Bonald called it.

On June 27th Bonald joked in Don’t want to be the first one to stop clapping:

A second day of the mandatory rainbow flag on my WordPress editor.  At first, the status signaling was mildly amusing; the longer it lasts, the more awkward and funny it will get.  Lots of companies are showing their gay pride, and no doubt feeling warmly sanctimonious about it.  But life goes on.  Still, you know the old joke about nobody wanting to be the first one to stop applauding at the end of one of Stalin’s speeches?

Listen up, WordPress.  If you really care about gay rights, I’d better see that rainbow flag tomorrow.  I mean, of course everybody expected it yesterday.  If you’d just had it for one day, people might have thought you were just doing the bare minimum to keep the SJWs off your back…

…Most important of all, though, you’d better keep an eye on other companies’ websites and keep rainbowing at least as long as they do, because if you don’t, we’ll know that you don’t really care about gay rights as much as those other companies do, and you’ll be scheduled to be eaten.

Two days later, Wired wrote more seriously about this same problem in How Long Should Brands Keep Their Rainbow Logos?

“There’s a danger of jumping on the bandwagon,” says Allen Adamson, North American chairman of the brand consulting agency Landor. Removing the rainbow too soon might seem insensitive to the long fight leading to this moment.

Shortly thereafter Sam Biddle* at Gawker picked up on this and started keeping track of which companies were the gayest, and who stopped clapping first:

To help consumers educate themselves about their choices, we’ll be keeping tabs on the following brave brands as they see out a game of solidarity chicken. Who will be crowned champion of human dignity? What we have here is nothing less than an objective ranking of Who Cares Most.

*When I googled Biddle the first article I found is from Mike Cernovich of Danger and Play: How I Played the Pathetic Gawker Bully Sam Biddle

This entry was posted in Social Justice Warriors, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

153 Responses to Bonald called it.

  1. Sam Biddle is a tool.

  2. JDG says:

    Never heard of him.

  3. Julian O'Dea says:

    Yeah, that WordPress rainbow was annoying, and a bit surprising. Why bother putting it on your Stats page? It seemed oddly sneaky and the only person who saw it was me, as the blog owner.

    A lot of Facebook friends added rainbows to their avatars. I changed mine to a picture of a man and a woman passionately kissing. I got into trouble not from the gay supporters but from various conservative friends. The couple looked like they were en route to having sex, but the girl still had her nightie on! Social conservatives are half the problem.

    Sam Biddle was the bloke who tormented the silly girl who tweeted that joke about Africans and AIDS, IIRC. He got into trouble himself later for something he wrote about “nerds”. I think that is the guy.

  4. Pingback: Bonald called it. | Neoreactive

  5. Spike says:

    I once was indifferent to the status of gay people, in a “Live and Let Live” kind of way. I believed (and still do) that the government should not poke its nose into the private lives of its’ citizens. Further, I believed that if two taxpaying citizens live together, then they should be entitled to visit each other in hospital, have access to their deceased partner’s superannuation if nominated and so forth. I stopped at marriage, which I regarded as absurd.
    What did me in was an offhand comment I made one day in the presence of gay people:
    “I would be disappointed if my son was gay”.
    Note that while I did not say that I would not accept him, wouldn’t care for him, I got massive and thunderous accusations of, “You’re HOMOPHOBIC!!!” – after which I concluded that any departure from the script of gay orthodoxy – much stricter than any encountered in the so-called strict Christianity they despise – is not tolerated.
    This was the thin end of the wedge for me. It proved that if you scratch a liberal, broadminded gay person, underneath you will find a fire-breathing fanatical extremist bent on achieving their agenda for society.
    Many of them will demand gay marriage, but won’t sign up for it themselves. They demand marriage reform for all, but say that they are in “monogamish” relationships. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    Since that time, I have decided that if they push, I will push back.

  6. Jason Lee says:

    January 16 is National Religious Freedom Day.

  7. JDG says:

    Note that while I did not say that I would not accept him, wouldn’t care for him, I got massive and thunderous accusations of, “You’re HOMOPHOBIC!!!”

    Well yeah. You are homophobic… by their understanding (not by the actual meaning of the term). I also am homophobic in this manner (and happy to be so). In addition, I’m a racist, sexist, bigot. How can I not be? More importantly, why should I not be?

    It proved that if you scratch a liberal, broadminded gay person, underneath you will find a fire-breathing fanatical extremist bent on achieving their agenda for society.

    Yep!

    I remember when people were screaming to get traditional Christian values out of their faces and their spaces. Aside from the fire-breathers, I wonder how those folks like what’s in their faces and spaces now?

  8. BC says:

    January 16 is National Religious Freedom Day.

    yeah, nice to get it over with early so that people can forget about it for the rest of the year.

    As for supporting or not supporting gay marriage or any other values-based issue, it all comes down to time/effort and money. Nothing else gets noticed, which is to say that nothing else makes any real difference. Unfortunately, most people are not willing to spend time/effort or money to take a stand. They may criticize or complain (mostly in private or among friends), but how many people do you know who have actually stopped using products or services, stopped making purchases of what they consider life’s conveniences and comforts, or moved their arse and assets (and earnings/taxes) away from entities that push unpalatable values?

  9. Tom C says:

    Steven Baskerville pointed out eleven years ago that gay marriage could potentially give the government more incentive to break up families in order to generate more orphans for adoption.

    Could Your Kids Be Given To ‘Gay’ Parents? by Steven Baskerville, Ph.D.

    http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-110.htm

  10. greyghost says:

    This article is funny and dead serious at the same time.. The more of this that goes on the more deep seated and hatred there will be. When the bottom falls out the backlash will make what happened in Yugoslavia with the end of communism look like a cultural disagreement.

  11. Novaseeker says:

    Many of them will demand gay marriage, but won’t sign up for it themselves. They demand marriage reform for all, but say that they are in “monogamish” relationships. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    That’s because it wasn’t ever really about wanting to get married for most (some do, sure), but the desire for equal social legitimacy with married straight couples. That’s what they wanted, and that’s what they have gotten. It wasn’t about marriage per se, but the legitimacy socially that marriage, even as a possibility for them, conveys. It was the way they could socially delegitimize the “privileging” of heterosexual relationships and heterosexuality generally.

    Next stop: homosexuals lecturing heterosexual married couples about how they can make their marriages better by becoming “monogamish” and rejecting sex roles (which exist in gay relationships, but are not based on sex, of course) and so on. That’s what’s coming next. See: Dan Savage.

  12. Tom C says:

    The sooner people accept being monogamish, the sooner we can legalize polygamy.

  13. MarcusD says:

    Something else to clap for?

    Many real vampires report feeding on psychic or pranic energy, and pranic energy is believed to be strongly connected to nature, generally, and often breathing, specifically (Belanger, 2004). Some vampires, called “sanguinarians,” seem to prefer feeding by consuming small amounts of human blood (or animal blood), which can be easily obtained, among other ways, by making a tiny incision (i.e., with a razor or scalpel) on the upper part of the donor’s chest and is then licked or sucked by the vampire. “Hybrid” vampires report feeding from more than one form (i.e., psychically or from blood). It is generally expected within the community that vampires should act ethically and responsibly in feeding practices.

    Unlike lifestyle vampires, real vampires believe that they do not choose their vampiric condition; they are born with it, somewhat akin to sexual orientation (Laycock, 2010). Thus, real vampirism should be approached as an alternative identity, rather than as an institution (Laycock, 2010). Some real vampires report wishing that they did not have a vampiric condition, stating that their lives would be easier without it (Laycock, 2010). For some, vampire community events provide an important source of social support (Browning, in press).

    Williams, D. J. “Do we Always Practice What we Preach? Real Vampires’ Fears of Coming out of the Coffin to Social Workers and Helping Professionals.” Critical Social Work 16.1 (2015): 79-92.

    The PDF: http://www1.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/system/files/WilliamsandPrior_0.pdf

  14. embracingreality says:

    Meanwhile straight arrow heterosexual men are too busy speculating, circulating rumors or out right accusing each other of being gay to really pay attention to their marriage and their society being dismantled before their very eyes. Hell, what’s a blue pill married man trapped in a hellish marriage gonna say about single guys who can buy and sell him any day of the week? “Those guys are smarter and have it way better than me”? Hell no, those single guys must be gay! Surely a broke middle aged man trapped in a sexless marriage to a walrus with a house (or mobile home) full of disrespectful ingrate kids can’t be an idiot. Any man who chooses not to live like that must be a fag, or something.

  15. Sam Biddle is an effeminate clown who participated, like many Leftist shills @ Gawker, in the #gamergate Games Journalism corruption scandal.

    BTW, As far as religions go, Socialism is the most retarded.
    BTW, Bruce Jenner is mentally ill.

  16. BC said, “They may criticize or complain (mostly in private or among friends), but how many people do you know who have actually stopped using products or services, stopped making purchases of what they consider life’s conveniences and comforts, or moved their arse and assets (and earnings/taxes) away from entities that push unpalatable values?”

    I’m the only person I know who won’t shop at Homo Depot. It also says alot when self-proclaimed Christians won’t cancel their Cable TV despite the wicked, mind-numbing content and the fact that most of the Channels are owned by some of the most Evil and influential people on the planet.

  17. Tom C says:

    Apologies for going off-topic so soon in the comments, but that vampire article is the funniest thing since the Worshipping your Wife website. They can’t come out of the coffin because they are so severely othered. They range from bi-curious to “intersexed, female assigned” to pansexual/omnisexual (?) to “it’s complicated.” Their therapists help them by using creative analytic practice (CAP) which involves analyzing their patient’s vampire poetry.

    This guy is probably prescient about one thing: “We should not be surprised to see a proliferation of nontraditional identities in the future.”

  18. Mark says:

    Nice Post Mr.’D’

    Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for I think 5 years now? Out of the gay men that I know,none of them have gotten married.In fact,I was having a beer last week with a “gay accountant” and 3 of his friends after work.All professional well dressed guys.I asked them “since gay marriage has been legal in Canada,do you know any couples that have married?….or have you been to any weddings”? The answer was NO from all of them.I think Novaseeker has it correct.They want the “right” to marry.Also,I contacted a friend at City Hall to get me a number of the marriage licenses that are being issued to “gay couples”.He has not gotten back to me yet.I will assume that the ratio would be about 1 to 100 for gay couples.For anyone here that has never been to Toronto.The “gay district” is not too far from my office in the “financial district”(Bay St.).If I were to take you there you would not be impressed.The modern architecture is beautiful but,it is occupied by “moral degenerates”.You would see a lot of “gay couples”(men & women) holding hands and making out.You would also see a lot of drug dealers.From my understanding of the area most of these “liberated gays” are also junkies.So now you have a new breed of animal…a “gay junkie”??…L* We all will be seeing more of the “Rainbow Flag”,that is inevitable! When I saw pictures of the White House lit up in Rainbow colors….I wanted to puke! I pity the poor “idiot gov’t jag off” that comes up to the Family Office and says that we have to fly that flag? or endorse the gays….He will end up in Intensive Care!

  19. Chris says:

    Caring (Mr Biddle) is not a hashtag or a rainbow logo. Caring is encouraging the junkie to give up, warning your gay mate that Joe over there is a walking petri dish and Simon is a psychopath who will rip you off, and picking up the peices when it all turns into a disaster.

    Caring is working with those who don’t want the lifestyle — something professionals are banned from doing.

    Not caring is the hashtag, the rainbow colour, the removal of any chance to reform or change, because diversity.

    Biddle, thus, is reliably indexing the cruel.

  20. Maunalani says:

    I just cut to the quick and call them Nazis. They go nuts, and start screaming and calling me homophobic, blah blah blah. I just calmly reply I don’t like Nazis. They don’t know how to respond to the truth.

  21. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Yet another interesting double standard from the PC crowd:

    If a man shows the slightest unwanted attention to a woman — smiles at her, looks at her too long, brushes her hand — it’s liable to be sexual harassment. A woman’s a right to set boundaries must not only be respected, it must be unquestioned.

    But a gay man’s unwanted attentions to a straight man, even if of a greater degree — repeated “friendly” touching, sexual “jokes” and innuendos — is not sexual harassment. On the contrary, for the straight man to express any discomfort is liable to be homophobic.

  22. Pirran says:

    @Spike @Novaseeker

    On the subject of “monogamish”, CH and his commenter Chris have an interesting take on this:

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/comment-of-the-week-the-norm-equalization-case-against-gay-marriage/

  23. Pirran says:

    And speaking of tolerance, the best part of that Gawker article are the number of gay men in the comments section taking umbrage at straight white girls ruining their buzz at gay bars and pride hug-fests. The multi-culti rainbow seems a little discordant, somehow.

  24. Hells Hound says:

    I was listening to the latest episode of the Alternative Right podcast the other day. Colin Liddell was discussing this issue, and I think he’s right: gay marriage simply doesn’t seem to generate enough ideological opposition, so unlike the issues of gun control and abortion rights, it’s no longer useful for the political elite as a distraction. That’s why the Supreme Court made a quick decision about it: to put the whole scandal to rest. At the and of the day, it directly affects only a tiny minority.

  25. Opus says:

    Had I knifed every male who made a pass at me when I was an adolescent I would be one of the more prolific mass-murderers. I will of course be told (in no true Scotsman fashion) that those men were not Homosexuals but Paedophiles. You can believe that if you must, I suppose, but the distinction is false: Homosexuality does not exist but Pederasty is real. People who behave in such manner have gone in the space of less than fifty years from being oppressed (nothing the police likes more – until they were prevented in the late 1990s from doing so – than persecuting cottagers) to Oppressors – oppressors of Heterosexuality (and by extension of marriage and family).

    When I noticed, a day or so ago, Facebook avatar’s going all Baskin and Robbins-coloured, I reassured myself that most people (especially women) have no idea of the predatory selfishness of Homosexuals who unlike the rest of us fail to exercise sexual self-control and have little future time orientation.

    The greatest change in my lifetime has been Homosexuality going from something everyone loathed and where the slightest suspicion of such activity would bring both social ruin and often legal sanction, to a state where not to be deep-throating some other guy is really a sign that you must be a Homophobe. As Homosexuals (married or not) are not monogamous, their behaviour is being imported into normal Heterosexual marriages: it would be oppressive of you to act all jealous should your wife feel the need to for extra-curricula sex from some Bull. You can do the same of course: can’t find a suitable woman ? – no problem – there are lots of men only too keen – and hence Homosexuality – Bisexuality if you like – will become the norm for the average Beta, when his wife ceases to be happy. Of course – and this is my point – it was always thus: the men who propositioned me were neither Peado nor Homo; they were married men looking for relief (‘a bit of fun’) and naturally they preferred young-flesh. Such behaviour is to be regretted and pitied, not applauded.

  26. Bee says:

    @Spike,

    ” I believed (and still do) that the government should not poke its nose into the private lives of its’ citizens.”

    Homosexuals insist on poking it in our faces, businesses, government functions, our military, our libraries, and in our public schools in loud, pushy ways! They are not keeping it private and discreet.

  27. greyghost says:

    Pirran
    Looks like righteousness Christianity as failed. It also looks like I will be adding a bible to my ammunition stockpile. I see secession in the future and the morality solution will come in the form of violence. The next few years will be fun indeed. Any society or clan that has beta male family stability as it’s foundation will rule over the equalist bunch. The Christian bible is the best guide on how to achieve that. To bad the west following that guide became so wealthy and secure they felt it was no longer needed. When the local police (the enforcers of this new morality) are required to enforce this on themselves, it is on.

  28. Marshallaw says:

    Will the queers ever please shut the fuck up and go cottaging or whatever particular peccadillo they are indulging this week…..

  29. rdchemist says:

    Violent revolutions is serious business, I pray that it doesn’t go this far. I’m seeing more of a demographic shift occurring. It looks like conservatives are out-breeding liberals so we may see some positive changes as the policies we implement today create a lot of unintended consequences and backlash in the future as public attitudes change. I see Gamegate as a microcosm of what will be a much broader movement. It need not be violent.

  30. Rainbow banners are the first cheap gay marriage trinkets for the masses to enjoy. Everyone gay or straight can_get some.

    (Let’s not exclude the other isomers of gender who can amass these trinkets, some not even yet assigned definition but we will get there…..para, ortho, meta, cis, trans, iso, nomal, endo, and exo…there are a few others but that will keep the label makers busy a while)

    Gay marriage, the license, the detritus of photos and dried flower petals, some thrown quinoa (what progressive would use rice for Pete’s sake? And by way who in the lucky couple is the paleo?… know what I’m sayin’?), all of that will serve as once promise rings and lavaliers and fraternity pins and so forth did for memorabilia of past relationships. I do not dispute there exists a small number or same sex couples who seem to have been together for decades, settled in so to speak. I contend that my comment still applies to them as well.

    Its not that marriage, in some deep sense of intended permanence, is on the radar for homosexual men. Its a fickle manifestation of going steady, a commitment until its not. And snap on lid plastic boxes slid under the bed with the figurative construction paper memorabilia from marriages past. This is the point where the argument that guy marriage doesn’t encroach on traditional marriage may be shaky.

    I get it that we’ve cocked up traditional marriage and dashed any moral authority that would be based on example. However, like the comment linked above from CH says, once the conflicting demands of dissolving gay marriages in divorce are shown to commonly diverge with dissolving traditional marriages, it will not be precedents set that buttress marital permanence for same sex couples, it will be a further devolution of marital permanence (from a legal standpoint) in ALL marriages.

    Then traditional, same sex, and all isomer combos for marriage will share one thing. The space under the beds will be packed with plastic storage boxes.

  31. Marissa says:

    So now you have a new breed of animal…a “gay junkie”??

    Ain’t nothing new about that.

  32. infowarrior1 says:

    Leftism is what happens when a cults gets successful and succeeds in its imperialistic aspirations.

  33. Phillyastro says:

    We can take a little shaming in-your-face sodomy. Our Lord, apostles and church fathers took much worse. The outside world is fallen. Maybe it’s time for all of us to dust off our copies of City of God and take up and read.

    Nevertheless, it is still awful to see your homeland and culture slip away into decadence.

  34. You seriously cannot hold a logical conversation with ANYBODY on this issue. I tried to explain to my 18 y/o son that marriage is an institution that has been the basis of civilization since there was civilization and we do not understand the potential unintended consequences of a huge change like this which has no precursors in all of world history! Gay marriage is going to affect the meaning of marriage and move it in the direction of how gay people conceptualize marriage and it will happen QUICK! Your kids, my grandkids, will think that marriage is not for life and is not necessarily about being faithful to your spouse. It will be about being “monogomish” rather than monogamous.

    His response?

    Dad, why are you afraid of gay people? I don’t care what they do, it doesn’t affect me………

  35. Novaseeker says:

    Dad, why are you afraid of gay people? I don’t care what they do, it doesn’t affect me………

    Well, the thing is that the way people look at marriage now is basically a state-certified and benefited romantic and sexual relationship — that’s it. That’s really all it is, socially, legally and so on. People have those sexual and romantic relationships without marriage, and under all kinds of different arrangements — casual, BF/GF, more committed, open or poly, very committed, etc. So the way people look at this is that marriage is really just a certification and benefiting of a sexual and romantic relationship that the two people decide they want to be certified and committed, together with rights/obligations upon its termination. That’s really all people see marriage as. And because straight people are all over the place with respect to what their own relationship arrangements are, it’s easy to see why they don’t see gay married couples as impacting them at all — after all, they don’t think unmarried gay couples impact the form and flow of heterosexual relationships which aren’t marriages.

    The issue is this: straight people have thoroughly fucked with what marriage is already. If they hadn’t redefined marriage as a state certified and benefited sexual and romantic relationship to begin with, we wouldn’t be talking about gay marriage right now. But as it is, straight people changed what marriage was, away from the institution it was created to be (i.e., a mechanism to support paternity, encourage male parental investment and build society) towards a certified/benefited romantic and sexual relationship. That’s the radical shift that enabled gay marriage, because it changed the way straight people viewed their own marriages in such a way as to permit them to see gay relationships as the same thing only with different sexual orientations. The change to the generally accepted idea of straight marriage (which almost all straight people seem to like, in any case) is what led us here to begin with.

    Now, I do think that people are being naive if they think that the entry of gays into the institution will have no effect on it. It will, and precisely because there are activist gays like Dan Savage (and others) who are actively promoting this, and will continue to do so, with the idea that they want the entry of gays to further erode the existence of whatever sex roles remain left in heterosexual marriages, as well as heterosexual norms around marital monogamy — making the (for straights, very dubious) case that opening marriages somewhat will help preserve them, lower the divorce rate, and result in better life outcomes for everyone involved. Of course this overlooks that there are vast differences in sexual access for additional partners as between women, gay men and straight men, but gays like Savage couldn’t care less about this, and if it ends up biting straight men on the ass, all the better.

    So, yes, it kind of makes sense that a young person sees this as “no impact”, because marriage is really viewed as just a more “serious” version of every other sort of relationship a straight person has, anyway. The impact of activists like Savage is easily overlooked, but let’s not kid ourselves — straight marriage’s goose was socially cooked long ago, and by straight people ourselves.

  36. rdchemist says:

    I’ll second what Novaseeker said.

    Marriage has been so debased as an institution over the decades that now it seems like a good idea to give it to gays. Love is all that matters don’t you know?

    I also find it ironic that since marriage rates have been in decline for so long that the gays want it so badly. It’s like demanding the right to board the titanic while it’s sinking.

    Speaking of rebuilding, is it too early to propose marriage 3.0?

    https://lovegoneglobal.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/its-time-for-marriage-v3-0-whos-with-me/

  37. J N says:

    @Pirran

    Gay bars are one of the last true male-only spaces – so of course straight white women are busy invading and ruining them.

  38. J N says:

    @Opus

    Mark my words: once they win trans acceptance, the next push will be for pederasty acceptance. It’ll start with wanting to lower the age of consent for lesbian relationships, since that doesn’t really offend anyone right now. After that will come full blown 40 year old guy with 14 year old boy pederasty.

    Anyone who doesn’t want this will be a hateful bigot.

    @greyghost

    I would recommend stocking as many Bibles as you can, and finding as many Christian men as you can to surround yourself with. If you know guys who aren’t Christians, convert them. And make it very clear that Christianity is at complete odds with feminism and with our world in general.

  39. Dave says:

    Gay marriage is going to affect the meaning of marriage and move it in the direction of how gay people conceptualize marriage and it will happen QUICK!

    Only in the West, which is shrinking, by the way (I suspect that much of the growth of American population is from immigration, or among the immigrants; the indiginous people are not having kids, or are having them below replacement levels). In other parts of the world (that is, at least 80-90% of the world population), marriage is still solidly an institution between a man and a woman. Or between a man and some women. Homosexuality is still considered an abomination, and homosexuals are alienated from the rest of society. This view is unlikely to change any time soon.

    Before we use too much hyperbole, I suggest we put it all in perspective. America (and the West) will only succeed in losing its influence in the world, and be relegated to a has-been civilization while the rest of the world marches forward. Homosexuality, as well as other western perversions, will eventually crumble under its own weight

    Homosexuality, by its very definition and practice, is incompatible with the perpetuation of the human race, and any society which embraces it on a widespread basis will quickly begin to die out, even before it succeeds in changing how people conceptualize marriage.

    And, let us not forget Islam. I predict that Muslims will take over the US the same way they took over Europe. It should be a surprise if Musims are not a majority in the US in a mere 100 years.

  40. Asteriks says:

    What If Someone Told You That “Homosexuals”
    Do Not Exist? And What If They Were Right?

    http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2014/11/what-if-someone-told-you-that.html

    …/… Indeed, heterosexuals may not exist (so to speak), either.

    …/… For centuries, for millenia, people have been primarily identified
    by their occupation — what they did, what efforts they made, for the
    benefit of their neighbor(s) and their community (soldier, farmer, worker,
    businessman, plumber, etc) — and not what they did for leisure, “for fun”,
    for themselves, for their egotistical pleasure, whether in their home or
    elsewhere (certainly not in the privacy of the bedroom) — unless, of
    course, they were a prostitute (but in that case we would indeed also
    be speaking of that woman’s, or of that man’s, occupation). …/…

  41. Michelle says:

    Off topic but perhaps of interest to you here. A judge has ordered 3 children to juvenile hall until their 18th birthdays for refusing to have a healthy relationship with their father. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/29496924/family-judge-orders-kids-held-in-juvenile-center-after-refusing-to-see-father

    There are transcripts at the link. The father was violent with the mother and the kids are refusing to spend time with him.

  42. Dave says:

    If you know guys who aren’t Christians, convert them. And make it very clear that Christianity is at complete odds with feminism and with our world in general.

    Exactly what Christ left His people here to do 2000 years ago. I bet God is all wise after all. He can use homosexuals and feminists to do His will, and wake up His church. Halleluyah!

    I often tell my son that, as Christians, we cannot escape learning life’s lessons. God will see to it that we learn those lessons. We can only choose to learn them the easier way or the harder way. But to say we won’t learn? That would be impossible. As long as we bear the name of Christ, our learning is assured.

    Had the church learned simple obedience to “go and preach the gospel”, God will not need to put the churche’s nose into the filth of feminism and homosexuality.

  43. greyghost says:

    Looks like MGTOW and surrogacy isn’t so bad when looked at with the big picture. American women and the society they voted in are done and nothing peaceful is going to change that. The Church is finished and it looks like the opposition political party is done. Hope for a peaceful solution is just about gone. There will be a secession.

  44. Dale says:

    @Bluepillprofessor
    >Your kids, my grandkids, will think that marriage is not for life and is not necessarily about being faithful to your spouse.

    Which rock is the one under which you are living?🙂
    People today already do not think marriage is for life. Similarly, I do not use the term “marriage for life”. In practice, to most women, that term means, “marriage until she decides otherwise”.
    I instead say that I want a woman willing to commit to a 45-year marriage. That correctly communicates the duration I want. Based on your own age you’ll need to modify the number appropriately.

  45. greyghost says:

    I think as Christian men we are better off teaching red pill truths. CH has done an excellent job in that area. That link to his commenters and his commentary was the best complete explanation of this gay marriage thing I have seen and read. The good thing about the red pill these truths can all be found in the bible including the reason for the effectiveness of game. righteousness is killing the masculinity of Christian men and making them by default churchian.

  46. feeriker says:

    We all will be seeing more of the “Rainbow Flag”,that is inevitable!

    No doubt somebody’s already working on an app that will “rainbow-ize” any existing flag.

    (Oh, jayzus, did I just give somebody an idea?)

  47. J N says:

    @greyghost

    Righteousness does not kill “masculinity”, although I describe righteousness the same way the Bible would describe it.

    Churchianity is distinctly unrighteous.

    Can you cite some particular aspect of scripture in the New Testament you feel “kills masculinity”?

  48. J N says:

    @Dale

    “I require a 45 year long marriage” actually communicates your intent a lot better than “I require a lifelong marriage”. When people hear the latter, they throw an asterisk in, “unless something goes wrong”. Every. Single. Time.

  49. What ideological nomenclature applies to those who can discuss the issue of same sex marriage? I understand the issue about not being able to discuss with socons. Those of you who are able to discuss it, and those you find able to discuss it with, I’m curious to how you’d label yourselves and the other intellectually flexible more evolved folks.

  50. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ 12:10 pm:
    “Had the church learned simple obedience to “go and preach the gospel”, God will not need to put the church’s nose into the filth of feminism and homosexuality.”

    Why do you think God is punishing the Church by allowing feminism to take over? How do you know He didn’t decide, unilaterally, to kill the American Church? Besides, this is Old Covenant thinking. “Do good and I’ll reward you. Do evil and I’ll punish you.” Half of the OT is a documentary on how badly that approach worked out.

    Now we have the New Covenant based on suffering on behalf of the wicked and recognizing the evil within us. Worldly success is neither promised, expected nor demanded of us.

    One of Christianity’s hardest lessons is the fact that rewards and punishments do not encourage holy living. Therefore, it makes no sense to argue that times are bad because we aren’t trying hard enough. We work on the margins but God directs the course of History.

  51. greyghost says:

    JN
    The scripture doesn’t kill masculinity. That is the point of the failure of the church.

  52. J N says:

    @Gunner Q

    You see to have learned some of the essential tenets of Christianity that most Christians, right now, are utterly missing.

    You are correct that God isn’t out to punish is, and isn’t some vending machine sky-god who dispenses rewards for putting in the right behaviour. Jesus actually said that all who live godly will be persecuted, and told us we would be blessed when we were persecuted for righteousness’ sake.

    God does like to bless us – the biggest blessing is righteousness, and another blessing is the serenity to live in a sinful, fallen world, when we are being persecuted, or else we are not experiencing much earthly reward for a righteous life.

  53. J N says:

    @greyghost:

    The scripture doesn’t kill masculinity. That is the point of the failure of the church.

    We’re in agreement, then. The church is failing to follow scripture at all.

    I would argue it starts with a refusal to honour Jesus’ words: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:32)

    A church that started obeying Jesus’ words and refused to accept previously-divorced women who are now remarried–and called them and their partners to repent and come apart–would find itself affirming masculinity. We can all understand the Red Pill reasons why. But the scripture tells us what to do.

    If you aren’t in a church where any divorced & remarried woman will be disciplined, told to stop sinning, and ultimately disfellowshipped if she keeps living in sin, find a new church. And don’t be afraid to apply that litmus test with other basic teachings of Jesus.

  54. Novaseeker says:

    What ideological nomenclature applies to those who can discuss the issue of same sex marriage? I understand the issue about not being able to discuss with socons. Those of you who are able to discuss it, and those you find able to discuss it with, I’m curious to how you’d label yourselves and the other intellectually flexible more evolved folks.

    A fairly small subset of mostly very obviously traditional Christians — either because you know they are really traditional because you have observed them for quite some time in their own life decisions and words, or (shakier) because they belong to a church/faith community where almost all is of the same mindset, and this is actually preached. That’s a small group — probably small enough to be considered a “remnant” at this point.

  55. J N says:

    @TFH: One of the biggest Muslim societies, Iran, has fully embraced feminism and birth control. Islam is no more exempt from the forces at work in the world than Christianity is. ISIS is a rebellion to this, and is not a rebellion I expect to be particularly successful.

    @Novaseeker

    Same here, that “remnant” is the people I will freely discuss these things with. Although I would encourage you to consider they are a lot larger in numbers than you might feel they are. There are at least 1.3 million (500,000 not including children) in my own faith tradition alone in the USA & Canada, and I am aware of similar sects of people in other faith traditions.

  56. Mark says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer
    “”Yet another interesting double standard from the PC crowd:
    If a man shows the slightest unwanted attention to a woman — smiles at her, looks at her too long, brushes her hand — it’s liable to be sexual harassment. A woman’s a right to set boundaries must not only be respected, it must be unquestioned.
    But a gay man’s unwanted attentions to a straight man, even if of a greater degree — repeated “friendly” touching, sexual “jokes” and innuendos — is not sexual harassment. On the contrary, for the straight man to express any discomfort is liable to be homophobic.””

    Awesome post!…..This is EXACTLY how it is! Got on the elevator today on the 34th floor(going down)…..stopped at the 29th floor.A HAWT woman got on(We have exchanged smiles in the past…I know nothing of her)……..She said…”Wow…it is humid in here today…the air conditioning must be broken”?…..My response(while looking straight ahead,upright at the floors descending)…..”It is being fixed as we are speaking”…….Floor 17…..*Exit Mark*……She says…”goodbye….nice to see you again”…..My response……*NONE*…….Now if I got on the elevator and there were two men “making out”???….and I complained?…I would be labeled “homophobic”…..Welcome to Toronto,Ontario,Canada!……..Being Homosexual is more acceptable to being Heterosexual???????……Wtf?…….I would NEVER adhere to this! They can all burn in Hell as far as I am concerned!……and I will never acknowledge,endorse or propagate their lifestyle……”You are GAY?….that is your problem”………………………Shalom!

  57. Hugh Mann says:

    Tom Nichols is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School.

    “Western societies are producing more and more Lost Boys, the fail-to-launch young men who carry dangerous social grudges. I am at a loss for a solution, because the answer lies in some kind of long-term restoration of social order among young men.”

    https://archive.is/80YOn

    I guess there’s even less chance of restoring social order among young women.

  58. Mark Citadel says:

    It’s hard to believe sometimes that our enemy is indeed as loathsome as thinkers like Bonald make out, but he is proven right every time.

    I echo what Greyghost said about Yugoslavia. The question is, to everyone who comments here, what are you doing to bolster our ranks and prepare for what is to come?

  59. Dave says:

    One of Christianity’s hardest lessons is the fact that rewards and punishments do not encourage holy living.

    Actually, they do. Why else would God go to great lengths to describe the future blessedness of the righteous, and the utter future hopelessness of the sinner? The whole Bible is either an order from God, a promise for the obedient, a threat for the disobedient, and an appropriate example to drive home the point. There is nothing else in the Bible, actually, other than that.
    Jesus addressed the churches in Revelation, ending each address with “He that overcometh shall (add a promise here)”.

    Therefore, it makes no sense to argue that times are bad because we aren’t trying hard enough. We work on the margins but God directs the course of History.

    As much as I would love to believe that God directs the course of human history without our input, the thought is radically opposed to God’s historical dealings with the human race since the begining of time. It may be laid down as an axiom: God will do practically nothing on earth during this age, but in response to the activities of human beings. In fact, we can stretch it further that until the end of time, it would be illegal for God to intervene in human history without the tacit approval of a repesentative of man. That is why God would not even supply our needs, unless we pray, even though He knows them all along.
    Did anyone ever wonder why the demons usually tried to describe Jesus as the “Son of God”, and Jesus would immediately shut them down, and claim to be the “Son of man”? That is the reason. Only sons of men have the right to direct the course of human history in the present age, until “the times of the Gentiles be come in”.
    I really wish I had more time to expound further on this thought but suffice it to say now that God needs man to invite Him to intervene in the course of human history. That is why we need to pray if we are serious enough to want to affect the course of history for God.

  60. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ 5:33 pm:
    “Actually, they do. Why else would God go to great lengths to describe the future blessedness of the righteous, and the utter future hopelessness of the sinner?”

    I mean rewards and punishments in terms of behavior modification. Wouldn’t this world be a better place if lightning struck every murder and blasphemer on the spot, and resisting sin felt as good as sex? Well, no, it wouldn’t work because it didn’t. Not what one would expect.

    I would call eternal rewards eternal consequences instead because the purpose of a reward is to alter behavior. That doesn’t happen when the reward is given long after the behavior in question.

    “As much as I would love to believe that God directs the course of human history without our input, the thought is radically opposed to God’s historical dealings with the human race since the begining of time.”

    God took credit for raising Pharaoh to power for the specific purpose of giving Himself casus belli in Exodus and again with King David’s census. He is repeatedly described as raising nations and empires to test, punish or otherwise direct Israel’s course. Today, God’s pattern of answering some prayers and ignoring other makes it obvious He has an agenda. And of course, God already described the End Times of Revelation. That future is set in stone.

    Don’t carry false guilt. The idea that the difference between a healthy America and a dead America is a few more hours of penance and prayer is attractive but not true. Sometimes God wants evil to win and that’s that. Do what you can, of course, but if it isn’t enough then it isn’t your fault.

    As Psalms 127:1 puts it, “Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the guards stand watch in vain.”

  61. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anthony Burgess’s The Wanting Seed presents an over-populated dystopia where homosexuality is almost compulsory. The police are gay and wear black lipstick. I read it as a teen and found it more horrifying that 1984 or Brave New World. I suppose today The Wanting Seed might not get published. (It was first published in 1962.)

    Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War also presents a society in which homosexuality is the norm, and straight people have secret affairs. I think Haldeman’s point was more liberal — don’t persecute gays, because someday the tables might be turned.

  62. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I assume women are more welcome in gay bars than men are in lesbian bars.

    Be interesting if a large group of men ever tried to “liberate” the “female space” of a lesbian bar. It’d be seen as an assault. Whereas women are celebrated for “liberating” male spaces.

  63. Julian O'Dea says:

    “I suppose today The Wanting Seed might not get published. (It was first published in 1962.)”

    That is, in fact, an interesting general problem. Until very recently, homosexuality was mostly regarded as ridiculous and disgusting. There is a good SF novel on my shelves, “Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters”, published in 1971. Written by Gerry Davis and Kit Pedler (a man who helped create Dr Who), it has a very negative depiction of a homosexual.

    I wonder what will be done with such books, if they are ever republished.

    Ironically, there are also some rude remarks about homosexuals in some of George Orwell’s writings. The writer of “1984” was recently censored in this respect.

  64. Hells Hound says:

    Tom Nichols is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School.

    “Western societies are producing more and more Lost Boys, the fail-to-launch young men who carry dangerous social grudges. I am at a loss for a solution, because the answer lies in some kind of long-term restoration of social order among young men.”

    https://archive.is/80YOn

    I guess there’s even less chance of restoring social order among young women.

    Interesting article. Well, sort of. It fits neatly into the Man Up narrative, but at least the author gets very close to identifying the problem, and isn’t so arrogant as to pretend to know what the solution is. And it’s almost comical how these journos discuss these social issues without even mentioning how half of the population, namely women, contribute to them. It’s especially laughable that he writes this sentence about young men, of all people: “Beyond this, they seem to share little beyond a stubborn immaturity wedded to a towering narcissism.”

  65. Novaseeker says:

    I guess there’s even less chance of restoring social order among young women.

    Well the real issue is that people like Nichols don’t get how the two are related. All they see are young women doing well (looking good, doing well in school, getting good jobs, etc.), and young men not as much, so they think it’s just an issue among the young men.

    What they overlook is that not only is the educational system skewed towards female performance (that was done in the 1990s in a very purposeful set of changes designed to promote girls’ performance), but the motivations of girls and boys are different.

    Girls/women/females are much more concerned about their security than boys/men/males are. Under the previous system that female concern for security was found in marrying a suitable man, whereas today it is found in themselves. So they are chasing their own security, because security is a big concern for women — in this sense, the ability to provide what they and potentially a child(ren) needs themselves without a man. That drives many women forward — not the brass-ring seekers, but the masses of women who are in middle positions in corporate America, for example, which is what people notice.

    And they then notice that the young men are “not keeping up”. What they don’t understand is why. The reason is that men, in the past, were motivated to work and advance themselves (I mean the guys who aren’t the brass-ring seekers who are self-motivated to succeed no matter what, but the average guys) in order to become a good candidate for marriage to secure sexual access to an acceptably attractive woman. They are not really motivated by security and financial independence, like women are, but are instead motivated by sex. This was the way the average guys got access to sex, so they worked for it. Today, that doesn’t get them anywhere, because they see from the time they are 15 that the girls are giving sex away to a relatively small subset of the boys and young men, and that this continues through college and beyond. So the average guys have the choice between either (i) learning to become one of the select guys who are picked for sex during the horniest years for men, (ii) opting out and joining Guyland/EPSN/X-Box/etc. or (iii) waiting patiently until they are in the late 20s and picked by women who are changing lanes from the hot/fun men to the dependable/dad men. Then the observers wonder why fewer and fewer young men, relatively speaking, are opting for choice (iii). The answer is obvious. The young men are motivated by sex. If they are motivated enough, they go for choice (i). Some fail at choice (i) for various reasons, or don’t want to be bothered with the work involved with choice (i), so they opt for choice (ii). Increasingly it is the case that young men are going with either (i) or (ii) and not (iii) because the rewards for (iii) are iffy and well in the future. The more they read on the internet about lane changing and AF/BB, and the more they see women like Sandberg openly advise their peer-age women to chase fun “bad” boys until they are 30, the less and less men are motivated to play that game. Again, there is still a fixed percentage of men who are self-driven and ambitious regardless — they are still around today. But that was never the basis of civilization — the basis was motivating the average guy by giving him a fair shot as sex by working to make something of himself. Today, the reward for that approach is to wait until you are ~30, and get a woman who has been with 3x or more partners than you have, and will always be sexually disappointed with you, and who therefore is marrying you mostly for other reasons — precisely when the man is marrying to *finally* get regular sex, the woman is putting her “fun/hot/sexy” years behind her, and opting for “responsibility”, so she marries and is much less interested in sex than she was when she was dating fun/hot/sexy men and not thinking about marriage. This sets up divorce and so on as we all know. The more that scenario gets out to young men — and it *is* getting out by means of the internet, because you see it popping up everywhere now — the less likely they are to pick choice (iii) and instead opt for either (i) or (ii) — neither of which makes them a good marriage candidate at any stage of the process.

    So, really, the observers of this phenomenon don’t understand what is happening, either because they are laboring under the illusion that the motivations of young men and young women are the same, or that sex has only a tangential impact on male motivation — both of which are squarely wrong, but both of which are very politically correct today. They see young men underperforming, but they don’t understand at all why or how to fix it, even though the answers are right in front of them, because those answers are “unacceptable answers” and are therefore completely off the table. It’s just a joke, really.

  66. Novaseeker says:

    And more specifically, for Nichols to throw Snowden in the same bucket as the other guys he is talking about really says a lot more about him than it does about what he was trying to discuss. Snowden was not a social outcast, and he was not a loser at life or with women. He had a pretty hot GF, and a high security clearance job, which is pretty darned hard to get. He doesn’t like what Snowden did for political reasons, but throwing Snowden in with mass murderers and saying they are the same because they are social losers is a complete and utter joke and undermines the credibility of pretty much the entire article.

  67. Dale says:

    J N
    >Can you cite some particular aspect of scripture in the New Testament you feel “kills masculinity”?

    John 14:23-24, re obeying the teachings of Jesus. e.g. submitting to someone else, instead of being top dog.
    1 John 1:8-10, re admitting to having sinned, e.g. admitting to being wrong, being at fault

    The need to submit to God and confess sin shows submissiveness, which is going to be a turn off to the woman wanting to see a dominant man. So it seems reasonable to say that a Christian will need to be more masculine than the average man, in order for her to still feel a desire to submit to him.

    >If you aren’t in a church where any divorced & remarried woman will be disciplined, told to stop sinning, and ultimately disfellowshipped if she keeps living in sin, find a new church.

    Some/many would call this legalistic. But since the words given in Matt 5 are from Christ, this is “proper” legalism. We should obey Christ (John 14:23-24).
    Our churches have gone too far to permissiveness and grace, ignoring the fact that God has given us limits and commands, in addition to forgiveness. 1 Cor 6:12 – “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything.

  68. Julian O'Dea says:

    There are plenty of passages in the New Testament that support masculinity and femininity. In fact, it is an enduring mystery how the Christian churches can have become so weak in this area.

    From memory and paraphrasing:

    “the woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman”

    “wives … should obey in everything”

    “if there is anything she does not understand, let her ask her husband”

    “I do not suffer a woman to teach”

    “see that she respects her husband”

    “and Sarah, who called her husband ‘lord'”

    “the head of every woman is the man”

    Kind of a theme really …?!

  69. Dale says:

    @Novaseeker
    > Today, the reward for that approach is to wait until you are ~30, and get a woman who has been with 3x or more partners than you have, and will always be sexually disappointed with you, and who therefore is marrying you mostly for other reasons — precisely when the man is marrying to *finally* get regular sex, the woman is putting her “fun/hot/sexy” years behind her, and opting for “responsibility”, so she marries and is much less interested in sex than she was when she was dating fun/hot/sexy men and not thinking about marriage. This sets up divorce and so on as we all know.

    That was an excellent post. Very well articulated. Should be included in sex ed / human development in school.

  70. feeriker says:

    And it’s almost comical how these journos discuss these social issues without even mentioning how half of the population, namely women, contribute to them. It’s especially laughable that he writes this sentence about young men, of all people: “Beyond this, they seem to share little beyond a stubborn immaturity wedded to a towering narcissism.”

    Of course someone like Tom Nichols isn’t ever going to acknowledge the source of the problem. Hell, just look at his CV. The guy’s livelihood depends on the very same government that is propagating the current nonsense that is the source of all the problems. If he ever pointed out the ugly truth he’d be booted off the taxpayer-funded gravy train and have to actually get a real job.

  71. feeriker says:

    Some/many would call this legalistic. But since the words given in Matt 5 are from Christ, this is “proper” legalism.

    At the risk of veering of into OT territory, I think’s it’s useful to define “legalism” as the condemnation or prohibition by a church of practices that it disapproves of for (usually misguided) moral reasons, but that are not prohibited by Scripture. Condemnation or prohibition of alcohol consumption (as distinguished from drunkenness), dancing, listening to secular music, playing of cards or games of chance, smoking tobacco, and masturbation are examples of legalism that come quickly to mind. I suppose the opposite of legalism (i.e., the condemnation or prohibition of things Scripture clearly condemns or prohibits) could be called “Scripturalism” for lack of a better term (there probably is one, although I’m unfamiliar with it). Sadly, it appears to be far less common than legalism.

  72. Hells Hound says:

    Again, there is still a fixed percentage of men who are self-driven and ambitious regardless — they are still around today. But that was never the basis of civilization — the basis was motivating the average guy by giving him a fair shot as sex by working to make something of himself.

    The kind of pundits like Nichols, of course, aren’t merely expecting men to “make something of themselves”. What they basically expect of the average man is to elevate his own social status to a point where he readily assumes financial responsibility for 4-5 people: himself, his wife and their 2-3 children. After all, that’s the only way to perpetuate human civilization at its current level while avoiding demographic implosion. But to expect this from the average man in the current economic, cultural and legal milieu is pure insanity.

  73. Hells Hound says:

    Snowden was not a social outcast, and he was not a loser at life or with women. He had a pretty hot GF, and a high security clearance job, which is pretty darned hard to get.

    Well, duh. If you don’t graduate from university and don’t get accepted into US Special Forces, you’re a loser! Didn’t you get the memo? You should read tradcon blogs more often.

  74. Hells Hound says:

    All they see are young women doing well (looking good, doing well in school, getting good jobs, etc.), and young men not as much, so they think it’s just an issue among the young men.

    Apparently there’s also a sort of apex fallacy in effect among some middle-class and most upper-class men. They don’t encounter the enormous masses of young women doing badly: getting fat, being unkept and frumpy, becoming single mothers, getting infected with various venereal diseases, being loudmouthed and uncultured cunts, smoking drugs, getting drunk on a regular basis, spending money on frivolous stuff and going into debt, sleeping with alpha thugs, getting welfare, lacking motherly virtues, lacking cooking skills etc.

  75. mrteebs says:

    Still, you know the old joke about nobody wanting to be the first one to stop applauding at the end of one of Stalin’s speeches?

    The day after Obergefell, I remember glancing at my wife’s iPad and seeing overstock.com with the obligatory rainbow on their homepage — as did about 25% of the sites she frequents. I remember thinking almost the exact same thing – nobody wants to blink here. Too brief? The Chairman will take notice that your heart wasn’t really in it, comrade. Too long? Equally bad form.

    Marriage 2.0 set the stage for all of this. My biggest disappointment is the inability for the church to see its role in facilitating the whole thing through the protracted and unrelenting emasculation of heterosexual marriage. The tone deafness is astonishing. Reminds me of that C.S. Lewis quote:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

    And speaking of Marriage 2.0, here’s a truly fine piece of work:

    https://prezi.com/xjkvbzv8rv8-/marriage-20/

    Where do you even start when every syllable is repugnant?

  76. mrteebs says:

    By the way, I did not realize that the Prezi above was actually for a lesbian “wedding”. The build up to the video seemed to perfectly cover the systematic annihilation of heterosexual vows. How fitting that the verbiage was so useless that it could now cover any conceivable union with equal impotence. “…until one of changes our mind.”

  77. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I guess there’s even less chance of restoring social order among young women.

    That’s because the symptoms of female social disorder — bed-hopping, single motherhood, frivorce — are seen as personal empowerment. Female social disorder is celebrated as grrrl power.

    Societies don’t seek to cure what they celebrate. That’s why we no longer try to cure homosexuality.

  78. Dale says:

    > But that was never the basis of civilization — the basis was motivating the average guy by giving him a fair shot as sex by working to make something of himself.

    I am sure most of you are already aware, but if not, read Daniel Amneus. He called this idea, “putting sex to work”.
    His e-books are well researched and well argued.

  79. Hells Hound says:

    Still, you know the old joke about nobody wanting to be the first one to stop applauding at the end of one of Stalin’s speeches?

    Not only was that not a joke, it was actually noticed as a problem. The audience was normally ordered with a buzzer to stop their incessant applause before Stalin could deliver a speech.

  80. Opus says:

    Well, that is a terrific comment by Novaseeker and so far as I can tell correct although I have zero knowledge of Corporate Cubical Land and must take his word as to what is going on there. The Elite failed to observe that the consequence of bigging-up women would have motivational consequences for men, much as if they failed to notice that air in a balloon goes somewhere else if you squeeze it.

    I am perhaps a little older than Nova and thus I look back to the blissful days of the sexual revolution when an equality of sorts existed. Most guys were getting some kind of sex without the benefit clergy and women (aided by the pill and so on) were happy to sleep around somewhat and without too much worry as to their reputation and without the compulsion of making false allegations. Sex was after all just a try-out for marital suitability and though guys did not talk of a desire to marry that was ultimately what they all had in mind. This was a considerable improvement on the sort of life my Father’s generation must have led where one could be sued for breach of promise – which I take to imply that having put a ring on it, and having been offered pre-marital sex the guy would then post-coitus think better of it, indeed my Father told me of a friend of his who was so sued and commiserating with his friend on the heavy financial penalty that the learned Judge had awarded to the wronged woman, the friend quipped that it was ‘cheap at the price’. Abandonment had certainly been my Mother’s fear (as she mentioned often) as she was pregnant with me when she married.

    We have now entered into the brave new world of women having far more more sexual partners than men at the time they marry, if indeed they do so; indeed numbers of sexual partners only previously encountered amongst those who sold sex for a living, as well as salaries which for the lack of real responsibility involved seem like daylight robbery of the shareholders. Nova does not mention the rise in the number of Homosexually-practicing men (and emergent Lady-Boys). That and the lack of the possibility of early wedlock cannot, surely, be unrelated.

  81. Don Quixote says:

    Dale says:
    July 9, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    Some/many would call this legalistic. But since the words given in Matt 5 are from Christ, this is “proper” legalism. We should obey Christ (John 14:23-24).

    @Dale: Nowhere in Matt. 5 are women permitted to divorce and remarry. What you call “proper legalism” is just twisting the scripture to accommodate the churches agenda contrary to what Jesus actually taught in Matt. 5

  82. Opus says:

    Times change and there never was a golden age: I knew a guy, a good-enough looking Ox-bridge educated lawyer, an interesting guy too who being about thirty (and senior-partner designate) wanted to marry and moreover he had a woman in mind. She however hummed and harred, so he bought an expensive property, his first, on mortgage, out in the country as a token of his earnestness. Then she agreed, yet it was all over within the year. Times were different then and I doubt given the shortness of the marriage that she would have received or even sought financial compensation – hard as that may now seem, but as I say attitudes were different then.

    I think of a couple of other young lawyers (contemporaries of mine) who by their mid-twenties had married women – presumably divorcees – who each had four children. A real case of voluntary cuckolding. Certainly one of those marriages was to end in divorce, but I am not sure about the other. Then there was a trainee lawyer friend of mine – a guy with film star looks and a casual attitude to match – he had a girlfriend, a n average looking divorcee probably a bit older than him and with a whiny six-year-old boy. You would have thought that she should not have even been on his radar. I also knew two lawyers who (years earlier) when they were about thirty, married their typist and these women were at the time fifty-years-of-age. That was bad enough but when the men had turned fifty – still in their prime – they were now married to women indistinguishable form their grandmothers.

    That was how it was; marriage meant young marriage, and if you missed the matrimonial boat, all that was left were the indecisive, the fuglies and the crazies (I narrowly avoided some of those – the indecisive I would have, the fuglies were a nuisance and the crazies had pushy desperate mothers). Now, who in those circumstances, would not want in the next cubicle a supply of hot young nubile single educated women in short-skirts. What could possibly go wrong?

  83. Hells Hound says:

    That’s because the symptoms of female social disorder — bed-hopping, single motherhood, frivorce — are seen as personal empowerment.

    Single motherhood is seen as another example of weak men screwing up feminism.

  84. Julian O'Dea says:

    Opus: “This was a considerable improvement on the sort of life my Father’s generation must have led where one could be sued for breach of promise – which I take to imply that having put a ring on it, and having been offered pre-marital sex the guy would then post-coitus think better of it …”

    Yes, that was basically it. When one looks back at all the misandric laws that used to be on the books, I am not sure that men have ever had it great legally.

    I am now 60, and I remember when Breach of Promise was, if not still the law of the land, still fresh in the folk memory. My dear Grandmother once referred to it when I broke an engagement to a young woman. Years later I realised that she was implying that I might have “taken advantage” of the young lady. Er, no, not actually. This shows two things. This used to be a real issue; and women, even Protestant Grannies, are all realists underneath.

    Attitudes linger on even when laws have changed. There was still some stigma attached to a failed engagement for the girl in particular, as late as 1980 here in Australia at least. I suppose the widespread (ha!) assumption was that the girl has been “giving it up” for the fellow pre-maritally.

    Getting back to the Breach of Promise law, my mother once jokingly shared the old gag, “Do right and fear no man. Don’t write and fear no woman.” The point of this joking advice was, I assume, that a girl could only press a Breach of Promise action against you if you had put your marital intentions in writing.

    Opus has touched on a problem that I have seen myself. Some clever and attractive men simply lack fundamental confidence. They seem to think that having any woman at all show a serious interest in you means that you have won life’s lottery big.

    After the stress of education and finding a career, they seem to have no energy left to find a decent mate, and settle for the most depressingly unattractive girls (and I mean unattractive in the sense of dreary – some very ordinary looking girls have very cute personalities).

    In fact my advice to the average girl who wants to marry a good man would be 1) don’t get fat and 2) learn to act cute.

    I have seen an incredible number of very good quality guys with very dull women (especially religious men, who often seem to think that marrying an unattractive woman is the 11th Commandment). I used to wonder why. I think it comes down to simply lacking imagination and even a modicum of genuine confidence.

  85. Opus says:

    @Julian O’Dea

    Indeed, I am not entirely sure which was worse, the pre-1960 situation or the present. It is worth remembering that by 1970 or thereabouts the average age of marriage for a female was down to just 20.8 years; thus by the age of twenty-one half of all women were married. Simply put, delay meant celibacy – possibly if not probably for life, and homosexuality was illegal and socially frowned upon, and X-Box did not exist – which made things very difficult for those who perforce needed to study for examinations first. Men thus wooed the first – and frequently entirely unsuitable girl who noticed them.

    I recall one Friday evening when first out at work – so I was eighteen – and my kindly boss said to me and another youngster ‘well, I suppose you will be looking forward to the weekend with your girlfriends’. I was so embarrassed: I did not have a girlfriend – and those I had had, had barely lasted more than a week or three before being unceremoniously ditched, but in the eyes of the jealously middle-aged, all youngsters were at it, getting off with sexually-willing young females in what on can only describe as a love-in.

    Perhaps, but not where I lived (that’s why the eighties were so great).

  86. feeriker says:

    Opus said

    …as well as salaries[for women] which for the lack of real responsibility involved seem like daylight robbery of the shareholders.

    I am soooooooo stealing that line …

  87. Julian O'Dea says:

    JD Watson, the Nobel Laureate who got into trouble for talking to a journalist (not unlike Tim Hunt did recently) wrote that when he was a young man, the main problem was that there was nothing to do that would interest a normal young man (the Kingsley Amis novel Lucky Jim captures the mood of the time well, with the hero and his tiresome, troublesome, undersexed girlfriend).

    Watson claims that he and many like him went into science because it was a little bit more interesting than anything else on offer (there is a funny-sad passage in his famous account, The Double Helix, of how he went to an avant-garde film at Cambridge to glimpse some boobies – in other words, the kind of thing you can get on YouTube with a mouse click today).

    One distinct possibility is that videogames and pizza (or whatever, I haven’t lived that life) are simply more fun and less demanding than trying to get a more boring and responsible job or trying to seduce an overweight female with a bad attitude. As Vanessa and I agreed in the old days, on her then hot blog, women are actually pretty dull in the main. Very few have anything genuinely interesting to say. I used to observe that in a group of 10 men and 10 women, about 8 of the men would have something worth saying, and maybe 2 of the women. It was not lack of intelligence. It was just that the women had no broader ideas and views. Whereas even ordinary men have ideas they want to discuss. (I was sitting near a group of three older blokes at a coffee shop today, and they were talking about high politics. I laughed to myself, there you go, men planning how to fix the world, with no power to make the slightest difference. But that is men for you. They never stop thinking about the bigger issues.)

    (It is possible to find an interesting woman. I married one. But they are not as common as we are led to believe).

    Men have been building better and better toys for decades now. And what do you do with toys? You play with them. I used to think that men would not want to have sex with a cybergirl. But men don’t need much. We are perfectly capable of having “sex” with a photograph on a page. Just wait til the Tyrell Corporaton create a slightly better doll. “More Human Than Human is Our Motto”. Rachael will do just fine.

    In a sense, both sexes are living off their patrimony. After numerous generations of women bearing children, they have decided not to bother so much. And, they think, why should they? It was only ever a duty, and nobody holds them to it now. And the men are also living it up. Why should they not live off their patrimony? They are not going to starve if they only get some undemanding job. There are plenty of toys around these days. The slacker is not a peasant in a hovel. A woman is not the most interesting thing in his dwelling. Chances are she is only getting in the way of the screen anyway.

  88. @Nova

    Thank you for responding.

    A fairly small subset of mostly very obviously traditional Christians

    I agree, but was looking more for a purely ideological label. The Socon reference is a purely ideological term. If it were a parochial type label Id prefer it delineate that more clearly.

    I cannot discount how clever some ideological subsets are, some because they are simply nefarious and others because they just love schadenfreude and the attendant self aggrandizement…all while holding back the parts of their own ideological bent that would be found abhorrent by many of the very people who are dazzled by their newishisms.

    Some think its too pedestrian to be limited by labels. Labels cannot contain them. They mustn’t be limited by them. Haight Ashbury may still put their name on a fire hydrant.

  89. feeriker says:

    As Vanessa and I agreed in the old days, on her then hot blog, women are actually pretty dull in the main. Very few have anything genuinely interesting to say. I used to observe that in a group of 10 men and 10 women, about 8 of the men would have something worth saying, and maybe 2 of the women. It was not lack of intelligence. It was just that the women had no broader ideas and views. Whereas even ordinary men have ideas they want to discuss. (I was sitting near a group of three older blokes at a coffee shop today, and they were talking about high politics. I laughed to myself, there you go, men planning how to fix the world, with no power to make the slightest difference. But that is men for you. They never stop thinking about the bigger issues.)

    Very true. In general, nothing bores or disengages a woman faster than a serious discussion on a topic of real substance or import. About the closest any of them come to “serious” is something related to her and her feelings, this being a byproduct of her hardwired solipsism. This also explains in part why at least a limited amount of Game is necessary in any realationship.

  90. J N says:

    @empathologism

    Well, I’m conservative Mennonite, and we love labelling and classifying ourselves. In my particular sub-grouping I would be moderate conservative Mennonite, non conference. Any of us will gladly tell you our affiliation. We might refer to a group down the road as the “black car Mennonites”. Sometimes they get called by their most dynamic leader’s name, like the Dave Martin Mennonites who live near here. (Affable people: computers and cell phones, but no cars.)

    Come to think of it, I think Christians were named after a guy called Christ… and Mennonites after a guy called Menno Simons…

    A fiercely individualistic culture (which is what the West is) hates being classified. which is funny, since they all obviously belong to a specific subculture. “Don’t judge me!” “I hate labels.”

    I do try to include myself in a broader scope of what I consider to be genuine Christianity, since I believe a whole, whole lot more of us are saved than just us crazy loons who won’t every remarry after a divorce, wear funny looking clothes, and like to drive F-350s. I tend to use the term “genuine Christian”, “scriptural Christianity”, “Jesus-follower”, or “the narrow way”.

    Although I’d argue that any genuine Christian will find himself rejecting all divorce, will start to dress pretty differently than the world’s fashions… but I’ll count him as a brother even if he goes and buys a 2500HD.

    @Julian O’Dea

    Amongst the more traditional subcultures, dating and flirting with pretty girls is something you do when you’re young, and then you settle down with one. Once you’re married, those days are over. Your goal for choosing a wife is to find one that you can stand to look at and to be around, and who will be a fit wife and mother. Then you get busy having babies.

    Your basic priorities is that she keeps the household running well when you’re out working, you get a good roll in the hay a few times a week, and she doesn’t run around causing problems.

    After a woman’s had 7 or 10 or 13 kids (the average Amish fertility rate PER WOMAN, including singles, is anywhere between 6.0 to 9.0 depending on which research you read – as of late it’s been getting higher because of improvements in medicine), she’s not going to be the same sweet young filly she was when you were 16. Trying to spend one’s whole life being with hot 9.9s is what silly worldly people do.

  91. Dave says:

    Marriage 2.0 set the stage for all of this. My biggest disappointment is the inability for the church to see its role in facilitating the whole thing through the protracted and unrelenting emasculation of heterosexual marriage.

    This has been my position all along. Virtually every evil perpetuated in the West through the years was first tacitly approved by the Church of Jesus Christ. From slavery to civil rights opposition, to racism, to needless wars against people that did us no harm, etc. Even feminism and now homosexuality was essentially allowed by the Church, for you do not have to actively support a movement to be in support of it. Acquiescence often denotes approval.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    Julia O’Dea
    (I was sitting near a group of three older blokes at a coffee shop today, and they were talking about high politics. I laughed to myself, there you go, men planning how to fix the world, with no power to make the slightest difference. But that is men for you. They never stop thinking about the bigger issues.)

    Same experience fewer than 48 hours ago, and what’s more the table of men seemed to have some sort of force bubble all around it, as no women of any age were sitting nearby, but rather 2 or more tables away. It’s not just the older fellows either, I’ve seen this at college-aged parties where a couple of mildly nerdy types began arguing philosophy and found themselves bereft of any female attention.

    One can experiment with this in social situations, by the way. First engage a woman in a conversation, then steer it the least bit towards a serious topic, watch for her eyes to just to start to glaze over or her gaze to start shifting around the room, then whip the conversation right back to her and see the results. Not in all cases, of course, (obligatory NAWALT) but often enough. People like to talk about themselves, sure, we are often our own favorite topic. But women seem to be even more so. Therefore perhaps the first premise of any degree of Game is simply this: women and men are not the same. That right there is enough to start an argument in any number of places.

  93. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I was sitting near a group of three older blokes at a coffee shop today, and they were talking about high politics. I laughed to myself, there you go, men planning how to fix the world, with no power to make the slightest difference. But that is men for you. They never stop thinking about the bigger issues.

    One night, my middle-aged friends and I, all guys, were gathered in a bar/grill. We spent the night talking politics, and economic policy, and so on. At the end of the night, a young waitress brought us our checks. She joked to us, “So, did you guys fix all the world’s problems yet?”

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hells Hound
    Apparently there’s also a sort of apex fallacy in effect among some middle-class and most upper-class men. They don’t encounter the enormous masses of young women doing badly:

    Hmm. I believe there is something to this. The average UMC man will encounter many women from interns to colleagues who are at least competent enough for their job, and polite enough to some degree. Couple that with the “Women are Wonderful” effect, and it contrasts sharply with any men who have “failed to launch”.

    There’s also an issue of expectations. If a UMC family has a 20-something son who is slacking, it’s likely to be both talked about and disapproved of. A woman of the same age range will more likely be regarded as just “finding her voice” or something like that. The standards aren’t the same, even in our oh-so-egalitarian world.

    Most people don’t observe what’s around them very well, either. A UMC man who is blue pill likely won’t notice the ink on the arms and shoulders of the barrista who mixes up his coffee shake, and he surely isn’t equipped to read them (or the various piercings that often go along). He just sees a young woman who is being pleasant to him (it’s her job) and the intern he’s buying coffee for, he doesn’t “see” what she’s most likely doing in her free time.

    And such a man is really not going to encounter the single choice babymomma with an EBT card and a string of “boyfriends”. There’s a whole lot of social pathology that UMC men, such as doctors, simply can’t see due to their “Women are Wonderful” blinders combined with a limited social circle.

  95. Hells Hound says:

    Before we use too much hyperbole, I suggest we put it all in perspective. America (and the West) will only succeed in losing its influence in the world, and be relegated to a has-been civilization while the rest of the world marches forward.

    Don’t delude yourself. The doctrine of “gender equality” and female empowerment, “reproductive rights” and family planning, gay rights, racial equality etc. are all spread around the globe by various organizations, with the help of Western governments. Even countries largely unaffected by organized feminism, like Iran and Brazil, are experiencing rapid demographic implosion and Westernization. The reality is that it isn’t the tribal cultures of the Third World that are infiltrating other cultures, it’s happening the other way around.

  96. Novaseeker says:

    And such a man is really not going to encounter the single choice babymomma with an EBT card and a string of “boyfriends”. There’s a whole lot of social pathology that UMC men, such as doctors, simply can’t see due to their “Women are Wonderful” blinders combined with a limited social circle.

    This is certainly true. You can live in upper middle class America and really not come across other kinds of people for long periods of time. Yes, you see the barista with the tats, but the barista is in a “different category” and kind of gets processed in a separate mental bucket than the other successful, bright, pretty young things one sees in the office or around the UMC parts of town. It’s a bubble. But, importantly, most of the journalists who are writing about these issues are living, themselves, in that bubble, so this is what they see.

  97. Hells Hound says:

    You can live in upper middle class America and really not come across other kinds of people for long periods of time. Yes, you see the barista with the tats, but the barista is in a “different category” and kind of gets processed in a separate mental bucket than the other successful, bright, pretty young things one sees in the office or around the UMC parts of town. It’s a bubble.

    Generally speaking it’s both very easy and tempting to live in such a bubble if you belong to the UMC in the current social milieu.

  98. Yes conservatives certainly are the ones leading to the lions.
    Now, who are the enlightened? What label can be bestowed upon these near mythical creatures who reveal themselves only in comboxes where they differentiate themselves as, well, not conservatives?

    After they are identified, may we know what stand they are taking outside the comboxes where they find easy camaraderie with other like minded men who we’d call……what? Is it that they cannot be labeled due to the infinite and necessarily shifting complexity of their views? Could it be helpful to deploy something akin to the gender isomers, cis and trans and all that in labeling this council of the learned? Already prefixes like “neo” are work out and yawn inducing. We wouldn’t tack that on the front of said label because every teenage puke with a penchant for coding is a neo something or other.

    So what is it? Its great to know who the bad guys are…..Id say that stating that socons are the bad guys is boorish, been said, been said, been said again in every possible direct and metaphorical ways. By folks I guess who see that statement as somehow taking a stand FOR something. Well…….what?

    Yes, its all gonna collapse
    Yes, socons are leading each other in mutual lemming society
    Yes feminism is gone amok
    Yes economies will collapse, currencies are useless
    Anarchy is around the corner and men will rebuild, especially the men who see all of the above.

    So….who the hell are these men? By what shall we know them? If you think that question is impetuous you don’t understand the question or would rather not think about it.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    It’s a bubble. But, importantly, most of the journalists who are writing about these issues are living, themselves, in that bubble, so this is what they see.

    Yes, it is easy to get a blinkered outlook no matter where one lives. For example, out here in flyover country it’s not possible to go to any food store without seeing some clearly dysfunctional people, however those in more upscale zip codes who shop routinely at Whole Foods rather than Wal Mart’s food department can comfortably live in that bubble. Parking the Lexus in a gated community after working all day in the downtown building with a lot of security? Bubble city. Add to the bubble a totallly blue-pill outlook, and voila, “what’s wrong with the guys? Why can’t they keep up with the gals?” is an easy mindset, for the intellectually lazy of course.

    Plus I doubt that the average UMC office salaryman ever bothers to do a search on anyone else in the office. Certainly not the bright, perky young women. So there’s no chance he’ll ever run across any pix of little junior employee Courtney from spring break a few years previous, embacing a foam cannon on the beach.

    It’s a bit ironic that the more worldly and mature men of the UMC are likely to be the most ignorant and provincial.

  100. Just Saying says:

    I called the SCOTUS decision years ago – the reason is simple – MONEY. There was simply too much money to be made off gay couples – since if you allow them to marry, both will be taxed out the wazoo. It has nothing to do with “rights” since for all intents and purposes “domestic partners” got all of the benefits and none of the detriments – so from the perspective of the Liberals – the present state of things was a big lose since gay couples weren’t being taxed out the butt – and Liberals love TAXES. Nor could states declare that they (gay couples) only had ONE principle residence – like they do for “married” couples, so now the states can tax the other house – probably used as a rental, at exorbitant rates. So I called this years ago, and not for any “rights” non-sense, it was purely that there was too much money on the table for states NOT to scoop it up, and the Fed’s couldn’t ignore that much cash either. If a gay couple marries, they get to tax one at the rate of like 40% for every penny they earn… Pretty high incentive to let gays marry.

    The gays were majorly stupid on this one – they had the best of all worlds, now they get the shaft – and not in a good way either. In one of my businesses, there is a gay couple – each makes north of $200K per year (they are good, and I make a lot more than that on them), so when this came out I just said, “You might want to run your numbers on taxes, before you do anything, and remember you can only have one primary residence. So while you celebrate – you don’t want to be foolish.” It wasn’t even a week before one of them came to me and said, “Damn, we would have had our taxes more than double!” I told them that now I was willing to bet money, that the states will start dismantling all of the domestic partner laws since there was just too much money on the table – so they should keep an eye on things because at some point they may need to marry for insurance and stuff. Only time will tell, but like I always say, “Don’t be snowed by what the Liberals say – look at the results.” I can practically hear the Democrats laughing on this one…

  101. Dave says:

    There’s a whole lot of social pathology that UMC men, such as doctors, simply can’t see due to their “Women are Wonderful” blinders combined with a limited social circle.

    Maybe this might be true for some other UMC folks, but not doctors. Make no mistake, doctors are quite familiar with the very dregs of society and they are quite well informed when it comes to seeing it all but don’t often talk about it due to the nature of their jobs.

    I once went to see a friend of mine who happens to be a doctor. During the course of our conversation he alluded to the challenges he had in his practice. Patients (mostly females) would come for care, with several kids in tow. They would be sporting the latest iPhones and iPads, but would be “unable” to pay his $5 co-pay so he could take care of them. Some would tell him they only have $3, or $4.25 to pay. But somhow, the money often magically appears when he canceled their appointments, and asked them to return whenever they had enough money to pay as co-pay.

  102. Dave says:

    The doctrine of “gender equality” and female empowerment, “reproductive rights” and family planning, gay rights, racial equality etc. are all spread around the globe by various organizations, with the help of Western governments.

    Powerful governments, East and West, have been spreading their doctrines all around the world for many years. Russia tried to turn many countries into Communism. It failed. America, too tried with its democracy doctrine, with mixed success. Lately, Bush tried to export democracy into Iraq, and failed woefully. Obama threatened Nigeria and other African countries when those countries criminalized gay marriage. He failed too.
    Exporting such repugnant ideologies such as feminism and homosexuality into other countries will not be as easy as exporting a representative form of government whose benefits are readily verified. Even today, after decades of close relationships, America has not succeeded in influencing Saudi Arabia along thse lines. There are still numerous Muslim countries all over the world that are impervious to the West’s gay and feminist agenda. In the next four decades, Islam will claim almost 3 billion people on the planet. Virtually all of these people will not be reached by the West.
    The fact is, Western civilization is dying, and the rest of the world knows this. Anyone who thinks America will succeed in selling its repulsive gay agenda all over the globe has not traveled much. I suggest they take a trip and try to engage the locals in the third world in serious conversation. It will become readily apparent to them that Ame4rica of today is not the same America of old. People over there do not respect America as they once used to do.
    I read of a third world country making specific request that American missionaries be not sent to them anymore. If anything, that sounbds more like what is to come.

  103. Pingback: Boredom and Potato Cannons. | Dark Brightness

  104. Gunner Q says:

    empathologism @ 4:29 pm:
    “Now, who are the enlightened? What label can be bestowed upon these near mythical creatures who reveal themselves only in comboxes where they differentiate themselves as, well, not conservatives?”

    “Patriarchs” works as well as any label. From PUAs to Bible-thumpers, we all agree men need to be the guys in charge. Runner-up: “the Rocks”. We hold to the foundations of civilization, are increasingly stubborn about it and don’t much care what the fools playing with matches think of us.

    Just Saying @ 5:45 pm:
    “I called the SCOTUS decision years ago – the reason is simple – MONEY. There was simply too much money to be made off gay couples – since if you allow them to marry, both will be taxed out the wazoo.”

    There’s no money to be made here. Sodomites don’t even care about marrying except to bludgeon decent people into supporting their perversions. In California, they already had civil unions that gave them everything a marriage could except the word “marriage”. How telling that that was insufficient.

  105. Julian O'Dea says:

    “People over there do not respect America as they once used to do.”

    No, they don’t. And that is not just people in the third world either.

  106. PokeSalad says:

    What’s to respect?

  107. greyghost says:

    I read of a third world country making specific request that American missionaries be not sent to them anymore. If anything, that sounds more like what is to come.

    Just look at America and ask oneself what can he tell me.

  108. Julian O'Dea says:

    The worldwide Anglican Communion has been worth watching, especially by reading the engaging blog Midwest Conservative Journal.

    It has been the white west (with the epicentre in California) that has been pushing “gay marriage” and Africa that has been resisting.

  109. Retrenched says:

    “We’re not censoring you, we’re just making it impossible for you to work, make money and buy food unless you agree with us and support our agenda. That’s not censorship at all!” – social justice warriors

  110. A Regular Guy says:

    @Michelle
    I’m calling the news story about the Judge that sent those kids to Juvenile Hall, bogus. Too much missing, pertinent information for the story to be credible. It’s an obvious hitpiece against the father and the media is working pro bono for the mother’s attorney.

  111. Pingback: Traditional Conservatives — Back to the Bible | Spawny's Space

  112. Boston to Providence says:

    Empath, it might be a little too obvious, but the “the John Galts” comes to mind.

    We often get ahead of ourselves around here, and I detect a struggle between writing everything off as lost, and rebuilding before babel has fallen.

    If we ever have the extravagant good fortune of a chance to rebuild in our lifetimes, it ought to be done carefully. If he had started today, Noah would be accused of oligarchy and swiftly Khodorkofsky’d.

  113. Boston to Providence says:

    Gunner, I would like to be that person: a Patriarch.

    The first step is to impress upon the entire western world that the appropriate phrase ought to be “Where have all the patriarchs gone?”, which is what they’re really asking.

    Right here, ma’am, in the smog of your shallow blather.

  114. feeriker says:

    I read of a third world country making specific request that American missionaries be not sent to them anymore.

    Smart people, those Third Worlders. What self-respecting people would want their society polluted by ignorant, obnoxious American churchian hucksters? A resurrection from the dead of late 19th and early 20th Century Chinese victims of American “missionaries” (on a mission for whom?) would be very instructive in understanding why this request is being made.

  115. theshadowedknight says:

    We can also be called barbarians. The rough men on the fringes circling and waiting. The first smart man to start taking the young women and giving them to his men as wives is going to be very successful. If he has to kill people to get those women, all the more effective.

    The Shadowed Knight

  116. Dave says:

    The first step is to impress upon the entire western world that the appropriate phrase ought to be “Where have all the patriarchs gone?”, which is what they’re really asking.

    Right here, ma’am, in the smog of your shallow blather.

    The trouble with Patriarchs is that they don’t often stay where society tries to place them.
    1. Abraham refused to stay in Chaldees, choosing rather to listen to a different voice and dance to a different tune. The man was still making babies into his 90s.
    2. Jacob refused to remain a slave wage, using the rules of the game to outwit and supplant his boss. He left his employment with two of his boss’s daughters and lots of his goods.
    3. Moses committed “a justifiable” murder and became a fugitive, hiding from the most powerful government of the day for forty years. His crime: he witnessed an unacceptable injustice, and he tried to fix it.
    4. David was definitely a square peg in a round hole. His mere existence threatened the government of Saul, and he caused a lot of distraction for the reigning monarch.

    Today, true Patriarchs are not going to allow themselves to be subjugated by an unjust government. They beat their own paths and write their own stories.

  117. Julian O'Dea says:

    Patriarchs seem to me to be a particular kind of man. The kind that feels a desire to tell women what they should do.

    It is not exactly raining patriarchs these days.

    On the question of the different interests and styles of the sexes, a very important difference is that men general look to the external world and women to the internal world. It is not so much that women are solipsistic, it is that they are tremendously interested in relations between people and in personality and presentation, including their own.

    It makes sense that the sex that evolved to hunt and tame nature sees the world differently from the sex that survived by pleasing the right man.

  118. Dave says:

    It is not so much that women are solipsistic, it is that they are tremendously interested in relations between people and in personality and presentation, including their own.

    Actually, women are solipsistic.
    It is actually the men who are most interested in forging great relationships. Women bicker and tattle and gossip endlessly, eben against those they have “relationships” with; men build lasting and thriving relationships based on honor and mutual goals. Anyone who has spent time with women know that they even hate each other. Most of their smiles are plastic, put-on smiles, and lots of their politeness to each other is only situational and transient. They enjoy doubletalk and are often too timid to speak their minds. They are definitely full of themselves and seem to behave as if nothing and no one else matters. Yes, women are solipsistic to a fault, and it shows in their self-centeredness in virtually everything.

    The very definition of Manhood in Scripture is “mature relationships”.
    A biblically mature man has a great relationship on four planes: spiritually (with his God); mentally (with his environment); socially (with his fellow beings); and physically (with himself). This is exactly how Scripture described Christ:

    “And Jesus increased in wisdom [mentally] and stature [physically], and in favour with God [spiritually] and man [socially]. Luke 2:52

    It is a myth to say that women are more interested in relationships. No, they are more interested in themselves. And that is solipsism.

  119. Julian O'Dea says:

    Dave, my experiences with women have been pretty good on the whole.

    I once created a stir in the blogosphere by writing that “women are great … in their place”. But I meant it in a positive way, in part. Working within masculine structures, under tacit male authority, they are great. As mothers, wives, nurses, secretaries, and subordinates at work.

    I also got good mentoring at times from female bosses.

    Women can be bloody awful. But – in the right situation and not allowed to run feral – they can be very good.

    The radical feminists one sees acting like complete idiots are feral women. Domesticated women are fine.

  120. infowarrior1 says:

    @Julian O Dea
    ”I also got good mentoring at times from female bosses.”

    What do you think of this passage?
    1 Timothy 2:12-13
    12I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
    13For Adam was formed first, then Eve;14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

    I had it explained to me that this passage means that women should not have Authority over Men period. Is this correct?

  121. infowarrior1 says:

    And women ruling over men is a sign of Judgment. Isaiah 3:12
    2O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths.

  122. Michelle says:

    @ Regular Guy – The media is blatantly biased towards the mother, but the judge is not. The judge claims that the mother has brainwashed the kids and is ruining their relationship with their father. She sent them to juvie and wouldn’t let the mom visit in order to give the therapists there time to work on the kids. Only the father could let them out and he left the country. After two weeks of media and attention and protests outside the courthouse she had them sent to summer camp and is giving both mom and dad supervised visitation.

    It is an interesting situation because it shows that if the kids decide that they don’t want a relationship with a parent (because they are manipulated or because they have good reason) there isn’t much that the courts can do. If you read the transcripts, the kids picked juvie over speaking to their father at lunch.

  123. If we ever have the extravagant good fortune of a chance to rebuild in our lifetimes,

    Either we’d find that the self anointed intellectuals who cannot be categorized due to the necessary complexity of their ideology wouldn’t have a practical clue how to build, rebuild, or repair anything because it would still be easier to pot shot those with dirt and sweat on them, or we’d find the new flavor of tyranny they would foist on society makes the present tyranny (that is buttressed by socon ignorance) to be a walk in the park.

  124. Pingback: Illusory Commeraderie: Infinite groups limited to one member apiece. | Empathologism

  125. new anon says:

    infowarrior1,

    1Timothy, in context, is about the organization of churches and false teachers. Paul is blunt that women are not to be in authority over men IN THE CHURCH nor to teach men IN THE CHURCH (the implication being that there is a high risk that women will be false RELIGIOUS teachers).

    Ephesians say husbands should be in authority over their wives.

    Trying to extrapolate those two business is stretching the instructions pretty thin. If a woman starts a business (as the proverbs 31 woman did selling garments) and hires a man, is she not “in authority” over him? Or, should her male employee be in charge of the the business owner?

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

  127. Michael says:

    Sigh.. I just want out of this country. America isn’t worth saving. I just want out. I’ve got to find a way to move overseas.

  128. MarcusD says:

    4 Reasons You Should Start the Annulment Process
    http://www.catholicmatch.com/institute/2015/05/four-reasons-you-should-start-the-annulment-process/

    Divorced? Why Not Attend A Church That Accepts You?
    http://www.catholicmatch.com/institute/2015/07/divorced-why-not-attend-a-church-that-accepts-you/

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a Catholic dating site is going to nudge people towards annulment.

  129. Dave says:

    Sigh.. I just want out of this country. America isn’t worth saving. I just want out. I’ve got to find a way to move overseas.

    Really? I am pretty certain you are joking. To say America is not worth saving is to forget world history. Picture a world where there is not a single Prophet of God. For 400 long years. Everything had gone bad. Smoke ascended from a thousand hills in sacrifice to thousands of gods. No church. No preaching. Of course, there were a few people here and there who still had some belief in God. But for the most part the world was very far from God.
    That was the situation of the world before John the Baptist came on the scene. That was the condition of Asia when Paul and the early Apostles began preaching there.

    Of course America is still worth saving, and I am pretty confident that God has lots of godly Americans who will still bless the world. Some of them are even in this forum.

  130. RichardP says:

    @Empath: re. “who are these men”? Those men are they who will rise to the ocassion. And, without the ocassion, they will not rise, but will instead go on about their small business in life. They are unnamed, and shall stay so. History is full of these men. As an example: George Washington is a known name. But only because he was backed by all of those unnamed men who rose to the ocassion. If it had only been Washington by himself, we would likely not know his name. Same thing with Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and so on. Name more than five of the men who helped King David become great in battle in the Old Testament. We can’t. Yet, there were thousands.

    Many men have it within themselves to rise to a particular ocassion. It is only by chance that we ever get to see it happen. So it will be if there is a fall and rise of this current age. There will be men whose names become known. But only because of men whose names will not ever be known. Don’t fret. They are there, even if unnamed. They will rise to the ocassion when the ocassion presents itself. And I imagine most of them will not have ever even talked about it.

  131. Dale says:

    @infowarrior1

    >I had it explained to me that this passage means that women should not have Authority over Men period. Is this correct?

    1 Timothy was written to a minister / pastor. This context suggests limiting the restrictions you mentioned from 1 Tim 2 to religious environments, e.g. religious services.
    In addition, the paragraphs immediately before are talking about times of religious service; men are to lift up their hands while praying. That passage context also, I think, should limit the application.
    So I do not see a requirement to never be led by a woman. I do admit that others may see that as the correct interpretation however.

    I like your Isaiah 3 passage🙂

    Michael
    >I’ve got to find a way to move overseas.

    If I really want to do so, I can. The problem is comfort. Some 2nd world countries have very low costs of living. So if I sold my house, I could probably live for a decade on savings. That should be long enough to learn the language, get residency, and find a job.
    Good luck.

  132. Harcerz says:

    Societies don’t seek to cure what they celebrate. That’s why we no longer try to cure homosexuality.

    That’s not really the reason.
    We no longer try to cure homosexuality becouse the most reliable result that one can get from trying to change one’s sexual orientation is depression and suicide.

  133. Julian O'Dea says:

    infowarrior1, yes, what new anon says.

    I don’t think there is anything wrong in principle with women having secular authority. Some women always have had such authority in the West. Queens and so on.

    I don’t think that the current push to have women “equally represented” in all areas of secular life is sensible or likely to succeed, however.

    Generally, I think women should be subordinated in the church and family. The fruits of allowing women to rule in these situations are all around us, and they are not pretty. I am not sure if ECUSA having a woman presiding bishop has speeded up their slide into apostasy, most obvious in their recent vote to “marry” gays, but it certainly hasn’t helped. Very few women think clearly on topics where emotion is being thrown around. Anyone who knows women well, and I include most women themselves, feels a natural sense of unease when women start to dominate churches.

  134. Anonymous age 73 says:

    Michelle> I read all the available information on that case. This case has been going on for quite a few years, and there have been a very large number of hearings. In every case, there was no evidence of any wrong doing except the mother’s deliberate and continuing alienation of the father. No finding of domestic violence by the father.

    There is one very biased person in this thread, and that is you. You make it clear you do not believe the results of a very large number of hearings. Women are always victims and men are always bad, right? And, you know better than the judge who has attended a very large number of hearings in this case..

    This is exactly why my main message for many years to men is: Get The Hell Out. Women are in control of the political system in the USA, and no matter how well a man behaves if a woman wants him destroyed, he will be destroyed.

    We had a very famous case some years ago. They made a TV movie of it called HILARY IN HIDING, or something like that. The mother in that case was also a medical professional.

    She accused the father, a Mr. Foretich, of sexual abuse of that girl. who eventually believed it as well. That is normal for Parental Alienation Syndrome.

    The judge after many hearings sent her to jail for contempt for refusing to bring the daughter into court. She was immediately treated as a victim by people just like you. Judge must be impeached. Stupid judge. Poor, poor dear. He must be guilty; no woman would ever make up something like this.

    Other judges were begged to correct this travesty of justice. They would come in, look at the documents, and go home.

    The religious scoundrel James Dobson implored his faithful sycophants to write their congressmen to demand her freedom. They actually passed a special law which only set her free, and did nothing for tens of thousands of men in jail for not being able to pay child support while being unemployed. They set her free, though it was a perfect case of contempt which is supposed to result in jail.

    Buoyed by her success as an actress, she sued the children’s hospital which found no abuse had occurred. All the court documents had been sealed under minor protection laws. When the suit was filed, the civil judge ordered the documents opened to the public.

    The stupid left wing press went running in to see just how badly the judge screwed it up. After seeing all the papers on the case, and how totally it was investigated, the press went running back out and DROPPED THE CASE LIKE A HOT POTATO. Better not let the public know the judge was right and the fiend was correctly jailed.

    Then, it came out the child was in NZ. NZ said you gotta’ start all over, we don’t care what the US courts day. Foretich said he took on the entire USA and won, but he could not take on the entire world, and dropped the case. Morgan and the woman in this case both committed major child abuse, convincing innocent children their father was an evil man when he wasn’t.

    The articles and related links did in fact give plenty of information showing the judge knew what she was talking about. A very large number of hearings over many years, with all sorts of studies and evidentiary hearings.

    It is women like you who prompted me a number of years ago to write the article on DGM explaining my belief that collectively American woman are clinically insane. I use the technical definition of insanity, which means having no real grasp of reality.

    The board I wrote it on, I kept writing little pieces on the Mexican women in my area, and after while the owner of the blog and all his staff packed up and moved to other countries. Men need not live with the blind hatred of women like you.

    Men are all evil. Women are all pure saints who do nothing wrong unless a man makes them do it. Women were historically repressed and exploited and subjugated, and the evil patriarchy is trying to do it still. Women make less money for the same work. No woman ever lies about being sexually abused. All domestic violence is done to women by men; women never hit men. Nor children, of course. Please carry on.

  135. RichardP

    I didn’t mean to suggest there are no minute men around. I married a Texan and lived there for over 20 years. You’d have to really try hard to not know any men who are as you describe. The irony for this topic is that a large number of these men are the same men who suffer the deception of being social conservatives in the vein that is decried here. They would stand and usher men off the cliff for the benefit of women. An they comprise the largest cohort of calloused hands re-builders with a code albeit flawed in that way.

    The intellectual anarchists and philosophical bloviators, in the pressure cooker of some social breakdown….once the power and the web go down, will do what they accuse women of doing….run and stand behind one of these misguided socon fools that may just come around to where they messed up on the feminism thing and for good reason. While the yammering nitwits try and stand on a crate in the town square like the characters that are made to look buffoonish in old western movies, unlike the movie redemption of those characters, there really isn’t time for that bullshit when the rotating blades are think with crap.

    I don’t even like these post adolescent apocalyptic fantasies regardless how likely or unlikely a collapse is within a certain time frame. But i could envision one of those clueless southern socons saying to the gaunt neck bearded pontificates:

    “You gonna talk our way outta this, or you wanna go over there in that building with the women while we protect that building?”

    If that seems to defend the socon stand on gender issues its being read incorrectly. The reflexive repetitive anecdotes about socons, truth be known, have far less to do with actual manosphere issues than those citing them would have readers believe.

  136. mrteebs says:

    That’s not really the reason. We no longer try to cure homosexuality becouse the most reliable result that one can get from trying to change one’s sexual orientation is depression and suicide.

    Hmmm. Sounds a lot like the reasons given to keep abortion legal. And, a lot like the last 60 seconds of The Imitation Game.

    What do you suggest? The church’s silence on this for the last 40 years and emphasis on love/acceptance/tolerance hasn’t really resulted in a libertarian live-and-let-live outcome. It has merely emboldened perversion to devour normalcy one incremental progression at a time.

    Not unlike feminism.

  137. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath, I thought that was a conversation between you and TFH.

    Sometimes I can’t quite understand what you are getting at, and in this case I’m not sure I understand the question. It looks like you are once again complaining that social conservatives are really not pushovers for women in general and feminists in particular, but actually are stand up guys who just need a little truth to get them started. Is that even close to what you meant?

    I don’t know any social conservatives in real life who have the slightest clue about women. They are deferential to an extreme when it comes to women, and thus are pushed around by their wives routinely. They have no objection to divorce in principle, but are opposed to it personally. They don’t know a thing about the divorce industry as a result, and so when some man gets frivorced those are the men who ask “Hmm. What did he do to her?” rather than any other question.

    Many of the social conservatives I know are all about “conserving” what was liberalism back when they were young men. They married conservative feminists, so they are OK with affirmative action, OK with Title IX, and apparently their main response to sex outside of marriage is to look the other way and pretend it isn’t happening. These were all liberal positions in the 80’s, when social Reagan conservatives were making some attempt to limit the damage of Title IX and roll back affirmative action for women.

    The social conservatives I know won’t attend a gay wedding, not even if it was their own son. But their socially conservative children will attend gay weddings. So I expect that the social conservatives of 20 years from now will be refusing to attend polygamous weddings…

    Finally, most of the social conservatives I know in real life are fat, out of shape, don’t know how to really fight, don’t own a gun and would be hard pressed to blow out a match with one breath let alone put out a house fire. Yes, I admit that I mostly know middle aged and older social conservatives. And yes, NASALT, I know some social conservatives who do hike, backpack, and hunt – with their wives permission – so some of them might last a bit longer than others in a social disturbance.

    I think maybe you are just taking the anger – the righteous anger – at socons too personally. But I could be totally misunderstanding what you meant, too, so don’t take my words personally.

    PS: What we should call men who are wearing The Glasses is “realists”, IMO. Rollo is a realist. So is Heartiste. So is Dalrock. There are some things in common, and some things very much not in common, but all three don’t labor under any delusions or illusions about women. Unlike every single social conservative I know or have ever known in real life, and the vast majority I’ve read online.

    Realist. That’s what I am.

  138. JDG says:

    We no longer try to cure homosexuality becouse the most reliable result that one can get from trying to change one’s sexual orientation is depression and suicide.

    I’d like to see the stats on that. One’s sexual orientation is no different than one’s preference for blondes over brunettes or big boobs over long legs. All of us are tempted, but none of us have to give in to the temptation.

    We no longer try to cure homosexuality because it is no longer regarded as harmful destructive behavior or for what it truly is, sin. My understanding is that the homosexual lifestyle itself is depressing and already tends to have a high suicide rate among it’s practitioners, especially young male practitioners. All the more reason to get out of it.

    24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

    26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. – Rom 1:24-27.

  139. JDG says:

    I don’t think there is anything wrong in principle with women having secular authority. Some women always have had such authority in the West. Queens and so on.

    I agree with Pastor Voddie regarding Isaiah 3:12 that when women rule a nation that it is a sign of that people being under judgement. Check out 2:30 through 3:33.

  140. JDG says:

    Many of the social conservatives I know are all about “conserving” what was liberalism back when they were young men.

    Totally this! Which is why I don’t understand why some tend to belittle social conservatives as though they are worse than other conservatives (who are also feminists) or even progressives. It seems to me that conservatives are following in the foot steps of “liberals” and progressives, only a decade or so behind. So why are they worse than the leftists? At least some of them come around, at least they have for me. I’ve never personally seen a leftist put on “redpill” glasses, but I have witnessed a handful of SoCons do it.

    Remotely related I recently had another opportunity to share “redpill” truths when a SoCon friend was complaining about how his Pastor made a comment during a sermon that upset him because it wasn’t true. The comment that upset him was something like: “Wives if you behave as Christian women should, your husbands will fall in and be the husbands they should be.”

    I laughed out loud before I realized I was laughing, but it opened the door for me to explain to him about the very common opposite assumption that is made in so many churches and sermons and how women are not being held accountable for their wrongs. He was receptive, he knew I was right, and he wasn’t the first by a long shot.

  141. Julian O'Dea says:

    JDG, I tend to agree about “rule a nation”.

    But I am talking about more typical and ordinary cases like a female medical specialist training a male intern.

    We recently had a failed experiment with a woman Prime Minister here in Australia. I will admit I was not exactly thrilled when she got the top job, but I was prepared to give her a chance. The stupid woman eventually did exactly the wrong thing and played the “gender card”, as it looks like Hillary Clinton will be doing. The problem is that Australians didn’t respond well to that, and she eventually lost her job.

    The party of the Left here also experimented with a female Governor-General, a more ceremonial and symbolic position. Quite a few people, including women, actually said at the time that it was an unsuitable position for a woman, because it really required a father figure. Anyway, she is also gone now, her term being up, and a man has replaced her.

    A lot of top female politicians are pretty awful. Almost all the Australian examples have been manifest failures. Failure in politics is common among men too, but these women seem to be accident-prone (literally in some cases – I can provide examples). On the other hand, there are examples like Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher, who show that a certain kind of woman can do pretty well in such roles.

    It seems to be the women who try to govern for both women AND men, and who basically act like a man in a skirt, who do best. On the other hand, here is another feminist failure, in the corporate world this time:

    http://www.reaxxion.com/10336/redditrevolt-ellen-paos-resignation-is-a-massive-setback-for-sjws

    By the way, “man in a skirt” is not to be taken too literally. I assume that it is a picture of Ellen Pao at that site and – if you ignore the long hair – she looks exactly like a man facially.

  142. infowarrior1 says:

    @JDG
    Here is the reformer John Knox’s polemic against women in Authority over men:
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9660/9660-h/9660-h.htm

    Recommended reading.

  143. JDG says:

    Julian O’Dea

    JDG, I tend to agree about “rule a nation”.

    But I am talking about more typical and ordinary cases like a female medical specialist training a male intern.

    While I agree that “ordinary cases” are not the same as “rule a nation” situations, I also find “ordinary cases” problematic.

    I have found that although some women can give good advice and training and even be productive, their presence in male spaces is still a negative in the big picture. Also, the number who pull their weight tends to be dwarfed by the number who do not in my experience.

    For women to be in positions of authority over men they must first be in the workplace along with men. This normalizes the idea of women occupying positions that should be occupied by men, and IMO further encourages women to try and behave more like men (especially when they are in positions of authority over men). It takes away jobs that would have been available for men* while using valuable resources to train women who will work less and leave the field sooner.

    Even more, women in the work force tends to make women self supportive. This makes them less likely to tough it out through marriage problems and add to the devaluing of their husbands or any potential spouses in their thinking.

    Just my thoughts.

    *Quite often more qualified men are are skipped over, thanks to affirmative action legislation and female dominated HR departments.

  144. Oscar says:

    @RichardP says:
    July 11, 2015 at 4:24 pm

    “Name more than five of the men who helped King David become great in battle in the Old Testament. We can’t.”

    We? You got a mouse in your pocket? Try reading 2 Samuel 23:8-39.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2023:8-39

  145. Julian O'Dea says:

    The Ellen Pao case gives me the opportunity to make another point. Namely, that this is what happens when girls and women get no real pushback, criticism, or experience of honest failure, as they are growing up. Eventually they reach a position where they really do have to stand on their merits and they fail.

    Most men in positions of authority have flaws but one can usually assume that they have been “through the mill”, “paid their dues”, or whichever expression you like. They are known quantities and they have been given plenty of honest feedback. The problem for girls is that they only eventually discover, like some kind of Barbie doll, that “life is hard”, and by the time they do, it may be too late.

    Nobody much gives women honest criticism, and then everybody acts surprised when they fail in the real world, or underperform. Men tend to get treated less kindly, but this, paradoxically, is better for them in the long run.

  146. 1sexistpig2another says:

    Thanks for the link infowarrior1. Very interesting.

  147. JDG says:

    Dalrock I accidentally posted with my non-Word Press credentials.

    Thanks for the link infowarrior1. Very interesting.

  148. Pingback: The Ellen Pao case: a comment | Julian O'Dea

  149. mrteebs says:

    @JDG

    Remotely related I recently had another opportunity to share “redpill” truths when a SoCon friend was complaining about how his Pastor made a comment during a sermon that upset him because it wasn’t true. The comment that upset him was something like: “Wives if you behave as Christian women should, your husbands will fall in and be the husbands they should be.”

    Ironic how the bluepill autoimmune reaction flares immediately when presented with anything challenging the blue narrative. The pastor was spot on. He essentially paraphrased 1 Peter 3:1-2. It is worth noting that no reciprocal instruction is given to men anywhere in the New Testament if we take that Pastor’s words and reverse the sexes to mollify bluepill sensibilities. Find me even one scripture that implores “Husbands if you behave as Christian men should, your wife will fall in and be the wives they should be.” Yet this is precisely the essence of the “man up” narrative with which churchianity and bluepill ideology is so enamored.

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