Collective delusion

The CBMW has responded in a predictable way to the discussion of drafting women.  While the Republican candidates are pandering to women by arguing that women should have the right to register for selective service, the CBMW continues to pretend that the push to put women in combat is not driven by mass feminist rebellion, but by men wanting women to protect them.

This isn’t about protecting women though, this is about false bravado.  It is about avoiding saying “no” to women in rebellion while pretending to be courageous.  The make believe in the CBMW article starts in the very title: We Will Never Let Our Daughters Die for Us  However, even while pretending this is about men forcing women to usurp men’s roles, the authors (including the president of the CBMW) are careful to avoid offending the feminist Christian women who dominate their audience:

We are Holistically Pro-Woman and Cannot Support This
At CBMW, we are completely pro-woman. Unlike a secular, gender-blurring culture, we honor women and view them in the highest regard. As complementarians, we are committed to the biblical truths that men and women are completely equal in dignity, value, worth, and honor; however, men and women are different in role and function. 

In their desire to appease the feminists in the audience they stress that women are very good at killing, and when they do kill it is of course a good thing.  They are so eager to appease the feminists that they hold up Jael killing Sisera with a tent peg after luring him to sleep as an example of self defense.

This–warfare–is a key arena in which we see differences between the sexes, both in terms of calling and design. 

We are not saying that women cannot defend themselves if threatened. Godly women don’t fear Satan and know no limits in their willingness to oppose evil. We know the story of Deborah, and we have heard of Jael’s dexterity with a tent peg.

Having begged the Christian feminists for some room to operate, they get back to blaming cowardly men for wanting their wives and daughters to fight so they don’t have to:

If men do not answer the call, women will have no choice but to fight. This should not be, though. Women shouldn’t have to be in combat, because men should step up and lead the way.

The real cowardice of course is not a movement by men to get women to fight in their place, but a fear by men of saying “no” to women in rebellion.  This very fear is what motivates so many Christian conservative men to play a passionate game of make believe whenever the issue of women in the military comes up.  This is not only true for the CBMW, but it is also true for Matt Walsh** as it was for Vision Forum.

*H/T Taciturn
**H/T The Question

This entry was posted in Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Feminists, Matt Walsh, Military, Owen Strachan, Rebellion, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to Collective delusion

  1. Pingback: Collective delusion | Neoreactive

  2. bkilbour says:

    @Dalrock
    I’ve never heard any man say “I want women to protect me!”
    Our armed forces have enough men that, if all the females there were to disappear, we would still have a functioning military.
    Fantasy land indeed.

    But I served five years in the Navy; shouldn’t I and MILLIONS of other men that served prove the CBMW wrong on every level? Are they aware of how stupid they sound?
    And when the Marine Corps, with every other branch, stood up and showed studies proving that women ought not be in combat roles, we were ignored – but the studies we released, and the opinions of every servicemember that went against the feminist boilerplate, they count nothing to the CBMW.

    Onboard the Ohio, I was told I would be disciplined if I said anything against women as a part of my crew. I guess this is the “silence” that the Churchians take to be cowardice.

  3. Anon says:

    the CBMW continues to pretend that the push to put women in combat is not driven by mass feminist rebellion, but by men wanting women to protect them.

    This is somewhat of an example of Dalrock’s law :

    The more obvious a fact one is in denial of, the more absurd a counterexample (or rationalization, in this case) the person will use.

    They want women to defend them? Really?

    By that logic, the men who steer clear of any military service whatsoever are MORE courageous. I am perfectly fine with that, and the incentive structure it creates. America is long past the point where no young man should join the military.

  4. Anon says:

    This also brings up the meme that vastly inaccurate accusations are usually projection on the part of the accuser. CBMW is so afraid of female shaming language that they have to project it outward like this..

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    Isn’t it high time that the CBMW, Matt Walsh, etc. stopped pussyfotting around, and named these men? Surely all these men who are demanding that women serve in their place must be easy to see, to find, to point out.

    Come on, CBMW, NAME THEM AND SHAME THEM!.
    Point the finger of scorn at these craven men who are demanding that women protect them! Don’t hold back, there is no need for charity towards such scum!

    Name them. Name them now. Name…just one.

    The world is waiting, CBMW, Matt Walsh…name names…if you can…

  6. This come up in the republic of Plato. More or less Socrates said if they are fit then fine and if not not. But my feeling is that when the Russians and Israelis tried this it did not work very well. Women serve behind the front lines and seem to do well in those capacities.

  7. This comes up in the Republic of Plato. More or less Socrates said if they are fit then fine and if not not. But my feeling is that when the Russians and Israelis tried this it did not work very well. Women serve behind the front lines and seem to do well in those capacities.

  8. Dalrock is absolutely killing it with the posts about women in the military. But I think there is a silver lining in this Grrl Power b.s. finally reaching a point where there might be a female draft: It might shock some women into realizing that they don’t actually want feminist equality. I’ve read a lot of stuff recently about how many women doesn’t like the idea of a female draft, even if it is a step forward for feminism. Women simply do not want to be drafted. This might finally get it through their thick skulls that equal rights means equal obligations and they may finally have to choose one: Chivalry or equality.

  9. Dave says:

    “Women simply do not want to be drafted”

    Even if they were drafted they could easily washout, get pregnant, or go AWOL. Self preservation means more to most women than honor.

  10. Scott says:

    As an Orthodox Christian, I am quite aloof to the surrounding culture–at least spiritually. (Its a good idea to allow this to extend into the rest of you life as well).

    One of the things that happens to me when I read about FotF, the CBMW, etc is I have no frame of reference for understanding its overall effect size.

    I read these posts with great interest as an outsider, but no one I know ever reads these peoples stuff, uses their materials, etc. So sometimes it’s hard to keep my eyes from glazing over.

    Is there anyone who can describe/quantify the impact these organizations actually are having in protestant circles?

  11. michael savell says:

    A.R so you have a “feeling” it did not work very well.From what I have read,it was hardly a disaster.
    What can be a disaster is having an integrated army where men and women serve alongside each other.Allow women to have their own companies,battalions etc.Women are now honorary men and vice versa and should bear some of the responsibility.NOBODY should be drafted, but both sexes,in light of the equality obtained by females should have to enlist if there is to be a draft.
    No poor bloody soldier made money going to war but a lot of people who didn’t ,obtained good jobs and a lot of scope for becoming millionaires.Why hand your rivals your job,money and possible life on a plate,what are they doing for you?

  12. Darwinian Arminian says:

    This isn’t about protecting women though, this is about false bravado. It is about avoiding saying “no” to women in rebellion while pretending to be courageous.

    When you think about it, this actually makes the decision to include women in the military draft look like an even better and far more necessary idea. The government can ship rebellious feminists off to the field of combat, and the opposing army will provide them with the comeuppance that the men of their homeland failed to deliver.

    Just think of it as one of those “jobs that Americans won’t do.”

  13. TomG says:

    When I clicked on the link, it isn’t as bad as it sounded. They are against the draft in opposition to what the Republican candidates said. The issue is about the Selective Service where women should sign up anyways to serve the military in another capacity if there should ever be a draft. Certainly, what they said about women fighting for if men do not is a laughably ridiculous idea. Then again….

    Women ready to defeat the enemy on their own as they should.
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/02/08/former-isis-sex-slaves-now-army-sun-ladies-ready-to-defeat-terror-group.print.html

    The other shoe drops.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/02/11/lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-eliminate-selective-service-system/

  14. PokeSalad says:

    The de facto result will be that DoD policy will continue to allow women to reap the benefits of ‘combat MOS’ es, whilst the GOPe and cuckservatives will ‘defend’ women from actually having to shoulder the burdens of such service. See: Senator Mike Lee bill, etc

  15. javaloco says:

    Because of legislated equality, I absolutely support the *obligation* for women to be required to register for selective service. That’s just the world we live in.

    Deeper though, I don’t believe in that equality. I am happy to wear the mantle of manhood and ergo expect my woman to wear the mantle of femininity.

    Men have been cucked since creation. First in the garden, then by government. Dalrock’s last paragraph sums it up.

  16. Such stupidity. When you treat men like this, with such disdain, why would you think those same men would step up and defend your daughters when it’s so obvious that women are held as superior and better than men? They give women all the benefits but none of the responsibility. I just wonder why more men don’t sign up for such an awesome deal……

    They need to ask themselves a difficult question. What does the average man get out of the current deal that is the ‘social contract’, well…? The answer seems to constantly come back as ‘not that much to be honest…’ and that’s why men need not protect women anymore, let them fight and die, laugh at these complementarians who hold women in such high regard that a woman’s life is worth far more than the men who keep society and civilisation going.

    Women must step up, they must get drafted, they must serve and die with the rest of us, such is the sacrifice of equality. Enough of this double standard, shove it straight back into their faces.

  17. Dalrock says:

    @TomG

    When I clicked on the link, it isn’t as bad as it sounded. They are against the draft in opposition to what the Republican candidates said.

    Yes they oppose the draft, but they do so while going to slavish lengths to avoid offending the feminist Christian women in their audience who fear being forced to fight while really liking the empowerment message women in combat represent. The Republican candidates all framed it as a women’s rights issue, because they understand that taking this tack is the best way to pander to the women in the GOP. Rich Lowry nailed it when he wrote:

    Asked about the proposal at the recent Republican debate, Marco Rubio said that “Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a draft is ever instituted.” He makes it sound as though women would completely miss out should a large-scale conventional war break out and they not be compelled to fight in it through the coercive power of the state.

    Chris Christie agreed. So did Jeb Bush, who gamely — and cluelessly — added that “we should not impose any kind of political agenda on the military.”

    But Lowry and the CBMW are just as afraid to stand up to feminist women as the Republican candidates are, they just find a different way to appease them. The whole frame of the CBMW piece is that some mysterious Christian fathers are pushing their daughters into fighting in their place:

    Christian Dads Should Never Let Their Daughters Die for Them

    It should be said that Christian dads should never allow their little girls to die for them. This is the opposite of manhood. This is the opposite of honor. This is the opposite of Christlike self-sacrifice on the part of men (Eph. 5:22-33).

    This is pure fantasy, but it is the straw man they want to take down because otherwise they will offend the women in their audience. Their fear betrays their knowledge that this is a widely popular feminist issue among “complementarian” Christian women, and yet they insist that what is really happening is courageous women are being forced by men to usurp the position of men. They aren’t just writing in response to the question of selective service, they are writing about women pushing their way into the military in general:

    If men do not answer the call, women will have no choice but to fight. This should not be, though. Women shouldn’t have to be in combat, because men should step up and lead the way.

    They frame the decades long push of women to join all areas of the military as men not answering our country’s call for warriors. They pretend that not enough men have been willing to join the armed forces, so women have been forced to take their place. They aren’t talking merely about a hypothetical future draft, but they are talking about today and the last 30 years*. If you believe this, you also must believe that straight men are forcing gays to fight in their place, and normal men are forcing transvestites into the services. Can you really not see the nonsense in this pretense?

    *Further proof of this is the fact that this argument didn’t first appear when selective service was the topic of discussion. They have been saying the exact same thing for over a decade.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    Is there anyone who can describe/quantify the impact these organizations actually are having in protestant circles?

    Complementarians (CBMW and TGC being the big two orgs) represent roughly the most conservative 30-40% of Evangelicals. There is a much smaller more conservative group to the right of them in the Quiverfull and Patriarchy movement (the Duggars, Doug Phillips). For an idea of the lay of the land, the man who founded Patrick Henry College and heads the Christian Home-school Legal Defense fund blasted the Patriarchy movement as sexist and abusive. This puts the Patriarchy/Quiverful movement on the very edge of the Evangelical overton window (most would say outside it), and yet even they are too afraid to admit that women are trying to usurp men’s roles in the military.

    Further filling in the map, FamilyLife is headed by Dennis Rainey, and Rainey is listed on one of the CBMW boards. FoTF doesn’t have any formal ties to either complementarian group that I can find, and seems to position themselves as the slightly more feminist alternative. Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill was (before it imploded) considered on the bleeding edge of complementarianism, with the primary criticism being that he was too hard on women. Driscoll also founded a church planting network of the same complementarian bent called Acts 29. Driscoll was on the board of TGC (cofounded by Tim Keller, who teaches wives to throw “godly tantrums” as a form of submission), and was the protege of John Piper (cofounder of the CBMW). Then you have the Kendrick brothers who are loved by all of these groups but also have great appeal to more moderate Evangelicals who don’t identify as complementarians but are more like fellow travelers.

    Does this help? Your question was about influence, but the more important answer is about the lay of the land. TGC, CBMW, Family Life, the Kendrick brothers, and FoTF are all competing for influence and mindshare in the same basic space, but they all are telling their target audience the same message regarding men and women because this is what the target audience wants to hear.

  19. Scott says:

    Absolutely it does, thanks.

    I’d like to dive into it more but I am on my phone right now. It is very useful information. So many mine and Mychaels friends “like” Kendrick brothers movies and Joel Osteen and all the rest on FB and elsewhere.

    You may recall I grew up in the “Mainline” church of Christ.

    Our most famous guy is Lucado.

    But all the pedestaliziing etc is vaguely familiar from my Protestant days.

    I want to get a handle it and contextualize it.

  20. Joe says:

    It does bring up a decent question, which is what does a man who is truly trying to be Christian do when handed a really bad set of options?

    The white knights who insist that men have to protect women at all costs are fools. Was Lot – a righteous man – held up as an example for interposing himself between his wife and the twin cities they were to leave, without looking back? Did he stand behind her with a stick, admonishing her to do right? Did he beg the Lord to mitigate the consequences of her actions?

    No. He let her exercise her free will, no matter how ill-advised that was, and he did not beg the Lord to temper his rebuke of her foolishness and sinfulness.

    That is my take. Politically, the dumb bunnies are not going to easily give up their image of Demi Moore as a butt-kicking Navy SEAL or Jennifer Garner taking a couple karate classes and pounding a domestic abuser, until those fun images are displaced by images of mutilated women on the battlefield, humiliated prisoners debased by their Islamist captors, on so on. I reason that we need to let this rebuke happen more sooner than later, while there is still at least a rump of decent and common sensical people in this nation. For men and the conservative movement generally to throw themselves in front of the bus in the hope of saving a few women would only delay the immediate consequences for a little bit, and it could have the effect of helping to weaken the political forces that will be necessary to take back the country a few years from now.

    No, bring on the destruction, and bring on the rebuke of the Lord or natural law or simple consequences, and do it now while there is perhaps still hope that women can turn off this destructive path. We should integrate the infantry immediately and browbeat the ground forces if they do not achieve gender parity in short order.

  21. Scott says:

    I might ad, even when I was highly involved in church of Christ ministry, I never read one Lucado book.

    It may just be my personality to not pay attention to these people which is why I was drawn to Orthodoxy.

  22. bradford says:

    @TomG

    I think you’ve found the feminist imperative answer. FI: “Women must be allowed in combat roles.” Lawyers: “Oh-oh, this would mean, logically, that women should in all fairness be included in the draft.” Consternation by women. White knight Legislators: “Problem solved, we’ll just get rid of the selective service all together. Easy peasy!”

  23. craig says:

    “They pretend that not enough men have been willing to join the armed forces, so women have been forced to take their place.”

    This is especially laughable given years of repeated downsizings in the armed forces. Not only have women *not* been filling the places abandoned by men who refused to serve, women have been displacing the very men who wanted to serve.

  24. The Question says:

    Funny how those who opposed the Equal Rights Amendment when it was proposed claimed it would lead to women getting drafted, and their critics called them fear-mongers.

    Yet here we are, no ERA, but on the cusp of the military draft for women.

  25. Pingback: Collective delusion | Reaction Times

  26. OKRickety says:

    Scott said on February 11, 2016 at 1:28 pm
    Is there anyone who can describe/quantify the impact these organizations actually are having in protestant circles?

    I had a look at the Family Life web site to get an idea of numbers who participated in their Weekend to Remember “getaways”. It looks like there will be about 84 of these in the USA in the next 11 months. The photo on the page appears to have about 1000 people in attendance, but that is probably one of the largest events. I will estimate about (84 * 500) = 42,000 total for all events per year. Pricing is $300 per couple for the event (but most would get a group rate of $200). They recommend staying at the hotel (estimate $200 for 2 nights) plus the cost of 5+ meals ($100). So, each couple is paying approximately $500 plus travel, “babysitting” costs, etc. for the getaway.

    I have no idea of the radio audience size, or web page hits, but I expect the numbers are significant.

    This doesn’t quantify the impact, but it gives an idea of how many people are willing to commit time and money to these getaways.

  27. Squib Load says:

    There’s an even bigger delusion with their analysis.

    The military hardly ever “protects” American civilians via combat (the navy occasionally protects American mariners but that’s about it). The USA hasn’t fought a defensive war since we nuked Japan. Mostly the military serves American geopolitical interests. I’m not dissing the military. They do important work but, they are not really protecting American men (or women) in any quantifiable way.

    Protecting collective interests is not at all the same as offering physical protection. Your daughters would likely be protecting foreign men (which seems like the ultimate cuckold, to me).

  28. greyghost says:

    The frame should never have been “allowed” The frame should be required. I was asked in the 80’s when I was a marine “should women be allowed into combat?” my answer even way back then was the question should be she woman be required to go into combat and my answer was yes. No man is “allowed” a damn thing he is drafted he is required to serve his country whether he likes it or not. I think women have come far enough along that they are ready and prepared for that.
    That is how the issue needs to be discussed.

  29. Solomon says:

    a beautiful New Testament story that tells us of Lydia of Philippi, a career woman in her own right, long before there were laws and proclamations to set women free. A seller of purple, Lydia traveled to the market of her day, and undoubtedly she had found freedom and satisfaction in that era when women were not counted at all. But Lydia heard the Apostle Paul tell of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Lord opened her heart. In Christ she found an eternal answer, which career and position had never been able to give. Now, about conditions today. Our society has set women free to be just as bad as the men-and just as miserable. We have set them free to swear and curse and to set their own morals. Politically, women are now free to vote just as blindly as the men do. But I hope women today will find what Lydia found: that their careers will lack the word “eternal” until they find their answer in the eternal Christ, our Lord Jesus!
    A. W. Tozer Sermon: A Career and Christ

  30. Spike says:

    CBMW: Wrong, wrong and wrong. While the Bible records the incident of Sisera and Jael without a moral comment, a Christian institution cannot use such ambiguity in it’s policy.
    If Jael is a good example, why not Kiranjit Alwahlia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiranjit_Ahluwalia

    and if so, Christian institutions become complicit in the murder of husbands. Does this edify our Lord and Saviour?

    Regarding the military, the USA and other Western Armies (recent trip to Germany recruitment posters exclusively have women in uniform for the Bundeswehr) will have to find out the hard way what the Israeli Army* did: that women just aren’t good soldiers. They can’t cope with battlefield stress. They can’t carry the same weight. They can’t throw a hand grenade far enough to avoid self harm. The pistol grips for assault rifles are too large for them, requiring expensive re-tooling. They are more affected by recoil. They can’t shoot as straight. They can’t show up because of “failed” childcare arrangements. Their contraception mysteriously fails at call-up time….Did I miss any?

    *Arguably the most out-numbered army in the world.

  31. My service was Naval Air, Nimitz, 76-82-ish. A-6E squadron, we were always at sea. Deal back then was a tour of four or five years with a fleet squadron aboard a carrier deck. Upon re-up, you could draw 3 or 4 years ashore. Except, by then they were taking women into Naval Air as fast as they could and of course, they occupied all the easy-duty shore billets. When they sat me down for a re-up after five years of a tailhook up my ass, they had no shore assignments other than Adak Alaska in a P-3 squadron for two years and then right back out to another carrier deck. Best choice was, they offered me my choice of coast and squadron to go right back to sea duty. So I got out a Second Class PO and called it a career.

    Women occupy the easy spots at sea today. I see the girls in the flight deck bubble dialing the settings for the catapults, but they aren’t hauling fuel hoses, they aren’t hanging bombs. They aren’t fire fighters. Men do all the heavy lifts, the women work below or in the island. God help damage control teams in an emergency. Of course, many (half, so I hear) women refuse deployment because what to do with the children? And the Navy tolerates it. They miss movement of their squadrons and ships all the time and nothing is done. In my time, it was an instant court martial to miss movement. With the men that still holds. For the women, not. I see the results in Navy Times, it’s fact. Top it all off, the women leave the service, claim sexual trauma/harassment and instantly get 100% disability and SSDI and retire at 25 on a couple of years’ service. THIS is what women in the military means, overall. All of our public service, fire, police and public works all suffer the same drain.

    I never asked for women in the military, no military man ever, EVER did. It was imposed. It was forced by civilians bending to the feminist will. And they’ve made life in the military a living hell for the men and a haven of safe harbor, benefits and pay for women in the easiest, gravy jobs there are. We can only deploy 3 of our 9 or 10 carrier decks at a time because of the Not Mission Capable status of carrier crews, escorts and squadrons. The women will not deploy and the carriers sit in their ports in Virginia 4 at a time, pier side office buildings with easy-time jobs for female service members that refuse to go to sea. This while our sorties in the Middle East are flown from Kuwait and Saudi into Syria instead of from carriers in the Mediterranean with the targets 100 miles from the coast. And still, three carriers under construction and where are the crews to come from? And how will you deploy them if you can’t crew them? The squadrons? The escorts? It’s insane, the money being spent without a clue as to how to crew them.

    They have a hell of a nerve blaming men for women risking their precious behinds (which isn’t happening in any case). It’s a sick premise that men are to blame other than, of course, to blame men for bending to the feminist demand to stuff fat, sloppy women into the easy jobs in the military, complete with cash and prizes at the end of a year or two of easy duty. It is an outrage.

    I don’t mean to candy coat it, but then, this IS a family show after all. I must behave. Cheers, all. Enjoy the decline. No one cares what I thought of it all back then. Maybe the next-gen will figure it out. But they won’t be swayed.

  32. Kaminsky says:

    What a post by Jim Christian.

    Thanks for taking the time to detail all of that. Enjoy the decline indeed. That’s extraordinary to think that women are just springboarding themselves to full pay after some weak claim of harassment.

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    Women occupy the easy spots at sea today. I see the girls in the flight deck bubble dialing the settings for the catapults, but they aren’t hauling fuel hoses, they aren’t hanging bombs. They aren’t fire fighters. Men do all the heavy lifts, the women work below or in the island. God help damage control teams in an emergency.

    Someone who is a better writer than I am could pen one heck of a serious mil-fiction novel pitting the carrier group centered on the flattop “Thomas Jefferson”* against China or Iran. The heart of the story would be the graphic, horrible, detailed scenes of death and destruction from the flight deck to the hanger deck on down due to utter , total, absolute failure of the majority-female damage control teams. Whether the ship survives or not would be up to the writer.

    Logic isn’t reaching these people. Emotion is the only way to do it. Demanding that they name and shame the strawmen who are “pushing” women into combate is one way; “put up or shut up”. Telling a story in which a lot of average women characters die a horrible death because they were pushed by feminism into jobs they can’t possibly ever hope to do is another.

    *Known to the crew as “The Uncle Tom”. Yes, that makes the foc’sl “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”…

  34. Jim says:

    They have a hell of a nerve blaming men for women risking their precious behinds (which isn’t happening in any case). It’s a sick premise that men are to blame other than, of course, to blame men for bending to the feminist demand to stuff fat, sloppy women into the easy jobs in the military, complete with cash and prizes at the end of a year or two of easy duty. It is an outrage.

    Yup, always giving cunts everything with little to no work while as always men get the shaft. Put them all on the front lines and let the men do the easy work for a change. If they are killed so what? They can see what it’s like to enjoy “male privilege” for once.

    These cunts are so incredibly privileged and pampered. They have REAL nerve claiming they’re persecuted. That’s like saying the Jews were privileged in the concentration camps while the Nazi guards were horribly oppressed by their Jewish slaves.

    ….Male privilege. Yeah right. What a fucking joke! And unbelievably, society actually believes it!

  35. The Question says:

    Fred Reed has documented the “equality” farce at his site based on sources within the military. If women got drafted and sent to the front lines in combat positions, they would not be put into the kind of roles men will. It would just require men to carry an additional load, literally or figuratively.

    We have to remember that this whole proposal is not about actually creating equality, but for the sake of appearance. As long as they get the theoretical, which is women having the same perceived “burdens” as men in terms of conscription, then it doesn’t matter what actually happens on the ground. They get changed the details to placate TradCons quoted above who won’t fight it if they know their daughters won’t actually be put in harm’s way in her “combat role” but can claim the same “status” as a man who has.

  36. frenchy says:

    This recent piece by Martin Van Creveld might interest people.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=542

  37. Anon says:

    As vile as Walsh and CBMW and cuckservatives are, note that is apparent that women crave this sort of thing.

    Endless denigration of men *can* be sold to women (see : TV ads). The reverse is emphatically not true..

  38. I believe that through cannibalization of crews from other carriers, escorts and F/A-18 (and other craft) squadrons they are putting a competent carrier group out there, but the fellows never get a rest. Pilots are almost all men and these gents LIVE to fly off and onto carrier decks. But even in deploy-able squadrons and ships you need some home-port time to rest up, train, I dunno, BE WITH YOUR FAMILY. You have to get your planes and decks ready to go back out to sea, too.

    The scenario of disaster on a carrier deck vs. China or Iran via missiles, while possible, is recognized by all other military forces as a nuke-inspired response from the United States. We encountered many craft at-sea of Soviets, and of course, our F-14s were always tangling and escorting Soviet Air past the ship on their overflights. All very professional for the most part. So far, all these years, the destruction in Naval Air has been self-inflicted, as usual with Aviation, strings of mistakes, complacency and exhaustion all contributing. This was demonstrated to me personally with a mishap in May 1981 aboard Nimitz one dark night off Florida. Killed 11 folks and broke a lot of airplanes. Stuff happens, folks. Women weren’t at sea then and most that got killed were guys salvaging the wreckage when a Sparrow warhead cooked off. Bad night at Black Rock. The whole report is Google-able, read it and imagine a sprinkling of women in the mix. I don’t want to think of warheads and cruise missiles attacking a carrier deck. Bad stuff.

    Until then, it was all a lark, travel to Italy, Israel many times (Sorry folks, I happen to have enjoyed Israel, especially times I worked with their military), Egypt under Mubarak and Sadat, Spain, Germany, it was a fine time for a young man who was a trouble-junkie. They even sent us out to NOT rescue the Iranian Hostages in 1980. We all know how THAT turned out. Jimmy Carter’s Navy and integration of women into the Navy. Anyway, dancing on a flight deck is fun until well, it isn’t. I’m still fit, I’d go right back out there if they’d have me. It’s a kick and I replaced that with motorcycles and some skydiving and other stuff. Once a trouble-junkie, always a trouble-junkie I guess.

    As for the c*unts, as you call them, they’re just broads taking what is offered. Truthfully, most are fuglies, they weren’t getting married or having children anyway. But putting them in the military and then entertaining their every weakness and deficiency has been, is now and will always be a detriment, at least in the Naval Air community. For the women, it’s a jobs program, a welfare system with very heavy pay and benefits and again, cash and prizes at the end at even the slightest notion of “sexual trauma”. And the VA dares not argue with them.

    I don’t post much, but sometimes Dalrock, you tickle the Hell out of my funny bone. This post of yours really hits close to home. The feminists in religion are really closeted radicals sent in specifically to wreck our churches, damage families and Christianity in general and MEN allowed it and I have no clue why. If we’d flipped them the bird at the greater excesses, what would they do about it? Instead, we entertain them. And they hate us for that. That’s it for me for one night. There’s more, but nothing that changes the basic facts. These women need men in their faces telling them to SHUT UP and get OUT. I’m available for that service.

    Good evening all.

  39. ALCON,

    A recent article by Martin Van Creveld. http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=542

    You may find it interesting.

  40. greyghost says:

    Jim Christian made a really good point. When men fail to check a women and instead bail her out she will despise you for it. Women know they are pieces of shit and loving them and telling them how wonderful she is will cause her to lose respect and generate a loathing for you.
    BTW you brought back some memories of the carrier deployment. it is a yearlong process to do a 6 month deployment. No matter how much you eat everybody loses weight on those things. I was on the last all male deployment in a Marine squadron.

  41. Jesus, GreyGhost, that was the label we had for the E2Bs and C! Ha! You were one of those guys! Wow!Ours were out of Whidbey Island. Our Queer A-6s, EA-6’s were from there, too.

    Sorry, Marine, it was a Marine Corps EA6 that crashed coming aboard Nimitz that night. I don’t hold it against the Marines, but that pilot WAS in the middle of a “not haaaaaapy” divorce at the time, they actually listed it as a factor. It’s aviation, doesn’t matter, the who, only the event.

    I was AME, were you AC, or a mechanic or pilot? Would you go back out? I would. My kid is raised, I could still do that duty easily. Better than ANY woman and most of the men, still. They have a hidden resource, older-Vets! In the end, apples and oranges.

  42. RichardP says:

    Feminism is all about a woman’s right to choose. Therefore, it follows, that feminism will be against making women part of the draft. ‘Cause requiring them to sign up takes away their right to choose whether to do so or not.

    On a more serious note:

    @Jim Christian: “These women need men in their faces telling them to SHUT UP and get OUT. ”
    @grehghost: “When men fail to check a women and instead bail her out …” (or simply let her bear the results of her behavior?)

    Biblically speaking, does any man have the right to tell another man’s wife, sister, or daughter to shut up and get out? Does any man have the right to check another man’s wife, sister, or daughter and bar her from the goal she seeks, seeks perhaps with her husband/brother/father’s approval?

    In Genesis, did God tell every man to rule over every woman? Or is a man’s God-given authority a bit more restricted than that? Will SusieQ escape God’s punishment at the Judgement Seat, where every man will give account of what he did while in the body, because she proclaims “some man didn’t make me behave” and God accepts that as sufficent justification for her bad behavior?

    We can have esoteric arguments/debates over stuff like this. But, if women gain sufficient control over the levers of power, and let the barbarian’s through the gates when they storm them, because tingles and all (see all the discussions about war brides and evolution selecting for women who can switch allegience from the vanquished to the conquerors in the blink of an eye) – I think men will not care whose wife or sister or daughter is letting the barbarians in. They will rise up and drive out the barbarians, and the women who let them in.

    If men consider themselves free to act at that point, why not consider themselves free to act well before we get to that point, in order to keep it from ever happening?

    Well – as Harry K Smith, news anchor, said after a massive earthquake in Mexico City: “Most men would rather improvise in the face of disaster than exert the effort necessary to avoid it to begin with.” Not all men. But most men. And that is all it is going to take to let women fill a power vacuum created by men unwilling to get in women’s face and tell them to shut up and get out – before they let the barbarians in (as Germany has been doing).

  43. greyghost says:

    I guess the Navy would call it an AT tech o level F/A-18 1992′ was my cruise We did our night traps and shoots for pilot work ups on the Nimitz.
    Even back in the early nineties especially after that tailhook thing in Vegas the navy women could do what ever they wanted.

  44. RichardP says:

    Howard K Smith – not Harry K. Smith.

  45. Yes, Nimitz was West Coast by then, no? Yes? Bremerton?

    And yes, men should tell women to SHUT UP if their own men dont have these women under control. Why should one fish screw the entire pond? Many of these women have no men, these “Christian” feminists in Canada and their followers going back to their home churches, heads full of this excrement. And yes, the men, collectively, individually need to tell the minority of women spouting all this to SHUT UP. Since God won’t do it, we as men must. Congregations ruined and we aren’t to speak up as it happens?

    Really RichardP? THAT is how this tripe took control and influence to begin with. Weak men advocating and White-Knighting for the Christian feminist. How’s that working for everyone?

  46. desiderian says:

    “Their fear betrays their knowledge that this is a widely popular feminist issue among ‘complementarian’ Christian women, and yet they insist that what is really happening is courageous women are being forced by men to usurp the position of men.”

    It’s not just complementarian women (even if it may primarily be), but also fathers with smaller family sizes now pushing their daughters into roles their sons would have fulfilled if they’d had any. These days, there are even fathers that recognize that their daughters will have an easier time climbing the govcorp ladder due to AA, and so push their daughters to be the achievers in the family.

    Many of those fathers are big check scratchers for the Rs, so they also push policy to help those daughters. Whole lot of nepotism these days in govcorp land, and a good bit of it is father/daughter.

  47. Gunner Q says:

    I just had the thought, this situation must be what Obama’s military purge over the last few years was working towards. The Elites really are pulling a Carthage on America. This was planned too carefully to be a “let’s be nice and let girls into the clubhouse” brain fart.

    RichardP @ 9:10 pm:
    “Feminism is all about a woman’s right to choose.”

    No, it’s about punishing the man for the woman’s choices. If women got both cause and effect then all would be well. False rape accusation, go to jail. Leave a perfectly good husband for no good reason, leave his kids and money too. Spurn all the hardworking Betas, no Beta-paid welfare dole. Want to work a physically demanding job, keep up or give up.

    One of the devil’s favorite modus operandi is the separation of power from responsibility. Feminism is only the current iteration.

  48. cynthia says:

    @ Jim

    For the women, it’s a jobs program, a welfare system with very heavy pay and benefits and again, cash and prizes at the end at even the slightest notion of “sexual trauma”. And the VA dares not argue with them.

    For MOST people in the service, regardless of sex, this holds true. You know that. Everyone knows that. Just replace “sexual trauma” with “age related knee or back pain” and you’re describing quite a few of the men now as well. I’m in the ANG now, and you would not believe what these full-time guys get away with. Or what about the active duty enlisted guys who do their twenty, “retire” at 39, get a retirement check for the rest of their lives while simultaneously holding a GS position and earning a second pension there? Or any of the other crap people pull with their benefits? The system is set up to be taken advantage of, in much more direct ways than “sexual trauma.”

    To put it in perspective, I dealt with some ridiculous shit at my first duty location in terms of sexual crap, up to and including a sexual assault, with absolutely no support from anybody. Even now, I only have limited options for counseling, if I wanted it. On the other hand, I was offered 30% disability for hearing loss during my separation physical, age 27 with no history of working on the flight line. I don’t even have hearing loss.

    I know the Navy is a different world from the Air Force, but from this female’s perspective, the military is hardly a feminist paradise. I’m not saying it should be. Don’t misunderstand. But this women in combat bullshit is a symptom of a larger problem. That female presence serves to provide justification for some of it, but if it wasn’t that, it’d be something else. The military could be 100% male, and you’d still have the same horrendously scarring budget cuts and overbearing social agendas being forced on it. Our fleet would still be aging, our combat effectiveness would still be falling, the rules will still be getting so lax that Basic Training is essentially summer camp.

  49. patriarchal landmine says:

    according to tradcons: my life, which was already destroyed by “liberated and empowered” women, is forfeit. it is my job, as a male, to sacrifice what little I have left from the ruins of my childhood, so that women living in the greatest comfort and luxury ever won’t have to be inconvenienced by my continued existence.

    they have all declared war on my being. I know who my enemies are.

  50. Dave says:

    @MarcusD:

    Sick of Guys

    “Ever since my annulment two years ago, dating has been… awful. Since the big break up, I have learned how hard it is for a woman my age (30s) to enter the dating world again. I mean, I was (invalidly) married. I thought I was done with dating. I thought I was married for life. But then he ended up being my own personal Judas and the rest is ancient history.
    Since the “big break up” I’ve had three men ask me to marry them: the first was broke and disrespectful, the second turned out to be a bit psychologically abusive, and the third was a total liar.
    Now, a certain gentleman has expressed interest in me. He was calling me quite a bit, said I was what he was looking for, yadda yadda yadda. But then I noticed this week he hasn’t called at all, yet he is emailing me. Tonight he said he was going to call at a specific time, and then didn’t! I felt ticked. I mean, does ANYONE have virtue anymore? My time is important to me, I’m not going to sit by the phone and wait for a dude to call me.
    It’s like my romances are rainbows in the sky: all wonderful at first and then POOF, fades into the clouds.
    Sorry, but I just had to rant. I’m good looking, I’m sweet, I can cook, my depression is doing so much better, I feel healed, and I have a lot to offer a man. So, to quote Bonnie Tyler, “Where have all the good men gone?”

    Sigh! ”

    In other words,
    1. This woman previously married a stable guy who was neither a liar, nor disrespectful, nor psychologically abusive (if he was she probably would have said so), but because she did not know what commitment meant, she “annulled” (i.e. denied) her marriage (hey, it never happened! All those elaborate wedding preparations, rehearsals and vows–they were invalid. They never happened!).
    2. The first man interested in her did not have enough money, so she came up with an excuse to say no (Nooooooo! He was “disrespectful”. If he was truly respectful of her feewings he would have bought her the handbag and the expensive shoes she wanted. Ok, moving on…)
    3. The certain gentleman who had caught her fancy and had been calling repeatedly happened not to call as promised. She did not bother to call the guy back and ask if he was OK (for all you know, he could have been hit by a truck, or shot in a drive-by shooting rampage. No, that didn’t bother her. He must call her at all costs, else he has no virtue!)
    4. Anyone noticed how she equated failure of the guy to call her as promised as lack of virtue, but she completely ignored her own failure to keep her marriage vows? I mean, she totally denied that her marriage to her former husband ever took place!

    While there may be other reasons men don’t want to marry anymore, one major reason must be the lack of suitable women to pick from. How would any man in their right senses marry a woman like this one? And she is one of the “better ones”, go figure.

  51. greyghost says:

    The military could be 100% male, and you’d still have the same horrendously scarring budget cuts and overbearing social agendas being forced on it. Our fleet would still be aging, our combat effectiveness would still be falling, the rules will still be getting so lax that Basic Training is essentially summer camp.

    This is from someone that has never seen a 100% male anything, I have When I first arrived at MCAS El Toro (1984 it’s gone now) There were buildings on the base that didn’t have “womens” bathrooms. The base gym didn’t and neither did the hangers. For that they took an officers head and put a locker in front of the urinals and called it a womans head. It was way different then. You still had your pussies but they weren’t running things the way they do now. Cynthia is immersed in the FI military of today and knows nothing else. The combat arms was and currently is all male and when the FI arrives in day to day operations that too will be accommodating to the pussies and we are ready for the collapse. As soon as the careers of those guys are ended for social reasons it is over. The men will stop behaving as men and will adapt (down) to a level of FI fairness and the military will be a shell. I saw the changes as it was happening in my time that ended in 96′. It has got to be a mess by now.

  52. greyghost says:

    Dave,MarcusD
    That post from the divorced lady was funny. The guy quit calling because he was getting no action from that old chick. Besides that any guy that she would approve of at her used up stage would be running some young stuff anyway. She was in a good place and let her hypergamy piss it away for herself. It is all based on pure social herd status shit with her thinking she has something to offer with her bad attitude.

  53. Opus says:

    May I add to what Dave says above concerning Catholic Answers, Sick of Guys thread: what jumped out at me is that in the first paragraph she bemoans the difficulties for a woman in her thirties of being once again in the dating world – too much younger competition one supposes – but by the second paragraph she has within a period of two years had no less than three offers of marriage (so she says). Jeeez, if that is what a difficult dating regime looks like what might a good one produce by way of proposals? Catholic Answers: the site that keeps on giving but hardly a good advertisement for the faith – as I think Catholics call it for I don’t think they see themselves as a denomination.

  54. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “Proof” that women are tougher than men:

  55. Dave says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “Proof” that women are tougher than men:”

    A woman baking cookies and vacuuming the floor is far more believable. SMH.

  56. Heidi says:

    The “Sick of Men” woman has started many threads; CAF seems to have deleted the one in which she slept with a guy who supposedly acted like he wanted to marry her, and then, for some unaccountable reason, ghosted after they’d done the deed. She has issues.

  57. Heidi says:

    Oh, and this is what she writes about the circumstances of her divorce:

    “His treatment of me gradually got worse. There were no Christmas presents, I was alone on New Year’s Eve (he was angry and left me alone while we were out on the town) he didn’t go to my birthday party. That’s just the start. There was the yelling, the name calling, the breaking of things. He broke something of mine that was dear to me. One night, he didn’t come home at all. My friends and family wanted me to get out, but I prayed hard for our marriage. Things started getting a little better when I found a new job that I was excited about. But then, he suddenly announced he had been lying to me, and was leaving me. He refused marriage counseling and would not talk to me. He split and just abandoned me after making his announcement. I found all kinds of notes he wrote, planning out how to remove me from joint accounts and leave me. I did not sin, I was devoted to him and to the marriage. I will be annulling the divorce through the Church, eventually.”

  58. theasdgamer says:

    Trad-con instincts are to blame men for a problem created by feminists, then White Knight.

  59. @marcusD: 12:47: Great find. All of you should read that and we can see if my Red Pill brothers recognize the typical and obvious female behavior in response to genuine affection. She is cold and bitchy to the guy on the second date. However, it is not until he stops responding to her and doesn’t text she loses her mind. Oh No! This is a man who won’t put up with disrespect. He won’t put up with my bullshit! HE IS A MAN OF SUBSTANCE. How do I get him back sister Christians?

    The Catho-lick approved Answers: Give up. Plenty of fish. Forget about him. Hop on the next pop beta boy to come along.

    Hmm, what about she could call him and ask for another chance, blame it on hormones, promise that she is not going to be a cunt this time? Nahh! This one wasn’t supplicating enough. Find another host!

    >>> I texted him on a different Saturday during the day and we were chatting a bit and he asked what my plans were later .. And then I asked if he wanted to do a double date and he said yea. My other friend and her boyfriend came too, so it was basically a triple date. This time around didn’t go so well, and it was my fault in a way. I didn’t show him affection at all really, and when pulled out his arm so we could lock arms I didn’t, I told him I don’t trust anyone except family , and basically kind of not really showing him I liked him. I don’t know why because I actually like him more than I’ve liked any guy before and it’s rare for me anyway to like a guy a lot. He kind of got mad at me towards end of the night.. don’t want to go in detail because my post will be too long lol, but I did say ‘come on let’s go’ and He said why do I talk to him like a kid and that he doesn’t deserve that, and said ‘I guess nice guys finish last. I think he probably just thought I wasn’t being affectionate toward him or whatever and he blew up. Basically the night did not go great for us.

    I LOVE this line: “it was my fault in a way. I didn’t show him affection at all really”

    This could be a record! A WOMAN admitting some responsibility! This is one for the books.

  60. Dave says:

    @bluepillprofessor says:

    This could be a record! A WOMAN admitting some responsibility! This is one for the books.

    You’d be surprised; they often freely admit their faults among themselves; just not to the guys they shafted. In fact, they could tell each other the truth sometimes (“Poor guy; you were really mean to him”).

    Their ready refrain is often “So what? He’ll get over it”.

    And, did she really accept responsibility? I don’t think so. She went ahead to accuse the same guy of not being virtuous for not putting up with her BS! A truly contrite person would humbly call the guy, and apologize for her bad behaviors.

  61. Looking Glass says:

    @MarcusD:

    Still doing the Lord’s Work.🙂

    @Dalrock:

    I’m probably most impressive by how thoroughly this is a Strawman-based, Horse Beating sessions by certain media types. I’d be utterly amazed if they could find 5 sane Men in the country that would want Women to “protect” them in the military. Few Men are that truly stupid. So they’ve invented a strawman from pure insanity.

    Says a lot about them.

  62. Kindasortafeminist says:

    I’m not sure that men should be telling women no in this instance. Very few women will manage to complete combat training. Those that do should be allowed to participate. I suspect that most of the “women” in combat will actually be trannys who claim to be female. Seems like much ado about nothing.

  63. Dalrock- thanks for being a real voice of sanity on this. Especially pointing out the failure of other traditionalists to be willing to call women on rebellion.

    There is no “shortage” of men willing to go fight somewhere. DoD is drawing down numbers anyway. This is the culmination of a progressive movement that started 30 years ago to get women into the service academies. Its the constant invasion of male only spaces by women. This is about women trying to prove they can be just as good as the boys, even at the expense of the men around them and the families they have.

  64. The Question says:

    @theasdgamer
    “Trad-con instincts are to blame men for a problem created by feminists, then White Knight.”

    Yes. The setup is basically like this: Feminists determine the rules for intergender relations, and the TradCons make sure men play by them, shame them when they don’t, all while pretending to fight back against the feminists.

  65. Gunner Q says:

    “Or what about the active duty enlisted guys who do their twenty, “retire” at 39, get a retirement check for the rest of their lives while simultaneously holding a GS position and earning a second pension there?”

    Speaking as a civilian taxpayer, I’m okay with this. Twenty years is a lot of deployments, chances to get shot and life in metal cans. That’s worth a double pension at my expense. I’m also more sympathetic to disability claims from men hiking hills in full combat gear or servicing huge vehicles than sexual assault claims from women who knowingly put themselves in a heavily male environment with little privacy.

    Cynthia, that “sexual crap” you endured was more inevitable than bad knees on light infantry. You had to have known it was going to happen… that hot-blooded young men don’t have an off switch.

  66. anonymous_ng says:

    greyghost wrote “This is from someone that has never seen a 100% male anything,”

    My boy and I get our hair cuts at the barber shop because it’s the closest thing to an all male space we can find. What’s amazing when you first see it, is how stifled things become when a woman walks through the door.

    It might be a mom bringing in her boys for haircuts, but a week or so back, it was some party girl stopping in for two minutes, asking if the bus stop a little down the street went to the nearest big city.

    It took about ten minutes for things to return to normal after she left.

    And, it isn’t that we were cussing up a storm, or telling dirty jokes, or anything that we couldn’t have done with a woman present. It’s just that when women enter, things change.

  67. Dave says:

    And, it isn’t that we were cussing up a storm, or telling dirty jokes, or anything that we couldn’t have done with a woman present. It’s just that when women enter, things change.

    In all fairness, things change, too, for the gals, when a guy suddenly gets injected among them.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, I must have been reading either too fast or toooo slooooow when you first posted this excerpt:

    We are Holistically Pro-Woman and Cannot Support This
    At CBMW, we are completely pro-woman. Unlike a secular, gender-blurring culture, we honor women and view them in the highest regard. As complementarians, we are committed to the biblical truths that men and women are completely equal in dignity, value, worth, and honor; however, men and women are different in role and function.

    IMO the CBMW completely tips the whole hand of cards with the first sentence: “At CBMW we are completely pro-woman”. Yep. Something is missing, like “We are completely pro-family perhaps? This paragraph is a stunningly clear example of the conservative feminist mind at work:

    1. Promote women.
    2. Promote and praise women again.
    3. Mention that men are, eh, ok partners FOR WOMEN.

    Women first, men second. That’s how the matriarchs at CBMW roll. It’s eye poppingly obvious.

  69. KP says:

    Kindasorta,

    You’re part of the problem. Including even one “.1 percenter” that qualifies, still changes the group dynamics.

  70. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Women first, men second. That’s how the matriarchs at CBMW roll. It’s eye poppingly obvious.

    Yes. It is a combination of (denied) feminism, and cartoonish chivalry. The two of course blur together. You can see this in the closing paragraph:

    As former CBMW President Randy Stinson has said, in terrible situations, “The man goes down, the woman goes free.”

    You can find more on Stinson’s feminist chivalry in a sermon by Matt Chandler, lead pastor at The Village (an Acts 29 church, with Acts29 being Mark Driscoll’s church planting network before they kicked him out). The relevant excerpt is:

    [Stinson] has a lot of children. He has adopted children. I mean, he is like a kid away from a TLC show. He has taught all his little boys concerning his daughters and women in general, “The boy goes down. The girl goes free. Say it back to me, sons. The boy goes down so that the girl can go free.” He tells this story of being in his office at his house working, and he saw his son going down the hill in his little red wagon thing. He was like, “Okay, that’s going to end badly.”

    He got up and went. He was opening up the blinds. He saw his son. It’s like the wagon is like… He was like, “My son is going to die here.” As he was watching his son, waiting for impact so he can go save his life, he saw this little girl on her tricycle starting to come out. He said the impact was imminent when he saw his son rock it and throw the wagon down and then begin to dump head-over-foot. Randy and his wife ran out. They got their son. They brought him in. They were trying to get the blood off of him to see if they needed to go to the hospital.

    While they were wiping the blood off of him, Randy said his son looked at him and said, “The boy goes down so the girl goes free, Dad.” Right? We know this is right. We know this is right! The boy goes down so the girl goes free. I teach my son this.

    I don’t disagree with him that men have an instinct to protect women, but this morphs into this cartoonish complementarian chivalry where women owe nothing to men, and men owe it to women to focus equally on 1) Minding their own business 2) Finding ways to get injured, maimed, or killed to prove they love women.

    I take that back. In the same sermon Pastor Chandler explains that women do have a role to play. Women need to value themselves, and when they do this they will lead men into virtue:

    …as a woman should view yourself as extremely valuable and should never treat yourself cheaply because you have been made in the image of God. Let me help you. If you put the bar too low, you’ll find plenty of little boys who can shave who are willing to step across that little 2-inch bar you set for them. But if you will expect more of us, I believe that by and large we’ll rise to the occasion.
    Single ladies, if you’re like, “Do you know what? I like the look of you, but the way you act, the way you carry yourself, the way you live your life, no thank you,” that will send a brother off to maturation school. You can giggle all you want, but I’m telling you, ladies, you have a profound amount of power when it comes to an expectation of males being men. You put the bar on pre-pubescent ridiculousness, I promise you, you’ll find a herd of morons who will come trampling toward your door.

    But if you’ll put the bar up and go, “No, thank you. Get out of my face. No, I’m not signing up for that,” if you raise your expectations, we raise the bar on what we expect out of men, I think by and large by the grace of God, they’ll rise to it. You keep it low; they’ll stay low. I promise you. I promise you sin has bent us in that direction. That’s why this is important for women, that you might encourage and that you might expect.

    The assumption remains that women aren’t tempted into feminist rebellion. They just need to follow the feminist message to have higher self esteem and be true to themselves. Then their perfection will lead men to overcome men’s sinful nature.

    When women go to women’s retreats, they just get encouraged. “You guys are awesome. You can do it! All right!” Men get blown up. You go to a man thing. You’re just going to hear how much you’ve failed and how bad you stink and why the whole world is broken because you’re so worthless. That’s kind of how we do it, and it’s the right way to do it. With that said, two things. I want to lean into us as men, and then I want to encourage us as men.

  71. cshort says:

    Dalrock

    I take it you haven’t seen Cruz’s comments on the whole selective service/draft issue. He’s not exactly warm and fuzzy towards it and called the other candidates nuts for supporting it.

  72. Joe says:

    @GreyGhost, JimChristian – good to see some squids speaking up. I served in the army in the 80’s through mid-90’s, served at the sharp end during one of my enlistments in an infantry division and with a ranger company (I wasn’t tabbed, so, all the suck, none of the glory). Never met a woman ever who could do that work. I hear from active duty friends that it’s still the same old story as when I was in – much respect for the women who can hack it, but many, many of them are non-hackers, and there’s a lower standard that lets the non-hackers stick around.

    I’d like to take up the fight to keep this full integration from happening. It’s fine to tell women “no.” But we’ve got a problem. 50% of the population politically is going full speed ahead on this bullshit as a matter of political partisan doctrine. Maybe half the folks who are theoretically on our side of the political spectrum are against it. So we’re outnumbered 75:25 at the outset, and neither personal experience nor the USMC’s properly constructed study are sufficient to move the needle. You simply can’t reason somebody out of a position they weren’t reasoned into.

    So we’re outnumbered and the people politically on our own side (in theory) don’t want to hear it. The only tactic I’ve found for dealing with this sort of thing is to give people what they are demanding, and to give it to them good and hard. It reminds me a little of dealing with my wife, an extremely strong and strong willed person. I’m generally pretty good at leading her but sometimes she will make up her mind to do something, and she absolutely cannot be talked out of it no matter how high the volume goes. So a few years ago when I became more red pill aware, I adopted a tactic of telling her something was a bad idea, if she persisted, I’d tell her how it would probably end, and if she still persisted, I’d tell her, “fine. This ends badly. It’s on you.” She used to go do her thing and after the third or fourth time she burned in, she started listening to me when I quietly said no and told her why. She’s become a lot more deferential to my judgments.

    I’m advocating black knighting on this issue because I think maybe we can bring a little sense back into things if it goes down fast enough, and we let the bitches have their way. You can throw some Alinsky in there – hold them to their own set of rules, and if they refuse, highlight the hypocrisy. The country is quite obviously mad if our presidential choices are going to be between an unreconstructed red, and a fascist, and I don’t think facts or reasoned arguments are going to stop this. If they are going to make policy based on a lie, it’s best we expose the lie as quickly and painfully as possible. Patient argument for 40 years has not worked; if they keep demanding to taste steel, let’s give them a gut full of it.

    Yeah, it sucks innocent people will get hurt and killed. My son is in the generation that will likely suffer if we go down this path. But I don’t see any other way to win this fight with the lunatics and the pussy ass men who are happy to go along with their insane lies. In a marriage, you’d divorce some body who proved they couldn’t be sane and learn from their disastrous choices. But I don’t know that divorce is really a political option yet. This is the next best thing I can think of. Maybe there’s a better way but “patiently argue, and vote every two years” doesn’t seem to be working at all.

  73. michael savell says:

    Irrespective of what responsibilities and the overwhelming odds that men will have to take if
    saddled by women,the latter will still want equal pay along with all the other advantages.

  74. Dave says:

    Opening up the frontline to women is one thing; women actually occupying this position is another. All it takes is for some women POWs to be shown on TV, shackled by ISIS, and the fickle minds of the feminists will start blowing another way.

  75. Jim says:

    All it takes is for some women POWs to be shown on TV, shackled by ISIS, and the fickle minds of the feminists will start blowing another way.

    Sounds good to me. Like I’ve said before, some people just have to learn the hard way.

  76. RichardP said, “Biblically speaking, does any man have the right to tell another man’s wife, sister, or daughter to shut up and get out?”

    No, but we have an obligation to tell our brothers to pull their heads out of their asses when they buy into this feminist rebellion horseshit and conduct themselves accordingly.

  77. I take what I said back. Yes, men should tell women to SHUT UP when they grasp for things they ought not be grasping for.

  78. They just need to follow the feminist message to have higher self esteem and be true to themselves.

    Saw a late 40’s woman in a Jaguar yesterday ….the license plate was “TYM4ME”

    Go grrllll

    Unbelievable that stuff like -me time- can be incorporated into the Christian walk as a virtue.

  79. “I want to lean into us as men, and then I want to encourage us as men.”

    A shameless homage to their overlord, Sheyrl Sandberg, no doubt. *barf*

  80. Anon says:

    Yes. It is a combination of (denied) feminism, and cartoonish chivalry.

    The worst of both worlds…

    A man deserving of respect partakes in neither…

  81. Micha Elyi says:

    Females drafted in the Army? Serving in front-line combat too?
    It’s their country, let them defend it.

    Someone might object, “But babies!” but that white knight is 60 million aborted babies too late.

  82. greyghost says:

    Joe
    This is what political divorce papers look like
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    Let’s not forget what we have learned about female nature. It is always there no matter the context. The selfish female nature is a given as gravity has the force of 1 g world wide. Let the selfish nature work for you. First off stop making it work. She wants a military combat job send her out there. It is perfectly ok for her to burn to death after a shape charge explodes the pressurized hydraulic fluid of the turret drive. Going 3 days on 2 MRE’s and then force marching 17 miles to avoid being pinched off in a salient is her wish. Being captured tortured and then beheaded on arab you tube is fine. Terrance pop has a really nice video posted up on the subject.

    I don’t see it as worse have women as the players in this. This is what it calls for, there is no getting around it, reality (truth) always is the way to proper policy on managing civilization. .

  83. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, your last comment is almost a posting by itself…

  84. Anon says:

    Dalrock, your last comment is almost a posting by itself…

    Indeed. It naturally *should* become a future posting, but above that, I think the term ‘cartoonish chivalry’ should be spread far (hence having the same effect as ‘cuckservative’ in getting under their slimy skin).

  85. Cynthia, the military IS a feminist paradise. The easiest jobs, always. Lesser standards to measure up to, always. And, cash and prizes for VA claims. That’s it, that’s that, I’m right, you’re wrong. You need to be told that because you’re doing the little girl “I’m strong” routine. Doesn’t fly in today’s Navy. You have all the talking points and I’m here to tell you, B/S, to be polite.

  86. Kaminsky says:

    @BluePillProfessor

    “This could be a record! A WOMAN admitting some responsibility! This is one for the books.”

    I think you’ve been had. I’ve noticed that lately women have started to play with the concept of accountability. But it’s just a new form of self-congratulation, it’s not true accountability/guilt at all. Most women have gotten wind of the complaint that ‘women have no accountability’. It’s been brought up in film etc. It’s gotten to be a known trait in our culture. So women have started adding ‘accountability’ to their list of things they adore about themselves. That’s not accountability at all, of course.

    I watched my own sister absolutely trash my ex bro-in-law with lists of his mistakes she recounted to me as to why she wanted a divorce. Every once in awhile she’d sidestep and say “I’m sure I wasn’t perfect either” with almost a gleam in her eye, like; “See? I have accountability. I’m so amazing.” True accountability is gut-wrenching guilt/remorse and when you see women take fun little forays into the play-act of accountability, you’re not seeing any pain at all. It’s just a new handbag for their psyche and nowhere near the true form of the emotion. It’s just facebook introspection signalling stuff.

    tl;dr
    “I ruined my family and I hold myself accountable. I am so AWESOME for doing that.”

  87. Joe, good takes, every one. Problem is, we haven’t the power. From within and/or from without, this isn’t going to change. Civilian control of the military on some levels wasn’t a good idea. The military men would never have permitted the ruination of our military, our morale and our mission capable status by adding weak and basically, 99%, worthless female service members. Civilians toeing the feminist line all the way. They had their orders and there you have it, another successful male bastion, the military, ruined.

  88. Kaminsky says:

    @Joe,

    “You simply can’t reason somebody out of a position they weren’t reasoned into.”

    Holy cow, that is quite a great line there. That is the kind of line that a guy can take along with him to the poolside.

    I’ve gotten some heat at times for my tendency to prefer ghost/mgtow but a line like that clarifies the hopelessness. Arguing, fighting etc only galvanizes the left’s insanity. Better to live privately, quietly and just let the children learn on their own. Like a father who tries to help a kid set up a tent, gets barked at and quietly goes to set up his own tent properly. The frustrated kid will come over and finally ask how he did it. Then you teach him, when he’s decided he’s ready to learn. That’s how I see the culture war right now. Let the barking, victim demographics burn their own neighborhoods down, die with cats. Sooner or later they’ll be curious about the minimalist smiling in the Idaho sunshine, picking his own raspberries. “What’s taht guy up to?”

  89. Dave says:

    Has anyone noticed that feminists are literal enemies of the state?
    I mean, when was the last time a feminist wants to do anything to promote the interests of her country? When has the power and might of the United States ever been a consideration for her?
    In everything feminism, it is always about “women’s rights”, even if this weakens her country, destroys the morale among its soldiers, ruins the economy, and causes the state to become a laughingstock among other nations.
    And how can a movement which actually weakens the country through deliberate efforts not be considered an enemy of the state?

  90. Jim says:

    Let the barking, victim demographics burn their own neighborhoods down, die with cats. Sooner or later they’ll be curious about the minimalist smiling in the Idaho sunshine, picking his own raspberries. “What’s taht guy up to?”

    No. They’ll just come to your home and take what’s left. When there’s nothing left to take from anyone then they’ll die. That’s how parasites operate. But by then it will be too late.

    Has anyone noticed that feminists are literal enemies of the state?
    I mean, when was the last time a feminist wants to do anything to promote the interests of her country? When has the power and might of the United States ever been a consideration for her?
    In everything feminism, it is always about “women’s rights”, even if this weakens her country, destroys the morale among its soldiers, ruins the economy, and causes the state to become a laughingstock among other nations.
    And how can a movement which actually weakens the country through deliberate efforts not be considered an enemy of the state?

    Actually they’re a friend of the state. They use it for what they want in order to enrich themselves at our expense. It’s a tool to get what they want and they don’t care who it hurts. So I’d say they’re really an enemy of civilization in whatever country they’re in. And as we know, these cunts aren’t about “rights” but about privilege. Like spoiled little bitches they want what they want when the want it.

    They’re weak minded little things and they want everyone to be as weak and pathetic as them. Entitled, narcissistic, weak willed, with no self control. They need to be controlled. When you don’t you get what we have now. Does this sound harsh? To us, yes. But then reality always is.

  91. Hugh says:

    We still hear the phrase “women and children” all the time as in “the bombing of this Syrian city may hurt women and children”.

    I think we can now shorten this to “children”…. in recognition of women being totally kick ass.

    Let’s see how that plays to the audience.

  92. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice Post Mr.’D’

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/12/planned-parenthood-and-hillary-clinton-the-fewer-men-the-better/

    I would pick up a gun to defend wimminz like this?…..I highly doubt it! In fact,if I did pick up a gun it would be to shoot them.I am looking forward to seeing these modern femtard cunts getting into combat.I am a true believer in equality.I want an equal number of body bags to be returned.

  93. Dave, feminists and in bed with the state. The state thrives off the control that feminists give it. Feminists have no problem with submission to the state. The state loves feminists because it gives them absolute control over men through women. It’s a match made in hell.

    Feminists are selfish, yes, but so is the state.

  94. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Dave: In everything feminism, it is always about “women’s rights”, even if this weakens her country, destroys the morale among its soldiers, ruins the economy, and causes the state to become a laughingstock among other nations.

    Of course, women insist that their entry into any formerly male space is always an asset. I’ve seen tons of articles expounding on all the benefits women bring to the workplace. That women think better than men, bring fresh perspectives, are better team players (being more communal rather than competitive), and hence are better at getting things done.

    And men in public life, CEOs and politicians, are always extolling the virtues that women have brought to their workplaces (along with the virtues of diversity itself). That their best workers are often women. About all the wise remarks and suggestions they’ve heard from their women employees. How women often see things more clearly, and are better at this, that, and the other, etc.

    It’s like Bill Clinton during his 1992 campaign. He and Hillary were asked about their marriage roles, who was the leader, the decision maker. Bill said something like, “Well, I make a decision, and then Hillary shows me where I’m wrong.” Chuckle, chuckle.

    Clinton was trying to have it bought ways. To appear as a masculine decision-maker, but quickly adding that Hillary always knows better, and that he would always have been wise to listen to her. In which case, I wondered at the time, why didn’t he just turn over his leadership role in the marriage to Hillary?

  95. PokeSalad says:

    if you noticed, when the Iranians captured those US Navy sailors a few weeks ago, the media was in a tizzy because a) one sailor was a woman, and b) they apparently made her cover her head.

  96. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    This is what happened to the US military after Obama had the greatest purge of Generals since the days of Stalin. He puts a radical feminist in charge of the air force, even though she couldn’t fly a kite and another one in the navy who never used a rowboat. I am slightly paraphrasing Micheal Savage.
    Here is the perfect antidote to the cheezy love songs. BB King & U2, When Love Comes to Town. Not the studio version, but an early rough mix.

  97. feeriker says:

    In all fairness, things change, too, for the gals, when a guy suddenly gets injected among them.

    How often do large groups of women have men “injected” amongst themselves rather than vice versa?

    Yeah, that’s what I thought.

  98. enrique says:

    Joe, I pretty much agree with your posts as far a natural solution to all this (Black Knighting, suffering the losses to prove the point), but I think that our country is and will be so far gone, it will be the mother of all “told you so’s” that will never be heard. The US is drifting into Chaos and people have this idea that even in proving our position right, that the republic will even be standing. The end of the nose dive comes quickly (think Yugoslavia, Olympics 1984, then just a few years later tearing each other to shreds). I believe the US will be cyber and EMP attacked, then fracture, then reform by geo-racial lines…and you can guess where the natural lines will be drawn. As Dr. Pierce (Turner Diaries) always claimed, the “border” areas will be the worst, particularly for white women.

  99. enrique says:

    Oh and order now:

    http://www.familychristian.com/contributor/florence-henderson-507011

    I think given her recent interviews, her notch count is higher this year (at 81) than last year:

    http://www.etonline.com/news/157090_florence_henderson_on_sex_at_80/

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about your favorite Gen-X syndicated sitcom’s special place in your heart and soul as a “better time in America”.

  100. Dave says:

    The US is drifting into Chaos and people have this idea that even in proving our position right, that the republic will even be standing. The end of the nose dive comes quickly…

    I am not too sure the Western man has it in himself to solve any of his problems through sheer violence. If the past were any indication, he would rather fade away, adapt, and refuse to participate (minimalist, MGTOW-style) than take up arms to defend his rights.
    Of course there will be pockets of armed resistance here and there, but for the most part, most “violence” will be verbal, more writing, and punditry.
    The poison of feminism has gotten to the bone and marrow of the typical western man, and sucked out the very last vestiges of masculinity from him. And this is not unexpected. When you force-feed anyone for forty years on a steady diet of unrelenting feminism, it will be a miracle if a non-feminist bone remains in their bodies. That is why Betas are a dime a dozen, and Alphas are a relative rarity.
    It reminds one of John Coffee in the Green Mile. Although he had all the physical attributes of masculinity, his mind was irrevocably damaged.

  101. Tam the Bam says:

    Dave-ina:- “. I’m good looking, I’m sweet, I can cook, my depression is doing so much better, I feel healed, and I have a lot to offer a man.”
    I’ll be the judge of that.
    Now go fetch some firewood. Watch out for snakes, dear. And splinters.

    Uber-“Dave”:-
    “I am not too sure the Western man has it in himself to solve any of his problems through sheer violence. If the past were any indication, he would rather fade away, adapt, and refuse to participate (minimalist, MGTOW-style) than take up arms to defend his rights.”
    tl;dr
    Man up. Man the fuck up, you fagggortz!!. Laydeez in distress here! Needz tha Defendin’!

    Bye. Smell ya later ..
    Maybe you’ll have adopted a different, er … pose by then.
    Stranger things have happened.

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

  103. Dave says:

    @PokeSalad says:
    if you noticed, when the Iranians captured those US Navy sailors a few weeks ago, the media was in a tizzy because a) one sailor was a woman, and b) they apparently made her cover her head.

    One can only hope (against hope) that it doesn’t get really gruesome, These ISIS animals have been know to carry out beheadings, burning caged POWs alive, or shooting them at close range in the full field of rolling camera. Imagine if those POWs were women. I really pray it does not get to that, though, it is only a matter of time. Things could get really bad.

  104. Gunner Q says:

    enrique @February 13, 2016 at 4:55 pm:
    “I believe the US will be cyber and EMP attacked, then fracture, then reform by geo-racial lines…”

    Relax, there will be no cyber/EMP attack. Global communications and cashless societies are too useful to the Elites. The last thing the organized enemies of God want to do is reenact the Tower of Babel’s destruction.

    Unless God does an EMP on us, of course. Solar flares or something.

    Dave @ February 13, 2016 at 6:10 pm:
    “I am not too sure the Western man has it in himself to solve any of his problems through sheer violence. If the past were any indication, he would rather fade away, adapt, and refuse to participate (minimalist, MGTOW-style) than take up arms to defend his rights.”

    Didn’t you abandon your people and country to go native in Mexico?

  105. Dalrock says:

    @Anon & Anon Reader

    Dalrock, your last comment is almost a posting by itself

    Indeed. It naturally *should* become a future posting, but above that, I think the term ‘cartoonish chivalry’ should be spread far (hence having the same effect as ‘cuckservative’ in getting under their slimy skin).

    Thank you. I thought the same as I wrote it, but I decided to let it stand initially as a comment because there are at least two posts there. I posted one of them yesterday on the topic of women’s self esteem. The other full post would be about cartoonish chivalry. The biggest challenge with Pastor Chandler is the sermons I’ve read are too packed with feminist themes to know where to start.

  106. Here’s a great Ann Coulter article from about ten years ago about how our society’s cowering before women (specifically by letting women be cops in the same capacity as men) weakens law enforcement and gets people killed.

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2005-03-16.html

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

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