Valor knows no gender

The Kendrick brothers are masters of the head fake. In Fireproof they ended the film with the surprise revelation that the original Love Dare was done by a woman!  We learn that Caleb’s mother submitted to her husband, and that Caleb’s father was won over without a word by his wife’s respectful and pure conduct.  This plot twist is pointed to by defenders of the film as proof that the moral of the movie (saving your marriage through submission) is gender neutral.  In theory, they explain, submission in marriage could apply to wives as well.  What the defenders miss is that this surprise plot twist is the Kendrick brothers being astonishingly open that they have inverted Scripture.

I have not yet seen the movie War Room, but the defenders of the latest Kendrick brothers movie are pointing to a similar headfake.  War room they argue is really the Kendrick brothers finally teaching submission to wives instead of husbands.  One of the catchphrases of the film is:

Submission is ducking so God can hit your husband.

Girlfriend!  Hand that rolling pin to God so that He can hit your husband with it even harder!  This is the Christian feminist re-purposing of submission (just as feminists are busy re-purposing the military*), and is delivered in the movie by one of the women “ministers” at LifeWay, Beth Moore.  Moore isn’t the only female LifeWay minister in the movie.  The protagonist of the movie is played by Priscilla Shirer who is also a LifeWay minister.

Shirer explains in an interview that she took the role because the movie taught the same messages she already teaches in her ministry (emphasis mine):

At first my answer was ‘Heck no! There are real actors who do this sort of thing,’ but they just said Priscilla, just read the script first and lets pray about it and just see if God might have this in mind for all of us. After reading the script, I realized that it isn’t a departure from what I usually do, it’s a different way though of just saying the same message that I would want to say anyway. It’s another medium for ministry and I’m glad that I kind of stepped out in faith and pushed past any fear or intimidation that was saying you can’t do this, you’re not an actress or an accomplished actress. I’m glad that I took the adventure. It’s been fun.

Shirer is a perfect fit for the Kendrick brothers because she too is a master of the headfake.  Back in 2011 she was interviewed for an article on submission titled Reclaiming the S-Word.  In parts of the interview she seems like she might actually be teaching biblical submission (or at least heading in that direction).  However, periodically the mask slips.

The interviewer asked Shirer if submission means “subservience” by the wife (the sin invented by the CBMW):

For many people, the term submit carries with it the stigma of subservience.

In reply, Shirer explains contra to Genesis that women aren’t inclined to rebel against their husbands unless their husbands are doing something wrong:

It is unfortunate that submission has really been given a bad rap. There is nothing that is supposed to be subservient, “doormat-ish” so to speak, or abusive about this word and its meaning. In Ephesians when the Lord began to describe submission in the family dynamic, the majority of the chapter was used to tell husbands how they were supposed to lead, not to tell women how they were to submit. If men do it the right way, if they are the kind of leaders described by God, then it will be the joy of the wife to submit to a husband like that.

Picking up on Shirer’s feminist framing, the interviewer asks:

What about the husband who has the wrong view of submission and is, in essence, a tyrant?

Shirer responds by lumping together husbands who command their wives to sin with physical abuse and the Christian feminist wildcard, “emotional abuse”.  If a wife tries her husband and finds him guilty of any of the above, she is not to submit to him:

It is never the woman’s role to submit to a man who is leading her to sin, or if he is in any way being abusive to her whether emotionally or physically. In those cases, she should get away to safety. Submission has long been a ploy to get vulnerable women to stay with a guy who is not treating them appropriately. In its purest meaning, it is a gift given to a woman who does have a man that is seeking to lead in the way the Bible describes.

The interviewer follows up, asking if wives should submit to men who don’t seem to be leading.  Shirer offers a qualified yes, but only if their husband has shown leadership in the past:

I would encourage a wife to ask herself, When we were dating, did he take the backseat? If the answer is no and he showed initiative and drive and leadership when you were dating, then the reality probably is that you have, over time, usurped his authority. And in those cases, I want you to know that what has been done can be undone. Prayerfully give him back the reigns.

When asked why Christian women bristle at the idea of submission, Shirer overlooks the reason the Bible has told us women will bristle at it, and explains that this is one of the rare bad things to come out of feminism (emphasis mine):

I think that deep down most women would love to be in a relationship with a great man — they might not call it submission, but when you think about the dynamics of it we love to be in a relationship when a man has taken charge. When you water down submission to the bare parts, most women desire that. But there is a fear that has been instilled in us predominantly by the feminist movement. The feminist movement has given us many things, but one thing it has stolen from us is the right not to feel like we’ve lost our dignity when we choose to submit to the leading of a good guy.

See the full interview, as there is too much to quote (including a variant of duck so God can hit your husband).  Note also that not only does Shirer tell us that she took the role because the movie teaches the same message she teaches, but that she wrote the companion book for women which was released with War Room (just as she did for Courageous).  The title alone will make every Christian Xeena’s heart swell.  This isn’t a book for quiet, submissive doormats.  This is a book for kick-ass Christian gals everywhere:  Fervent: A Woman’s Battle Plan to Serious, Specific and Strategic Prayer

A quick search with Amazon’s “look inside” tool indicates that the words “submit” and “submission” are not included in the book:

womansbattleplanGiven what Shirer has to teach on the topic of submission, I would say it is a good thing it never comes up. However, this is one more nail in he coffin of the claim that War Room isn’t just another in a long line** of Kendrick brothers movies tearing down husbands and fathers, but a movie about the power of wives practicing biblical submission.

*That this movie featuring women as warriors was released during the height of the push to fully integrate women in combat is no coincidence.  Christian feminists very often take their cues from secular feminists, and War Room is perfectly tuned to the modern Christian preference to see women as fierce warriors rather than the “doormats” with quiet gentle spirits of the bad old days.

**Their very first movie Flywheel has an eerily similar plot to War Room.  Like War Room, Flywheel is about a dastardly Christian husband and father who lies, cheats, and steals, much to the consternation of his godly wife and child.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Christian Films, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denial, Feminists, Fireproof, Kendrick Brothers, Military, Rebellion, Submission, War Room. Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to Valor knows no gender

  1. Pingback: Valor knows no gender | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: Valor knows no gender | Manosphere.com

  3. The thing about prayer though, is that it’s talking to God.
    A woman might go into it all “Okay God, you need to change my husband”, but if she is truly interested in talking to God, I guarantee he will change her too.
    This has been my experience, and the experience of many other wives I know of. We start praying for our husbands to change, and through prayer and the word, God ends up revealing ways we need to change.
    So if this leads more women to go before God in prayer, I am happy with that. He will get to them.🙂

  4. God is Laughing says:

    Serving God should be fun, a joy. If it isn’t you must not be serving God.

    If God calls you to martyrdom. That is the voice of the enemy (read emotional abuse) and you need to get out safely.

  5. Dalrock says:

    @Seriouslyserving

    The thing about prayer though, is that it’s talking to God.
    A woman might go into it all “Okay God, you need to change my husband”, but if she is truly interested in talking to God, I guarantee he will change her too.
    This has been my experience, and the experience of many other wives I know of. We start praying for our husbands to change, and through prayer and the word, God ends up revealing ways we need to change.
    So if this leads more women to go before God in prayer, I am happy with that. He will get to them.🙂

    This is true. My criticism isn’t that the movie is teaching prayer, just as my criticism of Fireproof wasn’t that the movie showed a man dedicating his life to Christ.

  6. Thomas K. says:

    Dalrock,

    Unless your misuse of the word “gender” was intentional, I believe we on the right side of the sex wars need to take care to never use the word gender when what we mean is Sex.

    If we are talking about men and women the correct term is Sex. If we are talking about those traits characteristic of the two sexes, masculinity and femininity, we can use the term “gender”.

    The feminine gender has never been perceived as being notably “valorous”, in spite of its modern usage. It has always been a masculine trait.

    This is why Bruce Jenner will always be a man no matter how “feminine” he acts. And Rosie Odonnell will always be a woman no matter how often I call her a man in an effort to insult her.

    Or am I mistaken. I could be wrong but that’s not a characteristic of my gender.

    [D: The title is a quote of President Obama.]

  7. @Dalrock,
    Yes, I just wanted to point out a positive, given that many Christians will be going to see the movie. Even if it isn’t strong on teaching submission, it will lead them to God, who will.

  8. TGW says:

    “If men do it the right way, if they are the kind of leaders described by God, then it will be the joy of the wife to submit to a husband like that.”

    Good to know it’s Christ’s fault when I go astray. I’ll try to remember that when I’m fornicating, blaspheming, thieving, and bearing false witness against my neighbors. I only have one person to blame, and it isn’t me.

    Ridiculous.

    “It is never the woman’s role to submit to a man who is leading her to sin…”

    And of course it is her place to decide what is sinful in the marriage she has been bless-err, cursed with. Being tied to a man is a curse, right? I’m absolutely positive that’s what Paul meant when he wrote Ephesians 5:22-29.

    1 Peter 3:1 or rebellion? Obedience is for the door-mats of the world, I suppose. And if women obey no man, why obey God? The Lord is just another cage to bind her and stifle her freedom to spread false doctrine and seek pleasure in ungodliness. Proverbs 3:5 or acceptance of worldly ways? The only thing that she (Shirer) trusts in God for is to forgive her for not spreading enough rebellion.

    How sad. I’m sure that the men who live in sin can at least count the blessing of not having to deal with our women. This should not be.

    “I think that deep down most women would love to be in a relationship with a great man…”

    “Great.” I don’t that word means what she thinks it means. Does she mean a man who lives my God’s law? She seems to hate it. By “great” I think she means quite the opposite. A push-over who will serve his wife according to her will and not lead his family according to God’s will. The kind of fellow who will give his wife foot massages and make her fat with ice cream.

    Gluttony and rebellion. How wonderful.

  9. Opus says:

    As an outsider: I was intrigued by the numbers. Up at number 28 in Amazon.Com’s best-selling book list – not one negative review (but somewhere over 13,000 in at Amazon.co.uk) the movie (unreleased on my side of the pond and I doubt it will be) and on a very modest budget of just $3,000,000 has so far (less than a month) made about $50,000,000. Somehow Success knows no Sex sounds as wrong as Valour knows no Sex. I think however that (as courage) it is masculine in French though that probably implies that it is Feminine on Spanish (but never anywhere Neuter). N’est pas?

    The ten pages of comments at IMDB (where it scores 6.1) are amusing: Atheists are all going to hell, Do Catholics watch this kind of movie (and are they Christians), Religious people are Misogynists, The movie makes Americans look like idiots and (this cannot be serious) Is this a sequel to Dr Strangelove?

  10. Looking Glass says:

    Credit where it’s due, but is “War Room” a sequel to “Dr. Strangelove” is pretty funny question.

  11. gunner451 says:

    Interesting that in Dr. Strange love there was only one woman in the either film who was the submissive mistress/secratary of one of the Generals.

    In any case the real concern should be for the salvation of all these rebellious women. Jesus did not mince words when he talked about those that did not obay his commands and what fate they faced. The rebellious “Christian” women of today’s modern church are anything but Christian, they are apostates and will be treated as such when the judgement comes.

  12. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    @neguy,

    It no longer amuses me to be continually blamed for all of women’s failings. And men in their thirties won’t commit to women? No crap. I have four friends all around my age. Between 31 and 38. All five of us are single. Two of us are divorced. Divorce raped badly by adulterous wives. Do you think any of us will get married? Or that any of us are just so in demand that we are turning women’s marriage proposals down? These guys have good jobs and make between $40k and $80k a year. Depending on the guy.

    Hell none of us are even looking anymore. We aren’t even trying anymore. We don’t even see a point. What’s the point of going out with a modern slut?

    We’ve just given up.

    Good to see that the bastions of morality are still going strong, blaming men for everything.

    Next we’ll get, “those bad men have given up on our poor precious sluts! Man up men and marry those sluts! They need to divorce rape somebody!”

  13. Pingback: Valor knows no gender | Reaction Times

  14. Dragonfly says:

    So sad! I’ve taken studies from Priscilla before😦 she gets a lot of things right, although I’ve never heard her mention submission. This is so sad Dalrock. The Beth Moore study on Esther truly did get submission completely wrong, (it was horrendous actually… going on and on for maybe 30-40 pages on why Vashti didn’t have to submit to King Xerxes for a laundry list of reasons to justify disrespecting her husband). But reading it, and completely and utterly disagreeing with it, caused me to truly look into all the reasons even great female Christian leaders who get so many other things right, try to pull out as valid reasons so that women end up disrespecting their husbands and righteously rationalizing it away. It was a good exercise for me personally to understand what is really truth… but I can see how that kind of teaching can lead many women astray, especially if they have these women up on a pedestal (and what Christian woman doesn’t these days?).
    😦 Sad!

  15. Johnycomelately says:

    Christians aren’t immune from the social and economic ecology, just look at the Pope scrambling to ‘modernise’ the church.

    We’re shifting to a new social paradigm driven by the economic ecology, serial monogamy.

    Men are no longer the sole mediators between women and a harsh ecology, technology has for the fist time allowed women independent access to the economic ecology without the necessity of a man.

    Headship used to be based on authority and mans real world dominion over a dangerous physical ecology but technology has removed that function, headship is now a vestige of a bygone era.

    The bottom third of men are now Dalits and Dalits have no authority. The next third are on an equal footing with women and only the top third have any genuine case for authority. Women will now be competing for the top third.

  16. Brenden says:

    @God is Laughing

    So I guess Peter and most of the apostles and early Christians were totally following Satan when they got killed for their faith.

    Heck, if martyrdom is from the devil then I guess that Jesus guy was just listening to Satan too.

  17. Dragonfly says:

    “The thing about prayer though, is that it’s talking to God.
    A woman might go into it all “Okay God, you need to change my husband”, but if she is truly interested in talking to God, I guarantee he will change her too.”

    SS, you might want to read some of April Cassidy’s writings on praying over at The Peaceful Wife. She is hands down amazing, has biblical submission down to ‘T,’ and brings up this topic of praying to change someone as being “manipulative,” and has at least one post regarding praying for our husbands in this way as being wrong. She really says it better than I ever could

    http://peacefulwife.com/2013/01/02/praying-for-your-husband-so-that-god-will-hear/

  18. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Snowden…..I had to learn to live with less after my frivorce. Point is this…..learn to be content with what you have today. There are so many definitions of MGTOW. Essentially, imo, it just means that you really aren’t looking to be abused again. My ex decided to try and come back…..I was working in my garden……she was demanding attention, and I politely told her that I was growing indifferent. While I was pruning my tomatoes.

  19. GeminiXcX says:

    First of all, a big problem I should point out is that there shouldn’t be any women heading any of their own “ministries”, or submitting their personal “studies” for anyone else to follow.

    -GXcX

  20. GeminiXcX says:

    TGW
    “If men do it the right way, if they are the kind of leaders described by God, then it will be the joy of the wife to submit to a husband like that.”

    Good to know it’s Christ’s fault when I go astray. I’ll try to remember that when I’m fornicating, blaspheming, thieving, and bearing false witness against my neighbors. I only have one person to blame, and it isn’t me.

    I laughed audibly after reading this.^^ You have a useful way of bluntly translating “ridiculous” statements.

    -GXcX

  21. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    Typical evanjellyfish…

  22. GeminiXcX says:

    A woman submits to her husband.
    If he is engaging in actual unscriptural behavior, then it is the job of other Christian men to correct him; not hers.

    -GXcX

  23. GeminiXcX says:

    Shirer explains:
    “The feminist movement has given us many things, ”

    Full stop.
    Shirer just disqualified any opinion she has on this subject.

    -GXcX

  24. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    I’d be fine if my only child wasn’t suffering so badly at the alter of “it’s best for the child”.

    As it stands? I’m ready to go to war against my own corrupt people.

  25. Dragonfly says:

    GXcX “First of all, a big problem I should point out is that there shouldn’t be any women heading any of their own “ministries”, or submitting their personal “studies” for anyone else to follow.”

    They are older women trying to teach younger women and typically grow from a small study kind of set up to a larger one. Beth Moore started out just teaching at her church to a group of women. That’s not wrong in itself at all. They don’t lead men at all, their ministries are **only** “Women’s Ministries.” They aren’t teaching or leading men.

    The issue here is not that they are leading Women’s Ministries (I think), but that they are leading masses of women into believing that submission is optional or only based on a wife deciding her husband is “behaving correctly.”

  26. honeycomb says:

    @ SNOWDENSJACKET …


    >”Hell none of us are even looking anymore. We aren’t even trying anymore. We don’t even see a point. What’s the point of going out with a modern slut?

    Actually, they’re WHORE’s and not slut’s. But, you all have accurately displayed the correct questioning attitude.

    My follow-on question is “What do you bring to the table?”; Other than debt and huge spending bill required to purchase your favor.

    So, I blame the WIMMINZ for not training the younger women correctly. And, every chance I get … I bring it up (re: older women and how they have failed us).

  27. Dragonfly says:

    In other words… I don’t think the problem is that they are “leading women through ministry” heck even April does that in her own beautiful way at her blog. She even used to mentor women, and I’m pretty sure she views her blog as her “ministry.” So the problem is not that they are leading women, it’s that they are leading women astray when it comes to some very critical biblical truths concerning their marriage.

    The submission thing is crucial to get right because if not, the marriage is adversely affected, the husband’s authority and headship is undermined, and their children suffer all kinds of fall-out from this that you wouldn’t even suspect from seemingly minor things like the wife dictating what really is allowed to happen or falsely “allowing” the husband to lead, to major things like the wife becoming the overall spiritual head and leader of the family – forcing the husband to go to a church *she* likes, versus one *he* chooses for their family. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen that particular scenario play out with people we know where the wife forced the husband to attend the church SHE wanted, even in my own parent’s marriage, and it always negatively affects the entire family when the husband isn’t the true authority – when the wife doesn’t understand real submission.

    So these leading women getting the most basic of biblical marriage truth correct, submission, is absolutely crucial to the church growing more healthy families. They have a responsibility to imo…

  28. Joe says:

    Women actually crave submission to a strong dominant alpha male. Women aren’t attracted to beta Christian husbands and Bible verses aren’t going to change that.

    Dominance has to be established sexually, from the absolute beginning of the relationship. Since Christian men are forbidden to have sex before marriage, they have no way to establish dominance with a woman.

  29. feeriker says:

    So, I blame the WIMMINZ for not training the younger women correctly. And, every chance I get … I bring it up (re: older women and how they have failed us).

    Yep. The Titus 2 woman is for all practical purposes extinct, a dodo bird, a dinosaur. Those older women who are “teaching” the younger ones today are teaching them all the wrong things.

    Remember: today’s “older woman” is either an early-stage Boomer or a “War Baby,” meaning that she came of age right at the point when second wave feminism was in its ascendancy (yes, that’s the same SWF that, in its softer form, has completely and probably irreversibly corrupted the modern church in the western world). Sorry, but all these older woman are doing is spreading lies, rebellion, and heresy to the younger generations, doing more harm than good.

  30. GeminiXcX says:

    Joe
    Dominance has to be established sexually, from the absolute beginning of the relationship. Since Christian men are forbidden to have sex before marriage, they have no way to establish dominance with a woman.

    Proverbs 14:7. ^^

    Next.

    -GXcX

  31. Joe says:

    GeminiXcX,

    Matthew 5:22

  32. GeminiXcX says:

    @Dragonfly.

    From the OT and the NT, the setting was men, women and children being taught together, with no segregation.

    Calling the young women to their senses seems to indicate private/social reproval, not women independently leading their own “congregations” or study groups (whether real-world, or online).

    Any official instruction is to be done under the headship of a man. I strongly believe that even female Christian blogs should be done with the husband’s approval. . . of every post.

    I’m very unbending in my views about this. As an aside, when I pass a church and it’s outside sign says ‘Women’s ministry: Pastor [female name]’, the sight disgusts me.

    Regards,

    -GXcX

  33. GeminiXcX says:

    @Joe

    A “brother” would not suggest a sinful course of action as the way to establish headship (“dominance”) during the courting process.

    -GXcX

  34. greyghost says:

    “If men do it the right way, if they are the kind of leaders described by God, then it will be the joy of the wife to submit to a husband like that.”

    Didn’t Eve basically tell God to piss off when she submitted to the serpent? If god himself wasn’t good enough then where does the preaching bitch come off talking about a man being good enough to follow God’s instruction. If it is all that why the hell does she get married in the first place.
    I can see right now that I would get kicked out of that church.

  35. armenia4ever says:

    1. “The feminist movement has given us many things, ”

    That’s a particularly disturbing statement.

    2. “If men do it the right way, if they are the kind of leaders described by God, then it will be the joy of the wife to submit to a husband like that.”

    If men do it the right way… the feminist movement she waxes eloquently about has determined that men never do it the right way, so a permanent excuse to avoid submission is created.

  36. TGW says:

    >
    @GeminiXcX
    Shirer explains:
    “The feminist movement has given us many things, ”
    Full stop.
    Shirer just disqualified any opinion she has on this subject.

    -GXcX
    >

    She isn’t wrong. It’s just that the feminist movement didn’t give us anything of value.

    >
    @Joe
    Women actually crave submission to a strong dominant alpha male. Women aren’t attracted to beta Christian husbands and Bible verses aren’t going to change that.

    Dominance has to be established sexually, from the absolute beginning of the relationship. Since Christian men are forbidden to have sex before marriage, they have no way to establish dominance with a woman.
    >

    That’s why Christians have been proven to more often have more stable marriages and less divorces than non-Christians, right? Because they’re wrong? You’re a foolish man.

    Also, it’s funny that you think you can quote the Scripture against others. Since you seem to like Matthew so much, let’s take a look:

    Matt. 7:1-2 (KJV)
    Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    If you intend to measure others against God’s Word, measure yourself against it first. Your dribble about sexually establishing dominance prior to marriage is ungodly, and more than enough reason to disregard what you have to say regarding His truth. If you want to make your case, no one is stopping you (at the moment), but make it without Scripture. You’ve already spoken freely to us that you hate it.

    Also, drop the alpha-beta nonsense. It’s an observation of animal characteristics that’s been foolishly applied to human beings and entertained by hedonists. It says more about your thoughts and desires than it says about the thoughts and desires of who you apply the terms to.

  37. Joe says:

    GeminiXcX,

    My post contained no suggestions to anyone.

  38. greyghost says:

    Women actually crave submission to a strong dominant alpha male. Women aren’t attracted to beta Christian husbands and Bible verses aren’t going to change that.

    Don’t accept this shit from women fellas. This quote should be spoken out loud in church. Any woman showing the slightest hint of understanding or justification should be immediately show to the 12 years and up male members as a piece of ass. Slut unworthy of commitment but perfectly suited for practicing sexual techniques on to prepare for your wedding. Just make sure to pull out like in the movies so you don’t knock her up and have to start making payments to a slut. This should all be spoken out loud and in front every body.
    Then a discussion should be made of the virtues of the Christian beta chump. The beta Christian male and husband needs to be spoken of with respect at that church. Any beta chump able to shun an unworthy woman should be respected as a man of character and courageous judgement not guided by his dick. Unlike that slut that lets her pussy act as a weather vane on matters of goodness and morality. Then all church members should be given a red pill class. The Christian beta chump will be a beta Christian with masculine red pill. Best man there is.

  39. ray says:

    seriouslyserving —

    ‘Yes, I just wanted to point out a positive, given that many Christians will be going to see the movie. Even if it isn’t strong on teaching submission, it will lead them to God, who will.”

    As the recent posts illustrate, these films will lead Christians, and others, away from God — and to further seeking their own wills and desires and cultural expressions, disguised as a search for God. The Kendrick films, like so much modern ‘art’, tell folks (including Christians) what our normed feminist culture wants to be true.

    Father brings who he wants to himself, through Christ. The Kendrick Brothers don’t lead anybody to God.

    These films encourage women, already poisoned by statist empowerment, to go and ‘pray’ in War Rooms and to form Battle Plans. It is warrior-princess rebellion disguised as prayerful Christianity. Unlike Dalrock, the average ‘Christian’ has no real understanding of, nor defence against, these feelgood films and messages, and will leave the theatre even more immersed in the rebellious culture. Wives will have ‘Christian’ collective permission to continue disobeying or disrespecting their husbands; husbands will have like permission to continue to allow wives, and women, to rule.

  40. TGW says:

    @greyghost
    >
    Any woman showing the slightest hint of understanding or justification should be immediately show to the 12 years and up male members as a piece of ass. Slut unworthy of commitment but perfectly suited for practicing sexual techniques on to prepare for your wedding.
    >

    Correction of wrong thinking is preferable to sexual sin prior to marriage. It would be better, methinks, if women who even bothered to attend church were not passed around like meat at a family’s dinner table for everyone to partake in. It would discourage the right kind of people from attending and encourage the wrong kind, don’t you think? Unless you want our churches to be where young, lustful fellows go to let loose their passions on the church’s girls.

  41. greyghost says:

    TGW
    Wrong thinking in women is corrected by their selfish desires for status. Know your women. Have faith in Christian beta males> I’m sure you won’t have the problems you have described. (though it would be a cool church to go to after a night on the town Saturday night)

    Know your women. She is more likely to behave in ways not to be seen as a slut than to not behave as a slut. That is normal. As men that have chosen to publicly speak as leaders we have to know and understand that. God tells you to love. Delusioning yourself into thinking she is wonderful to make her lovable is about the same as her submitting to you because she feels gina tingle for you.
    Do what it takes for her to behave as a chase women even if her heart is for you to not think she is a slut. Good enough. That is what headship looks like.

  42. desiderian says:

    “great female Christian leaders”

    Are the ones with 30 grandchildren and loving husbands.

  43. Dave says:

    Isn’t nature wonderful and balanced? And sometimes cruel and confusing?
    I have often noticed that the most physically attractive women are the ones with little or no “internal beauty”, while the “plain Janes” often come with smoking and reliable characters.

  44. Dave says:

    The only thing good about feminism is that its adherents tend to be childless, so they self-terminate their polluted genes from the gene pool.

  45. KP says:

    Dalrock,

    Re Thomas K @ 4:40pm, I recommend that you deal with the the language prescriptivists going on about “sex” vs “gender” is to simply delete their comments without notice or remark. The tedium of this silly argument is ennervating.

  46. Spike says:

    I feel a cringe come on whenever I read about a Christian movie, Dalrock. It feels like some uncomfortable church group where you have to “share your feelings” or something. I can feel for husbands who have been forced into watching such Turkeys by their Christian wives, who are statistically more likely to be overweight, more likely to have a sweet tooth, more likely to be involved in business outside work – in other words, a recipe of “Holier than Thous” designed to put the husband lowest on their list of priorities.

    Something might interest you though. Apparently, Glenn Beck had a Christian pollster ask men what they most wanted to hear about in church:

    http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/09/23/christian-pollster-sheds-new-light-on-what-church-goers-want-preached-from-the-pulpit/

    The top of the list includes the gender relations covered in this blog. Uncanny, isn’t it?

  47. Oscar says:

    @ Dave says:
    September 28, 2015 at 1:20 am

    “The only thing good about feminism is that its adherents tend to be childless, so they self-terminate their polluted genes from the gene pool.”

    That matters little. Every tenured feminist harpy begets thousands of ideological offspring.

  48. Dale says:

    @Gemini

    >a big problem I should point out is that there shouldn’t be any women heading any of their own “ministries”, or submitting their personal “studies” for anyone else to follow.

    The older women are to teach, training the younger women. Titus 2:3-5. Although, given the tendency of women to be deceived (1 Tim 2), I think it is wise for a man to review and approve her intended outline / topics.

    @Joe

    >Dominance has to be established sexually, from the absolute beginning of the relationship. Since Christian men are forbidden to have sex before marriage, they have no way to establish dominance with a woman.

    Actually, there is a way. Go back to having the guy talk with her father, be approved by her father, and then he just buys her from her father — no “dating” relationship. And they become married as soon as the 30 shekels change hands and they immediately start having sex.

    When Isaac’s wife showed up from the other country, according to my reading, they were having sex within at most an hour of meeting for the first time. She sees him from across the field, and he takes her into his mother’s tent, and “makes her his wife”. Hmm… exactly what were they doing?

    Now, how exactly you’ll find a family that is willing to have the father in charge of who the daughter marries, instead of the strong, independent, young(ish?) woman, is where the wheels come off…😦

  49. MarcusD says:

    Virgins are giving birth through IVF and saving sex for a ‘special relationship,’ fertility doctors say
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/its-a-miracle-of-science-dozens-of-virgins-give-birth-thanks-to-ivf-treatment-in-u-k

    Dozens of young women have had virgin births after undergoing IVF in Britain, it has been reported.

    Four major British fertility firms said they had assisted in such cases, with doctors suggesting there have been at least 25 such births in the past five years.

    Fertility doctors said single women who had never had sexual intercourse were seeking donor-assisted treatment – at a cost of around pounds 5,000 ($10,000) – because they wanted to have a child now and save sex for a “special relationship.”

    Others said their cases involved women with a fear of sex.

  50. bkilbour says:

    I wonder how we would all react if the commandments to abstain from coveting your neighbor’s property (Ex. 20:17) were so needlessly qualified. “Oh, you can covet your neighbor’s house if he’s not very neighborly.” People would use the parable of the Good Samaritan as an excuse, saying – “he’s no Samaritan to me, so I’ve made plans to break in and expel him. This house shall be mine!”
    The Kendrick brothers could even make movies about how stealing from people is great if it leads them to God, and lurking after another man’s wife makes her start praying.
    …I really hope I haven’t fed some hamsters in making this comparison.

  51. There already was some blog post not long ago about some Christian woman explaining how her many fornications had led her closer to God. I laid into that blog post quite a bit, got many a laugh out of their responses, and then they promptly deleted the entire spat and stopped comments being posted. Hysterical, if nobody confronts their pervasive and perverse mindset and actions, they would go around thinking that evil is good and good is evil. Oh wait, they already do…

  52. Dave says:

    When Isaac’s wife showed up from the other country, according to my reading, they were having sex within at most an hour of meeting for the first time. She sees him from across the field, and he takes her into his mother’s tent, and “makes her his wife”. Hmm… exactly what were they doing?

    You mean the woman does not need to “get to know” the man first before giving herself to him? That dating is a new invention of modern society? Who would have thought?

    Hysterical, if nobody confronts their pervasive and perverse mindset and actions, they would go around thinking that evil is good and good is evil.

    This is the only way to destroy their faulty ideology. For some unknown reason, society at large, and men in particular, have been too reluctant to confront the silly ideas of feminism, until just recently, with the rise of the manosphere. And that is one reason I am pretty confident that feminism has already peaked; it has started its slow, painful but sure decline. One thing that is pretty certain is that feminism is all bark and no bite. It’s all noise and nothing else. When feminists throw a tantrum, and good people (men and women) confront them, the feminists cannot do anything about it. However with each concession that society grants them, the feminists’ demands grow more bold and more bizarre.

  53. theasdgamer says:

    It is never the woman’s role to submit to a man who is leading her to sin, or if he is in any way being abusive to her whether emotionally or physically. In those cases, she should get away to safety.

    Up til now in the post, I have seen no problem. Big problem here. The Hamster is given free rein to rationalize any behavior by the woman and blame it on the man. No accountability.

  54. theasdgamer says:

    Funny how Shirer talks a lot about leading, but where is there any teaching in the NT that teaches a husband to lead his wife? I read about how a husband is to love his wife, but nothing about him leading. Maybe he automatically leads if his wife follows him?

    And in the topic of spouse-changing, why aren’t there Christian movies about how the husband changes an errant wife through prayer? Maybe it’s because Becky wouldn’t go see those movies? (Becky being the marketing typical viewer/listener of churchian pap)

  55. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGW

    Also, drop the alpha-beta nonsense. It’s an observation of animal characteristics that’s been foolishly applied to human beings and entertained by hedonists.

    Oh, yet another goofy anti-Gamer. Try reading the Song of Solomon accurately.

    “Alpha” = “romantic and interesting and clued in to women’s sexuality and doesn’t supplicate women”

    “Beta” = “unromantic and uninteresting and clueless about women’s sexuality and supplicates women”

    Any problems with those definitions from a biblical perspective?

  56. Since you’re mentioning Fireproof – I recently did an in-depth analysis of the film in my video “Fireproof: Unpacking the Feminism” – and of course, I linked to your excellent analyses of the film. I think you might enjoy it (apologize for the quasi-spam comment, you really need to get onto The Twitter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7oTUHUpA_w

    The worst part of these movies is that they mix in a lot of good Christian advice with their sewage, poisoning the whole well.

  57. Is this a sequel to Dr Strangelove

    Its the world Slim Pickens awoke to in the aftermath of the bomb exploding. Who knew dystopian themes had a thread running that far back in film (excluding Eraserhead of course)

  58. greyghost says:

    theasdgamer
    Now that we got the sex out of the way The character rub is that alphas have little to no societal value. Beta types tend to be and are extremely productive and good for society and civil order. those guys basically keep the lights on. It was beta males the quantified the concept of “game” and the red pill. The honest productive nature of betas requires that they be lied to and duped by the church and everybody else to get the blue pill out as common knowledge.
    Beta males raised with red pill masculinity are in much better shape. The church is fucked due to the faith they have in blissful chump ignorance rather than actual truth.

    “Beta” = “unromantic and uninteresting and clueless about women’s sexuality and supplicates women”

    This is the correction the manosphere is trying to make. the hysterical resistance from the church and feminism ,the culture and the government is amazing. Even here we have Christian men seemingly horrified of the thought of Christian men becoming red pill with full understanding of female nature and game. As if being a helpless Christian chump is a biblical virtue.
    The actual term for alpha (which has too many positive connotations) is the term in the context of relationships is cad. Much better and more accurate term. Dalrock uses that to keep the confusion down.

  59. nick012000 says:

    @GeminiXcX
    >Proverbs 14:7

    *goes to check the verse*
    *sees Proverbs 14:1*

    LOL. There’s a verse there *specifically castigating* women who frivorce! Nothing new under the sun, indeed.

  60. Dalrock says:

    @Greyghost

    Any woman showing the slightest hint of understanding or justification should be immediately show to the 12 years and up male members as a piece of ass. Slut unworthy of commitment but perfectly suited for practicing sexual techniques on to prepare for your wedding.

    This would be cruelty. Kindness would be warning them of the trap of loose women as Proverbs 7 does:

    Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways,
    Do not stray into her paths;

    For she has cast down many wounded,
    And all who were slain by her were strong men.

    Her house is the way to hell,[b]
    Descending to the chambers of death.

  61. DrTorch says:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2015/september/dating-scene-stacked-against-single-women-dateonomics.html?paging=off

    Dalfanzo has been whining in her columns about being single for 10+ years. She also boasts about being a strong independent, Christian feminist. Then refuses to see if the two are connected.

  62. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    Quoting one Priscilla Shirer:

    Submission has long been a ploy to get vulnerable women to stay with a guy who is not treating them appropriately.

    Again, I’m compelled to wonder where the long list of arrests and convictions are. You know, all those tens of thousands of dastardly protestant husbands who use the bible to excuse their violent nature, commit abuse against their family members, and commit street crime. According to Christian feminists, this is a long tradition which ought to have easily verifiable historical implications. Criminal records are available to the public. So, where are all these criminals at?

    Boxer

  63. Gina Dalfonzo states in the article:

    Stats confirm what we knew all along: There aren’t enough single men.

    Sure, independent Christian woman, it just couldn’t be that no man actually wants to marry you… They cling desperately to the narrative of ‘where have all the good men gone’, lest they be expected to look at themselves and notice they’re not marriage material.

  64. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    I like it. My experience is because I have two daughters is to let the female nature work for you. Rather than tell her what to do give advice and conclusions to young men on her behavior. while in her presence with out regard to her feelings. tempering the language based on age and experience.

  65. I’ve found in churchianity that the pervasiveness of feminist influences has put women in a state of conflict between egalitarianism and complementarity in their dealings with men. In every instance, there is a default presumption that the woman is the final arbiter of ANY intersexual relation.

    The mental point of origin is alway one of giving a man ‘permission’ to lead, permission to perform for her approval, permission to live up to what the Feminine Imperative defines as the “Holy Spirit” and thus merit her allowing him to make decisions for her or the family.

    By the likes of Beth Moore or other charismatic ‘Women Of God®”, christian women are carefully, calculatingly, socialized to presume a condition of egalitarianism in order to retain this default feminine pride in being the unspoken authority (she has the God-ordained vagina, so she makes the rules) of their men. This egalitarianism is also bolstered by a presumed need of living up to the Christian approved Strong Independent Woman® character that’s been created for them so they can feel good about being a ‘prayer warrior’ while not losing the self-image feminized christianity has also created for them.

    However they can’t lose the benefits that a complementary Christian marriage offers, so the conflict becomes one of riding the fence between egalitarianism and complementarity and redefining what that means for them. If they are totally autonomous independent women the conflict becomes one of defying God’s plan for wives in marriage, but if they follow that plan too directly the conflict then becomes one of not fitting into the character the Feminine Imperative insists Christian women follow in order to retain relational authority and ensure her long term security.

    Christian women have been tying themselves in knots over this for decades since the sexual revolution, but the resolution to that conflict is always the most simple – rewrite the Bible, reinterpret the scripture to fit the egalitarian influences while still retaining just enough complementarity (the part where a man must live up to what is convenient) that she isn’t in defiance of doctrine.

  66. Dave says:

    Christian women have been tying themselves in knots over this for decades since the sexual revolution, but the resolution to that conflict is always the most simple – rewrite the Bible, reinterpret the scripture to fit the egalitarian influences while still retaining just enough complementarity (the part where a man must live up to what is convenient) that she isn’t in defiance of doctrine.

    Looks like Rollo is a bit late to the party. They did!

  67. Rollo,
    That was one of the best diagnosis of the current state of Christian women that I have read.

  68. greyghost says:

    However they can’t lose the benefits that a complementary Christian marriage offers,

    well Rollo that is the key. Christian need to know that is not what she will get playing that game and that should be a sermon spoken openly about on Sunday. Christian men as a Sunday school class need to be taught this little game and how to recognize it and the response to the game to be to strike the woman off as a wife. Said openly with volume so all can hear and understand.

  69. feeriker says:

    Rollo Tomassi says:
    September 28, 2015 at 11:17 am

    As usual, the ever-observant Rollo nails it.

  70. PuffyJacket says:

    @ feministhater
    Quoting Gina:

    Stats confirm what we knew all along: There aren’t enough single men.

    Most of these so-called “single men shortage” articles are premised on a sleight-of-hand that conflates “marriageable men” with “single men”, while also assuming that all single women on the market are still marriageable. This 100% buys into the feminist frame that men need to fulfill traditional roles to be considered “marriageable” (earning income over X dollars, having a college degree, etc.), while absolving women of any corresponding obligations (virginity, youth, chaste appearance, etc.)

    Reality is exactly the opposite. “Marriageable men” outnumber “marriageable women” by a factor of at least 50:1 in this country. There is still a massive glut of marriageable men chasing a small percentage of marriageable women (i.e. unicorns). A truly marriageable woman has never faced better odds. That this ratio has shrunk somewhat in recent years does not at all mean there is a single men shortage.

    If single women are complaining this much now, just wait until there is a real single men “shortage”. Yikes.

  71. PuffyJacket says:

    Whenever a single woman complains about the shortage of marriageable men, one should first ask her the following questions:

    1) Do you consider yourself a marriageable woman?
    2) What attributes do you believe qualify a woman as “marriageable”?

    In answering these two questions, without fail, she will provide the best evidence possible that the “single men shortage” is an utter myth.

  72. @ Brenden, of course. Personal Jesus wouldn’t have you die for anyone. The one downside to this is that Personal Jesus wouldn’t die for anyone either. Their message on submission really guts the message of the Gospel.

    “Greater love hath no man that this that he lay his life down for his friends”.

    I wonder what happens when a husband in his leadership role informs his wife that they will be selling her car. What I imagine happening with the “emotional abuse” model is that any decision that is not met with overwhelming satisfaction from the wife will be construed as abuse and ample reason for rebellion and divorce. (Which is what Jesus would have done following the feminist model of “submission”). You want me to hang on the cross Father? That is emotionally abusive, outta here.

    @ SeriouslyServing, The problem is that they are praying to a God that is their Santa Claus. The fact is they will only receive those things from Him that they want. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and these prayers are mantra’s and voodoo incantations of personal power to a false idol. Not prayers to a sovereign God whose sovereignty is rejected out of hand.

    “Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” ~James 4:2-6

    You will never hear, “Nevertheless, if it be your will Lord.” crossing these peoples lips. At least while they insist that they are “strong independent” women capable of making their own choices. (What was Eve tempted with again?)

    Sometimes God just gives them what they want, reminiscent of Romans 1:

    “And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day’s journey on this side, and as it were a day’s journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth. And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp. And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague. And he called the name of that place Kibrothhattaavah: because there they buried the people that lusted.” ~Numbers 11:31-34

    Want to murmur and complain and overthrow Moses (divinely appointed leadership?) you too might be given over.

  73. TL;DR version. Any man who will not act in the same way as Personal Jesus, that is like a woman’s gift bearing elf sent by Santa Claus (God) is an unfit leader. Anything less than complete obeisance to the vagina will be met with all the force which rebellious womankind (and their allies) can bring to bear.

  74. feeriker says:

    Inre that Dalfonzo article on CT, this is the prize comment, none other necessary for summarizing or explaining Gino’s predicament:

    if single women actually wanted to be wives and mothers

    there would be no problem

    single women spend more time learning to be a man instead of learning to be a woman

    most Godly men who are few and far between are not interested in a gay marriage with women pretending to be men

    and considering the nature of the articles here

    CT seems to be taking the lead in teaching women to pretend to be men…

  75. I also am reminded of that time when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market on silver. Trying to control a commodity to drive the price up can be a very tricky proposition.

  76. Opus says:

    I rather like this from F.Roger Devlin:

    “Heterosexual monogamy is incompatible with equality of the sexes. A wife always has more influence on home life …. a husband’s leadership often amounts to little more than an occasional veto upon some of his wife’s decisions, but such leadership is necessary to accomodate female hypergamy. Women want a man they can look up to; they leave or fall out of love with men they do not respect, hence men really have no choice in the matter”.

    I wanted to make a joke about Priscilla, Queen of the Deserts (but sadly she does not appear to be overweight).

  77. Opus says:

    Desserts

  78. Exfernal says:

    @theasdgamer
    Should I read your definition of ‘Beta’ to be the same as of an ‘average frustrated chump’ (AFC)?

  79. Just Saying says:

    (saving your marriage through submission) is gender neutral

    Sorry – gotta call BS on that… A woman should be submissive (and wants to be), a man must be dominant – that is the way of life, if you don’t believe me just look at lions – the male is the dominant, humans are the same. That is the way it is. Simple. Some of the feminist hags out there may not like it, but that is what all women want – especially the ones that complain the loudest. I have never met an attractive woman that didn’t want a strong man that they can submit to. Plain, and simple. That is why young women look for older men, especially if they didn’t have a strong father figure in their home – they want a man like the father they never had.

    Feminists can say that it isn’t so all they want, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

  80. Anchorman says:

    I watched “War Room” tonight.

    I’m certain, had I not participated in the earlier critiques of Kendricks’ films, it would’ve likely moved me.

    That said, it is no different.

    The husband’s an awful person.

    The wife’s tearful “breakdown” in her new war room was an interesting scene. She received a text from a friend in Atlanta (I think that was the city) who saw her husband at dinner with another woman. She prayed for God to stop him from sinning, if he was doing something wrong. Then, she repeated a verse many times, which was to submit to God and the devil would flee.

    She leaves the closet and calls out the devil. She says the devil played with her mind too long and so she cleanses the house of the devil, shouting the devil down in the name of God.

    Later, he reads her prayer on the wall about her marriage struggles. No mention of the s-word. She asks God for help to help her “support and respect him,” which is the closest it gets.

    What I found interesting is when she has her breakdown, it’s about her problems with her husband. When he breaks down later, guess what? It’s about his problems and sins. It’s subtle. She talks in generalities about her being a bad Christian. He cites specific sins and, as we learned, admits to being a thief (work theft). He later confesses his sins to her. He asks how could she still pray for him and love him, knowing his sins. He has confessed his sins to his goddess and she still loves him and forgives him! The scene is complete with him kneeling before her, begging for and receiving forgiveness. I’m not kidding. She is now the main breadwinner of the family (picked up additional houses to sell) and her husband is properly humbled before her.

    He shows her the stolen goods. His wife tells him he has to return them. He submits to her. He returns the stolen meds, receives a two day reprieve, and heads home. He’s distraught, but the wife is there to lead him on the next steps. She reminds him the family will pray and trust God. Good thing she’s in charge of the household.

    There is no submission, joint or otherwise. The wife is in command of the household. The scene with the foot massage and ice cream’s as described. If he cited Scripture, I could take it. But it wasn’t about re-enacting Jesus’ act. It was a husband acknowledging the wife’s role at the head of the household.

  81. TGW says:

    @asdgamer
    >
    Funny how Shirer talks a lot about leading, but where is there any teaching in the NT that teaches a husband to lead his wife? I read about how a husband is to love his wife, but nothing about him leading. Maybe he automatically leads if his wife follows him?
    >

    A husband who loves his wife will lead her, so that he can protect her from going astray. Try looking at some of these passages with that in mind.

    1 Cor. 11:3
    “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

    1 Cor. 14:34, 35
    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

    Permitted not to speak and commanded to be under obedience. Who grants permission and gives commands to her? Likely the man whose authority she serves under. Husbands given responsibility of wives’ spiritual instruction.

    Eph. 5:25-29
    “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord of the church.”

    Husbands washing their wives with the water of the word. Once again, the responsibility of spiritual instruction. He presents her, in her purity that he has nurtured, to himself. It is not for her sake. She was not made for her own sake. Eve was made for Adam. It is for his sake.

    1 Pet. 3:7
    “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

    Women are to be respected as the weaker vessel. As the church is vulnerable and weak without the living Christ, so to is a wife vulnerable and weak of spirit without her husband’s guidance and protection.

    >
    Oh, yet another goofy anti-Gamer. Try reading the Song of Solomon accurately.

    “Alpha” = “romantic and interesting and clued in to women’s sexuality and doesn’t supplicate women”

    “Beta” = “unromantic and uninteresting and clueless about women’s sexuality and supplicates women”

    Any problems with those definitions from a biblical perspective?
    >

    I read Song of Solomon and I didn’t see the words “alpha” or “beta” a single time. I also did not see “romantic”, “interesting”, “sexuality”, or “supplicate”.

    Are you reading the NPUAV? I haven’t ordered a copy of the New Pick-Up Artist’s Version of the bible yet.

  82. Oscar says:

    @ PuffyJacket says:
    September 28, 2015 at 11:59 am

    “Reality is exactly the opposite. ‘Marriageable men’ outnumber ‘marriageable women’ by a factor of at least 50:1 in this country.”

    How do you know that?

  83. Dissillusioned says:

    Yes part of submission and being subservient is to duck so God can hit the husband. That is what leaders do. They protect their underlings and take the heat. Yet, a real person of love and who looks up to their leader won’t find satisfaction in seeing their leader get clobbered whether they deserve it or not.

    The part that always gets me is when women complain about what if their husband is an idiot, abusive, etc..and whether they should follow them. My answer is that you knew what you were getting into. If you truly wanted a leader, you should’ve chosen one. Instead they start pontificating about this or that and the real answer is that they had the hots for a guy and married him without understanding or caring to understand all the ramifications. I don’t want to hear about some bimbo complaining about her idiotic husband. It was as much her fault as him to get married. Talking about divorcing him as if though she is entitled to it hurts EVERY marriage out there and potentially mine as well (if I ever get married again). Normally you see the same woman marry/date/shack up with the same kind of guy.

    My experience is that women can be very good in creating a toxic environment that creates drama and can piss off their husbands. If he gets mad or yells, then that is called emotional abuse and she can now justify divorcing him and marrying the bad boy down the road (or think that she can marry him assuming he thinks the same way). If a guy doesn’t react the way a woman thinks he will then she will say that he doesn’t care and has abandoned her emotionally (which also constitutes abuse in her mind). This emotional abuse excuse is just that: an excuse. What gets me is how the churches just buy it.

  84. Oscar says:

    @ Dissillusioned says:
    September 28, 2015 at 9:52 pm

    “My experience is that women can be very good in creating a toxic environment that creates drama and can piss off their husbands.”

    Funny you should mention that…

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/did-he-take-notes/#comment-189538

  85. GeminiXcX says:

    Media, The Church, Academia, Law, the family.

    The amount of misandry that permeates every institution of this wicked culture has got to be crushed.

    As men, we are the superior sex — physically, emotionally and mentally. It’s time we started acting like it again.

    -GXcX

  86. Dale says:

    @Oscar
    >>“Reality is exactly the opposite. ‘Marriageable men’ outnumber ‘marriageable women’ by a factor of at least 50:1 in this country.”

    >How do you know that?

    Go into any group / church / school / workplace.

    Count the number of men who do NOT deliberately make themselves unappealing to the opposite sex, and who also do not deliberately make themselves unable to fulfill the role of husband:
    – not disgusting due to being significantly overweight due to lack of self-control (Titus 2:1-5)
    – not disgraceful due to having long hair (1 Cor 11)
    – not detestable due to wearing women’s clothing (Deut 22:5); in our culture that would be dresses or skirts. And in my opinion, also the colour pink; but maybe that’s just me.
    – not unable to reasonably provide for a family at a BASIC level; not necessarily rich however
    – not treating women like they have no value, and thus he can steal from them (alimony, etc.)

    Now count the number of women who do NOT deliberately make themselves unappealing to the opposite sex, and who also do not deliberately make themselves unable to fulfill the role of husband:
    – not disgusting due to being significantly overweight due to lack of self-control (Titus 2:1-5)
    – not disgraceful due to having short hair or a shaved head (1 Cor 11)
    – not detestable due to wearing men’s clothing (Deut 22:5); in our culture that would be pants.
    – not unable to reasonably provide for the sexual needs of a husband, including being a virgin before marriage. This does not necessarily mean she is knowledgeable about various sexual things, but will be open and willing to serve her husband.
    – not treating men like they have no value, and thus she can steal from them (alimony, etc.)

    Now compare the numbers you came up with.

  87. BradA says:

    I still don’t buy your 50-1 claim Dale. I suppose I might be considered “disgustingly overweight” by some, though I have been married for over 27 years and have raised 4 children. I might not qualify by your guidelines. That said, I am not convinced more men are thin than otherwise, certainly not 50 times the same rate in women.

    I do look just like my grandfather, from a very different generation, just a foot taller. That argues that some weight certainly is biology, contrary to the harsh words otherwise. Watch that you stay off your own high horse. “Let he who stands take head lest he fall….”

  88. honeycomb says:

    BradA …

    If you need further proof (re: 50:1) just look over your family (or anyone else’s family photo’s) from the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/12/look-at-how-much-weight-weve-gained-since-the-1960s/

    And, this is just from the 1960’s til recent.

    I have photo’s of women, dressed like women should, in the early 2000th century (1910-1940) for airplane rides. An old biplane that was a three seater up front is now a one seater. Can I get that super-sized?!?! Not to mention the behavior or women today (hair, clothes, attitude and etc.).

  89. MarcusD says:

    Is it just me… (“…or has Family Life at CAF been getting a little hyper-conservative as of late?”)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=980463

  90. MarcusD says:

    How to Destroy the World

  91. it has all changed
    at my church they are just like the war room
    even if the wife does not work
    the husband has to do all domestic duties if he is at home
    and all night duties ….
    else he is not being a servant

    women want men who run the home and will do the childcare

    this guy says the greatest sacrifice a man can make is to marry a woman- not worship God
    http://www.boundless.org/blog/five-questions-with-bestselling-author-andy-crouch/
    this is the same guy who wanted to change his name to his wife’s
    https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=SdV5ifPMlnIC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=andy+and+catherine+crouch+marriage&source=bl&ots=o_8k05XrCR&sig=tcaEwEg0PQWy_gs_tsRDM4biNuQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEsQ6AEwDGoVChMI-YSqp-abyAIVhDKmCh31IwyJ#v=onepage&q=andy%20and%20catherine%20crouch%20marriage&f=false

    and is celebrated by all christians today

    this guy is another one, he wrote a book which basically shows him doing all the night duty stuff with the kids and having t work all day, his wife does not work
    https://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/the-life-you-never-expected#reviews
    his wife praises him on twitter for looking after the kids ( it used to be the other way around!!)

    he calls it true servanthood

    the men are called to support their wives,one of his church members is an MP, her husband runs the home as a servant leader so she can work!!

    same with his other pastor friend who’s wife is not a Baroness!!
    yes they believe in SUBMISSION

    but only if the man is a servant
    and in their terms servant means, willing to do what women are called to do ( misogyny is sin)

    soon christians will be telling men to stay at home and look after the kids,otherwise they are NOT good enough husbands…

    I mean these people spend their whole lives studying the bible
    are they christian?
    the first guy Andy Crouch basically moved wherever his wife got ajob…

    I mean, Godly manhood is changed
    if we told Christians even 50 years ago about what Godly manhood is, they would call it SIN!!
    now it is praised
    women are to rule over men and lead
    http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/when_complementarianism_gets_silly

    and men are to support that

    they say we should support women presidents and must believe in female submission to husband?
    but do they not have the brains to understand that a female ruler technically has authority over her husband!!!
    I don’t know what is happening

    my church called my logic stupid for pointing this out to them…
    everything is Gender neutral now…
    and all Christians live in war room type marriages…

  92. or now Andrew Wilson a famous preacher/theologian
    also looks after the kids so the wife can prepare sermons and preach at his church
    and this is called loving male leadership

    so basically female only submit if it fits their criteria…

  93. why do they do this?
    do they NOT FEAR God?

  94. greyghost says:

    Interesting video MarcusD

  95. nick012000 says:

    @honeycomb Hell, even the whores of old could quite possibly make better girlfriends than modern, “liberated” women. Here’s an article from Return of Kings, talking about a book written by a 1930s pimp.
    http://www.returnofkings.com/71288/pimping-techniques-from-the-1930s-have-become-required-in-modern-relationships

    Probably not terribly surprising, though, considering that any girl who’s ridden the cock carousel is pretty much a whore anyway.

  96. BradA says:

    Honeycomb,

    I wasn’t disputing that weight has gone up today, but I am not convinced it is 50 times as many women who are larger. 2 to 5 perhaps, but men are generally not thin either.

    I do note that I look just like my grandfather did, though about a foot taller. A significant chunk of me must be genetic. Women were not all toothpicks in the past either, even if most were not as large as today.

  97. honeycomb says:

    BradA ..

    Now that you’ve seen the outter (physical condition) .. look deeper (current re’bell’yun of women).

    50 to 1 .. I’d venture a larger (pun intended) ratio is more accurate.

  98. Rocknrollchuck says:

    Dalrock, just curious: are there any movies you would recommend as good examples of proper Christian roles in marriage?

  99. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    @Brad,

    You should work together with your wife and lead her to a more nutritious and filling diet. Having a low body fat body is amazing. I used to be overweight but now am a very fit 165 pounds. I did this by educating myself about human biology and making real changes.

    And, wow, do I feel better in every way. I have more energy, a higher sex drive (with only modern worthless sluts to satiate it, and becoming a man sluts are attracted to turns you evil. So now I have simply withdrawn), I no longer feel as much depression or anxiety as well. And the modern sluts have made positive comments about my body.

    You get fat because of insulin spikes. It’s insulin in the blood stream that causes triglycerides to break down into fatty acids and move into fat cells. Where they bloat the cells. This process, during an insulin spike, also leaves you hungry. Because now all the glycerin and triglycerides have moved out of your blood stream. So your brain stem thinks you’re starving even though you just ate.

    The solution to this is to cut down on starches and avoid bleached, non-nutritious starches like white rice or white bread. Also sugar. Stop eating refined sugar. Believe me you will start to feel really good once you are no longer putting your body through insulin spikes. And your hunger will begin to regulate itself properly.

    This is a place you can lead your entire family. By making changes to the foods in your household. Buy whole wheat bread with a good fiber content. Eat fats, proteins, and fiber. Your carbs should be things with fiber. Like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. You should not be eating refined sugar. That should only be a dessert to be eaten on special occasions.

    I’m not going to tell you that it will be easy. But these foods that create insulin spikes also cause large dopamine dumps. So you may feel addicted to this process. Unfortunately even if you are ok and accept your bodies overweight status these insulin spikes will lead to insulin resistance and then type 2 diabetes. So you damage your body to get that dopamine fix.

    1 Corinthians 6:19

    What? know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own?

    This sounds like an excellent place where you can lead your family. Good luck to you and your family!

  100. Dale says:

    Hi BradA.

    The 50 to 1 claim did not come from me. I was just responding to Oscar’s question.
    In my experiences in a 20s group at church, the ration would have been maybe 10 to 1.
    In the general church, it was closer to 25 or 30 to 1. So you are correct that 50 to 1 is excessive, at least in my area.
    Also, please note that my comparison was for people who had not even one of several different disqualifiers; weight is only one of those. For me, a man who is a healthy weight, with men’s clothing, but hair to his waist, is still disgusting. (And yes I have seen that, and yes, disgust is an appropriate characterization of how I felt.)
    Similarly, a woman who is a healthy weight, but dresses like a man, is simply not attractive to me. I am accustomed to this, given that most women either do not know how to be feminine or refuse to do so, but I still find it a barrier to any attraction otherwise possible.

    I also cannot comment on the obesity rates in your area. They will be different in each city or culture. For example, when I was in Ukraine, the rate, including both those merely significantly overweight and those who were obese, was less than 2% (two percent).* Bad food, lack of exercise, and an acceptance of obesity is simply far less prevalent there.

    There may be genetic contributors to weight issues as you suggest; I’m not a doctor, so I cannot comment.
    Regardless of any genetics however, if any person eats less calories than they burn, they will lose weight. And vice versa. This is a biological reality. If a person “claims” they have to eat more than necessary for sustenance (e.g. thyroid disorders), then I cannot comment on their medical claims, but the above fact remains.

    And I will admit that I am 6.5% overweight. So I am quite aware what happens when I do not make my health a high priority. So no high-horse intended.🙂 I would be far worse if I did not walk for 45 to 60 minutes, 4 to 5 times a week.

    *Note that this assessment was based on what I saw, walking around, going to church, eating in restaurants and shopping in grocery stores. If a disproportionate portion of the the overweight/obese people stayed home, which is likely, then I would not have seen those.

  101. PuffyJacket says:

    The exact number is less important than the general observation that, contrary to popular opinion, marriageable men are in far greater supply than marriageable women. Most individuals here completing the slotting exercise described by Dale will also end up with vastly skewed ratios, be it 10:1, 25:1, 50:1, or worse. This paranoia about the “shortage” of single men for college-educated women is an utter joke.

    On a side note, if anyone here somehow arrived at a ratio of less than 2:1, please let us know so we can “arbitrage” this difference away.

  102. Tom K. says:

    @seriouslyserving.

    “I just wanted to point out a positive, given that many Christians will be going to see the movie. Even if it isn’t strong on teaching submission, it will lead them to God, who will.”

    Nin-sequitur. Error does NOT lead to truth. In fact, it will always serve to CONFIRM one in one’s error. These movies are POISON and the church and the world would have been better served if they had NEVER been made.

  103. Oscar says:

    @ Dale says:
    September 28, 2015 at 11:41 pm

    “Go into any group / church / school / workplace.”

    Okay. I attended church last Sunday.

    “Count the number of men who do NOT deliberately make themselves unappealing to the opposite sex, and who also do not deliberately make themselves unable to fulfill the role of husband:
    – not disgusting due to being significantly overweight due to lack of self-control (Titus 2:1-5)”

    Well, according to the CDC, “The overall prevalence of obesity did not differ between men and women in 2011–2012”, so that one’s a wash.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db131.htm

    “– not disgraceful due to having long hair (1 Cor 11)”

    Didn’t see any last Sunday. Don’t see it much anymore. Must be out of style.

    “– not detestable due to wearing women’s clothing (Deut 22:5); in our culture that would be dresses or skirts. And in my opinion, also the colour pink; but maybe that’s just me.”

    And in my opinion, that would include “skinny jeans”, which I didn’t see at church, but I do see on many a young man these days.

    “– not unable to reasonably provide for a family at a BASIC level; not necessarily rich however”

    Hard to tell just from looking at someone, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate among men 20-24 years old is actually higher than that of women of the same age.

    http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm

    “– not treating women like they have no value, and thus he can steal from them (alimony, etc.)”

    There’s a lot more one can steal from another than money. Again, very difficult to discern from just looking at a group.

    “Now count the number of women who do NOT deliberately make themselves unappealing to the opposite sex, and who also do not deliberately make themselves unable to fulfill the role of husband:
    – not disgusting due to being significantly overweight due to lack of self-control (Titus 2:1-5)”

    Again, it’s a wash. See CDC stats linked above.

    “– not disgraceful due to having short hair or a shaved head (1 Cor 11)”

    I didn’t see any at church, but I do see some of this. Not much, though. Must be out of style.

    “– not detestable due to wearing men’s clothing (Deut 22:5); in our culture that would be pants.”

    I disagree that pants are inherently masculine. See the skinny jeans I referenced above. Or, try wearing a pair of ladies’ low rise hip huggers for a day and report back with how manly they made you feel.

    “– not unable to reasonably provide for the sexual needs of a husband, including being a virgin before marriage. This does not necessarily mean she is knowledgeable about various sexual things, but will be open and willing to serve her husband.”

    Again, hard to tell just by looking. However, the National Sex Survey does show young women outpacing young men on this one.

    http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/graph.html

    I notice you didn’t mention anything about men’s sexual behavior. The Bible makes no such distinctions. Why do you?

    “– not treating men like they have no value, and thus she can steal from them (alimony, etc.)”

    Again, hard to tell just by looking, but we do know that women file around 70% of divorces, so they’re outpacing men in this category as well.

    “Now compare the numbers you came up with.”

    Okay. It does look as though there may be more marriagable men than women, but it doesn’t look like anywhere near 50:1.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s