Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable.

In The Revenge of The Lost Boys* Tom Nichols begins with a familiar question:

What’s going on with young American men?

Nichols focuses primarily on examples of men that Vox Day categorizes as gammas:

Beyond this, they seem to share little beyond a stubborn immaturity wedded to a towering narcissism.

Stuck in perpetual adolescence, they see only their own imagined virtue amidst irredeemable corruption.

…the combination of immaturity and grandiosity among these young males is jaw-dropping in its scale even when it is not expressed through the barrel of a gun.

These young losers live through heroic fantasies and constructed identities rather than through work and human relationships.

…these man-boys are confused about their sexuality and frustrated by their own social awkwardness, and seek to compensate for it. They turn into what German writer Hans Enzensberger called “the radicalized losers,” the unsuccessful males who channel their blunted male social impulses toward destruction.

Yet as the title and opening question both suggest, Nichols isn’t just concerned about a handful of destructive gammas in the news.  Nichols is concerned about the overall loss of masculine virtue.  He also has a basic understanding of what has gone wrong:

What we don’t really want to think about, because it challenges our cherished political narratives, is why modern society creates such destructive outcasts…

We, the adults, have made this generation of young men by allowing, over the course of some 40 years, the eventual construction of a hyper-sexualized, publicity-obsessed, winner-take-all twenty-first-century culture in which success means money, sex, and fame at any cost. Young males no longer live in a world where there’s a Jack for every Jill, or where social institutions like schools, the police, churches, or the military—all decimated by repeated social attack since the 1960s—provide some kind of equalizing effect among men, protecting and building up the weaker boys while disciplining and maturing the stronger ones.

This is true, but there is more to it than this.  As Novaseeker points out, there is also the problem of perverse incentives.  Men are motivated by sex.  When society was ordered around lifetime marriage, the way for a young man to pursue sex was to focus on becoming an attractive potential husband. With our embrace of female promiscuity and disdain for traditional marriage, we have created a system where from a practical perspective men are foolish to seek marriage as their path to sex.

The links between men, marriage and civilization.

As a society we benefit enormously from men who are channeling their energy towards first becoming and then being productive husbands and fathers.  However, like so many others Nichols misunderstands the relationship between men, marriage, and civilization:

The traditional venues for male socialization (including marriage) have mostly vanished…

Marriage isn’t what socializes and civilizes men.  Marriage is the incentive for men to first work to civilize themselves, and then to lead and protect civilization.  But the incentive of marriage isn’t limited just to sex.  In a healthy society marriage offers an even more powerful reward for men than sex.  In a healthy society, marriage and fatherhood confer something even more precious to men, respect.

Respect is a more powerful motivator for men than sex.

This may at first glance seem unlikely.  Sex is an incredibly powerful motivator, especially for young men.  There is also the problem of overlap, as for men gaining respect is generally a path to sexual success.  However, we can both untangle the two and behold the incredible power of respect as an incentive for men by looking at what respect will motivate men to do that promises of sex cannot.

While men will take great risks in part out of a desire for sex, the desire for respect goes even further.  The men who willingly gave their lives at Thermopylae did not do so with the expectation of being rewarded with sex.  There were no 72 virgins promised to these men. Nor did they entertain the fantasy that they would somehow route the Persian horde and return in triumph.  Their motivation, their goal at the Hot Gates was to die an honorable death and thereby earn the profound respect of their society.  Likewise the nearly 4,000 Kamikaze pilots in WWII didn’t expect to return home and be lavished with sex.  Honor was the only reward for their act of sacrifice.

Withholding respect from the respectable.

As a society we have become incredibly miserly when it comes to respect for men.  In addition, the respect we do offer tends to be for men who are working against and not for civilization.  Men who work to become husbands and fathers are viewed with either contempt or deep suspicion.

This disdain for respectable men isn’t only coming out of secular Hollywood or the radical feminists leading Women’s Studies departments.  This same disdain for husbands and fathers is held with surprising fervor by conservatives, especially conservative Christians.  It has become a tradition for pastors to use Father’s Day, a day set aside to honor fathers, as a day to tear husbands and fathers down in front of their families.  Christian media is no better.  Just like secular movies, Christian movies portray husbands and fathers as villains, failures, and buffoons.   Respect is offered to the wise and sexy tattoo artist biker, while respectable husbands and fathers are trashed.

Even when we talk about the family courts, the issue of respect is front and center.  Family courts put into concrete action the disdain our society has for fathers.  In response to our society’s disdain and contempt for fathers, they have made their primary mission the removal of husbands and fathers from the household.  When we talk about the problems of the family courts, we need to consider not just the punishments the courts stand ever ready to meet out against husbands and fathers, but the profound disrespect these punishments represent.

What is most surprising about young men today is not that a handful are acting out in cowardly and destructive ways, nor that a larger but still small number are less conspicuously** opting out of the respectable path as we treat respectability with contempt.  What is most surprising is that most men still pursue marriage and fatherhood despite how hard we have been working as a society to discourage them from doing so.  What should frighten us isn’t that decades of trashing marriage and fatherhood have produced a small number of men who eschew these responsibilities, but that eventually a generation of young men will arrive which fully internalizes what we are quite loudly telling them:

Only chumps get married, and only a fool would become a father.

*HT Hugh Mann

**It is surprisingly difficult to find good data on the “Peter Pan” manboy phenomenon so often discussed in the media.  While there does seem to be something going on, nearly all white women are still able to marry, and to the extent that men are coasting economically, this appears to be about unmarried men choosing to work like women.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Disrespecting Respectability, Miserliness, Patriarchal Dividend, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

626 Responses to Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable.

  1. Pingback: Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable. | Manosphere.com

  2. Pingback: Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable. | Neoreactive

  3. The Usaian says:

    I was just about to send you a link to this piece. I read through the whole thing and could not believe how close he got to identifying the problem, only to veer away at the last second and get things entirely backwards.

  4. BradA says:

    This cannot end well for our society.

  5. theasdgamer says:

    The status of men relative to women has fallen because women have been pedestalized. The pedestalization of women is designed to increase the status of women relative to men. Respectability is an offshoot of having a high status. The pedestalization of women drives down the respectability of men in a general sense. Hence, men are less likely to seek respect because of the pedestalization of women.

    By the way, socialism has been opposed to the family for centuries–as far back as the 18th century. We shouldn’t be surprised at the attack on the family nowadays. Socialism has been warring against the family for centuries. It has been doing so using the pedestalization of women for centuries, incrementally adding social advantage after social advantage to women.

    The way to fight that noxious weed (the pedestalization of women) is to internalize the maxim: “Pussy is just pussy.” Women have lower value than men to society. Men protect and produce. Men are much stronger, more willing to risk, can produce more children, are generally more intelligent, etc.

  6. BradA says:

    I do agree that respect is far more important than sex. Though that is easier to realize and acknowledge once you are past 50 I would guess.

  7. BradA says:

    Women have lower value than men to society. Men protect and produce. Men are much stronger, more willing to risk, can produce more children, are generally more intelligent, etc.

    I suspect we will see the pendulum push back to that, but it is just as much bunk. Men and women have different roles, not better or worse ones. We will be far better off if we ever realize and internalize that.

    What makes an individual or sex important? How many of those men would be making those breakthroughs without outside support, including from a dedicated wife?

  8. Hippopotamusdrome says:

    From the article:

    But the truth of the matter is that Dylann Roof … isn’t that different from so many other young, mostly white men over the past 30 years or so who have lashed out against their society in different ways.

    What they all have in common is … their race (most are white),

    angry white losers

    Like their white brethren, dangerous black males are angry and childish, but their effect usually does not reach beyond their own neighborhoods.

    showy productions executed by angry white males

    Still, the alienated young loners, especially those who commit spectacular acts of violence, are largely a white phenomenon.

    Debunked here:

    The Myth of the White Male Mass Shooter

    Turns out, of all outlets, Mother Jones, hardly a defender of white males, has offered data about all USA mass shootings from 1982 to the present.

    Here is the racial breakdown of the (70) offenders of all the mass shootings from 1982 to the present:

    Black- 15.7%

    Asian- 8.6%

    Hispanic- 5.7%

    Native American- 4.3%

    Unknown- 1.4%

    White- 64.3%

    And here is the racial breakdown of our nation from the 2010 census:

    Black- 12.6%

    Asian- 4.8%

    Hispanic- 16.3%

    Native American- 1.1%

    White- 63.7%

    In other words, whites are not disproportionately likely to go on mass killings. In fact, the share of the population that is white is almost identical to the share of mass shooters that are white. Blacks, on the other hand, are overrepresented among mass shooters. Native Americans and Asians are dramatically overrepresented among mass shooters. Hispanics are the only group that is underrepresented among mass shooters.

    However, once one other reality is taken into account, we see that whites are actually underrepresented among mass shooters. You see, the data set provided by Mother Jones goes from 1982 through the present day. But, the demographics were very different (and much more white) in 1982 than in 2010. In 1980, whites were 79.6% of the population. Asians were 1.5% of the population. Blacks were 11.5% of the population. The point is that, once the full demographic reality of 1982 to the present is taken into account, we find that whites are actually less likely to be mass shooters than their share of the population would predict.

  9. Hugh Mann says:

    “Respect is a more powerful motivator for men than sex.”

    You can also see that playing out lethally in the world of street gangs, where men are prepared to kill or be killed rather than back down or lose face. Same with Huck Finn’s Grangerfords and Shepherdsons.

  10. Hippopotamusdrome says:

    Like their white brethren, dangerous black males are angry and childish, but their effect usually does not reach beyond their own neighborhoods.

    Not true.

    FBI statistics show that blacks commit 90% of interracial crime*

    4. There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime. Fifty-six percent of violent crimes committed by blacks have white victims. Only two to three percent of violent crimes committed by whites have black victims.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    From the article pointed to:

    Women, especially in the West, are not usually the perpetrators of massacres or other spectacular anti-social acts

    Women as a sex tend to commit their cruelest acts in private. Millions of abortions over the last 40 years tells me Tom Nichols is a pedestalizing, self-blinded ignorant bonehead.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, very insightful observation on the importance of respect. An obvious extrapolation from marriage or LTR where women need love and men need respect, to the larger society.

    This society hates most men and has nothing but contempt for them. I can’t tell if Tom Nichols shares that or not.

  13. Tam the Bam says:

    “…the combination of immaturity and grandiosity among these young males is jaw-dropping in its scale even when it is not expressed through the barrel of a gun
    These young losers live through heroic fantasies and constructed identities rather than through work and human relationships.”

    Well pardon my French, but .. what an absolute royal expanding twat ..

    “Bite .. pour .. spit .. tap ..aim ..” And all for a shilling. We’ve always been that way.
    Bows’n’arrers, Middleton archers (my actual ancestors by DNA : I’m only conditionally Scotch, according to the peasants hereabouts), gallowglasses (aye and them too, croppie lie doon).

    “South Essex! Stand up! South Essex .. will advance!” (for Opus).
    Suck it up, overlords. Where’s them acres o’mine, wot I are s’posed ter be defendin’ …Sor?
    OK one more time since they’re stupid.
    Incentives actually matter. Baffling, eh?
    Lovely, if you’re Entitled. I’d rather play games.

  14. Hippopotamusdrome says:

    I think the author has some kind of masochistic black fetish thing going on.

    Author’s words used to describe black men:

    the fearsome sexuality of black men

    Now for words to describe white men:

    their own failed manhood
    a bullied little boy
    confused about their sexuality
    punishing other men … for being more sexually successful than he
    angry white losers
    make … people uncomfortable
    maladjusted dork
    failed boys
    weaker boys
    geeks
    weaker or less competitive males
    never make the transition to men

  15. Looking Glass says:

    @AR:

    If you remove the thought-to-be forced 300 million Chinese Abortions (that number isn’t a joke), the total abortion count from 1980 to present is estimated at over a billion still.

    Let that soak in: 1,000,000,000 willingly murdered children. Women have, as a group, willingly choose a slaughter that no megalomaniac could have functionally dreamed of pulling off.

    @Brad & ASD:

    Considering so much of our society is focused on “economic utility”, in the regard, Women are utterly inferior to Men. There’s little question on the topic, when analyzed in that manner. It is only in a moral perspective, normally a Christian one, that Women take on a more proper understanding. As the world views it, Women are mostly worthless. It’s the reason Feminists are so obsessed with being “Men with Vaginas”.

  16. mrteebs says:

    Respect is offered to the wise and sexy tattoo artist biker, while respectable husbands and fathers are trashed.

    And this only serves to feed the hamster. “If I can just snag that wild animal, I can domesticate him. I can have my cake and eat it too.”

  17. Neguy says:

    Dalrock!

    You absolutely have to read the new Zondervan book “Malestrom” by Carolyn Curtis James:

    http://www.amazon.com/Malestrom-Manhood-Swept-Currents-Changing/dp/0310325579

    By far the worst Christian book I’ve ever read, but so bad it’s good. This is a distillation of blue pill so pure, even the most plugged in guy on the planet is gonna come searching for the red.

  18. Dale says:

    @Brad:
    >How many of those men would be making those breakthroughs without outside support, including from a dedicated wife?

    Many of them. I have never had a wife, yet was making a substantial professional wage by age 26. At least in part as I was trying to make myself into a desirable husband. (Cue Dalrock’s presentation on the now-obsolete way to motivate men.) Still, I did that without a wife. I did however benefit from God blessing me greatly, with a good mind and great career opportunities.

    Women are necessary for fulfilling the emotional and sexual desires of a man. These emotional desires are substantial, so I will not try to minimize them. But a woman adds very little to a man’s ability to think, invent and produce.

  19. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    I think the word “honor” more accurately describes what you’re talking about, although respect is a big part of honor. Unfortunately, few today understand the concept of honor. The Art of Manliness did a good job of explaining it.

  20. “Women, especially in the West, are not usually the perpetrators of massacres or other spectacular anti-social acts”

    Even not counting feminism as an anti-social act…

    http://murderpedia.org/female.B/b/bishop-amy.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_San_Marco

    http://murderpedia.org/female.H/h/holder-mary-ann.htm

  21. rugby11ljh says:

    Behold the tribe! With the mindset of self review.

  22. greyghost says:

    Japan is already there with their herbivore men phenomenon.
    This is what the end game will look like http://shtfschool.com/
    This Nichols guy sounds like the problem as he speaks. he is follow the same script of PC lies as he is trying to make truthful observation. In the end it is just another lie and shows that he is more of a coward than the men he is speaking about. Those men are blindly living the truth.

  23. greyghost says:

    These emotional desires are substantial, so I will not try to minimize them. But a woman adds very little to a man’s ability to think, invent and produce.

    Cut the shit Dale You don’t have to be nice women don’t add a damn thing. In fact women are an extra burden to achievement.

  24. hv says:

    Meanwhile, in the popular culture and media, feminist messages continue to persist, and even grow… movies that encourage female promiscuity and show how women are “turning the tables on men” and are now the ones firmly in the driving seat, enjoying lots of casual sex and wanting no commitments while men are the ones who are clingy and pathetically try to hold on to a woman for a relationship.

    Check out Amy Schumer’s new comedy that celebrates the modern Western female’s whoredom:

    Trainwreck

    Is Tom Nichols such a blind jackass that he doesn’t see the connection between the popular feminist culture and the great disincentive it creates in men for marriage after observing how women are behaving these days?

  25. Tam the Bam says:

    How bizarre, how bizarre. Is Mz.Schumer in any way Polish?
    Because I have a Polish mate who looks just like that. Even the hair.
    Kicker is, he’s 60 years old, and drinks beer by the tanker-load, can’t cook, eats kebabs and stuff, after the pub, or BBQ when we take pity on him. Never taken a day’s voluntary exercise; engineer, defense, ex-Ferranti/GEC (now Selex).
    Is he actually an American Woman in disguise? We should know, Allies, and all that.

  26. feeriker says:

    But a woman adds very little to a man’s ability to think, invent and produce.

    Greyghost beat me to it, but yes, it’s true. Women are a definite impediment to both a man’s creativity and his productivity. This should not be surprising, given women’s solipsistic selfishness, their demand to be made Priority One for the expenditure of attention, energy, resources, and time. Any man who invests in a woman makes a tradeoff, an either-or selection: her, or his creative and productive best. He can’t have both. She won’t let him.

  27. Retrenched says:

    The TL,DR version is that conservatives want men to fight and overcome the limitations and obstacles of feminism so they can fix all of the problems feminism has caused – but, they expect men to do so without undoing feminism in any way, or even acknowledging that feminism is the cause of any of these problems.

    (Well actually it’s not bold at all – it’s the most cowardly position they could take, really.)

  28. feeriker says:

    Is Tom Nichols such a blind jackass that he doesn’t see the connection between the popular feminist culture and the great disincentive it creates in men for marriage after observing how women are behaving these days?

    As I pointed out upon initial reference in the previous thread, Nichols’ CV has “Establishment” stamped all over it. Admitting to RP truth would get this guy booted out of the Garden of Eden and tear both his professional reputation and his privileges to shreds. Even if he is aware of the truth, the cost of openly admitting it is unthinkable.

  29. GeminiXcX says:

    ‘greyghost on July 11, 2015 at 9:26 pm
    (These emotional desires are substantial, so I will not try to minimize them. But a woman adds very little to a man’s ability to think, invent and produce.)

    Cut the shit Dale You don’t have to be nice women don’t add a damn thing. In fact women are an extra burden to achievement.

    Then Yahuweh made a mistake in his creation.
    Genesis 1:26-28
    Genesis 2:18, 22

    -GXcX

  30. Great comment. Nichols realizes society is going down the tubes but he hasn’t come to acceptance there is no solution. It is too late. The fertility rate of most first world nations is way below replacement largely due to the economic cost/benefit of children. Feminist social and anti-male economic policies will prevent any change in those rates. The decline is going to happen and the world will become less prosperous, less virtuous, and more violent largely because Islam will outnumber Christianity in the 2050’s.

  31. GeminiXcX says:

    feeriker on July 11, 2015 at 10:03 pm

    Greyghost beat me to it, but yes, it’s true. Women are a definite impediment to both a man’s creativity and his productivity. . . Any man who invests in a woman makes a tradeoff, an either-or selection: her, or his creative and productive best. He can’t have both. She won’t let him.?’

    It would work both ways (for both men and women), but the only concern is for loss of ‘full creativity and productivity’ for the ‘Lord’s work.
    1 Corinthians 7:32-34.

    To avoid (wo)men to develope your full potential for anything else but that defeats the purpose of “Christian MGTOW’. If you’re living life to the secular full, including producing ‘vanities of Solomon’ for yourself — even with no women in the equation — you’re still not really doing anything remarkable.

    -GXcX

  32. mrteebs says:

    Spot on, Dalrock.

    To guage the importance of respect in the male psyche, Shaunti Feldhahn commissioned a poll that asked men this question…

    If you were forced to choose one of the following, which would it be?

    1) To be left alone and unloved in this world.
    2) To feel inadequate and disrespected by everyone.

    74% of men chose #1.

    Western culture and our churches continue to perpetuate the myth that love is unconditional but respect must be earned. They double down on it, too, by insisting that respect will automatically occur if only the man will “…love his wife as Christ loved the church.” If true, I guess Paul should have ended Ephesians Chapter 5 right there. The rest was superfluous.

    Unconditional love and conditional respect automatically establishes the wife as CEO. The husband is perpetually consigned to an ongoing merit review.

  33. Signor Farfalla says:

    In other words, Nichols recently met a 188 pound smoke show who gave him a decent handy. Nothing like a decent handy to fire up the ol’ ‘Man Up Loser!’ essay which is just cleverly veiled trash talk (I got a handy and you MGTOWS didn’t! Neener neener neener.)

    “Some will kill” he says. Wow, what a thoroughly collective-minded thought. Basically saying that all white males are collected in the same category of Eliot Rodgers and Dylann Roof. All the same guy, right? Though the expression of loserdom varies. Yawn. This is just ‘Man Up’ with a thesaurus.

    And of course no mention of female obesity which is the very backbone of EVERY single manosphere issue, though it doesn’t lead to such erudite essays, due to simplicity.

  34. GeminiXcX says:

    greyghost on July 11, 2015 at 9:21 pm
    This is what the end game will look like http://shtfschool.com/

    A very sobering post, gg. I’ve had these kind of discussions with my wife. The neighbour that you’re ‘yucking it up’ over the fence with today, will slit your throat tomorrow for any supplies you have, after the grid shuts down and the panic/choas/anarchy ensues.

    Millions of Americans alone, will be dead in less than a week.

    Women’s only currency will be their vaginas, and it will be all the ‘rules’ for those vaginas except theirs.

    -GXcX

  35. Oscar says:

    GeminiXcX says:
    July 11, 2015 at 11:12 pm

    “It would work both ways (for both men and women), but the only concern is for loss of ‘full creativity and productivity’ for the ‘Lord’s work.
    1 Corinthians 7:32-34.

    To avoid (wo)men to develope your full potential for anything else but that defeats the purpose of ‘Christian MGTOW’.”

    A Christian doing the Lord’s work isn’t going his/her own way.

  36. Signor Farfalla says:

    @Mr. Teebs,

    (And this only serves to feed the hamster. “If I can just snag that wild animal, I can domesticate him. I can have my cake and eat it too.”)

    She’ll have her cake and eat it too for a few years. Then when the badboy is tamed it’s time to move on to another ‘project’, all funded by badboy number one’s 65 hour work week for however long she sees fit.

    “The husband is perpetually consigned to an ongoing merit review.”

    Exactly. That’s the number one reason I will ride off into the sunset unmarried; sad, lonely, blah, blah, blah. More likely I’ll be happy to hike, lift, read, and have a stogey and a dram every day. I’m no longer expecting a Disney narrative from this increasingly feral earth. (That Disney narrative paid for by my 50 years of wages, btw).

    Even when the man gets up to six figures and the wife is a cool two bills with 79% bodyfat, it’s still the male that is under pressure to qualify himself and spend, spend, spend. What an extraordinarily pointless arrangement.

  37. mrteebs says:

    @greyghost

    You’ve made it abundantly clear that a wife is optional and little more than a useless eater in the quest for progeny. Your answer: outsource to a surrogate and then hire a nanny. You’re like Jody Foster with a penis. It’s becoming tiresome.

    You offer occasional insight, but it is more often an endless well of grumpy old man bitterness. Where do you get this single-parent-is-OK-as-long-as-it-is-a-man bullshit? Clearly not from the scriptures. If so, chapter and verse, please. It’s about time somebody called you on this, because it is not God’s plan. Never has been, never will be.

    I raised my son from 7 onwards without his mother present. She was a mess, but the absence of his biological mother shortchanged my son regardless. Least worst options – like raising children without two stable parents – are not good options. They are simpy least worst.

  38. GeminiXcX says:

    ‘As a society we have become incredibly miserly when it comes to respect for men. In addition, the respect we do offer tends to be for men who are working against and not for civilization’

    I’m curious where someone like me actually stands, in this ‘respect’ issue. I have checked-out of ‘civilization’, and contribute only what is forcibly extracted. Enjoy the decline, and do nothing, as the end must come.

    Men who work to become husbands and fathers are viewed with either contempt or deep suspicion.’
    One of the reasons why I’ve checked-out. Why cast your pearls before swine?

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ?

    Not exactly. Doing ‘something’ will just prolong the misery and the inevitable, as there are many more of ‘them’ then there are of ‘us’. Doing nothing is the triumph over evil now; withdraw from the system and watch what happens when “there’s no good men left (or actively trying for the benefit of civilization anymore).

    -GXcX

  39. pukeko60 says:

    @mrteebs. Agree. I have raised my boys since they were in middle school through high school. And it was better than what they had before. But better still would have been both.

    We have now two generations of children who are scarred by divorce: many are now very cautious about any romantic commitment at all.

  40. GeminiXcX says:

    A Christian doing the Lord’s work isn’t going his/her own way.
    I regret my incorrect usage of the terminology.

    Hopefully the point I was driving at in that entire post wasn’t automatically dismissed.

    Regards,

    -GXcX

  41. GeminiXcX says:

    @mrteebs.

    I cannot sympathize with your situation, but I agree with your principles in the summation. ‘Feminism is destructive and disgusting’ is one thing, but ‘All women are destructive and disgusting’ crosses the line into hate.

    ‘A man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle.” = radical masculinity.

    -GXcX

  42. mrteebs says:

    Marriage isn’t what socializes and civilizes men. Marriage is the incentive for men to first work to civilize themselves, and then to lead and protect civilization.

    Exactly.

    I was 23 when I got married. 22 when engaged. I remember vividly the sobering reality that if I proposed, I would be assuming responsibility for at least one additional person – and perhaps several more. It was a very strong motivation to decide what I was going to do to provide for a family and then get on with it. In my case, an electrical engineering degree. I could have happily survived on $12k a year indefinitely with only myself to fend for (that was in 1983).

    My marriage did not civilize me. A stable family life with two excellent parents civilized me – so it was really their marriage that laid the foundation. The concrete was further leveled, smoothed, and hardened by readying myself to propose. Saving, building our first humble furniture, studying calculus and physics long into the night, planning a honeymoon, choosing an apartment – all by myself (she was 1500 miles away, across an international border). Marriage itself: mostly repetitive stress testing of the concrete that had already been poured and cured.

  43. MarcusD says:

    A Pastoral Letter from the Catholic Bishops of Australia to all Australians on the ‘Same-sex Marriage’ Debate
    http://www.sydneycatholic.org/pdf/DMM-booklet_web.pdf

  44. Retrenched says:

    I left this comment over at Martel’s blog about a year ago. It seems appropriate for this thread as well so I’ll repost it here:

    The prevailing idea in the modern west is that women always have an absolute right to receive whatever it is they happen to want from men – sex, love, relationships, marriage, children, bullet shields etc. – but men must always earn whatever it is they want from women, whether it’s sex, love, marriage, or even the right to see their children post-divorce. Men’s worthiness must be continually proven, all the time, while women’s worthiness and perfection are just presumed by default, regardless of their character or behavior, and are never to be questioned under any circumstances.

    This bias towards women’s inherent worthiness [compared to men’s relative worthlessness] is so pervasive that to even suggest that women must earn things like love and marriage the way that men must earn sex is considered vicious misogyny.

  45. Julian O'Dea says:

    MarcusD, this letter, which I was pleased to hear about, apart from the silly title “Don’t Mess with Marriage”, has caused much annoyance among some parents of children at Catholic schools. A lot of parents send their children to Catholic schools, but are kind of agnostic about the whole religion thing, and were shocked, shocked, that a Catholic school would promote Catholicism.

    Why was it distributed at schools? One explanation I heard was that mass attendance is pretty poor so the best way to reach adults is through their children at school.

    In terms of the broader issue, the gay marriage debate is on a knife edge here. Thanks to the Irish (!) and the Americans (!!) making homosexual “marriage” the law of the land, the pressure is on Australian legislators. However Australians tend to be pretty socially conservative and there are strong ethnic blocs who do not approve of gay marriage.

    I believe the matter will be debated in Parliament later this year. I suspect the change will not go through. The party of the right and the party of the left will probably both allow a conscience vote, and there are enough Catholics in the latter and not enough “social liberals” in the former to force it through.

  46. Julian O'Dea says:

    Retrenched, that echoes somewhat with what I wrote here recently and have just turned into a blog post:

    https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/the-ellen-pao-case-a-comment/

  47. GeminiXcX says:

    Brad A
    ‘I suspect we will see the pendulum push back to that, but it is just as much bunk. Men and women have different roles, not better or worse ones. We will be far better off if we ever realize and internalize that.’

    As men, we must possess advancement beyond women in matters beyond merely ‘having different roles’, otherwise we would not be given the responsibility to lead our wives, with them submitting to us.

    That being said, however, I do have a curiosity:
    * What would headship have been like, had perfection not been lost? Would the concept have even been necessary? Yes, woman was from/for man, but man from the semblance of God. If Eden and “perfection” (“completeness/no corruption” in any capacity) still existed today, would the roles be more alike, or even the same (biology aside, of course)?

    ‘Women’s craving for her husband, and him ruling over her’ to satisfy that craving was a consequence of rebellion. (Genesis 3:16) What if rebellion hadn’t occured? *

    -GXcX

  48. mrteebs says:

    @Retrenched

    When is the last time you heard anyone tell any man, anywhere “you deserve Miss Amazing” simply by virtue of his chromasomes, without reference to his character? This female insistence on lopsided unconditionalism isn’t limited simply to love, as your list points out, but that’s how women refract it through their prism. All that other stuff you cite is seen by women as the spectrum that constitutes love, and so everything becomes an entitlement – if you aren’t delivering those, you aren’t loving her fully.

    It’s truly perverse.

  49. @Retrenched

    You are spot on. Those types of conservatives shame men to “man-up” and work hard at menial jobs just for the ‘privilege’ of being selected as a ‘mule’ by one these feminist heffers with a feed bag attached to her face.

    The Republican leadership had no problem dropping their pants and bending over for a Democrat President to secretly negotiate away more constitutional rights and male bread-winning jobs to Asian Oligarchs, Communists, Feminist Thieves, Drug-Dealers, and Muslims.

    President Obama will pass his “No Male Job Left Behind” trade agreement for the sake of cheaper birth control pills and yet the Republicans will cluelessly wonder why the marriage rate keeps dropping, birth-rate keeps dropping, male unemployment keeps rising, and society decays.

    The abominable Democrats make no secret of their socialist sow agenda to resupply feminist slop troughs from the blood of men yet the Republicans leaders are simply bought off like whores because they tingle at the words ‘trade agreement’?

    I can’t even call them White Knights. A Knight has a code honor. The Republican leadership’s behavior is more akin to a whore.

    No wonder many men aren’t signing up for their ‘fight’ against feminism because their ‘purple-pill strategy’ sucks.

  50. Julian O'Dea says:

    GeminiXcX

    I am not a biblical literalist, but I think the scripture is illustrative and contains truth, so I can imagine that Adam and Eve would have simply worked happily together, with Eve helping her husband. In a happy marriage, one sees echoes of that, even after the Fall.

  51. We’re having the same thoughts. Productivity is shamed.

  52. feeriker says:

    It would work both ways (for both men and women), but the only concern is for loss of ‘full creativity and productivity’ for the ‘Lord’s work.
    1 Corinthians 7:32-34.

    And she won’t let him do that either.

    Good luck to any man today who attempts to lead a woman by doing the Lord’s work. He’s going to find out very quickly that all the lip service she pays to this will dry right up as soon as she realizes that “the Lord’s work” isn’t about her. Once she realizes this she’ll pull out all the stops to try to shame him into believing that what he believes is the Lord’s work is really Satan’s work.

  53. well
    what most christians teach is that men need to adapt
    men now need to be the one’s who change diapers
    look at any christian man’s instagram for example
    or facebook page
    always trying to show how domestic and brilliant he is at childcare and homemaking
    even CEO’s
    http://www.glamour.com/inspired/2015/05/toms-shoes-founder-blake-mycoskie-on-the-benefits-of-paternity-leave
    heck he even gives an example of a man switching jobs because his company would not allow him to pretend he is a Titus 2 homemaker…
    and simple men
    http://dadlifeblog.com/2013/04/10/thoughts-on-faith/

    and the one above uses the bible to defend his role
    not to mention their entire church group encourages men to be homemakers
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/162477467212097/

    old school biblical masculinity is dead
    it is now replaced with matriarchal homemaking….

  54. Signor Farfalla says:

    @Decline and Fall,

    Thank you for not failing to mention that the majority of women are heifers. I love the feedbag imagery, so true. So many manosphere comments drift into this ‘pussy pedestalizing’ ‘women are only good for their vaginas’ type of automatic estimation that women, while usually bitches, still maintain such extraordinary sexual power over men, just naturally. Of course the fit, 25 and unders do but most of us are far past that. But it’s the default basis of so many comments; that women are sexually potent and those hot bodies are like nuclear warheads in this gender war. Laughable. I wish it were true. Due to obesity, so few of them maintain any sexuality, even counting down to 18 year olds. Guys make comments like, “Here we all are in the manosphere, married one and all to our Sofia Vergara clones, who have our peckers whipped. How do we navigate this? How are we, one and all, supposed to regain some leverage against our Penthouse model wives? Don’t pedestalize them but it’s so difficult when they walk around at 38-24-36 with natural DD’s.” Yeah right. In the over 25 set, a TINY percentage of women have a Jay-Jay that is worth anything at all from a physio-sexual standpoint. The mere image of a 50 year old man slaving away, p-whipped by his 48 year old planet of a wife, is mind-boggling. Like, “Oh No! She might deprive me of that body.” The power is so rarely sexual in reality but most comments make it seem otherwise. The power is all legal, cultural and financial. What percentage of over 30 males would really have a situation where their wife is so sexually potent that it has a significant effect on things? 4%, maybe 5? It’s much ado about nothing. They’re nearly all fat.

  55. Julian O'Dea says:

    Signor Farfalla, well, up to a point.

    Attractive young women are not that uncommon, and they do have enormous sexual power. If they are genuinely attractive, and keep their attraction for any amount of time, they can continue to have this power; and at the least command attention in our memories.

    Most men have memories of women they knew when they were young who still inhabit their daydreams.

    The downside of this for women is that it is as important to a woman how attractive she is, if not more so, as it is to a man how talented he is. It is desperately important that she is at least passable, and preferably really attractive.

    All this “fat acceptance” crap is desperate intrasexual conflict.

    I also think that this “hit the wall” thing is overstated. Provided she does not get fat, a woman can remain presentable for a long time.

  56. Signor Farfalla says:

    I’m not denying the formidable power of a healthy, attractive woman’s body. I wish I was involved in a sexual power struggle with a woman who has porn star dimensions or something similar. Even losing is winning in that scenario but basically no one is in that situation post 25. Guys are getting whipped by women who aren’t within 40 pounds of being seen in a bikini. That’s what is so pitiful to me.

    And your comment about memories “inhabiting daydreams” is right in line with what I mean. My point is that when the topic is ‘women’ (as it often is in the manosphere) everyone seems to jump to this bombshell archetype that they have in their head. That’s what I was trying to point out. No one is speaking from the viewpoint of their 190 pound wife either currently or looking into the future.

    “Oh, women…(then the guy’s mind goes straight to that busty 18 year old that he had oneitis for however many years ago and his commentary gets warped.)

    Let’s not forget the 91% of post 25 y.o. women who have virtually no sexual clout due to sloth and gluttony. ‘Women’ as the topic of commentary is synonymous with ‘That one smoke-show I was obsessed with in college.’ Or the 22 year old crossfitter he followed around in borderline stalker fashion last weekend at the mall. That’s who he’ll be referencing and basing his commentary on when ‘women’ is the topic. His mind isn’t registering the hordes of feedbaggers that passed through his line of sight with no more notice than some thatch beside the highway.

    We’re more or less in agreement I think. But the whole obesity/slovenliness issue is too often swept aside for the more sophisticated discussion that spring up when the women centering it all can actually be seen naked.

    “Fat acceptance” is certainly desperate intrasexual conflict. But what the feminists aren’t acknowledging is that fat women are purely worthless to RP-aware men. A slovenly, fat woman is the equivalent of a homeless man in piss-stained jeans in the alley. That’s their true SMV equivalent if all social conditioning is stripped away.

  57. MarcusD says:

    @Julian

    One explanation I heard was that mass attendance is pretty poor so the best way to reach adults is through their children at school.

    Yes, I’ve seen such a method used by Catholic schools in my area. Some parents reacted quite negatively to it (essentially, they were annoyed of being reminded that their kids are in a Catholic school).

    However Australians tend to be pretty socially conservative and there are strong ethnic blocs who do not approve of gay marriage.

    One can hope. That said, the Irish situation had the interference of wealthy American interests, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve set their sights now on Australia.

    Russia recently banned several NGOs for meddling in Russian affairs – I really start to wonder why other countries don’t do the same. Poland was smart enough to avoid them a few years ago in the pro-life area.

  58. Julian O'Dea says:

    Will comment some more, but I just wanted to say that the absolute worst cases leading to oneitis must be those ones where you have a bit to do with a cute girl, for some reason it goes nowhere, and you never find one as cute for your own to marry.

    Then you are stuck with “rosy recollection”.

    There is nothing like getting to know a girl a bit to dispel any illusions. They all have their faults, of course.

  59. BradA says:

    Dale,

    You are a bit arrogant there, though my statement noted it could be a wife, not that it must be so. How many breakthroughs were made unabomber style? You had plenty of support yourself, from God and I would assert many others.

    This idea we do it all ourselves is ludicrous. Though claiming God was wrong when He established and confirmed marriage makes it certain those who do so are not following a Christian way, one that is based on the Scriptures. They may or may not be truly reborn, but they are not walking according to it.

    Modern man may have perverted it, but God set the pattern, so don’t claim to be following Him if you malign His plan.

    ====

    Talking about how things would work without the fall is very speculative, but would involve following God’s leading instead of rebelling. That would imply other perfect relations, including between Adam and Eve.

  60. BradA says:

    The book mentions homophobia, which guarantees it will be filled with claptrap.

    I have yet to meet anyone to whom that applies, but it is certainly a code word to favor the current errant thinking.

  61. “What should frighten us isn’t that decades of trashing marriage and fatherhood have produced a small number of men who eschew these responsibilities, but that eventually a generation of young men will arrive which fully internalizes what we are quite loudly telling them:

    Only chumps get married, and only a fool would become a father.”

    As a parent, that is terrifying!

  62. greyghost says:

    Women’s craving for her husband, and him ruling over her’ to satisfy that craving was a consequence of rebellion. (Genesis 3:16) What if rebellion hadn’t occurred? *

    She was going to be his helper any way. The only way a woman can have true content peace is when she fulfills that role. The happiest and most stable women that seem to have people just respect them for no valid reason are women that are helpers. The problem is men project that on all women just because they have a vagina. That bullshit is what got us here in the first place.
    The comments and ideas that I express here are based on the reality of the nature of women. Our role here as men today is to create the society and civilization too many Christian men believe for some reason they live in. She is a helper not a necessity. Every invention and discovery from mapping of DNA to micro chip technology was there already to start with. (God) Scientist and engineers through study are just finding things God already had in place. Albert Einstein one of the greatest scientific minds came to the conclusion that God created this. You single fathers here that have raised children on your own, do not kid yourself you have done a spectacular job without her. Just because you didn’t have a helper to make it more soothing and enjoyable doesn’t take away from your achievement. We damn sure know what happens without him. If you want to change the behavior of women without blood shed you do what it takes to tap into the basic nature of women. Otherwise natural order will take over and we will have a civilization that looks like inner city of any city in America.
    BTW I am a married man 15 years, and father of 3 children with 2 daughters. I’m not just running my mouth here. The way I see it the tipping point has been reached and past we are not saving shit now. That last article posted up here said so loud and clear.

  63. Julian O'Dea says:

    I don’t think the lavender money will flow so much to Australia. Ireland was the big prize. Knocking over Ireland really mattered, symbolically, whereas Australia is a more traditionally secular country.

    Money and “moral” pressure from organisations like Amnesty International are now being thrown at Ireland in respect of abortion. The results of the usual “opinion polls” are being spread around already.

    The recent results on gay marriage have made me look askance at both Ireland and America. Despite my surname, I have never been big on Irishry, and I am glad now. I could see this vote coming though, having observed the horrid performance of the Church in Ireland and the virulent hatred of traditional morality among the Irish elites.

    And, in Australia, the one group strongly on board with homosexual marriage is the media.

    Catholic ethnicities can walk off the moral cliff surprisingly easily. Quebec, Catholic Holland, Ireland.

    I don’t want to overstate matters, but I never thought I would be admiring Russian moral values and holding my nose at what is now coming out of America.

  64. Julian O'Dea says:

    One quick point lest I forget. One reason why men may find older wives still attractive is “wife goggles”. And then there is the simple fact that men marry their “type” usually, so that woman is likely to retain some of that original appeal, even if other men can’t see it.

    I could be crude, and why not?, and say that in the words of the gag “parts of her can be excellent”. A nice pair of legs at 25 can still be a nice pair of legs at 50. For example.

  65. greyghost says:

    I don’t want to overstate matters, but I never thought I would be admiring Russian moral values and holding my nose at what is now coming out of America.

    Russia may get the immigration of the best and brightest the United States enjoyed because of it. Sikorsky was a Russian guy. The space program was from Germans. If the Russians went red pill they would rule the world in short order.

  66. jew613 says:

    This is ot but I wanted to send you a very rare video which actually shows a father in a good light. https://youtu.be/sZCdhVd3Vh8

  67. Exfernal says:

    What’s going on with young American men?
    https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/30/the-future-of-sex-is-terrifying – any alternative lifestyle suddenly becomes much more appealing, doesn’t it?

  68. Exfernal says:

    Oh, well. Formatting error.

  69. l jess says:

    “Oscar says:
    July 11, 2015 at 11:36 pm
    GeminiXcX says:
    July 11, 2015 at 11:12 pm

    “It would work both ways (for both men and women), but the only concern is for loss of ‘full creativity and productivity’ for the ‘Lord’s work.
    1 Corinthians 7:32-34.

    To avoid (wo)men to develope your full potential for anything else but that defeats the purpose of ‘Christian MGTOW’.”

    A Christian doing the Lord’s work isn’t going his/her own way.”

    Christian Mgtow does what is best for him – God’s work fits into that category very well – Going your own way does not mean drifting in a stream (although some may do that) but improving yourself with no “she”anchor to stop your movement. The great men of the Bible fit this category.

  70. Johnycomelately says:

    PeterPan manboy syndrome is a misnomer, it’s really a projection of the angst of ‘perpetual postponer’ females who reach their 30s and become frantic about fertility and finding marriage partners.

    Simply put, women delay childbirth delaying fatherhood for men.

    Under those circumstances men have nothing else to do but kick back, relax and enjoy the decline, that is until they’re called up for duty to ‘man up’, whenever that suits the females.

    The PeterPan statistic is very easy to spot, it’s simply the rate and age of male fertility compared to previous years.

    Some 50 to 70% of Western European men aged 30-34 were childless at around 2005/2010.

    Great paper including male fertility rates.
    http://www.familiesandsocieties.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WP33MiettinenEtAl2015.pdf

    Too much emphasis is placed on marriage statistics, fertility, age at first birth and childlessness is a far more accurate reflection of where we’re at.

  71. krakonos says:

    @Johnycomelately
    “Some 50 to 70% of Western European men aged 30-34 were childless at around 2005/2010.

    Great paper including male fertility rates.
    http://www.familiesandsocieties.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WP33MiettinenEtAl2015.pdf

    Thanks for confirmation of my observations (a.k.a anecdotal evidence). I’ve noticed this during high school reunions – now in their mid thirties – a best proxy for relevant statistical data I can get. This data is limited to higher achievers by occupation – eastern European by location, upper middle class (?) like scientists, doctors, engineers, (higher education) teachers etc.

    Almost all men have above average income, mostly top 20%. There are no slackers.
    Women have greater income spread, around average. Some opted for motherhood.

    Just 50% of men have any kind of relationship (and for the rest with no prospect of getting any).
    Around 90% of women have a relationship (of their preference – marriage/cohabitation/fuck buddies). And now problem of getting new.
    The men who do not have any relationship are more introverted, family oriented (and come from intact families), stable and (maybe surprisingly) conservative.

    Only 25% of men have at least one child. And maybe 10 – 20% more will have in the future.
    Around 70% of women have at least one child. 10 – 15% more still in planning phase.
    No one has more than 2 children.

    Most of the men who have a partner have one with 2 or more points in SMV below.
    Most women have a partner 2 or more SMV points above. The less attractive the woman the greater the difference (2 can have a 5).

  72. Pingback: “The Revenge of the Lost Boys” | See, there's this thing called biology...

  73. Ann Kellett says:

    Boys today are largely 1) fatherless and 2) drugged by the state to stay passive in school. What else would the outcome be?

  74. Will says:

    I know a 50 year old man married to a large woman. They have no children. He stopped being a mule long ago. He’s an artist now and focuses on painting. He no longer fears losing his wife, home, ore respect since he now understands the state will carry him during hard times. He was a 99-week’er and proud of it.

  75. Neguy says:

    If you don’t know, the original article was published on the Federalist, which is itself published by the conservative Heritage Foundation. They are the very definition of tradcons. Here’s a recent article there that’s even worse.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/09/behold-the-beta-males-who-feel-good-about-watching-a-man-die/

  76. Kate Minter says:

    “My marriage did not civilize me. A stable family life with two excellent parents civilized me – so it was really their marriage that laid the foundation.”

    MrTeebs: I think this is an important distinction. Marriage itself does not do the civilizing. Civilized *people* choose marriage. (Which, as you pointed out, both comes from and causes generational civilization.) Therefore, even after a first marriage fails, people who come from homes with a stable family life will remarry because that is what civilized people do. Kudos to you for what you are doing and providing for your children.

    seriouslyserving: It is alarming sometimes, but, remember, you only have x amount of children. So, that means in all of the 7.2 billion people on earth, you only need to find x amount of children to marry yours. I only need to find one. The earlier you start looking and preparing your children, the easier it will be to find that person. The old idea of marrying a cousin makes a lot more sense when you see how it keeps assets within the family and provides assurance of shared values as well as social support for the marriage. I’ve already selected a few candidates based on a modern twist of this old rite, one whom I consistently favor. The coup will be pulling it off😉

  77. Anonymous Reader says:

    pukeko
    We have now two generations of children who are scarred by divorce: many are now very cautious about any romantic commitment at all.

    This is one of the many things that don’t exist within the UMC bubble. The fact that 40% or even more of the young men in trade school, in any college, in med school, etc. come from a broken up home. Telling a young man who was raised by a feminist divorcee’ or single mother to “man up” when he’s never had a male role model allowed anywhere near him is like cutting someone’s feet off and then telling them to run a race of unknown distance. It’s not just stupid, it’s cruel.

  78. Striver says:

    When sexuality became completely unmoored from marriage, women became gatekeepers of sexuality whether there is a commitment or not.

    In the past, women were at risk of making a bad choice because once they sold their sexuality to a man, they could not re-sell it to another man except at a steep discount. There is no longer much if any discount to a used woman. No more slut shaming. So every man has to pay and pay the woman, married or not, for every encounter, by “gaming” her or whatever. Terrible situation for men.

  79. Dave says:

    On another front, looks like feminists are softly trying to see some good in men: maybe women can learn something from men.

  80. Fiddlesticks says:

    My guess is that Peter Pan (combining husband levels of income with bachelor levels of commitment) is more common among “starter marriage” divorced men, who often weren’t even married long enough to have kids.

    Men who married in their early/mid-20s, hopped on the provider-beta track and then realized “D’oh! She doesn’t respect me!” or “D’oh! I missed the party.”

  81. Bee says:

    @asdgamer,

    “By the way, socialism has been opposed to the family for centuries–as far back as the 18th century. We shouldn’t be surprised at the attack on the family nowadays.”

    Removing the authority of father’s to lead and shelter their families is a key goal of leftists.

    Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn referred to it (leftism) as “the overthrow of the Father”

    http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-promotion-of-freedom.html

    Mao focused on destroying the patriarchal society that held China together:

  82. James K says:

    we have created a system where from a practical perspective men are foolish to seek marriage as their path to sex

    and yet

    nearly all white women are still able to marry

    The resolution of this paradox is a recurring theme of this blog: that many women spend a decade riding the cock carousel before they marry. It is men under 30 who are foolish to seek marriage as their path to sex.

    Nichols’ article confirms this view: he mentions that the men he is writing about are “almost all under 30 at their peak destructiveness.”

    What are gamma males supposed to do with themselves in their twenties and early thirties, while their female peers are chasing alpha cock? Many will lose themselves in education or a job that they love. Some may succeed in making themselves more attractive to women.

    What are the rest supposed to do? In countries that value individual liberty, the answer is that this is nobody’s problem but their own. I suspect that this is why female journalists who write about the men that Nichols calls “misfits” and “losers” regard them with such contempt. Nichols at least tries to see the social context of the problem, even if he does not fully identify the causes.

  83. NotHere says:

    Dalrock, all western countries are deep in debt and not towards each other but to bankers, most of the media are somehow under their control too… there is even one family that collects central banks as if it were post stamps (only Iran, N-Korea and Cuba left)… the finance sector decides where Nato drops its bombs, where war will exist and who will believe what… the media are controlled by these powers .. and i have to assume that the media are steered to promote cultural marxism. Without these “outside” influences people would be able to manage themselves. By promoting cultural marxism families are eliminated, people get weakened. Feminists are only puppets, most journalists too, the jihadis from isis too, everyone is.
    It is important to see what the real enemy is: the monetary system is fundamentally broken & that allowed some sneaky people to game the system, to hijack … almost the planet.
    Fix the monetary system (possibly with interest-free currencies?) and you fix many seemingly unrelated problems.

  84. Exfernal says:

    @Dave:

    Isn’t it the old feminist tune: “Let’s become better faux-men?”

  85. Retrenched says:

    You also have to love how when young men focus on hobbies, friends, travel and casual sex instead of seeking marriage they’re “Peter Pan manboys”, but when young women do the exact same thing it’s “fun” and “empowering”.

  86. Michelle says:

    @ Hippopotomusdrome

    Still, the alienated young loners, especially those who commit spectacular acts of violence, are largely a white phenomenon.

    Only because the media selectivaly reports it.

    A few mass-shootings by blacks that didn’t get non-stop coverage:

    Maybe when they speak about mass shootings they are talking about gunning down strangers just because. The black shootings are usually inner city gang violence with specific targets and collateral damage or robberies gone wrong.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    The old idea of marrying a cousin makes a lot more sense when you see how it keeps assets within the family and provides assurance of shared values as well as social support for the marriage

    It also conserves bad genes. There is a recent publication in Nature on this topic Directional dominance on stature and cognition in diverse human populations

    the offspring of first cousins suffer an average reduction of 1.2 cm in height and 0.3 sd in g ( ~4.5 IQ points) . … Children of first cousin marriages also suffer an elevated incidence of significant genetic disease, roughly 1.5-2 times the non-inbred risk.

    The incidence of serious birth defects in Pakistan where cousin marriage is standard is very high. All those jokes about hillbilly marriages in Appalachia weren’t made up out of nothing.

  88. Gunner Q says:

    Anonymous Reader @ July 11, 2015 at 6:23 pm:
    “This society hates most men and has nothing but contempt for them. I can’t tell if Tom Nichols shares that or not.”

    He shares it. Anybody who uses the phrase “man-boy” to describe a young adult male frustrated with modern society is most certainly contemptuous. Denying a man his full humanity because he doesn’t fit comfortably in society is a disturbing precedent. Read Nichols’ description of the least violent of his selected representative cases:

    “Snowden, too, made a run at being a military hero. Unable to finish high school, Snowden tried the military cure and never even got through infantry training.With adolescent fantasies of grandeur, [he] also headed for the Special Forces—every little boy wants to be the bravest soldier in the Army, apparently—only to find that things like standing up straight and getting out of bed in the morning were skills he’d have to master before he could jump out of airplanes with a knife in his teeth.”

    Even as Nichols described Snowden trying to fit into Tradcon society, his hatred of Snowden for ultimately failing is audible. One would think he’d at least give points for trying.

  89. wzippler says:

    Reblogged this on Smart Christian.net and commented:
    ” they seem to share little beyond a stubborn immaturity wedded to a towering narcissism.”

  90. The Question says:

    @Dalrock At the risk of sounding melodramatic or sycophantic, I believe this is probably the most important post ever written in the Manosphere on the issue. As a young man, this was something that I vaguely sensed but only realized recently.

    – Respect is a more powerful motivator for men than sex:
    – Withholding respect from the respectable.

    It really comes down to these two points.

    Western society either doesn’t understand this or absolutely revolts at the idea of giving an honorable man any respect. I have been absolutely blown away by the disgust and revulsion people offer at the notion of honor. It is a completely foreign concept in our culture, which disrespects men, fathers, and husbands to the point where it is considered virtuous and even admirable to do so. It offers no opportunities for men to gain honor. just ridicule regardless of what choices they make, and then wonders why young men don’t want to comply with the demands of a society that absolutely despises them and sees their only value as that of slaves.

    If a culture wants men to do something, they must make it a point of respect; honor those who conduct themselves in ways they want to encourage. The problem is, if a culture wants to honor men, then what they want them to do must itself be honorable. Instead, modern culture resorts to shaming young men, for two reasons. One, they can’t offer honor. To bestow honor is to bestow moral authority, the last thing they ever, ever want to give them. Secondly, they are trying to pressure young men to do things that will bring them shame. You can’t honor someone for doing something shameful; nor can you shame someone into doing something that will bring them further shame; you honor those worthy of honor and shame those worthy of shame.

  91. feeriker says:

    You also have to love how when young men focus on hobbies, friends, travel and casual sex instead of seeking marriage they’re “Peter Pan manboys”, but when young women do the exact same thing it’s “fun” and “empowering”.

    Especially galling is the socon/tradcon habit of shaming these men for not making marriage and family a priority in their lives when these same socons/tradcons readily admit, at the same time and out of the opposite sides of their mouths, that young women –including self-described socon/tradcon young women– are not the last bit interested in marriage, to any man of any age. For people who call themselves “conservatives,” and who one would thus think would have more than a tenuous grasp of economic theory, they seem to have ZE-RO grasp of the concept of incentives.

    In socon/tradcon eyes these men will never win, no matter what they do or don’t do. They’re damned in any and every direction. It’s enough to make one wonder how it is that the main offices of AmCon or National Review haven’t yet been lit up by another Dylan Roof.

  92. Dave says:

    Still, the alienated young loners, especially those who commit spectacular acts of violence, are largely a white phenomenon.

    That is easily explained. Whites are more likely to try and be polite even when they are unhappy about a situation. A white man would rather pacify an irate but wrong customer than show them the door. Over time, the frustration builds up to unamanageable levels, resulting in fatal outcomes. I am not suggesting that this explains every case of mass shooting though.

    Black folks don’t wait so long before they tell you they are not happy about you. They look you straight in the face, with their index finger pointing directly at your pupil, and tell you to get lost. They may appear “aggressive”, but once they explode, the matter is, by and large, forgotten, and the typical black guy walks away, with his pants hanging midway down his buttocks, and Snoop Dogg blasting away from his iPhone. Serial killing is not his thing.

  93. Dave says:

    Respect is never given though; it is earned. When a loudmouth has gotten his butt kicked by someone stronger and bigger than him, he will quickly learn to “give honor where honor is due”.

    If indeed “no one will treat you badly without your permission”, then we can safely say that our fathers who gave in to the insane demands of feminism are responsible for the lack of respect that men get these days. We must own the state of things, guys. Feminism and other evils have been in the world from time immemorial, trying to overthrow good sense at every turn. They have not succeeded until recently. Now, the inmates are running the asylum, and the guards must find a way to put things back in order.

    Going by the mass of bluepill men and manginas all over America and West in general, it is understandable why the feminists won, because most men in those days were bluepill and manginas, just as they are today. As soon as the women made a demand, they simply folded “for the sake of peace”.

  94. JDG says:

    You also have to love how when young men focus on hobbies, friends, travel and casual sex instead of seeking marriage they’re “Peter Pan manboys”, but when young women do the exact same thing it’s “fun” and “empowering”.

    Some thoughts:

    If a woman sleeps with a man outside of a life long commitment with that man, she is a slut. She may want to think of herself as sexually empowered, but she is still a slut. Slut is the defining term of a woman who has casual sex.

    We are not entitled to sugar coat our deeds. If a man steals, he is a thief. If he gives up his thieving ways he is no longer a thief. If he sleeps around he is a cad. If he turns away from whore mongering, he is no longer a cad. If a woman sleeps around … etc.

    If the unbeliever wants to engage in casual sex, that’s up to them. God will judge them, not me; however, describing someone’s behavior with words is not judging (condemning) them . It is simply describing the person.

    Furthermore, I don’t blame men for opting out of “marriage” in this country or any country that practices state enforced slavery to an unfaithful wife (if you left your husband and collect money from him via the state this means you). Any fool can see that real marriage is not recognized by the state. Even God is no longer recognized by the state. Now that’s not a fee pass for men to fornicate, but it is something that must be reckoned with.

  95. new anon says:

    All those jokes about hillbilly marriages in Appalachia weren’t made up out of nothing.

    I’m not big on the “go get a foreign bride” front, but one advantage its advocated continually fail to note is that–from a purely biological standpoint–the best DNA mixes are two disparate people–literally two people who, genetically, are from opposite sides of the world.

  96. JDG says:

    Dave at 10:06

    MARGARET WENTE – What women can learn from men

    Oh I don’t know, how about… everything!

    I’m left with the impression that she wants women to be manlike.

    Her list:

    Men get to the point
    Men don’t hold grudges
    Men externalize their failures
    Men are focused and persistent
    Men have no problem being assertive

    From the “Men externalize” subsection:

    When men fail at something, they’re likely to blame it on their subordinates, their boss, market conditions, bad luck or sunspots. They seldom blame themselves

    When women fail at something, they’re likely to conclude that they’re no good, and who were they kidding anyway? The only solution is to go home, have a martini, and remind yourself that no man would ever think like this.

    LOL – Who’s kidding who? Women think their failures are the fault of men ALL THE TIME. I can’t remember the last time I heard an American woman admit that something was her fault. Did it even happen?

  97. “We must own the state of things, guys. ~Dave

    Must we? Last I checked I was born well after the “sexual revolution” had already raged over the state of things. I have already reaped many unearned consequences. Why must I own consequences for actions I have not chosen? I can grieve for the people who are suffering from the consequences of their bad decisions, trying to own them is counterproductive. God gives consequences for a reason. Trying to shield people from them is cruel.

  98. JDG says:

    the best DNA mixes are two disparate people–literally two people who, genetically, are from opposite sides of the world.

    I did not know this, and I’m an advocate. I was actually informed by a doctor that it was easier for my wife to miscarriage because of our racial differences. I think I’ll look into this further. Thank you.

  99. @JDG on passing blame.

    We were talking at work the other day. A woman had passed blame to a male-coworker, and I started meditating on the interaction.

    Imagine you have a job with a manual labor component. Imagine that you do not have adequate strength to do that manual labor component and that all of your coworkers do. Imagine having to pretend that none of the aforementioned is actually the case. Would you resent your coworkers for helping/not helping you, or both? Would you internalize your inadequacy or blame your coworkers?

    Imagine a job where you have gotten by batting your eyelashes and flouncing your long blond hair. Imagine getting by on the work of your coworkers. Imagine your coworkers not helping you accomplish your job for a change. Who is to blame?

    In short I think it’s a rare woman that won’t throw a male coworker under the bus at the first sign of failure,

  100. pukeko60 says:

    If indeed “no one will treat you badly without your permission”, then we can safely say that our fathers who gave in to the insane demands of feminism are responsible for the lack of respect that men get these days. We must own the state of things, guys. Feminism and other evils have been in the world from time immemorial, trying to overthrow good sense at every turn. They have not succeeded until recently. Now, the inmates are running the asylum, and the guards must find a way to put things back in order.

    Going by the mass of bluepill men and manginas all over America and West in general, it is understandable why the feminists won, because most men in those days were bluepill and manginas, just as they are today. As soon as the women made a demand, they simply folded “for the sake of peace”.

    There is a lie here. it is “No one will treat you badly without your permission” . I need just one data point but have three: Mao, the Gulag and the Armenian genocide (Ataturk or now: matters not). These people did not give permission for this to happen.

    The current US laws are such that the protected classes can treat you badly without your permission, and incarcerate you if you do not comply , This means that we have to be very careful: my sons are correct in not choosing to have GF (their peers are teenage girls, who are being encouraged to be very flighty by our society) and their old man (Moi) neither lives with nor moves the relationship with the GF beyond what was called “going steady” when I was a kid.

    Because cohabitiation == being at risk. Until the woman is tested and found true and has committed before God and man to NEVER leave you — to a marriage 1.0 covenant — then you have to keep your hands to yourself.

    As the instapundit says, the correct response to most women in most colleges now is not to talk to them at all because interaction with a woman can be considered assault. Now, this will not last: it cannot last, because the population will implode and the religious (who may not be a religion we like) who insist on the patriarchy will take over.

    At present, the feminists have made the personal political. So make them pay, good and hard: no attentionsz, no funz to those who will not submit to God and commit to one man. It is time to shame.

    And let the screams of the elite and their SJW minions count as merit points.

  101. Hells Hound says:

    Women as a sex tend to commit their cruelest acts in private. Millions of abortions over the last 40 years tells me Tom Nichols is a pedestalizing, self-blinded ignorant bonehead.

    There have also been countless other crimes Western women have obviously committed throughout centuries in private but were never prosecuted for, mainly poisonings, child abuse etc.

  102. JDG says:

    GIL your asking me to imaging that I’m a woman. No can do. I tried and failed (flouncing long blonde hair sunk the ship – ha ha!). Now according to Margaret I need to blame someone for my failure, lol.

    I can speculate, and my speculation tells me that if I did not have adequate strength / training / intelligence to do a job, I would not be able to help knowing that my co-workers had nothing to do with it and more likely it would be related to my own past decisions.

    However the same speculation tells me that if a woman were in the same position, odds are she would have much less trouble finding an excuse or scapegoat (co-worker?) to blame for the predicament. Most of us (all?) have seen it.

    I wonder, are their guys running around out there blaming their subordinates for there failures? If there are it’s news to me.

    Side note for feminist lurkers:
    Yeah I’m a sexist pig (by your standards). So what! Go make me a SAMMICH!

  103. JDG says:

    I wonder, are their guys running around out there blaming their subordinates for there failures? If there are it’s news to me.

    LOL… their = there and there = their. Feel free to exchange as as needed.

  104. Hells Hound says:

    If you don’t know, the original article was published on the Federalist, which is itself published by the conservative Heritage Foundation. They are the very definition of tradcons. Here’s a recent article there that’s even worse.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/09/behold-the-beta-males-who-feel-good-about-watching-a-man-die/

    It’s pure comedy. He speaks of “beta male rationalizing”, as if it was common for alpha males to risk their own lives trying to save some random man’s life. And, of course, he ignores the fact that the attacked was black, which was the main probable reason for the lack of intervention. Anyone who tries to intervene in that situation is likely to end up as the next George Zimmerman.

  105. JDG, I think they have a love hate relationship with the Patriarchy.

  106. JDG says:

    GIL – I concur. They love it and they hate it, and they love to hate it.

  107. Morgan says:

    If a man works hard, builds respect, and provides for his wife and kids so they are wanting of nothing, how is he punished for having an affair? She takes half their assets, custody of the kids, child support and alimony payments. And in this situation, how is the woman punished for having an affair? She takes half their assets, custody of the kids, child support and alimony payments. Plus child support payments from the affair if it results in a child. How can marriage be viewed as anything but a one sided joke to an intelligent man?

  108. greyghost says:

    The Question
    Outstanding comment. I have a 9 year old son and the world he will mature into is bullshit and you know it too.

    Only chumps get married, and only a fool would become a father.

    This is a true statement for young men today. Even the church thinks so along with every body else. It is a horrifying thing to know and most will cling to any blue pill lie to make it go away. You owe this society nothing. Make yourself strong and self reliant and always life by the red pill truth. Once you rid yourself of the lies the bible becomes clear and understandable. ,

  109. Dave says:

    “How can [Western] marriage be viewed as anything but a one sided joke to an intelligent man?”

    There; I fixed it for ya.
    Western marriages are indeed a joke and a laughingstock to anyone who has a modicum of intelligence. The newest face of the joke is the so-called “gay marriage”. You might as well say “holy devil”.

    But there are still solid marriages out there, often outside the shores of America, though there are many men even in this forum who have solid marriages. For me personally, I find the Western woman sexually undesirable, once I consider all that she comes with. A former girlfriend who I broke up with several months ago has been inching to get back into my life. Although I considered her one of the most physically attractive women I have ever dated, I have been forever ruined by non-American women. I am like a “sated soul; I loathe a honecomb”. Unfortunately for the famished mass of men in America, “every bitter” feminist is a runway model (Proverbs 27:7)

  110. Dave says:

    I have already reaped many unearned consequences. Why must I own consequences for actions I have not chosen?

    Exactly what I am trying to say is this: we must not pass the buck down the road, but see the mess created by the men gone by as something we must fix in some way. Our failure to do this will only turn us into second class citizens, and our kids into something even worse.

  111. greyghost says:

    That buck will be passed. The young men to day are the ones making the change. They are the subject of the article. See also in the Japan the herbivore men.

  112. Guy Incognito says:

    Not sure where to put this, but here’s a story about the legal system (eventually) delivering justice for a father and his child. There may be hope for our society yet.

  113. Novaseeker says:

    Going by the mass of bluepill men and manginas all over America and West in general, it is understandable why the feminists won, because most men in those days were bluepill and manginas, just as they are today. As soon as the women made a demand, they simply folded “for the sake of peace”.

    Not really how it went down.

    Feminism wasn’t consented to by the men of earlier eras to get whiny women to shut up already. They did it for two basic reasons, which differed based on where they were sitting. The first reason was the “man who has daughters, sisters, nieces, etc.”, and they did it because they thought it was only just to do so. That is, they thought it was the right thing to do for the women in their lives, whom they loved. The second reason, which was more the “opportunistic” reason, was to free up women from social, economic and sexual conventions so as to make more of them more available sexually – and feminism/Sex Rev was even explicitly sold to guys on this basis in the late 60s and the 70s. It wasn’t done to get peace, or get women to shut up – it was done either because the guys thought it was only just and right to do it, or because they wanted more opportunities to get laid.

    On the OP, I agree that respect is a substantial motivator. I’d say, though, that for men, respect and sex are linked. That is, a man who has no respect from men or women does not get laid. I’d even go so far that a huge portion of a man’s ability to attract women depends on women respecting him – men whom women respect they tend to have sex with (or at least want to do so). So, in my view, they are linked – that is desire for respect and desire for sex – because women are sexually (and emotionally) motivated by respect (or lack thereof) for men in a primary and visceral way that is not, for most men at least, mirrored in men’s attraction to women.

  114. I’ve recently run into a new (to me) class, the elitist hedonist who turns his nose at blue collar workers lifestyle and politics choices while largely subscribing to the same head-in-the-sand philosophy. I dub them Joseph Microbrew-Sixpack III’s. Their retort to any question deeper than whether their most recently opened IPA is too hoppy is “You think way to much.” Is this a variant of hipster I am wondering, a high achieving herbivore, or maybe just a hedonistic Delta.

    Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

  115. Spike says:

    Doesn’t the Marital Vow include the wife saying to the husband that she will “Love, HONOUR and Obey”? – another lie in Marriage 2.

    It is a common misconception that Nichols makes – that marriage civilises men. Nichols is wrong about it and Dalrock right, since the latter has a biblical presupposition.
    Nichols thinks this way because it is the story repeated around him ad nauseum.
    Rollo had it right when he said, unfortunately that two sets of books operate in the world.
    -We tell our daughters that they can do anything and that they can have it all. To tell them to prepare for marriage is to be old-fashioned (at best) or a vile sexist creep at worst. Yet, to not do so is the worst thing that can happen to a young women. Without the patriarchal conditioning, she will resort to the genetic/hormonal/biological signal (‘gina tingles’). Yet this is precisely what society teaches.
    -We tell our sons to work hard, study hard, plan ahead, find a place in society. Then We uphold the Baller by paying him unwarranted billions, the Thug by publicising him in music clips, and the Drug Dealer because he has flash clothes and cars.

    We don’t reward, respect or honour hard-working young men, especially those excelling in mathematics, engineering or science – fields that will produce long-term solutions in a world of increasing complexity. Moreover, we shut them out of schools and trades due to gender selection, shut them out of university with financial signals, shut them out of sex and marriage because the ‘hawt guy’ is cooler and ‘less boring’. Then we wonder why, at the statistically extreme end of the Bell curve, we get violent misfits!

  116. embracingreality says:

    Signor Farfalla said:

    “And of course no mention of female obesity which is the very backbone of EVERY single manosphere issue, though it doesn’t lead to such erudite essays, due to simplicity.”

    Damn right! Women’s power over men is in their sexuality. In a society of physically normal women most, the vast majority, will be basically sexually attractive. Female sexual power is fairly evenly distributed. However, In the US some studies put 50% of women at the obesity standard, around 70% are overweight. A tiny minority of women have widely exaggerated sexual power. An American woman who would be average in most of Europe has a SMV off the charts here because the women who would otherwise compete with her for men are trough feeders. An overweight but otherwise decent looking man with Game and a fat wallet is virtually unaffected in the sexual market place. 30% of the female population have a sense of entitlement and get away with it because 95% of the men are tripping over their ****s to win them.

    I also concur that the fat wives that so many married men see as a prize are in fact purely a burden. I couldn’t make it through one night, let alone a lifetime.

    Novaseeker identified my type in the last comment thread, seeking the brass ring. My personal ambitions are far greater to me than access to a slippery hole between some woman’s legs and fat legs would be an affliction not a reward.

  117. Julian O'Dea says:

    To echo Novaseeker’s last point, as I wrote recently at my blog:

    ” … the more love a woman feels for a child or a man, the more she will put up with becoming intimate with their bodily side. It is observable, even with one woman in a single relationship, that her willingness to do rather distasteful and even degrading acts depends very much on her level of love and respect for the man, as it changes over time, even cyclically, and therefore on her level of arousal.”

  118. not just western marriage
    western christian marriage
    and the kind it spreads to other nations as well
    where unless a man does at least half the diapers and half the homemaking
    he is not loving his wife enough….

    I always wonder why these christians never ask the women to do half the providing,protecting,and spiritual leading to show true love to their husbands

    all twisted to satisfy feminist demands
    real men change diapers…

  119. Aservant says:

    feeriker said:

    “Good luck to any man today who attempts to lead a woman by doing the Lord’s work. He’s going to find out very quickly that all the lip service she pays to this will dry right up as soon as she realizes that “the Lord’s work” isn’t about her. Once she realizes this she’ll pull out all the stops to try to shame him into believing that what he believes is the Lord’s work is really Satan’s work.”

    My experience for years to a tee. That comment nails the issue.

  120. Julian O'Dea says:

    Jonathan, I would add three quick points.

    Men doing a lot of housework is a turn-off for women.

    When women started bitching about how little housework men did, they always simply ignored the main male contribution of earning a paid living.

    There is a list of domestic jobs I never do, and my wife and I are happily married after nearly 30 years.

  121. except most christians would call you selfish for that
    and not serving enough

    you are correct though
    certain jobs only I must do
    like getting up at night for any sounds
    protecting wife etc

    but at my conservative church
    men are taught to do all diaper changes if they are not working ( even at church)
    and must always feed and hold the baby
    woman must always relax
    in fact the wife asks the pastor how she should live
    while her husband is looking after the baby outside- he pretty much is never in church or bible study
    the wife should have asked her husband first if he is really her head

  122. in fact the men in our circles
    mock men who
    let their wife change dipers
    do the cooking
    look after the home….

  123. Julian O'Dea says:

    Jonathan, maybe you need to find another church.

  124. JDG says:

    real men change diapers…

    Sometimes they do (for extraordinary purposes) and sometimes they don’t (that would be the rest of the time), but … real women make the sammiches … all of the time.

  125. JDG says:

    except most christians would call you selfish for that
    and not serving enough

    Not in my wife’s country. In my wife’s country virtually NO ONE would consider that selfish. Not the Catholics, not the Protestants, not the Muslims, and not the irreligious. At the church we attend here in the states NO ONE would consider that selfish either, just normal. IMO most “Christians” in western society are either mislead, not really Christians, or both.

  126. really?
    ours is known as one of the most conservative one’s
    they justify this by saying Jesus washed feet so men should do homemaking
    ( they see homemaking as service, but not provision or protection)

    as for the diapers
    obviously a man does help
    but they use statements like that
    and teach men
    that as soon as they come home from work
    if they rest
    it is sin
    they have to help cook or do the cooking
    look after the kid
    change all diapers
    feed the kid
    do dishes
    put baby to bed
    and allow wife to be on facebook
    this is basically what CBMW/Matt Chandler and our church teaches

    I just wonder where in the bible these men get their ideas?
    and why they are respected for it
    why can’t we say anything against it

    I am called rebellious, foolish and lost for saying
    Carolyn Custis James is not a true Christian ( she believes Gender roles are a sign of sin….)

  127. CBMW calls it selfish
    if a man relaxes when he comes home
    one article stated men must cook dinner / look after the baby if their wife works
    the author sent his wife to work while the baby was not even a year old and is a christian pastor
    this is the example they set for other couples

    it seems so weird
    do these guys and famous pastors not see that by their standards no men in the bible were Godly husbands?!!

    even Jesus learn’t his father’s trade, NOT the homemaking of his Mother…

  128. “But a woman adds very little to a man’s ability to think, invent and produce.”

    God endowed us with the testosterone that urges us to do those things. Radical Feminists crave it, can’t have it, and hate us for it.

    And could would we finally lay to rest this idea that marriage equals maturity? Some of the most immature people get married, which is why the divorce rate is so high. Indeed, I suspect that many supporters of unnatural marriage may have said to themselves, “Well, if straight people can’t seem to get it right…”

  129. Julian O'Dea says:

    Jonathan, sorry, no. If any priest or pastor I knew tried that nonsense on, I would be gone.

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

    As for Christ washing feet, yes, but what a perversion of scripture to apply that to shame husbands.

    I could just as easily point out that Martha waited on the Lord, but Lazarus was not asked to.

    I could also point out the woman who knelt and used her hair to help anoint and wash Christ’s feet. Why is that not normative for wives?

    It sounds like your pastor is a total feminist. And, more colloquially, a loser.

  130. JDG says:

    really? ours is known as one of the most conservative one’s

    You see there’s the problem right there. I learned a while back that conservatives are conserving the leftism they learned growing up. They are feminists with a social and / or political bend towards the “right”, which means they are socially and politically “left” of the Bible.

    If your church will not let you speak out against such foolishness, you may want to consider what Julian suggested and prayerfully start looking for another church to attend. What ever you do should start with prayer.

  131. Brad said, ” How many of those men would be making those breakthroughs without outside support, including from a dedicated wife?”

    Nikola Tesla was a bachelor to the end of his days.

    I may very well break six figures in the next 5 years at my current trajectory. I’ve been single for 13 years.

    These days, when people talk of the value of women to men, it’s a patronizing exaggeration.

  132. @ Neguy
    This from the “About” section of the Amazon page for her book, “She blogs on her website at WhitbyForum and at Huffington Post.

    It explains a lot.

  133. but
    CBMW,TGC,ACTS 29 who all claim to stand up for men are like this
    real men do the night feedings
    courtney reissig, from CBMW gets her husband to do night feedings and do all the morning duties so she can write a book

    Bethany Jenkins from TGC ( courtney/cbmw friend) believes in Sheryl Sandberg’s lean in message
    and believes men must do more homemaking so women can work like her

    look at any of these Pastor’s twitter feeds
    anything about real men is tied to domesticity

    our church refers to their stuff ( True woman, etc)

    Jen Wilkin from Village Church believes girls should not be taught to be feminine, and we cannot have female homemakers as she cannot see how the world will work without female executives

    most conservative churches invite her to speak, she spends more time speaking and writing than doing homemaking or supporting her husband ( who on instagram shows himself cooking and looking after the kids

    my church loves John Macarthur
    yet earlier this year they praised a man for running a Godly family and said he would be nominated for elder
    he is a stay at home dad….
    most christians are egalitarian
    a few are complementarian like the one’s above

    and now they are not true believers?

    I do not understand why they want to compromise to feminism?

    I do not know where to go
    my church is the most conservative in the country….

    also I asked my youth pastor
    he believes providing for your wife
    washing the car or doing the lawns is not service to the wife
    only cooking etc is…

  134. yes
    the Christ washing feet is basically used to dismantle any gender roles in society
    also the whole who wants to be first must be last
    so according to them a man risking his life to provide and protect is being selfish and putting himself first
    but a man who does homemaking is putting him last
    when it is actually the other way around right?

  135. how do I get over this desperate urge to be liked by christians?
    to want to fit in
    if I embrace the truth
    I will be isolated…

  136. Julian O'Dea says:

    Christ washed the feet of his (male) apostles to show that mutual service is Christian.

    Of course a husband should help his wife at times, but it is not his place to be led by or serve his wife. There is so much scripture against that notion, which I quoted on this site only a few days ago, that feminists (including male feminists) have no case.

    There is nothing in scripture or tradition to support a family model in which a husband “serves” his wife in aid of her career.

    As it happens, my wife now works nearly full-time in a professional job, since I am retired. But both of us understood that her main role in our marriage was wife and mother.

    If Christian churches are promoting careerism for wives, they are simply trotting along pathetically behind the culture.

    Groups that are ostensibly conservative seem to try very hard to be seen as socially “hip”. I don’t know why. In the American context, I have noticed that National Review Online, for example, started to support, or at least accept, women in combat a few years ago. So-called social conservatives are often the worst of the lot for having realistic attitudes to men and women and their relations.

  137. JDG says:

    I do not know where to go
    my church is the most conservative in the country….

    You say that like it’s supposed to mean something. I just explained to you what conservatism is. You need to pray and ask God for guidance. You should also seek fellowship with Bible believing Christians. Conservative does not equate to believing the Bible or following Jesus. Stop worrying so much and seek an answer from God. Just trust in Jesus and follow Him.

    “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.” – Psalm 118:8

    Take the whole world, but give me Jesus.

  138. JDG says:

    Jonathon – I forgot to mention that I know a lot of conservative churches that have sadly embraced the culture to varying degrees, and almost none of them sound as compromised by the world as yours.

  139. Jonathan says:

    well I live in New Zealand
    here one of our members is the CEO of NAB
    he actively promotes women over men to show he supports career women

    then the head of New South Wales in Australia goes to a conservative complementarian church ( part of TGC)
    yet he appoints a woman as his attorney general who says her husband does the homemaking so she can work

    also he fasts for Ramadan to get closer to the muslim community

    so yes there are hardly any christian churches then in NZ
    they are against gay marriage, yet seem to allow women to pretend Gender roles do not apply

    it is not just Christian Churches
    it is huge organisations
    like Propel woman/en ( look it up)
    careerism for Christian women

    I confronted the cripplegate- a conservative christian blog on supporting women in that organization
    they banned me

    so it is like
    I am the one who is not reading the bible correctly
    I am wrong

    yet people here are different
    what is correct?
    I need a mentor…

  140. BradA says:

    A Regular Guy,

    It must be great being so perfect. Though you do need to learn to read a bit better. I specifically did not say the wife was the only potential suport, just one way.

    Go ahead and belive your fantasy that it is all you though.

  141. greyghost says:

    A Regular Guy is right this one.

    I specifically did not say the wife was the only potential support, just one way.

    That is starting to sound like Obama and his “you didn’t build that” as a way to patronize to the lowest common denominator.

  142. Jonathan says:

    well
    CBMW promotes this
    take Courtney Reissig
    Her husband makes sure he does not progress in his career and works from home so he can look after the kids and run the home so she can write
    travel to speak to women
    etc
    take last month
    she has already written numerous articles even though her baby is not even a month old!

    Matt Chandler, says on dating
    he trains young men to do homemaking and talks to them about taking on more household duties so he can enable his future wife to nurture her gifts (aka career)

    are you saying these people
    TGC/ACTS 29 /CBMW are not christian?
    they all claim christ

    if they are
    why are their men so weak?

  143. well I live in New Zealand
    here one of our members is the CEO of NAB
    he actively promotes women over men to show he supports career women

    then the head of New South Wales in Australia goes to a conservative complementarian church ( part of TGC)
    yet he appoints a woman as his attorney general who says her husband does the homemaking so she can work

    also he fasts for Ramadan to get closer to the muslim community

    so yes there are hardly any christian churches then in NZ
    they are against gay marriage, yet seem to allow women to pretend Gender roles do not apply

    it is not just Christian Churches
    it is huge organisations
    like Propel woman/en ( look it up)
    careerism for Christian women

    I confronted the cripplegate- a conservative christian blog on supporting women in that organization
    they banned me

    so it is like
    I am the one who is not reading the bible correctly
    I am wrong

    yet people here are different
    what is correct?
    I need a mentor…

  144. well
    CBMW promotes this
    take Courtney Reissig
    Her husband makes sure he does not progress in his career and works from home so he can look after the kids and run the home so she can write
    travel to speak to women
    etc
    take last month
    she has already written numerous articles even though her baby is not even a month old!

    Matt Chandler, says on dating
    he trains young men to do homemaking and talks to them about taking on more household duties so he can enable his future wife to nurture her gifts (aka career)

    are you saying these people
    TGC/ACTS 29 /CBMW are not christian?
    they all claim christ

    if they are
    why are their men so weak?

  145. Opus says:

    I was thinking about Novaseeker’s comment. Why, given his first point, that men do things for women they love (surely more than that – they do things for women in general) have women been, as they appear to be, not merely ungrateful for what men have done (art, science, religion, indeed civilization and its continued maintenance itself) but downright hostile and increasingly so and from about the time the wonders of the sexual revolution began to wear off (about 1975 I’d say). This is repeated ion the Churches where women seem to have rage against the Big Guy upstairs. Surely the answer has something to do with charity. People hate being in receipt of charity and resent the giver – gifts must be reciprocated. When the giver then doubles-down (say by Title IX or other Affirmative Action) the gulf between what women are capable of on their own and what men are doing to pretend that no barriers exist only exacerbates the very difference – women become ever angrier, men dig ever deeper holes.

  146. Julian O'Dea says:

    Jonathan, I don’t know. There have been men and women behaving like that for some time. It is fashionable, but I think a bit less so than it used to be.

    I can only repeat what I said previously, and probably have nothing further to add. People can call themselves Christian and still ignore scripture and tradition. Whole churches have done it. I have already mentioned the ECUSA.

    But, I ask you, which is more likely? That all Christians until fifty years ago got these issues wrong, or that some contemporary Christians are making false claims about the proper roles of the sexes?

    Incidentally, it is common for top men to favour women. After all, when you are at the top, you are only hurting other men.

    We had some American guy who was running a bank here in Australia for a while, and he used to favour women. He was a bit of an asshole, as they say in his country, and eventually he offended enough people that he left the country.

  147. Julian O'Dea says:

    Opus, sometimes the simplest answer is the best.

    Women resent men because of men’s achievements and capacities. It is penis envy basically.

    Despite all the societal support, women still don’t achieve at the level of men. The excuses are wearing thin. The hysteria about the comet guy with the sexy shirt and about Professor Tim Hunt just show how desperate feminists are for excuses.

    Not many women are involved in celestial mechanics and landing a craft on a comet? Must be sexist shirts!

    I am not saying women cannot be competent. In my experience they can be. Very, sometimes. But they are not generally brilliant.

    Opus, imagine you are a clever young woman, of the kind that used to be called a bluestocking. Imagine that you start reading and studying. You gradually observe, to your mounting horror, that very nearly everything of cultural, scientific and philosophical importance was invented by men. How would you react?

  148. Julian O'Dea says:

    Actually, Opus, your diagnosis is very reasonable.

    People hate being beholden to others. It is probably one reason why personal charity has been increasingly replaced by impersonal government welfare.

    And, as they say, “no good deed goes unpunished”.

    I have also toyed with the idea that women evolved to experience a certain amount of poor treatment from men, and they hate being treated too well. Women seem to like complaining, and when they have nothing to complain about, that is hard to endure.

    In other words, as “Chateau Heartiste” once wrote, feminism is a giant “shit test” and men are failing it.

  149. Neguy says:

    @Jonathan Akash Charles, can you send me some links to where Matt Chandler gives that advice? I’m collecting these.

  150. Novaseeker says:

    We don’t reward, respect or honour hard-working young men, especially those excelling in mathematics, engineering or science – fields that will produce long-term solutions in a world of increasing complexity. Moreover, we shut them out of schools and trades due to gender selection, shut them out of university with financial signals, shut them out of sex and marriage because the ‘hawt guy’ is cooler and ‘less boring’. Then we wonder why, at the statistically extreme end of the Bell curve, we get violent misfits!

    The thing is that you CAN’T avoid doing this without keeping women down, deliberately. If the favoritism in favor of women were eliminated, it would certainly help, but the key issue driving this is the reproductive and financial independence of women from men. When that happens, women choose thug, because they always wanted thug, and now they CAN choose thug, because they do not need a decent man for money or kids. Hypergamy is wired in, but was checked by financial need and reproductive fate. Today, neither applies, so it is unleashed. Social mores buttressed both systems (i.e., the old one and the new one). If you want to unwind this, obviously you can’t uninvent birth control (something which almost all Christians, including almost all of the Christian guys on this blog support, but which was clearly a total trojan horse culturally — the evil one is nothing if not clever), so you’d have to make it nigh on impossible for women to be economically independent of men. That won’t happen unless there is a general calamity, given that the economy has moved to services and “brain work”. So there is no “taking it back” short of Mad Max, and there is no “fixing” it here and there. It’s cooked now. What remains is keeping you and yours as unscathed as you can, because there are indeed personal options despite the culture — there are no broad cultural options that are open to us. That is now cooked, and we lost.

  151. new anon says:

    my church loves John Macarthur yet earlier this year they praised a man for running a Godly family and said he would be nominated for elder he is a stay at home dad….

    When something becomes accepted by SECULAR conservatives, it eventually becomes accepted by conservative CHRISTIANS.

    1) X is tolerated by secular conservatives.
    2) X is accepted by secular conservatives.
    3) X is tolerated by conservative churches.
    4) X is promoted by secular conservatives.
    5) X is accepted by conservative churches.
    6) X is promoted by conservative churches.

    Divorce is at #6. Single mothers is at #5 and moving forward. Reversing the husband/wife roles in marriage is at #6. Homosexual relationships are at #4. Gay marriage is getting close at #2, but don’t fool yourself into thinking “conservative” churches won’t accept gay marriage–Conservative pastor Andy Stanley is laying the groundwork for acceptance of gay marriage

    This is why a red flag goes up with me now when churches say they are conservative, wave the flag, and talk about voting conservative to change the country. Invariably, you find these churches are not THEOLOGICALLY conservative, they are theologically liberal-light.

    As far as promoting stay at home dads, you can only strive against human nature for so long. And the fact is, it is human nature for the dad to be the primary breadwinner and the mom to be the primary homemaker.

    30% of mothers are stay at home moms, and (as I recall the numbers) another 20-30 percent of moms WOULD stay at home if they could, but can’t because of economic pressures. Ironically, the better college a woman attended, the more likely she is to be a stay at home mom (Ivy League college women are the most likely to stay at home) probably, because they married better so they can better afford to stay at home and live off their husband’s income. This is woman’s human nature asserting itself.

    The point? You can’t rearrange human nature, no matter how hard you try. The divorce rate of stay at home dad marriages is astronomically higher than other arrangements. Women may publicly praise the stay at home dad, but will still make jokes behind his back. They may LIKE him, but they won’t RESPECT him–and no woman will remain married to a many they don’t respect.

    Perhaps you gather some of the statistics about stay at home dads and divorce and present them to your church. Remind them that by promoting this arrangement, they are promoting divorce.

  152. Hells Hound says:

    It wasn’t done to get peace, or get women to shut up – it was done either because the guys thought it was only just and right to do it, or because they wanted more opportunities to get laid.

    I doubt those factors alone can explain it. I’d say the more simple, and also more important reason was that the ideology of gender equality was endorsed by the federal government, the mainstream media and all major corporations as well. And it’s common knowledge that the big majority of people just go with the flow.

  153. Novaseeker says:

    Groups that are ostensibly conservative seem to try very hard to be seen as socially “hip”. I don’t know why.

    The reason is clear enough. Conservatism is a political movement and in this system, that means they need votes. They will do what they can to get votes and avoid alienating people from voting from them. If that means whittling down the platform and embracing stuff you were formerly against, but which the general culture now supports, that’s what you will do to get votes.

    This is why it was ALWAYS folly for traditional Christians to align with the conservative political movement. It led to a blurring which has come to the brink of destroying the church.

  154. new anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    Women are wired to seek out the best father material. Unfortunately, they are wired to seek out the best father material from 5,000 years ago.

    5,000 years ago, the best father material was the guy who could beat the crap out of any other guy that tried to take his stuff. Who would raid another village and take all their stuff. And, if he needed to kill someone while defending his stuff or taking theirs, he didn’t hesitate to kill them. His needs came first, and everybody else came second.

    Who does that sound like today? A thug.

    The problem today is that society refuses to acknowledge this reality. Churches in particular refuse to recognize this reality. Instead they promote the fiction of sweet, innocent women looking for good men.

  155. Novaseeker says:

    I’d say the more simple, and also more important reason was that the ideology of gender equality was endorsed by the federal government, the mainstream media and all major corporations as well.

    Not in the period 1965-1975 it wasn’t. That came later.

  156. Hells Hound says:

    The thing is that you CAN’T avoid doing this without keeping women down, deliberately. If the favoritism in favor of women were eliminated, it would certainly help, but the key issue driving this is the reproductive and financial independence of women from men.

    At the end of the day, it makes no difference though.

    There was a time when, to use an expression of yours, men were responsible for women and women were accountable to men, and women complained about it a lot. Now men aren’t responsible for women and women aren’t accountable to men, and women are complaining about this state of affairs as well with equal vehemence, it’s only that their excuses are different. You can’t win either way.

  157. Novaseeker says:

    @ new anon —

    Yes, of course. But that is the core of the problem. And it won’t be overcome — the mating signals, which are ancient at this point, can’t be changed with a snap of the fingers. It is far easier (as difficult as it is) to change the environment in which those signals act than to change the signals themselves.

  158. Novaseeker says:

    There was a time when, to use an expression of yours, men were responsible for women and women were accountable to men, and women complained about it a lot. Now men aren’t responsible for women and women aren’t accountable to men, and women are complaining about this state of affairs as well with equal vehemence, it’s only that their excuses are different. You can’t win either way.

    It’s true that you will never stop women complaining. But that isn’t the problem. Women complaining is actually a feature and not a bug. What can be changed is how people act, and the only way to do that, given that changing human nature itself is more or less impossible in any reasonable time frame, is to change the environment and the incentives it gives. Women will whine no matter what — but what matters isn’t that they whine, but rather how they behave in terms of reproduction, family, sex and men, whether they whine about it or not.

  159. Julian O'Dea says:

    Novaseeker

    One thing I have found is that, despite the claims that “Hollywood” is anti-male, they only seem to be anti-traditional-father. Hollywood (I use the term generically) actually tends to celebrate masculinity. Look at the Tony Stark type figures, for example.

    And a lot of the more vulgar sitcoms are much more Red Pill about women than the so-called family shows, which tend to be Blue Pill. I find that cruder humour (South Park”, “Mom”, “Married with Children”) is much less pedestalising of women than family shows (“Home Improvement”, “Everybody Loves Raymond”, “The Cosby Show”).

    And, if women want thugs (I think what they really want is men who have “thug moments”) then men can “thug up”. I am always puzzled by the references to engineers as nerds. When I was at university, they had a reputation as very masculine. Perhaps times have changed, maybe as the maths skills required have gone up?

    FWIW, I am against artificial birth control on religious grounds. But also, any society that allows women to completely control their fertility will not reproduce itself.

  160. Hells Hound says:

    Not in the period 1965-1975 it wasn’t. That came later.

    As you probably know, the Equal Rights Amendment, to name one example, was passed by both houses of Congress in 1972, and pretty much the only event that blocked its ratification was basically a mommy war. That was a very obvious writing on the wall, so to speak.

  161. new anon says:

    Hells Hound says:
    July 13, 2015 at 8:10 am
    It wasn’t done to get peace, or get women to shut up – it was done either because the guys thought it was only just and right to do it, or because they wanted more opportunities to get laid.

    I doubt those factors alone can explain it. I’d say the more simple, and also more important reason was that the ideology of gender equality was endorsed by the federal government, the mainstream media and all major corporations as well. And it’s common knowledge that the big majority of people just go with the flow.

    You are right about people going with the flow, but I the the “four corners” strategy was also in play.

    To dominate any meeting, place one person in each corner of them room. If they constantly interject themselves into the discussion, it gives the impression that a large number of people in the room favor a certain position, when in fact only 4 people do. The majority of the people just go with the flow and acquiesce to the “majority” opinion (which is really a minority opinion of 4).

    This has been the strategy for the left for decades. Capture control of organizations by making it SEEM like a majority of members favor a position. Capture society by making it SEEM like a majority of organizations favor a position.

  162. Hells Hound says:

    Women will whine no matter what — but what matters isn’t that they whine, but rather how they behave in terms of reproduction, family, sex and men, whether they whine about it or not.

    As long as they whine, average men and men in power as well feel compelled to do something about it, and the usual result is that men get thrown under the bus one way or another. That’s what I meant. No matter what state of affairs are created, you as a man will be, in all likelihood, conveniently expended, exploited and victimized in various ways.

  163. Hells Hound says:

    When I was at university, they had a reputation as very masculine. Perhaps times have changed, maybe as the maths skills required have gone up?

    An engineering student has to bust his ass, he has to constantly improve his skills in isolated environments where he usually interacts with other male engineers. He has little free time to spend on working out, playfully socializing with others, learning how to be cocky and funny, doing cold approaches etc.

    Ang engineer has to be dependable, above all else. He has to follow instructions and regulations, meet deadlines, work extra hours, do correct calculations, follow the rules, think inside the box, listen to his superiors etc. That’s the complete opposite of being a sexy man.

  164. feeriker says:

    Doesn’t the Marital Vow include the wife saying to the husband that she will “Love, HONOUR and Obey”? – another lie in Marriage 2.

    Do you really believe that anyone pays any attention to those vows? They’re verbal decoration for the wedding ceremony, like the bride’s bouquet of flowers or the carpet down which the bride walks to the altar – only they mean even less. The Armed Forces enlistment oath or the Hippocratic Oath could be substituted for the marriage vows and it’s unlikely anyone would even notice. Or care.

  165. Julian O'Dea says:

    If you want an obedient wife, there is nothing in wedding cake that will make her obedient.

    Some women are the submissive type. If you want obedience, select one of them. But be aware that a woman’s appearance and demeanour are no guide to her actual willingness to follow and obey.

  166. Badpainter says:

    “Women complaining is actually a feature and not a bug.”

    How so?

  167. new anon says:

    Hells Hound says: As long as they whine, average men and men in power as well feel compelled to do something about it, and the usual result is that men get thrown under the bus one way or another. That’s what I meant. No matter what state of affairs are created, you as a man will be, in all likelihood, conveniently expended, exploited and victimized in various ways.

    And, here are men being controlled by their biology from 5,000 years ago. Men are wired to protect and provide for women.

    5,000 years ago if a man was unable (or unwilling) to protect and provide for his woman, then his woman AND HIS CHILDREN died. So, that instinct–gene if you will–gets compounded generation after generation until it becomes an instinct to SACRIFICE for his woman. And, we have seen throughout most of history that the men that are willing to sacrifice their own lives (metaphorically) for their women are the ones most likely to have children grow to adulthood and reproduce.

    The difference between the two 5,000 year old biology is that women seem fully aware of men’s biological drives and take advantage of them. Men are biologically driven to protect and provide for women–even to the point of self sacrifice–and women are consciously taking advantage of it.

    Men, on the other hand, seem hell bent on denying women’s biological drives. Men have not only put on blinders, but created an alternative description of women that bears no resemblance to reality. Or, perhaps it is women that have created this alternative description and fed it to men, saying “protect us from those that would slander us by pointing out the truth about us.” And men, because they want to protect women, do just that.

  168. Jane Dough says:

    “The thing is that you CAN’T avoid doing this without keeping women down, deliberately. If the favoritism in favor of women were eliminated, it would certainly help, but the key issue driving this is the reproductive and financial independence of women from men.”

    It’s said on here a lot that feminism exposed the true nature of women and I completely agree. But it also created two district groups of men: ones who have the ability, drive, and focus to succeed, and those who don’t. It used to be that most men did well. They didn’t get rich, but they did well enough to support a family. With women in the workforce in such huge numbers, men have fallen.

    But like a lot of men on this site don’t want a reformed slut, not a lot of women are looking to marry a man who either can’t or won’t compete when he has to do so against women. “Real men” do what needs to be done regardless of circumstances, and I think that’s why the UMC is doing so well. Those are the men who worked hard and moved up, and they are marrying women who are intelligent and plan ahead, hence the lower divorce rate.

    Yes, the manosphere has it right that women want men they can look up to and respect, men they see as above them. But now women are seeing that many these men aren’t really above them when society doesn’t artificially force it. The jig is up and the attraction is gone. It’s a problem for everyone.

  169. new anon says:

    Getting back to the original theme of this story, one of the reasons boys/men are not pursuing “respectable” lives are the role models society holds up as respectable males. Case in point: Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner.

    If we can believe Romans 1 (and we can) that God’s nature is made plain to everyone and that all are without excuse, then every young man knows Caitlyn Jenner is a perversion of God’s plan for man. Yet, Jenner is now held up as someone who is courageous; as someone we all should respect. If the model for manhood is such an obvious perversion, why should any young man pursue a respectable path? If this is the gains respectability, then why try to be respectable?

    Consider the plight of the young, but unsaved man. He knows at some level how men should behave, because God has made it plain to him. Yet, when he acts that way not only the world, but the “church” condemns him. Instead, he sees that the only way to gain respect in society is to repress that knowledge of God–that inner nagging that something isn’t right about what the world expects of him. Caught in that situation, is it surprising he just gives up, stops trying, and goes his own way?

    Of course, Jenner is just the last mile of a thousand mile journey. Society and the “church” has increasingly been holding up males who deviated from God’s plan as role models for decades and decades. And as time has marched on, they have deviated further and further. Until, we have reached the point we are at today, where men who should be anti-role-models (the men we warn our sons NOT to be like) are actually held up as examples of true manhood.

    If this is the price of respect, the price is too high.

  170. Exfernal says:

    Isn’t it simple? Just don’t be a loser, tehee!

  171. Exfernal says:

    It was @Jane Dough.

  172. Exfernal says:

    If this is the prize, then why play at all?

  173. James says:

    Novaseeker wrote:
    The thing is that you CAN’T avoid doing this without keeping women down, deliberately. If the favoritism in favor of women were eliminated, it would certainly help, but the key issue driving this is the reproductive and financial independence of women from men.

    I don’t think it would necessary to keep women down. IMO women’s financial independence is much more artificial and transient than it looks. The jobs that are most essential to innovation and economic production– mining, drilling, construction, engineering, science, etc– are still overwhelmingly male, so in the aggregate, women are still dependent on men for a first-world society. It’s just that the welfare state and the proliferation of paper-pushing jobs and make-work jobs– many of them mandated by the government, like HR and regulatory compliance– has meant that they’re no longer dependent on any specific man.

    There’s undeniably been a permanent shift toward female economic independence as technology has reduced the importance of physical strength, but welfare/big government is equally important, and getting rid of it would go a long way toward restoring balance. I think you’re right, though, that this won’t happen without a general calamity. Too many people have too much invested in the status quo.

  174. JDG says:

    But now women are seeing that many these men aren’t really above them when society doesn’t artificially force it.

    You’ve got it a bit twisted there. Things are artificially enforced now, they were not back then.
    Women are seeing the results of men propping them up artificially, and foolishly think they are successful by their own merits. This gives them the false view that they are higher up then they really are, and it gives women like you the false notion that the 80% of men who are no longer noticed by women are losers. When that bubble bursts it is going to really suck for a lot of people, especially women.

  175. new anon says:

    Jane Dough said: Yes, the manosphere has it right that women want men they can look up to and respect, men they see as above them. But now women are seeing that many these men aren’t really above them when society doesn’t artificially force it. The jig is up and the attraction is gone. It’s a problem for everyone.

    Which explains why the guy on the nerdy side, who works hard, completes college in engineering, and is making $100,000 a year by the time he is 25 and yet can’t get a date to save his life. It’s because he’s actually a loser who isn’t good enough for most women.

    And yes, I know a number of men who are in EXACTLY that situation. Because they are not top tier in every aspect (be it personality or physique) they are ignored by women their age and younger. Why? Because the young women aren’t looking for a good man, they are looking for a PERFECT man–a purple squirrel.

  176. James says:

    “Jane Dough” wrote:
    “Real men” do what needs to be done regardless of circumstances, and I think that’s why the UMC is doing so well.

    I can’t speak for your mythical “real men,” but most men I know do what they think is in their interests. If working hard and being a good provider makes them attractive to women, they’ll do that. If it doesn’t, they won’t. This kind of calculation doesn’t have to be conscious, but men will adjust their behavior to what society rewards or doesn’t reward. “Regardless of circumstances” doesn’t exist outside of your imagined ideal world.

  177. BradA says:

    greghost,

    That is starting to sound like Obama and his “you didn’t build that” as a way to patronize to the lowest common denominator.

    I didn’t know you added mindreading to your abilities.

    I choose my words carefully when I noted everyone has support. I knew that many quite successful men were single, so I was not going to make the case that only married men with a supportive wife could succeed.

    I would however make the case that those men only succeeded because most of society was creating the environment for such success. Note that the ability to focus on an intense subject means that someone is supplying the food, laundry, cooking etc. Even living on Spam and beans would require someone can that Spam and beans.

    You may not like reality, but it remains present. We need others to support us, whether that support is clear or not. This means that solid marriages are required for a sound society.

    You also continue to take issue with God who stated:

    [Gen 2:18 NKJV] 18 And the LORD God said, “[It is] not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”

    This was before the Fall, but it lays the principle, which remains true.

    Jesus reinforced this applicability:

    [Gen 2:24 NKJV] 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

    The expectation is that men would marry. Some will not, but most will and hence railing against that is railing against God. The modern system is railing against it as well, just from the other side.

    A pendulum may be good for keeping time, but it is not a good foundation for a society.

  178. J N says:

    @Julian O’Dea:

    If you want an obedient wife, there is nothing in wedding cake that will make her obedient.

    Some women are the submissive type. If you want obedience, select one of them. But be aware that a woman’s appearance and demeanour are no guide to her actual willingness to follow and obey.

    A Christian man who wants an obedient wife would do well to look for a woman who is obedient to God. The Scriptures are rather clear about what women should do. A woman who isn’t doing those things will be a prime candidate to be a plaintiff in a divorce court.

    @James

    I can attest that in my own life, the incentives flipped me all upside down; when I was in the world and a playa, it became pretty obvious that the only benefit from working hard was having more money. There wasn’t much benefit at all to building stability so I opted for as much travel instead (which in turn accomodated being a playa even better).

    Nowadays I don’t life that way, but the incentives are still upside down. It’s trivial to find a decent guy or two or three to live with. It’s also trivial to find a good maid to keep the house clean. From there, life is cheap, and you can work as little or as much as you want.

    I have zero incentives to be a good provider at this point. If my wife miraculously reconciled with me, I wouldn’t really see myself budging, even. (My opinion is that a good wife costs nothing or is a net gain, actually.) I would only care about being a provider if we had kids.

  179. JDG says:

    but the key issue driving this is the reproductive and financial independence of women from men.

    I don’t see how there can ever be reproductive and financial independence for women from men. Men will always be footing the bill (alimony, CS, welfare, affirmative action, etc.), so the “freedom” that women now “enjoy” is paid for by men. Plus, this “freedom” is made possible by a gynocentric state that enforces it’s will using men with guns.

    If all artificial support were taken away, the average guy would eventually seem a whole lot more attractive to women as these women would find having a man around much easier than not.

  180. Jane Dough says:

    “You’ve got it a bit twisted there. Things are artificially enforced now, they were not back then.”

    It’s a bit of both. Back then, many routes were closed off to women. Telling women that they cannot be educated or enter the work force is as much a social construction as affirmative action is. Now, some routes are made easier especially for women. But it doesn’t change the fact that when women are educated and hold jobs, it takes more than the bare minimum to impress them.

    It’s a problem. The truth is that there would be more men considered attractive if fewer women were excelling. But if you pass laws barring women from education or certain fields, it won’t bring back the attraction because we will know that the superiority is only constructed, not inherent. Attraction is primal and can’t be fooled.

    The choice has to be made as individuals. Women have to consciously choose to marry “up”, and they have to understand why it’s important to do so. Likewise, men have to marry “down” with the same understanding. Using that as a starting point will do a lot to start the marriage off on stable ground regardless of the couple’s overall socioeconomic status.

  181. BradA says:

    Because the young women aren’t looking for a good man, they are looking for a PERFECT man–a purple squirrel.

    No they are not. They are looking for fun times, with the perfect man for the moment. A few might “settle down” with that perfect man, but I doubt that is the case for most. It is not a relevant question though as that perfect man doesn’t exist so even the male 10 is fine for a romp, but not for the long term.

    The long term brings out the rough edges in all anyway, so a system that does not push for long term commitment will always fail there with any who do not have a core conviction, and can even sway the conviction of those.

    James,

    but most men I know do what they think is in their interests.

    This is not always direct. I can’t recall ever thinking “what is in my best interests” or “what will get me a solid wife.” I just did what looked interesting and was available, which sometimes worked against the wife goal. It is quite possible and even likely that this is not a conscious process for most, even though the impact is the same.

  182. JDG says:

    Why? Because the young women aren’t looking for a good man, they are looking for a PERFECT man–a purple squirrel.

    These women are looking to “hot” men to fornicate with. And they find them, lots of them. By the time they see the wall approaching and want to settle down, they have had any number of men. Who wants to marry a woman like that? Yuck!

  183. BradA says:

    JN,

    I have zero incentives to be a good provider at this point. If my wife miraculously reconciled with me, I wouldn’t really see myself budging, even. (My opinion is that a good wife costs nothing or is a net gain, actually.) I would only care about being a provider if we had kids.

    Then you would not have a Biblical marriage. I can see why you may not want to pursue that in today’s climate, but you cannot be the head of the relationship if you are not attempting to be in the lead role. Those two go together. That wimpy attitude is part of the reason we will not change the current situation until it completely implodes. Too many favor the way it is now, in one way or another.

    Please do not add words to what I am saying though. I am only noting the Biblical standard is different from the worldly one. I do believe each of us should do all we can with what we have since that is what we are told to do. We are not working for earthly masters, but a Heavenly one.

  184. BradA says:

    Who wants to marry a woman like that? Yuck!

    Exactly JDG! That is the flaw with the modern system, though even many MGTOWs benefit from the current system and it is going to take a huge shakeup to transition to a more rational one.

  185. But like a lot of men on this site don’t want a reformed slut, not a lot of women are looking to marry a man who either can’t or won’t compete when he has to do so against women. “Real men” do what needs to be done regardless of circumstances, and I think that’s why the UMC is doing so well. Those are the men who worked hard and moved up, and they are marrying women who are intelligent and plan ahead, hence the lower divorce rate.

    Blah, blah blah, man up, blah blah blah. Both groups of men get shafted in the end. Marriage isn’t worth it, both now and then, women have now proven that.

    Men work hard when there is a reason for it. They work hard when it serves their purpose. Now it doesn’t. Only cultural inertia is keeping the UMC ahead, that and a huge market bubble and high housing prices. Tick tock, tick tock mofo!

  186. JDG says:

    But if you pass laws barring women from education or certain fields, it won’t bring back the attraction because we will know that the superiority is only constructed, not inherent.

    There is no need to pass any laws barring women (as if), simply stop giving women money and jobs they haven’t earned by their own merit (alimony, CS, welfare, affirmative action, etc.) and within a short time most of those “losers” would start to look useful. Women were never kept down anywhere or anytime that men were not also kept down.

  187. JDG says:

    jane dough – if you want to see what “no artificial support” looks like, do a little reading about Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. There was zero artificial support for anyone, and feminism / egalitarianism disappeared over night.

  188. new anon says:

    Jane Dough (who I assume is a troll, but who is still sparking an interesting debate) has made one good point: women, by becoming educated and pursuing a career, have moved themselves up the ladder.

    Where she fails is expecting men to climb higher on the ladder to in order to make themselves acceptable to these new upper-ladder women. She fails, because she assumes that these upper-ladder women are more appealing to men (including upper-ladder men)–they aren’t. In many ways they are LESS appealing to upper-ladder men.

    What these upper-ladder women have done is move themselves up the MEN’S ladder. But, men don’t choose wives based on how high the climb the men’s ladder, they choose wives based on how high women have climbed the women’s ladder.

    The rungs on the women’s ladder are youth, chastity, loyalty, beauty, healthy, and fertility. The blunt fact is that most women start at the top of the women’s ladder, then climb down it in their 20’s and 30’s. That college age career woman feels most men are beneath her, because she has climbed the men’s ladder better than most men. Ironically, most men (including those beneath her on the men’s ladder) feel she is not good enough for them, because she has climbed so far down on the women’s ladder–youth gone, chastity gone, & fertility, health, and beauty all but going, going, gone.

    Men and women look for different things in a spouse. JD’s upper-ladder women fail to realize this. The assume that because they have succeeded at what they want in a man, that they are now also what every man wants in a woman–they aren’t. In most ways they are LESS desirable to men.

  189. JDG: It is called Hybrid Vigor and is well known in the animal and plant kingdom. However, in humans and probably all animals that carry young internally, disparate genetics in the parents increases the likelihood of the mother’s immune system attacking/killing the fetus just as it increases the chance of the mother having a “difficult pregnancy- typically with her sick and vomiting all the time.

    On the other hand, the kids come out taller, smarter, and healthier- usually.

    Go to any Elementary School and you can see the Mullotto kids (half white, half black) are the tallest, fastest, loudest, best developed kids in the class (if not the best behaved). I coached football so it was pretty hard not to notice the physical differences. The kids with salt and pepper parents were always- ALWAYS- the top athletes on the team. Better, stronger, faster…

  190. feeriker says:

    But if you pass laws barring women from education or certain fields, it won’t bring back the attraction because we will know that the superiority is only constructed, not inherent. Attraction is primal and can’t be fooled.

    Maybe not, but intersexual attraction really is not ultimately the point or the real issue. Up until now the socioeconomic pedestalization of women has only been possible due to an excess of economic resources generated by prosperity – a prosperity achieved through efforts and labor of men. It is, however, quite obvious that the western world in general and America in particular is resting on its economic laurels and is rapidly consuming the last of its accrued wealth. Once that wealth is exhausted, ugly ecomomic reality will assert itself in a very Darwinian fashion. This means, among other things, the end of female pedestalization, a luxury that will no longer be tenable. Productivity in key sectors of the economy that sustain society will once again be governed by the laws of economic sirvival of the fittest, laws that are as immutable as those of physics (i.e., you can only manipulate or control them for so long). This means that very few women will be able to compete or last in this economic sector, given the well established fact that most women lack ability or competitiveness in such fields.

    Will a renewed dependence on men increase women’s attraction to wider demographic groups of men? Who knows, and who cares.

    The point is that the current status quo is obviously unsustainable and is due for implosion, probably sooner than anyone wants to admit. Whether the majority of women in the western world collectively adapt to the coming changes remains to be seen, including the question of whether they’ll suddenly find more men “attractive” once the gravy train dries up and they find themselves out in up Fecal Creek without means of self propulsion. It is likely, however, that very few of them will ever see their hypergamous urges satisfied. “Red Pill Therapy” will by that time have made sufficient inroads that few men will want to assume an additional burden in times of turmoil.

  191. feeriker says:

    Men and women look for different things in a spouse. JD’s upper-ladder women fail to realize this. The assume that because they have succeeded at what they want in a man, that they are now also what every man wants in a woman–they aren’t. In most ways they are LESS desirable to men.

    This is simple biological hardwiring – that delusional, deranged feminists are hellbent on changing.

  192. Jane Dough says:

    “Where she fails is expecting men to climb higher on the ladder to in order to make themselves acceptable to these new upper-ladder women. She fails, because she assumes that these upper-ladder women are more appealing to men (including upper-ladder men)–they aren’t. In many ways they are LESS appealing to upper-ladder men.”

    That may very well be true in a vacuum, I don’t know. But I do know that successful men usually marry women with advanced or professional degrees. Most wouldn’t consider a woman without academic and professional credentials, and their families wouldn’t want them to. As it stands now, a woman has a much better shot at getting and staying married if she is at least a little successful herself.

    The idea that men want a doctor or a lawyer like women do is wrong. No man is going to work towards snagging one, nor should they. But a male doctor or lawyer will look for someone “on his level” more times than not. Upper ladder women get upper ladder men. As long as the man is at least a bit higher, it’s fine. But really, there just aren’t a lot of CPAs married to women who have only graduated high school or a cosmetic program.

    The problem comes in lower down. Trades, even mechanical trades that pay well and offer a lot of room for growth, have lost their prestige. That means that a woman making $11/hr with her psych degree looks down on a sheet metal worker making 120k/yr.

  193. Novaseeker says:

    One thing I have found is that, despite the claims that “Hollywood” is anti-male, they only seem to be anti-traditional-father. Hollywood (I use the term generically) actually tends to celebrate masculinity. Look at the Tony Stark type figures, for example.

    True, but he is always flawed and need redemption to “earn back” the woman. Look at the recent action film “San Andreas”. The film does back the masculine hero over the replacement, but he has to “earn back” the woman by engaging in nearly superhuman feats repeatedly. It isn’t anti-masculine, but it makes hypermasculinity a pre-requisite for female approval. It isn’t positive overall.

    As you probably know, the Equal Rights Amendment, to name one example, was passed by both houses of Congress in 1972, and pretty much the only event that blocked its ratification was basically a mommy war. That was a very obvious writing on the wall, so to speak.

    Sure, but the corporations were definitely not “on script”, neither were the states, and the “media” was very much not like it is today. Today is uniquely hegemonic where the government, mass media and corporations are literally all marching in very finely aligned sync. That was not the case then.

    How so?

    Women are weaker than men, yet need men to help raise children (historically and also even today as a best case). Women need men to do things they want, but they can’t “force” men to do them. So they developed a very finely tuned affinity for social interaction with men which is aimed at convincing men to do what they want us to do despite them not having the physical power to force us to do so. Whining is a part of that. It is far from the only tool in their toolbox, but it is one of them, and it can be very effective with certain men. So, yes, a feature and not a bug for women.

    As long as they whine, average men and men in power as well feel compelled to do something about it, and the usual result is that men get thrown under the bus one way or another. That’s what I meant.

    That’s true enough — it’s an evolved behavior precisely for this type of reason. It’s effective. Women are the weaker sex, but they have evolved adaptive behaviors that maximize their situation despite their physical weakness, and whining to men is one of these.

    Or, perhaps it is women that have created this alternative description and fed it to men, saying “protect us from those that would slander us by pointing out the truth about us.” And men, because they want to protect women, do just that.

    Yes. As Matt Ridley noted in one of his books, the female adaptation in homo sapiens is rather elegant in terms of extremely effectively advocating the interests of its sex from a position of substantial physical weakness (which was compounded by the practice of patrilocality among humans — that is, tribes living in male-kin-bonded groups with women brought in from other groups). Women adapted very well indeed, while men did not adapt as much in this area because they were coming from a position of strength, physically and socially. This is why women are so strong vis-a-vis men today: physical strength matters very little, and patrilocality (and, indeed, all of “patriarchy” or “father-centric family organization”) has fallen by the wayside, which has removed the “structural” bases for male dominance. When that happens, you have men who are not adapted to the new system (adapted to a system with the structural supports) confronted by women who have been very finely attuned over the course of generations and generations to manipulate men effectively from a position of weakness (this is also, by the way, why the “ruse” of weakness needs to be maintained). In short, we’re being whipsawed and can’t (or at least most of us can’t) adapt quickly enough to avoid this.

    But now women are seeing that many these men aren’t really above them when society doesn’t artificially force it. The jig is up and the attraction is gone. It’s a problem for everyone.

    Yes. The issue is that there is only a small percentage of guys who are naturally motivated. You can’t build an entire social organization around that trait, because it is not present in most men. The answer offered by today’s UMC (basically: “you just need to be like us”) is understandable but utopian. You need to build structures around the mean. And frankly that requires some boosting socially for the average guys. I don’t think this will happen anytime soon, which is why I fully expect family life to decline among everyone but the privileged. It’s a really, really, really stupid way to construct a society, but even the losers in this system are wedded to its ideology — it’s pathetic, frankly.

    Which explains why the guy on the nerdy side, who works hard, completes college in engineering, and is making $100,000 a year by the time he is 25 and yet can’t get a date to save his life. It’s because he’s actually a loser who isn’t good enough for most women.

    And yes, I know a number of men who are in EXACTLY that situation. Because they are not top tier in every aspect (be it personality or physique) they are ignored by women their age and younger. Why? Because the young women aren’t looking for a good man, they are looking for a PERFECT man–a purple squirrel.

    It’s more that they expect him to wait until he is ~30 and they are done with the “fun guys”. It’s Sandbergism. And she herself comes from that exact socio-economic class.

    I don’t see how there can ever be reproductive and financial independence for women from men. Men will always be footing the bill (alimony, CS, welfare, affirmative action, etc.), so the “freedom” that women now “enjoy” is paid for by men. Plus, this “freedom” is made possible by a gynocentric state that enforces it’s will using men with guns.

    If all artificial support were taken away, the average guy would eventually seem a whole lot more attractive to women as these women would find having a man around much easier than not.

    I mean from specific men, which is what is relevant. Of course women are dependent on the aggregate tax receipts from men as a class, which are then redistributed to them in the form of money, government programs to assist them, administrators of quotas and non-discrimination police, family court employee salaries and so on. That’s all true. But independence from
    *specific* men matters a ton, because it means that women are, in their *personal* lives, free to live and fuck as they want without being economically dependent on (and therefore answerable to) any one specific man. That’s the point. Yes, it’s a state of affairs that is enforced by the men in black with guns, but the point is that as a result of all of these thumbs on the scales, women do have de facto independence from any specific man financially, and this influences their behavior negatively by removing accountability to any specific man for what they are doing. The ancien regime always had women accountable — to father, brothers, or husband. That was what was undone, and its undoing is what is undoing civilization, slowly but surely.

    It’s a problem. The truth is that there would be more men considered attractive if fewer women were excelling. But if you pass laws barring women from education or certain fields, it won’t bring back the attraction because we will know that the superiority is only constructed, not inherent. Attraction is primal and can’t be fooled.

    The choice has to be made as individuals. Women have to consciously choose to marry “up”, and they have to understand why it’s important to do so. Likewise, men have to marry “down” with the same understanding. Using that as a starting point will do a lot to start the marriage off on stable ground regardless of the couple’s overall socioeconomic status.

    The problem with this is that under this scenario many people — I think most people — will not marry. When you add up all the ups and downs, and factor in divorce and remarriage (which is really serial polygyny/polyandry), you end up where we are now — with marriage rates falling fast. The super hero marriage model works for people who are super heroes. For everyone else, not so much. And you may be right that because women are now disenchanted about male superiority (seeing only a small number of men as superior to them), it can’t be reset again — that may be right. But if it is, it just means that the system is going to continue to morph away from marriage and towards other kinds of family structures that permit women to mate as they wish and raise kids as they wish, with or without men in both cases. Again, it’s a really shitty way to run a society.

    As St. Paul said — wives are to submit. He did not say that wives are to submit if the man is worthy of submitting to, but that they should submit. Now, of course, in our culture where marriage is based on love and not respect/submission/headship/etc., that only applies in a tiny number of marriages. But the point is that the woman is also responsible for creating the marital relationship of headship and submission by her choice to submit. Sunshine Thiry said very much the same thing on her blog a few years ago. Women DO have power to help create that domestic setting through their own chosen act of submission. It isn’t ALL reactive to being in the presence of a man to whom they cannot help but submit. If we make it all about the latter, the social structure fails for all the reasons set forth above.

  194. PuffyJacket says:

    But now women are seeing that many these men aren’t really above them when society doesn’t artificially force it

    This is the “women were shackled” myth, which has been debunked numerous times already (including an entire post by Dalrock here, just a few weeks ago). How many more times does this need to be debunked?

    On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of “artificial” schemes today exist to benefit women at the expense of men. By a country-mile. Anyone who does not see these schemes as the fundamental problem, does not truly understand the problem.

  195. Novaseeker says:

    The idea that men want a doctor or a lawyer like women do is wrong. No man is going to work towards snagging one, nor should they. But a male doctor or lawyer will look for someone “on his level” more times than not. Upper ladder women get upper ladder men. As long as the man is at least a bit higher, it’s fine. But really, there just aren’t a lot of CPAs married to women who have only graduated high school or a cosmetic program.

    The problem comes in lower down. Trades, even mechanical trades that pay well and offer a lot of room for growth, have lost their prestige. That means that a woman making $11/hr with her psych degree looks down on a sheet metal worker making 120k/yr.

    Correct, but keep in mind that this is very new.

    When I was a young lawyer in the early 1990s, many of the partners (then men in their 50s and 60s, so people who are 70-80 now) married secretaries, paralegals and so on. Doctors married nurses, etc. Not women who were dumb as bricks, but not lawyer-level or doctor-level intellects. What changed? Raising kids became unbelievably more competitive. It became necessary to have 2 rock-star level intellects totally pouring all of that into the kids to remain competitive. Think of it like an intellectual/child-rearing arm’s race between highly educated people. The result of that was the marriages we see among this set today: like to like.

    And, as you say, what this means for the women who are in that “not dumb as bricks” category is that their actual economic and social peers are unattractive to them. Well, that’s what happens when the guys who would have married them 40 years ago are now marrying one of the upsurge of women lawyers or doctors so that they can have super-kids that compete with other power/super couples. Arm’s race.

  196. theasdgamer says:

    @ jane dumb

    But now women are seeing that many these men aren’t really above them when society doesn’t artificially force it.

    Actually, society artificially forces keeping women’s opportunities above men’s opportunities. Title IX, e.g. VAWA. Etc.

    You are full of 5h1t. trollololol

  197. I’m not sure I necessarily agree that respect is more incentivizing for a man than sex, but it’s certainly a close second. That said, I do agree that there is no inherent respect, or even the pretense of an expectation for respect of husbands or men who would be deserving of it under the Old Set of Books.

    The pretense of an egalitarian equalist ideal means that men will never be deserving of respect for complying with what the Feminine Imperative expects them to sacrifice by default.

    Husbands and wives are now caricatures; characters that are ridiculed for fun and profit.

    http://therationalmale.com/2015/04/30/the-political-is-personal/

    A father is anyone a woman/mother claims he is
    A father is legally bound to children he didn’t sire
    A father is prevented at great legal and social effort from access to DNA testing of children he suspects aren’t his own
    A father is legally responsible for the children resulting from his wife/girlfriend cuckolding him
    A father is financially obligated to the support of children that he didn’t sire or he had no power in deciding to sire

    http://therationalmale.com/2015/03/31/wives-lovers/

    It’s important to grasp that any relationship founded on genuine desire will necessitate genuine passion and not a small amount of feral lust, however, it is exactly this pre-commitment (Alpha F***s) sexual chemistry that will later become the exclusive responsibility of a man in that commitment.

    The character that is a wife is now socially and popularly expected to move into a sexless, passionless and unexciting condition by being married today. All Epiphany Phase rationalizations aside, marriage is viewed as the end of the party. Being a wife is boring by comparison.

    I explored this in detail in Beta F***s and As Good As It Gets, but what I find ironic in light of Dalrock’s assertions about romance-primary intergender dynamics is that the very pretense of that romantic “true love” context that supposedly legitimizes sex is killed within the confines of marriage. In fact, women expect and anticipate that the sexual desire they find so important in that romantic context will necessarily die once they become a ‘wife’.

    The pretext of being a ‘wife’ is a socially excusable expectation of progressively losing sexual affinity for the man she’s agrees to marry, so what woman wants to be a wife? Women become wives due to the necessities an ever-decreasing capacity to maintain being a lover requires of them.

    I expect that most women will disagree with me on a personal level; it’s not in women’s best interest to acknowledge that wives hate sex – perpetuating the belief that sex gets better after marriage is a necessity men need to internalize in order to commit. Whether or not this is true for a woman on a personal basis isn’t my point. The point is that the societal message is one that marriage will necessarily kill a couples’ passionate sexual connection in comparison to their single, romance-based sexual connection.

    Why ruin a perfectly good relationship with marriage?

    Respect is all fine and good, but what guy wants to sign on to “Marriage®” when it’s characterized as an expected decline in passion, sexual availability and genuine desire that progresses to divorce which is then celebrated as a new chance to find real passion again?

  198. new anon says:

    Jane Dough says: But I do know that successful men usually marry women with advanced or professional degrees. Most wouldn’t consider a woman without academic and professional credentials, and their families wouldn’t want them to. As it stands now, a woman has a much better shot at getting and staying married if she is at least a little successful herself.

    I don’t know what planet you are living on, but this is–to be blunt–wrong.

    But a male doctor or lawyer will look for someone “on his level” more times than not. Upper ladder women get upper ladder men. As long as the man is at least a bit higher, it’s fine. But really, there just aren’t a lot of CPAs married to women who have only graduated high school or a cosmetic program.

    This must by why there is the stereotype of doctors marrying nurses and lawyers marrying their secretaries, because nurses and secretaries are on the same level as doctors and lawyers?

    The problem comes in lower down. Trades, even mechanical trades that pay well and offer a lot of room for growth, have lost their prestige. That means that a woman making $11/hr with her psych degree looks down on a sheet metal worker making 120k/yr.

    Here is where you have hit he nail on the head, but it isn’t just in the trades. You see it in the corporate world as well.

    Take Helen HR manager. Has a good job with a mid-sized company as the HR manager. Makes good money (about 75K per year). Now that she is approaching 30, she looking around to get married, and has set her sights on Mark the head of marketing at the same company. Mark is 35, tall, good looking, makes more than Helen, is outgoing, and has all the accouterments that go along with success–an office, impressive title, and he is one of the top-dogs at the company. By Helen’s evaluation they are well matched. But, what does Mark think?

    Mark, like Helen, has decided he’s at the point to marry. Why does he want to marry? Mark wants a family. Not just a wife, but children and home life. He has worked hard to get where he is, and at the end of the day he would like enter a welcoming home, enjoy his children and his wife. Does Mark agree with Helen that they would be a good match? No, in fact Mark thinks Rachel, the 25 year old that does recruiting for HR, would be a good match. She got her associates at the local community college, she’s young and vibrant, but most importantly she has made it clear she wants the same things Mark wants: a family–children, a home (not just a house, but a home), and long marriage.

    So who would be a good match for Helen? Ed in engineering. He’s 35 and looking to marry as well. But even though he makes more money than Helen (a LOT more money) Helen considers Ed to be beneath her. Ed only has a bachelor’s degree, while Helen has a masters. Ed doesn’t have an office. He sits in a cubicle (or worse a desk in an open environment). Besides, engineers are treated like worker bees at the company. There’s not much social status in being married to an engineer. Plus, Ed isn’t exactly the most athletic guy. Helen thinks she should hold out for better–someone like Mark.

    Unfortunately, Helen (like the girl with the psych degree in your example) won’t figure it out till it’s too late for them and the end up old maids.

  199. @new anon, regarding the “men’s ladder”. I was commenting elsewhere about the bowerbird. Think about a female bowerbird replacing the male, building her own bower and performing the mating rituals. That is what is happening in our civilization. It is biological dysfunction posing as “strength and independence”. This monster (bowerbird hen) would neither attract a male nor a female, and the result is a categorical failure. Feminism’s ultimate goal.

  200. Squibby says:

    There are two competing cultural standards.

    1. A husband/father is honorable and respectable.
    2. A single mother is strong and courageous.

    Both can’t be true.

    It’s easy to forget that traditionally, single mother = dumb slut. This is the only social model that will respect fathers.

    In a perverse catch-22, Western Christians decided single motherhood was preferable to abortion (which it may be). Thusly, they had to soften their attitude on sluts. One can’t very well say, “Keep your bastard you dumb slut”, can one?

    This is the result.

  201. donalgraeme says:

    Respect is all fine and good, but what guy wants to sign on to “Marriage®” when it’s characterized as an expected decline in passion, sexual availability and genuine desire that progresses to divorce which is then celebrated as a new chance to find real passion again?

    Not this guy. Which is again one of the reasons why I will only marry a virgin. If she has no sexual history, then it is much less likely for that particular social conditioning to “stick” with her. Kind of difficult to expect or anticipate a decline when you have no previous experiences of passion to compare against in the first place.

  202. J N says:

    @Brad A:

    JN,

    I have zero incentives to be a good provider at this point. If my wife miraculously reconciled with me, I wouldn’t really see myself budging, even. (My opinion is that a good wife costs nothing or is a net gain, actually.) I would only care about being a provider if we had kids.

    Then you would not have a Biblical marriage. I can see why you may not want to pursue that in today’s climate, but you cannot be the head of the relationship if you are not attempting to be in the lead role. Those two go together. That wimpy attitude is part of the reason we will not change the current situation until it completely implodes. Too many favor the way it is now, in one way or another.

    I think I should clarify that by “good provider” I mean “guy who works to make lots of money for his wife to spend”. I have zero interest in doing this, and I think it’s actually bad leadership to do so.

    Earning lots of money isn’t very high up on my priority list. There’s no reason it should be, spiritually.

    The problem for society is that it has created incentives for a whole lot of men not to care very much about making money. Society has a definite problem when men are being rewarded for being unproductive, and punished for being productive. And there’s no religious or spiritual reason for me to buck the trend. Quite the contrary. It’s hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

  203. J N says:

    @donalgraeme, my opinion is that a promiscuous woman is analogous to a man with a pornography habit. It would see wise to avoid marriage to either of such creatures.

  204. Novaseeker says:

    This must by why there is the stereotype of doctors marrying nurses and lawyers marrying their secretaries, because nurses and secretaries are on the same level as doctors and lawyers?

    I have been practicing law on the east coast in major metros since the early 1990s and no male peer lawyer of my age range (late 40s) or younger has married a secretary or paralegal. That happened in the generation before mine, but not in mine. Now it’s all super hero married to super hero. Times changed in terms of competitiveness.

    The rest of your comment, about what happens “below” that set, is 100% spot on accurate.

  205. Jane Dough says:

    “‘Feminism’ did not help women. Rather, it exposed the full extent of female inferiority (moral, intellectual, economic, productive, civic, parental, spousal, spiritual) far more visibly than was ever possible before ‘feminism’…

    Women had it good in the old days, when customs designed to package them as something far better than they were, were the norm. Today, women have decisively proven that they make little to no contribution to any aspect of the knowledge-based economy.”

    I agree with you on both counts. But it also exposed men. When women by and large did nothing, even average men looked accomplished by comparison. But now, when everyone has a mom or a sister who is a bookkeeper, it looks as average and easy as it is. Average men don’t look as impressive when it comes to intelligence or capabilities when women are doing the same things in nearly the same numbers.

    And, like Dalrock cites, it’s caused a lot of men to drop out of the race all together. This makes the fewer men who do compete and compete well much more powerful than they otherwise would have been. Much like the average woman who stays thin.

  206. J N says:

    @Jane Dough:

    Exposed men for what? You seem to be asserting that it “exposed average men as being average”.

  207. Novaseeker says:

    In a perverse catch-22, Western Christians decided single motherhood was preferable to abortion (which it may be). Thusly, they had to soften their attitude on sluts. One can’t very well say, “Keep your bastard you dumb slut”, can one?

    This is the result.

    This is an excellent point, and certainly a large reason why Christians think the way they do about this now. One abomination led to another. It’s the way sin works.

  208. Jane Dough says:

    “I have been practicing law on the east coast in major metros since the early 1990s and no male peer lawyer of my age range (late 40s) or younger has married a secretary or paralegal. That happened in the generation before mine, but not in mine. Now it’s all super hero married to super hero. Times changed in terms of competitiveness.”

    He would probably be looked down on if he did. Both sexes have to play the game and play it early if they want a “top” spouse. A woman has to do it all-she must be feminine and docile while also educated, accomplished, and driven. Even if she never works a day in her life after the ‘I do’. Of course, that’s another problem because the time and money that was put into her could have gone to someone else who would stay in the workforce.

  209. Jane Dough, the “average woman” in Western Civilization is the beneficiary of historic and massive transfer payments. Average men are supposed to supply them AND still come out on top? LOLZ.

    You’ve got the blindfold part, your scales are tweaked though.

  210. Jane Dough says:

    “Exposed men for what? You seem to be asserting that it “exposed average men as being average”.”

    Like it was stated earlier, it showed that most men were not naturally the hardworking, take charge, motivated leaders. Like Novaseeker said, you have to keep women out. Otherwise, it becomes clear who is really the success, and who is the “peter pan man child” when society isn’t set up to move him through the ranks.

  211. mrteebs says:

    @Dave

    Respect is never given though; it is earned. When a loudmouth has gotten his butt kicked by someone stronger and bigger than him, he will quickly learn to “give honor where honor is due”.

    You’re missing the point. Respect can be earned by someone to whom it is not due based on their actions. However, there are certain offices where respect is automatically due, independent of actions. Husbands are one (Eph 5:33, 1 Pet 3:2) Government authorities is another. These are unconditional. Both are regularly flaunted with impunity today, and indeed even encouraged.

    However…

    I do not subscribe to the notion that respect for the above = obedience in all circumstances, as conscientious disobedience occurred with Moses’ mother, Rahab, and Abigail, It seems that their actions were not just “countenanced” but in the case of Rahab, actually resulted in saving faith (Heb 11:31). And, I realize there are those here who disagree (GunnerQ, Cail Corishev, etc.) and insist that obedience is absolute and the judgement will fall squarely on the leader, not the follower. But I cannot reconcile such a stance with scripture.

    Anyway, I think the whole point of Dalrock’s post here is that respect that is always out of reach is dangled like a carrot before the average husband while his reciprocal requirement to love his wife is never treated in like fashion. When men – as a class – have become little more than the object of derision, can we really expect society to be other than it is today? And, as I mentioned in a previous comment, the average marriage has the woman as CEO with the man in a perpetual merit review. Case in point…

    (https://youtu.be/OtKQbM9laC8 (scroll to 5:26 for the “wife tribunal” but watch the whole thing to get the full context)

  212. Opus says:

    I would like to pick up (in this fascinating conversation) on Novaseeker’s point about who Doctors and Lawyers marry. I go back a little further than him and thus saw with my own eyes what happened, which was that Doctors married Nurses and Lawyers married Shorthand-Typists – if for no other reason than that there were few female lawyers and doctors and with sex proximity is key. Do they do so now? I doubt it: with so many female Lawyers and Doctors it would be financial suicide to marry the typist (who in any event will now be working class and with all that that implies – this was not the case seventy years ago of course when being a shorthand typists moved one effortlessly ahead of the factory-workers).

    A Trophy child or two will be expected and that means that the child (say Emma Watson whose parents are both lawyers) will go to the best possible school with great parental expectations for him or her and surely with considerable parental assistance and – something I must add was entirely missing from my childhood. The wife might want to divorce but she reasons that divorce will adversely affect her children as they will no longer gain the aspirational input from Dad. The children will probably be Aspergers of course (if such a thing really exists).

  213. Put another way the average woman (golfer in this instance) has a golf handicap of 400 and the man is a scratch golfer, and people like Jane Dough are laughing because men can’t compete.

  214. Exfernal says:

    Is that you again, insanitybytes22?

  215. @ Michelle:

    Except that little thing where she insists that females are the master race.

  216. J N says:

    @Novaseeker:

    In a perverse catch-22, Western Christians decided single motherhood was preferable to abortion (which it may be). Thusly, they had to soften their attitude on sluts. One can’t very well say, “Keep your bastard you dumb slut”, can one?

    This is the result.

    This is an excellent point, and certainly a large reason why Christians think the way they do about this now. One abomination led to another. It’s the way sin works.

    Christian political activists confused political activism with Christianity in the 1980s, and ended up with a myopic focus on reducing abortions as some sort of good. There is no distinction between fornication and abortion in God’s eyes. The focus should be on converting people to Christianity so that they will stop fornicating.

    Attempting to reduce abortions is about as productive as attempting to get rid of capital punishment for murderers so that the state won’t be guilty of killing as many people. (This is what ultra liberals are actually trying to do.)

    The proper stance is to accept that worldly people often kill their own kids, and always have. The solution is to convert these people to Christianity. Then they wouldn’t need to get abortions.

    @Jane Dough

    Like it was stated earlier, it showed that most men were not naturally the hardworking, take charge, motivated leaders.

    Yes, most people aren’t take charge, motivated leaders. If they were, there’d be nobody left to follow.

    Both sexes have to play the game and play it early if they want a “top” spouse.

    When did this ever change? And who said anything about getting a “top” spouse? All we’re trying to figure out here is how to get a stable mother and father together who will both be present to raise their kids.

  217. Novaseeker says:

    He would probably be looked down on if he did. Both sexes have to play the game and play it early if they want a “top” spouse. A woman has to do it all-she must be feminine and docile while also educated, accomplished, and driven. Even if she never works a day in her life after the ‘I do’. Of course, that’s another problem because the time and money that was put into her could have gone to someone else who would stay in the workforce.

    In part it is being looked down upon, and in part it is Darwinian Praxis — that is, doing every damned thing you possibly can to ensure the competitiveness of your kids. These folks — and I am among them — tend to be exceptionally purposeful in what they do, and they are consciously doing everything they can to set up their kids to be a perpetual elite — which is only possible if they outcompete other kids from similar pairings.

    The UMC SAHM who has what Dalrock calls the “feminist merit badge” is a feature in this. She doesn’t need to work because the husband has more than enough income to support a UMC lifestyle for a family, but she brings her drive/ambition/intellect into her parenting as a SAHM to produce superior specimen kids. This is what is happening. What we have is a cognitive elite that is finding a new way to perpetuate its status. The old elite did it by land, while the new one does it by cognitive superiority. And so that’s why you see these marriages happening. Sure, it sucks the lifeblood from the system to educate that woman when it is going primarily into an effort to preserve elite status for her children, but that’s the great game of human beings, is it not?

    Jane Dough, the “average woman” in Western Civilization is the beneficiary of historic and massive transfer payments. Average men are supposed to supply them AND still come out on top? LOLZ.

    It’s both that AND the fact that in a service-based economy, women are competitive with average men. The subsidies help, but they are still competitive with average men even without the subsidies when the economy becomes based around services. Not high intellect stuff like theoretical physics, but services-based office work. Women are pretty much as good as average men, and often better than them, at this kind of work. That is why they have risen. The advantages men have are (1) physical strength (not relevant for most jobs in a service/knowledge economy), (2) drive based on testosterone (which varies a lot, and which most men seem to not have in abundance) and (3) the “right tail” of super intellect which accounts for a tiny amount of jobs. This is why women have risen. Subsidies have helped that along, and exacerbated what would have been a trend anyway, but the trend of women being financially independent would have happened regardless due to the changes in the economy — it just would have happened more slowly. And with the financial independence comes automatically the sexual revolution, provided there is adequate technology to avoid the unwanted consequences of sex (for women), which there was also by the mid-20th.

    Really we have a system that doesn’t work now for the “mean”. It works for the masters of the universe type marriages because they are differently motivated. For the “mean” or average, the system doesn’t work because men do not outperform women enough for women to find them attractive, either initially or eventually — which depresses both marriage rates (initial) and increases divorce rates (eventual). The system is set up for winners only. The people who are not in the winners circle need to get there or suffer the consequences. This is the current system.

  218. Jane Dough says:

    “Jane Dough, the “average woman” in Western Civilization is the beneficiary of historic and massive transfer payments. Average men are supposed to supply them AND still come out on top? LOLZ.

    You’ve got the blindfold part, your scales are tweaked though.”

    I’m not saying that all men should be expected to suddenly outperform all women to preserve a sense of strength and attraction. I’m also not proposing policy solutions. I’m not even arguing history, wealth transfers, or anything else. I’m just stating a fact. For better or worse, women are in the workforce and gaining financial independence. That’s what we have to work with and it causes a lot of complex problems.

    All I am saying is that we live in a world where among the younger generation men and women are on pretty equal footing socially, professionally, politically, etc. A lot needs to change, but realistically, those changes aren’t happening. All you can do is look out for you and your children. The only ‘should’ that I’ve thrown out is women should marry up, and men down. And they need to know why. I think pushing that idea into the public might do a lot to lower divorce rates across all socioeconomic and religious backgrounds.

  219. JDG says:

    new anon @ 11:35

    We’ll said.

  220. Jane Dough says:

    “@ Michelle:

    Except that little thing where she insists that females are the master race.”

    Never once did I come close to that. But the illusion that only men can receive an education and succeed in the workforce and civil life has been shattered. Women used to look up to men because they needed them to handle the man stuff. But now man stuff has become everyone stuff, save physical labor, and how much labor does the average urban professional encounter on a daily basis? So being able to handle the everyone stuff of going to work, buying a car, making investments, etc is a lot less impressive.

  221. PuffyJacket says:

    @Jane

    Like it was stated earlier, it showed that most men were not naturally the hardworking, take charge, motivated leaders.

    That would be an odd logical inference to make, particularly after a generation of misandric laws and feminist social-engineering with the express purpose of transferring power to women and away from men.

    If anything, it proves exactly the opposite. In the absense of such “articifical” schemes (as you put it), men would be the natural leaders.

    What’s far more interesting is how few men have “dropped out of the race” so to speak, given the ridiculous handicapping of men that feminists and society have insisted on for 30-40 years now.

  222. Jane Dough says:

    Making this even worse for men lower on the ladder is that obesity is largely a class issue. It’s the lower class women that are so heavily affected by obesity and out of wedlock births.

  223. Novaseeker says:

    I think pushing that idea into the public might do a lot to lower divorce rates across all socioeconomic and religious backgrounds.

    But people won’t do it.

    It starts from the top. The UMC men are not going to marry down — it’s disadvantageous for them. So what happens then is that the women “below” them whom they might have otherwise married are “stuck” with men who are their peers, because most of the men “above” them have married their own peers. So either those women embrace assortative mating like the UMC has (while having a much higher failure rate in terms of divorce because there isn’t as much “there” there as there is in UMC marriages) or they don’t marry. And that continues down the scale. The top stopped marrying down, and that cascades. Assortative marriage, in the narrow/lockstep way we do it now, works only at the top. It wrecks the rest of the social order.

  224. And all we had to do was drug elementary age boys out of their minds, skew college entrance policies, subsidize female scholarship and business and revise the entire workplace to suit women. What a batch of achievements for “strong, independent” women!

  225. Obesity? Transfer payments? Government subsidizing one sex over the other? How timely:

    http://www.mrctv.org/blog/taxpayers-continue-spend-millions-find-out-why-lesbians-are-fat#.fk6bqz:fYuK

  226. Novaseeker says:

    A Trophy child or two will be expected and that means that the child (say Emma Watson whose parents are both lawyers) will go to the best possible school with great parental expectations for him or her and surely with considerable parental assistance and – something I must add was entirely missing from my childhood. The wife might want to divorce but she reasons that divorce will adversely affect her children as they will no longer gain the aspirational input from Dad. The children will probably be Aspergers of course (if such a thing really exists).

    Very much so, although most do not end up with Aspergers. This is the precise motive: to create super-kids and preserve elite status in generations. That was ALWAYS the purpose of marriage. What has changed is that the means by which that can be achieve have shifted from land and wealth inheritance to cognitive/developmental advantage to outcompete others in a free system. In a “free” system, the ones who are most competitive achieve outsized returns, and so what you see are parents setting themselves up to have kids who achieve those returns.

    There is a fail rate, of course. I know a couple who are about 10 years ahead of me who have kids in their mid 20s who are extremely well educated (PhD level) and yet are aimless, and at times suicidal. But in most cases, the kids do turn out fine and become the next generation of masters and mistresses of the universe, who will presumably marry each other and perpetuate their ruling class status in generations to come.

    The great game never ends, folks. It just gets harder.

  227. new anon says:

    J N said: It’s hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

    “Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. …Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. …The seed that fell among the thorns represents those who hear God’s word, but all too quickly the message is crowded out by the worries of this life and the lure of wealth, so no fruit is produced. Mat 13

    It would be interesting to do a comparison of the parable of the seeds to churchian expectations of men. It seems to me, they want to load men down with the worries of life, something that inhibits good fruit.

  228. Jane Dough says:

    “It starts from the top. The UMC men are not going to marry down — it’s disadvantageous for them. So what happens then is that the women “below” them whom they might have otherwise married are “stuck” with men who are their peers, because most of the men “above” them have married their own peers.”

    I’m not suggesting “down” to paralegals. I’m only suggesting a slight shift down. Instead of marrying a nurse, a doctor might marry a dentist. You know, just enough of a difference that she sees him as even a little more successful and/or intelligent and/or motivated than herself. They’re still in the same circle on the outside, but their private dynamic will be different.

  229. Michelle says:

    Never once did I come close to that. But the illusion that only men can receive an education and succeed in the workforce and civil life has been shattered. Women used to look up to men because they needed them to handle the man stuff. But now man stuff has become everyone stuff, save physical labor, and how much labor does the average urban professional encounter on a daily basis? So being able to handle the everyone stuff of going to work, buying a car, making investments, etc is a lot less impressive.

    This is true. That’s why when the average man says he wants respect the average woman rolls her eyes. If she can do everything that he can do (better in many cases) then why should she respect him? The female Christian bloggers who are always talking about submitting to, respecting and uplifting men have to work so hard at it because men are less impressive now. What used to come more easily is difficult now.

  230. Spiritual headship? Do women have that covered? Or just their heads? Or none of the above?

    Maybe these women that struggle don’t really believe the Bible at all.

  231. And on the topic of what is hard to do. Are men really supposed to love, played out, carousel riding sluts as Jesus loved the Church?

  232. Novaseeker says:

    I’m not suggesting “down” to paralegals. I’m only suggesting a slight shift down. Instead of marrying a nurse, a doctor might marry a dentist. You know, just enough of a difference that she sees him as even a little more successful and/or intelligent and/or motivated than herself. They’re still in the same circle on the outside, but their private dynamic will be different.

    This already happens, I think. Most of the lawyer marriages I know have the man and women in the same level when they marry (on paper, or in terms of “rank”), but he is more advanced, if only slightly, than she is. I think this kind of thing is already happening in the UMC. Among the lowers, I don’t know how it can work, really, because the men just don’t have enough of a delta to be attractive.

    One option is what Sunshine Thiry said on her blog — namely, a woman who is de facto a peer choosing to submit and thereby setting the table, so to speak, for the social relationship in the marriage. Michelle says that this is harder than submitting to a guy you naturally want to submit to, but while this is undoubtedly true, it doesn’t mean that it should not be done. According to Sunshine, when she did it herself in her own marriage, it changed her husband’s behavior.

  233. Entropy is my God says:

    @Michelle

    “because men are less impressive now.”

    When the bright light shines, and the news screams out one final, feral,note of panic, in that moment you will awaken. When your self affirmation device dies for all eternity, and those less than impressive men are no longer there to provide the infrastructure that provided your goddess box power, you will awaken. When less than impressive men easily hold you against your will and forcibly remove their pleasure from your unwilling flesh, you will awaken.

    On the day of judgement, you and millions like you will fall in abject terror. You will become mentally castrated, by a world in which the gentle bumper rails that prevented you from ever even think about what hunger was, or what being shot at was, or what having your teeth forcibly removed from your head against your will are no longer their to protect you.

    On that day and not before then you will not think back to “these less impressive ” men. You won’t think anything at all except for shame and terror at the horror of what real life is like.

    The only response to you and those like you is laughter.

  234. Marissa says:

    If she can do everything that he can do (better in many cases) then why should she respect him?

    Except she can’t…that’s the whole point. It’s why the children of single mothers are far more likely to be disasters than the children of single fathers are, despite the fact that single mothers receive far more welfare transfers (from other men). It’s also related to how house-husbands/stay-at-home-fathers don’t feel the need to endlessly moan about the difficulty of housework and child-rearing–because it’s not as difficult for men as it is for women. I could go on and on, the average man is far more financially solvent than the average woman, he chooses a more practical major and career, and works more hours. The average woman can’t even live in this world without drugging herself out of her mind with anti-depressants compared to the average man.

  235. J N says:

    Making this even worse for men lower on the ladder is that obesity is largely a class issue. It’s the lower class women that are so heavily affected by obesity and out of wedlock births.

    Perhaps what makes a woman lower class is her decisions to become obese and to have children out of wedlock.

    It’s not like cheeseburgers eat themselves.

  236. PuffyJacket says:

    @Michelle

    If she can do everything that he can do (better in many cases) then why should she respect him?

    Fortunately that is not the case now, nor has it ever been. But it also begs the question: if women truly “can do everything that men can”, then why the need for affirmative action, punitive family law, and large-scale social engineering in favor of women? Why is 80% of government expenditures a transfer from men to women?

    Furthermore, women do not “respect” men based on some strange comparison of skill sets. See the love letters to serial killers phenomenon. Amazing how much “respect” they garner from women, despite having never done anything remotely respectable in their entire lives (or even holding a real job).

  237. The children will probably be Aspergers of course (if such a thing really exists).

    Oh yes the child will have to be -on the spectrum-, because to have a child on the spectrum is to be in group. Lobby the diagnostics criteria setting body if you must because early diagnosis can afford early treatment that can help. Most importantly the sooner the couple knows the faster they can, over a good non GMO… Functional Flavor…Free Trade Coffee, share with their friends that they have an Asperger child. (almost always a boy child)

  238. Michelle says:

    @Marissa

    Except she can’t…that’s the whole point. It’s why the children of single mothers are far more likely to be disasters than the children of single fathers are, despite the fact that single mothers receive far more welfare transfers (from other men). It’s also related to how house-husbands/stay-at-home-fathers don’t feel the need to endlessly moan about the difficulty of housework and child-rearing–because it’s not as difficult for men as it is for women. I could go on and on, the average man is far more financially solvent than the average woman, he chooses a more practical major and career, and works more hours. The average woman can’t even live in this world without drugging herself out of her mind with anti-depressants compared to the average man.

    Single fathers make more money than single mothers (like men in general make more money) but they are also older and more likely to be white and more likely to be cohbitating than single mothers. There are too many different variables that impact outcomes to claim that single fathers outperform single mothers, period. When those variables are accounted for single mother and single fathers perform similarly.

    House husbands are already looked down upon by men and women. Why would they make that worse by whining? Any physical labor should be easier for them of course. But women can still get the job done. A man being better at cleaning isn’t going to gain him much respect.

    Women are more likely than men to take antidepressants but the average woman isn’t taking them. Most women don’t.

    Thanks to feminism and a post industrial society, the average man is no longer impressive to the average woman.

  239. Dave says:

    The female Christian bloggers who are always talking about submitting to, respecting and uplifting men have to work so hard at it because men are less impressive now.

    Sounds like the old song of the heretic: “Hard to obey, harder still to love” (note: all of God’s commands are easy to obey, if we really mean to obey them. 1 John 5:3; Matthew 11:30).
    Woman’s submission to her man has nothing to do with the perceived value of the man. It is by virtue of their respective positions in God’s program, and out of respect to God’s commands: man came first, and the woman second. Also, woman was created for the man, and not the other way around. Moreover, the woman first sinned, and tempted the man to follow her. Lastly, God specifically commands the woman to submit to her man in everything.

    The so-called “female Christian bloggers” who rebel against this have either never been taught the biblical standards, or they are simply rebellious against God’s clear order. For the true Christian, God’s commands are easy enough:

    Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light Matthew 11:29, 30

    In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 1 John 5:3

    It’s human and churchian doctrines that are hard:

    The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Matthew 23:2-4

  240. Gunner Q says:

    It used to be most top men got married long before they reached the top in the first place. I think half the reason women like to wait so long for marriage is because hypergamy prefers the finished product to the raw material.

    Marrying young means she needs to pick a husband before she knows his top SMV rank.

    mrteebs @ 1:26 pm:
    “And, I realize there are those here who disagree (GunnerQ, Cail Corishev, etc.) and insist that obedience is absolute and the judgement will fall squarely on the leader, not the follower.”

    Only within marriage. It’s a special situation. Be assured, I give extremely conditional obedience to gov’t. (You’re right about the necessity of showing respect, though. I’ll call my Congressmen traitors but won’t make crude jokes or slurs at their expense.)

    Jane Dough @ 1:47 pm:
    “But now man stuff has become everyone stuff, save physical labor, and how much labor does the average urban professional encounter on a daily basis?”

    A successful woman wakes up in her house built by men, eats a breakfast grown in the fields and trucked in by men, climbs into her car designed, built and serviced by men, drives to work on the roads designed, built and maintained by men, rides in the elevator designed, built and maintained by men, sits down at her wood desk harvested, built and brought in by men, turns on her computer designed, built, programmed, networked and maintained by men, which runs on electricity produced by the power plant staffed 24-7 by men, picks up her telephone invented, designed, built, wired, installed and maintained by men, calls her girlfriends and laughs with them about how much she doesn’t need men.

  241. Dalrock says:

    @Michelle

    Thanks to feminism and a post industrial society, the average man is no longer impressive to the average woman.

    Regardless of whether this is true for the average woman, the solution for any woman who has priced her MMV expectations beyond her MMV budget is to elect not to marry. For a Christian woman this means forgoing sex and children, but it is still the right option. She does no one (especially her would-be husband and children) a favor by marrying a man she does not wish to have sex with and submit to.

    But this is the rub. Feminist Christian women feel they have the right to marry a man they feel is beneath them and then loudly complain while not honoring their marriage vows.

  242. Entropy is my God says:

    All the “rights” and “deserves” and “needs” and “wants” are going to become equal. Equally worthless. People are only equal in death. Communism, feminism, socialism, all the same things, an attempt to circumvent nature by bombastic egotistical imbeciles.

    When these “strong empowered” women are selling themselves for cans of dog food to eat, the only sound heard will be laughter and the knowledge that entropy cannot be defeated, only postponed.

    the reckoning approaches

  243. fakeemail says:

    “Virtue has never been as respectable as money.” -Mark Twain

  244. Michelle says:

    @ Dalrock

    Regardless of whether this is true for the average woman, the solution for any woman who has priced her MMV expectations beyond her MMV budget is to elect not to marry. For a Christian woman this means forgoing sex and children, but it is still the right option. She does no one, especially her would-be husband and children, a favor by marrying a man does not wish to have sex with and submit to.

    I agree with this in principle, but in reality even the unimpressed Chrsitian woman needs to marry to avoid or stop indulging in sexual immorality. Most people aren’t capable of going without sex entirely. They don’t even manage to wait until they graduate highschool, much less college which is the earliest that marriage becomes “acceptable”. The urge to procreate is strong and will draw in even those who don’t burn. That leads to the shameful situation that you so accurately sum up below.

    But this is the rub. Feminist Christian women feel they have the right to marry a man they feel is beneath them and then loudly complain while not honoring their marriage vows.

  245. @Entropy. Equality in death? Seems like you finally caught up to Jesus Christ and the message of the Cross.

  246. The impressive Christian woman that need to marry a man she cannot respect in order to forgo sexual immorality is neither impressive nor Christian.

  247. Entropy is my God says:

    Hell is the great equalizer

  248. The truth is now out. Women have not and never have respected the average man. They just needed his resources. Men would do well to internalize this and not get married. Women don’t need you, stop wasting their time.. which, quite frankly.. is better spent elsewhere.

    Why keep up the ruse, women don’t need marriage, nor do they want or need the men who would be married to them. The obvious solution is to stop badgering these loser men and instead focus on getting these women to stop marrying and take care of themselves.

  249. pukeko60 says:

    @Jane
    I’m, one of those docs in the transition classes. About the time I got into med school (1978( the class was a third girls, and it is now two thirds girls. About half of us married other docs. And we had kids… but then a large number of us ended divorced.

    Because to keep your licencing you have to practice. The one year that the ex was really happy was when we had Son one and she tool off the year and became a Mum. But then the rules changed and you need “currency” ie continual practice with the requisite number of CME hours. Very easy to do if you are full time. A stone bithc of you are part time.

    I would say about 20% of those marriages survived. Those are the ones you see at the apex. But the casualty rate is huge, and the credentials needed to get to the same level of status are much higher than they were for kids of my age.

    Let’s put it this way: I was the first kid for a decade to get into medical school from my High School, and when I got there there were FOUR kids (I was one) in a class of 120 from the working class part of town. There were sixty from one elite school. It has got far more stratified since then.
    ____________-
    And I train female junior docs. Try to get them through their exams ASAP so they can enjoy being a Mum without the exams (50% pass rate: they make US boards look easy) are not hanging over their head. Now the class is 2/3 female, they are tending to either not marry, or marry tradesmen: which the brightest girl in my med school class did (Catholic girl: went into GP and had kids, She’s happy, unlike most of my class).

    @NZ churches.

    You need to look at places where there are no female elders, or accept that you will be crossgrained to much of the congregation.
    That, functionally, is the Ortnodox, The Catholics, Grace Presbyterian, Bible Baptist Churches, and the NZ Reformed Church.

  250. Novaseeker says:

    Thanks to feminism and a post industrial society, the average man is no longer impressive to the average woman.

    So what do you do with this?

    Either you can (1) win the lottery to get a “higher” man (who is in extreme demand and likely won’t pick you), (2) stay single, (3) settle and be bitter or (4) be realistic, submit to a peer man and create the delta/differential in the relationship by means of your own submissiveness.

    The choice is up to you.

  251. Dalrock says:

    @Michelle

    I agree with this in principle, but in reality even the unimpressed Chrsitian woman needs to marry to avoid or stop indulging in sexual immorality.

    These women have a problem; they have created tastes which they can’t afford. If they find not marrying too much to bear, there are two other solutions:

    1) Humble themselves to the point where they no longer have expectations beyond their budget.
    2) Make themselves more attractive until they can attract the sort of man they expect.

    This is the same for men in the same situation (see Vox Day’s recent posts on this topic regarding dating). They need to stop bitching and either accept that they aren’t fit to marry based on reality not matching their expectations, or choose some combination of 1 and 2 above.

  252. Dave says:

    And on the topic of what is hard to do. Are men really supposed to love, played out, carousel riding sluts as Jesus loved the Church?

    The short answer is Yes. And, no, I have not yet changed my name to “Captain Save-A-Hoe”. But scripture is clear that when a sinner genuinely repents, and turns from their former lives, they will receive pardon, and none of their former sins will be remembered again. The trouble with the churchian sluts is lack of repentance, not the sins they had committed in the past.

    However, God will never force any man to love and “wife-up” any used up woman who subsequently repents. He is a God of choice. If a man does not find a “used up” woman attractive enough to marry her, and be willing to truly love and cherish her, then he has no business getting involved with her. At the same time, he has no right to dredge up her past sins as a basis for his rejection of her, or to castigate another man who might find her attractive.

    But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? Ezekiel 18:21-23

    Fact is, for every female slut out there, there is a man-hoe, and chances are, they could independently repent of their wayward lifestyles, find Christ, and find each other, and God will bless their union. Rahab the harlot was one of king David’s gradmas.

  253. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    So what do you do with this?

    Either you can (1) win the lottery to get a “higher” man (who is in extreme demand and likely won’t pick you), (2) stay single, (3) settle and be bitter or (4) be realistic, submit to a peer man and create the delta/differential in the relationship by means of your own submissiveness.

    The choice is up to you.

    The important part is that item 3 is the immoral choice of the group, but the women who choose it want to make the immoral choice while telling themselves they are doing the world a favor by making the immoral choice.

  254. PuffyJacket says:

    It’s highly, highly unlikely that Michelle is seriously looking for a solution here, so much as an outlet to complain. After all, a logical explanation of the problem and how women should respond has been offered countless times here and elsewhere.

    A common theme amongs the female commenters here is to default to whining about men failing to become attractive enough to meet their expectations. AKA “weak men are screwing up feminism”, or “man-up and marry those sluts”.

    This represents the beginning and end of their logical thought process on the matter.

  255. Too rephrase the OP and subsequent comments: What is respectable.

    To the Christian man being a Godly spiritual leader and provider for his household and raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord are respectable.

    To the Evangelical Feminist gina-tingle inducing neck-tattooed motorcycle riding thugs (See “Mom’s Night Out”) are respectable.

    When we forgot or were ignorant that this underlying paradigm split existed we let Satan in.

  256. Novaseeker says:

    The important part is that item 3 is the immoral choice of the group, but the women who choose it want to make the immoral choice while telling themselves they are doing the world a favor by making the immoral choice.

    Oh, indeed. This feeds into the victimhood complex quite well, which feeds into the whining and superiority and so on. The problem, as I see it, however, is that this is the most “easily available” choice, due to the large number of thirsty men who will accept it.

  257. Joshua Rodd says:

    I agree with this in principle, but in reality even the unimpressed Chrsitian woman needs to marry to avoid or stop indulging in sexual immorality. Most people aren’t capable of going without sex entirely.

    That, right there, is the summation of what’s wrong with Christianity today. When I became a Christian, I had to stop sinning. So I stopped fornicating. When I did fornicate once after I became a Christian, I repented and confessed it, and then stopped doing it permanently after that.

    It’s possible to live without sex or pornography. It may not be easy, just not like not pulling into a Starbucks drive-thru and getting a Trenta Chocolate Chip Frappucino whenver you feel like it isn’t easy. But it can be done.

    And lots of Christian man would like to marry, but can’t, and so they have no choice but to go without sex entirely.

    Fornicators and adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. If a “Christian” woman can’t abide by this, she should quit bothering to pretend to be Christian. Then there might be a chance some day for her soul to be saved.

  258. greyghost says:

    Reading the comments from jane dough one can tell it is definitely a woman. She didn’t fail to mention status as a marker over even money. That explains the power of game and the love letters to the serial killers.
    The artificial equality of women and their ranking on the “masculine” ladder jane describes is a big issue. She truly believes in this environment non top tier men just don’t measure up. (one reason for men not talking headship from women) This comment floored me and is way of.

    The thing is that you CAN’T avoid doing this without keeping women down, deliberately. If the favoritism in favor of women were eliminated, it would certainly help, but the key issue driving this is the reproductive and financial independence of women from men.

    This is completely unnecessary just stop giving free passes and assistance to women for being women. The equal rights amendment failed for that very reason. An equal = sign works both ways imagine all laws and regulations that apply to men applied the same to women. (no pussy pass for anything including domestic violence) No way in hell will that ever happen. (you don’t see any push for it now do you)

    Respect is better than sex. A respected man gets good sex any sex he wants with out asking. Wives fuck husbands they respect and fuck includes pleasant gestures such as cooking and cleaning and asking what she can do for him. Including having children with him (sounds like a good helper doesn’t it.) He’s happy now she is happy. (a man she respects is pleased with her, “my pussy is tighter than yours bitch” , now wouldn’t that be a nice status marker for hypergamy in a productive way.)

    Btw women today do nothing for their husbands and are proud of it. The culture the law and the church are just as proud of it. So why not marry a chick that makes money especially if you aren’t rich. Personally I would use a surrogate and hire a nanny much better for the kids. Men can and have taken care of babies. Who the hell do you think was raise all of those children with the mother death from child birth. She is not necessary she is a helper.

  259. Crank says:

    @Novaseeker

    “Either you can (1) win the lottery to get a “higher” man (who is in extreme demand and likely won’t pick you), (2) stay single, (3) settle and be bitter or (4) be realistic, submit to a peer man and create the delta/differential in the relationship by means of your own submissiveness.”

    It seems to me that this connundrum for women, coupled with the recent Supreme Court case, will eventually create a push for legalized polygamy. Perhaps sooner rather than later. I think one case has already been filed – we’ll see how it goes.

    In an attempt to save marriage, churches may also suddenly realize that (so far as I can tell) nothing in the Bible prohibits it.

    A lot of women might say they would never want to do that, but I’m guessing that social stigma plays as much a part in that as does innate opposition. Once the social stigma is gone, many would probably prefer that over “marrying down”.

    Not a good outcome if you care about having a stable, prosperous society.

  260. J N says:

    @Crank

    That’s a reason for legalising polygamy I hadn’t thought of. It may be here sooner than we expect. And you are absolutely right to identify that churchians will suddenly realise the Bible supports it, just like they’ve all recently suddenly realised Jesus was all about gay inclusion and was pro same sex marriage.

  261. Michelle says:

    @ Novaseeker

    4 is hard to maintain over a lifetime. I think that a lot of women convince themselves hey can do that consistently and fail miserably at it. I’d bet that this is also where duty sex marriages come from.

  262. feeriker says:

    I agree with this in principle, but in reality even the unimpressed Chrsitian woman needs to marry to avoid or stop indulging in sexual immorality. Most people aren’t capable of going without sex entirely. They don’t even manage to wait until they graduate highschool, much less college which is the earliest that marriage becomes “acceptable”. The urge to procreate is strong and will draw in even those who don’t burn. That leads to the shameful situation that you so accurately sum up below.

    Hamsterlation (not that a hamsterlator is really needed in this instance): women are absolutely and utterly helpless in front of their own base urges, have no moral agency, lack any innate ability to follow and obey God’s commands to remain chaste unless married, and therefore must be granted license to run feral and hold men hostage to their own inability to control themselves as morally centered adult human beings.

    This is indeed what most women believe and how they behave, but rarely ever have any of them been so open and honest about it in these parts. Your candor is very much appreciated.

  263. J N says:

    @feeriker

    There’s a bizarre assumption here that marriage will somehow create chastity.

    I have been under the impression that when a sinful person gets married, they are now a sinful husband or wife.

  264. Sarah's Daughter says:

    This is true. That’s why when the average man says he wants respect the average woman rolls her eyes. If she can do everything that he can do (better in many cases) then why should she respect him? The female Christian bloggers who are always talking about submitting to, respecting and uplifting men have to work so hard at it because men are less impressive now. What used to come more easily is difficult now.

    Used to come easy? No. Not true. Not even close. Not historically, not biblically.

    By your logic, in Paul’s time men weren’t very impressive, that is why he taught women on submission. In Paul’s time, men were just idiots that had no idea how to lead their homes or love their wives, that is why he spoke to them about headship. Lets go back further, by your logic, in 330 BC, men had made such a mess of things that Aristotle taught on how to order the home.

    Are you seeing a trend here? Care to apply a smidgen of wisdom before saying such daft things?

  265. Jane Dough says:

    “This already happens, I think. Most of the lawyer marriages I know have the man and women in the same level when they marry (on paper, or in terms of “rank”), but he is more advanced, if only slightly, than she is. I think this kind of thing is already happening in the UMC. Among the lowers, I don’t know how it can work, really, because the men just don’t have enough of a delta to be attractive.”

    I would definitely say this is the case in the UMC. Even if it isn’t at the onset, when the woman at least takes a break from if not leaves her career to have kids, it will be.

    I was very lucky. I grew up in a very poor family in a very poor community. I worked my way out of poverty and I married into the UMC young (22)-which afforded me the chance to further my career. But, I knew the game. Very few women marry into better circumstances these days. I can see how college educated professionals can get trapped in a “bubble”. If it wasn’t for what I saw growing up in a small town, I would think you were all nuts.

    “One option is what Sunshine Thiry said on her blog — namely, a woman who is de facto a peer choosing to submit and thereby setting the table, so to speak, for the social relationship in the marriage. Michelle says that this is harder than submitting to a guy you naturally want to submit to, but while this is undoubtedly true, it doesn’t mean that it should not be done. According to Sunshine, when she did it herself, it changed her husband’s behavior.”

    I’m sure Sunshine Mary improved her marriage by submitting. That’s pretty much the ideal husband/wife arrangement. And I’m also sure submitting is much harder when you see your husband as a peer instead of as a superior. That’s why individuals have to be aware of their nature and make the concious choice to work with that nature.

    Let’s face it, a lot of red pill ideas are a tough sell for society. But I really don’t think this one is, especially in the wake of the 50SoG explosion: Women WANT to look up to a man. We want him to be in charge, we want to have to trust him. We do want to believe that he’s stronger and smarter than we are. This has to stop being billed as a negative, as a sign of low self esteem or daddy issues. It’s not, it’s a primal urge that requires no psychoanalysis. You could be the smartest woman in the world and an Olympic athlete and you would still have this urge. It doesn’t say anything about who you are other than a heterosexual woman. Regardless of who you are to the rest of the world, you always want to be the little woman to your man. Making women aware of this and teaching girls to only get involved with guys that they see as superior will go a long way.

    Likewise, teach boys to find a woman they can take care of and who will be grateful for it. If she doesn’t need him, he’ll never be honored, respected, or valued for what he does.

    And then bring back respect for the trades. Many of them are hurting for people because the middle class suburban kids are taught to “aim higher” and the poor kids lack the basic math skills. There’s a lot of room there for smart, hardworking men to make a very good living. Same with computer programmers and the aforementioned engineers in cubicles. These people make great money and have very specialized skills that require a unique way of thinking. If everyone gives more respect to these “menial” jobs, it will give office managers, nurse’s aids, marketing girls, HR “execs”, etc far more men to look up to. And of course, it empowers those men.

  266. Michelle says:

    @freeriker


    Hamsterlation (not that a hamsterlator is really needed in this instance): women are absolutely and utterly helpless in front of their own base urges, have no moral agency, lack any innate ability to follow and obey God’s commands to remain chaste unless married, and therefore must be granted license to run feral and hold men hostage to their own inability to control themselves as morally centered adult human beings.

    This is indeed what most women believe and how they behave, but rarely ever have any of them been so open and honest about it in these parts. Your candor is very much appreciated.

    I’m not claiming that women (or men for that matter) are helpless, but I do believe the Bible when it says that it is better to marry than to burn. Most people should marry by that standard.

    @ Sarah’s Daughter

    Used to come easy? No. Not true. Not even close. Not historically, not biblically.
    I didn’t say it was easy. I said that it “came more easily”. An important difference.

  267. J N says:

    Since men are, generally, not good enough, it seems that many men and women will just have to settle for being single and celibate.

  268. Jane Dough says:

    “Respect is better than sex. A respected man gets good sex any sex he wants with out asking.”

    Not a single argument from me.

  269. PokeSalad says:

    Never once did I come close to that. But the illusion that only men can receive an education and succeed in the workforce and civil life has been shattered. Women used to look up to men because they needed them to handle the man stuff. But now man stuff has become everyone stuff, save physical labor, and how much labor does the average urban professional encounter on a daily basis? So being able to handle the everyone stuff of going to work, buying a car, making investments, etc is a lot less impressive.

    Wow, so much garbage in one paragraph. You trolls really have to work harder at this – Boxer/feministhater/Hollenhund would have you for breakfast and not even belch.

    What are women doing that men should respect? Hint: Being a man doesn’t impress men.

    Besides, if ya’ll can handle it all now, save hiring a handyman every now and then to fix your faucet, why are yall bitching about Peter Pan men? You don’t need em, right? Go get emmmmmm grrl!

  270. Badpainter says:

    Jane Dough – “But I really don’t think this one is, especially in the wake of the 50SoG explosion: Women WANT to look up to a man. We want him to be in charge, we want to have to trust him. We do want to believe that he’s stronger and smarter than we are.”

    Although true no one is willing to discuss the easiest and fastest way to establish that dynamic.

  271. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I didn’t say it was easy. I said that it “came more easily”. An important difference.

    Came more easily…okay, I still disagree because I understand the sin nature of women, regardless, you have the reasoning wrong. It has nothing to do with a decline in the impressiveness of men. It has to do with the way women have been deceived to believe they are safe. The arrogance in which they choose to live. If something has changed radically it has been women’s abject stupidity and love affair with their own solipsism and the adulation they receive for it. Of course this too has always existed, but it was perhaps more common for older women to teach younger women of their foolishness and for younger women to listen and learn.

    Read what Entropy is my God had to say one more time:

    When the bright light shines, and the news screams out one final, feral,note of panic, in that moment you will awaken. When your self affirmation device dies for all eternity, and those less than impressive men are no longer there to provide the infrastructure that provided your goddess box power, you will awaken. When less than impressive men easily hold you against your will and forcibly remove their pleasure from your unwilling flesh, you will awaken.

    On the day of judgement, you and millions like you will fall in abject terror. You will become mentally castrated, by a world in which the gentle bumper rails that prevented you from ever even think about what hunger was, or what being shot at was, or what having your teeth forcibly removed from your head against your will are no longer their to protect you.

    On that day and not before then you will not think back to “these less impressive ” men. You won’t think anything at all except for shame and terror at the horror of what real life is like.

    The only response to you and those like you is laughter.

  272. thedeti says:

    @Michelle:

    “4 ( be realistic, submit to a peer man and create the delta/differential in the relationship by means of your own submissiveness) is hard to maintain over a lifetime. I think that a lot of women convince themselves hey can do that consistently and fail miserably at it. I’d bet that this is also where duty sex marriages come from.

    Tough shit. A woman who wants to be married needs to live in reality.

  273. Novaseeker says:

    4 is hard to maintain over a lifetime. I think that a lot of women convince themselves hey can do that consistently and fail miserably at it. I’d bet that this is also where duty sex marriages come from.

    Maybe so. It’s difficult for men to get hard for a woman who has had 2-3 kids and is 50 when there are 18 yo hotties available on his cell phone. Life is hard. Women need embrace their part of this solution, just as we men need to embrace ours, regardless of how hard it is.

  274. thedeti says:

    My patience is fast at its end for women talking about how tough it is to be married to any man who isn’t George Clooney. I frankly don’t want to hear it; not when men are excoriated, frivorced, financially ruined, and bereft of their children, all for the allegedly inexcusable sin of not being George Clooney.

  275. Crank says:

    @badpainter

    “Although true no one is willing to discuss the easiest and fastest way to establish that dynamic.”

    Regular spankings?

  276. PokeSalad says:

    My patience is fast at its end for women talking about how tough it is to be married to any man who isn’t George Clooney. I frankly don’t want to hear it; not when men are excoriated, frivorced, financially ruined, and bereft of their children, all for the allegedly inexcusable sin of not being George Clooney.

    The “message,” as it always from the rebellious, is that women will pretend to respect men just as long, and only as long, as they are useful in practical terms to her (can perform a task or pay for something she cannot or will not do). As Jane points out above, since women are now infinitely more capable in these areas than in the past (albeit not nearly to the degree she thinks), we men are just damned lucky that women let us hang around at all. I do feel truly blessed that I havent been summarily sent to the camps.

    I, for myself, also value women for a particular set of skills…one of the most prominent being able to suck a golf ball through a garden hose. I think that’s perfectly fair that I judge women on that standard.

  277. Michelle says:

    @ Sarah’s daughter

    I read Entrophy’s dramatic comment. In a situation like that the average man isn’t going to be much use and many will suffer as much as women. As seen in any war torn nation or 3rd world nation – the women of the conquered are fair game.

  278. greyghost says:

    You got that right thedeti Women are not going to do any of the things spoken about her unless it goes along with their nature. a women will only submit to her husband if that insulates her from reality. At present she gets that insulation from the government.
    A women will want a happy husband only if that gives her status amongst her female peers. A woman will only respect her man if that sooths her hypergamy, Women do not have it in them otherwise and never did. They will behave that way if it is in their interest period. That is the purpose of civilized society. Make women live by the same standards as men respectable men will pop up every where. jane dough might think nothing will change but listening to women has got us where we are today.

  279. Badpainter says:

    Michelle – “In a situation like that the average man isn’t going to be much use…”

    In a situation like that the very definition of average will likely not align with what you think it is today.

  280. thedeti says:

    Michelle:
    “In a situation like that the average man isn’t going to be much use and many will suffer as much as women. As seen in any war torn nation or 3rd world nation – the women of the conquered are fair game.”

    Well, yes. In a situation “like that”, most of the “average men” will be killed or enslaved. Most of the younger and more attractive women will be made into concubines or married off to the conquerors. The older women will be killed or enslaved, like most men.

    Don’t get me wrong — I don’t want to see anything like this. But it could happen here, since past is prologue.

  281. In a situation like that certain paranoid gun-hugging, food stockpiling preppers are going to be WAY above average. Get the popcorn!

  282. greyghost says:

    The state of Texas will be one sexy place.

  283. Sarah's Daughter says:

    @Michelle,
    In a situation like that the average man isn’t going to be much use and many will suffer as much as women.

    I don’t think you did read it. If you had you would have read this: and those less than impressive men are no longer there to provide the infrastructure that provided your goddess box power, you will awaken.

    But your comment is illuminating – the use of these men…

    I don’t know that you’ve ever denied it, but you do realize, don’t you, that it is this sentiment that permeates the women in our society today and will be/is the impetus for good men to say “fuck it”?

  284. feeriker says:

    I’m not claiming that women (or men for that matter) are helpless, but I do believe the Bible when it says that it is better to marry than to burn. Most people should marry by that standard.

    Not quite. What Paul refers to is two people burning with passion for each other. Furthermore, this “burning with passion” does not refer to mere raw animal physical lust that two people feel for each other. Rather, it refers to the deep spiritual bonding shared within the framework of Jesus’s love and the parameters set forth within Scripture.

    What you are asserting is that since raw animal lust is uncontrollable, women should find the first penis that turns them on (and men should find the first cum dumpster that turns them on) and “legalize” the relationship through “marriage” (the 2.0 version) so as not to be “living in sin.” That’s really what Marriage 2.0 is, and we all know how THAT has turned out for society.

  285. feeriker says:

    I don’t know that you’ve ever denied it, but you do realize, don’t you, that it is this sentiment that permeates the women in our society today and will be/is the impetus for good men to say “fuck YOU!”?

    Fixed.

  286. Novaseeker says:

    I’m not claiming that women (or men for that matter) are helpless, but I do believe the Bible when it says that it is better to marry than to burn. Most people should marry by that standard.

    This means not what many people think it means. He isn’t saying it is better to marry than to burn with passion, but that it is better to marry than to burn in hell due to sexual sin resulting from the personal inability to contain oneself.

    In the 21st, EVERY FRIGGING CHRISTIAN uses this verse to justify their own hypersexualization of marriage, cuz, after all, Paul said it’s better to marry and sex than to burn with passion. No. It’s clear that what he was saying is that it’s better to not marry (Protestant Americans: You are wrong when you diminish that this is the *primary* thing he was saying, because it’s obvious from the text) at all. But if you will transgress sexual morality due to not being married, well, then it is better to marry than to burn in hell. So contain yourselves. Don’t justify your own lack of ability to contain yourselves as righteousness, because Paul clearly says it is nothing of the sort. If you can’t contain without sinning, then marry, but drop the bullshit about continence only being possible for .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of the population to justify your own weakness and lack of discipline.

    God demands better, and he will not be mocked.

  287. Julian O'Dea says:

    Crank:

    “Regular spankings?”

    Regular consensual spankings. Starting before you marry her.

  288. Dissillusioned says:

    I have been watching episodes of “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” on youtube. It is SOOO refreshing. Here is a man (ghost) from a time when ships were made of wood and men were made of steel and women LOVED it. It discounts all the new junk in today’s world and affirms masculinity and feminity (contrary to feminism). Mrs. Muir is beautiful and enchanting. The Ghost (Capt Gregg) is old fashioned, strong and doesn’t bulge. He does care for her but when he gives a command she finally obeys while he hardly ever compromises. Yet she loves him for it. At the same time he observes her and her needs (real ones) and does what he can to satisfy them and to protect her and the kids (and housekeeper). PLEASE WATCH THIS!!! and if someone is moved to tears over how it used to be and could be I understand.

  289. Julian O'Dea says:

    Dissillusioned, I remember The Ghost and Mrs Muir. My mother liked it for some reason.

    He was a commanding presence. The only downside was that he couldn’t actually do anything with Mrs Muir because he was a ghost.

    My wife and I were watching McMillan and Wife, I think it was, not long ago on DVD. That was refreshingly traditional too.

  290. Badpainter says:

    Crank – “Regular spankings.”

    Very close.
    ______________

    Julian O’Dea – “Regular consensual spankings.”

    Yes, because consent is such a great tool of discipline, and ever the appropriate consequence for gross insubordination. One might as well punish her bad behavior with jewelry, or prayer.

  291. PuffyJacket says:

    @Deti

    Tough shit. A woman who wants to be married needs to live in reality.

    This is exactly right. The standard advice from marriage counsellors should always be some variation of “Suck it up, Princess.” Which is how saner societies approached the problem for thousands of years.

  292. Julian O'Dea says:

    Badpainter, I think I understand your point. But non-consensual spanking is both difficult and much more fraught with legal risks. Consensual shows that her heart – and other parts of her – are in the right place.

  293. PuffyJacket says:

    @TFH

    I bet Michelle thinks ALL of the laws around alimony, child support/custody (i.e. more alimony), and DV are just fine right the way they are, and none need to be less unfair to men.

    Amazing that whenever this point is brought up to the female “Christian” commenters here, it is either ignored completely or dismissed out of hand as trivial with little or no thought.

    This clearly demonstrates why the overwhelming majority of “Christian” women in this country are unfit for marriage, and why all men should avoid marriage 2.0 like the plague.

  294. Dale says:

    @Brad
    Usually I try to ignore foolish arguments. I think arguing such an “argument” is usually a waste of time (Titus 3:9-11) In case you are willing to think however:

    1) Your post at 3:46 am falsely indicates I claimed to have no support from many others. I did not claim such; I only claimed to achieve what I did without a wife. Which is true. I admitted to being blessed by God, and said nothing one way or the other about others.
    Your answer to me indicates I claimed “God was wrong when He established and confirmed marriage”. False. I argued it is possible for many men to succeed without a wife. Not that marriage, as God designed it, is wrong.
    In your third paragraph, you warn me, “don’t claim to be following Him if you malign His plan.” Again, I encourage you to think before you write. I did not malign God’s plan for marriage. Maybe you got me mixed up with another poster?

    2) Your post at 10:59 am includes:
    “The expectation is that men would marry. Some will not, but most will and hence railing against that is railing against God.”

    No, “railing” against marriage with an unworthy woman is not railing against God’s plan. I will admit that greyghost’s comment at 4:49 may look like a blanket rebuttal of all marriage, but he does include the qualifier, “This is a true statement for young men today.”. “Today”, as in, “in today’s culture of our depraved nations”.
    You appeared to claim Gen 2:18 as support for your position that marriage should not be railed against. If I understand you correctly: The full text says:
    Gen 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

    Yes, it is not good for men to be alone. God’s solution, when there was only one person on the entire planet, was to create a second person, who was a woman.
    Well, there are many more than one persons on the planet now. Therefore, I can avoid the situation that God said is not good, being alone, by being with any of the other 6 or 7 billion people on the planet. E.g. Heb 10:24-25 re gathering with believers.
    If I am to take a wife, she’d better offer more than an escape from being alone.
    Similarly, 1 Cor 7 says repeatedly that being single is better than being married, IF you can handle this. Jesus says the same in Matt 19:1-12, with the same limitation.

    For many, including myself, marriage with a good woman would be vastly preferable. The limitation there is “good”. I advise men who cannot find a good woman, and who are able to accept this, to avoid marriage. If they have very strong sexual desires, they may need to take the best of a bad lot however (1 Cor 7:8-9).

    It does little good when we exhibit poor reading and thinking skills. At least I should try to hide them🙂 Prov 17:27-28.

    @Dave
    >And on the topic of what is hard to do. Are men really supposed to love, played out, carousel riding sluts as Jesus loved the Church?
    >
    >The short answer is Yes. And, no, I have not yet changed my name to “Captain Save-A-Hoe”. But scripture is clear that when a sinner genuinely repents, and turns from their former lives, they will receive pardon, and none of their former sins will be remembered again.

    You are half-right Dave, which unfortunately means effectively wrong.
    Yes, sins are forgiven, not to be remembered. This does not mean the costs of the sin “go away”. Three costs I encourage you to distinguish; they are not the same.

    1 – The eternal punishment portion of the costs were paid for by Jesus. This is a free gift, but it is not free. Costs had to be paid, just not by me.

    2 – The eternal costs, in the form of the rewards we can earn, are not forgiven. Yes, I said, “not forgiven”. 1 Cor 3:
    10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
    If I sin instead of serving God, I will lose the rewards I could have earned. I will not get them back. My sin has an eternal cost.

    3 – The temporal (present world) costs, in the form of consequences, rewards, unintended consequences, etc., are not forgiven. For example, the thief on the cross beside Jesus who repented. Jesus said he would be in paradise with him (saved), yet Jesus allowed him to be executed for his crime anyway.
    Or a better example: the wages of sin is death (Gen 2:15-17 and Rom 6:23). In all of history, of all the people who submitted to God, only two managed to escape this cost/penalty of death; Enoch and Elijah. Everyone else, in spite of surrendering to God, still paid the cost and died. As a consequence of sin, in this world.
    It should thus be clear that present world costs/consequences continue, despite repentance.

    I will not pretend to be unaware of the promiscuous past of a woman. And I will consider that greatly when considering whether she
    A) can be trusted for a 45-year marriage, and
    B) whether she is the virtuous woman I wish to be mother to my children.
    My consideration will be tempered by the amount of light she previously had — was she a Christian? And by the submission to God she demonstrates now.

    You correctly admit that a man should not feel obligated to marry the ‘”used up” woman’ (your words). This admission is important; I wish all religious leaders could imitate your maturity on this topic.

    >At the same time, he has no right to dredge up her past sins as a basis for his rejection of her, or to castigate another man who might find her attractive.

    I agree that I should not disparage the woman another man married… that seems unprofitable and useless. And likely to buy me a punch on the nose.🙂
    But to tell a woman, truthfully, that I want a virtuous woman, and her past shows she is not the kind of woman I want, can, I think, be good. Good in that it will be a warning to women around her to not act in similar fashion. (Cost type #3 above.) The idea of giving a punishment to be a warning to others is found in Deut 19:15-21.
    Now, if she (or he) repented and left the practice of sin awhile ago, and has demonstrated self-control and virtuosity consistently, then I should admit to this also. Even in this case, there will be ongoing costs. She will have opportunity to compare her husband, sexually and otherwise, with the various men she fornicated with or lusted over. This, methinks, will not be a benefit to the marriage. Similar to the problems of a man who slept with 100 other women before marriage.

    >Fact is, for every female slut out there, there is a man-hoe

    I will not pretend to know the exact numbers, but it is a common theme that maybe 80% of the (promiscuous) women have sex with 20% of the (promiscuous) men. Women do not seek out the bottom 20% just frequently as the top 20%.
    Some guys brag about having sex with 100 women. Other guys have sex with none (outside marriage), or very few. This is due to the above. So your assumption that “for every female slut out there, there is a man-hoe” is incorrect.

    I do see great validity in many of your other comments however. Your willingness to demand we actually submit to God’s commands is great. Our “churches” would be vastly different if we did. Way to go🙂

  295. PuffyJacket says:

    Furthermore, any woman who denies the absurd injustice of these laws and their impact on men’s exodus from the marriage market has ZERO understanding of the problem and will never be an ally to restoring marriage. This is very similar to So-Cons whose “concern” about marriage extends to everything but actually doing anything about the underlying problem.

  296. Badpainter says:

    Julian O’Dea – “But non-consensual spanking is both difficult and much more fraught with legal risks. Consensual shows that her heart – and other parts of her – are in the right place.”

    Which is the best tool for the individual man to mitigate hypergamy can’t be discussed. We are forced to enter a gunfight armed only with our charisma.

  297. Dale says:

    @feeriker

    Oi mate, chill! Your comment at 8:08 was harsh. SD was already trying to correct Michelle. Although I am not sure if you meant to stomp on SD, or Michelle, to whom SD was commenting.

    On another topic, my thought when reading your interpretation of 1 Cor 7:8-9 was that you are reading in quite a bit that is not be there. I just see “burn with passion”, not the rest you stated. Can you share the basis for your interpretation?
    Obviously, I have to admit it does seems reasonable to want mutual burning, rather than just one-way. Especially in this legal climate. This is my human wisdom however, not what I see in the passage.
    Asking for the love and other items discussed throughout Scripture is also great, but I am not sure that these are necessarily in mind as Paul writes “burn with passion”. Again, no dispute that a fully-Biblical marriage is best.

  298. PuffyJacket says:

    @TFH

    I bet Michelle thinks ALL of the laws around alimony, child support/custody (i.e. more alimony), and DV are just fine right the way they are, and none need to be less unfair to men.

    Actually I think questioning along these lines is the ultimate “litmus test” for determining who is and isn’t serious about protecting marriage. Unsurprisingly, most women and So-Cons fail this test badly.

  299. embracingreality says:

    In regards to marriage offered as a solution to “burning” in 1 Corinthians 7 there’s several obvious problems, both 2000 years ago and now. One obvious problem, then or now, spouses who won’t give it up as addressed in 1 Cor 7:4 (statistically it’s the wife at 70% resulting in sexless marriage). In modern times we’ll have to add obesity, especially of the wife. My burn isn’t exactly going to be satisfied with a wife who starts gaining weight with her very first bite of wedding cake.

    Don’t make me post the survey of *married Christian men* with masturbation and pornography use in epidemic proportions.

    Modern marriage? What’s the use for the vast majority of men in any economic class? Yes, I know, some men appear to win, some men win the power ball lottery. What are the odds?

  300. embracingreality says:

    For anyone curious search “solo masturbation in marriage survey”. Gripping’ stuff… Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

  301. pukeko60 says:

    Julian.
    Too much information, Mate.
    Too much information.

  302. Julian O'Dea says:

    Badpainter:

    “Which is the best tool for the individual man to mitigate hypergamy can’t be discussed. We are forced to enter a gunfight armed only with our charisma.”

    Well, yes. But, as has been touched on here before, I doubt that it was ever easy for husbands under any legal regime. The law has a way of taking one thing away as it gives another.

  303. feeriker says:

    @Dale:

    Oi mate, chill! Your comment at 8:08 was harsh. SD was already trying to correct Michelle. Although I am not sure if you meant to stomp on SD, or Michelle, to whom SD was commenting.

    I’m not sure how my amendment to SD’s comment could possibly have been misconstrued as being diected at SD, given its context. However, for benefit of the unobservant (or contentious, as the case might be), it represents the generic sentiment of any self-respecting man toward any woman who makes her hypergamous motivations clear gor all to see (which obviously doesn’t include SD, but I’m pretty sure you knew that).

    A succinct and emphatic “FUCK YOU!”, issued without further embellishment, is probably the most polite and measured response* any self-respecting man can direct at any woman who has made it unmistakably clear to him that her interest in him is purely and solely utilitarian.

    (* An unsuccinct, unmeasured, and embellished response might be necessary for getting through to the particularly dense and solipsistic).

  304. Opus says:

    I wonder (now that she has been married a few months – the champagne gone flat, the rice swept away) Mrs Clooney feels about George. One quickly gets used to sudden and unexpected wealth as well as acquired and borrowed fame, such that even the supposedly glamorous and empowered life of being an aging (she was thirty-eight) Junior Counsel will now seem mundane (as indeed it is) and tiresome in the somewhat cramped surrounding of the nineteenth century building into which Doughty Street chambers fits itself – the traffic in The Strand is unbearable – but at least The Market is now gone to Nine Elms.

    I suppose marrying the world’s most handsome and admired movie star is less likely than winning the lottery on consecutive weeks.

  305. Julian O'Dea says:

    I imagine Mrs Clooney is like Mrs Seinfeld, a woman with great genes who has aged well, and with some siren-like quality, something truly exceptional, that makes settling down with her an attractive option. I imagine some women are just that damn sexy. In the old days, they would have said she had bewitched him.

    As I have suggested before, good looks and being sexy are separate things. I have known some very ordinary looking women who can be spellbinding. I suppose when both occur in the same woman, you have the kind of woman a really exceptional man will want to marry.

  306. Opus says:

    @Julian O’Dea

    So George did not marry Amal for her legal smarts: I am truly shocked and disappointed. I agree with you that beauty and sexuality are not necessarily if at all correlated, (though only a good looking women can be a trophy woman) so I don’t know about Mrs Clooney but I do know she is painfully skinny and wears so much make-up that otherwise she would be mistaken for a transvestite. I’d like to see her as she really is.

    Had it not been for that fluke (meeting George) she would have remained a storing empowered woman. I wonder whether she was a prick-tease or a carousel rider – I’d guess the former.

  307. Opus says:

    To complete my slagging-off of Mrs Clooney, I would say that she is, will remain (and was) a failure as a woman, and as a lawyer owes as much to being female as to any learned ability having deprived a man (and a native Briton) of a job. I have seen it: having a vagina is a key that opens all locks and makes difficulties disappear like summer mist. Bitter? Moi?

  308. Julian O'Dea says:

    It is a bit like Princess Whatever who is married to the future King.

    A sweet Tasmanian girl who just “happened” to meet the future king. Perhaps, but women have a way of creating opportunities out of nothing, spinning gold out of straw like the girl in the fairy tale.

    In fact, the future Queen and King may not have “met cute”. There is some suggestion that it was all a bit staged. (I must be in a mean mood. I just saw the Prince on my daughter’s laptop screen chatting away. I remarked that if he were the not the heir to the throne, he would be an accountant in a small firm, somewhere, maybe).

    The wretched woman earned my dislike by having the entire Book of Common Prayer traditional wedding service, but only omitting the O word. The one that comes after love and honour.

    That said, she is a good looking girl and shows no signs of getting fat. Not getting fat just about makes you royal among modern women.

  309. Dave says:

    Making women aware of this and teaching girls to only get involved with guys that they see as superior will go a long way.

    This is the fundamental reason an American woman will struggle to have a loving, thriving relationship with her (future) husband.
    As a young girl growing up, she was constantly told both by the media, the educational system, the church and by society at large that she was superior and preferred to boys, and that there is nothing a boy could do or be that she could not do or be even better. Unless she has a solid, down to earth family which held her feet to the ground, corrected her false indoctrination, and made her see her feminine value independent of any man, she will ultimately internalize the false doctrine of female superiority and preference. And the result would be lifelong marital misery.

    I sometimes feel compassionate towards the typical American woman who does not seem to understand why she can’t find a good husband, or why her marriage is not working. She could not find a “good” husband because her tastes in men have been raised far beyond her worth, such that the men she considers “good” enough for her do not consider her good enough for them. It is easy to tell her to dial down her tastes, but in practical terms, the damage has already been done over the previous 20-30 years, and that cannot be undone in a year. It is like telling a person who grew up with the idea that only Audis are good enough to drive, only to find out later that she could only afford a toyota; it will take a while to adjust to the new reality and even longer to truly fall in love with a toyota, and treat it with utmost care and respect. She might even later find out that it’s all been in her head: that Toyotas are just as good as Audis, and Toyotas could be more rugged, actually.

    The American woman who is determined to have a great marriage should immerse herself in the Word, and see that she makes Scripture the basis of her thoughts and the final authority in her life. She must consciously reject the ungodly American media, and actively seek out godly women who are similarly committed to doing the same thing. She must also avoid most American “Evangelical churches”, because most have been contaminated with the ungodly ideology of feminism. For most men getting married these days, they are finding out that the non-American women are a much better and a more desirable choice though. I know that in my experience. Sad but true.

    Since men are, generally, not good enough, it seems that many men and women will just have to settle for being single and celibate.

    I could not imagine Patriarch Abraham telling Isaac to be celibate because the single women living in his country were undesirable for marriage. Instead, the good Patriarch told his trusted servant to dust up his passport, get his chariot ready, and go import a wife “for my son” from another country, where the women are better and more godly. Celibacy is not the way to go, people; there are too many beautiful, godly and chaste women out there who will appreciate you, and be forever grateful to God that you come into their lives. Don’t allow feminism to win.

  310. Dave says:

    I have been watching episodes of “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” on youtube. It is SOOO refreshing. Here is a man (ghost) from a time when ships were made of wood and men were made of steel and women LOVED it. It discounts all the new junk in today’s world and affirms masculinity and feminity (contrary to feminism). Mrs. Muir is beautiful and enchanting. The Ghost (Capt Gregg) is old fashioned, strong and doesn’t bulge. He does care for her but when he gives a command she finally obeys while he hardly ever compromises. Yet she loves him for it. At the same time he observes her and her needs (real ones) and does what he can to satisfy them and to protect her and the kids (and housekeeper). PLEASE WATCH THIS!!! and if someone is moved to tears over how it used to be and could be I understand.

    The fact is, any man can replicate this even in this country. Once you show a woman that you truly love her, you can make her do almost anything for you. One of my ex-gf used to salute me whenever we talked. Another once called me “Commandant”. I never consciously tried to command them or control them, but they saw my interactions with them as such, and they LOVED it. Both were well educated and attractive (one was a nurse; the other a pharmacist).

    So, it might sound cliche: the problem is the men, not necessarily the women. If I am dating a woman, and it is clear she won’t follow my lead, I drop her without a second thought. If, as a man, you do not place a premium on yourself, women will never do the same. A man’s attention and affection are like drugs to a woman. She craves them with all of her being, and will do anything to get them. Kim Kardashian does not do all of her nonsense for money per se, but to get attention from men. Men should stop giving their attention to women away for nothing. They should stop complimenting women who do not deserve a compliment.

  311. Julian O'Dea says:

    Dave:

    “Once you show a woman that you truly love her, you can make her do almost anything for you. One of my ex-gf used to salute me whenever we talked. Another once called me “Commandant”. I never consciously tried to command them or control them, but they saw my interactions with them as such, and they LOVED it. Both were well educated and attractive (one was a nurse; the other a pharmacist).”

    Yes. I am reluctant to say this, but we live at a time when some hard truths have to be told. If a woman doesn’t do some of this kind of thing for you, she is probably, as the saying goes, “not that in to you”.

    And it is not just the more naturally submissive ones. Many women will do this. I once read that a phase of extreme submission on the part of the woman is part of the normal human courting process.

    Try getting her to curtsey to you. That is always fun.

  312. A man being better at cleaning isn’t going to gain him much respect.

    I wonder if most women grasp the absurdity of what is being said by Michelle here. Her statement is as layered as a shale formation. it begs to be fracked.

    It actually earns him ire, as do the innate efficiencies**** in the work and communication modes of men. A woman doesn’t want to hear or know that a man knocks out his chores and finds free time in a given house husband day, because he ignores the damn squirrels. This negates her rejoinder, when asked what the hell’d she do all day, “but its the squirrels, I tried to get to the grocer but the squirrels kept me over there re-hanging that picture unable to decide id centered or offset was better…..which one is better honey? ……she suggests, “come over here, lets waste some evening hours on this too so later” Then she can add another rejoinder if challenged again, “Well you do it too sweety, remember how long we spent on hanging that picture”

    (****This is rapidly morphing to the lowest common denominator due not necessarily to men being less efficient at task work, but due to the acceptance and addition of more and more task work to the daily list, the new tasks having more emotional value than practical value)

  313. Michelle says:

    @ Sarah’s Daughter

    “The use of men”

    To be fair, we were talking about women being unimpressed and others pointing out ways that men are still useful. Entrophy’s comment mentioned men as “bumpers.”

    Entrophy’s comment as well as Marrisa’s and yours are an excellent example of what I was saying to Jane Dough about submission being more difficult for the average woman now that men are less impressive. The response was to imagine the complete collapse of civilization and denigrate women by claiming that they are stupid, all on antidepressants and haven’t accomished anything ever.

    Our society has reached a point where in order to claim that men in general are still impressive and worthy of female respect you have to push the average woman down or discuss what women will do in extreme end of the world as we know it situations. Jane Dough was absolutely right when she said this:

    Women used to look up to men because they needed them to handle the man stuff. But now man stuff has become everyone stuff, save physical labor, and how much labor does the average urban professional encounter on a daily basis? So being able to handle the everyone stuff of going to work, buying a car, making investments, etc is a lot less impressive.

  314. Entropy is my God says:

    @Michelle

    Your diety is a short lived and fickle creature know as convience and is relatively fragile. It has exsisted in short gasps thoughout all of the empires througout history, generally before they collapsed into chaos and barbarism.

    Pray Michelle, pray to the governement, pray to the goddess of convience. Pray that your, and all those poor women, who have to suffer through an unimaginable hell of “unimpressive men”, continue to exist in a plastic cocoon of ease.

    Most places in this world for most of this world’s history have been uneneding buckets of stool. These people would have self severed limbs to deal with the “unimpressive men” of today as their greatest problem. You and the western women just like you, who worship at the altar of the goddess of ease, are going to be shocked and aghast when the reckoning happens. That you think it so far from the realm of reality merely means you are unable to see what a tiny and exceptional blip in history your comfortable life of starbucks latte enimas really is.

  315. theasdgamer says:

    To all you clueless feminist broads:

    You blame men for being unimpressive and are clueless why that is. It is due to the pedestalization of women and the assumption of equalism. The pedestalization of women is an artificial constraint imposed by feminists going back hundreds of years. Pedestalization is *relative to men*. If the status of women is raised, the status of men is necessarily lowered. If the status of men is lowered, more and more men will be “unimpressive”.

    You are clueless. QED

  316. theasdgamer says:

    Yes, Michelle, my comment was aimed at broads like you because of stupid 5h1t that you said like this, you have to push the average woman down

    No, Cupcake you don’t have to push the average woman down. All you have to do is remove the artificial constraints that pedestalize women.

  317. Dave says:

    what I was saying to Jane Dough about submission being more difficult for the average woman now that men are less impressive.

    The problem is not men being less impressive than in times past. Rather, it is women’s brainwashed expectations which have gone through the roof. Men have have not changed much in the last 50 years. However, the typical American woman has undergone tremendous changes during this period.
    Men have only begun to respond to women, as they refuse to marry and go MGTOW. That is not unexpected. The men who initially permitted feminism to take root in America were not really affected by the ideology. It took a while for the feminist ideology to go mainstream and for the first set of men to be universally burned by it. Contrary to the feminists, feminism has not won at all; it has only awoken the sleeping giant (i.e. mass of men) to confront the greatest threat to their freedom since the dawn of civilization. Much like Osama Bin Ladin saying he won by firing the first salvo on 9/11. Not so fast; he simply woke up an infuriated Uncle Sam.
    Until feminism withstands and vanquishes the blowbacks against it in the next 40-80 years, it should not entertain the idea that it has won.

  318. theasdgamer says:

    Men are better at taking risk. Men are better at entrepreneurship. Men are able to market themselves better because they are willing to change employers, which is risky. Without equal opportunity laws, women couldn’t compete with men even when it comes to paper-pushing jobs.

    There are three times as many men with IQs above 130 as women. This impacts physics, chemistry, engineering, and medicine, among other fields.

    Women are often better at investing because they avoid Gambler’s Ruin.

  319. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Jane Dough was absolutely right when she said this:

    Women used to look up to men because they needed them to handle the man stuff. But now man stuff has become everyone stuff, save physical labor, and how much labor does the average urban professional encounter on a daily basis? So being able to handle the everyone stuff of going to work, buying a car, making investments, etc is a lot less impressive.

    How is that right? She went from talking about man stuff to the average urban professional – hardly the majority of men.

    “Save physical labor” – I am completely convinced that women like you haven’t a clue how your cozy 1st world runs. I don’t think you’ve ever noticed the men behind the scenes. Nor contemplated that they are not replaceable by women. Women literally can not do the jobs they do. For that alone these men are respect worthy.

    It is so bizarre that you continue to express such blithering, idiotic statements.

  320. Jane Dough says:

    “Save physical labor” – I am completely convinced that women like you haven’t a clue how your cozy 1st world runs. I don’t think you’ve ever noticed the men behind the scenes. Nor contemplated that they are not replaceable by women. Women literally can not do the jobs they do. For that alone these men are respect worthy.

    I was raised by the men behind the scenes. And I’m the one who said that we need to bring respect back to those positions.

    But no, a 45k/year average looking bookkeeper is not impressive to his female peers because they are his peers. His marriage will probably work out better if he marries a secretary, or excuse me, “administrative assistant” than if he tries to marry someone else in the accounting department. It’s just kind of a built in way to ensure an organic rather than forced respect.

    Yes, you should submit to your husband regardless, but choosing well, for both men and women, in the first place makes marriage much more easy, fun, enjoyable, stable, and sexy

  321. JoeMing says:

    The respect given to men was for their role as breadwinner — something women will never understand — NOT because his job was considered difficult. Being a breadwinner, regardless of one’s employment, is difficult. You should try it sometime, Jane Dough and co. My father used to swill Maalox out of the bottle. He was discarded once the family bank account reached seize-worthy levels.

  322. Women need to be trained to love and respect their husbands. No matter the lifestyle he provides. It doesn’t come naturally. Coveting and greed comes naturally. Yes, for a time women who choose their UMC draft horse will dally in delight of her material well being. Sadly she won’t have internalized an ounce of integrity or obedience to God. If a woman does not hold, in reverence, the person God tells her her husband IS, it makes no difference how sweet she smells or brightly she sparkles. This is the tragedy.

  323. Michelle says:

    But no, a 45k/year average looking bookkeeper is not impressive to his female peers because they are his peers. His marriage will probably work out better if he marries a secretary, or excuse me, “administrative assistant” than if he tries to marry someone else in the accounting department. It’s just kind of a built in way to ensure an organic rather than forced respect.

    Yes, you should submit to your husband regardless, but choosing well, for both men and women, in the first place makes marriage much more easy, fun, enjoyable, stable, and sexy

    I agree and find it strange that this idea is offensive to some.

  324. Jane Dough says:

    “Women need to be trained to love and respect their husbands. No matter the lifestyle he provides. It doesn’t come naturally. Coveting and greed comes naturally. Yes, for a time women who choose their UMC draft horse will dally in delight of her material well being. Sadly she won’t have internalized an ounce of integrity or obedience to God. If a woman does not hold, in reverence, the person God tells her her husband IS, it makes no difference how sweet she smells or brightly she sparkles. This is the tragedy.”

    This is not mutually exclusive.

    I love my husband deeply. He is a good, strong man who gives of himself generously to me, his friends, and his family. But I’m also very attracted to him in a very carnal way. I wanted to be attracted to my husband and I was fortunate that the men in my life taught me the importance of it. And yes, it was the men who taught me to look for someone stronger, smarter, faster thinking, and traditionally masculine.

  325. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Yes dear, your husband’s good works have earned him much. May he always be able to hold to it and never grow old or become incapacitated. Having to draw from “what used to be” will become much more difficult over time for you. Better that you love your husband because of who God says he is. Respect him because God requires it. Submit to him as unto the Lord. And this, once surrendered to, can be taught to any young women no matter who she marries. Those who refuse to surrender and insist that it be what her husband does that earns her respect should be kept back from marriage. They’re not suited for it.

  326. Pingback: Delusional Facts-n-Logic | Great Books For Feminists

  327. Jane Dough says:

    “Yes dear, your husband’s good works have earned him much. May he always be able to hold to it and never grow old or become incapacitated. Having to draw from “what used to be” will become much more difficult over time for you. Better that you love your husband because of who God says he is. Respect him because God requires it. Submit to him as unto the Lord. And this, once surrendered to, can be taught to any young women no matter who she marries. Those who refuse to surrender and insist that it be what her husband does that earns her respect should be kept back from marriage. They’re not suited for it.”

    You’re missing the point. It isn’t that good job, education, or income are attractive themselves. What’s attractive is the amount of time, dedication, intelligence, motivation, and charisma that was required to get where he is. His success is just the result of these traits. He was completely laid out after a bad car accident for almost a year in 2007. He didn’t work out, earn money, make deals, or do anything but physical therapy. The attraction wasn’t lost during that time because it’s who he is that I love and want, not the results of who he is. The drive, wits, charisma, etc was all still there.

  328. Dalrock says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter

    Those who refuse to surrender and insist that it be what her husband does that earns her respect should be kept back from marriage. They’re not suited for it.

    But this is the last thing Jane Dough and Michelle want to hear. They want to marry as much as they don’t want to honor the vows of marriage. This is the source of all of the heat and smoke in this discussion, as hamster wheel bearings aren’t rated for such high rpms.

  329. Sarah's Daughter says:

    You’re not a Christian, are you?

    That’s the only explanation to how you are missing the point. I pity your husband, and I know that might sound weird, but it is a hard role to uphold having been made an idol.

  330. Badpainter says:

    “But no, a 45k/year average looking bookkeeper is not impressive to his female peers because they are his peers.”

    Operating Engineer/Dozer hand – 75k-90k annual income.
    Electric Linesman Journeyman – 75k-120k annual income.
    Pipeline Welder – 100k-125k annual income.
    Information Security Analyst – 60k-150k annual income.
    Construction Cost Estimator – 75k-95k annual income.

    All lacking social status and often education and not impressive enough. Not the type of men the typical modern woman can show off like a designer handbag.

    I find what women consider impressive to be a general indictment of the cognitive abilities of woman. Organizing society around what women find impressive is the fast track to ruin.

  331. Sarah's Daughter says:

    They want to marry

    All princesses do…

    as much as they don’t want to honor the vows of marriage.

    You mean their husbands can’t do that for them too? Life is so unfair.

  332. Jane Dough says:

    “All lacking social status and often education and not impressive enough. Not the type of men the typical modern woman can show off like a designer handbag.

    I find what women consider impressive to be a general indictment of the cognitive abilities of woman. Organizing society around what women find impressive is the fast track to ruin.”

    I addressed this earlier and its a big problem. A lot of trades pay 6 figures and require no debt, but they aren’t respected and that’s a large part of why they’re short on people. The kids who are hardworking, have people skills, and are good at math are told to “go to college” even though the job outlook is often rough and the debt can be crushing.

  333. Jane Dough says:

    “You’re not a Christian, are you?

    That’s the only explanation to how you are missing the point. I pity your husband, and I know that might sound weird, but it is a hard role to uphold having been made an idol.”

    My husband married a virgin who respects him, loves him, and cares for him.

    But I didn’t choose a husband blindly. I went for what I wanted knowing full well that I wanted a man to be the head of the household and that given my own personality, strengths, and shortcomings it would be easier if I looked for someone with certain traits. So I did. The men in my family were all strong leaders in their homes, and I was raised knowing that both my husband and I would be happier if I submitted. Knowing that, I found the best man I could to submit to.

    Or I guess I could have married someone less dominant and successful and had to work 3x times as hard to submit while hoping that he would one day take charge. But it doesn’t seem worth it.

    I definitely recommend this to everyone, male or female. Find someone you love AND are very attracted to. That’s why I’m never offended when the guys here write off fat women. They should be writing them off.

  334. Michelle says:

    It seems that we are all in agreement that husbands should be respected, (biblical respect ) because of what the Bible says about wives and husbands and that this is the best way to have a good marriage. Where there seems to be some disagreement is on whether or not it makes sense to marry a man that you respect in this sense.

    a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

    For most women this man is not going to be a peer. Women need to marry up to have that feeling and that feeling is necessary for sexual attraction. I also believe that this is the kind of respect that men crave. They don’t want their wives to just salute their position but to have that feeling of deep admiration for their qualities, abilities or achievements. Well in order to have that in a marriage you have to marry the right man for you.

  335. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Well in order to have that in a marriage you have to marry the right man for you.

    Who continues to be that right man, no matter your ever changing hypergamous needs, otherwise it’s off to “I’m not happy divorce rape court” – right Michelle?

    A man might crave to be an idol in his wife’s eyes but wisdom (and experience) will tell him he’s not up for the position. And the fools who think they can uphold the necessary perfection often fall to the temptation they are promised to have.

    because of what the Bible says about wives and husbands and that this is the best way to have a good marriage

    No, the Bible does not say this is the best way to have a good marriage. It is what God commands of wives in order for them to be in obedience to Him. “If you love me, obey my commands.” “Wives respect your husband for he IS…” It is in the order (law) of His creation. You know, like gravity.

  336. garrett4 says:

    Wouldn’t surprise me if in the next phase of civilization, that all women (every single one) will be relegated to a giant harem/market and accounted for under property laws. And not because of some Mad Max breakdown, but because these times have revealed exactly what they contribute to society (besides V and babies),

  337. Michelle says:


    Or I guess I could have married someone less dominant and successful and had to work 3x times as hard to submit while hoping that he would one day take charge. But it doesn’t seem worth it.

    This is why submission is made out to be such a difficult thing. Every woman that I see struggling with this married a peer or lower. Or her husband has become disabled or unemployed or struggles with some embarrassing vice that lessens the feeling of respect which of course makes the action more difficult. Women need to learn how to deal with those things too, but you are right that it makes no sense to make submission hard on yourself.

  338. BradA says:

    JN,

    You and I clearly mean different things by “good provider” then. I see it as providing a reasonable floor. You see it as being a pack mule for a socialite (perhaps not that much, but it makes the point).

    I would completely agree you have no reason, Biblical or otherwise, to work yourself to the bone just so your wife can spend it frivolously. You both might push that for other reasons, such as funding some productive use of the money, but that would be far different.

    The problem for society is that it has created incentives for a whole lot of men not to care very much about making money.

    It has also created incentives for men to live on other people’s money, something many don’t realize. Think about how many expect this, that or the other to be paid for, not realizing that doing so really just pushes the bill off on someone else. You are not saying that, but it is a significant part of those who claim to be just doing their own thing from what I have personally seen.

    Jane,

    The jobs today are far different than those in the past, even when they do the same thing like “bookkeeper.” Automation has changed things. You are correct that many put down past accomplishments because of that, but they are wrong when they do so.

    JN,

    Exposed men for what? You seem to be asserting that it “exposed average men as being average”.

    Don’t you know that all women live in Lake Woebegon? All men should be above average!

    Jane,

    A woman has to do it all-she must be feminine and docile while also educated, accomplished, and driven.

    I am not the peak, but I make good income and have a decent brain. My wife had the two main qualities I sought: A heart after God and she was thin, and will almost certainly remain so. Education was completely off my radar. I am not your elite, but your position sounds a bit like the Apex Fallacy if I understand it right. You are only looking at the very top, which is bad for finding out reality.

    Opus,

    Yeah, Aspergers exists. Though it is not always a drawback. See Bill Gates.

    JN,

    Christian political activists confused political activism with Christianity in the 1980s, and ended up with a myopic focus on reducing abortions as some sort of good.

    Not quite. They had many flaws, but it was more a reaction to letting those determined to destroy civilization run things. Unfortunately the side that hates humanity has more time to destroy it. Those who are raising a family keep getting pulled back to raise a family.

  339. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Sweetie, if submission comes easy, it’s not submission. It’s agreement.

    Women who struggle with submission are struggling with their relationship with and rebellion towards God – a quite human condition. I’ve not met a soul and have only heard of One who didn’t suffer this condition.

  340. Original Laura says:

    Julian–are you certain that leaving obey out of the wedding vows was the choice of Catherine? Is it not possible that the senior members of the Royal Family thought that it might make William look out of touch with the People if obey was included? Especially as it wasn’t used at the Diana & Charles wedding decades earlier?

    How often is the obey vow used in traditional Anglican wedding services these days?

  341. BradA says:

    On Aspergers: I raised at least 2, likely 4. It exists. I share many of the traits though and have done quite well, so it is not quite what many think.

  342. Jane Dough says:

    “Sweetie, if submission comes easy, it’s not submission. It’s agreement.”

    Well, yes, hubby and I agree on a lot.

    And there are times that we disagree and submission is easy.

    And there are times where we disagree and submission is really hard.

    But, if I married someone not believing that he really was my superior in real, measurable, tangible ways, submission would be much harder much more often. Not impossible, of course. And it should never be an excuse for not submitting.

    But we aren’t talking about leaving a less dominant husband to find someone who is easier to submit to. I’m saying that when teens start dating, before marriage and divorce even come up, we need to teach them to look for ways to make their future home lives easier. Part of that is: Women should not look for men who they see as their “equals”.

  343. BradA says:

    Dave,

    But scripture is clear that when a sinner genuinely repents, and turns from their former lives, they will receive pardon, and none of their former sins will be remembered again.

    That is not quite what is written. God does not hold the sin against them, but nothing written says that such actions have no further impact. I would never put a former child abuser alone with children, no matter how genuine his or her repentance was. That is just one example. You can be forgiven, but sin still has an impact and a heritage many times.

    The former slut who really does reform and change is so rare that it is remarkable for it happening. No man is compelled to marry someone with that background because she really is forgiven.

  344. BradA says:

    Rollo, I would guess that you are younger, relative to us older ones, and therefore you don’t see the respect need. You will see it over time as the sex drives continues to fade, but the respect one does not.

  345. thedeti says:

    Michelle, Jane Dough:

    Why do you keep going around and around on this? Yes, submission is hard. Yes, women should marry up so they marry a man who is “better” than they are. But you are hamstering and rationalizing and navel gazing and complaining and whining and bitching.

    You don’t have to do any of those things. Nova gave you the answer yesterday, and in a very kind way, too. Here, let me copy it again.

    “Life is hard. Women need embrace their part of this solution, just as we men need to embrace ours, regardless of how hard it is.”

    Women’s part of this solution is to submit to their husbands, or don’t marry. It’s simple. That does not mean easy; but it does mean that it’s simple.

    To the women who say it’s difficult to submit to their husbands, I say: Yes, it is. Or it can be. But that is marriage, and marriage can be hard sometimes. And, if it is hard to submit, it is of your own doing, because you selected him. You should have not selected him, or selected a better man. You didn’t. You’ve made your bed. Sorry, but that’s how it is.

    To the women who say it’s difficult to remain unmarried because you cannot find a man attractive ehough to induce or encourage your submission, I say: Yes. Yet it is hard to remain unmarried. Or it can be. But that is life, and life can be hard sometimes. You are consigning yourself to a life of sterile, loveless pump and dumps; or STRs and LTRs of uncertain duration and little commitment; or celibacy and solitude. Regardless of which you select, you are also consigning yourself to having to work to support yourself and whatever child(ren) you bring into the world on your own, because you will not have a husband to help you. You will have to select which course you can best live with, and then accept the good and bad of whichever path you choose. If you claim Christ, the only moral course of action is lifelong celibacy. That is difficult and can be lonely. But if you have made that choice, you will have to walk it out.

  346. BradA says:

    SD,

    It has to do with the way women have been deceived to believe they are safe.

    Exactly. 1st world problems, which will kill the 1st world.

  347. Jane Dough says:

    “But you are hamstering and rationalizing and navel gazing and complaining and whining and bitching.”

    I have nothing to complain about. Despite the world we live in, I married well, and I did so because of the advice and influence of the men in my life. Marriage does not have to be this big, adversarial undertaking. The sexual revolution made it more dangerous and complex-but awareness of your nature and that of the opposite sex goes a loooong way.

    The lie that women are fed that is so damaging is that there is something wrong with them if they want a man who is better. That’s just not the case and right now, society is working against human nature. It’s counterpart to the lie fed to men that their leadership instincts are “abusive” and “controlling”.

  348. James K says:

    I think this discussion has got too distracted by the occupations and earnings of spouses.

    @Jane Dough

    But no, a 45k/year average looking bookkeeper is not impressive to his female peers because they are his peers.

    There’s a clue. average looking. “Marrying up” (hypergamy) is not nowadays mostly about income and social status. It is about marrying someone that your female friends will envy.

    Some women are smart enough to drop out of this game. They avoid the company of other women because they know what bitches women can be.

  349. BradA says:

    TFH,

    It is better to marry than to burn with passion, even under Marriage 2.0 (or beyond), but that is not saying much. It just says burning with unfulfilled passion is really bad.

    Nova,

    I do believe that is referring to this life, not your eternal state. Your salvation is based on whether your spirit is reborn, not outward actions. Otherwise 1 John 1:9-10 would be unnecessary, since Christians would never sin after conversion.

    This doesn’t make modern marriage good though, as it is just not as bad, but still horrid.

    Dale,

    My argument was that even single successful men needed others to support them and that such support could be a wife. You then argued that many were confirmed bachelors, including yourself who was well on his way to a high income. Which part of that addresses what I said?

    greghost has said that men do not need women at all, other than as surrogates and possibly nannies. I dispute that and have done so many times. That is the context of my comments.

    It may benefit you to get a bit more context. And to read what I write, not what you think I write. I have never supported the modern version of marriage nor will I do so. I just do not condemn marriage with blanket statements as many here do. I also stand for what is Written above anything else. Many here end up standing for man’s ways instead, or at least their words indicate that position.

    The modern situation and is not sustainable. Neither are some of the solutions that have been presented. God had the right plan and we will only ultimately succeed when we return to that. We will always struggle with it though as we are still walking in a fallen world.

  350. Looking Glass says:

    @thedeti:

    You lost about 95% of Women with “[y]ou will have to select which course you can best live with”. Personal responsibility? For a Woman in 2015? What is this strange concept?

  351. thedeti says:

    “The lie that women are fed that is so damaging is that there is something wrong with them if they want a man who is better. That’s just not the case and right now, society is working against human nature. It’s counterpart to the lie fed to men that their leadership instincts are “abusive” and “controlling”.”

    You’re missing the point. The point is that marriage is difficult, it requires sacrifice and compromise, and it is not easy all the time. Despite your glowing description of your marriage, I will be willing to bet you have not submitted perfectly. And I am not faulting you for that — it is women’s nature to push back and bristle and buck against the yoke of marital submission. That’s why women should not marry if they can’t marry a man who is better than they are — a man’s (at least perceived) superiority at least in a few things makes submission easier.

    But what for those who DIDN’T marry “better” men? Too bad. Submit. Is that hard to hear? You bet it is. But it needs to be heard, and said, and walked out.

    What for those who cannot find men to marry or cannot be attracted to available men? Don’t marry. Is that hard to hear? You bet it is. That’s just tough.

  352. thedeti says:

    “Marriage does not have to be this big, adversarial undertaking.”

    Not necessarily adversarial; but it is big. It is serious. It carries obligations and duties and responsibilities with it; and those obligations can be weighty; duties can be irksome, and responsibilities can be hard to bear. The hardest, hardest thing women seem to have a problem in marriage with is compromise, not getting their way, and submitting to husbands as final decisionmakers.

    You might not believe this, but most men seem to prefer being final decisionmakers; or at least they seem to be able to live with and shoulder that burden better than women do. And (at least in the long run), most women seem to prefer NOT being the final decisionmakers, and prefer being able to follow a course their husbands chart.

    Sounds really sexist, doesn’t it? Don’t blame me — I’m just laying out what I’ve seen over the past several years.

  353. J N says:

    Yes, you should submit to your husband regardless, but choosing well, for both men and women, in the first place makes marriage much more easy, fun, enjoyable, stable, and sexy

    Marriage is not easy, fun, enjoyable, nor sexy.

    Kids and babies are messy and wake up and scream all the time. Marriage means having to care about another person, thereby impinging on your own free time. As far as sexy goes – being married to one person for life isn’t particularly ‘sexy’. One would be better off pursuing pornography or having one night stands in bars, if ‘sexy’ is life’s ultimate goal.

    Ultimately if life’s goal is to be easy and fun, find some job to work at that’s not drug tested and spend your spare time getting high. That’s the ultimate in personal fulfilment.

  354. BradA says:

    Dale,

    I have also walked through much of the “Christian marriage” situation and learned a lot in the process. That does not make me a perfect font of knowledge, but it is much more hands on than many who only speak in theory. Others have experience and come to different conclusions, but I will put a bit more weight here on those with experience over vague generalizing or worshiping the ideal over reality, which is what happens when we push something other than Biblical marriage, whatever it is.

    The fact is, any man can replicate this even in this country. Once you show a woman that you truly love her, you can make her do almost anything for you. One of my ex-gf used to salute me whenever we talked. Another once called me “Commandant”. I never consciously tried to command them or control them, but they saw my interactions with them as such, and they LOVED it. Both were well educated and attractive (one was a nurse; the other a pharmacist).

    That can be sarcasm you know….

    Are they both ex-girlfriends? You could not make them do anything, just some things, and only for a while. No perfect plan, even if society didn’t work against that.

    The problem is not men being less impressive than in times past. Rather, it is women’s brainwashed expectations which have gone through the roof.

    I do agree with some things, and this would be one of them. You would likely find less argument with the initial point as well if you read what it said, not the meme many thought.

  355. Entropy is my God says:

    1st distilation of Michelle and Jane Dough:

    I am attractive enough to lock down an attractive (Looks), strong (Athleticism), good earning (Money), respected (Power), man who I love submitting too (Status). If you are a woman and you cannot do this you are ugly. If you are a man and are arguing with me you are a limp dick virgin faggot, who lives in their mothers basement, hates women and jerks off to porn non stop.

    Final distilation:

    I am bragging. Give me tingles.

  356. J N says:

    But no, a 45k/year average looking bookkeeper is not impressive to his female peers because they are his peers.

    In a world where many (even most) people have to deal with an oppressive state government, war, an unsafe neighbourhood, not enough food to eat, or domestic violence in their own home, this statement just shows how utterly disgusting our modern west has become when someone making 45k/year is “not impressive enough”.

    Jesus had these words:

    But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

    Perhaps we would do well to remember those things. What will we say on judgment day? Jesus will say about some of us that he was naked, and we clothed him. He was hungry, and we fed him.

    To others of us he will tell us to depart from him, for he never knew us.

    As a man, I am gravely concerned with what my saviour asks about me, and I ask myself the question: do I know Jesus? Does he know me?

    And that, friends, is also perfect game. Women treasure a man who doesn’t care if women are impressed with how much money he makes. Women hate a man who thinks he can secure a woman’s loyalty with his salary.

    A godly woman will evaluate a man based on if his life is submitted to Jesus. If that’s not what a woman is looking for, and what makes her think a marriage will be “sexy, fun, easy, enjoyable, and stable”, my advice is a hard next.

  357. imnobody00 says:

    @Michelle

    I am from Spain (Europe) and lived one year in the States (not anymore)

    It’s rich when you say “many American men are unimpressive”. Do you know who is unimpressive? American women. Fat, lazy, entitled, phony, shallow, sl*tty, with tattoos, dressed like low-style men, with an attitude, with stupid ideas that come from Oprah, with a self-importance that is ridiculous. Most are pathetic excuses for a woman and they think they deserve Prince Charming.

    How do you think it was in the past? Did each woman had an alpha during the patriarchy? Of course, not. Most men were never impressive, because impression is a relative measure. Impressive means “above than average”. Most men were full of flaws, like women, like in every age in history. The difference is women knew that their s*t stinks so if they got a good father and a good provider, they thanked God.

    I can’t bear this entitlement attitude. Oh, wait! I am not forced to do it, I date non-American women. I don’t live in the States anymore so I know how a “real woman” is.

  358. J N says:

    @Entropy is my God

    I just laugh at people like Michelle, since I go to church on Sunday and Wednesday and watch the women with their broods of children, all with smiles on their faces, and watch how happy they are with their husbands pulling incomes of $30k a year. When a husband and wife both submit to God, there’s a lot less need to submit to the god of hypergamy.

    Ultimately a lot of this conversation is how to make marriage safe for heathens (including heathens who call themselves Christians). I think it’s a stupid undertaking.

  359. J N says:

    @imnobody00

    My solution for people like Michelle is simple – if they think men aren’t attractive enough, choose lifelong celibacy, which is actually a valued vocation in Christianity. Lots of opportunities to serve the church. There are many convents out there who would be eager to have new members.

    Same advice I give to guys… of course, once a guy chooses to turn away from sexual sin and chase God 100%, he usually ends up being a lot more attractive to the right kind of godly woman.

  360. Entropy is my God says:

    This conversation is attention whoring 101 for two possibly female trolls.

  361. Jane Dough says:

    “You’re missing the point. The point is that marriage is difficult, it requires sacrifice and compromise, and it is not easy all the time. Despite your glowing description of your marriage, I will be willing to bet you have not submitted perfectly. And I am not faulting you for that — it is women’s nature to push back and bristle and buck against the yoke of marital submission. That’s why women should not marry if they can’t marry a man who is better than they are — a man’s (at least perceived) superiority at least in a few things makes submission easier.”

    I’m not missing the point at all. You just restated everything that I’ve been saying.

    Of course I’m not a perfect submissive wife, and my husband isn’t a perfect leader. But we both work to be better, and it’s infinitely easier because we have the same understanding of our roles and what we want and need. I’ve seen a lot of marriages and not only is mine happier, it’s just so much more functional. Power struggles are dangerous and the temptation to get into them would be so much stronger if I felt that I knew better than the man I’m submitting to.

    It goes both ways. My husband is a better leader because he truly sees me as vulnerable. He knows it isn’t play pretend, and he is motivated to be the best leader and provider he can because I can’t do it myself. There is no question that *he* is needed, respected, and that I’m grateful to him. I don’t think he would have this fire for his family’s wellbeing if he thought I could manage everything on my own. We aren’t peers. He’s above me, and I chose him because that’s what I knew I wanted and needed, and everyone is better for it.

  362. J N says:

    Time for a new topic.

    http://www.ozy.com/immodest-proposal/why-im-burning-my-bikini-top/60546

    Toplessness, coming soon to a beach, school, or sidewalk near you:

    Even as school boards forbid shoulder baring and require bottoms to pass the “thumb rule,” juniors stores sell little but tank tops and short shorts. Enough with it all, we say: Abolish dress codes, once and for all. It’s time for women — not the government or FCC or schools — to decide what we’re going to wear and when.
    Who decided it’s OK for Vladimir Putin to parade around topless but not women? And no, this is not licentiousness, or sluttiness, or whatever. This is about fighting the message that it’s OK for society to sexualize women, but not for a woman to bare her body on her own terms.
    … And look, I don’t think teenage girls should be wearing 5-inch heels and miniskirts to class, but publicly shaming them with inherently sexist rules is worse. Educators should instead focus on teaching students about self-respect and self-expression, and build their confidence so they don’t seek validation with their bodies.
    … To top it off, self-objectification has also been repeatedly shown to inhibit concentration. So even as schools are telling girls to cover up so they don’t distract the boys, they’re impairing her ability to mentally perform.
    … Deborah Tolman, a human development psychologist at the Hunter College School of Social Work, argues dress codes are a way to impose order. The only reason they might target girls more is because girls are the ones flaunting them, she says. As soon as men’s stores start selling nothing but halter tops, I’ll agree. In the meantime, my bathing suit budget this summer just got cut in half.

  363. J N says:

    In fairness to Meghan Walsh, she does have a point that juniors’ stores pretty much don’t sell anything modest anymore. Go browse around one with a friend sometime – there is very little that is modest even by 2015 standards.

    The fact she is a self styled “feminist” and expects to buy all her clothes ready-made in stores, sewn by slave labour (and mostly women) in third world countries is, of course, lost on her.

  364. J N says:

    Jane Dough just did a classic “Hey, guys, I’m a great submissive wife, and my husband is the bestest husband ever. Much better than you women with your not-so-great husbands that I’m sure you have trouble being attracted to. LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”

    Her prattlings are giving me a hankering to head over the women over 55+ thread…

  365. Jane Dough says:

    “I am attractive enough to lock down an attractive (Looks), strong (Athleticism), good earning (Money), respected (Power), man who I love submitting too (Status).”

    I married at 22, the summer after he finished grad school. When we started dating, I didn’t have to be as extraordinary to attract him as the women going after his coworkers have to be now.

  366. theasdgamer says:

    Submission is what a lieutenant does when the Company CO gives him orders: he obeys willingly and with all his power.

  367. theasdgamer says:

    I’m still married, going out weekends dancing solo (to get stories for my book, to get exercise, to develop my social skills, etc.), and my wife is chasing me. I sleep on a sofa because of reflux and Mrs. Gamer sleeps on the floor, happily. I don’t order her to do this–she does it because she would rather be in the same room with me sleeping uncomfortably on the floor than alone in the bedroom on a comfy bed.

    I give Mrs. Gamer a good time as much as I can. We go out dancing together during the week. I Game her to keep her spirits up. Since I discovered how to do comfort better, Mrs. Gamer is a lot happier.

    How do the vows go? “For richer, for poorer, for better, for worse….”

  368. Retrenched says:

    @asdgamer

    Yeah, pretty much that. It’s not possible for women to have equal status with men, and be able to marry/mate with men of higher status than themselves (which hypergamy demands). A few women may be able to pull this off, but the vast majority will not — cannot. It’s simple math.

    It’s this female demand for higher status men that drives the so-called gender wage gap. In order to appear on women’s romantic radar, men have to work harder than women, to earn more and achieve more than women, or they will be considered “below average” and “unimpressive”. Of course, when men do that, a lot of women bitch about that as well.

    So men are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The man who busts his ass to build a career and social rank that will attract women is (according to a lot of women) a misogynist who is unfairly benefiting from the system of male privilege which is holding the average woman back unfairly, but the man who doesn’t work so hard is (according to these same women) a pathetic below average loser who will never be able to attract a mate.

  369. JDG says:

    Yes, you should submit to your husband regardless, but choosing well, for both men and women, in the first place makes marriage much more easy, fun, enjoyable, stable, and sexy

    There are so many foolish statements related to “unimpressive men” that I just don’t have the time to address them all. It’s not that men have become unimpressive but rather that women have become unappreciative in their ignorance and arrogance.

    Choosing well for a man these days pretty much means NOT choosing a woman from the US, UK, or Canada (and other western nations as well). I also think that choosing well for most western women means not choosing to marry, because most of these women have had multiple partners before they marry.

    It is fairly obvious that women who play the harlot* are less likely to be able to bond, seldom respect men (let alone themselves), and have even more problems than usual with authority (particularly male authority). Such women make terrible wives and mothers. IMO these “unimpressive” men are fortunate to not attract such women*.

    *such women = almost all women in the US, UK, and Canada. How sad is that?

  370. J N says:

    @JDG

    “Choosing well” just means choosing a follower of Christ. Not really that hard.

    Christ’s commandments and the apostles’ commandments are pretty clear in the Bible. So clear, in fact, that it’s quite easy to visibly identify who the women are who are following Christ.

  371. feeriker says:

    “And that, friends, is also perfect game. Godly women treasure a man who doesn’t care if women are impressed with how much money he makes. Godlywomen hate a man who thinks he can secure a woman’s loyalty with his salary.”

    Fixed.

    I don’t know, J.N., if you simply forgot to add the bolded qualifiers, but they’re very important, especially for BP Christian men just getting their first doses of RP. While pointing out these qualifiers probably isn’t necessary for the veterans here, it is essential to point out that your generic descriptions minus these qualifiers DO NOT apply to non-believing women, or even the vast majority of women who believe themselves to be Christ followers, but who in reality are clearly nothing but churchian modernists. The contents of a man’s wallet and bank account are primary factors that drive all other attraction factors when looking for a husband. It is also important that Christian men understand that godly women who put a potential husband’s wealth in any place other than Number One or Two on their priority lists are EXTREMELY rare, to the point that finding one is akin to finding an albino pygmy, a whie Siberian tiger, or a California grizzly bear.

    To be clear, you are correct in your assertion that these are the traits in a woman that a godly man should seek in a godly wife. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out in these parts ad nauseum, the supply of such women isn’t even remotely able to support the demand.

  372. JDG says:

    >This is the source of all of the heat and smoke in this discussion, as hamster wheel bearings aren’t rated for such high rpms.

    lol .. very aptly put.

  373. JDG says:

    Sarah’s Daughter says:
    July 14, 2015 at 9:56 am

    Very well said. Hear hear!

  374. J N says:

    @feeriker

    I intentionally did not use those qualifiers. A principle of game is that one’s salary is not particularly impressive, especially when so many men have sex-figure incomes. In order to truly impress a woman, you’d need to have millions (or billions) of assets on hand, in order for your game to revolve solely around wealth.

    Meanwhile, everyone knows quite attractive women who are giving it up to a man who is unemployed, works in fast food part time, etc.

    Unfortunately, as has been pointed out in these parts ad nauseum, the supply of such women isn’t even remotely able to support the demand.

    People think that’s true, and it’s not. In my circles, there is an imbalance of men to women in their 20s, since more men die in accidents or leave the faith. Women are anxious to get settled down with a man when they are 18 or 19 and marry quickly. They tend to focus on signs the man will stay in the faith and focus a lot less on SMV. Since we have a culture with a high degree of modesty and without adornment like braids, makeup, jewellery, etc., women essentially end up competing with each other on how good of a future wife/mother they will be.

    I realise it’s hard to believe if you aren’t on the inside of a culture like this, but believe me, it’s true. Running into a guy in his 20s who is single and doesn’t have some major defect is rare.

  375. Brad

    On Aspergers: I raised at least 2, likely 4. It exists. I share many of the traits though and have done quite well, so it is not quite what many think.

    I know very very well what it is. I suffer no illusion like that you refer to. Aspergers exists because it was first defined. I could pick a subset of characteristics about anything and name that set of characteristics, Flarb, Then I define Flarb, and suddenly there would be people are are Flarb.

    Thank goodness the diagnostic criteria are under scrutiny. Heck, where I live the radio runs Ad Council ads that , before lunch claim one statistic and after lunch those same ads run but with a completely different statistic. Based on that, one’s odds of being -on the spectrum- are much higher before noon than after.

  376. Oscar says:

    @ GeminiXcX says:
    July 12, 2015 at 12:05 am

    “I regret my incorrect usage of the terminology.
    Hopefully the point I was driving at in that entire post wasn’t automatically dismissed.”

    Not at all.

  377. J N says:

    @feeriker

    Let me clear one thing up that I think was the cause of our misunderstanding. I said, “Women treasure a man who does X. They are repulsed by a man who does Y.”

    I never said anything about them (a) marrying men who do X, or (b) refusing to marry men who do Y. One problem in churchianity is that we have women marrying men who repulse them, and chasing men they treasure, but who won’t marry them.

    I lived a good deal of my life with women who treasured me, but whom I’d never marry. I spent some of that time unemployed, and generally acting like a loser who would not be eligible for churchian marriage. (If I would have offered to drive down to the nearest marriage celebrant, any of those girls would have gladly jumped in the car.)

    After I became a Christian I had a time or two when women approached me who were clearly interested in nothing but beta bucks. Ugly, unattractive, overweight single mothers, to be exact. The obvious answer was “no”. I doubt they were attracted to me, but would have gladly married me. (Once I spurned them, the attraction went up, of course. One of them shifted gears to deciding to just try for a casual sexual relationship. Of course, I still said “no”.)

  378. new anon says:

    But no, a 45k/year average looking bookkeeper is not impressive to his female peers because they are his peers.

    There is a lot being revealed by this single statement. He is average looking. He has an average job–neither glamorous or mortifying. As to his income, here is the median income for American men by age (2014 numbers):

    24-34: $40K
    35-44: $50K
    45-54: $53K

    The median income for women in each age range is25% LESS than for men, btw.

    So, our the man in the example is average looking, has an average job, and makes average money. He’s average.

    Statistically, his female peers are average looking, have an average job, and make 25% less. Like the man, they are average.

    What she is saying is that these average woman wouldn’t be satisfied with an average man. These average woman demand an above-average man. Of course, it is statistically impossible for ALL (or even the majority of) average women to have an above-average man (if for no other reason than the fact that the above-average women are snagging the above -average men).

    So, what does this tell us about the average woman?

    Her expectations are unrealistic. There are not enough above-average men to meet the demand.

    Her evaluation of her own worth is unrealistic. Why do any of these average women think they are worthy of an above-average man? An average woman is no more a good match for an above-average man, than ketchup is for a Kobe steak.

    The average woman’s expectations are (to put it kindly) unrealistic. To put it not so kindly, they are delusional.

  379. J N says:

    @new anon

    And absolutely no godly woman would judge her future husband by his income. She might trust her own family’s judgment of him which would involve doing so, but that would involve her father and brothers judging the potential husband, and men are much better at judging the character of other men than women are.

    Someone with a focus on Christ expects to be persecuted, to be poor, to have to lay down their lives for Christ – which it is obvious we should expect in the Sermon on the Mount. Someone with their mind on the world is focused on the things of the world.

  380. Regular Guy says:

    Jane Dough said, “But if you pass laws barring women from education or certain fields, it won’t bring back the attraction because we will know that the superiority is only constructed, not inherent. Attraction is primal and can’t be fooled.

    The laws barring women from educational, political and vocational opportunities would have to originate from a cultural understanding that women are, in fact, not the peers of men and the societal and economics costs of pretending otherwise is too high.

    So in other words, it’s not going to happen until Western Civilzation eats itself.

  381. feeriker says:

    People think that’s true, and it’s not. In my circles,…

    Stop right there.

    Your “circles” consist of a very small (relatively speaking) and very devout and traditional sect that, alas, does not represent what passes for Christianity among the majority and is thus not representative at all of the problems that the majority of Christian men face. This obviously is not meant as a swipe at your faith and community; indeed, very much the opposite. Would that more of the “Christian” body existed within such a structure, it’s likely that the Christian manosphere would not exist (or would be much smaller and less vocal) due to lack of purpose.

    Even if the majority of RP Christian men were to take your advice and join the Mennonite community (or those of similar practice), the imbalance between the sexes in terms of numbers would be massive. The odds against any given Christian man finding a quality, submissive Christian wife under such conditions would still be astronomical. Problem persists.

  382. J N says:

    DId the U.S. ever have laws barring women from certain educational fields or careers? Certainly didn’t in the 19th century. Women were very rare in certain fields, but they would show up from time to time.

    In most cases, nobody had rules or laws to bar them because it wouldn’t even occur to anyone to think about it.

  383. J N says:

    @Regular Guy

    They’d do it for their children, their close family, their wives, their religion, their nation.

    They sure wouldn’t do it for sex though. Traditionally, most soldiers have been offered prostitutes or sexual access to conquered peoples’ women. Most mercenaries didn’t choose to go and fight for that. They chose to do so for glory or money.

  384. Michelle says:

    J N
    And absolutely no godly woman would judge her future husband by his income. She might trust her own family’s judgment of him which would involve doing so, but that would involve her father and brothers judging the potential husband, and men are much better at judging the character of other men than women are.

    So if a woman is concerned about whether or not her future husband will be able to afford to support a wife and children she is ungodly and focused on the things of the world? But her male relatives can judge this and that’s not ungodly or world focused? Is that what you meant to say?

  385. J N says:

    @feeriker

    (1) I’m positive I’m not part of the Only One True Church. I’m confident there are other communities of Christians in existence who have godly women in their ranks. If there aren’t, well, y’all had better join us!

    (2) I don’t think the ranks of true Christian RP men in the manosphere are actually that big. I’m guessing it’s a few thousand. We could easily absorb that many men. The retention rate for my particular subgroup is 55%, and the majority of those that head for the exit and want to live in a worldly way are young men. A lot of them end up married and divorced, so even if they do return to the church, they aren’t eligible to snap up one of the godly young women who earlier they spurned.

    (3) I have two men in my circles from RP background who came from the outside (quite a coincidence, believe me, eventually it became apparent that we both read the same blogs). One of them is working on his own life and not focused on getting a wife – yet. The other is quite eager to do so. I suspect he’ll be hitched within a year. I hope these guys end up being the future strong leaders of men that we need.

    The biggest hurdle would be changing your lifestyle and cultural expectations to match the group. You might not see any danger in watching Game of Thrones or going to movie theatres, but the leaders of the group do. In the long run, a lot of guys from the outside decide that the choice of a godly wife and a life consisting of raising a ton of children, working hard, and a roll in the hay a few times a week isn’t superior to enjoying all the world has to offer. I myself miss contemporary music, going to the movies, and associating with slatternly women. I know those things are spiritually harmful to me, but I can understand why so many men choose them.

  386. J N says:

    @Michelle,

    Yes, that’s exactly what I said.

    The Bible says that a man who will not provider for his family is worse than an unbeliever. So, a godly man will always provide for his wife and family.

    But a woman isn’t very good at assessing these things about a man she is attracted to. That’s what spiritual leaders in the church, and a woman’s family, come in to help.

    I should be clear that “provide for” means “provide the basic necessities of life”. You can easily provide for a family of five on a $30k income. One of my ministers makes about $30k Canadian and has 5 kids. He and his wife do just fine. Of course, she is a thrifty mother and wife. He works hard at his job (we don’t pay our pastors so he has a full time job) in addition to the heavy work load expected of ministers.

    The things to watch out for in a husband are laziness and a lack of a willingness to work or a mental disorder – those things will keep a man from providing for his family. And a guy who has a $150k job today, might be unemployed next year, and be a terrible provider.

  387. feeriker says:

    “So if a woman is concerned about whether or not her future husband will be able to afford to support a wife in the style she’s accustomed to and that she thinks she deserves and children she is ungodly and focused on the things of the world? But her male relatives can judge this and that’s not ungodly or world focused? Is that what you meant to say?”

    Let’s stop dissembling, ok? You’ve been posting here long enough now that you’re no longer fooling anybody.

  388. J N says:

    @feeriker,

    Let’s rephrase the debate a bit – what about Jesus’ warning “Woe unto your rich?” A woman chasing rich guys might want to think about her relationship to her saviour, and specifically, if he’s actually going to save her in the end at all.

  389. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I’m trying to figure out what I’m struggling with here.

    We have this perfect unicorn. Grew up poor but was raised by the strong men behind the scenes who encouraged her how to choose a husband. She was a virgin, married young and married well. Submits to her husband, loves her husband and agrees with most red pill truths.

    Why does something still seem so off? Is it just that she isn’t a Christian? And that she attributes her good fortune to luck?

    I know her encouragement of a woman’s hypergamous nature is destructive but there’s something more to it than that.

  390. feeriker says:

    I should be clear that “provide for” means “provide the basic necessities of life”.

    Problem being that what the typical western woman defines as “necessities” are things that for most of human history have been unattainable luxuries.

    You can easily provide for a family of five on a $30k income. One of my ministers makes about $30k Canadian and has 5 kids. He and his wife do just fine. Of course, she is a thrifty mother and wife. He works hard at his job (we don’t pay our pastors so he has a full time job) in addition to the heavy work load expected of ministers.

    Most “Christian” women in the western world would rather roast slowly amidst the flames of hell for all eternity than submit to such a lifestyle on earth. What they don’t realize is that the rapidly approaching implosion of the western world’s economy will ensure that even this humble lifestyle is luxurious compared to what they’ll actually live through.

  391. feeriker says:

    Let’s rephrase the debate a bit – what about Jesus’ warning “Woe unto your rich?” A woman chasing rich guys might want to think about her relationship to her saviour, and specifically, if he’s actually going to save her in the end at all.

    Certainly no argument from yours truly on the truth and wisdom of this.

    Again, though, the problem goes back to the fact that unchecked, feral hypergamy among women today, even –no, alas, especially— among ostensibly Christian women prevents them from seeing this clearly. Compounding the tragedy is that even if many unmarried women were, in an ideal and non-exstent world, to be under the control of male family members for their life’s key decisions, far too many of these male relatives would likely enable her own destructive hypergamous tendencies for their own gain or status by encouraging her to seek worldly attributes in a man (i.e., his wallet and bank account) over the more important spiritual attributes that would make him a godly husband over the long run. Tl;dr version: Daddy would without question prefer that his little girl marry the wealthy churchian hypocrite douchebag over the impoverished blue-collar tradesman who truly walks the talk and the walk. Little girl will certainly not argue with Daddy on that, for Daddy has just validated her base hypergamous impulses, even though the long-term consequences for her will probably be disastrous and destructive.

    It pains me to say this, but I’m very tempted, based on my own observations and experience, to believe TFH’s oft-stated claim that most women believe not in God, but in their rationalization hamsters as the supreme power in their lives.

  392. Jane Dough says:

    “Is it just that she isn’t a Christian? And that she attributes her good fortune to luck?”

    I do not attribute my good fortune to luck at all! The choices I’ve made were the direct result of my father and brother’s influence. I guess I’m lucky in that I had more quality role models than most. My mother is a wonderful woman too, but due to a pretty severe physical disability she wasn’t as able to fully participate in my upbringing. And the life I have now is thanks to my husband.

    My father was a small town cop and my mom had serious medical bills. My brother bounced around in life before becoming a caulker/pointer. He’s 23 years older than I am and remarkably “red pill” for someone who I am sure has never heard the term.

    I like the red pill community because it’s an honest discussion of the way I was raised-essentially. And it’s a way that worked for me that my female peers find unbelievable and abhorrent. But, they’re all single and remarkably bitter and entitled about it. I like seeing the other side of the relationship coin. My husband lurks around these blogs on occasion, but he isn’t really into posting online.

    I hope this is enough of a background that you’ll stop being catty. I like connecting with other RP women, so if you want to chat sometime let me know.

  393. @ Michelle “I have no idea why this is so offensive to some.”

    Try this on. Unless a woman falls within the top 20% as far as looks men won’t be interested in her. If that woman doesn’t have a job sufficient to grant him a life of ease then he won’t “love” her and will make every excuse to be unfaithful to her in an effort to find someone better. Most women will be treated as the gross hippopotami that they actually are, men will avert their eyes and ignore them if at all possible. Non-virgins will not be married (as men cannot “love” nor respect sluts). Men’s standards are high, and it’s past time women started measuring up.

  394. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I do not attribute my good fortune to luck at all!

    Jane Dough says:
    July 13, 2015 at 6:07 pm
    “I was very lucky.”

    I guess I’m lucky in that I had more quality role models than most.

    You’re not helping. I recognize that you had a great secular family highly influenced by Western Christian civilization. For that you are blessed and the recipient of Grace.

    I like connecting with other RP women, so if you want to chat sometime let me know.

    My apologies for being catty with you. It is deliberate to draw out the usual response of women I am unsure of (who I think might be trolls).

    I am not an “RP woman” I claim no affiliation to any group outside of the Body of Christ.
    When you are ready for Truth, there are many excellent men here that can witness to you. I’m equipped to play the role of a woman who can assist you in your Christian walk with an unbelieving husband. I am also a woman equipped to teach wives how to love their husbands. I’m afraid I have nothing to offer other than being an example to women who reject the Lord. I’m not under the impression you respect Christian women and am ill equipped to entertain conversations with that in mind. There are other Christian women who have this gift – seek them out.

  395. greyghost says:

    Organizing society around what women find impressive is the fast track to ruin.

    This is a no shitter here, see African American community

  396. theasdgamer says:

    “Her evaluation of her own worth is unrealistic.”

    No, because pedestalization of women. Remove pedestalization and your statement would be correct.

  397. greyghost says:

    What she is saying is that these average woman wouldn’t be satisfied with an average man. These average woman demand an above-average man. Of course, it is statistically impossible for ALL (or even the majority of) average women to have an above-average man (if for no other reason than the fact that the above-average women are snagging the above -average men).

    So, what does this tell us about the average woman?

    Her expectations are unrealistic. There are not enough above-average men to meet the demand.

    This is normal woman. Do you think because the topic isn’t which guys are good looking the 80-20 thing just went away. This is normal behavior from women. Normal. The conversation isn’t about how to change women but how to set law and policy that understands and normal woman and as close as possible mirrors scripture whether they believe or not. That is a civilized society. Too much male thought and intelligence being wasted here .

  398. theasdgamer says:

    “Attraction is primal and can’t be fooled.”

    More of Jane Dumb’s bull5h1t. Not all attraction is primal. Preselection, dumb@$$.

  399. thedeti says:

    This is more evidence of what women are saying men have to do in society, in order to become husbands and to attract women. I’m adapting a bit along things that I think Nova has said elsewhere. If I’m wrong, I’ll retract that part of the attribution.

    The argument from women seems to be “well, women are moving up in their equality, in their stances relative to men. Women have their own money, jobs, etc; and are now peers with men in terms of employment, social status, etc. It’s not good enough for men to be “just where they were before”. Men are just going to have to catch up and be better. Men are just going to have to learn how to be more attractive. Men are just going to have to adapt, improvise and overcome; and learn how to be more masculine men.”

    I’m not saying this is wrong, or bad, or assigning any value judgments to it. I’m saying this is the argument women are putting out there — “we are better; and we don’t want lesser men. So men have to just get better than us, or we won’t be attracted to them, and we won’t marry them or have sex with them”.

    This is going to have a lot of ramifications.

    Nova points out accurately that one of the problems with today’s elites in relation to marriage is that, as currently constructed, marriage “works” only for the UMC on up. And those elites tell everyone else that they can make marriage work if they would only “be like us”, i.e., “just get educated! Just get married! Just have kids! Just get a job! Just save money! Just don’t mess up! ” This doesn’t work usually, because the UMC on up have status, future time orientation, and money, all of which insulate them from their inevitable screw-ups.

    We have already seen how this plays out– in the lower middle class and working class communities, and in African -American communities. Most of the women work — and they are equal to their men, and see themselves as equal to the men there. They do not want their peers — they want “better men”.

    How does a man who can’t earn more or increase his status “get better”?

    Hardcore Game. Dark Triad Game. Attempting player status. Joining gangs (which is important because, along the lines of the OP, respect is the only thing a man craves more than sex, and a down on his luck man from the “wrong side of the tracks” can get status and respect by joining a gang). engaging in criminal activity. These are all things that get a man noticed, and garner him “status” and ‘respect” in communities where a man cannot improve himself in any other way.

  400. greyghost says:

    Hardcore Game. Dark Triad Game. Attempting player status. Joining gangs (which is important because, along the lines of the OP, respect is the only thing a man craves more than sex, and a down on his luck man from the “wrong side of the tracks” can get status and respect by joining a gang). engaging in criminal activity. These are all things that get a man noticed, and garner him “status” and ‘respect” in communities where a man cannot improve himself in any other way.

    guess who is getting all the pussy and knocking up all those heroic single moms in the African American community. It isn’t the thommed out guy “acting white” getting his degree or trade certification. (these guys aren’t man enough) to get a hint at who these women are start with tommysotomayor videos on you tube and see every body else that sees the same thing. Or google fight Mcdonalds and hit videos.

  401. Art Deco says:

    It has become a tradition for pastors to use Father’s Day, a day set aside to honor fathers, as a day to tear husbands and fathers down in front of their families.

    Is this an evangelical thing? I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a “Father’s Day” sermon, much less one like you describe.

  402. Regular Guy says:

    “It pains me to say this, but I’m very tempted, based on my own observations and experience, to believe TFH’s oft-stated claim that most women believe not in God, but in their rationalization hamsters as the supreme power in their lives”

    Most people are going to hell and that includes women.

  403. greyghost says:

    Good observation Regular Guy. A few years ago I knew women didn’t have the capacity to love. (not like a man.) I also know women say they are Christian the same as a woman shows off a designer purse or what have you. It is a title that causes others to think well of her the rest of that stuff means nothing. look what they have done to the manginas running the churches. Those spineless men of no faith wouldn’t dare talk of actual scripture to women today. Maybe the should try out for the Florida State University football team.
    Once again this is normal for women. TFH has a good point feminism has really shown women for who they are. The red pill is almost as good as cold Miller genuine draft at the end of a hot day at work.

  404. Julian O'Dea says:

    Original Laura, it makes little sense to have a completely traditional (BCP) wedding service and leave out one word.

    If you want to be traditional, be traditional. Don’t mix and match.

    That was my point.

  405. Jane Dough says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter

    You are inferring a lot. I definitely don’t come from a secular family. Both of my parents are devout Lutherans and my brother and I were raised firmly in the faith, though we both fell away. He lives a pretty typical secular life, but despite my lack of faith it never really appealed to me, especially given all of the problems I saw it cause for him-including divorce rape. I definitely don’t have a lack of respect for Christian wives, but I have no desire to be one. And that’s pretty fortunate for me because my husband would be terribly upset to find I’d transformed into one.

    You don’t have to be a Christian to believe that lifelong, monogamous marriage is the only way to create healthy, stable families and that those families are what make up a functioning society. The only way for both people to thrive in a marriage is for the man to be in charge and for the woman to submit. This is moral, time tested, and whether anyone likes admitting it or not, supported by social science.

    Whether I want to submit at any given moment is beside the point. It’s an inherent obligation and even if it weren’t, my husband and I talked extensively before we even got engaged and agreed that he would be the leader, and I would submit. Submission is an explicit promise that I made to him and I do my best to keep it. Sure, I fail sometimes, but I’m always trying to be better, and not just when it comes to that one aspect of marriage.

    I’m sorry I got chippy earlier. I do understand troll-wariness.

  406. Dave says:

    look what they have done to the manginas running the churches. Those spineless men of no faith wouldn’t dare talk of actual scripture to women today.

    This says nothing about the women per se, but about spineless preachers. These same preachers do not have enough courage to speak against an ungodly law enacted by an ungodly govrnment.

  407. Dave says:

    Whether I want to submit at any given moment is beside the point. It’s an inherent obligation and even if it weren’t, my husband and I talked extensively before we even got engaged and agreed that he would be the leader, and I would submit. Submission is an explicit promise that I made to him and I do my best to keep it.

    It’s women like you that make single men feel jealous of the marital life, because you and your husband make it so beautiful. My girlfriend is very traditional and submissive too, and that imparts me with a powerful incentive to love her and care even more deeply for her.

  408. J N says:

    @Jane Dough

    Go to the RedPillWomen subreddit on Reddit, http://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen , introduce yourself, and make friends there. You’ll get along with the crowd in those parts.

    They also have a chat room, or they used to.

  409. J N says:

    @Dave

    And, apparently, the men in their congregation lack the courage to run the heretics out of their churches, or else to stand up against the heresy, proclaim “Anyone who is a follower of Christ – come join me”, and turn around and walk out.

    If a group of 20 or 30 men were getting together, preaching to one another, exhorting one another, praying for each other, and singing songs of worship to the Lord, believe me, women would find out about it and would be doing anything they could to get in.

  410. James K says:

    There are numerous human qualities and virtues, and very few men are below average in all of them. Most women will find that certain qualities are important to them, while others are not. It should be possible to find spouses who suit each other; the problem is that, instead, we have allowed the discussion of possible choices to be framed entirely in terms of lust, envy, and avarice. Of course it is impossible for each woman to find a man who is “better” than herself, if the criteria for her choice are as stunted as this.

  411. J N says:

    @James K

    No kidding. Godly men should be on the prowl for women who reject lust, envy, and avarice. If none exist, choose celibacy, and pray something will change.

    I can assure anyone who is wondering that such women definitely do exist. Sorry, but they won’t marry non-Christian dudes nor marry guys who are in churchian weak churches. I hope you can understand that that’s a good thing.

    You guys who are not in strong scriptural churches need to go get in one. There are a lot of great girls out there hoping there are some real Christian men left alive.

  412. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Both of my parents are devout Lutherans and my brother and I were raised firmly in the faith, though we both fell away.

    You don’t have to answer, obviously, but this is haunting me. You were 22 when you got married, I’m assuming a bit younger when you met your husband. You were a virgin – certainly not influenced by the allure of promiscuity and the hiding from God (submitting to Satan) we women do in the midst of that sin. From the time you left your father’s home (a man you seem to honor) and the time you married your husband, you renounced your faith in Jesus Christ. Did you do so in order to get your UMC guy – considering how terribly upset he’d be should you believe and confess the Words of John 3:16?

    This, should it be the case, rises to a whole new level of what women will do to secure status. Heartbreaking.

  413. Jane Dough says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter

    No, absolutely not. I stopped believing as a teen. My parents knew and it hurt them, and they insisted I stay involved in church until I moved out. But after that, they accepted it and we have a great relationship with them.

    My husband was in a similar situation, although he was raised Orthodox. Like me, he absorbed many of the values without the supernatural component.

    We both hoped to find another non believer before we even met.

  414. The Original Laura says:

    Julian: I agree with you that it would be far better to accept the traditional service verbatim, but you blamed Catherine for the alteration, and I don’t think that it is clear that it was her decision.

  415. J N says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter

    The reason Jane feels so “off” is because she has the outward behaviour of someone socialised as a Christian, but she lacks the inner heart change. It seeps out into everything she says. So, her comments about society reek of a kind of selfishness and every-man-for-himself, instead of the kind of live Jesus called us to live in the Sermon on the Mount.

    She might be a submissive wife, but the phrase “Woe to you rich” and “Blessed are the poor in spirit” will make no sense to her.

  416. Julian O'Dea says:

    Original Laura, I think I read that it was her decision. But it is possible it was “palace policy”.

    It seemed to me to be part of a general trend among royal wives (I think the Duchess of York was an exception) to eschew these traditional usages, and for everybody to make much play with the idea that each woman was “a modern woman with her own mind and career.”

    The string of fiascos involving royal wives in recent years suggests that this hasn’t been a great success.

    My wife and I married in a Catholic service, and there has never been an explicit “obedience” vow in that service to my knowledge. I am not quite sure what her exact views are, although in practice she tends to be pretty obedient.

  417. You’re right J N.

    “If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” – Jesus

    “The closer to the truth, the better the lie…”- Asimov

  418. Jane Dough says:

    “The reason Jane feels so “off” is because she has the outward behaviour of someone socialised as a Christian, but she lacks the inner heart change. It seeps out into everything she says. So, her comments about society reek of a kind of selfishness and every-man-for-himself, instead of the kind of live Jesus called us to live in the Sermon on the Mount.”

    My comments about society are about bringing respect back to less glamorous jobs, teaching women to marry up, and teaching people to pick spouses well. Men need to find women that need and appreciate their protection, and women need to find men that they look up to, not over to.

    It might sound impersonal, but a certain level of objectivity is required to make good decisions. I would urge my sons to marry down, and my daughters to marry up, and I would be very concerned if they didn’t. I don’t want to see my son pathetically henpecked to the brink of death until his wife divorces him, and I don’t want my daughter to be a resentful, overbearing, fat, demanding, b****.

    Men should marry women who they find attractive and who they believe they will continue to find attractive. Women should do the same with men. This isn’t an act of selfishness, it’s just a way to prevent a lot of unnecessary resentment and friction on both sides.

    If your standards are so high that you can’t find anyone, them either lower them, look elsewhere, or improve yourself. No one is handing a Tom Brady to a land whale. It’s still a market place.

  419. feeriker says:

    Hey, at least Hell has a gender ratio that favors a man’s sexual prospects there….

    True but, Hell being Hell, the women there are going be of the type that NO man will ever want anything to do with, even if stuck with them for an eternity of agony.

  420. Julian O'Dea says:

    Jane Dough, your attitudes and advice sound fine to me.

    There is an old saying, “grace builds upon nature”.

    You have to get the nature right. If people understood the normal dynamics of attraction, there would be fewer problems with people struggling to make the unworkable work.

  421. Dale says:

    re Jane Dough
    “Men should marry women who they find attractive and who they believe they will continue to find attractive. Women should do the same with men. This isn’t an act of selfishness, it’s just a way to prevent a lot of unnecessary resentment and friction on both sides.”

    I see Julian beat me to it, but I also have to say that at least the above kind of advice from Jane seems both obvious and valid. What strength of character would a man or woman need, to be the kind of spouse required by Scripture for decades, when they find their spouse repulsive? I ain’t God, and therefore ain’t perfect or completely without selfishness. Therefore, any advantage I can get, to help me submissively fulfill his plans, is an advantage I want.

  422. Julian O'Dea says:

    Dale, it affects us men as well as women (I take it you are a woman).

    I mean that a sensible man has to set his sights on a woman he can realistically cope with. And I mean even on his “off” days. There has always been a lot of male folk culture about this: “she is too much woman for me”, “she is out of your league”, “stay away from gorgeous girls – they are trouble”, and so on.

    Sociologists have remarked for some time that it is the top women and the bottom men who suffer most from hypergamy. And various factors are making this situation worse.

    I was surprised to see a tacit admission of hypergamy in an Australian government publication recently, which noted that women tend to avoid marrying down. (I think they should have said prefer to marry up, but they were close.)

  423. Striver says:

    Jane Dough has a lot of UMC/apex fallacy in her description of her life. She and her husband are just so perfect, have everything sussed out on this submission business. I’d prefer something that scales down a bit better. Apex fallacy is a problem in a lot of places. Like Rollo, “just get laid with 40 different women before age 25 and you can be like me!” Not going to scale.

    My mom graduated at the top of her class. This was WWII in a small town, and she wanted to become a teacher, so that was not a path to riches, but she was still a smart woman. Dad was average. Worked hard at an average job. Nice, solid guy, but not a leader of men.

    Mom essentially submitted to Dad voluntarily by making sure his role was respected. Submission is acceptance of a role. Every woman materially “marrying up”, how is that possible. All of my father’s peers were working men, farmers, postmen, workers for the highway department… their wives were “marrying up” from what?!? The wives were younger, maybe. That’s about it. Probably similar backgrounds otherwise.

    My ex has a need to dominate that has caused her to blow up the marriage. She does not know how to submit. It’s not helped by her well meaning but doting parents who can and do emotionally and financially back her to the hilt. I had no hopes of competing with that even had I known more. She was and is unmarriageable.

  424. Julian O'Dea says:

    Sorry, Dale, I now realise you are a man.

  425. Julian O'Dea says:

    Novaseeker:

    “It’s both that AND the fact that in a service-based economy, women are competitive with average men. The subsidies help, but they are still competitive with average men even without the subsidies when the economy becomes based around services. Not high intellect stuff like theoretical physics, but services-based office work. Women are pretty much as good as average men, and often better than them, at this kind of work. That is why they have risen. The advantages men have are (1) physical strength (not relevant for most jobs in a service/knowledge economy), (2) drive based on testosterone (which varies a lot, and which most men seem to not have in abundance) and (3) the “right tail” of super intellect which accounts for a tiny amount of jobs. ”

    Yes, I think this is basically true. As I have observed before, in my experience women make competent administrators and work well within systems (which were often of course designed by men). Women tend to cluster around the mean in terms of intelligence, but good average intelligence will get you a long way in most areas. And women work consistently, which is one reason they do better in formal education.

    (Quite a few women do actually understand that they benefit from having had society built and maintained by men. They give men credit for having done that. I think my wife does, for example. Such women of course are liable to be resented by their more feminist sisters as sell-outs or whatever.)

    Where men continue to dominate, and I expect always will, is in areas requiring very high IQ or creativity or risk-taking, or all three. It is in areas like inventing; starting high tech companies; the higher reaches of the creative arts; film directing; mathematics; physics; investment banking; and so on, that men excel, (Not long ago I read an account of the development of Twitter. I don’t think there was a woman with a significant role in the entire story.)

    Also, Novaseeker is I understand, as I once was, a white-collar worker. Working in buildings we are occasionally reminded as we look out and see a new building go up, that it is still men who design and construct the buildings. Design and maintenance of infrastructure is still a masculine prerogative, and I also suspect will always be so.

  426. Julian O'Dea says:

    “My ex has a need to dominate that has caused her to blow up the marriage. She does not know how to submit. It’s not helped by her well meaning but doting parents who can and do emotionally and financially back her to the hilt. I had no hopes of competing with that even had I known more. She was and is unmarriageable.”

    Yeah, I nearly married one of them. Some women really are incorrigible.

  427. Hells Hound says:

    Wow, so much garbage in one paragraph. You trolls really have to work harder at this – Boxer/feministhater/Hollenhund would have you for breakfast and not even belch.

    Meh. I haven’t attempted to have a debate with a woman on such issues for years, because the experiences of myself and others prodided obvious proof that it’s a waste of time. Women are simply unwilling and unable to have such a debate, save for a few marginal exceptions.

    i mean bloody Hell, look at Slumlord. He’s more red pill and more educated than roughly 85% of the male population, and even he is incapable of having a honest debate about the current status of masculinity.

    What do you expect after that?

    On a different note, I don’t think Jane Dough is a troll, and I don’t think she’s a sock puppet of insanitybites or whatever her name is. She seems to be reasonably intelligent for a woman and even makes correct points, but, of course, she’s deeply wedded to the notion that women were oppressed in order to pamper men.

  428. Hells Hound says:

    Hardcore Game. Dark Triad Game. Attempting player status. Joining gangs (which is important because, along the lines of the OP, respect is the only thing a man craves more than sex, and a down on his luck man from the “wrong side of the tracks” can get status and respect by joining a gang). engaging in criminal activity. These are all things that get a man noticed, and garner him “status” and ‘respect” in communities where a man cannot improve himself in any other way.

    Business as usual. That’s what most human communities looked like throughout history: a bunch of young men in desperate strife with one another, resorting to any means, for one prize, the throne of a stagnant, violent, primitive society, the only position conferring a somewhat secure and comfortable existence.

  429. I recall you guys wanted links
    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/10-questions-on-dating-with-matt-chandler

    here he says he trains young men to see ways to do stuff at home so wife is free to pursue gifts…
    http://thevillagechurch.net/resources/sermons/detail/womans-purpose/
    here he says men have to submit to women, women have no unique role in the home

    his most recent book was written with Jared Wilson, here is his take
    http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Stay-at-home-dad-primer

    http://9marks.org/article/complementarianism-the-single-man/

    cooking,dishes,laundry are now apparently the man’s responsibility
    and also apparently this guy can never fathom asking his wife to do dishes…

    I struggle with homoesexuality
    one guy online told me that his Pastor helped him etc
    his Pastor has a new baby
    the wife works
    and his Pastor wakes up at night to do all the night feeding/care
    even though he has to also work

    same with Courtney Reissig
    the chief woman of CBMW
    http://cdtarter.blogspot.co.nz/
    makes her husband get up at 4 am every day
    makes her husband cook
    makes her husband do all childcare in the morning

    she has just birthed a new baby
    yet has time to pump articles out for CT/CBMW
    give interviews to moody etc ( look at her twitter)
    how ?
    Her husband is looking after the home

    also her husband works as a travelling salesman and a part time Pastor
    so he is never allowed to rest
    or do fun activities
    she also complains about how she gets tired of making meals for the family…

    and I think

    if Christianity changed just because women did not want to Obey the bible
    why not the same for the GAYS?

    also why do these men want to make other men domestic and feminine?
    what is their aim?

    if they truly loved God why not just follow the bible, regardless of consequence?

  430. Hells Hound says:

    How do you think it was in the past? Did each woman had an alpha during the patriarchy? Of course, not. Most men were never impressive, because impression is a relative measure.

    Name me any society from any historical era where the women found their male peers impressive.

    Yeah, that’s what I thought.

  431. greyghost says:

    Jane Dough has also shown us a normal woman. Respect and sex for a man can be compared to social status and money for a woman. (That is why game works) Your perceived value of the respect or status does not matter.
    I think I will share this with my daughter when she starts high school. A good dad always finds ways to throw monkey wrenches in blissful ignorance.

  432. theasdgamer says:

    Did each woman had an alpha during the patriarchy? Of course, not. Most men were never impressive

    Even betas were impressive to women under patriarchy. More Plain Jane delusions.

  433. Striver says:

    One thing I think would help the average man is more tribalism, more prejudice.

    I realize women want to “marry up.” We all know that mathematically it’s impossible for most women to actually marry up, except by marrying someone older.

    But I think when there were more restrictions on who a woman could marry, more things parents objected to, curb high barriers, those restrictions burned out a lot of her hypergamy naturally. Parents of an Italian Catholic girl would object to men who weren’t Italian, weren’t Catholic, worked in a industry they didn’t like, or were associated with another Italian Catholic family they didn’t like. Now some women chafed at those barriers, but since they were actual curb high or higher barriers that required some energy to navigate, the restrictions were a way for her to put the 80% of men she needs to reject in the reject pile and burn out her hypergamy that way.

    Now a German Lutheran woman would do the same thing, but she would be rejecting different men. So a man that had some affiliations would see his stock rise with at least some of the women.

    Today parents (if they were still together) aren’t supposed to be judgmental about who their daughters bring home. So the average man has to play the whole field, and he’s not impressive to any of the women. He’d be better off if the choices were cut down.

  434. Renee Harris says:

    @ jane doung
    Are you married? How old are you? Are you a virgin?
    I am not marry I can not get married bc I’m a 28 virgin. That why I work bitch! Not get a husband, but to easy Financial burden of my existence on my father. I don’t think pretty girl should allow to go to work or school. I am ugly. Bible say I can kill myself no one will marry me so I work pay off my debts and resign myself to drying as a virgin.
    The real problem with women that they wanted all. Ulgy woman need jobs
    Just like men needed respect. Pretty bitches don’t needed anything they just taken what they WANT!

  435. Julian O'Dea says:

    Another point is that our folkways, and maybe even our evolved minds, really work best perhaps in small bands or communities of a couple of hundred people. In such a community, standards would be kept reasonable.

    In what is now essentially a global society, at least so far as images and impressions go, men are comparing the girl next door with a hottie from Russia; and women are comparing the boy next door with a powerful Russian oligarch. For example.

  436. Dave says:

    Even betas were impressive to women under patriarchy. More Plain Jane delusions.

    True. But feminism, irrespective of the period in history, could render even a king unimpressive to women. Case in point: Queen Vashti of Persia.

    Excerpt:
    Vashti’s refusal to obey the summons of her drunken husband has been admired as heroic in many feminist interpretations of the Book of Esther. Early feminists admired Vashti’s principle and courage. Harriet Beecher Stowe called Vashti’s disobedience the “first stand for woman’s rights.”[7] Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote that Vashti “added new glory to [her] day and generation…by her disobedience; for “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”[8]

    Result of her disobedience? She was summarily divorced by the king, and replaced by a more level headed and more attractive Esther. Wherever it raises its ugly head, feminism is never pretty.

  437. Julian O'Dea says:

    I have known of women named Vashti and, worse, Lilith.

    As for feminists and the bible, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA has praised a possessed slave girl about St Paul:

    http://themcj.com/?p=40283

  438. Julian O'Dea says:

    To clarify, Katherine Schori preached that Paul was wrong to criticise a possessed girl, because she had a “spiritual gift”!

  439. PokeSalad says:

    Katherine Schori preached

    Say no more…

  440. Dave says:

    I think it is about time a totally new Church aroseand replaced the heretic organizations that we have these days. Something similar to the rise of Protestantism in the days of universal Roman Catholic dominance.
    We need Protestants against Protestants.

  441. Jane Dough says:

    “Even betas were impressive to women under patriarchy.”

    Absolutely. But even the lower end of average skilled men were taught to do things and handle things that women weren’t and men were not only empowered to be, but expected to be strong leaders who were responsible for their families. The best way to motivate a man to do the best he can is to give him people he loves who rely on him.

    Times have changed. Now women are empowered to be in charge and men are taught that attempting to lead is abuse. And no, I do not believe this is a good or healthy thing.

  442. JDG says:

    Even betas were impressive to women under patriarchy. More Plain Jane delusions.

    True. But feminism, irrespective of the period in history, could render even a king unimpressive to women. Case in point: Queen Vashti of Persia.

    The point being that it is the average woman who has lost sight of reality when she is unimpressed with the average man.

  443. J N says:

    @Striver

    Being someone who exists in circles like that (although the only restraint on marriage is men of “like precious faith”, but that cuts things down to a community of 1 million people instead of the whole world), yes, that absolutely works. Anyone who conforms to the faith community triggers the woman’s hypergamy. A guy who is a heathen, or is in a churchian church, or is backsliding and not living a godly lifestyle, ends up in the bottom 80% pile.

    It’s quite interesting to watch this in action.

    @Julian O’Dea

    Yes, the “monkeysphere” of 125 people works best for day to day interactions. Best for marriage, too. But you can find other bands of 125 or so people in other towns, or even other states, and as long as you have enough in common, and enough shared family relationships, then two people interested in marriage can have someone from both bands vouch for them.

    That’s essentially how inter-church dating works (different church congregations; same overall belief system) in my circles.

    @Dave

    It’s time for men like you to rise up and rebel against the false churches. Take as many other godly men with you as you can.

    Don’t worry about “where da wimmin at?” Any place that has a bunch of masculine men in it – trust me, women will try to figure out how to get in there.

  444. JDG says:

    But even the lower end of average skilled men were taught to do things and handle things that women weren’t…

    You still don’t get it. This means nothing. Women are NOT impressed with a man’s skills and abilities unless those shills and abilities involve danger. If things were as you say then engineers and physicists would have women knocking down doors to get at them. Who are women chasing? Not men with skills and abilities.

  445. JDG says:

    shills = skills at 10:14 am

  446. feeriker says:

    Katherine Schori preached

    Say no more…

    You took the words right off my fingertips.

    Folks, please, PLEASE stop referring to Episcopalianism as a “church,” or associating it with anything Christian. Toss it into the same bin as Unitarian Universalism where it belongs.

  447. Pingback: Disrespecting respectability dishonoring the honorable | Honor Dads

  448. Dave says:

    Who are women chasing? Not men with skills and abilities.

    Actually, women are still chasing men with “skills and abilities”, but not just the types you would have thought. Women are chasing “comedians” (a man who can make her laugh); and “dorky” types who can “make a fool of themselves but know when to get serious”. Men who “go for what the want” (i.e. men who are preocupied with chasing women) almost to the exclusion of everything else.

    Those are some of the requirements I read from women’s profiles in my gone days of online dating.

    @JN:

    Absolutely. The rebellion against the rebellious has already started.

  449. JDG says:

    Women want security and status. Men are no longer respected by the herd (because of feminist indoctrination – NOT because women can do menial tasks that men used to do), hence no status for being a man. That is why women are looking down on men whom they should be looking up to. If it were socially taboo to disrespect men, women would respect men regardless of skills and abilities. Even though you are a woman, I don’t believe you know how women think.

  450. Ras al Ghul says:

    Art Deco:

    “It has become a tradition for pastors to use Father’s Day, a day set aside to honor fathers, as a day to tear husbands and fathers down in front of their families.

    Is this an evangelical thing? I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a “Father’s Day” sermon, much less one like you describe.”

    It is a church thing. I have been in a catholic church and heard the priest compare the fathers to Jesus’ father Joseph and start out by saying “you’re not as good as Joseph, you don’t measure up to him, you are a failure next to Joseph.” I have been the episcopal church, the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Baptists, the presby, the evangelical, the small churches and the large, and heard it at each.

    Meanwhile a couple months before they all compared the mothers in the church, the divorced, the never married, the several times married to Mary.

    I have listen to children sermons about the good Christian and bad Christian child, and the good one is a girl, and the bad one is a boy and I have watched the pastor/priest/minister ask the children which one the want to be the boy or the girl, and watched as the boys raise their hands that they want to be the girl.

    All are apostate.

  451. JDG says:

    Actually, women are still chasing men with “skills and abilities”, but not just the types you would have thought.

    No they are not. They are chasing status and / or money.

  452. feeriker says:

    I think it is about time a totally new Church aroseand replaced the heretic organizations that we have these days. Something similar to the rise of Protestantism in the days of universal Roman Catholic dominance.
    We need Protestants against Protestants.

    What needs to happen is a regression to the standards of the New Testament. That means, for starters, no formal hierarchies, incorporated bodies, professional clergy, or other Constantinian corruptions that set the church on the path to its current self-destruction.

    Also, any new church formed along such lines would have to emphasize the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles that stated very clearly that the life of a believer is incompatible with that of the world, that in exchange for living and professing the love of our Lord Jesus, one can expect nothing on this earth but persecution, hardship, and suffering – just like the original Church before it became co-opted by Caesar and worldly society.

    This church might very well be smaller in numbers than the current churchian counterfeit bodies, but it will surely be more alive and powerful.

  453. feeriker says:

    What needs to happen is a return to the standards of the New Testament.

    Fixed. 

  454. new anon says:

    JDG says: The point being that it is the average woman who has lost sight of reality when she is unimpressed with the average man.

    The converse is true also: average men are not impressed with average women.

    The difference is the average guy thinks the average gal is good enough for him, while the average woman does NOT think the average man is good enough for Her Averageness. This is where women are delusional. The actually believe that only an above-average man is good enough for Her Averageness.

  455. Looking Glass says:

    The “average woman” is also roughly 40 pounds heavier than her 2-generation-previous counter part. That doesn’t help matters.

  456. Michelle says:

    Men don’t seem to have a lot of respect for other men right now either. Maybe because so many men are losing in defacto competition with women?

  457. J N says:

    @Michelle: Huh? I don’t know what kind of men you associate with, but the kind of men I’m around all respect each other. A guy who has no respect gets ostracised and excluded.

    @feeriker

    What needs to happen is a regression to the standards of the New Testament. That means, for starters, no formal hierarchies, incorporated bodies, professional clergy, or other Constantinian corruptions that set the church on the path to its current self-destruction.

    Amen and amen. There are a few basic Bible doctrines. They’ll hurt, but they need to happen.

    Open up the Bible and read Matthew 5 – 8. Then assume that Jesus actually meant everything he said, and go try to live it out. No, don’t anoint your head with oil before you fast, but try to understand what Jesus is actually you to do.

    Once you find a few other guys doing this, flip over to 1 Corinthians. Look at how Paul built up the church. Read chapter 5. If you have a guy in your group running game and fornicating like crazy, toss him out. Do the same with a single mom who has the Tinder app on her phone.

    Turn over to chapter 11. Read what it says. Tell any women who have wormed their way into your group to do what the Bible says. The ones who genuinely want to follow God will gladly obey it and it will change their lives. The ones who won’t… good riddance.

    Then finish chapter 11, figure out what you need to confess to each other, and then serve each other communion. Throw in John 13:14 too. Can’t hurt.

    Congratulations. You now have a church. Now go out and start preaching the gospel to people and baptise them.

    I’ll see you guys in the Resurrection.

  458. feeriker says:

    If you have a guy in your group running game and fornicating like crazy, toss him out. Do the same with a single mom who has the Tinder app on her phone.

    … Tell any women who have wormed their way into your group to do what the Bible says. The ones who genuinely want to follow God will gladly obey it and it will change their lives. The ones who won’t… good riddance.

    By all means de-fellowship the bad seeds, BUT be sure to let them know that they are to be welcomed back into the fold once they demonstrate true repentance for their past sins. The Christian faith is, after all, about forgiveness.

  459. BradA says:

    ADS,

    I am not sure exactly what you need from the couch, but if it is an elevated head, you can get wedges to put in the top part of the bed and elevate it slightly. That might help and let you still use the matress.

  460. new anon says:

    What needs to happen is a regression to the standards of the New Testament. That means, for starters, no formal hierarchies, incorporated bodies, professional clergy, or other Constantinian corruptions that set the church on the path to its current self-destruction.

    No. What needs to happen is we need to simply preach the gospel. If someone is regenerated, then everything else will fall into place. If they they aren’t, then none of it will matter.

    I do agree that we need to slough off much (if not all) of what the institutional church offers/demands. We’d be better off meeting as groups in homes, parks, even parking lots.

  461. new anon says:

    Michelle says: Men don’t seem to have a lot of respect for other men right now either. Maybe because so many men are losing in defacto competition with women?

    You are projecting. Men don’t feel this way, YOU feel this way.

    The truth is:

    1) Men don’t have a lot of respect for WOMEN, because they see that the game is rigged in favor or women (for example, a recent study found that when all other factors are equal–such as education and experience–companies hire female programmers over male programmers 80% of the time).

    2) Men don’t have a lot of respect for WOMEN, because they see that even though the game is rigged in women’s favor, men still outperform women in most areas of life.

  462. BradA says:

    Renee,

    You need to change your own mindset. You may not ever grace magazine covers, but I guarantee some man would be attracted to you. You might not be attracted to him though, and that would be a problem. Candidate men do exist, but you will have a challenge. So what? You already face a challenge helping your father so this would be no worse.

    Be in places where such men are. That is the best way to connect with them. Instill godly values into yourself.

    Though I suspect your rebellion is a bit more focused on your victim status than on the more in your face stuff we read. You can and should do things to improve your own lot in life.

  463. Michelle says:

    You are projecting. Men don’t feel this way, YOU feel this way.

    Most of tearing down of men, is done by other men. The pastors and family court judges, the law makers, ect mentioned in the blog post – mostly men.

  464. “It’s clear that what he was saying is that it’s better to not marry (Protestant Americans: You are wrong when you diminish that this is the *primary* thing he was saying, because it’s obvious from the text) at all. But if you will transgress sexual morality due to not being married, well, then it is better to marry than to burn in hell.”

    The genophobic Catholic church that implies that sex is only for procreation by forbidding birth control and forbidding its leaders to marry (I think Paul may have mentioned that last part once) can continue to distort that verse, but Paul meant burn with desire. Get over it.

  465. The Question says:

    I can’t help but notice that in response to this article about how much men value respect and those worthy of it by their actions are denied it by our society, a section of the conversation veered off into the issue of women’s respect for their husbands or how modern men aren’t worthy of modern women’s respect in terms of marital prospects.

    Dalrock’s article wasn’t just about marriage. It wasn’t only about women not respecting their husbands. Nor was it only about women not respecting men in general. It’s about how our society as a whole, both men and women, refuses to respect men worthy of it in any way whatsoever and in fact treats them with profound disrespect, when gaining respect is one of the greatest incentives to get a man to behave in ways that benefits society, and yet people continually write articles and columns asking why young men are not taking up roles in society that normally would have brought them respect.

    The answer, as Dalrock pointed out, is that the same society has labeled men in such roles as losers and chumps. It’s why we have so-called “Peter Pans” who won’t take up these responsibilities and assume roles that bring them only more shame. They want respect, but they know there is no hope of earning it.

    The solution is very simple. If our society wants them to reassume these roles or adhere to certain behavior, it needs to offer respect as a reward for doing so, rather than try to shame them when complying will only bring them more shame. Society has no intention of changing in this regard, for reasons Rollo Tomasi aptly summarized: “The pretense of an egalitarian equalist ideal means that men will never be deserving of respect for complying with what the Feminine Imperative expects them to sacrifice by default.”

    In other words, they truly don’t think men deserve respect, no matter what they do, but those who benefit from the current arrangement still expect them to comply with their demands. They just can’t say so directly, so defenders of the status quo turn to deception and claim there are still opportunities for men to gain respect, in order to keep them chasing after that unattainable goal and remain in a perpetual state of submission. This is why we see all this all this rationalization about how men could still get respect, if only they lived up to vague, abstract standards (that, interestingly, have nothing to do with his character or virtue) but it’s all their fault nobody respects them.

    Those who make this argument know full well they’re playing Lucy with the football. Unfortunately, they’ve pulled the football away so many times Charlie Brown finally walked away for good, because he knows he’s never going to get to kick it.

    The truth can only be ignored for so long.

  466. greyghost says:

    Men don’t seem to have a lot of respect for other men right now either. Maybe because so many men are losing in defacto competition with women?

    These are blue pill men trying to shame other men to the blue pill in an effort to make feminism work and please women. The “man-up” for her highness fellas. Preachers do this on father’s day and any conservative type will excuse slut single moms with the men have abandoned the family shit.

    Most of tearing down of men, is done by other men. The pastors and family court judges, the law makers, ect mentioned in the blog post – mostly men.

    This is the men do it too response women give for just about anything. Normal stuff

  467. JDG says:

    The converse is true also: average men are not impressed with average women.

    The difference is the average guy thinks the average gal is good enough for him, while the average woman does NOT think the average man is good enough for Her Averageness. This is where women are delusional. The actually believe that only an above-average man is good enough for Her Averageness.

    Yep!

  468. JDG says:

    Now that I think about it, it may now be the case that the average guy thinks a below average girl is good enough. I’ve seen a lot of thin guys with large women in the last few years. I see it on a regular basis.

  469. J N says:

    @greyghost

    As if most men give two whits what a family court judge, churchian pastor, or lawmaker think. Those are some of the least respected roles a man could play.

    If you told me I’d be dropped in the Amazon with 9 other guys, and I had to choose between those roles and, say, a bricklayer, or a fast food worker, I’d pick either of those anyday. If I said “Hi guys! I’m a family court judge!” I would pretty much be on my own for survival.

    Women really have absolutely no idea how men work and what they respect… we respect the system of law, we respect the officer with the gun, we respect the gun itself. But we sure don’t respect some family court judge.

  470. J N says:
    If you have a guy in your group running game and fornicating like crazy, toss him out. Do the same with a single mom who has the Tinder app on her phone.

    … Tell any women who have wormed their way into your group to do what the Bible says. The ones who genuinely want to follow God will gladly obey it and it will change their lives. The ones who won’t… good riddance.

    By all means de-fellowship the bad seeds, BUT be sure to let them know that they are to be welcomed back into the fold once they demonstrate true repentance for their past sins. The Christian faith is, after all, about forgiveness.

    Of course. That’s what 1 Corinthians 5 says. Now, true repentance isn’t necessarily an easy road… it’s a narrow road. For example, the single, slatternly mother, might need to put herself in service to other people at the church, and lay down any expectations of getting married, in order to show she is on the path to repentance. Likewise, the former player might need to abandon his plans to flirt with/date godly young women, and instead focus on where he can be busy building God’s kingdom.

    For what it’s worth, I go to church or am involved with other churches where we have repentant single moms and former playas. They are doing their best to live godly lives. And they sure don’t expect to get the “born again virgin” treatment.

    Instead, they live their lives and share their testimony as a warning to young people: “Don’t end up like I did.”

  471. JDG says:

    Men don’t seem to have a lot of respect for other men right now either. Maybe because so many men are losing in defacto competition with women?

    I’m not seeing this at all. In general people show less respect for each other compared to what I remember as a child (towards parents, elders, teachers, sir, mam, may I, etc.), but I haven’t noticed anything like the drop in respect towards men from women. Not even close. In fact, male to male respect is the area where I notice the least amount of change.

  472. greyghost says:

    J N
    In a lifeboat scenario I would let the prostitute aboard before a judge ,lawyer or preacher

  473. J N says:

    @JDG

    The average woman has ballooned up from 144 lbs two decades ago to 166 pounds. The average height is still 5’4″.

    5’4″ and 166 lbs… that’s a lot of woman to love. My guess is that would take a woman down from being a 6 down to a 4.5.

    Men don’t have anything close to the same SMV drop just from weight gain. The change is probably neutral for them, although other changes in the last two decades have certainly made men less attractive.

    Ultimately, most men and most women are going to be so unattractive that none of them will want anything to do with each other.

  474. JDG says:

    Most of tearing down of men, is done by other men. The pastors and family court judges, the law makers, ect mentioned in the blog post – mostly men.

    A man will attack other men whether or not he respects them. All he needs is a motivating reason. Usually all it takes is for a man to think he is protecting a woman somewhere to get him to throw another man under the bus. I doubt that respect is even an after thought. If respect does come into it a, man does what he thinks needs doing. If he respects the guy he may feel bad about the bus throw, but he will still do it.

    I think you don’t understand men either.

  475. J N says:

    @JDG, there’s a certain kind of man (who ranks higher in the socio-sexual heirarchy) who doesn’t throw other men under the bus just to impress a woman – unless they were men who were his enemies anyway.

    The modern phenomenon of men throwing each other under the bus for a woman is relatively new.

  476. Pingback: These hellish institutions blind us [Acts 13] | Dark Brightness

  477. Dalrock says:

    @JDG

    I’m not seeing this at all. In general people show less respect for each other compared to what I remember as a child (towards parents, elders, teachers, sir, mam, may I, etc.), but I haven’t noticed anything like the drop in respect towards men from women. Not even close. In fact, male to male respect is the area where I notice the least amount of change.

    This is a mixed picture. Institutionally there is contempt for men, and this shows up strongest with feminists and conservatives. Individual men still interact with respect towards each other by and large, but this is micro in context.

    The irony about Mark Driscoll’s success was that men sought him out because they thought this was how to earn respect. They thought he would tear them down and rebuild them into respected family men, just like the bootcamp trope in the movies. So when he started tearing them down in the opening prayer and continued all the way through the closing prayer, they probably thought he was delivering, because they didn’t understand masculinity, honor, and respect any better than Driscoll did.

  478. feeriker says:

    Women really have absolutely no idea how men work and what they respect…

    Truer words never spoken. What women think men like, respect, or admire is almost always projection of what THEY like, respect, or admire, in men or in other women.

    We respect the system of law, we respect the officer with the gun, we respect the gun itself. But we sure don’t respect some family court judge.

    Close. We respect the system of law and the cop with the gun when they function the way they’re supposed to function (i.e., in defense of natural law) – not necessarily the way they operate in actual practice.

    And no, we sure as hell don’t respect anything having to do with “family law.”

  479. J N says:

    Guys,

    Dalrock has a point. We have a bit of a confirmation bias here, since most of us who are strong men probably avoid being around the kind of men who would be happy listening to one of Mark Driscoll’s screeds.

  480. theasdgamer says:

    Most of tearing down of men, is done by other men. The pastors and family court judges, the law makers, ect mentioned in the blog post – mostly men.

    The key characteristic of those tearing down men is that they are servants of feminism–not that they are men. White knights.

  481. JDG says:

    This is a mixed picture. Institutionally there is contempt for men, and this shows up strongest with feminists and conservatives. Individual men still interact with respect towards each other by and large, but this is micro in context.

    Yes. This fits with what I have observed.

  482. Gunner Q says:

    Michelle @ 11:43 am:
    “Most of tearing down of men, is done by other men. The pastors and family court judges, the law makers, ect mentioned in the blog post – mostly men.”

    You mean, mostly the top-status men that women instinctively notice and take their cues from if they aren’t trained otherwise. The winners tear down the losers and hypergamous women approve because it helps them identify the winners.

    In better times, those apex men made a point of recognizing ordinary mens’ contributions to their own success. This is where old-school concepts like noblesse oblige come from, heck, it’s what Christ’s footwashing at the Last Supper means. The strong use their strength to serve the weak, not as slaves but as benefactors and patrons. Along with preventing social stratification and preventing resentment, it also flattened the status hierarchy.

  483. Renee Harris says:

    If I can play the troll for sec and ask what about move the spirit: healing true pathetic words and raising the death? Why is that not even talking by you guys more?
    Here why I ask
    new anon on July 15, 2015 at 11:16 am
    What needs to happen is a regression to the standards of the New Testament. That means, for starters, no formal hierarchies, incorporated bodies, professional clergy, or other Constantinian corruptions that set the church on the path to its current self-destruction.

    No. What needs to happen is we need to simply preach the gospel. If someone is regenerated, then everything else will fall into place. If they they aren’t, then none of it will matter.

    I do agree that we need to slough off much (if not all) of what the institutional church offers/demands. We’d be better off meeting as groups in homes, parks, even parking lots.

  484. Striver says:

    In thinking about the relentless female plaints for more sexy alpha guys, I’m reminded of Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria loved her husband, Prince Consort Albert, so much that after his death, she wore black in mourning for the last 40+ years of her life. I’m not sure how this is possible, since she didn’t “marry up.” 🙂 She was queen when they married. Yet she loved him, and he found ways to be a man despite officially being “outranked.”

    I do believe women can love men, but they can only love men that they submit to. They must choose to submit. This is more the work of the woman than the man.

    Do not be deceived by women’s calls for sexy alphas. Women will not submit to sexy alphas any more than they will despised betas. Do you think all of the women knocked up by NBA basketball players every year are just waiting to be faithful wives to these sexy alphas? I don’t think so. Even if the men tried to marry these women, there’s a 99% chance the women will turn raging b*tch. Sexy alpha/unsexy beta is a divide and conquer strategy by women, who want rule by hen party. Women hate hen party as much as they do men, but they still feel compelled to destroy men.

    I want men to focus more on being leaders of men, masculine alphas, because those are more useful skills. Celebrating sexy alphas is just submission to female frame.

  485. Dave says:

    What needs to happen is a return to the standards of the New Testament.

    Seconded. A million times.

    For what it’s worth, I go to church or am involved with other churches where we have repentant single moms and former playas. They are doing their best to live godly lives. And they sure don’t expect to get the “born again virgin” treatment.

    Instead, they live their lives and share their testimony as a warning to young people: “Don’t end up like I did.”

    That is true repentance, and that is most often missing among the churchian sluts who “boast in God” for having the courage to pull through “after finding herself pregnant for the 3rd, 4th or 5th time before her 18th birthday”. True repentance is always accompanied by self-loathing.

  486. Jonathan says:

    but the NT calls for servant leadership
    which allows Christians to justify any role reversal
    http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Stay-at-home-dad-primer

  487. Julian O'Dea says:

    I think this site may be of interest to readers here. I think there are some “tongue-in-cheek” elements, but it seems to be basically genuine. If it is a feminist “black ops” site, so to speak, it is remarkably consistent in its anti-feminist tone.

    http://www.stepfordwives.org/

  488. JDG says:

    Renee – No. What needs to happen is we need to simply preach the gospel. If someone is regenerated, then everything else will fall into place. If they they aren’t, then none of it will matter.

    Yes.

    We’d be better off meeting as groups in homes, parks, even parking lots.

    Not really. There is a strong house church movement and around here it is egalitarian. Meeting in homes didn’t do much to keep feminism out. They didn’t appreciate when I reminded them of what Paul said about women teaching men. The wife of that pastor (who was slotted to fill in for him) still looks at me like I’m a heretic when ever I run into them.

  489. Neguy says:

    @Jonathan Akash Charles,

    Thanks. That is very helpful. I’ve been collecting info on all the bigtime “conservative” pastors on this point. There are tons of connections between all of those people, most obvious through the Gospel Coalition. Dalrock focuses a lot on Driscoll, but it’s way bigger than him. I actually think this collection of nominally complementarian pastors are much more dangerous than the liberal egalitarians, because the serious Christian Protestant men are likely to end up in a church that is highly influenced by their thinking. Guys like Keller, Chandler, and Piper are basically the conservative Evangelical brain trust. The fact that they are all so in lock step on these issues has profound effects.

    Imagine you are a young Christian man who is sincere in your faith and honestly puts yourself under the teaching authority of one of these pastors because you are convinced they are being faithful to the bible. Then you actually implement this anti-biblical, blue pill way of approaching relationships. That’s why I say it is dangerous. Someone in a mainline or liberal church already knows the teachings there rejects traditional Biblical truth. That’s may even be why some people attend there. But people attending say the Village Church are probably doing so because they want real Bible teaching. And they are getting a very flawed message on gender and marriage to say the least, but may not be on the lookout.

    For these guys like Chandler, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are teaching out of a sincere theological conviction. I believe that they would react with a very puzzled expression if you told them their teachings were rooted in secular feminism, not the Bible. I think they actually believe this stuff.

    Nevertheless, I don’t believe that the messages their sermons, books, etc. convey are accidental in any way. These guys are highly intentional in what they say and do, are very polished rhetoricians, and have clearly crafted what they say with great care. To me one way to test their theological sincerity would be to determine if they are willing to acknowledge the clear reality of what they are teaching once it is put into a Dalrockian form. If not, that would be a red flag. If so, then we can start a debate about what the Bible actually says.

  490. J N says:

    @JDG

    The key distinctive is for men to be leading, and to be leading other men. It doesn’t matter if it’s in a stately cathedral, a storefront, a parking lot, or a forest.

    My personal opinion is that we’re going to need a lot of men to start leading who aren’t shackled to a Wife 2.0.

  491. The Original Laura says:

    Julian: I took a look at the Stepford Wives website — I’m not sure whether it is legit or not, but I laughed out loud when I read, “So ladies, please stay patient while we try to enlist some guys from the Stepford Men’s Organization to erect this website.”

    Is the Pope Gregory I quote about women only being useful for sex and motherhood authentic?

  492. feeriker says:

    They didn’t appreciate when I reminded them of what Paul said about women teaching men. The wife of that pastor (who was slotted to fill in for him) still looks at me like I’m a heretic when ever I run into them.

    What makes anyone think that the average pastor’s wife is any more biblically literate or respectful of the Word than amy other woman (or her own husband, for that matter)?

  493. Isa says:

    @Striver
    Queen Victoria is perhaps not the best example as she had pretty severe problems due to her odd upbringing. The fact is she didn’t like children (even her own) and made her husband her idol. Seriously, she had the table set for him at dinner. With food. For 40 years. The current Queen is a better example, much more stable person.

    The point that seems to just be getting lost is that everyone wants to think they got a good deal in their spouse. Marriage goggles are supposed to make Mr. Average my Mr Above Average, but it’s simply easier when there is something clearly superior about the other person. Overall, it would be better to tell women to look for someone who has character qualities *they believe* are superior to their own.

    So, the stand in for money/wealth (which can be confiscated at any time) is ambition and the ability to get up again after failure. I would probably council someone not to marry any person who has not experienced some sort of tragedy/loss because you have no idea how they may deal with it. If they sit around weeping all day watching lifetime movies or smoking pot playing Call of Duty for months… not marriage material. Bounce back ability is perhaps the key character trait for marriage.

  494. Isa says:

    @feeriker
    ‘Tis a pity about the typo, although it does read quite funny.

    “What makes anyone think that the average pastor’s wife is any more biblically literate or respectful of the Word than *Amy Other Woman”

    I wouldn’t except the pastor’s mistress to be biblically literate😛

  495. The Original Laura says:

    Isa: The ability to “bounce back” after a tragedy or serious financial or career setback is indeed a great quality to look for. But lots of people lead rather golden lives in their 20s and 30s, so there isn’t going to be any way of judging some people on this metric prior to marriage. And a loving, supportive spouse/family can be a key factor in helping someone move forward in life after things have gone badly wrong.

  496. JDG says:

    What makes anyone think that the average pastor’s wife is any more biblically literate or respectful of the Word than amy other woman (or her own husband, for that matter)?

    I’ve known too many pastor’s wives to make that assumption. Some are more biblically literate than most other woman, but some are not. I’ve never known one who was more in tune with the Bible than her husband.

  497. JDG says:

    JN – My personal opinion is that we’re going to need a lot of men to start leading who aren’t shackled to a Wife 2.0.

    I’m convinced that the majority of men these days are feminists (like their wives) and aren’t fit to lead a cat out of a paper bag. Any man who won’t stand up to his wife is either not fit to, or not in any position to, lead other men. I understand that some men would, but they have to walk a fine line to keep their children. Those guys have my respect, but they already have their hands full.

    I’m not convinced that revival is coming. I’m more in the Jeremiah camp. I think God has already slated the US for a take down. Though I do hope that I’m wrong, I just don’t see it happening (a lot of men starting to lead) without something catastrophic happening.

  498. Opus says:

    JDG might care to recall that De Tocqueville had noticed all this as long ago as 1838 so I don’t think America (who have not done so badly since then) need feel that it is all over – bar the shouting – for Team USA.

  499. Jonathan says:

    of course men are feminists
    I see it at my church
    men never ask their wives to do anything for them
    men always do the childcare and homemaking if they are not at work
    their families are set up so it is the man who sees looking after the kids and diapers and the home is his responsibility ( 9 marks teaches this)

    so he has to change his goals for that
    asking his wife to do the same is seen as selfish

    so men encourage this
    women generations ago would accomplish way more in a day than women today
    yet women always complain that they are tired and ask their husbands to clean, cook and keep house ( any comp mom blog)

    but do men or any pastor’s tell them off for laziness?!
    no…
    men now days are wimps
    Isaiah 3:12 seems to scream everywhere…

  500. Jonathan says:

    @Neguy
    Interesting
    I think Piper is serious, he does not believe in role reversal or women having authority over men

    Chandler however is actually intentionally doing this
    he says men do not have to be the providers
    he says men have to submit to their wives
    he says male provision is NOT service to the home
    he trains young men and tells them to do homemaking so the wife can flourish in her gifts ( same message as Lean In from Sandberg)
    he does not believe women have a unique role at home…

    Keller is the worst
    openly says sending his wife to work while he looked after the kids is not sin

    endorses Bethany JENKINS a church member who supports Lean In in everything she does

    she even had a working women’s conference at the last women’s TGC event…

    where one woman opined, she wanted to model to her son strong leadership in male fields ( programmer) so being a wife and mom only was not an option…

    these guys actually know what they are doing
    twisting scripture….

    you are correct, it is sad
    men in my church listen to their teaching an fall forit
    not just those attending those churches
    and women love it-feeds their feminism

    sad
    wish we could do something to fight this evil…

  501. JDG says:

    Opus – It’s not over yet. We still have the long slippery ride down the gutter before we splash into the sewer. That is unless something world changing happens before we get there.

    One slight disagreement. I don’t think what De Tocqueville saw is what we have today. He may have predicted something like this happening, but I don’t see how a case can be made that what the US had then is what we have now. The seeds were already planted and taken root to be sure, but they had not yet grown into the ignoble beast that we suffer today.

  502. Jonathan says:

    but yes the people Piper has left behind….

    Desiring God
    the young single males are just a bunch of horndogs… who one knows will compromise onany principle of manhood to get a wife
    so they justify doing homemaking, all the diapers,the cooking etc as serving one’s wife

    http://www.hopeingod.org/sermon/fooled-false-leadership
    his successor is actually a feminist
    he believes it is wrong to ask women to be meek and submissive!! ( you know like the bible does)

    and women nagging is a sign of a badly leading husband
    how convenient
    so women basically do not sin
    and now can nag their husbands to do homemaking and childcare and support their career
    and the husband has to do it because a nagging wife shows failed leadership in their church!

    these pastors on their Twitter feeds openly support the laws around rape that reward women from lying about men and ruining their lives…

    it is just a world against men now
    both secular
    and Christian…

    even worse are the women’s blogs
    Jen Wilkin- at the village church is basically a feminist

    and the author of sayable.net
    who makes her fiance move cities for her career….

  503. JDG says:

    At 1:52 am the second paragraph should have began with: “One other slight disagreement”.

  504. JDG says:

    Jonathan – Have you been praying about what to do in with liberal church? Ask God to give you wisdom and guidance.

    “2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

    5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” – James 1:2-8

  505. JDG says:

    at 2:09 it should read:

    Jonathan – Have you been praying about what to do with that liberal church?

  506. Jonathan says:

    It is hard
    I have grown up thinking
    Macarthur,Piper ,TGC,CBMW where all conservative
    now I look at what they do and it just is liberalism explained in a conservative speak…
    it is like a dagger through the heart

    these people are believers right?
    how can a God have so many different beliefs on one issue?
    I see this and get depressed
    I see articles by Katelyn Beaty, the CT editor who wants to be the breadwinner, and I go
    why?!
    why do people seek to defy God’s word
    yet claim he is God?!

    I am all alone here
    the church does not like me as I raised objections
    they called me foolish and lost…

  507. mrteebs says:

    @Michelle

    If she can do everything that he can do (better in many cases) then why should she respect him?

    Even if she could better him in every respect, you either believe Eph 5:33 is conditional or you believe it is an unconditional imperative. It is that simple. And hence we come full circle to Dalrock’s very point: respect has been made so conditional that the average husband / father will never experience the respect that should be afforded simply as the holder of the office.

  508. Dave says:

    Man, I feel for the average American Christian man who has to sit under the teachings of feminist evagelical preachers! The burden must have been great. I could only imagine the utter emasculation of a man who deeply desires to do right and treat his wife well. It is really sad. I am sure God Himself would be sad.

  509. Dave says:

    @JDG:
    Jonathan – Have you been praying about what to do with that liberal church?

    In addition to praying, he needs to “come out from among them, and be separate”, and save himself from “this untoward generation”. And, if possible bring as many with him as he can.

    Opus – It’s not over yet. We still have the long slippery ride down the gutter before we splash into the sewer. That is unless something world changing happens before we get there.

    Yes, something world changing will happen, and we will be the ones to make it happen. I can hear the rumblings already. While I am not in delusion about the utter godlessness of modern day America, I also believe that “God is able to save to the uttermost”, and He will not leave His Church and His world without some help. His mercy and lovingkidness will not allow it. All it takes is one man, and that man could be any of us.

    Before Moses came on the scene in Egypt, the Israelites had been in captivity for 430 years! One day before Moses’ appearance, everything was as hopeless as ever. This man, Moses, changed it all.

    Before Elijah showed up in Israel many decades later, the country was in spiritual ruins. That rugged, unsung and thoroughly masculine man appeared, and changed the landscape in Israel forever. If you listened well, you would see Ahab’s carcas twinge at the mention of the name of Elijah, the man “who toubleth Israel”.

    Before John the Baptist appeared also, Israel had been without a prophet for 400 years! Imagine that. 400 years of no “Thus saith the Lord”. No spiritual guidance from God. Complete, utter silence. But John the Baptist, like Elijah before him, came in, and within six months, changed the course of history forever.

    And how about Apostle Paul? This short man who used to be a proud Pharisee and a zealous persecutor of Christians later got called by God, and he single-handedly conquered Asia for Christ.

    I firmly believe that all we need is one man, called by God and anointed by the Holy Spirit. That man will undo in a single year what it has taken ungodly feminism, homosexuality, atheism and other ungodliness to erect over the last 40-50 years.

    We need a man like Jeremiah, who had the word and the anointing of God, and, if the past is any guidance about God’s way of working, we’re going to get him:

    Jeremiah 1:
    9 Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.
    10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.

    Jeremiah 51:
    20 Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms;
    21 And with thee will I break in pieces the horse and his rider; and with thee will I break in pieces the chariot and his rider;
    22 With thee also will I break in pieces man and woman; and with thee will I break in pieces old and young; and with thee will I break in pieces the young man and the maid;
    23 I will also break in pieces with thee the shepherd and his flock; and with thee will I break in pieces the husbandman and his yoke of oxen; and with thee will I break in pieces captains and rulers.

  510. greyghost says:

    If she can do everything that he can do (better in many cases) then why should she respect him?

    This is just plain childish. This is normal for women. absolutely no sense of duty or service at all to the well being of civilization.
    This is a woman that has declared herself a pump and dump. No reason to waste good commitment on this piece just hit it until it ages out and find a new one.

  511. Dave says:

    Most of tearing down of men, is done by other men. The pastors and family court judges, the law makers, etc mentioned in the blog post – mostly men

    A colleague once argued along these lines too: that all the laws that men complain about were written by men. On the surface, she’s right. But a closer look shows it for what it really is: typical feminist shedding of agency. Just because it was not done by women does not mean women did not repeatedly push for those laws and throw tantrums until they were enacted. It’s like President GW Bush saying he has never killed anyone because he never actually pulled the trigger, or operated a drone. But that does not mean he had nothing to do with hundreds of thousands of needless deaths in Iraq and elsewhere.

  512. Dave says:

    If she can do everything that he can do (better in many cases) then why should she respect him?

    A very stupid question. Men respect each other, even though they can do everything the other can do. Grown kids respect their parents, even though those kids have their own families and earn their own money, and can pretty much do anything their parents can do. Colleagues at work respect each other, though none of them is irreplaceable.

    For a woman to withhold respect from a man because “she can do everything he can do is really stupid”.
    But the reality is, she cannot do everything a man can do and that should be pretty obvious to anyone with something between their ears, otherwise she will not be called “woman”. Her very world (i.e. social arrangements) was invented by and is being sustained by man. The house she lives in, the car she drives and the tools she uses to do her job were all made by, and being maintained by men. Her very reason for existence is because of man. Her primary duty in life is to attract a man and bear and nurture the man’s kids. What else does she think she was made for?
    It is an audacious and irreverent nonsense for a woman to claim that she can do everything a man can do.

  513. Dave says:

    The respect and honor a woman is to give to her man is not conditional upon the man’s perceived intrinsic value or performance, but strictly based on the commandment of the Lord. Same way citizens are to submit to constituted authority for the Lord’s sake, not because the holder of the office is worthy. Many people here don’t give a rat’s hairy butt about Barack Obama, but they are dutybound to obey all the bills that the man signs into law, or they risk double punishment—both from the Lord and from the state.

    A woman honors the Lord by honoring and defering to her husband, because God wants her to, not because he is superior to her in any way. In fact, the less superior the man is to the woman the clearer the woman must go out of her way to really and truly honor him, so that the man will be encouraged to take his position as the head of the relationship. That is God’s order, and any woman who has a problem with that arrangement should take it up with God.

    A woman who withholds respect from her man for any reason whatsoever is withholding respect from the Word of God and for God Himself. If anything, that is rebellion, and I must warn such women: God has been burned by a rebellious angel in the past, and He will not tolerate rebellion in anyone who claims to be Christ’s followers.

  514. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Dave,
    I don’t think her question is about a husband/wife relationship and she’s asking “why should women – in general – respect men – in general, if women can do what men do.” – right Michelle?

    The question is disgusting and horrifically short sighted, naive, and a flat out lie but never the less, it’s one of those zingers that Michelle loves to post. Her comments are rarely not inflammatory. When she’s been answered, she gives no recognition of the answer, does not address it or debate it, just goes on to her next zinger.

    If she is asking it regarding marriage she is an unread Christian who has a long way to go in understanding God and His creation and plan for it.

  515. Neguy says:

    @Jonathan, here’s the thing on Piper. I haven’t seen him totally go over to the other side, but all these guys are part of his circle. Isn’t Piper involved with the CBMW? He certainly was a big supporter of Driscoll, and one of the links above from Chandler I believe was on Piper’s Desiring God site. Piper definitely believes that headship means a man has responsibility for anything that goes wrong in a marriage. He’s certainly into that definition of absolute headship, but I have never seen anything on submission to nearly that extent.

    I shouldn’t say anything specific here, but I have some insights into some of the people you named and let’s just say you reap what you sow.

  516. new anon says:

    Jonathan says: I have grown up thinking Macarthur,Piper ,TGC,CBMW where all conservative
    now I look at what they do and it just is liberalism explained in a conservative speak…how can a God have so many different beliefs on one issue?

    If I may make a suggestion. Spend some time listening to the podcast “Fighting for the Faith” by Chris Rosebrough. It is a discernment ministry.

    He is rather sarcastic and not nearly as funny as he thinks he is, but he does a great job exactly how an why various pastors are twisting scripture. Each episode he goes through an entire sermon and literally dissects it line by line. You’ll never listen to a sermon in the same way again, because when the pastor starts to use these scripture twisting techniques you will recognize them (if you every read a book or took a course on sales techniques, then talked to a used car salesman, you’ll know what I’m talking about–you recognize the tricks, so they don’t work on you anymore).

    Rosebrough is a traditional Lutheran (AALC i believe)–hard line cessationist, no female pastors, hard line sola scriptora, male headship, and everything revolves around Jesus. You may or may not agree with him theologically on every point, but that shouldn’t stop you from learning the discernment techniques he teaches.

    I’m convinced that learning discernment is a vital skill for any Christian in today’s world. Many clergy today are simply hucksters and no better than used car salesmen. And no, I’m not just talking about the gang of heretics on TBN, I’m taking about most medium size churches and (imho) all megachurches.

    I have sadly come to the conclusion that a church cannot reach mega-church size without deviating from the Bible in some significant way, due to the pressure from the congregants to have their ears scratched. Once a church becomes a certain size, it has to take on financial obligations (which are often predicated on them growing). At that point getting and keeping people in the pews becomes a marketing problem, as they have to keep growing just to meet their obligations. They certainly can’t afford to lose anyone.

    This is why, as Dalrock has pointed out, churches shy away from teaching male headship. The majority of people in the pews are women, and the churches can’t afford to offend them, so the church softens, eliminates, or ever reverses what the Bible says to keep the pews filled.

    This is not only true about feminist issues, but a whole host of issues. Churches no long teach the gospel, but substitute it with a gospel of their own making. We ARE living in the time predicted:

    For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Tim 4:3

    Won’t God avenge his chosen ones, who are crying out to him day and night, and yet he exercises patience with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them quickly. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth? Luke 18:7-8

  517. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I don’t believe the answer to her question comes naturally to women. Feature or a bug, I don’t know but it is rare for women to “just know” these things.
    The answer I now teach my daughters after having been taught myself is:
    1.) Men are stronger than women. It is wise to respect all men. The opposite of respect is disrespect. It is very unwise to disrespect a man. By doing so, as a woman, you are appealing to his honorable nature (and the cover of the law) to not answer your disrespect with physical dominance. It is foolish to believe ALL men will uphold this honorable code. Don’t take the chance. The average 14 year old young man can have most women in a physical submission in a matter of seconds.

    2.) Respect men because it speaks well of your husband if you’re married, or your father. Most of society still sees a disrespectful woman as evidence of poor raising and rebellion. It is ugly and off putting.

    3.) It is civil and demonstrates a woman’s desire to participate in civil society. Disrespectful and belligerent women are a sign of societal decline. They are not tolerated well by the men who do and will defend Western Christian civilization. i.e. It’s the right “team” to be on.

    Respect is not the same as submission.

  518. Julian O'Dea says:

    The Original Laura, it is possible. In any case, he is in good company in that list of quotes. And here is something on St Thomas Aquinas on women by Marie George:

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women

    ” … the general intellectual inferiority of women does not make them defective or inferior simply speaking, but only in the particular natural order, in comparison to most males and to beings with a more perfect nature—namely, the angels. ”

    Egalitarianism is a modern position only.

    As I said, I think the Stepford Wives website:

    http://www.stepfordwives.org/

    has elements of humour. But there advice is so consistent that I think it is basically serious. It is possible that it is intended deliberately to annoy feminists. Maybe men have set it up. I don’t know. My impression is that it is run by a group of women. They seem to have a sort of policy on some topics. For example they do not approve of spanking of wives.

  519. Julian O'Dea says:

    Sarah’s Daughter:

    “The average 14 year old young man can have most women in a physical submission in a matter of seconds … Disrespectful and belligerent women are a sign of societal decline. They are not tolerated well by the men who do and will defend Western Christian civilization …”

    On the first point, MarcusD and I were bandying around some data here a couple of weeks ago. For whatever reason, many women have NO IDEA how strong men are relative to women in the upper body. Only 1 in 1000 women has the upper body strength of the average man. Men are much stronger than women.

    The strength in a man’s shoulders was probably designed to kill.

    I actually have a 14 year old son. He is almost as strong as me already. Very few women could control him physically.

    On the second point, most men and women around where I live show good mutual respect. However if women are rude and obnoxious, the average man will cease feeling any sense of responsibility for them. The range of women I would now offer any kind of (even casual) protection to has unfortunately narrowed in recent years for various reasons. But the generally pleasant attitude of women in my community encourages me to do so, should it ever be necessary.

  520. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I followed that link, Jullian O’Dea, and couldn’t stop reading. Had a bit of an “uncanny valley” feel to it but I’m not under the impression than they are anything other than what they say they are. It doesn’t seem to focus as much on Proverbs 31 as it does on the ’50’s housewife (unless the husband requires it). By that, I’m talking about growing in the wisdom the Proverbs 31 wife has, using that wisdom to bring honor to your husband and additional provision to the family. I’ll have to read more to see if “getting down and dirty” with God’s creation is talked about there – gardening, tending crops, raising/hunting animals for food, processing and preservation etc. Recipes and modern technologies are great and all but Proverbs 31 really teaches a woman how to connect with God. There is a huge focus there on outward beauty (not necessarily bad though it can lead to narcissism) but there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of becoming strong and able: She girds herself with strength,
    And strengthens her arms.
    – Proverbs 31:17

    Also, the focus seems to be “just do this” instead of “become this through obedience to God.” Again, it is like Jane Dough’s idolatry of her husband in stead of reverence because of her obedience to God and who God says her husband IS.

    God’s not too fond of us having idols. Even if they are our husbands.

  521. theasdgamer says:

    @ JDG

    The point being that it is the average woman who has lost sight of reality when she is unimpressed with the average man.

    I disagree. The amygdala has a clear view of reality. It’s basic biology. The cortex is easily fooled. The problem is that the status of men has been lowered relative to the status of women. The lowering of the status of men has been done quite deliberately and is obviously artificial and could be reversed.

  522. theasdgamer says:

    @ Striver

    Women will not submit to sexy alphas any more than they will despised betas.

    Totally wrong. Women chase alphas. Women will do anything to get an alpha’s attention, including submit. Alphas can also train women to submit, if they care to. Lots of alphas prefer to just next an unsubmissive woman.

  523. Neguy says:

    @Jonathan,

    By the way, if you have good illustrative links to Jenkins and Beatty, I’d love to get those too.

    I’ve noticed two things:

    1. While the pastors like Chandler may be off, their female acolytes, to whom those pastors are giving a big platform, are much further afield. I suspect a lot of women are taking their direction from these other women leaders, not the male pastors anyway. A brief look at some of the comments on their blogs shows a preponderance of “you go girl”-isms.

    2. People take an exception case, such as a woman working and providing during a time when the husband is unemployed, etc. and turn these into examples that justify these behaviors such as stay at home dads as equally and authentically valid and normal roles.

    I do think we have to acknowledge that the Bible is not explicit on some of the points we discuss here like who stays home to take care of the kids. There are multiple and very clear passages about headship and submission, but nothing that nearly as clear on exact operational roles within marriage (though I think headship and submission implies those roles are defined by the husband). This falls into the category of wisdom in my view, and the Bible definitely does call us to be wise. As Driscoll himself once put it, some things aren’t sinful, they’re just dumb. But what we see is in these wisdom areas the pastors are using the teaching authority of the pulpit to put Biblical imprimatur behind some very unwise ideas.

  524. Julian O'Dea says:

    SD, yes, I know what you mean. They say somewhere that their motivation is not necessarily religious. It is as if they are fetishising the 50s housewife. Some of their advice is odd. It is possible it is some kind of parody, but somebody has gone to considerable trouble to construct the site and it updates fairly regularly. I have written about it and similar movements:

    https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/non-feminist-lifestyles-for-women-bimbos-and-stepford-wives/

    https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/the-christian-wife-spanking-movement/

  525. new anon says:

    However if women are rude and obnoxious, the average man will cease feeling any sense of responsibility for them.

    I believe Dalrock had a post a while back about a rude English woman with a broken down car. Not only was she complaining that the men (doing their construction job, btw) didn’t drop everything to help her, she complained that the men who did help her didn’t do it the way she wanted.

    This sort of entitlement attitude has worn thin (to the point of breaking) for many men. It’s bad enough for a woman to not be thankful, but to actually be critical of a man’s attempt to help her is…

    And yea, I know not all women are like that, but SOME women are like that. In fact, ENOUGH women are like that to have ruined it for all the other women who aren’t like that. It only takes a FEW random people kicking a dog to make the dog wary of ALL people. A few women have ruined it for all women.

  526. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Only 1 in 1000 women has the upper body strength of the average man.

    My son is 18, 6 foot 155 pounds. Tall and lanky. His shoulders haven’t broadened yet. RLB’s shoulders didn’t broaden either until he was 19-20. He came out to help me shovel some super dense, wet, and sandy dirt that has a ton of rock in it. I noticed that he was just using his arms to force the shovel in the dirt. My husband was doing the same thing earlier. I was just fascinated by it. I have a decent (for a girl) 125 pound Power Clean and had to use my foot to force the shovel in the dirt. I might be able to use my arms alone a couple times but I would be toast quickly. I asked him why he wasn’t using his foot: “This is easier.” Easier? Yeah, those muscles that might not look like much yet are unbelievably strong!

  527. Julian O'Dea says:

    There is some evidence that men have never hit women much, at least in prehistory. Presumably women were clever enough to avoid it, or maybe men have an inherent aversion to hitting women:

    https://www.academia.edu/12006738/Little_violence_against_women_prehistorically

  528. Julian O'Dea says:

    SD, I think the thing may be that the bulk in a woman’s body, including the upper body is largely fat. In men, it is muscle. So men and women look roughly the same size (there is no huge sexual size difference as in some primates), but the appearance is deceiving.

    It can be hard to tell what strength is there as you say. Chimpanzees are an interesting case. Even baby chimps are unbelievably strong, stronger than a man. Adult male chimpanzees are simply deadly.

  529. Julian O'Dea says:

    “Alphas can also train women to submit, if they care to. Lots of alphas prefer to just next an unsubmissive woman.”

    Yes. A woman will do almost anything for a man she perceives as “alpha”. I have, as they say, “seen things you people wouldn’t believe”.

  530. The Original Laura says:

    Julian said, “I actually have a 14 year old son. He is almost as strong as me already. Very few women could control him physically.”

    I saw an article recently in which a woman mentioned that she had had to move her sofa, with no one other than her 11-year-old son to help. She and the son were BOTH surprised that he was already stronger than she was. I had a similar experience years ago with my nephew — my sister told me to let the young and “average size for age” boy carry the heavy container of pre-mixed spackle that was in the trunk of my car. I could have carried it, but it would have taken all my strength, and I would have had to stop several times between the car and the church to put it down and rest. He carried it the whole way without stopping, AND he was laughing and joking with me the entire time. He was probably 14, and no more than 15 at the time. It was so hard to believe — I changed that boy’s diapers, and it seemed like only yesterday!

  531. Julian O'Dea says:

    Some women are pretty strong. My wife is quite useful physically. But some women are almost comically weak. A young woman asked me to carry some boxes once at church and I seriously thought she was kidding. I couldn’t believe she found them heavy.

  532. theasdgamer says:

    @ Julian

    It’s really amazing, isn’t it? Sometimes an alpha simply asks a beautiful woman to fakk and she complies. I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t been there.

  533. theasdgamer says:

    A big woman (overweight, tall, but not a whale) recently told me that I’m very strong and don’t know my own strength because I was giving her a strong lead while dancing. She wasn’t following like I wanted, so I strengthened my lead and she whined about it.

    It was obviously a DHV and upqualification of sorts by my partner. Back story: Recently she turned down the lights when we danced when only three of us showed up for a group lesson because of a severe storm and the other man left early.

  534. Julian O'Dea says:

    theasdgamer, I have not seen that. But I have seen other stuff. I don’t want to go into details, but men who have never seen it would have trouble believing it.

    It is interesting looking back and being able to see the patterns. There are things that only make sense when you have the conceptual tools. Men and women are mostly just wildly pushing buttons, but a few of them just seem to be naturals.

  535. Julian O'Dea says:

    Here is something I recently wrote, based on some actual events. Any man who reads it should see if he can spot the “alpha moves”:

    https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/the-young-wife/

    After I wrote it, although I do not condone the behaviour obviously, I could spot at least two remarks one character makes that are textbook “alpha”.

  536. Opus says:

    There is one certain English City of which the first Lord Protector observed that its Churches (of which there are many) was only exceeded by its godlessness. Who can doubt that Cromwell was correct, for I was (on Tuesday) visiting this said city in the company of my sister – a devout Christian – and she was showing me round the Cathedral and its environs (as her boys attend the school founded by His Late Majesty the eighth Henry which is attached to and indeed embedded in the Cathedral). Curious as to what certain very attractive eighteenth century buildings might serve a purpose for I approached and read: The Office of the Bishop. My sister informed me that they were getting a Bishoptrix. I observed to her that that was hardly Biblical, but she said that there was nothing in the Bible about Bishops and that it was obvious that I was sexist. That shut me up for I knew not what to say although I am sure that Dalrockians would have had the appropriate verses to support my view.

    We attended Choral Evensong (a visiting choir from the Province of Slut-Walk) and after two reading from the Bible one which was definitely KJV for it used the word abomination but the other most certainly was not (the widow had a mite not a few pennies, as I recall). The Right Reverend prayed for our dear sister Phylis as she prepares for her Consecration as Bishoptrix (though he said Bishop). Something just does not feel right to me about female clergy. Call me Sexist; my sister already did. I must say however that a five to six second reverberation did not really suit the music that the choir were singing – you need mediaeval polyphony or perhaps John Tavener for a Twelfth century Cathedral with its tall roof: that is its feature rather thanits bug.

  537. theasdgamer says:

    Let me correct my previous story. I wrote, Sometimes an alpha simply asks a beautiful woman to fakk

    “Sometimes an alpha simply tells a beautiful woman that he wants to fakk.”

    Do you see how the second is more dominant than the first?

  538. Michelle says:

    Even if she could better him in every respect, you either believe Eph 5:33 is conditional or you believe it is an unconditional imperative. It is that simple. And hence we come full circle to Dalrock’s very point: respect has been made so conditional that the average husband / father will never experience the respect that should be afforded simply as the holder of the office.

    @ meteebs – I am not speaking of a husband and wife relationship or biblical respect. I was asking about men and women in general. And by respect I mean a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

    This is what women no longer seem to feel for men in general.

  539. Michelle says:

    A colleague once argued along these lines too: that all the laws that men complain about were written by men. On the surface, she’s right. But a closer look shows it for what it really is: typical feminist shedding of agency. Just because it was not done by women does not mean women did not repeatedly push for those laws and throw tantrums until they were enacted. It’s like President GW Bush saying he has never killed anyone because he never actually pulled the trigger, or operated a drone. But that does not mean he had nothing to do with hundreds of thousands of needless deaths in Iraq and elsewhere.

    @Dave – here is the problem wih your analogy. GWB was in charge. If he claimed that it wasn’t his fault it would ring false because the buck stops with him. Women pushing for laws and throwing tantrums as you call it is not the same as being the person in charge. Men enacted and enforce these laws. They pastor churches where men are disrespected, they preside over courts where men are disrespected. Blaming women is a cop out when these things are very much male dominated.

  540. new anon says:

    Michelle says:
    @ meteebs – I am not speaking of a husband and wife relationship or biblical respect. I was asking about men and women in general. And by respect I mean a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

    This is what women no longer seem to feel for men in general.

    So?

    There is no biblical instruction for women to respect men in general. To respect their husbands and to respect the pastors/elders in the church? Yes.

    But, husband and church elder are offices. You are to show respect to the person, because they are holding the office. You are to show respect for your husband, simply because he holds the office of your husband.

    The same is true for men, btw. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Husbands are not instructed to love their wives, because their wives are special people and deserve it. They are to love them, because they hold the office of their wife. Simply because they are their wife, husbands are to love them.

    And, simply because your husband is your husband, you are to respect him.

    Love and respect are emotions, and they are hard to act that way towards someone when you don’t feel it towards them. Yet, the Bible says a spouse must act that way towards their spouse, even if they don’t “feel” it.

    Wives respect your husbands–even if you don’t FEEL respect for them.
    Husbands love your wives–even if you don’t FEEL love for them.

  541. hoellenhund2 says:

    Presumably women were clever enough to avoid it, or maybe men have an inherent aversion to hitting women

    You don’t say!

  542. Dave says:

    Truer words never spoken. What women think men like, respect, or admire is almost always projection of what THEY like, respect, or admire, in men or in other women.

    Very true. But why is this? Well it all goes back to the feminists. God’s word says that the older women (who are supposed to have been married and had experience with men’s way of life) are to teach the younger ones how to relate to men:

    Titus 2:3-5 (NKJV)

    3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things—
    4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,
    5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

    Which man wouldn’t want a wife who:
    1. Loves him
    2. Loves his kids
    3. Is discreet (i.e. careful and circumspect in one’s speech or actions, especially in order to avoid causing offense or to gain an advantage)
    4. Is chaste (i.e. a virgin until the wedding night)
    5. A homemaker (i.e turns the house into a home)
    6. Good (all round pleasant)
    7. Obedient to him in all things?

    Looking more closely, everything the modern woman does wrong is a result of failure to learn from an older godly woman. Or a direct result of misinformation by the older ungodly woman.

  543. greyghost says:

    @Dave – here is the problem wih your analogy. GWB was in charge. If he claimed that it wasn’t his fault it would ring false because the buck stops with him. Women pushing for laws and throwing tantrums as you call it is not the same as being the person in charge. Men enacted and enforce these laws. They pastor churches where men are disrespected, they preside over courts where men are disrespected. Blaming women is a cop out when these things are very much male dominated.

    HA HA HA HA Who would have expected that as a reply. “yeah baby tell that stupid mo fo what time it is”

    I hope all of you talking trash about surrogacy and sexbots are getting this.

  544. feeriker says:

    Very true. But why is this? Well it all goes back to the feminists. God’s word says that the older women (who are supposed to have been married and had experience with men’s way of life) are to teach the younger ones how to relate to men:

    Titus 2:3-5 (NKJV)

    As I’ve pointed out before, there are almost NO Titus 2 wives in western churches today. Today’s “older women” who would fit that bill by age range all came of adult age in the period when second-wave feminism was in its ascendancy and were almost all steeped in it and fully absorbed it.

  545. Opus says:

    Perhaps I can fit this in here: we always hear from Feminists how as part of the Misogynist plan men deprived women of education. Whatever the merits of vast education – for men or for women, and education is and always was expensive, especially for those likely to give up work within a few years for motherhood – the idea is not really plausible, indeed if anything men have (as they continued to do) spent excessively on female education.

    I was, as I mentioned above with my sister (and her husband and children) and we were looking through some old paperwork from the nineteenth century. I was taken by a printed sheet seemingly addressed to the Trustees of a charitable like gruop concerning a twelve-year-old girl by the name of Edith Pierce. The Paper (from 1898 – when by the way the minimum school leaving age was ten) spoke highly of Edith and explained that as her mother was now a widow, Edith was a worthy candidate for donations so that she might attend the dedicated school (boarding one supposes) for the daughters of deceased mariners.

    Edith (as it happened) was the Grand-daughter on her mother’s side of (one of) my Gt Gt Grandfathers. Her Father’s death occurred when he went down off the coast of Brittany, France, by the Isle of Oussant, with the SS Drummond Castle. All but three of the two-hundred-and-fifty passengers and crew perished and the ship sank within five minutes of hitting the rocks so no one had a chance. What to my mind makes the invitation to cough-up so remarkable is that her Father W.W.Pierce, the Captain of the ship (and pre-Titanic this was one of the worst British Maritime disasters) was subsequently held by the Board of Trade’s Court of Inquiry held to be entirely culpable for the disaster.

  546. Dave says:

    we always hear from Feminists how as part of the Misogynist plan men deprived women of education.

    It is all a lie. The whole of feminism is a big ball of combustible hay. A single spark of truth will turn into ashs in no time.
    The truth is, there has never been a time in history when women were discriminated against because they were women. Throughout history it ha always been the weak vs the strong; the rich vs the poor. Of course the strong, rich and powerful people took advantage of the weak, poor and vulnerable. and women were members of both groups. Bloody Mary did a number on vulnerable people when she became queen of England. She killed so much they nicknamed her “Bloody Mary”.
    Also, throughout history women have always been anything they wanted to be. There were women scientists, warriors, business persons, pilots, teachers, doctors, politicians, bankers, etc long before the advent of feminism.
    Feminism has absolutely no truth in its claims. Not one shred. If a feminist says the sky is blue; spet outside, and I bet you wil discover that it is of a diferent color. One of the biggest mistakes that people make when fighting feminism is to accept any claims of feminism, no matter how innocent it sounds (e.g. “men and women are equal”). Once you reject EVERYTHING feminism stands for, you will only begin to see it as it really is: a fraud of immense proportions.

  547. Dave says:

    @Michelle:
    here is the problem wih your analogy. GWB was in charge. If he claimed that it wasn’t his fault it would ring false because the buck stops with him. Women pushing for laws and throwing tantrums as you call it is not the same as being the person in charge.

    Is Michelle seriously trying to say that women are not in any way responsible for these laws which they lobbied hard to get passed? Or that the laws would have been passed had the women never pushed for them? Really?

  548. greyghost says:

    Is Michelle seriously trying to say that women are not in any way responsible for these laws which they lobbied hard to get passed? Or that the laws would have been passed had the women never pushed for them? Really?

    Yes Yes Yes

  549. JDG says:

    Sarah’s Daughter says:
    July 16, 2015 at 7:58 am

    That whole post was a well placed anti-zinger missile.

  550. jb says:

    theasdgamer,

    You are wrong. Alphas will not only be disrespected from the get go, but the Alpha chasers will respect for the Alpha eventually. I’ve read some of your comments on Rollo’s sight and here.

    Why do you think the thug criminal Alpha gets “dissed” by some biotch he’s been bangin’? Because she has lost respect due to some flaw she sees. Every human has multiple flaws that cannot be hidden for too long. That reason alone is why Beta boy looses out within seconds/minutes as he approaches a woman, he simply can’t hide it long enough where Alpha can hide it until she finds it. By that time he doesn’t care and is on to another or he nexts her or becomes a Beta himself.

    I can say I want to fakk and my wife will drop the laundry and start walking to the bedroom. Does this make me an Alpha? No, I am Delta irregardless of a lone wolf status my whole single life. She disrespects me constantly and although she tries to be submissive she fails daily.

    All women will disrespect Alphas some where in the relationship time frame. AWALT within the FI guarantees that through hypergamy. Yes she will drop her panties in the beginning, but eventually she will use gorilla glue to keep them on with him. I am RP all the way without remorse or back stepping. What you are claiming is in the movies but not reality. I know one true Alpha who has been with hundreds of women. He has tried with all his might to settle down with women, but every time it’s with a HB9/10. The women fall all over themselves for him in the beginning and the ones who stayed showed little respect for him by the end (this is when he tried to settle down). He is moved away and I speak with him regular/text. I bumped into his ex local here and she is married to a multimillionaire now with 2 kids. She says she thinks about him DAILY.

    He is an Alpha. Head of his dept in North America, ex scholarship running back, lead HS team to championship, triathlete, ultramarathoner with expense account and travels a lot, yet he only gets a long with women in the beginning even though he wants longer. He is so Alpha he cannot help bedding HB9/10 and tries to have LTR with them only for them to find out the chinks in his armor and he has found he cannot handle the disrespect so moves on. My wife (he is my b-i-l) thanks God that he hasn’t (to anyone’s knowledge) sired children.

    Oh, and by the way. My wife would be considered an Alpha woman…. it has not been easy, but being born again we both take it to the LORD.

  551. JDG says:

    theasdgamer says:
    July 16, 2015 at 8:35 am
    I disagree. The amygdala has a clear view of reality.

    Yep! We disagree. My view is when someone mistakes an artificial construct for reality, they have lost sight of reality. This applies even if their biology causes them to see the artificial view as real.

    The problem is that the status of men has been lowered relative to the status of women.

    In our society yes it has, and every woman fooled by this has lost sight of reality.

    The lowering of the status of men has been done quite deliberately and is obviously artificial and could be reversed.

    On this we may agree. If western society would stop lying about the abilities of women and stop allowing them to get by with lower standards, things would go a long way to rectifying the situation. Nevertheless, a return to good old fashion patriarchy would be for the best IMO (even taking into account the the invisible man riding the donkey backwards).

  552. jb says:

    I meant lose respect eventually.

    Women disrespect men from the get-go… why do you think they shit test? It’s because of their lack of respect for men, period. If they respected men in general there wouldn’t be this AFBB crap and hypergamy. That is also the reason you see average men with HB10, he passed all her tests and had the balls for approach and master of game/frame. That is the reason you see Alpha “looking” man with HB6/7. He cannot pass HB higher tests and HB6/7 knows he’s the best she’ll ever do and he cannot figure out why he is all that but cannot snag a better HB… he is Beta with Alpha characteristics.

  553. JDG says:

    Wives respect your husbands–even if you don’t FEEL respect for them.
    Husbands love your wives–even if you don’t FEEL love for them.

    This is what it boils down to. Quit reacting to feelings. This is a part of building your foundation on the Solid Rock. If one is not building on the Rock, one’s foundation is sinking sand.

    Is Michelle seriously trying to say that women are not in any way responsible for these laws which they lobbied hard to get passed? Or that the laws would have been passed had the women never pushed for them? Really?

    Yes she is. This is what SD as aptly labeled a “zinger”, and it is the latest one to be employed by Michelle. Never mind that women have been voting since before her parents where born and have the majority of the vote. Never mind that much of the evil that feminist men do to other men is at the behest of women or in hopes of pleasing women. Women in no way can be held accountable. And don’t you forget it or Michelle will throw another zinger at you.

  554. Dave says:

    America will return to Patriarchy in some form. It is only a matter of time. With ISIS gaining ground and China overtaking us in military might, it is only a matter of time before an ugly confrontation occurs, and the powers that be realizes that most men are not too eager to put themselves in harm’s way to defend a nation which is fast turning them into second class citizens in their own land.
    All that we need is a horrible defeat by ISIS and the draft will be back. That is when the politicians will discover the greatest revolt they never asked for. And they will have to do everything possible to rectify the situation, including undoing most of the unjust laws which the feminists have made them pass. Almost overnight, the pack of cards which feminism has erected over the years will begin to crumble.

  555. Dave says:

    “Quit reacting to feelings.”

    In other words, grow the heck up! Only kids base their actions on their feelings. Adults do what needs to be done, irrespective of how they feel. Feelings are not supposed to lead us, because our feelings are blind.

  556. Julian O'Dea says:

    Dave, speaking as a foreigner, I am amazed that American men have put up with so much crap from women. It can’t go on.

  557. feeriker says:

    Dave, speaking as a foreigner, I am amazed that American men have put up with so much crap from women. It can’t go on.

    And it won’t go on for very much longer. The only question is how ugly the backlash (by men against the FI) is going to be. Me thinks the answer to that question is “biblical” –both literally and figuratively– given present persistent trends.

  558. feeriker says:

    I am amazed that American men have put up with so much crap from women

    Growing numbers of us Yank men are D-O-N-E, for good, with Yank women. It’s no accident or coincidence that international dating agencies, especially those featuring Eastern Europen and Asian women, are now advertising on primetime TV.

  559. J N says:

    My observations of American men is that they’re mostly done with women, unless they can deal with them on their terms.

    The majority of guys are just dropping out and choosing to pursue a lifestyle of MMO video games and pornography.

    The minority of guys who still want to be with women are holding out on marriage, or even on living together.

    There’s a tiny tiny fraction of guys who have stuck to their guns, and won’t marry a woman who doesn’t match them in terms of religous dedication. (No history of fornication, submissive attitude, family who won’t support a divorce, etc.)

  560. Looking Glass says:

    If you live West of the Eastern Sea Board, there’s actually a huge amount of the country you can, for all practical purposes, “escape” to and be alone. There’s little requirement to interact with people if you don’t want to. Thus the drastic fall in community-type groups.

    We’re due for another bout of “we’re all disconnected!” with the upcoming 2016 Presidential Election, but why is our society like that now? It’s definitely not disconnected from what we’re discussing here. When “until death do us part” means “until I feel bored”, it unwinds so many attachments at the subconscious level.

  561. Jonathan says:

    umm
    pretty sure the bible is pretty clear who had to work
    Adam commanded to work before Eve came along
    Adam given authority before Eve came along
    the curse points to unique roles
    to Adam, his task of provision was made harder

    P31 and Titus 2 both show women running the home
    men are never commanded to run the home in the same manner

    not one Godly man in the bible is shown as a homemaker, supporting his wife
    Christ is our provider, thus so should husbands provide

    I really doubt any honourable man of the bible would be happy seeing other men sending their wives to work the fields, manage the labourers, wrestle lions while the man sat in the safety of the home!!

    http://bethanyjenkins.com/
    Bethany Jenkins, feminist blog
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2013/june/my-calling-as-female-breadwinner.html
    Beaty claims to be Christian….

    the thing is, there is nothing wrong with women leading women or spreading the Gospel
    except unlike Elizabeth Elliot who commanded women to be homemakers
    these women rebel…

  562. Neguy says:

    @Jonathan, thanks for the links. I don’t dispute that the patter of the Bible is male breadwinner, but unlike wives submitting to their husbands, I’m not aware of clear, unambiguous Biblical commands on the matter.

  563. theasdgamer says:

    @ Dave, Jane Dough

    Actually, women are still chasing men with “skills and abilities”, but not just the types you would have thought. Women are chasing “comedians” (a man who can make her laugh); and “dorky” types who can “make a fool of themselves but know when to get serious”.

    It has always been that way–even with married people under the Patriarchy. Have you watched any of the old movies? Lots of double-entendres and engaging jokes. (Men who could make women laugh.) Negs. Etc. I expect that you would benefit from reading my post on Sexual Macrodynamics. https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/sexual-macrodynamics/

  564. theasdgamer says:

    jb, the “alpha” you are discussing has some game and likely is a natural, but obviously lacks inner Frame. He likely is insecure and women discover that over time. I know a man like this. He’s funny, engaging, a bodybuilder, but he is basically insecure. He can attract women, but he can’t keep them.

    A real alpha isn’t insecure. A woman will test his frame from time to time to make sure he is really an alpha. As you said, all men have flaws. A strong inner Frame will help maintain relationship stability through tough times when those flaws are exposed.

  565. theasdgamer says:

    @ JDG

    My view is when someone mistakes an artificial construct for reality

    Following your logic, a building is artificial; therefore, a building can’t be real.

  566. Regular Guy says:

    @ Greyghost
    “The red pill is almost as good as cold Miller genuine draft at the end of a hot day at work.”

    That’s because MGD is so watered down, you might as well call it Gatorade.😉

  567. JDG says:

    theasdgamer says: Following your logic, a building is artificial; therefore, a building can’t be real.

    According to your logic, a real building made of concrete and steel is no different than an artificially induced and supported social construct.

  568. theasdgamer says:

    @ JDG

    No, I applied your parameters. A building is artificial and concrete and real. The pedestalization of women is artificial and abstract and real. A fictional story is artificial and abstract and its characters not real. Laws are artificial and abstract and real.

    Something that is real has the property of existence. Such existence may be either abstract or concrete. Shares in a corporation are abstract and real. The corporation is abstract and real. The real assets of the corporation are real and concrete.

    Something that is concrete has the property of tangibility.

    Something that is abstract is intangible. The pedestalization of women is intangible, but real nevertheless.

  569. like women being asked to be workers at home?????????????!

  570. J N says:

    @asdgamer

    More likely, the women he is with ask him for cohabitation, exclusive LTR, or Marriage 2.0 as a fitness test. Since he actually is an alpha male, he declines. He probably keeps all of these women on the side as plates.

    It’s pretty much impossible for a genuine alpha male to agree to Marriage 2.0 – it’s failing the biggest fitness test there is.

  571. JDG says:

    theasdgamer

    After reading your most recent post and re-reading my earlier argument about mistaking an artificial construct for reality, I see that my analogy was in fact a poor one. As you say, A building is artificial and concrete and real. My bad.

    You also wrote: The pedestalization of women is artificial and abstract and real., which is true, but the belief that most western women take away from being propped up is a false one. It is not real. While it is true that within western society the status of men has been lowered, it is not true that this perceived value is one that reflects the true worth of men in regards to the well being of that society.

    The point I was trying to make when I wrote: “The point being that it is the average woman who has lost sight of reality when she is unimpressed with the average man.” was that women are looking at the artificial construct and coming away with: “I can do anything he can do” which is false, or “men are unimpressive” (ala michelle), which is absurd. This view is particularly foolish when it is held by a woman who whose entire world would collapse if men stopped propping her up.

  572. JDG says:

    Perhaps for the comment at 4:53 pm I need to specify that the false belief shared by western women is real in the sense that it is a “real” false belief, but it is not “real” in the sense that what is believed by these women really is a lie.

  573. Julian O'Dea says:

    Below is a short story by Christian apologist, CS Lewis. I expect most of you here will have heard of him. It is about a woman who only sees the world in a personal, limited way.

    Perhaps there is an analogy with feminists, who cannot see the civilisation that men have built and maintain, but only the little things that irritate them about men:

    http://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/vetter/Other-stuff/The-Shoddy-Lands.pdf

  574. Julian O'Dea says:

    Opus, yes, I suspect it was as much a class divide as a sex divide, who got formal education in the past.

    David Stove, in his The Intellectual Capacity of Women:

    http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/women.html

    wrote

    “Whether or not the historical sample is varied enough, it is certainly prodigiously varied. The variety of physical and social circumstances in which women have found themselves is, surely, just about as great as the variety which is possible for any class of persons. Women have been pirates and poets, princes and paupers, priests and prostitutes: you name it, some women have been it, if it is logically and biologically possible for a woman to be it. Almost every conceivable factor, therefore, which might have been thought to constitute an impediment to the intellectual performance of some women, has been removed in the case of some other women. Yet their intellectual performance, or at least the comparison of it with the intellectual performance of men, has not varied. This is true of the variety in women’s circumstances which occurs spontaneously between or within societies; but the same is true of that variety in women’s circumstances which has been introduced by human contrivance. Wherever some defect has been found or imagined in existing arrangements for the education of females, energetic and ingenious people have always been busy setting up a form of education free from that real or supposed defect. Novel schemes of education, intended among other things to remove obstacles to the exercise of the intellectual capacity of women, are. at least as old as Plato, and hundreds of them have been put into more or less widespread practice. Yet despite all this variety in the supposed causes of female intellectual performance, the effects have been singularly invariant. I do not mean that these schemes of education have never had any effect at all on female intellectual performance. I do not know, but it is in any case indifferent to my thesis, whether they have or not. My thesis only requires, what is the case, that educational innovations have never shown any significant tendency to bridge the gap between male and female intellectual performance.”

  575. Renee Harris says:

    @ Joshua rodd
    Thank you for comment! No BS. It was hard but refreshing to realize that I will die as a virgin. It’s suck but it not the ended of the world; hearing “depart for me” is the end of life ( favorable presence of God) in the beginning of death. No sex just … Suck but I can’t change it..

  576. Renee Harris says:

    @ the deti
    To live a life without the difficult but it doesn’t have to be lonely. You can go play video games with your friends volunteer at the soup kitchen. Be in be in biblically-based pray groups. Volunteer with the children and youth (but you have be over 40) or go out for pizza
    You just can’t f$&k or kiss anyone never!
    Singles problem is horness not lionesses. It real Christian communities like this one( blog) there isn’t room for loneliness . Quiet time with the Lord yes meditating on the word yes Self isolation yes Loneliness no

  577. Julian O'Dea says:

    Novaseeker:

    “Maybe so. It’s difficult for men to get hard for a woman who has had 2-3 kids and is 50 when there are 18 yo hotties available on his cell phone. Life is hard.”

    This is where low light, imagination and a bit of help from the costume department are useful.

    And “wife goggles”.

  578. infowarrior1 says:

    @Reenee Harris

    If it were not for the end result of procreation then sex is overrated in the end its just friction. Heaven will be much more superior.

  579. Dave says:

    @feeriker:

    Growing numbers of us Yank men are D-O-N-E, for good, with Yank women. It’s no accident or coincidence that international dating agencies, especially those featuring Eastern European and Asian women, are now advertising on primetime TV.

    Women, being perennial negotiators and manipulative beings, will quickly try to “remedy” the situation by offering men a form of faux support “in their plight”, to keep the party going as before (e.g. see “Women against feminism” movement). They only want men to keep spending their attentions on them (women crave that; it explains why some women will even cause a fight, just to get their men to pay them attention).
    Once a man gets involved with foreign women, they quickly notice the difference. It is a freeing feeling indeed. You suddenly realize that you have a lot more energy left to pursue your life goals, because your woman does not drain your energies.

    @julian O’Dea:

    Dave, speaking as a foreigner, I am amazed that American men have put up with so much crap from women. It can’t go on.

    It amazes me, too. Men in other societies are generally not as docile as the typical American male, most of which are the bluest of the blues.

    The coming of the internet, and the spread of Manosphere, the ascendancy of feminism, etc are changing that pretty quickly. I hope the change is sustained so that the country, and by extension, the world, can have a reprieve.

    @jb:

    Women disrespect men from the get-go… why do you think they shit test? It’s because of their lack of respect for men, period.

    I have a different take. In some cases (maybe most), women’s tendency to shit test is innate and borne out of insecurity or timidity. For a woman, security is paramount. That, I think, is her major reason for “testing the waters” first before jumping right in. Most women are not even conscious of shit-testing their men; they’re only looking for security in some form.

  580. Julian O'Dea says:

    Yes, I would like to believe that WomenAgainstFeminism is an unalloyed positive, but some of it at least is just fairly attractive women who are worried that not enough quality men will be left to marry them when the time comes.

  581. Opus says:

    @Julian O’Dea

    Class is indeed perhaps the overriding factor: let us not forget that Anne Boleyn who may have got above herself because of it, was educated in the latest then fad, Erasmus-style Humanism, and her daughter was, so we read, fluent in French, Spanish, Italian and of course Latin. Henry may never have expected or intended his daughter to ascend the throne but her education was not neglected.

    I have recently (at Patriactionary) been reading about the abysmal female performances on certain ‘Survivor’ programmes: it put me in mind of a couple of incidents, I, personally, recall. To describe the more recent: The Gypos had in the night been as I suspected stealing lead off next door’s roof and so in the morning when it was light I went next door which was an estate agency [Realtors] with a view to obtaining their permission to go on to their roof (with one of their staff) to see where if I was right the lead had been ripped off. The office comprised six or so women, their male boss and a young male assistant. The boss being on the phone I explained to the women what I thought would be to their advantage. but these women, like deers in a headlight, seemed to freeze, unable to make a decision without the approval of a man (their boss); eventually, the boss still being on the phone, the young man suspecting the sense of my request and exercising initiative – though he was the most junior member of the staff – offered to take me up their back stairs and on to the roof. The scene was as I had predicted and he and the agency were entirely grateful – they have since fitted barriers to prevent further access. Had he not been there i would still be waiting for the boss to end his phone call.

  582. Opus says:

    I should perhaps conclude my above comment by suggesting that it is because women need permission for anything and need to be told what to do and indeed to bask in approval that they tend to be copy-cats and thus are never likely to equal male inventiveness – as Stove explains. Even the best of women composers for example are derivative: one simply cannot imagine a female Sorabji or a female Scelsi to chose two rather eccentric male composers (English and Italian respectively) or if you would like, a similarly bizarre American and Australian – Conlon Nancarrow and Percy Granger.

  583. Julian O'Dea says:

    Well, Percy Grainger was pretty derivative in his actual output. He used a lot of folk tunes. Weird guy though, and not Lord Berners cute-weird either. Racist, masochist … although he may have come up with some of the basic ideas for electronic music.

    I don’t want to overstate the case. I have known some very clever women, and some women make good scientists. And a surprising number are good artists too. In fact, my small art collection has mostly women in it.

    But women don’t excel in large numbers, and that is the big problem for the gender egalitarians.

    As I have said before, women work well in male systems, under (ultimate) male authority. One sees this writ small in many successful marriages. I watch a reasonable number of programs featuring owner-builders and small farmers, and in almost every case the husband supplies the ideas and most of the muscle. The good wives are supportive and sensible. It is the normal healthy human dynamic.

  584. Opus says:

    Well, back in 1900 or thereabouts so many English composers were utilising folk songs but it was what Granger did that makes him entirely unique and then as you say (by which time he was an American citizen) his experiments with electronic music were in advance of the curve. The NYO did his massive The Warriors recently.

  585. Opus says:

    …and then (it all comes back to me now) in his scores he consigned to the dustbin of history ‘Italian words’ thus instead of indicating a double f for fortissimo he would write’ louder lots’; chamber music was renamed room music and his scoring was elastic. No one else has ever done that: perhaps that was what you meant by racist.

  586. Julian O'Dea says:

    It is good to hear he is still of such interest, Percy Grainger.

    In terms of women liking male authority, some of the more honest ones will say this on the record. I once saw a woman in a documentary on the sexes say something like, “When it comes to the person in charge, I would prefer that in most cases it be a male”.

    I have found too that for every screeching feminist complaining about what one writes, there are a couple of very conservative women secretly enjoying it.

  587. Julian O'Dea says:

    I don’t use the term “racist” lightly. He used to write about “blue-eyed music” and how he preferred it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Grainger

    “His convictions of Nordic superiority eventually led Grainger, in letters to friends, to express his views in crudely racial and anti-Semitic terms; the music historian David Pear describes Grainger as, “at root, a racial bigot of no small order”.”

    On the other hand, I saw him as a likeable character in a dramatisation of the latter years of Delius, who was portrayed as something of a shit.

  588. Opus says:

    One must judge Granger by the standards of his time and not by our politically correct anti-white equalism. You obviously and presumably saw the Ken Russell film about Delius as seen through the eyes of Eric Fenby in which he, Granger, plays a supporting role – throwing a ball over Delius’ home and rushing through the house to catch it on the other side. Doubtless true as Granger was fit – would run to his concerts where he would then played Piano. Like T.E.Lawrence he liked being beaten: is that a ground for divorce, and if not why not? Delius must be excused, as being blind and paralysed by Syphilis would make anyone a bit testy. Did you know that Delius almost certainly had illegitimate mixed-race offspring in Florida?

    Now if you want weird, how about Peter Warlock (Philip Heseltine) or Australian emigree Eugene Goosens – is getting caught at Customs with somewhat bizarre fifties style Porn justification for Divorce – never mind the wrecking of ones career? I see that Australia is now somewhat reinstating his reputation.

  589. Julian O'Dea says: