of FOtF.

  54. Boxer says:

    If anyone here has read Stanton’s latest commercial release…

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080240216X

    an honest review might be helpful.

    Obviously you shouldn’t review a book you’ve never read, but if you have read it, and if the book is as ridiculous as his feminist speech, above (and I have no idea whether or not it is, but it wouldn’t surprise me), then it might be helpful to keep other serious brothers from wasting twenty bucks and three hours of their lives.

  55. recidivist says:

    By confusing the 14th Century ‘Religion of Love’ (aka ‘Romantic Love’ ; ‘Courtly Love’; or the ‘God of Love’) with Christianity (aka the ‘God who is Love’), Stanton makes the classic error, one perpetuated by 600 years of romantic literature and described in detail by CS Lewis in his ‘Allegory of Love’, wherein women are thought to be ‘closer to God’ because they serve as priestesses to the ‘God of Love’ (aka ‘Venus’), hide a magical ‘Doorway to Heaven’ between their knobby knees and only open these ‘Pearly Gates’ to worthy suitors who prove their merit through a combination of worship, submission & chivalrous obedience.

    Presuming female choice, Romantic Love (at least in its Medieval incarnation) presupposed marital infidelity and adultery for a number of reasons, the first being that unmarried women were considered chattel incapable of self-ownership and the second being that women (once married) were believed to be the property of their husbands, so much so that it was argued then (as it is now) that true romantic love is (was) impossible between husbands and wives by dint of marriage contract because the husband (once married) could not be denied sex in a physical sense.

    Shortly thereafter, Romantic Love was rebranded as something that transcended the physical, something spiritual and otherworldly, that could not be claimed by mere sexual congress, but only gifted from women to men voluntarily, in a fashion that allowed women to withhold love, affection and (arguably) their very soul from their husbands and lovers on indefinite basis, even in the presence of ongoing sexual contact.

    This, then, is the ultimate source of Feminism. The power to withhold love and affection from a husband or lover, on an indefinite basis, even when sexually accessible, because the Love offered by the female of our species became (has become) something so Fantastic, Exotic, Intangible and Insubstantial that one could argue that it does not and CANNOT exist. Which it doesn’t. But that doesn’t stop Men from wanting it, hoping and praying for it, this fantastic, magical and imaginary thing that women call LOVE.

    Love: It is the ultimate confidence game.

  56. earl says:

    When men replace the headship of God with women being the leader you get all sorts of false testimony. Throw in mommy oppression and you get weak leaders.

    Men…who put God first in their lives are a civilizing force.

  57. ballista74 says:

    First off…

    @Dalrock Thanks for the linkage.

    @Boxer

    If anyone here has read Stanton’s latest commercial release…

    I took that book as representative of his talk since he referred to it twice in the talk itself and mentioned that he had it for sale.

  58. feeriker says:

    While Christian culture has been corrupted … [t]hese ideas slithered into Christian culture over decades, so we shouldn’t expect to overturn them quickly.

    I really think that the impetus behind much of this was thoroughly explained in Escoffier’s invaluable contribution from last summer.

  59. earl says:

    These men are doing women no favors by lying about the fact they can do no wrong. Women are human beings not goddesses.

  60. Glenfilthie says:

    Hmpffff.

    Who woulda thunk it? Been married 30 years and have been doing it wrong the entire time! Oh well, too late to change now. No thanks on the video, Dalrock! There’s too many idiots in the world and if you argue with them they will drag you down to their level and beat ya with experience. The best way to meet guys like this is with derisive laughter and a quick dismissal.

  61. Opus says:

    @Lyn87

    King John always gets a bad press and I do not see why. He was considerably better IMHO than his brother Richard with his Middle East campaign, getting himself captured, ransomed at not inconsiderable expense and then shortly after being killed in a siege. John was merely reacting to the reality of the power of the Barons – monarchy was like that in those days; one has to wait until The Tudors for a Monarchy which held power throughout the country and on its own terms. The last thing on John’s mind were the common people of England. Anyway, Magna Carta is now a dead duck and only two of its many sections remain in force – the rest has been repealed; it is sentimental to suppose that it protects our democratic freedoms (sic erat): it doesn’t and never did. The English always regarded themselves (which was how their neighbours saw them) as free; democracy and freedom are two very different things.

    One has to wait another four hundred years for the Putney debates of 1647 (which had little effect) and then on into the Nineteenth century and the Great Reform Act of 1832 and The Chartists of the 1840s for any real pressure for democracy. It is to read the past through present to suppose that the suffrage was of much importance to most Victorians; the suffrage was based on Rateable Value of owned property and thus my mother’s up-market ancestors (Generals, Archbishops – that sort of thing) who regarded owning property as something only the lower-middles indulged in would not have had any vote in parliamentary elections. That last sentence is worth reading twice so as to see how deluded the Feminists are and how mistaken is the common view on the suffrage.

    There is and has not been since the early 1960s any conscription in Britain – we have largely outsourced our defence to you.

  62. Spike says:

    What parallel universe/ fairy garden/ la-la land does Stanton live in?
    Women are “naturally good”? He does know that the Internet is plastered with the naked selfies of all of these “naturally good” women, does he not? He can’t blame that such poor damsels are under the influence of some horrible man like feminists explain away the porn industry, as these pics are ‘selfies’. He knows the abortion rate, where statistically it is safer for a human being to live in a gun-infested ghetto than it is to live in his mother’s womb. He does know of the statistics where women initiate divorce on a no-fault basis 75% of the time, presumably?
    “Lord of the Flies”? Anyone familiar with the book knows full well that Ralph and (the Churchian symbol) Piggy were no match for red-headed Jack and his feral cohorts. The solitary girl would have been passed around like a bottle at a teenage party.
    If he doesn’t know this about human nature, he is incompetent. If he knows this and persists in counselling in the manner described, he is wilfully ignorant. Both disqualify him from ministry. What a disgrace.

  63. solitude says:

    While an excellent example of the gynocentric modern church, I have to wonder has any husband honestly read or promoted this stuff without saying bs on it all eventually?? I remember growing up with my dad talking about teaching finance classes at church where the lesson was basically have the wife control the money because otherwise the husband will spend it on himself. After a year of teaching, counseling, and practicing it, (my family went in debt for the first time that year) he realized how flawed it was. Maybe I’ve just read enough of this blog, but if I got tossed a Glenn Stanton something book I’d smell the bs mile away. It’s what leads to men being much less likely to go to church, unfortunately reinforcing the view that they are less moral. Seriously, if most men are amoral that doesn’t mean woman should lead, that means polygamy for the moral men who can afford it. Side note: Dalrock, in the same way that you have come to enjoy making the “feminism is ugly” argument, I have been very successful with a “polygamy is the logical conclusion to your premise” argument. With all these peter pan manboys and douchebag men whats a career minded girl to do for marriage? Obvious answer: Marry me. All of you girls asking that question, be my wives.

  64. earl says:

    Really it’s a sneaky way for a male to eschew his responsibility to be the head. Prop up women as goddesses so you don’t have to be responsible for how you lead her…blame them for all ills of society when she eventually tosses you out or replaces you because you didn’t lead her.

    Women are beacons of morality…then why should I have to lead her? After all she has it all figured out and I’m just the clueless second class citizen who doesn’t know which way to go.

    Which if this happens in reality…a woman gets frustrated because she knows subconsciously she can’t be the head and a man who doesn’t take this responsibility is eventually taken out of the home.

    Granted it’s a two way street…a woman has to make the free will choice to submit, but that’s something you should find out before getting married instead of being encaptured in the fog of lust.

  65. Dave says:

    Perhaps they should change their name to Focus On The Feminine (FOTF).

  66. Lyn87 says:

    This is where this leads. Don’t read the link unless you have a strong stomach.

  67. Question for Stanton.. How can women be heroins if they are married and not single moms?!

    How dare men stop them from becoming the heroes they were born and created by God to be!

  68. Bango Tango says:

    Lyn87. That church looks like a bunch of wacky dominatrixs with a biblical twist. Hilarious. I love the last pic of the guy begging his goddess lol. Probably just a bunch of swingers who are into extended role play is my guess. It would have to be or maybe the men have severe unresolved mommy issues from childhood. But the wives would still have to be a dom or the men have accepted a life of celibacy. No way a normal women gets aroused by her husband on his knees begging.

  69. earl says:

    ‘It would have to be or maybe the men have severe unresolved mommy issues from childhood.’

    A good place to start.

  70. Miserman says:

    Modern churches have a motto:

    Behind every good man is a good woman and behind every bad woman is a bad man.

  71. cynthia says:

    Perhaps women do inspire men to be the best version of themselves that they can be…but the same is true in reverse, isn’t it? And this is the piece they always seem to forget. If women want to inspire their man, they need to be the kind of woman who is inspirational herself. IE, if we were living in the zombie apocalypse, would you be the kind of woman a man is willing to risk his own life to keep safe?

  72. minuteman says:

    Lyn87 – I think it is even worse than you state. It is my understanding that in Britain, women were given the right to vote in exchange for promising to support conscription of men during WW1.

  73. earl says:

    ‘Behind every good man is a good woman and behind every bad woman is a bad man.’

    I’d say that’s closer to the truth. A good man leading will have a good woman following…a bad woman leading will have her orbiters, white knights, and sex slaves do her bidding.

  74. But there are problems that go beyond good men not realizing that they need to be more like John Wayne and less like Justin Beiber: it’s still a minefield.

    It seems to me that women’s behavior has been amplified on both sides — in their desire to submit to a strong man but also in their rebellion. In the past there was some desire for bad-boy behavior moderated by society and upbringing, and some mild shit-testing of their man to feel secure, and that was usually enough for contentment. Now her desire for alpha is revved up to the point where only the most dominant man will do, while at the same time she’s been trained to try to tear him down with every weapon she can find. The contradiction is clear in the way they dress: cleavage and tight jeans to attract the most lecherous of men, combined with short hair to say that she’s independent and can’t be tamed.

    So the whole game has been ramped up to a level that fewer men can reach, or even want to if that’s what it takes. It’s the Hollywood lifestyle, where people are so beautiful and charismatic that they’re oversexed and even the top alphas can’t keep a woman faithful for long, but now it’s been spread to the ordinary people.

    I’m really not a doom-and-gloom guy. Yes, if you can bring out your inner John Wayne (assuming you can still find him), you can get a woman and tame her. But you’ll have to work a lot harder at it than you would have in the past, because you’re going up not just against her innate female nature, but against her lifetime of training and everyone who has her ear (unless she was raised Amish or in some other traditionalist ghetto). And men who are on the margins of attractiveness and naturally not the dominant type may be pretty hopeless. With some game, they might be able to get a woman, but whether they can be steadily dominant enough to keep her tame is another story.

  75. Women are “naturally good”? He does know that the Internet is plastered with the naked selfies of all of these “naturally good” women, does he not? He can’t blame that such poor damsels are under the influence of some horrible man like feminists explain away the porn industry, as these pics are ‘selfies’.

    You underestimate their imagination. Girls post selfies because their fathers abandoned them or failed to teach them self-esteem, because “men” treat them as sex objects so it’s how they come to see themselves, because of male-dominated entertainment media (“sex objects” again), because the male-enforced glass ceiling means they don’t feel appreciated for their minds, because Barbie says math class is hard….

    He knows the abortion rate, where statistically it is safer for a human being to live in a gun-infested ghetto than it is to live in his mother’s womb.

    Men entice/coerce/trick them into sex, then abandon them when they’re pregnant or push them into getting abortions because they don’t want the hassle of kids around. The glass ceiling and society’s general sexism makes it hard for a woman to raise a child by herself. Hypocritical shaming in our male-dominated society makes it hard for a girl to admit she’s pregnant and ask for help. No woman would kill her child if she thought she had another choice. (Yes, they really do believe all that.)

    He does know of the statistics where women initiate divorce on a no-fault basis 75% of the time, presumably?

    Their husbands abused them, cheated on them, abused the children, etc., until they had to leave to protect themselves and/or their children. No woman would break up her marriage unless she had no other choice (yes, I’ve heard them say that, verbatim).

    When we say that they believe women are “naturally good,” we really mean that. It’s not hyperbole or an exaggeration. They really do believe it completely, deep down where they’re soft like a woman (where’s that from?), and it informs their opinions on everything. Every issue has to be framed in such a way that any faults can be blamed on men, as I’ve done above. Every issue, every time.

    Behind every good man is a good woman and behind every bad woman is a bad man.

    Brilliantly put.

  76. ballista74 says:

    Lyn87 writes:

    This is where this leads. Don’t read the link unless you have a strong stomach.

    It’s already there. Most all the churches in this day and age are run by women, and that has been true for a significant time frame before then. The only difference is the pretense of it – the church linked of (truthful or not, I tend to believe the former) is just recognizing it overtly. In other words, women are undertaking direct authority instead of the proxy authority Jackie Stanton takes as the true director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family.

    And if you don’t believe me, how else do you explain that Betty known as Glenn Stanton?

  77. Philalethes says:

    …men never had to fight for the right to vote, but women did.

    Tell that to my 4x-great-grandfather, a New Jersey farmer (are there any farmers in NJ anymore?) who endured through the winter at Valley Forge and lost an eye at Germantown. Unfortunately, what he fought for was almost immediately subverted, but he tried, anyway.

    Of course women never fought for the right to vote, nor for any others of the blessings of freedom. They nagged for it, and unfortunately our forefathers, brain-fogged by the myth of female moral superiority, gave it to them – which makes it a privilege, not a “right”. A privilege can be revoked by the giver, and this clueless “cupcake”s remark is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to simply repeal the “19th Amendment”.

    It is my understanding that in Britain, women were given the right to vote in exchange for promising to support conscription of men during WW1.

    Hadn’t heard that, but it makes sense. See The Four Feathers. (I heard of this from the 2002 film, hadn’t realized there were so many previous movies made of it. Clearly a cultural meme. Women have always sent men to war.) Of course, none of all this would be happening if it weren’t somehow in the interest of the Ruling Elite – who now seem to be more corrupt than ever.

  78. ballista74 says:

    To wit, if you didn’t catch that, it’s almost ironic that Stanton makes such a reference, given what he has proven himself to be in that video (and other spots).

  79. Lyn87 says:

    Ballista74,

    As you know, FotF is only the tip of the feminist iceberg in the churches. While even the most blue-pill churchian man would still find that story cringe-worthy here in 2015, most would not realize how few steps it is between the women-are-more-moral-than-men crap vomited forth by the likes of Stanton and overt goddess worship, with husbands literally bowing down before their wives as if they were pagan deities.

  80. earl says:

    ‘Of course women never fought for the right to vote, nor for any others of the blessings of freedom. They nagged for it, and unfortunately our forefathers, brain-fogged by the myth of female moral superiority, gave it to them – which makes it a privilege, not a “right”.

    You want to go even farther back in history to find the power of nagging and what happens when you give in…the French Revolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_March_on_Versailles

  81. Church is for Girls says:

    @Lyn87
    ‘Our pastor makes us husbands get on our knees on Mother’s Day and beg for forgiveness. I don’t want to do it again this year,’ one reader tells me. Another writes, ‘Our minister makes husbands write on paper all the things we’ve done wrong. Then we’re suppose to give it to our wives and pledge that we won’t do them anymore.’
    https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/610-our-pastor-makes-us

  82. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    JDG: “I seem to remember a time when a man would have been embarrassed to say that his wife is the one in charge.”

    I’m not that young, early 50s, but as far back as I can remember, men have bragged about their wives being the ones in charge, usually in a jocular, self-deprecating manner.

    I recall Bill Clinton saying during the 1992 race, when asked who made the decisions in his marriage, something like, “Oh, I make the decisions. And then Hillary tells me where I’m wrong, heh, heh, chuckle, chuckle.”

    How far back does this go? The 1950s Honeymooners episodes mocked Ralph Cramden for always bragging about being “king of the castle” — and then crawling back to Alice when she was invariably proved stronger, smarter, and with more common sense.

  83. earl says:

    Perhaps the moral of the story is…don’t brag.

  84. ballista74 says:

    @Lyn87 The goddess cult is, ironically, where all this stuff came from as typified in the form of “traditional marriage”. Namely, we have all of feminism to owe to the goddess cult. To that end, churches have been feminist for a very long time before the rest of society was.

  85. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Lyn87 writes: This is where this leads. Don’t read the link unless you have a strong stomach.

    I thought this had to be the Onion. Does anybody think ANY of these women realize how dry, itchy, and bitchy they are? Are they able to admit how unhappy they are with their husbands?” Is the divorce rate in this congregation 99%? How many of these men are wearing chastity belts so their woman can at least get off from torturing them?

    “men are to be respectful and courteous at all times. There are numerous protocols in play that are taught men by their sponsoring Woman. men are, for example, to use appropriate honorifics, and these differ from those that might be used outside the congregation – “Ma’am” isn’t used here! men are permitted to speak only when spoken to, and are not allowed to speak at all for their first year in the congregation. men are also expected to financially support the congregation with weekly contributions as well as making appropriate contributions when receiving special services.”

    TLDR: Even in a pseudo-religious pagan dominatrix fantasy, men are STILL expected to support the church with “appropriate contributions.”

  86. Boxer says:

    How far back does this go? The 1950s Honeymooners episodes mocked Ralph Cramden for always bragging about being “king of the castle” — and then crawling back to Alice when she was invariably proved stronger, smarter, and with more common sense.

    1950s USA seemed to be a hotbed of this sort of thing. Aside from tee vee, popular literature was entranced in the late 50s by an absolute headcase named Sylvia Plath, who doesn’t get proper credit for her contributions to feminist insanity.

    Originally, American men may have seen it as a function of what Heartiste calls “the handicap principle”. Basically a man so powerful that he can make himself appear weak and thereby display his utter superiority. It seems counterintuitive, but this sort of thing is well discussed in the psychoanalytic tradition.

    These days, it’s more a function of slavish grovelling, and its display is usually constellated in some weird dom/sub fetish that results from being raised in a single-mommy household. Let’s play weak so mommy/wife will show us some attention. Two examples, temporally distributed, the latter is quite sick, when you think about it.

    I wonder what Glenn Stanton’s family life was like growing up?

    Boxer

  87. ballista74 says:

    I wonder what Glenn Stanton’s family life was like growing up?

    I have to think, given his age and some of the things he said, that he had to have been made into this. Told that he needs to “respect women as the weaker sex”, etc. But some of it natural too, due to pedestalizing sex.

    Programming Note: Post #3 of 3 of my commentary will be posted as soon as I finish editing it.

  88. Boxer says:

    ‘Our pastor makes us husbands get on our knees on Mother’s Day and beg for forgiveness. I don’t want to do it again this year,’ one reader tells me. Another writes, ‘Our minister makes husbands write on paper all the things we’ve done wrong. Then we’re suppose to give it to our wives and pledge that we won’t do them anymore.’

    A couple of years ago I was dating a nice Christian girl, lots younger than I who still lived at home. Her family invited me out to a holiday celebration at their local megachurch, where the pastor pulled some of this crap. At the time it struck me that the pastor was AMOGing/flirting with all the wives and daughters in the audience. That girl’s father was humiliated, as was every other husband/father in the building. I couldn’t believe the nerve of that piece of shit up on the stage, and still can’t.

    I actually wrote about this in the comments section of this blog. I didn’t know much about Christianity at the time, and this was the only community I thought would understand this sort of bizarre shit that goes on in American religion. I had heard you guys discussing it, but had never seen it up close.

    No man should accept the symbolic cuckolding that these huckster preachers like to commit on Mother’s Day, Christmas, or any other service. If I were a Christian I’d blow these guys off. Certainly I wouldn’t give them any money. You brothers can read your religious books at home, and maybe study in a community of healthy people. Don’t subject yourself to any of this weirdness.

    Boxer

  89. Pingback: Begetting Unfaithfulness | The Society of Phineas

  90. earl says:

    ‘I actually wrote about this in the comments section of this blog. I didn’t know much about Christianity at the time, and this was the only community I thought would understand this sort of bizarre shit that goes on in American religion. I had heard you guys discussing it, but had never seen it up close.’

    If your experience of Christianity is a megachurch…that’s the most dilutated watered-down place to start that I would almost call it Christian in name only.

  91. Dalrock says:

    @Bango Tango

    That’s why I endorse the burqa (over the head at least, not covering the face) and don’t understand why Christians who know what female nature is don’t advocate borrowing this excellent idea from Muslim culture.

    This is dumb. Are you tolling?

    @Church is for Girls

    https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/610-our-pastor-makes-us

    Notice that Dr. Dobson, founder of FotF, is offered as the pro husband counterweight. Stanton is director of Family Formation Studies for FotF, and Dobson himself has a long history of blaming husbands for wives being mysteriously unhappy. As I quoted in my wake-up call post from Dobson’s 1980 book Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives; What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew About Women:

    This story typifies many twentieth-century marriages. The wife is screaming and clawing the air and writhing in pain, but the husband is oblivious to her panic. He is preoccupied with his own thoughts, not realizing that a single step to the right or left could alleviate the crisis. I never cease to be amazed at just how deaf a man can become under these circumstances.

  92. Bango Tango says:

    @Bango Tango

    That’s why I endorse the burqa (over the head at least, not covering the face) and don’t understand why Christians who know what female nature is don’t advocate borrowing this excellent idea from Muslim culture.

    This is dumb. Are you tolling?

    Not at all. You need to explain why it’s dumb and not just make a statement. Covering women limits their attractiveness to men, thus less temptation to pursue obviously. In Muslim culture it is so strict that strange men are not even allowed to sit next to another man’s wife. Might seem kind of weird unless you really understand hypergamy. You combine that with strict social ostracism of loose morals and your chances of monogamy go up by 1000%. Without taking away the visual temptation social ostracism becomes a lot harder. I thought Christians were for monogamous marriage?

    If you think you can convince women through words to ignore their innate drives you’re nuts. You have to limit women’s hypergamy by force there is no other way. If men don’t have the stomach for that then get used to the hyperfeminization of society. I seriously don’t understand how men don’t see this. You can’t give women freedom and expect them not to use it to fulfill their short term sexual strategies to their maximum advantage. That doesn’t involve getting into a monogamous marriage at a young age. It involves riding the carousel obviously.

  93. JDG says:

    Red Pill Latecomer says:
    January 11, 2015 at 10:50 am

    JDG: “I seem to remember a time when a man would have been embarrassed to say that his wife is the one in charge.”

    You are attributing Lyn87’s comment to me. This is what I wrote two comments later:

    “I remember it to, and it was no small thing.”

    It would appear that Lynn and I both remember it the same way. I also remember a family friend whose wife was always trying to be in charge, and it was a huge embarrassment for him.

  94. JDG says:

    How far back does this go? The 1950s Honeymooners episodes mocked Ralph Cramden for always bragging about being “king of the castle” — and then crawling back to Alice when she was invariably proved stronger, smarter, and with more common sense.

    Yes this is when whorellywood started chipping away at the stone, but it took a while to get the ball rolling. After the Honeymooners (50s) came That Girl (60s), The Mary Tyler Moore Show (70s) and the like. Still even in the 70s guys were embarrassed to have it known if their wives were uppity. With the 80s the children from the 60s began to come of age and a more effeminate type of male was mainstreamed.

  95. Dalrock says:

    @Bango Tango

    Not at all. You need to explain why it’s dumb and not just make a statement.

    No. I do not. You are forgetting that you are a guest here. Just because I’m gracious in allowing you to write dumb things, doesn’t mean I have an obligation to explain to you why they are dumb.

    I’m a Christian, not a Muslim. Christians know how to dress modestly, and the burqa isn’t part of our tradition. Moreover, I’m not looking to force women to be good. We should stop encouraging and rewarding bad behavior, but this doesn’t mean we need to force either men or women to be good.

  96. JDG says:

    Yes this is when whorellywood started chipping away at the stone,

    Now that I think about it, whorellywood began denigrating the sanctity of marriage from day one. I guess that would be when they actually started the stone chipping. During the 50s is when they began to chip harder with the Honeymooners using a wife’s disrespect for her husband as a fulcrum for laughs. The 60s had the big push of course with the sexual “revolution” and whorellywood brought out the jackhammers. By the 70s we were circling the bowl, and It was down the drain from there. Now we’re in the sewer and most of us don’t even know what we are swimming with.

  97. JDG says:

    Keep in mind that in the 50s and early 60s we still had tv shows like Father Knows Best and Leave it to Beaver. Both shows showed respect for fathers. Many movies and shows in the 40s and 50s held clergy in high esteem as well.

  98. Bango Tango says:

    We should stop encouraging and rewarding bad behavior, but this doesn’t mean we need to force either men or women to be good.

    I would agree with this however my observations of women as a collective, given freedom will use that freedom to use force against men. As government force is directed primarily at men with the welfare state through unfair taxation and family courts and almost all women either have voted for and support this or are silent on the issue. But the minute a man advocates a certain type of force be used against how women dress men angrily defend a woman’s right to do whatever they want.

    That really doesn’t seem fair and seems men are willing to defend women’s interest at the cost of their own but women are not willing to do that for men. I don’t believe in egalitarianism. One side has to lose and it seems to me when men lose they lose far more (like their lives) and women lose far less (not being able to wear that cute skirt or hook up with that hawt guy). If there was actually a way to stop encouraging and rewarding bad behavior without using force I would be all for that. But you have to get rid of government first. Then no one can vote for a monopoly of force be used against anyone and let the chips fall where they may. So that would be anarcho capitalism which most people can’t understand or don’t think will work or keep a government but one gender is going to have force used against them by the other and that in my mind is 100% certain. Men and women have sexual strategies that are in opposition to each other so the war between genders is inevitable.

  99. Boxer says:

    Dear Bango:

    You and Dalrock will pardon me for butting in, but…

    One side has to lose

    this is a feminist sentiment.

    A realistic analysis of the patriarchy that existed in the west, prior to the industrial revolution, suggests that neither side “lost” in that arrangement.

    Bear in mind that I’m using your terms because they’re the domain, which was set by you guys. In a proper society, where people are properly paired up and married, there wouldn’t be any “sides”. There would be couples. The sex of each individual member would be subsumed to the arrangement.

    Be that as it may, even when we look at the (strictly material) concerns in your defined context, women don’t “lose” under western patriarchy, and men don’t “lose” either. Both men and women get something important. Society gets something important. Individuals get something important. It’s the system that appeals to everyone, in the long term.

    Likewise: If you look at the strictest shari’a societies, they’re unpleasant for men also — for many of the same (albeit inverted) reasons that our feminist society is unpleasant for women. We need to transcend all this nonsense, not play the pendulum.

    Best, Boxer

  100. I’m not that young, early 50s, but as far back as I can remember, men have bragged about their wives being the ones in charge, usually in a jocular, self-deprecating manner.

    I think one generation said it jokingly, and they could afford to, because there was a foundation of patriarchy underlying everything. A man whose wife stayed home, dressed and wore her hair to please him, brought supper to him at the head of the table, and so on, could afford to joke about his wife being the boss.

    Then the next generation took it seriously, and threw away the foundation that balanced it.

  101. That’s why I endorse the burqa (over the head at least, not covering the face)

    There’s no need to go to such extremes. The standard in Christian society used to be that women wore dresses and wore hats in public (especially in church), and that they didn’t roam around much without male supervision. This was enforced with social expectations and taboos — no religious police enforcement or burnings — and it worked fine.

    There’s no need to imitate savages; we just need to go back to what has already worked.

  102. Don Quixote says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    January 11, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    “The standard in Christian society used to be that women wore dresses and wore hats in public (especially in church),”

    Yes agreed, even today in some churches the women cover their heads during the service. This is becoming more and more rare though. Unless it is taught from the pulpit the herd mentality will prevail and the women will discard any type of head covering, unless they go to the horse races.

  103. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cail corishev

    There is an emphasis more on self-regulation on the part of females in the christian sphere that makes this approach possible

    While the muslim’s make the women less responsible and make the men more responsible hence the sharia police modesty officers etc.

    Is that correct?

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    The second stage feminists of the 1970’s were fond of chanting The Personal is Political.

    For Stanton, the BIble is supposed to be a manual, a handbook, containing rules and examples. But in actuality, he chooses to essentially write his own manual and call it the Bible. Perhaps because The Personal is Theological?

    In any event, it is obvious that Stanton’s standard, his yard-stick, is not some external thing that he and his wife must live up to. Nope. He’s all about the pedestal, and the She who is resting there.

    Funny thing, the ancients used to put their idols on pedestals, too.

  105. embracing reality says:

    Lyn87,

    Yes my comment stopped short of including the sluttiness of churchian women and their predisposition to implode their marriages for frivolous emotional reasons but both are common topics of my conversation, believe me, even today. Suffice to say you’re preaching to the choir on these subjects. In my personal 20 year dating career’ experience I’ve rarely dated a Christian woman who was a virgin even when I was dating girls who were 17. My own virtue was lost as a result of dating churchian harlots who wouldn’t keep their hands out of my pants…etc, using sex to control me. Yes I know I’m still guilty. And I’ve never married in spite of numerous opportunities because I know and have seen the church and churchian wives are in league with the feminist/tradcon man grinder. The real question is how do we shake the so called church and Christian women out of their stupor? Beyond MGTOW I see no way. I support the efforts here and elsewhere but it’s going to take so much more if we’re ever going to see an awakening. I think it’s going to take young men voting with their feet and walking away in sufficient numbers that the woman worshipping church pagans feel enough real pain before they’re going to wake up.

  106. Bango Tango says:

    “That is a terrible idea. The burqa manages to oppress both women AND men at the same time.”

    “Women, for obvious reasons. Men, because there are no women for them to see, and thus no pressure on women to be attractive. It makes polygamy by the top man easier to impose, without revolt by the common man.”

    I don’t see how no pressure on women to be attractive is oppressive to them! That seems pretty liberating to me. I have no problem with the girly girl going extinct. I’m naturally attracted to women who are down to earth and have a decent personality, far more then a stuck up playboy bunny who has vast extensive knowledge of hair and make up but little else. I laugh how men want it both ways. You put pussy on a pedestal and then don’t understand why women act like they do? Can you explain how polygamy is easier to impose? I am really confused by that statement. How?

  107. BradA says:

    Boxer,

    Very good points. The way marriage used to work is much better for all involved. It was not a win-lose proposition, but a good thing for everyone.

    Keeping the win-lose paradigm is bad for all.

    ====

    I got my wife to watch the video and she was disgusted. She still has some thoughts that leak through, but seeing the clear presentation of idiocy has turned her off to FotF even though she had been a regular listener to it whenever possible.

    I listened to most again as well and I would clarify that any general comments I made in the other thread were only about a couple of accurate principles he lets through. His overall message is horridly corrupt.

  108. BradA says:

    Really it’s a sneaky way for a male to eschew his responsibility to be the head.

    I have been asserting this to my son and others for a while. Letting the woman rule lets the man not take responsibility, however much those like Stanton claim the opposite.

  109. Bango Tango says:

    Also when I say burqa I don’t mean the full ninja suits. I mean just covering the hair and no short skirts that reveal legs or cleavage. You put women in clothes that show a lot of skin and they become sex objects first and foremost in the eyes of men AND NOT wives and mothers. Hey, just my opinion obviously.

  110. embracing reality says:

    Bango,

    The idea of burqa is dumb, really dumb because it’s absurdly unrealistic from where we are now to even consider it. Leaving aside the debate of the burqa as beneficial or oppressive is the ***obvious*** problem that women are very nearly in complete control of western society. Add to the equation the women worshipping white knights in power in the state, culture and the church you might just as well have suggested the chastity belt.

    Men en masse united on proposed legislation such as mandatory 50/50 child custody and no child support following divorce might be achievable in a few years is reasonable but probably a long shot. Demanding or even asking nicely, pretty please that any western women who dress half naked and slut around should wear a burqa? Seriously man.

  111. “How far back does this go? The 1950s Honeymooners episodes mocked Ralph Cramden for always bragging about being “king of the castle” — and then crawling back to Alice when she was invariably proved stronger, smarter, and with more common sense.”

    Yeah, but he still threatened to smack her “to the moon” if she stepped out of line. You think a husband would get away with that in any sitcom today?

  112. greyghost says:

    embracing reality
    You are right the real value of the men here is not the force that can be brought to bare and force a change. When the collapse or bottom falls out these men will be needed to help establish civilization.

  113. Bango Tango says:

    “Be that as it may, even when we look at the (strictly material) concerns in your defined context, women don’t “lose” under western patriarchy, and men don’t “lose” either. Both men and women get something important. Society gets something important. Individuals get something important. It’s the system that appeals to everyone, in the long term”.

    @Boxer. Women don’t think long term and THEY think they lose under western patriarchy. Why did the divorce rate start to rise dramatically after the pill was invented in the 60’s? Women always want to optimize their sexual choices as do men. But women are the gender that can actually take it to the extreme if allowed to do so. Before the industrial revolution they had no choice so that is not really relevant. People were just trying to survive and it was a very different world. I highly doubt any of those marriages were very happy because nobody was happy back then. It was about survival.

    Whenever I go to my mom’s house on a dresser they are two pictures. Both are family photos of my great grandparents from my mother’s side, her father and her mother’s families, one from Italy and one from Hungry. Must gave been taken around the turn of the century because my grandfather and grandmother are little kids. The patriarch of the family in both pics are sitting in the middle and the wife is standing or sitting beside him and the kids in both families are sitting around them in chairs or on the floor to the left and the right of them. AND no one is smiling. They all have serious looks on their faces, looked miserable, like they couldn’t wait for death. And I was informed that my great grandfather mother’s side had committed suicide by slitting his wrists in a bathtub. I relay this story because I’m not sure we should romanticize marriage before the industrial revolution as a great thing, it served a purpose for survival but that’s it.

    I would rather live today as a divorced alimony paying slave who never saw my kids then be a “happily” married man from that era.🙂

  114. Bango Tango says:

    “Men en masse united on proposed legislation such as mandatory 50/50 child custody and no child support following divorce might be achievable in a few years is reasonable but probably a long shot. Demanding or even asking nicely, pretty please that any western women who dress half naked and slut around should wear a burqa? Seriously man”.

    You are indeed embracing reality. I never said it was probable. I was offering up IF it were probable that could be a solution in containing hypergamy. IF the Christian community could adopt this “radical idea”. I know they can’t and won’t. Just like the average secular person can’t. Feminism has been too successful in warping the minds of both the left and the right and hiding the reality of human nature. But in some ways when we say it will never happen because we are “too far gone” or “no one will ever accept that” then it really will never happen because it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

  115. Boxer says:

    Dear Bango:

    Women don’t think long term and THEY think they lose under western patriarchy.

    You’re making a mistake, by generalizing. Women, as you see them in this particular era, are a very unusual and unhealthy sample of an otherwise varied population. I often laugh to think of the hard lessons awaiting these soft, pathetic slatterns if they were suddenly transported to, say, the North America of the 1840s. Heh Heh.

    Women have traditionally been among the greatest promoters of patriarchy. A fun literary example exists in the characters in Alice Munro’s short story “How I met my husband”.

    http://sheppardsflock.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/2/6/4826909/how_i_met_my_husband_by_alice_monroe.pdf

    Note that after the protagonist bangs the wandering badboy as a fifteen-year old, it isn’t her father that intervenes, it’s her mother, and her mother’s friends. In the subtext it’s also the sewing circle that drives the badboy out of town.

    When your great-grandmother, and mine, were young girls, the older women in North America were largely the crew that kept them marriagable. If one young girl was found to be banging an unsuitable fella from the outskirts of town, it was as often the older women who put a stop to it. They stopped it by “slut shaming”, scaring the young girl (‘you little whore! you’re going to end up a prostitute if you don’t close your legs!!’) or by manipulating their husbands into removing the male from the situation.

    I relay this story because I’m not sure we should romanticize marriage before the industrial revolution as a great thing, it served a purpose for survival but that’s it.

    While your sentiment is certainly authentic, it’s sorta irrelevant. We (did not evolve/were not created) to be happy. We were thrown here hard-wired to couple up, with someone of the opposite sex, and make babies.

    It seems to be certain that our present-day civilization does not inspire in us a feeling of well-being, but it is very difficult to form an opinion whether in earlier times people felt any happier and what part their cultural conditions played in the question. We always tend to regard trouble objectively, i. e., to place ourselves with our own wants and our own sensibilities in the same conditions, so as to discover what opportunities for happiness or unhappiness we should find in them. This method of considering the problem, which appears to be objective because it ignores the varieties of subjective sensitivity, is of course the most subjective possible, for by applying it one substitutes one’’s own mental attitude for the unknown attitude of other men. Happiness, on the contrary, is something essentially subjective. However we may shrink in horror at the thought of certain situations, that of the galley-slaves in antiquity, of the peasants in the Thirty Years’’ War, of the victims of the Inquisition, of the Jews awaiting a pogrom, it is still impossible for us to feel ourselves into the position of these people, to imagine the differences which would be brought about by constitutional obtuseness of feeling, gradual stupefaction, the cessation of all anticipation, and by all the grosser and more subtle ways in which insensibility to both pleasurable and painful sensations can be induced. Moreover, on occasions when the most extreme forms of suffering have to be endured, special mental protective devices come into operation.

    Best, Boxer

  116. BradA says:

    Bango, you seem to be equating you not thinking you would have been happy back then with no one being happy.

    It is the ultimate in arrogance to think only those living NOW were at all happy. People find happiness where they want to find it, often in spite of the situations. We are far less content today and that is ultimately harmful, however many nice things we many have.

  117. KP says:

    Bango, you’re engaged in serious ‘presentism’ in more ways than one, in regard to those photos.

    Everyone from the King or Monarch down to the lowliest street urchin looked overly serious in photos from that era; that’s just How It Was Done. Don’t ascribe any deeper meaning to it.

  118. MarcusD says:

    Chastity in modern days
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=936560

    My husband is watching porn and its ruining me emotionally
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=936711

    Protestant marriages/annulments
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=936852

  119. Bango Tango says:

    You guys! Happiness is all relative. It’s not that people weren’t happy in the past but only relative to their current environment when they knew no other. We have far, far, far more material comforts and access to basic things like abundance of FOOD and medical care that we just take for granted. I guess in some ways you’re right though, when basic survival is at stake you really have no time to be depressed lol.

    Yeah I like living in modernity. I wouldn’t trade places with any of those people living in the past w/possible exceptions being of course a super rich Emperor in Europe/Asia or Egyptian Pharaoh, and only for the crazy mating opportunities they had. Our day to day existence is still more comfortable.

  120. BradA says:

    I wouldn’t trade modern life for anything in the past either, but many (most?) modern people are unhappy as well. It is a human condition….

  121. Pingback: “Marital Rape” is a Toxic Poison in the Minds of Rebellious Wives | younggodlywomen

  122. Boxer says:

    The contemporary existence has benefits, such as youtube…

    (Slightly NSFW)

    I need the love of a woman. (No Asians. No hairy girls.)

  123. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer, that video is truly cringe-worthy. I was going to ask if it was real, but then I recall a really effeminate guy like that in my high school – totally straight (like Jared in the video), but without a shred of masculinity. The difference is that back then (before the internet) a guy like that didn’t have a means of humiliating himself for the whole world to see.

    I’ll say this about him: he doesn’t lack self-esteem… he’s definitely swinging for the fences. He could use a lot less self-esteem and a lot more self-reflection, obviously: any girl who even came close to meeting his minimum standard would be so far out of his league that she’d never even notice him. This is the flip side of this video by Neely Steinberg:

    By that I mean that both videos show someone with a completely unrealistic understanding of how attraction works. Butterball-boy thinks super-hot girls will flock to him, and Miss Steinberg actually believes that good, solid, masculine men who spent years being rejected in the SMP should jump at the chance to settle down with women who spent their best years getting enthusiastically rammed by drug addicts, bikers, gym rats, and assorted troglodytes. She has this to say:

    … women love nice guys. We may not understand how much we love and appreciate them until we’re a little older and we’ve gotten that sort-of “asshole phase” out of our systems. I’d say by our late 20’s / early 30’s is the point in our lives when we’re just exhausted by the jerks, and we have no time in our lives anymore for them…

    It’s funny that a grown women who writes about relationships would have the same basic lack of understanding as a fat teenage boy whose last “girlfriend” turned out to be a male-leaning hermaphrodite – a fact that came to light after four months of “sexting” each other.

    Of course a guy like Stanton would condemn Jared for being a soft, effeminate dweeb with unrealistic standards, while essentially agreeing with the message of Miss Steinberg – and he wouldn’t see the irony.

  124. thedeti says:

    Steinberg’s video is Exhibit 4,356 for why no man should ever listen to any woman’s advice on intersexual relationships. Boys shouldn’t even listen to their own mothers — ESPECIALLY not their mothers about intersexual relationships.

  125. Yep, I’ll agree with Stanton. Women as defined by our feminist society may very well be good. And men evil. The problem is that they are both partaking from the wrong tree.

    There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. ~ Proverbs 14:12.

    Keep chasing Eve and her “golden” box, keep reaping the reward of death.

  126. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Boxer, you’re correct in that, in the old days, older, married women kept younger, single women in line.

    If a young woman, or an attractive divorcee, arrived in town, and flirted with married men, the wives quickly united and branded the newcomer a “hussy” and a “home-wrecker,” and ostracized her accordingly.

    Home-wrecker. You don’t hear that term too much these day. How can you stigmatize a woman who’s simply being strong and independent and sex-positive?

    Sex-positive. That’s a newer term I do hear. Generally used to describe anyone who’s engaged in sex that’s prohibited by traditional Christian norms.

  127. Exfernal says:

    Effeminate men? It rings a bell

  128. Scott says:

    D-

    On target, as usual. So when are you going to provide “Dalrock’s Pocket Guide to Refuting the Feminism Your Pastor Spews?” (For those who are not able to remember every word of every one of your posts).

  129. Dave says:

    This was a letter I sent to fastpray, a blog maintained by some women dedicated to fasting and praying to get guys to step up and marry.

    “Dear women of fastpray,
    I must commend you on your commitment to seek the face of God regarding the issue of marriage. I subscribed to the fastpray mails probably a little over a year ago. Although I have not been very active in the forums, I have regularly received emails from the blog, and I have often read those emails, though sometimes, I only skimmed through them.
    Well, the purpose of my mail is to remind you of a few things which men consider important, and which may be responsible for men not wanting to marry. Being a man, I can tell you that there are many, many young, well qualified, single Christian of all races in America who are deliberately staying single, and, from discussions with them, there is probably no amount of prayers that can change their minds. What then are these women looking for? What will make them step up and date/marry the professed Christian women in America?
    1. These men want women who are committed to marriage. It is a shame that divorce is as common in the church as it is in the world. Most Christian men are not interested in women who can’t seem to keep commitments. Are there any of you who are committed to this?
    2. These men want women who are committed to the biblical idea of marriage. As it is in America today, the woman is the head of the home. Even the so-called Christian churches and Christian organizations which claim to stand for biblical marriage continually promote this concept. The wife knows best, and is the center of the marriage; the husband merely plays his assigned roles, and he must do so if he ever expects to get sex, and even stay married.
    In the biblical idea of marriage however, the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. There is no such a thing “mutual submission”.
    Are there any of the women here who truly want to marry Christian men and pursue biblical marriages?
    3. These men want women who can cook, clean and keep the house. Most men are not looking for co-workers; they want wives. Wives are supportive of their husbands and are primary caregiver to their children. Are there women in this forum who truly aspire to become these types of wives? Are they making genuine efforts to acquire these skills?
    4. These men want women who are morally chaste. They made it clear in no uncertain terms that they simply are not interested in women who have spent their youth hopping from bed to bed, only to realize as the get older that they are now “ready to settle down”, and want to get married. Are there women on this site who are morally chaste? If not, has there been true repentance, accompanied by godly sorrow, or the women are still trying to justify their wayward ways?
    5. These men want women who are attractive. By this they mean women who maintain good body weights, and who know how to dress modestly and presentably, maintain good hygiene, and don’t go overboard in their makeups. Are there women like that in this place?
    I understand that this might not sound like what you’d like to read here, but the truth is, sometimes, we have to stop praying, and start to act (see Exodus 14:15). My intention was never to offend any of you, and I apologize if you found this mail offensive.”

  130. Dave says:

    Sorry, corrected version:

    “Dear women of fastpray,
    I must commend you on your commitment to seek the face of God regarding the issue of marriage. I subscribed to the fastpray mails probably a little over a year ago. Although I have not been very active in the forums, I have regularly received emails from the blog, and I have often read those emails, though sometimes, I only skimmed through them.
    Well, the purpose of my mail is to remind you of a few things which men consider important, and which may be responsible for men not wanting to marry. Being a man, I can tell you that there are many, many young, well qualified, single Christian men of all races in America who are deliberately staying single, and, from discussions with them, there is probably no amount of prayers that can change their minds. What then are these men looking for? What will make them step up and date/marry the professed Christian women in America?
    1. These men want women who are committed to marriage. It is a shame that divorce is as common in the church as it is in the world. Most Christian men are not interested in women who can’t seem to keep commitments. Are there any of you who are committed to marriage in this forum?
    2. These men want women who are committed to the biblical idea of marriage. As it is in America today, the woman is the head of the home. Even the so-called Christian churches and Christian organizations which claim to stand for biblical marriages continually promote this concept. The wife knows best, and is the center of the marriage; the husband merely plays his assigned roles, and he must do so if he ever expects to get sex, or stay married.
    In the biblical idea of marriage however, the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. There is no such a thing as “mutual submission”.
    Are there any of the women here who truly want to marry Christian men and pursue biblical marriages?
    3. These men want women who can cook, clean and keep the house. Most men are not looking for co-workers; they want wives. Wives are supportive of their husbands and are primary caregivers to their children. Are there women in this forum who truly aspire to become these types of wives? Are they making genuine efforts to acquire these skills?
    4. These men want women who are morally chaste. They made it clear in no uncertain terms that they simply are not interested in women who have spent their youth hopping from bed to bed, only to realize, as they get older, that they are now “ready to settle down”, and want to get married. Are there women on this site who are morally chaste? If not, has there been true repentance, accompanied by godly sorrow, for past sins, or are the women still trying to justify their wayward ways?
    5. These men want women who are attractive. By this they mean women who maintain good body weights, and who know how to dress modestly and presentably, maintain good hygiene, and don’t go overboard in their makeups. Are there women like that in this place?
    I understand that this might not sound like what you’d like to read here, but the truth is, sometimes, we have to stop praying, and start to act (see Exodus 14:15). My intention was never to offend any of you, and I apologize if any of you found this mail offensive.”

  131. Gunner Q says:

    I wonder if Stanton has Stockholm syndrome? He’s so heavily invested in Churchianity that he would lose everything if he went red-pill at this point in his life.

    There’s no correcting a man whose survival depends on being wrong… can’t remember the exact saying here.

  132. Oscar says:

    “These ideas flourish in the darkness, because they aren’t capable of standing up to scrutiny.” ~ Dalrock

    Like a fungus that can’t live in sunlight.

  133. Scott says:

    Gunner Q

    Your comment is why I have somewhat (although not completely) blown off a huge portion of the currently 18-50 year old men sitting in the pews of most churches. It is also why my comment to D (above) is only half-way kidding. Some of us are not super quick with retorts, even though we know the truth inside and out. I am pretty smart, but not a public speaker.

    When I (and my wife) try to talk to them (and their wives) offline, we are usually shunned and called weirdos.

    However, my high-school senior son is getting a heavy dose of red-pill and has shared it with his friends. The reports I get back from are encouraging.

    However, I am not sure where they are all falling regarding the dividing line of “nihilist/civilizationalist.” My son is reading some of these blogs and alternative sources of information and is beginning to conclude that letting the society crumble and watching it fall is the right answer. I have told him that I do not have that option, because I have children. I must do what I can to save the civilization.

  134. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    However, I am not sure where they are all falling regarding the dividing line of “nihilist/civilizationalist.” My son is reading some of these blogs and alternative sources of information and is beginning to conclude that letting the society crumble and watching it fall is the right answer. I have told him that I do not have that option, because I have children. I must do what I can to save the civilization.

    I think there is a false dichotomy here. I’ve written a fair amount about the folly of conservatives feeling like they need to make feminism work, but this doesn’t mean the only option is to enjoy the decline. As I wrote several years ago, times are always bad. The choice isn’t between enjoying the decline and making feminism work, but between enjoying the decline and having your own family. For a Christian man not marrying means no sex, and no children. These are a high price to pay, and I suspect for most men unacceptably high. My suggestion would be to focus on his own life/family and let the macro picture sort itself out.

  135. Gunner Q,

    I wonder if Stanton has Stockholm syndrome? He’s so heavily invested in Churchianity that he would lose everything if he went red-pill at this point in his life.

    There’s no correcting a man whose survival depends on being wrong… can’t remember the exact saying here.

    He has 4 daughters and only 1 son. So of course he wants every single one of his daughter to…

    Marry Up (marry a man that only improves her lifestyle)
    Use s-x as a tool in marriage with her husband (to keep the boy in line)
    Have threatpoint (to keep the boy in line)
    Divorce for cash and prizes (to make sure she is provided for no matter what if the boy gets out of line of she just isn’t happy anymore)
    Make sure the church continues to honor divorce (so that if his daughter’s divorce they are not shunned)

    Remember the prime directives here for men with daughters who lived their entire married lives under that shadow of threatpoint: they want their daughters to have the same leverage of threatpoint that THEY had to put up with. Its kind of like social security. If you paid for it all your working life you don’t want to hear the truth that all the money the goverment took from you is gone to pay for the generation or two that was older than you. You just want your check now even if it means harming your children and their children financially. This is satan. This is what we as mere mortals bargain with the devil to gain for ourselves at the expense of others. There is nothing Christlike there.

    What a Christlike man should be doing with regards to his daughters marrying is the following:

    To the boy, point at him and say “….you will never hurt her or you will answer to me. You hit her, I wont call the police, I’ll jut call me friends and we’ll pay you a visit and kick your @ss. Take care of my property.”
    To his daughter, point at her and say “….okay this is what you wanted. Now, obey your husband in ALL THINGS. What he says, goes. That’s it. Just don’t forget me at Father’s Day.”

    Then walk away… done.

  136. Bango Tango says:

    The contemporary existence has benefits, such as youtube…

    @Boxer. Omg…that was funny. “If you don’t have fat blowjob lips I’m really not interested”. I fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard! If this was a joke that kid is a comic genius. The video after “Like a cheese pizza” rap by that walrus was brilliant as well. Could be contenders for best youtube videos of the year. Do they hold those awards? They really should….

  137. Gunner Q says:

    “My son is reading some of these blogs and alternative sources of information and is beginning to conclude that letting the society crumble and watching it fall is the right answer.”

    Try interesting him in the Constitution Party, if I may self-advertise. Most of what we need is simple headcount so it’s an easy first step to getting involved. For example, here in California we need 100,000 members to gain ballot access… not even dues-payers, just people who check our box when they register to vote. So many men are withdrawn from society that merely showing up can be a great help, no matter the venue.

    Meanwhile, don’t worry about your son. When I was young, I used to wonder how I could fulfill the Great Commission as an introverted geek with no interest in African missionary work. As society deteriorated, I realized I didn’t have to worry about it. Merely being Christian marks us as different; nihilist or civilizationist, we’re the salt of the earth. Salt doesn’t choose to fight the rot. It simply does.

  138. She has this to say:

    … women love nice guys. We may not understand how much we love and appreciate them until we’re a little older and we’ve gotten that sort-of “asshole phase” out of our systems. I’d say by our late 20’s / early 30’s is the point in our lives when we’re just exhausted by the jerks, and we have no time in our lives anymore for them…

    Ha! That’s awesome. Imagine the guy version:

    Guys love fat chicks. We may not understand how much we love and appreciate them until we’re a little older and we don’t have the energy to chase the hot chicks anymore. I’d say by the time we’re in our 50s we’re just tired of the chase, and we just want a sandwich maker / cum dumpster who will be too appreciative to nag us….

    Why would any fat chick be insulted by that?

  139. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gunner Q
    I wonder if Stanton has Stockholm syndrome? He’s so heavily invested in Churchianity that he would lose everything if he went red-pill at this point in his life.

    I do not think so. Real “Stockholm Syndrome” involves switching from a position of opposition to a position of support. The Wikipedia article is not bad on this.

    Stanton’s own bio strongly suggests he’s been this way since his teen years. Now, people do edit their own past, in their own mind, to suit themselves it is true, but his bio strongly looks like he was a pedestalizer from the start. And let’s be honest, there’s a lot of social and societal reinforcement to be that way on any man, especially men of Stanton’s generation.

    And yeah, his job depends on him teaching supplication to men. So he would find life very hard were he to put on a good pair of glasses at this date, however, if he stuck to that position he’d be better off, and so would his wife unless she went full EPL on him.

    Bear in mind that Stanton probably is surrounded by other blue pill supplicators. There’s no one to sit him down and point out the errors of his ways, partly because of his social status – there are churchgoing men who would and could go toe to toe with Stanton on Bible quotes, but Stanton likely could weasel out of any such confrontation by insisting on appropriate status, i.e. “You’re not an accredited pastor!’ or some such.

    Hmm. .. It could be interesting to watch a discussion between Stanton and, say, Voddy Baucham if the latter were to stay right in close on the issue of submission and headship. Heck, I might pay good money to be present for that.

  140. Scott says:

    “My suggestion would be to focus on his own life/family and let the macro picture sort itself out.”

    Yep, I’m tracking. But he looks to me as a guy who does not believe that kind of marriage is available to him. It looks like he is going to focus on career, making money/wealth, and being essentially a PUA/MGTOW.

    The macro picture is made up of a bazillion micro life stories and I can’t say I blame him for how he thinks this is going to play out in his life. I often say to him, my generation and the several before me have handed this to you, and you deserve an apology.

  141. Oscar says:

    Lyn87 says:
    January 12, 2015 at 10:18 am

    “This is the flip side of this video by Neely Steinberg:”

    So, after 10+ years of giving the milk away for free to “assholes” (her wording), she wants to sell the cow to a “nice guy” (her wording). And this is supposed to be encouraging?

  142. Scott,

    Yep, I’m tracking. But he looks to me as a guy who does not believe that kind of marriage is available to him.

    A Biblical marriage, a sacrament of God is not really available to anyone in our country anymore Scott, not with threatpoint being the secular law in all 50 states. Women have all the power because the courts insure they get all the provisioning if they don’t want to be married anymore. So your son is right.

    Basically, you have to get lucky if you want Biblical marriage You either have to marry a woman who is ignorant of threatpoint, would rather die than invoke threatpoint, or truly believes that God and Bible come first and NOT feminism or even her own US citizenship. I actually asked that question of a woman once, “Are you a Christian first or a US citizen first?” and she said “…oh I don’t like that question.” Of course she didn’t like it and would never answer it, to answer it honestly would make her an unChristian feminist. To give the Christian answer would be to take away many of the rights that government bestowed upon her.

  143. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oscar
    So, after 10+ years of giving the milk away for free to “assholes” (her wording), she wants to sell the cow to a “nice guy” (her wording).

    Yep. And for a “like new” price, too. Sorta like buying a used Yugo with a rolled-back odometer for a new price. Hey, they ain’t making cars like that anymore, better move fast!

    And this is supposed to be encouraging?

    Why, sure, are you implying that her awesome awesomeness might somehow be less awesome nowadays than it was 10 years ago? Perish the thought.

  144. Anonymous Reader says:

    So when are you going to provide “Dalrock’s Pocket Guide to Refuting the Feminism Your Pastor Spews?” (For those who are not able to remember every word of every one of your posts).

    There’s a term in some quarters for a short series of bullet points intended to get a few basic ideas across, and that is “elevator speech”, i.e. the little speech one could give in an elevator to someone else while traveling to a different floor. It should be possible to come up with a few elevator speeches for different audiences. For preachers, Bible based, for others, fact based.

    The problem with talking to pastors from what I’ve heard is the “buried in minutae” or “wall of words” defenses. Faced with a wall of text on an androsphere blog from some aging 2nd stage feminist, one defense is to stick to a simple and not controverable point. Faced with a pastor who insists on misinterpreting the headship clauses in Ephesians how should a churchgoing man respond?

  145. “Dalrock’s Pocket Guide to Refuting the Feminism Your Pastor Spews?”

    GiL’s guide is easier: Walk out.

    Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. Rev 18:4.

    There is an optional step: Thank your pastor for making the choice so obvious.

  146. craig says:

    Gunner Q says: “There’s no correcting a man whose survival depends on being wrong… can’t remember the exact saying here.”

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

  147. Scott says:

    “Faced with a pastor who insists on misinterpreting the headship clauses in Ephesians how should a churchgoing man respond?”

    Good question. Surprisingly, as ineloquent as I am, I have had some luck with this. A while back, my wife and I were at a marriage encounter (Catholic church) and the Ephsians verses came up.

    And, predictably, the words “submitting one to another” was in giant, RED PRINT and the deacon hammered on that point for over an hour.

    WHen it came time for the floor to ask questions, I rose to my feet and challenged thusly:

    “If the man is head of his wife, as Christ is head of the church, does Christ submit ‘mutually’ to the church?”

    I wasn’t trying to bring the room to pin-drop silence, but that’s what happened.

    It was not particularly dramatic after that–just some rumblings and then on to the next topic. However, several folks after the weekend was over approached me and now they (and their wives) are regular readers of my humble website.

    The post script to this is, my wife and I have now fully converted to Orthodoxy–the only place headship is regularly preached and supported by our priest. The RC has lost it’s way on this one. There is really one church left teaching it at all, if I may make the advertisement.

  148. Again, I would have never imagined that I get to do the things that I get to do today. Written a number of books, things like that. But I am who I am because Jackie said not you can do it, you will do it. And every man here knows that that’s true. So the bargaining chip for the man is, it’s going to work out better for me if I be what she wants me to be.

    This was exactly my mentality when I was involved with my BPD girlfriend.

    It’s quieter at home, she’s more likely to make the kind of food I like, I’m going to get physical access to her more often, and that sound simplistic, but there are those things. So the guy’s bargaining chip is to be a guy, and guess what he finds out it works pretty well for him. And that he’s happier than his “free” bachelor friends.

    All the world is jails and churches.

  149. craig says:

    Anonymous Reader says: “Faced with a pastor who insists on misinterpreting the headship clauses in Ephesians how should a churchgoing man respond?”

    If “mutual submission” is invoked, I would ask him, given that St. Paul tells us marriage is an icon of Christ and the Church, what Christ’s duty is to submit to His bride? If the duty of “sacrificial love” is invoked, I would ask whether a wife’s duty is conditional upon her husband’s carrying out his duty and vice-versa.

  150. craig says:

    Heh. Scott beat me to it.

  151. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Faced with a pastor who insists on misinterpreting the headship clauses in Ephesians how should a churchgoing man respond?

    Ephesians is certainly clear enough. But if someone is dead set on getting Ephesians wrong, switching to 1 Pet 3:1-6 may be the best choice. For some reason however it is often overlooked. Also, note that it blows away any argument about “this being from the past, in a different time”. 1 Pet 3 blows this away by first explaining that it has been this way from the beginning, referencing Sarah in Genesis, and in case anyone is still confused it explains that a submissive wife is beautiful to God (and God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow). It also blows away the “Submit if he is good enough” argument, because it specifically includes submitting to a husband who doesn’t obey/believe the word. The example of Sarah is especially interesting, because she famously obeyed Abraham when he said to say she was his sister, even though doing so nearly got her raped on two occasions.

    It probably wouldn’t hurt to have some other verses in your back pocket as well: Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:8-15, Titus 2:1-5, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

  152. Ephesians is certainly clear enough. But if someone is dead set on getting Ephesians wrong, switching to 1 Pet 3:1-6 may be the best choice.

    As a Catholic, I don’t know the answer to this: do other Christians take Peter seriously, as equal to Paul’s epistles? Does the whole “first pope” thing cause any of them to shrug off his books? I’m not trying to start a sectarian argument; just wondering if I’ll get anywhere bringing up 1 Peter 3 in discussions with non-Catholics.

    As you say, Peter makes the direction of submission much more explicit, and specifically rules out any “he’s not holy enough to submit to” exception. It’s hard to find any room for exception in it, frankly.

  153. Lyn87 says:

    Cail, Oscar, AR,

    If you read through the comments you’ll see that Miss Steinberg got obliterated by MGTOW guys. Their argument will be familiar to all of us: you gave away your best years to bad boys, and now that you’ve aged out of the carousel and have baby-rabies, you’re looking for a steady wallet… no thanks.

    I’m reminded of a saying entitled women like to throw around, “If you can’t take me at my worst you don’t deserve me at my best.” My version for carousel riders approaching the Wall is, “If I can’t have your best, I don’t want the rest.”

    I was trying to juxtapose Jared’s video and Neely Steinberg’s. I would expect a nerdy, roly-poly teenage boy to have a poor understanding of how relationships work, but Miss Steinberg is a grown woman who gives relationship advice for a magazine… yet her understanding is an almost perfect mirror of his: he thinks that top-quality girls should pursue effeminate dweebs, and she thinks that top-quality men should pursue gold-digging whores. Both think they can stoke that desire by just explaining what they’re missing.

    Chubby nerd: “Look at me, I have hair like Justine Beiber, I like vampires, and I have a kitten – come on hotties, send me an e-mail!”

    Aging slut: “Look at me, I have had my fill of hot sex and now I’m looking for one of those nice guys that I used to ignore. Come on guys with steady employment, send me an e-mail!”

    I’ll agree with one of the commenters who noted the irony of the idea that females mature faster than males.

  154. Boxer says:

    Dalrock & Cail say…

    Ephesians is certainly clear enough. But if someone is dead set on getting Ephesians wrong, switching to 1 Pet 3:1-6 may be the best choice. For some reason however it is often overlooked. Also, note that it blows away any argument about “this being from the past, in a different time”.

    Thanks for this. Gold.

    [1] Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    [2] While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

    [3] Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

    [4] But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

    [5] For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

    [6] Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

    As a Catholic, I don’t know the answer to this: do other Christians take Peter seriously, as equal to Paul’s epistles? Does the whole “first pope” thing cause any of them to shrug off his books?

    I’d be interested in this also. Is there a hierarchy of apostles/saints, so that one man’s writing supersedes another in case of dispute?

    Best, Boxer

  155. new anon says:

    @AR, re: elevator speech,

    ****
    While Ephesians 5:21–the verse about mutual submission–is often included with the section after it–the one on how husbands and wives should treat each other–it is actually is the LAST VERSE in a section that runs from Ephesians 4:1 through 5:21.

    4:1-5:21 is the BODY OF CHRIST section. It teaches how ALL Christians should deal with each other as members of the body of Christ–members with different roles.

    ONE ANOTHER is the key phrase. 4:2, bearing with ONE ANOTHER in love; 4:25, we are members of ONE ANOTHER; 4:32, be kind to ONE ANOTHER; 5:19, speaking to ONE ANOTHER with psalms; and 5:21, submit to ONE ANOTHER.

    ALL of the ONE ANOTHER verses–all of them–are talking about the BODY OF CHRIST. None of them–not one–is about marriage, not even 5:21.

    Read Ephesians 4:2-5:21. I dare you. When you do, you’ll see it’s obvious that 5:21 goes with the section before it, not after it.
    **************

    That’s the best quick elevator speech I can come up with on short notice.

  156. Lyn87 says:

    Cail asks,

    I’m not trying to start a sectarian argument; just wondering if I’ll get anywhere bringing up 1 Peter 3 in discussions with non-Catholics.

    Actually, you’ll probably get better results using scripture on Protestants than on Catholics. For many of us in the Fundamentalist camp, our watch-phrase is “sola scriptura.” As a result, convincing staunch Catholics is usually harder, since scripture is only one of three sources of revelation that Catholic doctrine recognizes: the other two being whatever the Pope says and a vague thing called “church tradition,” both of which contain so many contradictions that almost any position can be defended by appealing to them. And because Catholic doctrine is so firmly wedded to the idea that ordination puts one on a different spiritual plane (see: Doctrine of Transubstantiation as one example), a “mere” layman with a Bible is easily dismissed.

  157. Opus says:

    Miss Steinberg says “we’re just exhausted by the jerks”. Is that not an inadvertantly revealing double-entendre?

  158. …and a vague thing called “church tradition,”

    THIS!

    As my pro-union Roman Catholic great uncle once looked me straight in the eye and told me… “If you ever vote Republican, you are GOING TO HELL!” I asked him why and stopped looking me in the eye and said something along the lines of “…I don’t know, just, that is way it has always been.”

    He had no idea. And I don’t really think he cared to really think about it.

  159. Lyn87 says:

    Opus, one of the commenters noted that it is better to be one of the men who exhausts her than the guy she leans on later when she’s exhausted. In Marriage 1.0 the same man was both – he got her at her best, got a terminal case of wife goggles, and gave her a lifetime of protection and provision. Now most women give away their best during their “asshole phase” and then expect some nice guy to jump in at the “wall phase” with the same commitment she would have earned if she had been warming his meals and his bed all along.

    It is truly mind-boggling that they don’t see the connection between pissing away their youth, innocence, and peak beauty… and no fault cash-n-prizes divorce… and presumptive mother custody… and the fact that they can’t seem to find “nice guys” (who are also tall, strong, and financially well-off, of course) willing to wife them up when they want to jump off the carousel and start popping out babies.

  160. Lyn87,

    And because Catholic doctrine is so firmly wedded to the idea that ordination puts one on a different spiritual plane (see: Doctrine of Transubstantiation as one example), a “mere” layman with a Bible is easily dismissed.

    A little story here, I had a week of timesharing some years ago, just the third week of March in Daytona Florida. One such week, I’m 24, sitting in the jacuzzi outside late at night having a discussion with 6 young Catholic girls on Spring Break from some incredibly super-expernsive private liberal arts Catholic university in Ohio. It’s about 11PM and the six of them were lecturing me, the Protestant heathen that I was all the while they were smoking like chimneys and drinking like fish. (I have never touched a cigarette and was drinking diet coke at that time.) Conversation got around to Transubstantiation.

    The more vocal of the girls informed me that an ordained Priest (due to his virginity) was bestowed some spiritual ability to actually transform the wine into blood and the wafer in flesh. That ONLY a virgin male could do this and ONLY one who was ordained in the One True Church. And of course, I was not permitted anywhere near this blood of Christ or His flesh because I was that heathen, Protestant. And shame on me for being that way anyway. But that it was not too late to know the truth.

    So I asked about priests who weren’t virgin (say men who were married with families who were formerly pastors in the Anglican church or whatever and they converted to Catholicism afterwards and the RCC allowed them to remain “ordained”) and the girls educated me that these priests weren’t real priests unless JPII called them priests or whatever but still, they can’t Transubstantiate because they aren’t virgin.

    Thus I learned the ways of Transubstantiation, only virgin ordained men could have this God given gift. At least that is what those girls told me.

  161. I’m reminded of a saying entitled women like to throw around, “If you can’t take me at my worst you don’t deserve me at my best.”

    A big part of the problem today is that women really do believe they keep getting better — not just wiser and more knowledgeable, which may be true, but sexier, more interesting, more exciting, more to offer — well into their 40s, if not forever. I blame it mostly on Hollywood, which is able to make women in their 40s look attractive with plastic surgery, makeup, and careful lighting, and portray them with fascinating lives and great men chasing them.

    In reality, a woman in her 30s can’t give a man “her best,” because it’s already in the past. That’s a harsh truth, but one that women used to know, and that mothers used to warn their daughters about.

  162. Actually, you’ll probably get better results using scripture on Protestants than on Catholics. For many of us in the Fundamentalist camp, our watch-phrase is “sola scriptura.”

    I understand that, but I’ve found that many people who study and quote scripture have particular verses or books that are their go-to favorites because they’ve learned the interpretations which back up their viewpoints. Very few have a comprehensive knowledge of scripture, and there may be some books that they’ve rarely cracked and may not consider as important as their favorites. So I just wondered, if I’m in a non-denominational group of “mutual submission” believers and I bring up Peter’s letters, will some people roll their eyes and say, “Well, that’s Peter, but Paul says….”

    (For what it’s worth, I could see that happening in a Catholic bible study group too.)

  163. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer asks, “Is there a hierarchy of apostles/saints, so that one man’s writing supersedes another in case of dispute?”

    No, there is not, since there are no contradictions in the Bible (every “example” otherwise takes one or more scriptures out of context). RC’s have a problem because there are numerous examples of one pope making a doctrinal statement ex cathedra (which cannot be wrong), only to be directly contradicted by a later pope also speaking ex cathedra, which is why I noted that appeals to scripture are more likely to work on Protestants than on Catholics.

    Cail, as for, “Does the whole “first pope” thing cause any of them to shrug off his books?”… No, since Protestants don’t recognize Peter or his “successors” as heads of the Church, a doctrine that was not widely accepted even among Catholics until the Middle Ages. In short, the fact that RC’s consider Peter to have been the first Pope doesn’t affect us one way or the other.

  164. Lyn87 says:

    Cail… we were typing at the same time.

    You may be right, but that’s only because people think that Peter and Paul contradict each other – they do not. FWIW, a lot of Protestants don’t know their Bibles very well either, and even many that do go along with the cultural flow regardless of what arguments you make or from what source you derive them. Sad, but there it is.

  165. JDG says:

    So I just wondered, if I’m in a non-denominational group of “mutual submission” believers and I bring up Peter’s letters, will some people roll their eyes and say, “Well, that’s Peter, but Paul says….”

    Some one who does this is not likely someone who takes the Bible seriously to begin with.

    “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,…” 2 Tim 3:16.

  166. Renee Harris says:

    After reading this, It amazed that christan men want yo get Married at all. Why do you guys want to marry in light of Paul writing about good of celibacy for kingdom. Not trolling just curious?

  167. 5 out of the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation are chastened for their involvement with “the woman” (Defiled garments, tolerating Jezebel, etc.) I don’t think that is a coincidence. Jesus was giving John the Revelator’s Stanton’s number.

  168. Gaza says:

    Ha! No doubt, Opus. I often hear the following – either directly from a woman of interest or from women about their single friend I should meet: she is tired of “dating”_____. The blank matters not; it is the same regardless. She’s tired. And the “dating” includes everything from a cuppa coffee that goes nowhere (no tingles) to the threesome in Jamaica while on a pseudo-honeymoon with her FWB (99% tingles.)

    Exhaustion is just one more byproduct of the feminine journey of self-discovery. Of course all of these byproducts should be enthusiastically accepted as some kind of relationship equity that accrues to him (the obvious winner, right?) Whether it is the chance to save her from this state of exhaustion as the wall fills the rearview or the chance to benefit from her sexual expertise honed under (yep) the tutelage of these “jerks”, he “gets” to be her man in the same way that a hot, model-body woman with good BJ lips gets to be the girlfriend of that doughy short-bus kid in the vid.

    You see, she’s tired of repeatedly doing the same things and expecting different results. If she is attractive, she is tired of sorting through male attention to harvest what she wants; there is simply too much chaff and not enough wheat these days. She has to endure men not qualified to entertain her in order to find the next jerk-in-the-rough.

    If she’s less attractive, she’s tired of offering up sex to more attractive men only to be perpetually relegated to the practice squad. She’s tired of the “creeps” on OK Cupid who send pictures of their junk, or who are too old, or underemployed, or bearded. IOW, who make her feel – in any way, the encroaching reality of her actual SMV.

    Now juxtapose that with the Tinder craze. For all of these exhausted women, Ok Cupid (etc.) is too much “work”. So they must further cross-purpose: use a hookup app to “date.” But they aren’t looking to hook-up (with you); they are looking for something real. And they are not the type of woman who would hook-up (with you) anyhow, though they are the type of woman who is on Tinder. And we men are not supposed to notice any of this.

    In a race to the bottom, I’d rather die in a fiery crash driving like a jerk than take the checkered flag driving like a drone. Observing women for 40 years makes it quite tricky to then redefine winning and losing in order to rationalize her lane change as my “win.” Lucky for the ladies, men do it all the time.

  169. In reality, a woman in her 30s can’t give a man “her best,” because it’s already in the past.

    Re-reading this, I want to add: I’m not saying a 35-year-old wife of 15 years is an old hag and can’t still be giving “her best.” In fact, that’s the one case where a woman really can keep getting “better” in terms of her attractiveness to a man: when she marries that man early and is faithful and loyal to him. He gets her “best” in terms of fertility and hotness when she’s young, and the bond that grows between them will make him appreciate the way she matures with him. The “with him” is the important part.

  170. Gunner Q says:

    “Do other Christians take Peter seriously, as equal to Paul’s epistles?”

    Absolutely. Paul gets top billing only because he provides guidelines for Church organization (we don’t have many traditions) and was the most prolific author. The other writers are considered equally valid.

    As a Prot, I can’t understand why having Saint “Ready, Fire, Aim” Peter as the first pope is something valuable. He’s the most headstrong and impulsive guy in the NT and was even nicknamed “Rock” by his own Creator. There’s a few ways of taking that nickname and Christ meant at least two of them in that famous verse.

    Honestly, I think Christ was making a joke when he said “I’ll build my Church on this Rock.” But I digress. The RCC can have First Pope Pete if they want. I don’t mind and it makes no difference to the importance of Peter’s Biblical contribution.

    Although I must admit, I’d rather attend a church led by a passionate, bullheaded jock (Peter) than an empty suit who spent ten years in PC-drenched college campuses and walked away with a degree in dead languages (Paul, who needed divine intervention to get over his professional eddukashun).

    @craig, Thanks! That’s the quote I was thinking of.

  171. JDG says:

    Why do you guys want to marry in light of Paul writing about good of celibacy for kingdom. Not trolling just curious?

    This is a good question. In saner times the reason would be :”But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” 1 Cor 7:9.

    However, in our current culture made up mostly of cads and sluts, a Christian man would do well to give celibacy a closer look, or to shop elsewhere. Most women (even “Christian” women) in this country are NOT wife material.

  172. Lyn87 says:

    Cail,

    You probably worded that better than I did at 5:05, but that’s a corollary of the point I was trying to make: assuming shes not a ball-busting shrew and she doesn’t just let herself go… as a wife’s looks begin to fade, two things happen with her husband.

    1) As he gets older his range of women that he finds attractive expands so that it includes the age of his wife.

    2) He retains the image of her that he had when he met / fell in love with her, and it’s likely to be an idealized image at that.

    But if a man meets a woman after her looks have already faded, neither of those does her much good. She can still benefit from the fact that an older man may find her attractive at her current age, but since she’s not the recipient of his wife goggles, she’s just another woman, not a 40-year-old he pictures as a 20-year-old in his mind.

  173. ballista74 says:

    Faced with a pastor who insists on misinterpreting the headship clauses in Ephesians how should a churchgoing man respond?

    Scott and craig have a good avenue to approach it. Another one is to go to the Scriptures after it:

    Anarchy In The Marriage

    So if it means everyone, then it means that everyone is to submit in the fear of God one to another. Our God is a God of order and not of chaos. Parsing the rest of Ephesians reveals God-ordained hierarchies of authority:

    5:22-23, 31 – Wives submit to and respect their husbands and are subject to them in everything.
    5:25,28 – Husbands love their wives as their own bodies.
    5:23-25 – Christ head of the church, church subject to Him, Christ loves the church (marriage is a model) [Scott and Craig’s model]
    6:1-2 – Children obey your parents (honor thy father and mother).
    6:3 – Fathers do not provoke children to wrath, but bring up in admonition of the Lord.
    6:5-8 – Servants be obedient to masters as the servants of Christ doing the will of God.
    6:9 – Masters give benevolent regard to servants, know you are a servant of the Lord the same.

    Mutual submission does not exist in these other cases.

    You can also ask if parents are supposed to mind their children or if employers are supposed to follow the orders of their employees. It’s funny how many of them expect one way submission in those cases, but somehow (it’s in the same section) husbands and wives are excepted.

    Or you can ask to see where it explicitly says “husbands submit to your wives” in Scripture.

    do other Christians take Peter seriously, as equal to Paul’s epistles? Does the whole “first pope” thing cause any of them to shrug off his books?

    I don’t see any parsing like that. Usually if I do find parsing in people, it’s “Gospel only” types who disregard Paul & Peter both exactly because they believe them both to be “patriarchal”. In other words, you’ll find some who take personal reason and experience over the word of Scripture – exactly what the religious feminists teach in all camps.

    Is there a hierarchy of apostles/saints, so that one man’s writing supersedes another in case of dispute?

    If it is considered to be Canon (i.e. the inspired Word of God), there would be no disputes between two books of Scripture.

    Actually, you’ll probably get better results using scripture on Protestants than on Catholics.

    Actually not. One thing you find if you scratch and sniff is that so-called Protestants are more wedded to Catholic doctrine in this manner than most want to admit. (I’ve always noticed myself to be seen as “strange” because I *actually believe that Scripture stuff* in church circles. But that’s another conversation) It’s not that Protestants search the Scriptures to find the answers, it’s that Pastor Bob said this and if they have a certain view of him as “the man of God”, you can show them Scripture until the cows come home and they won’t acknowledge it. Because it would require admitting that Pastor Bob is just like them and could be…*gasp* wrong! Even worse if you face down Pastor Bob himself because he’s got the same-inary degree and is ordained himself.

  174. greyghost says:

    We should let her see the video
    https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/candace-cameron-bure-i-want-my-husband-to-lead-107638431337.html
    Still on topic just a different point of view on the subject

  175. Gunner Q says:

    Renee Harris @ 5:32 pm:
    “After reading this, It amazed that chrisitian men want to get Married at all. Why do you guys want to marry in light of Paul writing about good of celibacy for kingdom?”

    Sex. Next question, is it really that important to men? Yes. Next question, is it really that hard to go without? Yes but, these days, marriage is so poisoned it’s the easy way out.

  176. Lyn87 says:

    ballista,

    I disagree: I’ve managed to convince Protestants of things by pointing to scripture. Some of the people I’ve convinced are, themselves, pastors. To the best of my knowledge I’ve never successfully convinced a Catholic of anything related to Christianity.

    Having said that, I’ll concede that many self-proclaimed Protestants don’t take scripture any more seriously than Catholic doctrine does… not because mainstream Protestant theology recognize other sources of revelation like Catholic doctrine does, but because both the Protestant and Catholic churches are steeped in carnality. I’ve told parts of this story before, so I’ll be brief:

    On several occasions I have been asked to sit on church boards, and I have frequently been the only voice calling for strict adherence to some scriptural principle or other… and that is among people who try very hard to “Be holy as I am holy,” day in and day out… people who say they believe in the inerrancy of scripture and believe that they believe that. Sometimes I won over enough of my fellows to carry the point, sometimes I did not. I can say this, though, once our board was being addressed by a man who was the equivalent of a Catholic bishop in that denomination, standing for a point that is the official doctrine of that denomination – I disputed the point and read one passage of scripture and the members of the board backed me. I can’t imagine a bunch of laymen outright overruling a Catholic bishop on a theological manner (which is in concert with official RC doctrine, yet), based on a passage of scripture. We Prots don’t tend to put our clergy on such high pedestals – I should know, I grew up as a preacher’s kid.

  177. new anon says:

    As for Ms. Steinberg,

    The first video above is from a year ago. This second one is from 2 months ago. Talk about hitting the wall hard.

  178. Tam the Bam says:

    ” Stanton explains that without women telling them what to do, the men of the original Jamestown colony were a bunch of clueless layabouts. Fortunately the bumbling men were eventually saved by a contingent of women sent to direct their operations:”

    Righty-ho. Nowt to do with Captain Smith the Famous Liar, and his nemesis Geordie Percy then?
    As Smith the veteran mercenary pointed out to those “idle gentlemen” who despised manual labour (and who did not have the first clue about it, no matter how keen their ambition, kept in helpless ignorance by absurd sumptuary and estate “laws”, like so many Chinese mandarins).
    “you must obey this now for a Law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled) for the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain an hundred and fifty idle loiterers.”
    And so on. He begged the Old Country “I entreat you rather send but thirty carpenters, husbandmen, gardeners, fishermen, blacksmiths, masons and diggers of trees’ roots, well provided, than a thousand such as we have”
    I.E. more witless fops stood upon their dignity. Answer came there none.
    In desperation he took to reiving the locals, who naturally responded in kind.

    Women, such as there were, weren’t even in the short list.

  179. Lyn87 says:

    … and you feel confident and empowered and that is totally sexy to guys…

    Oh my… that’s delusional. Then again, she’s 37 and has been married less than a year (still a newlywed) – not exactly someone to turn to for advice. I can see why she was able to marry, though – I would never have guessed that she was 36 in the first video unless she had given her age in the second one… face it, she looked pretty hot for 36. But, as you noted, new anon, the past year has not been kind to her. She snagged “the love of her life” at the last possible moment. Sometimes it works… usually it doesn’t. Dalrock had a two-post series about this”

    Last One Down the Aisle Wins Part 1 & Part 2

  180. Boxer says:

    Dear Lyn:

    No, there is not, since there are no contradictions in the Bible (every “example” otherwise takes one or more scriptures out of context). RC’s have a problem because there are numerous examples of one pope making a doctrinal statement ex cathedra (which cannot be wrong), only to be directly contradicted by a later pope also speaking ex cathedra, which is why I noted that appeals to scripture are more likely to work on Protestants than on Catholics.

    Thanks. I didn’t know about Protestants, but hadn’t much information, and wanted to clear up the possibilities.

    RC’s have a problem because there are numerous examples of one pope making a doctrinal statement ex cathedra (which cannot be wrong), only to be directly contradicted by a later pope also speaking ex cathedra, which is why I noted that appeals to scripture are more likely to work on Protestants than on Catholics.

    I am not a Catholic, but did have to learn a bit about them when I was a wee little lad, and so I can say that this is a very rough interpretation of something that was earlier described to me in sort of a nuanced way. The word I was taught was “infallible” — which was explained to me as something on the correctness scale between “absolutely correct”, and more than what you would likely read in the Penthouse forum.

    Basically “infallible” is translated in an instrumental, rather than ethical way. Catholics may make a small ethical error if they follow the pope’s advice verbatim, but they will not make an instrumental error (and if they do, it is assumed that it will be glossed over at the final accounting as we’re judged by Jesus, etc., provided they did it in good faith.)

    Snagged this quickly and just skimmed it. Seems in line with the old spiel I got when I asked the question.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CONTRAD.HTM

    I have zero interest in starting one of the big fights that sometimes break out here between Catholics and Protestants, as I am neither, and I have never found them to be very educational. I think it’s silly to fight one’s friends when we can all be laughing at the latest grand error made by whatever dyke feminist took over the reigns after they deposed Lena Dunham for telling too many truths in her attention-whoring memoirs. There will be time to fight among ourselves after the revolution, as the saying goes.

    I do wonder if Protestants ever make a point to study guys like Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Origen or John The Scot. I’m guessing not much, and I think that’s a shame. It’s not necessarily infallible, but it’s pretty interesting work they did.

    Best, Boxer

  181. Tam the Bam says:

    Lyn: re:- Magna Carta, no worries mate, it’s just Opus who remembers all the kerfuffle, we never had it, democracy and that, just Barons and Dungeons and stuff until about last week, or WW1 or something.

    Ms Pankhurst could of course vote, due to her Property Qualification. Like Mary Poppins’s employer, and his insufferable suffragist wife.
    My several great-uncles (crippled due to being in Belgium and France at the time, bloody careless of them, never wed, 7/8ths of the family gone as a result) .. couldn’t .. but I suppose they had those memories of kicking a ball around with the Hermans in No-Man’s-Land about this time of year to fall back on.
    And maybe a white feather or two (two of them deserted due to being really, really, reaallllly annoyed at the poor food. Hid in the woods for months, poaching, and going to lock-ins at the local boozer at night. Got caught of course, arguing and fighting in the cemetery about which relative was buried where, and scaring the ess-aitch-one-tee out of the local (reserved occupation) drunks going home, strange lights and yells in the graveyard, but the worst thing they could do was send them back, and that’s what happened.)

  182. Dalrock says:

    @Cail Corishev

    I understand that, but I’ve found that many people who study and quote scripture have particular verses or books that are their go-to favorites because they’ve learned the interpretations which back up their viewpoints. Very few have a comprehensive knowledge of scripture, and there may be some books that they’ve rarely cracked and may not consider as important as their favorites. So I just wondered, if I’m in a non-denominational group of “mutual submission” believers and I bring up Peter’s letters, will some people roll their eyes and say, “Well, that’s Peter, but Paul says….”

    This shouldn’t be the case, but if you did run into it you could point out how closely Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 echo Peter’s words in 1 Pet 3.

    The thing is, while there is some smokescreening around the issue, there isn’t really any real theological disagreement that I can see on what the Bible (and Tradition) say about headship and submission. Ephesians is used as a delaying device to wear out opponents. They want to bog you down and make you give up. But if you point out other sources, only the most “modern” theologian would persist in disagreeing. The issue as I see it is not really one of official theology, but of Christian culture. What you should therefore expect at the end of the long delaying action is some version of “Of course that is what headship and submission mean. Everyone knows that. Why did you feel the need to make such a big deal out of it?”

  183. Lyn87 says:

    Dalrock writes,

    “The thing is, while there is some smokescreening around the issue, there isn’t really any real theological disagreement that I can see on what the Bible (and Tradition) say about headship and submission.”

    That is correct, of course – Prots and RCs generally agree on the doctrine of marital headship and submission, although neither group practices it to the degree one would expect for something that is both unambiguous and generally agreed-upon. In fact, as a Protestant it pains me to say that the RCC is holding the line better than many Prot denominations as far as their official stances on the roles of men and women – at least the RCC isn’t ordaining women yet, while many Protestant denominations have been doing it for decades. When I brought up tradition and ex cathedra pronouncements I was answering a general question about doctrine, not one specifically about headship and submission within marriage.

  184. Toad says:

    Colony Of Virginia
    In order to attach them still more to the country, one hundred and fifty respectable young women were sent over, to become wives to the planters. These were sold at the price, at first, of one hundred, and afterwards, one hundred and fifty, pounds of tobacco

  185. JDG says:

    To the best of my knowledge I’ve never successfully convinced a Catholic of anything related to Christianity.

    I’ve had this problem too. They usually tell me that they are Catholic, and the Bible isn’t their only source of authority. Those that I’ve interacted with didn’t seem to have a problem with contradictions.

  186. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    I looked at the fastpray website and didn’t see your letter anywhere. I expected to find it in one of the recent posts about marriage, and I even scrolled through the comments for the last few months, all to no avail. I even checked again several hours later in case it was hung up in moderation… still nothing.

    Was it too much truth for them, or did I just not look in the right spot? I have to say that you were pretty easy on them, since you didn’t even hammer on virginity, but even the mild letter you wrote could easily send some “Christian women bloggers” to the nearest fainting couch.

    Keep us posted, please.

  187. Chuck Kammer says:

    Boxer
    Originally, American men may have seen it as a function of what Heartiste calls “the handicap principle”. Basically a man so powerful that he can make himself appear weak and thereby display his utter superiority. It seems counterintuitive, but this sort of thing is well discussed in the psychoanalytic tradition.

    Back in the 1950s everyone knew that with regard to wives this was a chivalrous indulgence.

    The damage caused by the handicap principle extends beyond marriage and feminism. In the upper class it’s a form of dominance display. “I’m so powerful I can afford to be generous to my enemies.” While a relatively harmless social convention in a homogeneous society, in a multiracial society the handicap principle is a culture-killer. Among the elites any statement of racial self-interest signals low social status, hence the headlong rush to disavow the culture and moral principles that made America great.

  188. The thing is, while there is some smokescreening around the issue, there isn’t really any real theological disagreement that I can see on what the Bible (and Tradition) say about headship and submission.

    You’re right, there’s not. But if someone only knows the bit from Ephesians because that’s what he’s heard over and over from feminized priests/pastors pushing “mutual submission,” then when you hit him with 1 Peter 3, which can’t be reconciled with that, he’s going to have to do one of two things: abandon his belief in mutual submission and reinterpret Ephesians in light of this new information, or find a way to twist or reject 1 Peter 3. I suspect many would do the latter, because the former would be too scary, but I’d be curious to see their rationalization.

  189. Mark says:

    @Lyn87

    “”If you read through the comments you’ll see that Miss Steinberg got obliterated by MGTOW guys.””

    Steinberg?……..What tribe do you think she belongs to? I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count! Welcome to my world!

  190. thehaproject says:

    Boxer said

    Note that after the protagonist bangs the wandering badboy as a fifteen-year old, it isn’t her father that intervenes, it’s her mother, and her mother’s friends. In the subtext it’s also the sewing circle that drives the badboy out of town.

    Did you actually read the story you linked? Because none of that happened at all.

  191. thehaproject says:

    @Boxer – I didn’t mean that to come off as caustic as I did. What I meant was, is it possible you are thinking of a different story?

  192. Oscar says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    January 12, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    “Why, sure, are you implying that her awesome awesomeness might somehow be less awesome nowadays than it was 10 years ago? Perish the thought.”

    Well, I guess that just makes me a big jerk. She would’ve loved me ten years ago.

  193. Opus says:

    I have watched those two videos again, this time with the sound turned off – that whiny voice and accent is so annoying.

    In the video aimed at nice guys, she is coquettish; head to one side, two hair-piece flicks. In the later video aimed at aging corporate females (yes, you too ladies can be the CEO in your own kitchen), with prominent display of her wedding band, the rather charming necklace replaced now by one constructed from large rocks, her head is largely straight; no hair-flicks but there is a lot of finger pointing. Maybe she has been getting in some practice at home. Doubtless, Mark can explicate.

  194. Renee Harris says:

    If marriage is a metaphor for Christ and his Church, then a feminist marriages and mindset underlines a far more serious spiritual issued. God say He let this if we turned from his law :
    Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and “women rule over them. “O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. (‭Isaiah‬ ‭3‬:‭11-13‬ KJV)
    This country was given to the price of the air, not the price of Glory.
    Have you ever lusted in your heart? I have. Ever fair to obey your dad or mom? I have . Had that one sin that love your heart. See my point .
    The bible lied b / c men don’t , can’t sin right ? Roman 3:23 only refer to woman? Ok , cool than only we can be restored to God by lordship of Christ. Or wait…
    Yes most woman my age are ( myself induced ) bitches, and that’s suck for you guys. Marriage is only Godly outlet for sex,( I am wanna be non- feminist Un kissed. 28 Virgin) suck for everyone But the day of wrath of the Holy One of Israel is coming and marriage not that big of deal.

  195. James Oakes says:

    @Lyn87
    RC’s have a problem because there are numerous examples of one pope making a doctrinal statement ex cathedra (which cannot be wrong), only to be directly contradicted by a later pope also speaking ex cathedra

    No, they don’t. Popes have used their ex cathedra “power of infallibility” exactly TWICE in the two thousand years of the RCC: in the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception of Mary by Pope Pius IX (in 1854) and in the proclamation of the Assumption of Mary by Pius XII (in 1950). Therefore, there can’t be “numerous examples . . . only to be directly contradicted”, etc.

  196. earl says:

    ‘After reading this, It amazed that christan men want yo get Married at all. Why do you guys want to marry in light of Paul writing about good of celibacy for kingdom. Not trolling just curious?’

    Because Paul understood the sex drive is strong in guys. It takes either divine intervention to tame it…or marriage.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7+%3A+1-7&version=NIV

  197. Lyn87 says:

    James Oakes,

    You’re wrong on the facts, popes make “ex cathedra” pronouncements all the time. Any time the pope expounds on faith and morals to the world he is considered to be infallible, and speaking “from the chair.” Here’s a direct quote from Catholic Answers:

    Ex cathedra is a Latin phrase which means “from the chair.” It refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. Source

    Obviously, the vast majority of papal bulls throughout the centuries deal with matters of faith and morals, and are addressed to the world, and a great many of them contradict each other. But it’s even worse than that – for hundreds of years prior to the First Vatican Counsel of 1870, all papal bulls were traditionally considered to be ex cathedra and thus infallible. Obviously that’s a problem since so many of them contradict each other. For one of the most egregious examples, This article gives a narrative of Pope Alexander VI making two papal bulls that directly contradict each other on the same day – one was for public consumption and the other was kept secret for years. At the time they were written in 1501, both would have been considered infallible.

    Some, like you, take a different stance on bulls, and I notice that of all the possible positions on the matter, you took the most favorable one as if it were the only one. But surely you know that others (including popes) have taken different stands on the matter. Anyway, in addition to the two you noted, at least five others papal bulls are currently considered to be ex cathedra for a total of at least seven, and even that ignores centuries of Catholic traditional understanding prior to 1870. In 1985 Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz credited seven papal bulls as being ex cathdra and infallible:

    “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
    Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
    Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
    Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
    Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
    Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
    Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

    I don’t know what the first five on that list say, but the last two are definitely contrary to scripture and thus heretical, so there’s that. But to make a definitive statement that only two papal bulls were made ex cathedra is being highly disingenuous. It’s not just Protestants like me who disagree with you… most Catholics disagree with you, too.

  198. Scott says:

    “No, they don’t. Popes have used their ex cathedra “power of infallibility” exactly TWICE in the two thousand years of the RCC: in the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception of Mary by Pope Pius IX (in 1854) and in the proclamation of the Assumption of Mary by Pius XII (in 1950). Therefore, there can’t be “numerous examples . . . only to be directly contradicted”, etc.”

    Kind of have to admit this truth here. Ex cathedra is extremely rare. The Magesterium, of which the Pope is a part makes far more proclamations. Those proclamation tend to be very well thought out. As I have noted before, my wife and I left the RC for Orthodoxy, which has a similar adherance to tradition but no magesterium. They have not made any significant changes to docrtine and teaching since the 8th century. (The last agreed upon ecumenical council).

    But one has to be fair–the RC has a reasonable system for addressing doctrinal issues. I still am in awe at how the single most influential standard bearer for defending western intellectual propriety has been the RC fo over a thousand years. They deserve that recognition, even if they are going off the rails recently in actual practice of the things that matter.

  199. Lyn87 says:

    Scott, we were typing at the same time. See my post that’s just before yours. Claims that various statements and pronouncements are infallible are not historically rare at all.

  200. BradA says:

    GunnerQ,

    Merely being Christian marks us as different; nihilist or civilizationist, we’re the salt of the earth.

    How could a Christian be a nihilist? Isn’t that contradictory to the core idea of Christianity?

    AR,

    Faced with a pastor who insists on misinterpreting the headship clauses in Ephesians how should a churchgoing man respond?

    Tell him he is way off? Stop attending the church?

    I have used both approaches. The amount I persist with the former depends on the response. That is one of the reasons I am struggling to find a good church now.

    Reminds me that I asked a recent pastor why he asked the congregation if he could bless them at the end. He noted that he wanted consensus. We are no longer going there even though it is quite convenient and close to our general theology otherwise.

    Rollo,

    My wife knows better than to try that manipulation. It didn’t even work before I realized the entirety of red pill. I will not follow her just to have peace. That would not produce peace.

    Cail,

    do other Christians take Peter seriously, as equal to Paul’s epistles?

    I have always viewed Peter as just as important as Paul. I disagree with the “first pope” idea, but that never impacted my view of the Word. I suspect he gets less attention since his books are near the end and Paul wrote a lot more.

    Lyn87’s comments seemed relevant as well.

    A big part of the problem today is that women really do believe they keep getting better — not just wiser and more knowledgeable, which may be true, but sexier, more interesting, more exciting, more to offer — well into their 40s, if not forever.

    I am not completely sure that is true. It is what they may say, but I think many (or even most) know the truth that their sell-by date has passed. I can see the insecurities my own wife faces as she continues to age enough to speculate that the truth hits them, but they try to mask it by saying more.

    “Well, that’s Peter, but Paul says….”

    I never heard that and I have been in many such study groups in the past.

    Lyn87,

    FWIW, a lot of Protestants don’t know their Bibles very well either, and even many that do go along with the cultural flow regardless of what arguments you make or from what source you derive them. Sad, but there it is.

    That is unfortunately true even among the many “Word” people I have been close to over the years. Though I find it more of a human condition than dependent on any specific doctrine. People want what is comfortable and going against feminist thought requires stepping outside your comfort zone.

    Someone,

    … and you feel confident and empowered and that is totally sexy to guys…

    Context is missing from that. I would say that I like it when my wife uses her own abilities and judgment to carry out the things she does. I don’t want to micro manage her any more than my boss wants to micro manage me. I suspect that is the truth that is twisted here.

  201. BradA says:

    Hope this shows up, seems worth noting, especially given the “over the wall” discussion.

  202. “Because Paul understood the sex drive is strong in guys. It takes either divine intervention to tame it…or marriage.”

    Or a few years in the Western public school system. The young ladies in middle and high school were just about the meanest, most selfish people I’ve dealt with. I took the proverbial Red Pill early on as a result, and it was largely anchored by my suspicions that many of them wouldn’t just “grow out of it” like so many people told me they would. Twenty years later, I feel kinda vindicated.

  203. Lyn87 says:

    BradA, the first quote you attributed to me was actually written by Cail. As for the last quote, I was quoting from the video by Neely Steinberg, and she didn’t mean it like you do: she meant that men as sexually attracted to “strong, empowered” women. That’s why I said she was delusional.

  204. earl says:

    Well I understand the selfishness and horrible attitude of most western women…that still hasn’t taken out my sex drive. It does take the grace of God to keep it in the confines it was meant to be in.

    However what I’ve noticed the turn on from how she looks can bring is quickly negated by a bad attitude or general sluttery. A sweet pleasant woman keeps it going.

  205. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The three pillars of Catholicism are: Scripture, Tradition, and the Sacraments. “Whatever the Pope says” isn’t one of those three.

    The concept of a “Bible-based Church” is problematic because the Church predates the Bible. The Apostles were preaching as a Church before the New Testament scriptures were even written.

    It was the Church which created the Bible — orally preached its truths, later wrote them down, and finally (centuries later) declared which documents were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were not.

  206. Lyn87 says:

    RPL,

    Either you’re being disingenuous or you don’t know the doctrine of your own church – are you seriously suggesting that Papal authority is not foundational to the Roman Catholic Church, since the entire edifice of ecclesiastical authority stands or falls on it? Here’s where “Catholic Answers” says I’m right and you’re wrong. Every priest derives his office through the so-called “Unbroken line of Apostolic Succession” that supposedly allows every member of the Catholic clergy to trace his pedigree back to Peter. In fact, the article I just linked makes the point that Protestant ministers do not have authority because they cannot trace their pedigree that way. Without that, a priest is just another guy – certainly not someone who can conjure Christ from the right hand of God on command to become the Eucharist. But if Peter was not the first pope, or even one of his successors was not legitimate (too easy), then no current priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope can legitimately claim that pedigree.

  207. earl says:

    ‘The three pillars of Catholicism are: Scripture, Tradition, and the Sacraments.’

    The Sacraments came about from Jesus and the Apostles….so basically that’s Scripture and Tradition. The third part is the Magesterium. From the Cathechism:

    The Magisterium of the Church

    “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

    “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

    Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

    The dogmas of the faith

    88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

  208. “This isn’t just bad theology, it goes against what secular scientists observe as well. Women’s sexual/romantic desires aren’t divining rods leading the way to righteousness. Women left to their own devices will tend to fall for the rogue over the upright man, although they will rationalize to themselves that it is because the rogue would make a great father.”

    Eve screwed the Serpent before she had sex with Adam; she is the mother of Cain whom she thought was going to be the one redeeming them from their sin. Adam was 130 years old before he had sex with Eve again, begetting Seth.

  209. Gunner Q says:

    “How could a Christian be a nihilist?”

    I mean it in the “Enjoy the Decline” way. Some guys want to fix our fallen society, others think the collapse should be allowed to happen. Both views are compatible with Christianity.

  210. JDG says:

    The concept of a “Bible-based Church” is problematic because the Church predates the Bible. The Apostles were preaching as a Church before the New Testament scriptures were even written.

    The NT is a collection of writings that were penned by men of God who were guided by the Holy Spirit. Many of these letters were written for purposes that included instruction and encouragement. They were used to help with the forming of the early Church and were read by members of various churches and then passed on to other churches for the very purpose of building up the Church and correcting bad behavior.

    A Bible based church is a church based largely on the words in the aforementioned letters. How is the concept of a “Bible-based Church” problematic?

  211. thehaproject says:

    Spot on, JDG.

    The problem with accepting revelations post Scripture is that they often conflict with Scripture or have no basis in Scripture (such as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary). Teaching things such as this as doctrine is dangerous and often heretical.

  212. JDG says:

    The Apostles were preaching as a Church before the New Testament scriptures were even written.

    Perhaps I should clarify the error here. The problem with the statement above is that the Apostles were preaching as a Church WHILE the NT scriptures were being written.

    If you are referring to the existing copies then you would be correct in that some of the existing copies we have were written down later, but the original letters were written during the ministries of the Apostles and while the Church was being built.

  213. JDG says:

    Correction for January 13, 2015 at 12:21 pm:

    If you are referring to the existing copies then you would be correct in that the existing copies we have were written down later…

    I am unaware of any original text that has survived.

  214. JDG says:

    thehaproject says:
    January 13, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    Yes, this is my belief as well.

  215. Anchorman says:

    AND no one is smiling. They all have serious looks on their faces, looked miserable, like they couldn’t wait for death.

    Photo technology wasn’t what it is today. The people had to stay very still for long periods to allow for longer exposure times. Easier to hold a non-expression than a smile that may change, giving the person a weird blurry mouth.

  216. Oscar says:

    Lyn87 says:
    January 13, 2015 at 10:32 am

    “she meant that men as sexually attracted to “strong, empowered” women. That’s why I said she was delusional.”

    Men have always valued strength in a wife, because it was necessary for survival. Even Prov 31:17 states …

    She sets about her work vigorously;
    her arms are strong for her tasks.

    That is both figurative (meaning: she’s hard-working, not lazy), and literal (work back then was mostly manual and required literal strength).

    People in general don’t value strength as much as they used to because (at least in the West) it’s no longer necessary for survival, but it’s still necessary for health and longevity.

    http://snowgoosechronicles.blogspot.com/2014/09/hand-grip-strength-and-longevity.html

    And, let’s face it, a person (male or female) who stays strong looks a lot better a lot longer than one who doesn’t, and that is definitely sexy.

    However, you’re right that feminists don’t mean it that way. Feminists largely (heh!) confuse bitchiness with strength, and haranging with independence. That’s why feminists can (with a straight face even!) declare themselves “strong, independent women” while at the same time demanding that government provide them with – not just everything they need – but everything they want. And, of course, since men provide the majority of tax revenue, that means they demand men support them, and if not willingly, then at gun point.

  217. craig says:

    Lyn87, you can disapprove of Catholicism all you want but please do not misrepresent it. Most papal statements, documents, rulings, etc., are not claimed to be infallible. The bounds of papal infallibility were not clarified until the First Vatican Council in 1870, in Pastor aeternus:

    “…We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.”

    Note that for the dogma regarding infallibility to obtain:
    1. the pope must explicitly identify that he is speaking in this instance with apostolic authority as the Successor of Peter,
    2. that he is doing so to define a doctrine regarding faith or morals,
    3. and that it is to be held by the Universal Church (i.e., all Christians).

    That narrows it down quite a bit. Annulments, canon law, administrative governance, sermons, speeches etc., cannot be claimed as infallible. The one contemporary example is John Paul II’s Ordinatio sacerdotalis, which explicitly invoked the condiitions above to declare that the Church has no authority to ordain women.

  218. Scott says:

    Lyn87-

    In case you’re interested, the Orthodox have the same teaching, with one wrinkle–no one apostle has authority over the others. The Orthodox churches in communion with each other all trace their succession back to different apostles. (Andrew, Bartholomew, James, etc).

    http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession
    (Section entitled “Apostolic Founders)

    The Romans acknowledge the Orthodox as having a valid apostolic succession, and therfore allow their members to received communion there under certain circumstances.

    I know you don’t believe it, but thought you might find it interesting, since you obviously read alot about this stuff.

    Scott.

  219. Lyn87 says:

    Scott,

    I have no trouble believing that, although I didn’t know it. My knowledge of Orthodox history and doctrine is not nearly as comprehensive as my knowledge of RCC history and doctrine. You know, of course, that Orthodox churches are not generally lumped in with the rest of the Protestant movement, which was always there (God always preserves a faithful remnant) but had little sway until the Reformation.

    Craig,

    I did not misrepresent what the RCC teaches. The fact is that RCC doctrines – including the doctrines surrounding papal infallibility – evolve. Since God is the same “yesterday, today, and forever” the fact that RCC doctrine changes so frequently on so many subjects is enough all by itself to reject any claims of infallibility it makes. Yesterday’s infallible teaching is today’s heresy, apparently. But the fact remains that you are quoting from a document that was not accepted until 1870 – the First Vatican Counsel that I referred to earlier – which is merely the most recent official pronouncement on the matter. For most of Roman Catholic history (315 A.D. – 1870 A.D.) the doctrine was both different and fluid, otherwise there would have been no need for Vatican I to define it (until the next counsel comes along and changes it again, anyway).

    But in any case, the two most recent cases that everyone agrees are examples of popes declaring doctrines to be infallible are Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX in 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII in 1950, defining the assumption of Mary. Neither of those bulls align with scripture, and both, in fact, are directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of numerous passages from the Bible. So even the two “best” and most recent examples of papal infallibility are rank heresy.

    More to the point, since the RCC claims that their clergy hold their offices by means of Apostolic Succession (to the point where they think Protestant ordinations are invalid), they are stuck with it… all of it. And that includes papal infallibility being part of Church Tradition for centuries, even as popes contradicted each other and even themselves. If Catholics want to claim that their clergy derive their ecclesiastical authority (from an unchanging God) though a Divenely-directed historical pedigree, they cannot turn around and claim that the only true meaning of a doctrine is whichever one was made by the most recent counsel or pope, as if such rulings were never overturned. Any question that start with, “What is the official doctrine?” must continue with, “When is the official doctrine going to change again?”

  220. Scott says:

    “that Orthodox churches are not generally lumped in with the rest of the Protestant movement”

    Trust me, I am tracking. [we] Orthodox consider the RC to be the schizmatics, (RC and Orthodoxy were once one thing) and that the reformation came out of the RC. We believe Orthodoxy (which roughly translated means “original”) has been the same church for 2000 years, is using liturigal practices that are 1700 years old and has not had a significant doctrinal adjustment in about 1300 years.

    We can’t relate to the reformation, because there is no frame of reference. It is considered a break off from a break off.

    Of course, I grew up in the mainline, Church of Christ (the Stone/Campell movement), later attended a protestant seminary and later converted, by way of the RC–>bzantine rite because my dad was Serbian so when I say “we” I mean the royal “we.” I have some peculiar beliefs that my Orthodox brothers say I shouldn’t (in the area of hermeneutics mostly–I am not very critical of the text) but I am OK with that.

  221. thehaproject says:

    Might I suggest that you take the Catholic/Protestant discussion elsewhere, as it has devolved away from having anything to do with Dalrock’s post?

  222. Lyn87 says:

    You may make any suggestion you like.

  223. American says:

    Good insights Dalrock. It’s disturbing that someone with his position is going around teaching this nonsense. Another sign of the times unfortunately.

  224. craig says:

    Dalrock, I apologize for my own contribution in taking the thread off-topic.

  225. Joe says:

    Beyond doctrinal splits: note the “New Catholic EMANgelization” initiative:
    http://www.newemangelization.com/the-new-emangelization-project-2/
    Looks like several branches of Christianity will be grappling with these issues.

  226. Renee Harris says:

    And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. (‭Genesis‬ ‭4‬:‭1-2‬ KJV)
    Were is the verse you are taking about. ?

  227. BradA says:

    Lyn87,

    Sorry about the misquote. I stand corrected.

    she meant that men as sexually attracted to “strong, empowered” women. That’s why I said she was delusional.

    I knew that. I was just speculating that she was mistaking the desire for a women like what I noted for one who fit her view of things. The words can be similar, thought he meanings change as Oscar noted.

    GunnerQ,

    I mean it in the “Enjoy the Decline” way.

    How would a Christian do that? Or do you just mean to sit back and watch? The PUA loves it, but that is inherently at odds with proper Christian behavior. I would be interested to know what you are thinking of there.

  228. BradA says:

    I am guessing some of you haven’t been around long. These threads often meander quite a bit and I can’t directly recall any time Dalrock complained, though I do recall one or two trolls he chastised.

    ====

    Scott and Craig, 2 items and even several dozen are a big difference. That is what I took from what Lyn87 wrote. I grew up in the RCC, going on my own during my teen years, so I have more understanding of RCC than most, though I never got heavy into the core doctrine. I do not agree with any man speaking infallibly at any time, nor do I believe many core doctrines, so I left them during college. The Scriptures are the direct teaching of God, as even noted by Peter, so I follow those to the best of my ability.

    You are free to do as you wish, but it is not as clear cut truth as some claim. Though some of it comes down to what you really base your life on and few humans, whatever their label, really follow the Scriptures.

  229. Pingback: Stanton’s wake-up call. | Neoreactive

  230. thehaproject says:

    I have been lurking at Dalrock for quite some time. These RC vs Protestant debates are nothing new. I am sure that we even have some Anabaptists sitting around quietly non-resisting. I just think that the original thrust was much more interesting and important.

  231. Oscar says:

    BradA says:
    January 13, 2015 at 8:44 pm

    “How would a Christian do that? Or do you just mean to sit back and watch? The PUA loves it, but that is inherently at odds with proper Christian behavior.”

    “Enjoying the decline” does seem diametrically opposed to the commandments to be salt and light to the world and a city on a hill (Matt 5:13-16), or the commandment to go out into the world and make disciples (Matt 28:16-20).

    So, how should we behave when living among a culture that is hostile to us?

    Jere 29:4 This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. 7 Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” 8 Yes, this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: “Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. 9 They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them,” declares the Lord.

    Can anyone argue that God’s instructions sound anything like “enjoying the decline”?

  232. BradA says:

    Oscar,

    While I agree that a Christian should still do God’s work and not just feed their own flesh, a key part of all the MGTOW I have seen, I don’t see our situation as being in exile in Babylon. We are not being punished for our sins against God. The truth is that He is letting this country go the way it has determined and that is bad enough.

    We aren’t called to live here, though I do see more merit in seeking Him for a truly godly wife. You may not achieve it, but when have Christians ever been told by God to not attempt things because they might face challenges, even costly ones?

  233. Oscar says:

    BradA says:
    January 14, 2015 at 2:06 am

    “We are not being punished for our sins against God. The truth is that He is letting this country go the way it has determined and that is bad enough.”

    Isn’t that the same thing?

  234. Scott says:

    I think what Brad is describing is basically the law of sowing and reaping. America is reaping what she has sowed for many decades now. There an be legitimate debate over weather that should be perceived as direct punishment or just simple consequences.

    I sort of get Dalrocks earlier point, way upthread about letting the macro issues work themselves out also, but it still causes me tremendous anger about the situation for my own children, and at the moment, my eldest son.

    If we wait until all the laws are made just, all the courts are forced to comply with what we think it right, all of this civilizations wrongs to be righted before we start living our lives, we will be waiting forever.

  235. Hank Flanders says:

    Lyn87

    that video is truly cringe-worthy. I was going to ask if it was real

    Come on. That guy’s less believable than Lonelygirl15.

  236. BradA says:

    Oscar,

    “We are not being punished for our sins against God. The truth is that He is letting this country go the way it has determined and that is bad enough.”

    Isn’t that the same thing?

    No. A parent may punish a child for running into the street, but they should not let them get hit by a car to prove the point. God doesn’t have to do anything active to let us get wet if we walk outside of the umbrella.

  237. Oscar says:

    Scott says:
    January 14, 2015 at 4:59 am

    “I think what Brad is describing is basically the law of sowing and reaping. America is reaping what she has sowed for many decades now.”

    Wasn’t that also true of the Israelites taken into captivity, or am I missing something?

    “I sort of get Dalrocks earlier point, way upthread about letting the macro issues work themselves out also, but it still causes me tremendous anger about the situation for my own children, and at the moment, my eldest son.

    If we wait until all the laws are made just, all the courts are forced to comply with what we think it right, all of this civilizations wrongs to be righted before we start living our lives, we will be waiting forever.”

    I agree with you, Scott, as you probably well know from our previous conversations. But, again, isn’t that what God instructed the exiled Israelites to do? He didn’t Instruct them to change the laws of the Babylonian or Persian empires (though if we have the ability to change the laws of the American “empire”, I think we should). He told them to be obedient DESPITE the surrounding culture, NOT because of it. In other words, He told them to be salt and light, just as we’re commanded to do. They were called to be IN the world, but not OF it, just as we are.

  238. Oscar says:

    BradA says:
    January 14, 2015 at 10:10 am

    “No. A parent may punish a child for running into the street, but they should not let them get hit by a car to prove the point. God doesn’t have to do anything active to let us get wet if we walk outside of the umbrella.”

    Okay, so allowing one to live with the consequences of ones sin is not the ONLY method of punishment. I agree. But isn’t it at least ONE method of punishment? Doesn’t God use that method of punishment often?

    Let’s suppose the answer to my questions above is “no”. Does that in any way make Jer 29 not applicable to us? Is there some reason why we shouldn’t live as God commanded the exiled Israelites in Jer 29?

    Also, is it true or false that the Church in the US has been disobedient, just as the Israelites were?

  239. Scott says:

    No, not missing anything. My point was I think it is somewhat academic to debate whether it is God’s cosmic wrath/punishment or just predictable consequences, (or even if there can be such a distinction).

    I actually enjoy conversations like that though.

  240. Oscar says:

    @Brad

    While we’re at it, check out Deut 28-30. In those chapters, Moses warns the Israelites that if they disobey, all kinds of calamities will befall them. Among those calamities is exile. You stated:

    “The truth is that He is letting this country go the way it has determined and that is bad enough.”

    The Isralietes chose to disobey. In other words, they determined to receive the calamities of which Moses warned them (including exile), and God let them go the way they determined.

    But again, let’s suppose I’m wrong about that. Does that in any way make Jer 29 not applicable to us? Is there some reason why we shouldn’t live as God commanded the exiled Israelites in Jer 29?

  241. Oscar says:

    Scott says:
    January 14, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    “No, not missing anything. My point was I think it is somewhat academic to debate whether it is God’s cosmic wrath/punishment or just predictable consequences, (or even if there can be such a distinction)”

    Again, I agree. It doesn’t matter whether we’re suffering God’s wrath or the natural consequences of our own choices. Either way, Jer 29 applies to how a believer should live in a culture that is hostile to his/her faith.

  242. Scott says:

    Oscar, Brad. If I may, I wrote a post today designed to spur exactly this kind of discussion.

    http://westernphilosophyeasternfaith.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-should-christians-act-as-society.html

  243. Gunner Q says:

    BradA @ January 13, 2015 at 8:44 pm:
    “I mean it in the “Enjoy the Decline” way.

    How would a Christian do that? Or do you just mean to sit back and watch? The PUA loves it, but that is inherently at odds with proper Christian behavior. I would be interested to know what you are thinking of there.”

    God cares about humans. He does not care about nations. To “Enjoy the Decline” is to believe that our society’s collapse is unstoppable and make the most of present opportunities. That’s perfectly compatible with Biblical advice to use our mortal life for immortal purposes. Some Christians believe instead that the collapse is stoppable and try to preserve/restore a Godly society. That is also Biblical.

    Whatever you do, do it for Christ.

  244. Hermes says:

    Just googled “Glenn Stanton women superior” and the first hit was an article entitled “Marriage as a Feminist Institution.” He quotes George Gilder, tells his favorite Jamestown anecdote, and has a heading reading “Women are Born; Men are Made.” Written in 2010, no less.

  245. JF says:

    @Oscar:
    What do you mean “the Church”?
    You would need to define, and also explain the caps.

  246. JF says:

    @thehaproject said:
    “I have been lurking at Dalrock for quite some time. These RC vs Protestant debates are nothing new. I am sure that we even have some Anabaptists sitting around quietly non-resisting. I just think that the original thrust was much more interesting and important.”

    JF:
    The Anabaptists weren’t just sitting around quietly non-resisting. There’s a reason they were mass-murdered by the RC’s and mass-incarcerated by the Protestants, and it wasn’t “sitting around quietly non-resisting” that got them into trouble.
    More like, they were deemed a real threat for NOT remaining quiet and NOT non-resisting those other State-affiliated and institutionalized religious systems.
    Just because the Anabaptists saw war for the human folly that it is, and opted out of THAT, doesn’t mean that they were “non-resisting.”

  247. Oscar says:

    JF says:
    January 15, 2015 at 10:58 pm

    “What do you mean “the Church”?”

    The body of believers in Christ.

  248. JF says:

    Oscar says:

    The body of believers in Christ.

    JF says:

    According to WHOM, Oscar?
    When you capitalize it like that, the traditions of men maintain that you are signifying a certain denomination!
    Here’s a link on that:
    http://www.doulosresources.org/styleguides/index.php?title=Guide_to_Capitalization
    You see, Oscar, what modern American evanjellybellies can’t seem to get through their heads is that the Devil REALLY IS IN THE DETAILS.
    Including linguistic and punctuation details, to say nothing of contractual.

  249. honeycomb says:

    Seems Stanton is gonna get a run for his money …

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/listen-women-more-dont-macho-pope-tells-men-072959773.html

    Listen to women more, don’t be macho, Pope tells men

  250. Pingback: Turning a blind eye. | Dalrock

  251. Pingback: Focus on the Feminist Family | v5k2c2

  252. Pingback: CBMW’s striking ambivalence for complementarianism | Dalrock

  253. Pingback: What a man thirsts for, that will he live by. | Jiffy Barracks

  254. Pingback: Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable. | Dalrock

  255. Pingback: Ménagier de Paris: bureaucratic reality in medieval marriage

  256. Pingback: Never let a crisis go to waste | Dalrock

  257. Pingback: Not listening. | Dalrock

  258. Pingback: The cult of women’s self esteem. | Dalrock

  259. Pingback: What happens when society “puts the pussy on a pedestal”. – Adam Piggott

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