Servant leaders mind their own business.

Complementarian/CBMW Women’s Studies professor Mary Kassian explains that an essential quality of a servant leader is to mind his own business in 7 Misconceptions about Submission (archive):

A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.

Note that she is describing the new family model created by Complementarians after being enlightened by the 1960s;  it is not to be mistaken for biblical headship and submission.  Under headship and submission the wife is to win a sinning husband without a word, and a husband is to wash his wife in the water of the word.

In the new model of servant leadership it is the exact opposite.  Husbands are forbidden to call out the sin of their wives, and wives have the obligation to wash their husbands in the water of the word and avoid the newly defined feminist sin of lacking moxie.  While husbands are forbidden from attempting to even encourage their wives to follow the instruction of the Bible, wives must closely monitor their husbands for any and all possible error and punish them if they transgress (emphasis mine):

No brain-dead doormats or spineless bowls of Jello here! Submission is neither mindless nor formulaic nor simplistic. Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

Again, only wives are to take on this new cross dressing version of headship in the Complementarian view (this is what distinguishes Complementarians from Egalitarians).  Husbands must not try to encourage or coerce their wives in any way into following the instructions of the Bible.  Most importantly, husbands must never encourage their wives to honor their roles as wives and submit to their husbands.  This is core to the Complementarian new theology of marriage, as Kathy Keller explained at FamilyLife:

If there are husbands out there that are saying, “Yes, I’m the head.  This is good teaching.  I like this head stuff.”  It’s respectful submission between equals.  Submission is something that a wife gives.  It’s not something that a husband can demand.  Christ emptied Himself.  He didn’t grasp equality with God.  It was a voluntary submission.  This proves that headship does not imply superiority, nor does submission imply inferiority.

One of the commenters on Kassian’s blog pointed out the problem with Kassian’s insistence that submission is optional on the part of the wife:

Regarding the answer to so-called myth #4: (“Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!!”):

Immature screaming caps and exclamations aside, this is patently unbiblical. The Bible does not say that “For a husband is the head of his wife if he asks and she gives her consent to lead.” Biblically, she consents to submit, and he consents to lead, when they consent to marriage. So yes, submission is “granted” but at the alter, but it is not revokable (except by death or divorce) and is not situational.

This enraged Kassian, who replied with an emotional rant that otherwise husbands will force their wives to watch porn!

The fact that you are even questioning this misconception indicates to me how emphatically it must be stated. The Bible says that a wife is to “submit herself.” Furthermore, the relationship between husband and wife is correlated to the relationship between God the Father and Son. The fact that the Son willingly submitted himself to the Father is paradigmatic and highly important. It was Christ’s perogative to refuse; the Father did not force Him to obey. Christ willingly submitted Himself. I have counselled with far too many women whose husbands demanded submission as their right, and forced their wives to watch porn, or participate in other ungodliness. Women need to know that according to the Bible, submission is their choice and responsibility, and NOT their husband’s right.

This is as Cane Caldo explains the problem with nearly all women teaching submission today. Instead of teaching submission, they focus on teaching caveats (not submitting). The irony is that obedience to husbands is one of the few things women are instructed to teach, and instead of teaching it women like Kassian and Keller teach everything but obedience.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Crossdressing Theology, Mary Kassian, Rebellion, Servant Leader, Submission, Tim and Kathy Keller, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

180 Responses to Servant leaders mind their own business.

  1. Pingback: Servant leaders mind their own business. | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: Servant leaders mind their own business. | Manosphere.com

  3. As always you could flip the script andwatch the ourage flow when they’re caught in a double-standard.

  4. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    I have counselled with far too many women whose husbands demanded submission as their right, and forced their wives to watch porn, or participate in other ungodliness.

    More of this nonsense. Forcing a woman to participate in pornography or other sexual activity against her will is a serious crime in every state/province in North America. You guys should ask these kooky feminists to name some of the Christian husbands who have been convicted of forcing their wives (or children?) to participate in porn movies. As this is constantly stated, these women should have no problem fingering some of the real culprits.

    The epidemic of thousands of Christian husbands and fathers who force their wives and kids into “ungodliness” is something I’d be glad to call out and scoff at. Unfortunately, I’m just not seeing any of it.

    Boxer

  5. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    I’m with boxer.

    This woman at CBMW is a jezebel and false teacher, who really shouldn’t be teaching jack shit.

    The simple fact that she is “women’s studies Professor” is an exercise in futility and spiritual and intellectual dishonesty – AND a conflict of interest, for the sake of holiness.

  6. nastynate says:

    This new equalist theology is terrible to see in action. Is causes so much unnecessary suffering, especially to children. I have male family who are enduring the fallout from this garbage, so I can speak on the subject from direct observation. When these pastors and spiritual leaders teach this trash, it’s like going to the hospital to have a cut stitched together, only to have the physician take an axe and cut your whole arm off, and then set you on fire. It is incredible betrayal, absolute madness. Dalrock, I hope eventually you will have the time to author a book on the red-pill from the christian perspective. I have difficulty getting Christian men to read the Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi. They tend to get to the secular portions of the book, like “Spinning Plates”, and then tune out. I would love to have a resource in hard copy I could buy as gifts to give to the MANY Christian men I am friends with who are confused, suffering, and need guidance in the world that is quickly turning into a madhouse.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    That posting from 2011 begins :

    This morning I had an interesting conversation with Rachel Held Evans,

    Is there really any reason to continue reading beyond this point?

  8. The Question says:

    “I have counselled [sic] with far too many women whose husbands demanded submission as their right, and forced their wives to watch porn, or participate in other ungodliness.”

    This kind of intellectually dishonest statement is what enrages me so much about the entire debate. They do not argue in good faith. They know what people mean when they say wives need to submit to their husbands, and they know what the Bible says about it and what godly submission looks like. So they create strawmen like this or the “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” ploy to slander the other side by implying that this is what we are thinking of or that we think this kind of behavior is acceptable. It isn’t; we know it, and she knows it, and she knows we know it.

    “A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!!”

    Would she argue the same goes for what wives expect from husbands? Or do they just need to “man up and shut up?”

  9. LeeLee says:

    One issue I have noticed consistently with CBMW is that they insist that the submission a wife offers to her husband correlates to the submission Jesus offered the Father, while the Bible instead teaches (in Ephesians 5) that it correlates to the submission the Church offers to Jesus.

    At first glance this might not change things that much, but the two relationships are completely different. I think it’s really different to talk about Jesus choosing to submit to the Father given that they are both God, both the same in essence, than it is to talk about the church choosing to submit to Jesus.

    Because imagine the ugliness of talking about whether and when we as the church decide to submit to Jesus? Husbands aren’t Jesus obviously, but THAT is the metaphor, and it’s worthwhile to note that Eph 5 places no limit on the wife’s submission.

  10. Don Quixote says:

    Next time one of these wannabe christian feminists wheels out this crap, try this verse on for size:
    Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

  11. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    Pedat Ebediyah says:
    December 21, 2015 at 1:33 pm

    I’m with boxer.

    This woman at CBMW is a jezebel and false teacher, who really shouldn’t be teaching jack shit.

    The simple fact that she is “women’s studies Professor” is an exercise in futility and spiritual and intellectual dishonesty […]

    Riffing off of that, may I point out that rebellion is rebellion, but rebellion with academic credentials is scholarship? So, show some respect for the scholarship, please.

    (snicker)

  12. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    And another thing…

    Since this woman wants to talk about RIGHTS. What she doesn’t get is that a woman doesn’t have the right NOT to submit!

    This is what is meant by dying to self, taking up your cross, your body not being your own, and a host of other things that a fruits of the humility and submission of Christ, our ensample.

    Dumb heifer!

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    Also she claims to have been married for 29 years, in an article written in 2011. So she married in 1982. Assume that she was 22 to 25 years of age at the time, that means she was 51 to 54 at the time of writing the article. Looks like another aging, Boomer, 2nd stage feminist who lives in a time bubble.

    I did like the goalpost shifting from “obey him” to “forced to watch porn”, it’s a classic example . Thanks for pointing it out.

  14. Jesus submitted himself to God’s will, because he limited himself from eternal knowledge. If one knows more than the other, who should make the choice?

    And she’s wrong about how husbands and wives are to relate. They relate as God to man, not God to Jesus on earth. Who is surprised at this point the preaching of completely ungodly things? I honestly just try to avoid stupid people, one stupid remark can take hours of work to undo.

  15. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    Commenting in passing, The Question [@December 21, 2015 at 1:49 pm] mentions:

    “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”

    You know, this feminist catch-phrase always reminds me of the Bill Clinton rhetorical ploy:

    “safe, legal, and rare”

    Nothing controversial about abortions being safe, nor rare, that I can recall, but maybe the collective memory of our host + the commenters + the lurkers could lead us to citations about that, which are unfamiliar to me.

    But I doubt it.

    So … let’s parse “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” in the same way I just did for former President Clinton’s little gem.

    Does Feminism (or anyone else) genuinely object to women being “barefoot” (in general, or any particular context)?

    Jokes about Imelda Marcos’ shoe closet (etc.) aside, we know the answer is “no”.

    How about that “in the kitchen” thing?

    Leaving aside for the moment the observation made by Dalrock and others that many young women today consider it almost a badge of honour to not know how to boil water, Feminism isn’t mostly motivated by women not wanting to know which end of a paring knife to hold.

    Rather, in the same (rhetorical) way that Bill Clinton’s sentence is about smuggling the word “legal” past an inattentive audience or reader, by placing it at the middle position of that triplet of adjectives, so too with “pregnant”, here.

    Feminist claim: women are just like men, except only for women’s ability to get pregnant …

    Feminist rhetorical boilerplate (translated into plain English): … and they shouldn’t be made different, by being made pregnant, either.

    The logical (yes, yes, I know: humor me) end-point of this, of course, is human extinction.

    I wonder how much of feminist ideology can be boiled down to a woman, “on behalf of all women”, objecting to all pregnancy, “on principle”, or thereabouts.

  16. Looking Glass says:

    They’re just Jezebels in church clothes. Truly.

  17. Looking Glass says:

    @Yac-yac:

    The core of Feminism is always the hatred of being Women. That’s why they always destroy anything feminine in nature.

  18. Damn Crackers says:

    The language she uses is the same as the definition of submission in the BDSM community. To them, the submissive is the one with all the power. She (the submissive) is the one who can turn on and off all the domination of the other partner.

    Strange model of domination/submission to use for a Christian community.

  19. Went to a wedding today and all of the wife’s duties towards her new husband were removed to basically just her ‘being happy’, no joke. His roles of course are to be everything and to make her his number one, literally, that’s what the priest said, she is now his number one, in everything and his job is to make her happy to the point of laying down his life in sacrifice as Jesus did on the cross. It was an eye opener to see it in broad daylight like that..

    I couldn’t clap for the couple or laugh at the snide jokes made at the groom’s expense. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels. Women have been made idols in the modern day Church.

  20. So, what would Kassian say about the commandment, Honor they Father and Mother?

    Is that ‘Honoring’ subject to the same optional, subjective, contextual conditions for submission she presumes is a wife’s prerogative with her husband?

  21. Dave says:

    The question must be asked: if these women claim to be believers, what part of the Bible do they believe without question?

  22. Oh, and ‘Servant Leader’ appeared out of nowhere. First time I have heard that phrase being used in a South African wedding. Sounds like a lousy job, not one I would want to take.

  23. Dave says:

    I couldn’t clap for the couple or laugh at the snide jokes made at the groom’s expense. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels. Women have been made idols in the modern day Church.

    It’s going to get worse, unfortunately. The deification of Woman in America will get to a point that the very image of the United States will be represented by The Great Whore who rides the beast during the time of the Tribulation:

    Revelation 17:
    3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

    4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

    5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

  24. Novaseeker says:

    It turns marriage, for both parties, into a completely optional affair. If the wife’s submission is optional (which is what she is implying by her insistence that it can and should be withdrawn at a wife’s discretion), then a husband’s sacrifice is likewise optional and subject to being withdrawn at his discretion as well. Under this model, neither husband nor wife has any legitimate expectations from the marriage, but only responsibilities to God. A wife cannot demand that her husband lead, or that he make sacrifices for the family, and a husband cannot demand that a wife submit to his leadership. It’s all a series of endless options, endless assessment and re-assessment, endless practicing of submission/sacrifice and withdrawal of it, and so on. In summary, the exact opposite of a covenant type relationship.

    The real crime is that the ideas are not complicated and are being twisted for the very specific reason of conforming to the larger marital culture, which is informed by the rampant individualism and spirit of personal rebellion that prevails in the secular culture. It is not just anti-Biblical, it is deeply antithetical to any legitimate Christian spirit when it comes to such matters, and is instead taking its cue not from its God, but from the increasingly anti-Christian ambient culture. This is not just the tail wagging the dog. It’s downright demonic, and what these people are doing is nothing less than spreading evil ideas under the guise of Christian teaching. A true contemporary example of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

  25. Boxer says:

    Christian radfem Mary Kassian is on twitter, folks.

    Join me in having a laugh at her expense. It’s good, cheap entertainment for your holiday season.

  26. “A husband wife does not have the right to demand or extract submission provision from his wife her husband. Submission Provision is HER HIS choice— her his responsibility… it is NOT his her right!! Not ever. She He is to “submit herself himself”— deciding when and how to submit provide is her his call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s wife’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church submit to their husband’s authority as the Church submits to Christ’s authority—not to make his wife submit. her husband provide”

    Sounds absurd? That’s because it is. Through her twisted reading of the New Testament, Mary has unwittingly freed men from their moral obligations to their wives when she attempted to from wives from their obligations to their husbands. Now if a husband CHOOSES to quit his 75k/year job to be a “stay-at-home Dad” so he can get more leisure time while his wife works a 60hr/week job just make up for the loss of income, she is required to give him the grace of choosing to provide for his family on his own terms. Remember, it’s not her right to demand this of her husband! That means no guilt tripping, gossiping to her friends or getting the pastor involved to put pressure on him. Toughen up ladies!

    Mary should stick to teaching younger women how to love their husbands, not stab them in the back by spreading rebellion.

  27. Neguy says:

    I read the Keller’s “Meaning of Marriage” three years ago in a blue pill frame of mind. Though even then the plate smashing incident set off my detector, I rated it as the best Christian marriage book I’d ever read. I just re-read it with a red pill lens. While there is much that is excellent in it, I was shocked at how bad so much of it was. I’m actually in the process of writing a detailed critique of it and am already up to 10,000 words, including excerpts from the book. I expect up to another 5,000 before I am done.
    I definitely noticed that Kathy explicitly states that submission is a voluntary act when in fact it is clearly unambiguously commanded in the scripture. It’s no more voluntary than “thou shalt not steal”.
    @LeeLee’s observations were one I hadn’t considered, and the Kellers make that analogy in their book. That’s one I hadn’t caught. So who knows what I might have even missed?

  28. Opus says:

    Ephesians Chapter 5 Verse 22 KJV reads: “Wives, submit yourself unto your own husbands as to the Lord”. What could be clearer than that and note the use of the word ‘own’. I would say that Mrs Kassian’s desperate attempt to find wiggle-room would at any other time have been regarded as a dangerous heresy and a crueler slander of the faith than anything even Nietzsche or Voltaire dreamed of.

    I had neighbours; a married couple without children who, whenever one entered their living room one could see the Television playing a Porn Movie – even when she was ironing – and this at a time when the theory was that England was a VHS Porn free zone. One had to pretend that nothing was going on and that such images were as natural as if the Television had been showing Tennis form Wimbledon. They also had an Alsatian Dog but I do not know whether those two facts are in any way related. In fact I also knew two brothers – Americans, actually, and keen to let you know it – who apparently had Porn movies playing non-stop in their homes and at the same time in different rooms. I think that has more to do with the fact that this was the tail end of the sexual revolution at which time we were supposed to let it all hang out and the use of Porn movies was a sign of liberation and liberalism whereas now it is perhaps more easily seen as a sign of probable sexual deviancy and to use the current nonsense jargon an indication that one is about to be groomed. They were just being cool though nowadays it would just look creepy.

  29. The Question says:

    @Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment (“yac-yac”)

    I actually just bring up Jennifer Lawrence now whenever someone brings up the barefoot and pregnant trope. The Hollywood actress is not unattractive, young, rich, featured in world-known films, hobnobs with fellow celebrities….and complains during a magazine interview about how no one asks her out and she spends Saturday nights alone. In other words, she “has it all” that young women are taught is more important than marriage, but she doesn’t have the thing she wants most, which barefoot, pregnant women in the kitchen have because they’re not alone on Saturday nights.

  30. Novaseeker says:

    I definitely noticed that Kathy explicitly states that submission is a voluntary act when in fact it is clearly unambiguously commanded in the scripture. It’s no more voluntary than “thou shalt not steal”.

    Right. I mean you *can* say that “you have no right to demand that someone not steal from you, that is an obligation they owe to God, and not a right you have not to be stolen from” and all that, but really. I mean at the end of the day, because these are obligations to God, we do have reasonable expectations that other people will follow them.

  31. Peter Blood says:

    Here we are:

  32. Isa says:

    @Opus
    I have seen similar things. Quite odd really. Outside the home, there is a mixed sex bar that on Sundays plays porn on the widescreen TVs. Interesting to watch the men not know where to look, the slags on screen or the ones in real life.

    OT but as a barrister/solicitor (I forget which), exactly why has “gay” marriage been accepted by poly marriages have not? Seems much better legal foundation for polygamy, although perhaps the true issue is that “gay” marriage requires removing gendered language from forms whilst poly requires entirely new forms to be done up.

  33. I couldn’t clap for the couple or laugh at the snide jokes made at the groom’s expense. It just seemed so wrong on so many levels. Women have been made idols in the modern day Church.

    One more glaring illustration of how the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit.

  34. Remember what Jesus did in Matthew 19. When asked what the grounds for divorce were, he skipped the Law and went back to the creation story in Genesis. That is an appropriate place to go when dealing with women like this, because the last thing they want to hear is that they’re cursed and part of their curse is that their husbands will rule over them.

    “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

    The word desire is only used two other times in scripture, once as a desire to overcome and conquer, the other in the sense of sexual desire. Red pill wisdom should be sufficient to understand that the meaning of the word in Genesis 3:16 encompasses both definitions because “Your desire shall be for your husband” is where female hypergamy came from. First she tests the man seeking to know whether she can overcome him (sh!t testing) and when he passes the tests and proves himself fit the desire becomes sexual.

    “He shall rule over you.” Paul didn’t pull Ephesians 5:22-24 out of thin air, neither did Peter write 1st Peter 3:1-6 after a bad hair day. Both of those passages point back to the curse of Genesis 3:16 and according to God, All Women Are Like That. Yes, the Holy Spirit can give a woman the power to overcome the effects of the curse (but so few actually do so) but the curse is always there and will never go away. All the crap Mary Kassian is spewing is merely evidence that she’s still trying to conquer men.

  35. HayeksGhost says:

    Commenting in passing, The Question [@December 21, 2015 at 1:49 pm] mentions:

    “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”

    Whenever someone tells me that I follow it up with ‘I was going to shoot for illiterate too but then I realized she’d at least need to know how to read a cookbook’.

  36. The Question says:

    @HayeksGhost

    Brilliant! I think I’m going to use that from now on instead of trying to appeal to reason. Old habits die hard, I suppose. Unfortunately, I’m sure everyone will take the remark seriously, but who cares? They’ll get angry, anyway.

  37. JDG says:

    I didn’t read all the comments at girls gone nuts, but Kudos to Phil and MzEllen for standing up for the truth. Shame on the feminist thinking women that are sowing seeds of rebellion (which is idolatry) on that site.

  38. JDG says:

    As always you could flip the script andwatch the ourage flow

    A husband wife does not have the right to demand or extract submission love from his wife her husband. Submission Love is HER HIS choice—her his responsibility… it is NOT his her right!! Not ever. She He is to “submit herself” “love his wife” — deciding when and how to submit love is her his call.

    Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband wife sins.

    Let the screeching begin.

  39. JDG says:

    women’s studies Professor = feminist

  40. JDG says:

    One issue I have noticed consistently with CBMW is that they insist that the submission a wife offers to her husband correlates to the submission Jesus offered the Father, while the Bible instead teaches (in Ephesians 5) that it correlates to the submission the Church offers to Jesus.

    Exactly! I caught that too. I don’t think it was unintentional on the writer’s part. I am pretty sure that she knows her view doesn’t work in the proper context (the Church in submission to Christ).

  41. Pingback: Servant leaders mind their own business. | Reaction Times

  42. greyghost says:

    A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!!

    I wonder what her response will be to the husband that gets a vasectomy or some gandarusa and spends his time and money on his girl friend or his deer lease.

    “you have no right to demand shit from your husband so saith the Lord. Now get in that kitchen like I told you if you want to remain a Christian wife” Those women followers really do need and want to be spoken to like that.

  43. JDG says:

    Went to a wedding today and all of the wife’s duties towards her new husband were removed to basically just her ‘being happy’, no joke.

    This is why I don’t like to go to weddings anymore (and haven’t been to one in years). I’m pretty sure that the last wedding I attended which included “love, honor, and obey” in the wife’s vows was my own.

  44. JDG says:

    Mary should stick to teaching younger women how to love their husbands, not stab them in the back by spreading rebellion.

    I would prefer she stop teaching altogether. She needs to repent and submit herself to her own husband (who probably needs to learn that he is the authority in his home – not his wife).

  45. infowarrior1 says:

    @JDG

    Not gonna happen until god breaks her if he had mercy. That she may repent.

  46. 2084GO says:

    “It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. ”

    When I was dating I generally found white men to be considerate and affectionate which naturally inspired the same in me toward them. There were some other demographics of men that were not as well behaved and made being with them almost unbearable so I dumped them quickly and focused on white guys til I finally met my super sweet hubbie.

    Really, white women don’t know how good they got it!

    As black women we grow up surrounded by white society but we rarely consider that we should make a dating plan that reflects the demographics of our country. Most of us exclusively date black men even when they consist of a very small minority of the overall population. If our dating patterns reflected the US population patterns, a lot more of us would be married.

  47. Neguy says:

    @Artisanal Toad,

    The Keller are already ahead of you. They redefine God’s curse in terms of men abusing headship, not women usurping it. Here’s what Kathy writes in the Meaning of Marriage:

    Under the influence of the curse in Genesis, every human culture has found a way to interpret male headship in a way that has marginalized and oppressed women, and it’s usually the women who notice, and object, to this treatment first

    She elsewhere says:

    I am not unaware of God’s warning that sin will lead me to try to dominate women (Genesis 3:16)

    They also redefine the world helper from Genesis.

    One thing I notice in the book is that Kathy’s passages have far more feminist tilt than Tim. It’s the pattern I’ve observed that higher profile conservative pastors have a tendency to surround themselves with women (or allow women to glom onto them) who have a more feminist slant than the pastor himself. We see this with Keller both in his wife, and at least one other person in his circle I won’t mention by name.

  48. Neguy says:

    I would strong urge people not to unload on Mary Kassian on Twitter. While it may be gratifying, I don’t believe it is the type of response that is worth of the calling with which we’ve been called. What’s more, it makes the Christian manosphere look bad and makes it more likely that if someone like Keller were to see and read this, he’d apply a discount to what is said instead of engaging with it seriously.

  49. @ LeeLee

    “One issue I have noticed consistently with CBMW is that they insist that the submission a wife offers to her husband correlates to the submission Jesus offered the Father, while the Bible instead teaches (in Ephesians 5) that it correlates to the submission the Church offers to Jesus.”

    I haven’t noticed this until you mentioned it. Good eye on spotting this.

  50. Neguy says:

    Here’s what Kathy Keller had to say on the voluntary (translation: optional) nature of submission:

    Let me emphasize that Jesus’s willing acceptance of this role was wholly voluntary, a gift to his Father. I discovered here that my submission in marriage was a gift I offered, not a duty coerced from me.

  51. teaching caveats

    Copyright, trademark, coin….something, this little perfect term.

  52. RICanuck says:

    I agree that husbands cannot demand submission from their wives. If she refuses to submit, that is her sin. Wives cannot demand love from their husbands. If he refuses to love that is his sin. Sin in marriage is between the spouse and God, but both will bear the consequences of the sins of each other.

    Now, wives need to be reminded that God asks that they submit to their husbands. To do otherwise is a sin. Pastors are quite fond of reminding husbands to love their wives, and if they are bitches that means that got to love harder! How many men reading this have heard the ‘If you loved me……..” formulation?

    Wives in the present day need reminders. Not too often or they will tune out, and do not get angry, a simple “That was rebellious.” should be sufficient. But don’t wait around for her to agree, go do something else.

    It seems that a serious problem in the Western world is that men are afraid of women. “Perfect love casts out fear”. Does fear drive out love? I think so. If we are to love our wives, we need to have no fear of them. If they are never reminded of their sins, they will have a terrible shock when they stand before the Throne of Judgement. I believe that Jesus will not force a soul to be judged, but that those who refuse Judgement, will face eternity in Hell. “Not all who say ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven”.

    If we love our wives as Christ loves the church, we want them to be prepared to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That means they should at least attempt to respect, and submit to their husbands. We need to remind them without fear and with the love that hopes they may be worthy of the promises of Christ.

  53. feeriker says:

    “It seems that a serious problem in the Western world is that men are afraid of westernwomen.”

    Fixed for clarity, and yes, why wouldn’t they be? Remember: all any western woman has to do in a fleeting moment of horvagination is pick up a phone and get merely the first syllable of the word “abuse!” out of her mouth and directed at the right person, and the western man’s life is over.

  54. Yet, the husband is commanded to love the wife as Christ loves the church. The language of Ephesians 5 in terms of presenting her as spotless and without blemish demonstrates a major responsibility of the husband is to hold his wife accountable. This is reinforced by Revelation 3:19, where the Risen and Ascendent Lord said “Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten. Be zealous therefore and repent.” A rebuke is oral, chastening is done with a rod.

    This forces the question of what standard the husband is to hold his wife accountable to, and I find it hard to believe a husband is not required to hold his wife accountable to do the things she was commanded by God to do. In Ephesians 5:22-24 she was commanded to submit to her husband in everything, as unto the Lord. In 1st Peter 3:1 she was commanded to submit to their husbands without a word even if their husbands are disobedient to the Word.

    It is certainly a point of contention in these parts as to what techniques a husband might use to enforce his authority in holding his wife accountable, but it cannot be denied that the husband is commanded to do so because depending on how you look at it, “he shall rule over you” is just as much of a curse on the husband as it is on the wife. The husband who does not rule over his wife is simply asking for trouble, even though men really wish they could have a peaceful egalitarian marriage (an oxymoron if I ever heard one).

    1st Peter 3:7 admonishes the husband to live with his wife in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel. Again, this is within the context of pointing back to the curse, and husbands should understand his the wife is a hypergamous and possibly even feral creature who must be surrounded by strong walls of accountability and oversight or her hamster will spin her out of control to her own destruction. The protestations of Mary Kassian is evidence of a woman consumed by the power of the curse seeking to use rhetoric to overcome men and control them.

  55. @RICanuck

    Does fear drive out love? I think so.

    No. Look at how many times we are told to fear God. To work out our salvation in trembling and fear. Yet we are also told to Love the Lord our God with all our hearts and all our mind and all our strength. Fear is a healthy part of a relationship when the subordinate fears the senior. It will destroy the relationship if the senior fears the subordinate because it indicates the subordinate actually has the power and thus the senior is not in control.

  56. RICanuck says:

    @Artisanal

    Do you really think that the men who fear their wives and say, “Yes, dear.”, and “Happy wife, happy life”, are truly loving? That is the fear of which I speak.

    I do not speak of the fear of The Lord.

  57. feeriker says:

    Here’s what Kathy Keller had to say on the voluntary (translation: optional) nature of submission:

    Let me emphasize that Jesus’s willing acceptance of this role was wholly voluntary, a gift to his Father. I discovered here that my submission in marriage was a gift I offered, not a duty coerced from me.

    Chew on this, Kathy: if Jesus had NOT accepted his role wllingly, what use would he have been to either mankind or to God’s plan for mankind?

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but what conceivable use to her husband is a wife who doesn’t submit to him, voluntarily or otherwise?

    It boggles my mind that “Christian” women who wouldn’t dare even think of violating a civil contract or covenant (at least one involving anything other than marriage) for fear of the penalties to be suffered so cavalierly dismiss a contract/covenant that imposed by God, He with the power to enforce the most terrible penalties imaginable for violating it. It makes me think that TFH has a point when he asserts that women don’t really believe in God or His comnandments, given as much contempt as they show both.

  58. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Submission is HER choice — her responsibility . . . it is NOT his right!! Not ever.

    Let’s demonstrate the utter stupidity of this statement with a little game: Take out “submission” and replace it with one of the many other behaviors or virtues that the church has traditionally expected to see spouses live out in marriage. For added fun, we’ll even play this out under the assumption that these actions are being asked of the husband.

    For example, didn’t St. Peter tell husbands to live with their wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel? Sorry ladies, showing honor and understanding is HIS choice . . . It is NOT your right! Not ever.

    Also, wasn’t there traditionally some sort of call to the husband to demonstrate fidelity to the wife and be faithful to her alone? Bollocks to that as well — faithfulness and fidelity are HIS choice . . . it is NOT your right!! Not ever.

    To sum it up: Marriage is a sacred vow we take to serve each other with God’s love and to show each other a selfless devotion as we live out the journey together. But don’t ever go thinking you have any right to hold me to that.

  59. greyghost says:

    feeriker
    Women don’t believe in God. Women just want the title of “Christian women” They will only follow scripture if that is what it takes to be seen and treated as a “Christian woman”.

  60. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    In marriage, as outlined by these rebellious Jezebellian busters, it seems that ambivalence and plausible deniability of anything that our Master “expects” of us is the course of the day.

    They choose the poison of rebellion thinking its the oh so gosh darn good cheap wine from their nearby Trader Joe’s.

    I’d like to think this is all a dream we’re having, we roll over and kiss our dear wives on the cheek, then roll back over and give thanks for such a gosh darn goodly wife who will ride or die for me.

    Then we woke up again.

  61. enrique says:

    Thinking about this post of Dalrock and submission, I wonder what the Biblical response will be to the below, or the Fiqh in Islam, since it doesn’t involve an actual person. Does that “thing” have rights (like a pet?). What would be the religious perspective, particularly for the disabled. Not the traditional perspective necessarily, but even the liberal end of the spectrum.

    http://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-campaign-against-sex-robots-raises-red-flag-for-violence-and-victimization-calls-for-standards/

    The comments, none too kind…sounds like there will be Gamergatian push back on this.

  62. 2084GO says:

    Forget sexbots, they won’t make a splash. The real masturbatory game changer will be in VR. Transhumanism is the future and while robots will fit under that category, transexuals already do. We are going to see more hetero men having sex with transexuals than we will robots. The reasons for that are numerous which I won’t go into here, but some are obvious. Medical science/technology will create some amazing trans-humans in the future.

  63. cptnemo2013 says:

    Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.

  64. Looking Glass says:

    @Neguy:

    Notice something that Kathy Keller is doing in that statement: Marriage is a choice. She is utterly rejecting that vows create requirements. She’s actually utterly rejecting the concept of what a “vow” means. I would normally suggest she hope the Lord isn’t as loose with His commitment to his covenants.

    Not that salvation will be there for Jezebels.

  65. Dave says:

    This is not just the tail wagging the dog. It’s downright demonic, and what these people are doing is nothing less than spreading evil ideas under the guise of Christian teaching. A true contemporary example of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    But where are the true ministers of the Gospel calling out these heretics? Apostle Paul did not hesitate to call out Apostle Peter, and he did so publicly, when he realized that the latter was in error. Where are the ministers in America, doing what they are supposed to do?

  66. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    There’s a new “Divorce Porn” show in town.

    http://www.bravotv.com/girlfriends-guide-to-divorce

  67. JDG says:

    But where are the true ministers of the Gospel calling out these heretics?

    Well he’s not famous, but here is one guy:

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/rebellious_wives.htm

  68. 2084GO says:

    Opus,
    ” I think that has more to do with the fact that this was the tail end of the sexual revolution at which time we were supposed to let it all hang out and the use of Porn movies was a sign of liberation…”

    I discuss the 3 (yes, THREE) Sexual Revolutions here;
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/why-didnt-he-think-of-that/#comment-197222

    Isa,
    “why has “gay” marriage been accepted but poly marriages have not?”

    That’s coming too. Give it 4-5 years, probably less.

    Boxer,
    “I have counselled with far too many women whose husbands demanded submission as their right, and forced their wives to watch porn, or participate in other ungodliness.”

    “More of this nonsense. Forcing a woman to participate in pornography or other sexual activity against her will is a serious crime in every state/province in North America. You guys should ask these kooky feminists to name some of the Christian husbands who have been convicted of forcing their wives (or children?) to participate in porn movies. ”

    She said “watch porn” not “participate in porn movies”. There’s a difference. Pressuring, badgering, nagging one’s spouse to watch porn is not a “serious crime in every state/province” but I don’t know why anyone would want their spouse to watch extremely well endowed porn actors. The natural human tendency is to compare and they would inevitably come up short. Then the wife starts fantasizing about that during sex with her husband. Then she starts watching porn on her own and masturbating to those images, not the image of her husband. Then she starts following the links on the site to the “have sex tonight in your area code” adult friend finder sites hoping to meet a man who matches her fantasy. Just don’t even go there, buddy. Its so not worth it.

    Enrique,
    “The Campaign Against Sex Robots raises red flag for violence and victimization, calls for standards in sexbots”

    This makes zero sense. Why would anyone want to commit violence to a robot ? These robots will be very expensive so naturally the consumers will take the utmost care of them, like they would an expensive car or iMAC, not thrash them about.

    On the other hand it would be better if actual sadists let their psychosis lose on inanimate objects rather than humans. Maybe they can make a whole bunch and deliver them to BDSM clubs. I heard there’s a lot of creepy predators and abusers in that community because its an excellent cover for their sickness.

    What is sad is that the article mentions old people getting robots for companionship. Why can’t old people live with family members? Does nobody love the elderly? I would sleep on the couch to have my old parents live with me if I had too. Same with the disabled. They can’t live with family members? I agree with the writer that its shameful its come to this. Or do the elderly and disabled want to live alone? If so…why?

  69. Dave says:

    When I was dating I generally found white men to be considerate and affectionate which naturally inspired the same in me toward them.

    Looks like you are yet to understand that what determines character does not reside in the skin, but in the heart. A white woman married to a black man could gush about him too. The obsession with skin color has reached an epidemic proportion in the United States, and it’s one of the superficialities of this nation.

  70. I spoke briefly today to an older woman working at a restaurant about the new Star Wars movie. She was a big Star Wars fan and couldn’t wait to talk to someone about it, although I didn’t see it. She mentioned she was a gamer and that when she PvP’d, she loved playing male villains like Sith Lords because villians were cool and male characters let her be as mean as she wanted to other players and not feel guilty.

    Says a lot, doesn’t it?

  71. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    feministhater: ‘Servant Leader’ appeared out of nowhere. First time I have heard that phrase being used in a South African wedding.

    I’ve heard the concept, in the Catholic Church, applied to priests. They lead by serving the parishioners.

    One of the Pope’s titles is “Servant of the servants of God.”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_servants_of_God

  72. “Kathleen Richardson is worried about sex robots.”

    You don’t say. A feminist is feeling the anxiety of losing leverage over men in the future and we are supposed to care?

  73. infowarrior1 says:

    @JDC
    From the website you linked:
    ”And you husbands, your wife would be much more likely to submit if you would start to be fair and show her more respect and love.”

    He is wrong in the that case assuming that this was already a widespread problem and that rebellious women will be swayed by more respect and love.

    It certainly makes it easier however to obey.

  74. Spike says:

    “Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call…”

    Does this woman even understand what submission means? In jujitsu, when you have an arm bar on your opponent, they submit – or have their arm broken. When nations are overrun by invaders, they are called to submit – or be killed.
    In Scripture, the choice is for men to submit, or face eternal condemnation. The choice for women is likewise in submitting to a husband’s authority For a Christian woman to say this indicates a lack of genuine conversion, a reprobate mind. She needs to repent of her wickedness, pure and simple.

  75. 2084GO says:

    Dave,
    “Looks like you are yet to understand that what determines character does not reside in the skin, but in the heart. A white woman married to a black man could gush about him too. The obsession with skin color has reached an epidemic proportion in the United States, and it’s one of the superficialities of this nation.”

    For me it has nothing to do with skin color. Believe me, my first preference growing up was not for a guy who’s skin gets burned looking at a lamp. But statistically black men are in a very bad way in this country and I had to expand my options if I ever hoped to marry young, marry well, and stay married.

  76. Dave says:

    2084GO,
    Good luck to you for finding a great husband, whatever his skin color might be. But, again, statistically speaking, white women complain more about white men than about any other men.
    That said, the “big, bad black men” out there today were almost exclusively raised by single black women. So, before you throw these men under the bus, you need to see where they’re coming from. It is far more sensible to say you are married to a great guy, rather than a great white guy. There is no one in this forum who is impressed by that distinction. Just so you know.

    Personally, I don’t give a rat’s hairy butt about your skin color. If I find you attractive, you are chaste, possess great character, are godly, and teachable, you are qualified to be Mrs. Dave. If you lack these things, then you have no chance.

  77. Dave says:

    The choice for women is likewise in submitting to a husband’s authority For a Christian woman to say this indicates a lack of genuine conversion, a reprobate mind. She needs to repent of her wickedness, pure and simple.

    It has been my observation also, that most of those who profess to bee Christians in the US are not Christians at all. I once dated a pastor’s daughter who told me she had been a Christian from birth. How can you be a Christian from birth? Being a Christian is a definite decision that a person makes–to turn from a life of sin and submit to the authority of Christ in every area of their lives. How can a newborn baby do that?

  78. nick012000 says:

    A thought, Dalrock: given the pervasive heresy of the Council for Biblical Men and Women that you are repeatedly calling out on your blog, why not start your own version of it, minus the heresy? Call it the Biblical Marriage Council or something.

  79. m11nine says:

    @nick,

    Like the vast # of churches, Christian parachurches surely rely heavily on women’s support to thrive. So to survive, they would have to tread very lightly on those same women’s feelings.

  80. enrique says:

    Thing that is amazing is the millions of women enjoy books and movies like Shades of Gray, which is all about submission. I would be certain many Christian Women have read the book and waited in line with their teenage girls to see the movie.

    If you knew a Christian Woman who did so, perhaps it would be a great time for the double-blue pill: “Oh, my wife didn’t read the book or the movie, she didn’t like that the chick was submissive to Christian Grey…my wife felt that was really non-Biblical”

  81. nick012000 says:

    *smacks enrique with a rolled up newspaper* Bad poster, no biscuit.😛

    Deliberately teaching false doctrine is bad.

  82. Zippy says:

    Husband as “servant leader” (as presently construed) is just the perverse idea of ‘consent of the governed’ applied to marriage.

    This perverse idea starts with a simple truth: that those in authority have and exercise morally legitimate authority for the good of the people and communities over whom they have authority. What justifies their authority is not their own selfish desires, but the common good. This becomes perverted into the idea that there is really no such thing as authority: that subjects are not morally obligated to do anything they don’t first agree to do. This further devolves into the idea of consent destroying itself: that a wife consented to marriage and thus subjection to her husband’s authority in the past doesn’t mean she wants to consent now. That a woman consented to sex at the time doesn’t imply that she is happy with having consented now, so it was rape. Etc, etc.

    So agreeing to anything in a morally binding way becomes impossible: what started as idolizing consent as the root of all authority ends in making consent disappear.

  83. JDG says:

    I’m not sure how, but this was posted on the wrong thread. Apologies for the repeat.

    infowarrior1 says:
    December 22, 2015 at 2:48 am

    I here by with retract my statement on Dec 22 at 12:37 am. Here is an example of why from the link you provided:

    I believe that a loving husband will yield to the wife’s wishes 95% of the time; however, for that 5% area where the husband feels he knows best, the wife is to submit to the husband. It basically means that the wife gives the husband veto power over her life.

    Very disappointing. God gave the husband his authority. The veto power is not the wife’s to give.

  84. JDG says:

    I believe that a loving husband will yield to the wife’s wishes 95% of the time; however, for that 5% area where the husband feels he knows best, the wife is to submit to the husband. It basically means that the wife gives the husband veto power over her life.

    This was supposed to be in italics at 9:09 am.

  85. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Dave: If I find you attractive, you are chaste, possess great character, are godly, and teachable, you are qualified to be Mrs. Dave.

    How many women in modern America meet all those qualifications? How many modern American women in their 20s are even chaste?

    By Christian red pill standards, a large majority of modern American women are unmarriageable. Which is a sad reality to face, for those of us Christian men who’d hope to find and marry a worthy woman.

  86. 2084GO says:

    “white women complain more about white men than about any other men”

    Because that’s who they’re dealing with. Just as most black women are dealing with black men.

    “That said, the “big, bad black men” out there today were almost exclusively raised by single black women. So, before you throw these men under the bus, you need to see where they’re coming from. It ”

    Well that’s just it. There’s no way in hell my white husband would leave me a single mom to struggle with raising kids alone. He put a ring on it instead. Black men are notorious for not wanting to buckle down and commit. And before the peanut gallery jumps to and shrills, “See! She got pregnant to trap him!” We were married before any of that happened.

  87. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @2084GO,

    “He put a ring on it instead. Black men are notorious for not wanting to buckle down and commit.”

    And why is that? If you know anything about MGTOW, you know that “black” men were the very first among men to be MGTOW.

    And they were MGTOW then for the same reasons that the white men are going balls out MGTOW right now.

    Do you know why?  If you’ve been paying attention to any of the things being discussed in the Manosphere you’d know why.

    If you don’t know why….then pretty please, with sugar on top, STFU.

  88. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Moreover, I neglected to address this:

    There’s no way in hell my white husband would leave me a single mom to struggle with raising kids alone.

    He would or wouldn’t or could or couldn’t in the same way a committed non-white man would – if the proper incentives were there for him to do so.

    I’m not asking – now…I’m telling you – STFU.

  89. enrique says:

    @nick012000

    I guess you didn’t get it. Double reveal. Dumb poster, smack back. Did you get the ending of “White Girls” when the black guy finds out the love of his life (played by a Wayans) is really… “not white?”

    By the way, I don’t teach doctrine, but I do respect the Injil, it’s one of the six articles of faith of Islam. 🙂

  90. >A WIFE does not have the right to demand or extract LOVE from HER HUSBAND. LOVE IS HIS choice—HIS responsibility… it is NOT HER right!! Not ever. He is to “LOVE HER AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH”— deciding when and how to LOVE HER is HIS call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The WIFE’S responsibility is to SUBMIT TO HER HUSBAND- not to make HER HUSBAND LOVE HER.

    Hmm, that doesn’t sound quite right for some reason.

  91. Gunner Q says:

    From the OP:
    “The fact that you are even questioning this misconception indicates to me how emphatically it must be stated. The Bible says that a wife is to “submit herself.””

    The clue-meter is reading Absolute Zero here. The wife is to submit herself… therefore she submits whenever she chooses to… therefore submission is optional?

    “It was Christ’s prerogative to refuse; the Father did not force Him to obey.”

    And then she refuses to follow Christ’s example of perfect obedience. Power without responsibility.

    RICanuck @ December 21, 2015 at 7:20 pm:
    “It seems that a serious problem in the Western world is that men are afraid of women.”

    It isn’t paranoia when they really are out to get you.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    Enrique
    Thing that is amazing is the millions of women enjoy books and movies like Shades of Gray, which is all about submission. I would be certain many Christian Women have read the book and waited in line with their teenage girls to see the movie.

    That’s not amazing at all, women crave submission but only to a man that they are attracted to. Thus fitness tests, to determine just how “alpha” any given man is, in order to determine if any given man is worth submitting to or not. Also note how volume 3 of 50 SOG ends…she “tames the alpha”. The 50 SOG series is quite instructive with regard to the real, true, nature of women.

    One could view the writings of women at the CBMW as one long, extended, series of fitness tests…

  93. JDG says:

    How many modern American women in their 20s are even chaste?

    If I remember correctly the last time we discussed this we came away with between 88% and 93% of the US female population has played the harlot before marriage. I believe this was based on data from the CVC and the NSFG.

  94. feeriker says:

    Complementarian/CBMW Women’s Studies professor Mary Kassian…

    It occurs to me that this woman and the “seminary” that employs her are both worthy of a full-blown expose of their own, whether by Dalrock or another writer in the Christian manosphere. No doubt that the contents of the underside of the upturned rocks will be truly stomach-turning.

  95. enrique says:

    @feeriker: Agreed. Dalrock kinda reminds me of the guy that ran the Durham in Wonderland blog for several years, exposing each and every falsity and hypocrisy of the Gang of 88, Duke and the DA. Otherwise known as the Duke Rape HOAX. (Not “Case” as the liberal history rewrite asserts). HOAX.

  96. Dave says:

    JDG says:
    God gave the husband his authority. The veto power is not the wife’s to give.

    The husband’s authority over his wife even overrides the wife’s vows to God.
    I was absolutely amazed when I found this out. God explicitly commanded that even if a wife made a vow to God, the husband can make that promise null and void, should he see the need to do so, no explanation needed, and no sin imputed to the wife for not keeeping her vow as a result of her husband’s actions.

    Imagine the likes of Mary Kassian, coming home from one of her so-called “Women’s empowerment meetings”, excitedly telling her husband that she has “made a promise to God to hold a women’s conference in China next Summer”.
    And the husband says, “I’m afraid you won’t be able to go. I need you to help me do some work around the house during that time.” I’ve also been thinking, maybe it’s time for you to pack in these conferences of yours, actually, as I don’t think they enhance our family’s mission statement”.
    Of course, Mary quickly goes to pray about it, complaining to God, and God quickly telling her that there is no reason to pray about this; whatever her husband says stands, her vows notwithstanding.

    Let Moses explain it further:

    …if [a wife] vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
    But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.
    Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
    Numbers 30: 10-13

  97. Dave says:

    “It seems that a serious problem in the Western world is that men are afraid of women.”

    Feminism is nothing but a giant, humongous, King Kong-sized shit test, which western men failed spectacularly, and they continue to codify their failure in their laws. The day they decide to stand up to their ball-less women and their enabling manginas, that day has salvation come to the west, and the western male will breathe free again.
    The interesting thing is that western women can do absolutely nothing other than throw a tantrum and make empty noise, should the men tell them to take a hike. But, alas, the men would rather go MGTOW, and be forced into being eunuchs, rather than exert their manhood, and take what is theirs.

  98. JDG says:

    God explicitly commanded that even if a wife made a vow to God, the husband can make that promise null and void

    Numbers 30:3-16.

    Fathers when she is under his roof and husbands when she is married.

  99. Neguy says:

    @Dave, @JDG,

    I would be hesitant relying on that passage from Numbers as applicable today. That’s part of the Mosaic covenant law of Israel, which all Christians agree is in great part no longer binding. I’m not going to claim with absolute theological certainty that God doesn’t command this today, but it seems much more aligned with the civil code of the ancient state of Israel. There are multiple unambiguous NT scriptures on submission (in addition the creation narrative), so there’s really no need to dig into Numbers and the covenant law.

  100. JDG says:

    Neguy says:
    December 22, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    I’m not saying you are wrong (or right), but I’m convinced that the many OT passages are still relevant today in the new covenant. The OT principles were not done away with but fulfilled. Often these principles are executed differently in the new covenant, but as you infer not always.

    The scriptures used by the Apostles was the OT. For example in 1 Cor 14:34 Paul wrote: “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.” He was pointing to the OT when he wrote this.

    Yet in Romans he says: “19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

    I think the subject is worthy of further study.

  101. JDG says:

    I wrote this backwards: “Often these principles are executed differently in the new covenant, but as you infer not always.”

    I meant that sometimes they were executed differently, but not always (not that you inferred not always – that is my inference).

  102. Pingback: A pseudobiblical excuse for nagging. – Dark Brightness

  103. >Does this woman even understand what submission means? In jujitsu, when you have an arm bar on your opponent, they submit – or have their arm broken. When nations are overrun by invaders, they are called to submit – or be killed.

    In the New Testament, the “Bride of Christ” is the Christian Church which is the heir of the original “Bride” whoo’d by God- the nation of Israel. Do you have any idea how many examples there are in the Bible explaining in exquisite detail how God deals with his “Bride” when she is rebellious? How about the entire book Judges, Lamentations, most of Isaiah, Jerimiah and several others.

    Here is how God deals with His unfaithful “bride” who turns her face from him to pursue the “harlotry” of “other gods.”

    If you haven’t read these books I hate to spoil the plot for you but let me give you a hint that when the people of Israel turn against God, He does not remain their Best BFF! Nor does God does not play the part of the weak Beta man who is all forgiving, ever merciful and kind while she walks all over Him, mocks Him, and abandons Him. The Lord will not be mocked, and neither should you be mocked as a husband.

    Read the damn book and learn how God deals with His rebellious wife as recorded by the prophet Jerimiah, Chapter 12:

    I will forsake my house,
    abandon my inheritance;
    I will give the one I love
    into the hands of her enemies.
    8 My inheritance has become to me
    like a lion in the forest.
    She roars at me;
    therefore I hate her.
    9 Has not my inheritance become to me
    like a speckled bird of prey
    that other birds of prey surround and attack?
    Go and gather all the wild beasts;
    bring them to devour.
    10 Many shepherds will ruin my vineyard
    and trample down my field;
    they will turn my pleasant field
    into a desolate wasteland.

    Over and over and over again in the Old Testament God’s “Bride” turns away from him, often to “seek other Gods.” Over and over again the Lord then turns his face away from His people and lets His Bride be raped, and tortured, and abused, and humiliated. He turns His face away from them and lets their enemies sieze the lands and starve, enslave, and butcher the people.

    The Lord ONLY returns His favor on the people of Israel, His bride, when they cry to Him and beg his forgiveness.

    THAT is how Christ “loved the Church.” With love but with brutal, iron discipline where it is warranted. They want the love without the discipline. They want the power without the responsibility. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

  104. Robert What? says:

    Let’s cut to the chase shall we? As a married man I can say this is all about sex, and a wife not willing to have sex with her husband except when she wants to (like once or twice a year). That is what she does not want to submit to.

  105. Neguy says:

    @JDG, my main concern on the Numbers piece is tactical. Use it as an argument for someone on headship, and they’ve got a ready-made excuse to dismiss you. It’s a lot harder to argue way 1 Peter.

  106. On several occasions I’ve made the case that the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit. I’ve also illustrated how even non-mainstream religion (Mormons) is being systematically assimilated by the FI as well. Very soon we will see the FI insert itself into contemporary Islam:

  107. JDG says:

    Probably the bravest, most important woman alive.

    Probably not.

  108. Cane Caldo says:

    @Rollo

    Are you aware the Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist?

  109. enrique says:

    She still is considered an “expert” on Islam. Other women, usually White Western women, keep trying to lay their imprint upon us. Some are actively trying to change tradition (typically gathered from the Hadith and actions of the original followers), and some are merely cloaking Islam as truly “feminist”, primarily due to the alimony issues and that in Islam, their income is theirs–which is true. I expect the FI will grow, particularly in Canada, with females leading the prayers, etc.

    At my Masjid, we are separated, much like an orthodox synagogue. Which I don’t hear people clamoring about.

  110. enrique says:

    FYI: One of the reasons for the growing movement to have women lead prayers, is that most Masjids are not set up for women to participate (not all have a curtain, for example, and they are relegated to the back of the room), but that is mainly due to the fact that women are not required to attend Jumah prayers and usually don’t–if they are, it’s usually because their husband and children are.

    In traditionally, historically, Muslim countries (meaning, Arab) women do not seek to invade mens’ spaces, like we see here in the West. So a lot of this is pushed by White and in some cases, black Western Muslimah’s (e.g. Amina Wadud). I think for some, it’s a genuine interest in sharing the prayers, and the call to prayer–but with others, it’s simply female oversight. I see this as causing a real conflict, particularly with the increasing revert situation with white British women.

  111. cynthia says:

    This proves that headship does not imply superiority, nor does submission imply inferiority.

    I actually think this is correct, but not perhaps in the context which it was written.

    Objectively, Jesus’ submission cannot be compared to a wife’s; Jesus was submitting to God, whereas a wife submitting to her husband is an act of one human to another. Christianity holds that all humans are equal to each other in God’s eyes, so yes, if you as a woman defer to your man, you are not reducing yourself to an inferior status.

    Kassian, however, is clearly operating under the very feminist notion that power dynamics in a relationship, or between genders in general, is a zero-sum game. She also seems to make the assumption that power is intrinsically abusive (which goes a long way to explaining why feminists are such harpies towards men; if power is abuse, then abuse is power).

    There is a responsibility on the part of the man to treat his wife’s deference with due respect, of course, which I believe is addressed in the Bible. But in no way does the Bible tell men to beat submission out of their wives, or permit abusive treatment. There is absolutely a point where a man crosses the line from headship to spousal abuse, but in a culture where Fifty Shades of Grey can be proudly displayed in the dining room bookcase, casual porn viewing cannot be cast in that light and TV shows like Bridezillas proudly celebrate female-perpetrated domestic violence. I have never understood why so many women have no sense of proportion in these matters.

  112. Vektor says:

    “servant leader”…..interesting title. This is the core of the power struggle between the sexes and men have lost badly for the last 60 years.

    The whole ‘submit’ theme is…well, crap. Does she ‘submit’ or doesn’t she? Irrelevant. Who holds the THREATPOINT? Who can take away that children and turn the other partner into a SLAVE?

    Guarantee my ability to retain custody of my children and my wealth…then and only then will I have true ‘HEADSHIP’.

    Take away all interference by law, police, courts, etc., and men have this by default. No scripture required. Unfortunately, we don’t currently live in that world. Men currently rely on the ability to generate feminine approval to avoid slavery. How far we have fallen.

  113. Dale says:

    @Dave
    >If you lack these things, then you have no chance.

    Very well said. Josh 24:14-15 — if she does not submit to the Lord, she is not fit to be in your house. I suspect this was not a problem with which Joshua needed to contend.

    >a definite decision that a person makes–to turn from a life of sin and submit to the authority of Christ in every area of their lives. How can a newborn baby do that?

    Hence the objection many have to infant “baptism”.

    @Red Pill Latecomer
    >How many women in modern America meet all those qualifications? How many modern American women in their 20s are even chaste?

    Hence two things:
    1) My past repeated cycles of deciding to once again actively look for a suitable woman who is willing to consider me, and then giving up after futility and frustration. Then wait a year and repeat.
    2) Dave and others, including myself, would advise not restricting yourself to the poisoned pool of women around you. Some countries too poor to subsidize feminism will have better women.

  114. “Guarantee my ability to retain custody of my children and my wealth…then and only then will I have true ‘HEADSHIP’.

    Take away all interference by law, police, courts, etc., and men have this by default.”

    That won’t happen anytime soon because the majority of men have been so thoroughly conditioned to serve the FI that they believe a some level they deserve this, even when they are angry about being victimized by it.

    It will take generations of faithful, zealous men who know in their bones that women are not the peers of men to unravel this matrix.

  115. Vektor says:

    “That won’t happen anytime soon because…..”

    Right NOW…women have a chance to block hateful feminists and realize that they have have achieved more than equality. They can take a stand and side with men to prevent the creeping HATE from festering. Are women so childish and stupid that then cannot see what is at stake? Western civilization itself is at a crossroads. This is women’s ONLY chance at ‘equality’. What follows a collapse will not be agreeable to anyone.

  116. Jeff Magedanz says:

    This is rooted in the tacit assumption that men are prone to be bad, and women good. Telling a wife to submit to her husband is license to him to abuse his authority, because that is what men do. However, since the wife is the guardian of morality in the family, there is nothing similarly offensive about telling the wife to make her husband submit to her.

  117. greyghost says:

    They can take a stand and side with men to prevent the creeping HATE from festering. Are women so childish and stupid that then cannot see what is at stake?

    Yes they are and don’t give a damn about what is at stake. Even after a collapse they will double down along with simps and try to “save” society and restore the FI. You can count on that and the “church” will step in right along with them.

  118. 2084GO says:

    She lied against her husband and own blood family.

    “Hirsi Ali’s claim of honor killing threats also appears to be empty; she remained in touch with her father and aunt after she left her husband. In fact, her husband even came to visit her in the Dutch refugee center where she lived after leaving him. Even though he had paid her way to Europe on the grounds that she would join him in Canada, Hirsi Ali’s husband consented to the divorce she sought.”

    She lied about her ENTIRE life. Was never in a “war torn country”. Never survived conflict.
    http://www.alternet.org/media/anti-islam-author-ayaan-hirsi-alis-latest-deception

    But she’s very pretty though so I guess that’s why she’s the media’s darling and America’s sweetheart.

  119. Vektor says:

    I was/am a kind man. I was abused and cheated on. I am divorced. I pay 40% of my net income to the person I hate most in this world. I see my beloved son 40% of what I did when I was a real ‘father’. RAGE doesn’t even begin to capture it. They don’t care about collapse? Great….let them BURN!!!!! BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  120. 2084GO says:

    “And they were MGTOW then for the same reasons that the white men are going balls out MGTOW right now.”

    The difference between black and white MGTOWs is huge, pun intended😉. White MGTOWs are mostly childless. Black MGTOWs have baby mama drama. If not baby mama drama, they are at least “tappin’ dat ass” somewhere. White MGTOWs are mainly men who don’t have luck in the sexual market place.

  121. JDG says:

    Black MGTOWs have baby mama drama. If not baby mama drama, they are at least “tappin’ dat ass” somewhere. White MGTOWs are mainly men who don’t have luck in the sexual market place.

    So now we have “Black MGTOW” and “White MGTOW”? What’s next? Yellow and red MGTOWs?

    Your definition of “Black MGTOW” is a black man that fornicates with many partners, yet your definition of “White MGTOW” is a man who can’t get a woman to fornicate with him? Does this really make sense to you?

    By your example of a “Black MGTOW” a “White MGTOW” would be more like a PUA with baby mama drama, not someone who couldn’t get laid.

    By your example of a “White MGTOW” a “Black MGTOW” would be a black man who also can’t get a woman to fornicate with him.

    Even men disagree on what exactly MGTOW is, but you position does not make sense at all.

  122. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    Even men disagree on what exactly MGTOW is, but you position does not make sense at all.

    This is a feminist wimminz who is merely here to troll you brothers.

    I never argue with the homeless woman who screams at the wall outside my office. I merely toss my spare change into the coffee can that sits wedged in her shopping cart, between the sleeping bag and the battered old suitcase. In the spirit of the season, I wish her charity and compassion.

    Best,

    Boxer

  123. joshtheaspie says:

    @Dale,

    The women may well only be better until they are in a country that pretends to be rich enough to afford feminism, and backs it up.

  124. JDG says:

    Boxer – I never argue with the homeless woman who screams at the wall outside my office.

    Point taken.

  125. Dave says:

    Right NOW…women have a chance to block hateful feminists and realize that they have have achieved more than equality. They can take a stand and side with men to prevent the creeping HATE from festering. Are women so childish and stupid that then cannot see what is at stake? Western civilization itself is at a crossroads. This is women’s ONLY chance at ‘equality’. What follows a collapse will not be agreeable to anyone.

    I am sorry but this is laughable. Last time I checked, there were still men in America. What are they doing to save civilization? Are they too scared to stand up to the feminists, and now they want their women to fight on their behalf? I mean, has feminism conquered Western men to the extent that they must now look to women to fight their battles? Publish it not in Garth!

    Men are the ones that must take a stand against the devastation of feminism, not women. By their very nature, feminine women want to be led; they don’t want to lead. Once a woman begins to take leadership roles, she begins to lose her feminine essence, and starts to acquire masculine traits. It is an aberration to find women taking charge when their men are everywhere in society. What inevitably results are matriarchal societies, and those never end well.
    Please let us get rid of the idea that the (good) women must be the ones to fight feminism. Nope. These women are waiting anxiously for whatever remains of their men to rescue them from the madness of their fellow women.

  126. 2084GO says:

    “So now we have “Black MGTOW” and “White MGTOW”?

    Yes, because the cultures and lifestyle patterns are very different. I understand you don’t know many black people or live in a black majority area, but statistics are out and you can do your own research.

    “Your definition of “Black MGTOW” is a black man that fornicates with many partners, yet your definition of “White MGTOW” is a man who can’t get a woman to fornicate with him? Does this really make sense to you?”

    Yes, because statistics. I also grew up in a black majority area and I know live in a white majority area. The difference in cultures and lifestyle patterns I am directly experiencing reflect the statistics.

    “By your example of a “Black MGTOW” a “White MGTOW” would be more like a PUA with baby mama drama, not someone who couldn’t get laid.”

    No, the PUA is a PUA, not a MGTOW.

    “By your example of a “White MGTOW” a “Black MGTOW” would be a black man who also can’t get a woman to fornicate with him.”

    There are very, very few black men like that.

    Funny, on the vast majority of Manosphere sites there is no question as to the differences between black and white American cultures. This is the first one I’ve come across trying to be all one love and politically correct.

  127. dwellerman says:

    Dave: “Men are the ones that must take a stand against the devastation of feminism, not women”… ok you first. You lead this stand and ‘we’ will follow. What’s your plan?

  128. dwellerman says:

    so by 2048GO’s logic ~ MGTOW yellow man: grass eater, MGTOW black man: pimp, MGTOW white man: celibate ~ MGTOW mexican man: ?, MGTOW China man: ?, MGTOW Russian man: ?, MGTOW SE Asian man: ?, MGTOW Greek man: ?, MGTOW Italian man: ?, MGTOW Philippine man… oh, uh, look at the similarity – they’re all men.

  129. infowarrior1 says:

    @cynthia

    ”Christianity holds that all humans are equal to each other in God’s eyes”

    What passages could you bring up to support that notion. Certainly the parable of the talents highlights the fact that God created men unequal. And that the relationship between Wife and Husband is Christ and His Church certainly making the relationship unequal.

    I have Galatians 3:28 brought up to support the equality of all men. Yet such a passage only states the spiritual brotherhood of all Christians in Christ.

    And the fact that God is no respector of persons enable him to judge all men by their deeds yet he must also take into account their unequal responsibilites owing to their unequal positions of status.

    Where more is given more is demanded, If less is given less is demanded.

    Certainly pure justice encapsulates such qualities more accurately than egalitarianism.

  130. desiderian says:

    Dal,

    The movie Spotlight is worth your time.

    Churchianity in another limb of the Body.

    Almost a confessional spirit on the part of the lapsed Catholic journalists. Subtly done, but absolutely there.

  131. MarcusD says:

  132. greyghost says:

    The difference between black and white MGTOWs is huge, pun intended😉. White MGTOWs are mostly childless. Black MGTOWs have baby mama drama. If not baby mama drama, they are at least “tappin’ dat ass” somewhere. White MGTOWs are mainly men who don’t have luck in the sexual market place.

    This is straight up bullshit. For those that are aware this is what women teaching men looks like. This is a black American woman entering the manosphere “schooling” men that have discussed and quantified concepts to a level that allows us to teach young men on MGTOW informing us we have it wrong. Everything in that statement is mound restoration to the narrative she wants. First off she insures she insults the men here. She throws in the Apex Fallacy that also ensures black men she desires remain on the “plantation” These are the men fucking up feminism. (What they are, are the product of those “strong independent” black women themselves.) I hope you noticed the meme and biggest tell and it is a common theme throughout the west. No mention or concern for the productive black man. The production black family man is loathe by the black women and popular culture in general because that ruins the narrative. It is the same issue productive white men have and that connection cannot be allowed to stand. It is commented on when the subject of women leaving her boring loyal husband for the “biker”, “rockstar ” etc..” The concept is the same. The racial cultural differences just muddy the waters. Don’t allow this to go unchecked.
    Having her comment here has truly been a lesson for all men that participate here to see. The concepts and ideas here are truth and are valid for all men.

  133. Dave says:

    This is a black American woman entering the manosphere “schooling” men that have discussed and quantified concepts to a level that allows us to teach young men on MGTOW informing us we have it wrong.

    She seems to be hung up on her white vs black mentality that she can’t seem to process anything else outside that paradigm. To her, being married to a white dude is like winning the lottery. Or being superior to her “black sisters” who are either not married, or married to other black men. She has the all-or-none approach to life: white men are good; black men are bad. Talk of inferiority complex in the extreme and self rejection. Uncle Tom comes readily to mind.

    Whose wife this is? I hope he calls her to order.

  134. cynthia says:

    @infowarrior1

    I was always taught that fundamental to Christianity is the concept of human dignity, in which every human being has intrinsic worth, based on the fact they’re a child of God. And, like you say, at the very least, Christians are called to hold each other as equals, which would negate Kassian’s argument anyway. IE, if a Christian woman submits to her Christian husband’s headship, she’s no less than him in the eyes of God. Where in the Bible does it say that God considers women less than men? Because that’s not what I get when I read it.

    Certainly people are different from each other, everybody born with different personalities, talents, abilities, and so forth. Certain people are also obviously more valuable than others, in a secular sense; a firefighter is more important to society than an unemployed single mother living in welfare. But you’re making the same mistake that Kassian does, which is saying submission equals inferior status, which it does not. The idea that women are less than men is the core tenant of feminism.

  135. ” They can take a stand and side with men to prevent the creeping HATE from festering. Are women so childish and stupid that then cannot see what is at stake?”

    That’s like expecting a chicken to speak math. Why would you expect such a thing when they are biologically hardwired to live and think in the NOW. Humans have the ability to override their behavioral biology but the kinds of women who choose to overcome their instincts and try to truly understand the world they live in are rare because modern Western culture has given them no reason to do this. As a result, women who know better aren’t a significant factor in the hopes of correcting our social interaction between the sexes before our society implodes.

    This will all correct itself, it’s just going to be an unnecessarily painful process foisted upon us at a time outside of our choosing.

  136. …I used to think the endgame of this would be a mass economic world-wide Armageddon with Feminism at the forefront. I believe there is also a real risk future generations will bring a stop to this not by a temporary reconciliation between men and women, but with a violently swinging pendulum of social change (I hate that phrase) brought about by a sheer hatred of women instilled in young men from their personal experiences. That will be ugly.

  137. “I am sorry but this is laughable. Last time I checked, there were still men in America. What are they doing to save civilization? Are they too scared to stand up to the feminists, and now they want their women to fight on their behalf? I mean, has feminism conquered Western men to the extent that they must now look to women to fight their battles? Publish it not in Garth”

    This +1

  138. Boxer says:

    No mention or concern for the productive black man. The production black family man is loathe by the black women and popular culture in general because that ruins the narrative.

    Family man (black or white) is generally hated by the parasites who commodify cultural artifacts for sale back to the men that created them. This is the reason that Homer Simpson is the model of the perfect male consumer. He’s out of shape and content to work his 9-5 job creating wealth without questioning the structure of the system. Christian family men who exchange information outside approved channels are what the status-quo fears most. It has nothing to do with the supernatural aspects of Christianity. Such men have a code of conduct and the means to think for themselves.

    Women are not important and no man should waste time debating with someone who hasn’t earned his respect. The character who has been trolling here is quick to talk about her happy marriage, despite posting on this forum at all hours of the day and night, talking shit about her own father and grandfathers (who surely busted ass to see that she had everything she needed – what a disrespectful ho’) and trying to divide men here with lots of racial insults. Typical feminist nonsense and I’m proud of all the brothers who refused to enter her frame.

    Boxer

  139. Boxer says:

    She has the all-or-none approach to life: white men are good; black men are bad.

    She’s a fetishist. They are easy to spot.

    It’s not at all like a normal mixed race couple, where two people meet and like each other, start screwing and get married. The fetishists seek out certain racial types as a means to get back at their own family, or to exercise some other weird psychological hangup. Such people don’t appreciate the other person in the relationship or even think of him/her as a human being. The other person is just a means to an end.

    This wimminz boasting about having a white husband is just a way to antagonize her family and to declare her superiority to other black women. She doesn’t even consider her husband a person. If that man exists, he was very stupid to wife up this damaged ho’, who has spent hours talking shit about her father here. He will be next in line to be abandoned, have his kids taken away, and be talked shit about in the next generation. Hope he finds the Dalrock blog before it’s too late.

  140. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    See, I told her to STFU.

    She done made Boxer pull out the laser scalpel on her ass.

    @Boxer.

    Word.

  141. Opus says:

    Those messages from Miss Ali, Mr Yianiopoulos and Miss Penny are, so far today, the three most stupid things I have read.

  142. Novaseeker says:

    Men are the ones that must take a stand against the devastation of feminism, not women.

    Won’t happen, because men are divided on the issue, and likely will remain so. But I agree it’s not like women can take it down, either. No, feminism is going to have to run its course, and we will see what society looks like once it has finished doing so — unless there is a collapse of the elite structure which permits a reset, or some kind of a massive fight in any case, to take place, this train is going to keep on going down the same track.

  143. theasdgamer says:

    feminism is going to have to run its course

    …in society, but not in my household. We can still exert local control.

  144. feeriker says:

    Those messages from Miss Ali, Mr Yianiopoulos and Miss Penny are, so far today, the three most stupid things I have read.

    It’s disappointing to see Milo contibute something to the “Stupid” collection. He’s usually better than that.

  145. A little OT:

    Complementarians like Mary Kassian believe they hold a more biblical view of the sexes because they confess that God’s assignment of roles as you would read a list of do’s and don’ts. It’s as if God’s place as author of creation itself changes character from one of deliberate, All-Knowing Intelligent Design from all other areas of the Christian Faith to one of arbitrary Inter-galactic game show host spinning a big wheel of arbitrary temporal commands for his people to obey accordingly when it comes to the doctrine of Christian Headship. This interpretation sets the stage for the blasphemy of what is Good and Holy into what is now thought of as mundane when the topic of Christian Headship is broached in the Modern Western Church.

  146. feeriker says:

    The character who has been trolling here is quick to talk about her happy marriage, despite posting on this forum at all hours of the day and night, talking shit about her own father and grandfathers (who surely busted ass to see that she had everything she needed – what a disrespectful ho’) and trying to divide men here with lots of racial insults. Typical feminist nonsense and I’m proud of all the brothers who refused to enter her frame.

    Yup. She started showing her cards fairly early on, but I was willing to give her some benefit of the doubt, thinking that I might have been premature in my judgment. Nope. I was right all along and I suppose I should thank her for confirming that I should always “go with my gut.” I’m sure we’ll all have plenty more opportunities to hone our “stealth femtroll detectors.” As Dalrock’s blog continues to grow in visibility and impact, many more of such will be making their (however brief) appearance.

  147. feeriker says:

    See, I told her to STFU.

    The question is, will we be blessed with her continuing to do so?

    History doesn’t suggest that we be optimistic.

  148. Zippy says:

    The ‘feminine imperative’ looks to me like a rhetorical way to attack feminism without calling into question liberalism more generally.

  149. greyghost says:

    Boxer, freeriker
    Good take on the commenter. Feminism will take its course and red pill men will show the way to the cliff. Look at what Trump has done to the media and the republican party. Talk like a man and walk like a man. People are drawn to men that speak plain and straight with no pretense of appeasement. Christian men need to stop with the nice guy living with God shit. No body respects that (and they shouldn’t it is how the FI gets in the church)
    Found this today at CH https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/advice-for-fathers-trying-to-keep-their-teen-daughters-off-the-pole/
    I talk like this to my wife and daughter (oldest one). I don’t use the exact lines but the point is take advantage of female nature without concern they will leave you. That is a strength in men females seek. The bottom line is every family man needs to let every female know any woman not making herself worthy of a family man deserves to suffer and needs to know there will be no bailing them out period. There also seems to be a simmering fear of some kind of collapse do not insulate females from this and only speak of red pill truths to men and boys even if females are present.
    I have also come to the conclusion on politics there is no liberal and conservative it is red pill or not red pill. Variations on the blue pill FI are not choices just different forms of execution at your expense.

  150. gunnerq says:

    infowarrior1 @ 12:04 am:
    “@cynthia
    ”Christianity holds that all humans are equal to each other in God’s eyes”

    What passages could you bring up to support that notion.”

    Also Genesis 9:6. Humans are equal in that we have equal inherent worth before God. It’s our choices that make us unequal, not our natural potential. A fry cook at McDonald’s can do more for Christ than the leader of a nation.

    Cynthia is only saying there’s no shame in being a follower instead of a leader, which is true. We can’t all be at the top of the pyramid and speaking as a sometime leader, quality followers are worth their weight in gold.

    This is what truly Biblical “servant leadership” is about: those on top don’t sneer at those on the bottom. Nothing more than that but it goes against our fallen nature so hard it’s revolutionary. Like Dave’s frequently blaming men for not being as special or successful as himself instead of accepting that when a society does everything it can to destroy men, a lot of men are going to be destroyed through no fault of their own.

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    Agree with Novaseeker. The current system is deeply entrenched – I support MRA efforts to bring some real equity (heh) to the anti Family Court system, for example, but do so with the full knowledge that divorce is an industry with plenty of political clout, so it isn’t going away quietly.

    What men can do is own their turf, so to speak. “The feminist world stops at my front door”, in other words. Churchgoing men can push back inside their organizations. For example, suppose that some number of large Evangelical churches quit using Focus (FOtF) materials in classes, diminishing the bottom line of Focus? Or suppose that other churches quit using feminized “marriage encounter” materials for counseling?

    There’s no dramatic fix, like it or not, but there are many smalll steps that can be taken by one man or a few men to straighten things a tiny bit at the micro, local, even individual, level. The first step, of course, is to put on The Glasses, one by one.

  152. Anonymous Reader says:

    It’s as if God’s place as author of creation itself changes character from one of deliberate, All-Knowing Intelligent Design from all other areas of the Christian Faith to one of arbitrary Inter-galactic game show host spinning a big wheel of arbitrary temporal commands for his people to obey accordingly when it comes to the doctrine of Christian Headship.

    So “complementarianism” can be reduced to a version of Deal or No Deal that never ends?

  153. @ Zippy

    I can only speak for myself, but from what I see in American politics, the FI has been so effective in consuming Liberalism that it’s hard to argue they are their own things apart from one another. I would rather attack the root of Feminism in the Western Church to make it a factor again in American life instead of wasting time and energy with the symptoms of the underlying moral decay with political bandaids.

  154. Looking Glass says:

    @Just A Regular Guy & Novaseeker:

    Without going either too dour or specific, I like to point out that what we think of as an unstoppable Monster is actually very fragile. It took 150 years of work to get it to this point, yet it’s still built around just a few Laws and constant cultural reinforcement. It’s brutally hard to break certain parts of the cultural programming, but the Power Structures are not that hard to break. That’s why the contours of the next Western internal wars will look different.

    We’ll see it start to play out in Europe first. The Invasion of Muslims will, likely, be the catalyst. If the politicians won’t deal with the problem, eventually people will start dealing with the politicians. Once the 3rd or 4th local politician has been killed, we’ll know the dam has broken and it’s going to be War inside those countries. But not between Armies: the people against their corrupt leaders.

    One of the hardest lessons to learn in International Relations is the “Some Order” trumps all other considerations. Brutal Dictators are favored by a population over Anarchy. And the current Elites aren’t actually true believers in anything they preach. No, they’re fair-weather enforcers. So the instant their positions become incredibly dangerous, they’ll fold extremely fast. (There simply are not enough Police & Military to defend the Elites in our open countries, which is to our advantage.) The “True Believers” won’t, but they’ll be the ones quickly targeted for elimination: either by the revolutionaries or the current Elite.

    The American Revolution is pretty instructive to part of this. It never had popular support, to the point it probably was considered bad by a plurality of the population. But they had enough support and a few very engaged individuals that set the wheels in motion. One fascinating study, focused on Social Network Dynamics, showed that Paul Revere really was the focal point of the New England revolutionaries. Had the British simply tossed him in prison, the Revolution probably doesn’t happen. The same type of effect is always true: there are extremely critical people to keep up the current system.

    Once the failures of the current elite hit a tipping point, those people become targets. That’s when it changes over a weekend. Which is how things will actual proceed, if it gets violent. But you can never underestimate the Spirit of the Lord. When he wants to move things, nothing can stop it. So, pray for Wisdom & Guidance. Always.

  155. @ AR

    That’s a good way of putting it.

  156. theasdgamer says:

    @ gunner

    a lot of men are going to be destroyed through no fault of their own.

    Why do you think that men are destroyed? Frivorced with cash & prizes for the ex?

    “Destroyed” implies that no remedy or improvement of a man’s situation is possible. This is defeatist thinking. It’s acceptance of playing the victim card and holding a lifelong pity party.

    Self-improvement should be what we are encouraging.

  157. Hank Flanders says:

    I’m understanding the thinking behind MGTOW more and more. I’ve been perusing some blogs, and I noticed an old one from a pleasant, single young lady who at the time was all about being a stay-at-home daughter and biblical femininity and encouraging other young women to embrace theirs, but then, I saw her current picture on her facebook page. She was now sporting a dyed pixie cut, which isn’t necessarily a sin in and of itself but is likely indicative of a certain mindset. Once I saw her new blog, I knew that my instincts about her new hairstyle were correct and that her views had changed. She’s now egalitarian and is a fan of the likes of Rachel Evans and this facebook page:

    https://www.facebook.com/JesusFeminist/

    She’s also now married. I just hope her husband knew what he was getting into before he married her, because this blogger is just further proof that even the seemingly good Christian women can turn to the feminist dark side.

  158. 2084GO says:

    I find the racial equalism of this blog quaint, and somewhat refreshing, considering the rest of the Manosphere. I assume it reflects the values of Christianity and that is of course one of the criticisms that some people throw at the religion: “liberal”, “utopian”, “egalitarian”, etc.

    “It is commented on when the subject of women leaving her boring loyal husband for the “biker”, “rockstar ” etc..”

    Sage Robins! Rich and world famous motivational speaker Anthony Robins married an older (than him by 10 or more years) single mom with 3 kids when he was in his early 20s. Becky was her name. She stood by him and worked tirelessly to help build his multi-million dollar empire. He mentions her on the early tapes and CDs. Some years ago a married woman from Texas with a hick name like Tammy or something, became his groupie and started following him around on the seminar circuit. They started dating. She divorced her husband, he divorced Becky, and they both got married. Tammy changed her name to the more sophisticated sounding Sage Robins. When asked why he got divorced when a major part of his schtick is “saving troubled marriages” and “living with integrity” Tony said its because he likes to ‘live fast’ and he needs someone who can keep up.

  159. Hells Hound says:

    Are women so childish and stupid that then cannot see what is at stake? Western civilization itself is at a crossroads. This is women’s ONLY chance at ‘equality’.

    Women don’t give a damn about any of that stuff. To them, “Western civilization” falls into the category of “boring shit boring men are concerned about”. “Equality” is a similarly abstract concept to them that lacks any relevance. They’d, of course, bitch and moan loudly if they were deprived of such comforts. But then again, they bitch and moan about everything and anything, all the time. It’s just what they do. They are fundamentally passive, and will submit and adapt to anything without putting up tangible resistance. They don’t care about the things you care about, because you’re not one of them.

  160. Hells Hound says:

    Are they too scared to stand up to the feminists, and now they want their women to fight on their behalf? I mean, has feminism conquered Western men to the extent that they must now look to women to fight their battles? Publish it not in Garth!

    These are women’s battles, not men’s battles. Feminism is an ideology created by women, for women, and normally supported by women. They are the ones who’ll have to decide what to do with it. Even its loudest opponents are mostly women. Do you think this is a coincidence? They only see men as optionally useful props and sacrificial victims in a huge drama solely about women. If feminism is a problem, it’s mostly and increasingly a problem for women, not men. All public discourse on feminism is already dominated by women, which is to be expected in societies structured around women’s wants and needs. It’s their world, not ours.

  161. Hells Hound says:

    Won’t happen, because men are divided on the issue, and likely will remain so. But I agree it’s not like women can take it down, either.

    Well, no. They could take it down next week without much difficulty, if they wanted to. They have the necessary in-group preference and social power as a sex to do so. They wouldn’t even have to assume all the risks a man has to if he turns against feminism, risks like job loss, social ostracism and a relentless social media witch hunt.

  162. mike says:

    It looks like Mary is still dealing with demons from her past. Apparently she was dumped by her alpha pastor boyfriend and reluctantly started dating her current husband Brent, after he spent a year in the friendzone. It’s really so sad that an alpha widow, a scorned women, has to go out and pervert seminaries and relationships because she’s simply resentful of her husband.

    “They really couldn’t have come from more different family backgrounds. Mary was from a conservative Baptist family; Brent had a Russian Orthodox dad and a Ukrainian Catholic mom. He and Mary met at university, when a mutual friend asked Brent to join their evangelistic outreach band. He played the electric guitar; Mary was a keyboardist and singer. They shared Christ together with bikers, on crowded beaches, etc. for about a year and a half before any sparks began to fly.

    Still, Mary had to think about it. She had been dating a pastor, whom Brent describes as “such a nice guy.” He went on, “Tall, handsome, blond hair, blue eyes . . . they were both German. It was one of those things where on paper everything looked great, but it just didn’t quite work out.”

    “I liked to live on the edge and do crazy things for Christ, and I think Mary liked that.” Once they got together, they built their relationship around sharing Christ and discipling others. “I think maybe we went on two formal dates,” Brent said. ”

    https://www.reviveourhearts.com/true-woman/blog/getting-to-know-brent-kassian-and-his-mary/

    The truth is, This women:

    Doesn’t like submitting to this…

  163. feeriker says:

    The truth is, This women: … Doesn’t like submitting to this…

    BINGO. In fact, she probably can’t stand the thought of occupying the same bed with him either.

    Paging deti … paging deti …

  164. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    Sorry for not posting this earlier: I was busy scraping the “Biden 2015” bumper sticker off the back of my car …

    … anyway, um: not meaning to be too specific, but there are signs around the waterfront near where I live that say “do not feed the birds”, because if you feed the ducks and geese, they will not go away, and if they do not go away, they will sh!t all over the nice green lawns in the public parks at the waterfront. And then then public parks are not fit to visit any more. By anyone.

    Please, Gentlemen — stop the responding; please, please, please (please, please). [please.]

    Thanks very much, all.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum omnes.

  165. “It was no meltdown. Do you see these three broken saucers I smashed?” I nodded. “I have no cups for them. The cups have broken over the years. I had three saucers to spare. I’m glad you sat down before I had to break any more!”

    Are we sure this isn’t Kathy Bates we’re discussing here? It’s like being married to that kid who can wish you away to the cornfield on the Twilight Zone.

  166. Pingback: How do wives petition or win their husbands | Christianity and the manosphere

  167. Pingback: Boundaries | Dalrock

  168. Pingback: Mad Dog Chandler | Dalrock

  169. Pingback: Tame or be tamed. | Dalrock

  170. theasdgamer says:

    We can no longer access Kassian’s site linked in the OP.

    [D: No problem. Here is an archive link.]

  171. Imagine having to wake up next to that every morning. Ahhh, get me outta here!

  172. Pingback: The new face of complementarian feminism | Dalrock

  173. Disillusioned says:

    I agree with the concept of servant leader. Jesus was one. In fact only He could do the things for us that will lead us to heaven.

    The military understands this concept and teaches it to its junior officers.

    Yes a woman must willingly submit to her husband. But this happens at the altar not nilly willy during her marriage when she chooses to or feels like it. Same with a husband. He is obligated to lead her and die for her at all times.

    The problem is that most modern Christian women are not marrying taking the Kingdom into consideration. Some marry cads who wont lead them and dont care to. Others marry the nice beta boys because the alpha guys pumped and dumped them and that was who was left. In this last case, they were never that interested in their beta husbands who they never respected from the start. In these cases women found themselves with nasty and sinful husbands or a husband with whom they didnt share a common vision and now wanted to rebel from them. This is a sign of the times. What is wrong is to take this large and growing number of women seriously. They are not Christians and their theology demonstrates it. Shame on churches that sponsor them. These women need to be rebuked and laughed out of the churches until they repent.

  174. Pingback: Wintery Knight and Dalrock show how feminist, i.e. sold out to the world, The Gospel Coalition is | Patriactionary

  175. Pingback: She brings a perspective you cannot bring. | Dalrock

  176. Pingback: Where have all the good chimps gone? | Dalrock

  177. Pingback: All roads lead to Duluth. | Dalrock

  178. Pingback: Who is she teaching? | Dalrock

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