Sunday Morning Cartoons

In a previous post I introduced the term cartoonish chivalry.  Today I want to explain it a bit further, and at the same time explain why we see so much of it.  There are three primary roots of cartoonish chivalry, and they are all intertwined.

1. Feminism, with a side of romantic gesture.

Cartoonish chivalry comes in two main forms.  In my previous post I offered an example from Pastor Chandler of what you might call a “Hulk Smash!” form of chivalry.  In that example one young boy repeatedly punches another young boy in the face until adults eventually take notice and are able to restrain the boy from further violence.  This is however the less common of the two forms.  The much more common form more closely resembles Wile E Coyote holding a sign that reads “Yikes!”

In the first form of cartoonish chivalry a man or boy metes out ruthless punishment on another man or boy who has somehow offended a woman.  In the second form instead of focusing on meting out violence on behalf of women, the focus is on the man absorbing punishment on behalf of women.  As different as this would seem to make them, both forms of chivalry are focused on gestures in service of women over prudent and practical actions in defense of others.  In this way both focus on maximizing romantic appeal while minimizing offense to feminist sensibilities.

In Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice Pastor John Piper offers a beloved hypothetical scenario where a young man and woman are suddenly threatened by a man with a knife:

Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.

In another telling* by Piper of the same hypothetical, Jason heroically declares “Over my dead body!”  Then (presumably after the knife wielding man accommodates Jason’s romantic declaration) Sarah repeatedly karate kicks the assailant and wins the day!

Note the absurd feminist character of Sarah the black belt;  in cartoon land women are very often braver and tougher than men.  Also note that in cartoon land men have an obligation to step into the knife so that Sarah can have both her feminist empowerment and her romantic gesture.  The focus is on Jason laying down his life, not ordering Sarah to run while he distracts the assailant, or even on using force to stop the attack.  The former would certainly cramp Sarah’s feminist style.  The latter would stoke her feminist envy.  There really is no choice;  Jason must die.  In the event that we must settle for second best, he must at least be seriously wounded in his romantic gesture.

Some would no doubt suspect I’m reading too much into a (repeatedly) poorly framed hypothetical, but Piper is clear that the focus on martyrdom in this hypothetical is not a fluke.  Moreover, this pattern is very common when it comes to complementarian chivalry.

2. Overcompensation.

If you are building a stone Church or home, you need to carefully shape the stones to the specification of the Architect.  A bit of mortar (chivalry) can not only be pleasing to the eye, it can also help bind the stones together and even help smooth out minor imperfections.  However, instead of using a thin layer of chivalry to level out minor imperfections, it is being used to permit modern Christians to go entirely off script with regard to shaping the stones (men and women).  Once you create a mental model where women are perfect (except for their flaw of not seeing themselves as perfect), you create a mismatch that has to be filled by something.  You are going to need more mortar.  Likewise when you declare that rebellion is submission and leading means following, you may as well dispense with the wheelbarrow and back up a truck filled with mortar.  This is what complementarians are doing.  After you finish cheering for Hollywood’s latest incarnation of Xena: Warrior Princess, how do you recover and try to sound traditional?  You follow up with a loud declaration that while women are surely wise, valiant, and just as good as men at combat, you are eager to die to prevent one of these delicate-yet-tough-as-nails champions from having to step foot on the field of battle.  

3. Arrested development.

Cartoons are for children, and cartoonish chivalry is for young boys.  Young boys are prone to romanticize combat and have a tendency to foolishly watch a scene in a movie full of death, gore, and suffering, and wish they could be there:

Think of the movies we like to watch. We want the fight. We want our lives to matter. We want to lay it down. We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.

Brothers, you’ve been called to this. Anything less than this is outside of design and purpose.

This is childishness, but it is expected for a child.  As a boy grows up the men around him will teach him that we don’t relish the pain and sacrifice of other men.  The men who had their guts shot out on Normandy, and their buddies who watched them die didn’t want to be there.  They weren’t there to cut a heroic picture;  they were there to get a dangerous, difficult, and necessary job done.  There is also the problem of using another man’s sacrifice to puff yourself up.  All of this has the effect of minimizing the noble sacrifice other men have made.  Lastly, cartoonish chivalry is the result of childishly seeking women’s approval.

I would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

Every cartoon needs a catchphrase, and cartoonish chivalry is no exception. As you might expect, the catchphrase for cartoonish chivalry captures all three of the elements explained above.  It offers a side of non threatening chivalry to complement a main course of feminism.  It compensates for going off script, and is used in lieu of biblical teaching which would offend the feminists in the pews.  Lastly, it offers a boy’s view of chivalry, with the accompanying vulgar diminishment of the sacrifice of other men.  The catchphrase for cartoonish chivalry comes courtesy of former CBMW President Randy Stinson, and is well loved by current CBMW President Owen Strachan. It is also a favorite of Pastor Matt Chandler (catchphrase in bold):

All three of these young men under the age of 30 grabbed their girlfriends (not wives and mothers), threw them down on the floor, and threw their bodies on top of their girlfriends. All three were shot and killed. All three of the girlfriends were wounded. They were wounded when bullets passed through their boyfriends and struck their bodies. Throughout the world, these men were heralded as heroes.

Why does it matter? Do you want me to tell you why it matters? Because we all know this sentence in our gut: the boy goes down, and the girl goes free.

*H/T Darwinian American.  Alternate link here.

This entry was posted in Cartoonish Chivalry, Chivalry, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Dr. John Piper, Fantasy vs Reality, Manliness, Military, Moxie, Owen Strachan, Pastor Matt Chandler, The only real man in the room, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

180 Responses to Sunday Morning Cartoons

  1. Matt says:

    the boy goes down, and the girl goes free

    Historically, in the stories most boys grew up hearing, it’s “The boy goes in, the dragon goes down, and the girl goes with the boy.”

    For some reason I like that version better.

  2. Pingback: Sunday Morning Cartoons – Manosphere.com

  3. okrahead says:

    Solomon’s temple, created with the greatest human wisdom instructed by the Divine, required not a single speck of mortar… Rather different than Piper in your apt analogy.

  4. greyghost says:

    Matt
    I never heard of the “boys goes down girls go free” thing. I too thought it was boy slays dragon girl loves boy. Dying or even losing sleep over a woman now days is irresponsible. She doesn’t care. No body cares. Any body that expects men to die for women is telling you they are not worthy of any kind of sacrifice.

  5. Nor have I ever heard boy goes down…..etc. But Im guessing that it is or will be included in these myriad prepackaged marriage and fatherhood DVD sets from Step Up and 33 The Series and the like. It will be on T shirts sold at mega church bookstores and it will be part of the father daughter creepiness that comprises those purity ball dances and daughters dressed in prom dresses at 13 years old with daddy as the date wearing that slogan on him.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalock
    Lastly, cartoonish chivalry is the result of childishly seeking women’s approval

    Astute. So what’s really underneath all the bluster, bravado, AMOGing, “only man in the room” jazz, and readiness to sacrifice other men for the benefit of women.

    Could it be…mommy issues?

    Now as to the slogan:
    “The boy goes down and the girl goes free”…to do what?

    Rhetorical question I’d love to ask one of these preachers: For What?
    What is it that the average young American woman does that is worth dying for?
    For What?

  7. okrahead says:

    Anyone who thinks putting a black belt on a girl enables her to overcome a knife wielding mugger has no understanding of either martial arts or knives….
    Piper and his ilk don’t really want to be on Omaha Beach, he instead desires, through envy, to bask in the honor we bestow upon those men…
    The opposite of Piper’s juvenile fantasizing is Bishnu Shrestha. Shrestha, however, walked away intact, so that ruins Piper’s narrative.

  8. okrahead says:

    Also, never forget Piper has stated he would not protect his own wife… Talk about laying heavy burdens on other men that you would not lift with your own little finger.

  9. okrahead says:

    Another question…. Since piper teaches personal pacifism, isn’t he teaching his girl Kung fu master to sin by fighting off her attacker?

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    Another question…. Since piper teaches personal pacifism, isn’t he teaching his girl Kung fu master to sin by fighting off her attacker?

    Well, that would seem to be the case to the casual observer, however there seems to be a doctrine of competing sacrificess and sins at work. Sure, it would be a sin for her to beat down the attacker, but not necessarily so after the man with her had Gone Down First as a blood sacrifice. More importantly, to not allow the allegorical black belt girl to fight would be the sin of “Not Giving A Woman A Chance” or “Not Letting Her Do What She Wants” or perhaps just “Patriarchy!!!” (2 or more exclamation points is de regueur).

    Besides, there is a general religious principle at work: It’s Different When Girls Do It…

  11. I like. The woman takes responsibility and the man goes free. Thanks Pipper!

  12. elmertjones says:

    I cut cable but we have free OTA TV. Most of the action shows are quite cartoonish, you might call them photo-realisitic cartoons, in their depictions of tough women. Female SWAT team members with flowing hair spilling from beneath their helmets. Former Army Ranger ladies taking down burly perps. “Quantico” is start-of-the-art in this genre, complete with men kissing each other and female leads engaging in casual sex between spec-ops takedowns. And everything is an SJW teaching moment. Thankfully youtube provides countless hours of good free video. “Wings of the Red Star : Small Cargo Airplanes of the 1950s, Volume 4” is more to my liking.

  13. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    “As a boy grows up the men around him will teach him that we don’t relish the pain and sacrifice of other men. The men who had their guts shot out on Normandy, and their buddies who watched them die didn’t want to be there. They weren’t there to cut a heroic picture; they were there to get a dangerous, difficult, and necessary job done. There is also the problem of using another man’s sacrifice to puff yourself up. All of this has the effect of minimizing the noble sacrifice other men have made. Lastly, cartoonish chivalry is the result of childishly seeking women’s approval.”

    Excellent insights, as usual. I’d like to add one of my own.

    Many men feel eager for combat after getting a taste of it. I was one of them. That changed after I became a father.

  14. rugby11 says:

    Sanjays super heros

  15. Minesweeper says:

    Im starting to come round to the idea that these guys are mentally sick. reading the “individual” on his blog who has lambasted Saeed repeatedly while fully following faithfully to the duluth model.

    I almost went completely out of my mind reading his posts, but thats what crazy does, the mentally ill can spread their illness look at hitler, one individual sickened a whole nation.

    Its the only thing that makes sense, these people aren’t just buggered up in their theology, they are literally demonic, with mental illness to boot all while claiming to be enlightened above those who don’t follow their viewpoint.

  16. Minesweeper says:

    “boys goes down girls go free” – I thought this was the standard in divorce and child custody matters ?

  17. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    I finally found an article that addresses governmental incentives to kick fathers out of their children’s lives.

    http://goodmenproject.com/families/the-remedy-for-social-inequality-starts-at-home-knts/

    Unfortunately, it only deals with such incentives in the welfare system, not marriage in general.

    “The families least likely to have the father physically present are the poorest families. One of the reasons why this is so is because the current welfare system discourages single mothers from establishing a stable two-parent household. Women who marry or maintain a home with the biological father of their children can face the reduction or loss of their benefits whereas an unrelated cohabitor male’s resources are not counted.[12] In other words, the current welfare structure actually promotes having nearly any man but the biological father heading the house, inhibiting family formation and even inciting family breakdown. Yet these backward incentives go unchallenged as the majority of moms believe that absent or uninvolved dads can easily be replaced by themselves or another man.[13] “

  18. Boxer says:

    Unfortunately, it only deals with such incentives in the welfare system, not marriage in general.

    A large part of the problem is that we’ve all been raised in this corrupt system for most or all of our lives, so it’s difficult to envision any other.

    Our goal should not be to reform the divorce courts. That would only keep them in existence longer. We aren’t conservatives. We’re revolutionaries.

    We should imagine a healthy society where the weakest and most loserish 10% is prohibited from marriage. A marriage license wouldn’t be a “shall-issue” proposition. This will give marriage the aura as being something to aspire to, rather than a societal default. Those who are not married will be ineligible for professional licenses, home loans, membership in men’s or women’s clubs, etc. This was the case, in fact, in the USA and Canada, even within some of the older brother’s lifetimes. Look through some 1950s era want-ads at the newspaper archive, sometime, and you’ll see “MARRIED MEN ONLY” listed as a requirement for even a lot of skilled trades. Being married is a sign of responsibility. It suggests that at least someone can stand to be around you, most of the time, and it implies you have a stake in the community and won’t be adopting a hobo lifestyle.

    In a healthy society, divorce would only be allowed in cases where the couple became so dysfunctional that they were a danger to themselves. Perhaps divorce would also be mandatory in the case of a long prison sentence. In any event, divorced people should be seen as losers who have embarrassed both themselves and their families, and who have proven themselves unfit for many of the benefits of citizenship.

    Boxer

  19. Oscar says:

    This is very much on topic. Others may have seen it already (it’s from November 2015), but I just ran across it. In India, a retired Gurkha Soldier saved an 18-year-old girl from being gang raped in front of her parents on a train. He killed three criminals and seriously wounded eight with his kukri. The rest ran.

    http://www.mensxp.com/special-features/today/28421-this-gurkha-soldier-single-handedly-fought-40-armed-goons-to-save-a-girl-from-getting-gangraped.html

  20. Philalethes says:

    Ed. note: …meets out ruthless punishment … meeting out violence… Believe you mean metes out, meting out.

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

  21. okrahead says:

    Oscar,
    Piper would condemn Shresthna, as at the time of the battle he had billeted out and was hence technically a civilian. Additionally, the girl in question was apparently a virgin traveling with her apparents rather than an empowered feminist slut, so I doubt the churchians would be quite so keen on defending her, although I am perhaps being unkind in that judgement. Finally, since Bishnu was victorious, it destroys the entire grrrrrlpowere, and this constitutes a heretical course of action to Piper’s crowd.

  22. Pingback: Sunday Morning Cartoons | Reaction Times

  23. Anon says:

    the boy goes down, and the girl goes free.

    There might even be something more sinister here, since the pastor manginas certainly would not make this sacrifice themselves….

    They actually want more men to get themselves killed, so that the gender ratio favors the pastor more, and the pastor may get to fuck the now single women. These evil pastors actually want to cull out some men for THEIR benefit.

    Of course, that is not how female hypergamy works. Even the most lopsided gender ratio will not help a man too far below the woman’s attractiveness cutoff. She will choose celibacy over the man too far below her acceptance threshold.

  24. Oscar says:

    @ okrahead says:
    February 21, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Well, Piper’s delusional, so…

  25. Novaseeker says:

    This is just unmoored Christian pastors endorsing the age-old bias in favor of eggs over sperm. It’s sad that they can’t see that. Actual Christianity does not endorse that kind of unequivocal sacrifice per se on the basis of sex — that’s pagan and pre-pagan and results from the fall. Again, sad they don’t see this, but alas these are wolves who aren’t even bothering to don the clothing of the sheep any longer.

  26. Tom K. says:

    Regarding the “black belt” girl, let me say this. My daughter was in karate for five years, 4-5 nights a week, 2-3 hours a night, along with her older brother. Every night included at least one hour of sparring, boys and girls facing off against each other. Their instructor was a very pretty woman named Mary who occasionally modelled but in Karate was a 5X world champion, all five championships by knockouts. For her last championship she put opponent in the hospital. Mary did a spinning hook kick that lifted the woman off the ground, over the ropes and put her in the front row chairs! Mary was/is amazing to watch.

    Nevertheless, I heard Mary tell the girls on multiple occasions, “Girls, don’t ever think you can take down a boy. If a man attackes you, what are you going to do?” And the girls would reply, “Strike him as hard as we can and run away.” Women like Mary, whom I saw take down men with truly SFX moves, are the exception that prove the rule. A woman cannot defeat a man in a street fight. She can only disrupt his attack long enough to get away.

  27. Jim says:

    Also note that in cartoon land men have an obligation to step into the knife so that Sarah can have both her feminist empowerment and her romantic gesture.

    It’s the old “I want it both ways” hypocrisy. If women can “do anything a man can do” blah blah that’s fine. But don’t expect chivalry of any kind. Why should they? They don’t need our help so why give it to them. I’m not going to take the short end of the stick on BOTH ends.

  28. Dan says:

    Whether or not men should defend women from predatory attack is a poor example as used here.
    Because in reality women NEED defending from predatory attack 99.99% of the time NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SKILL SET IS. It’s physics. Even Ronda Rousey who is undeniably competent at unarmed combat has essentially NO CHANCE against a male opponent of sufficient size and strength. Pick more realistic examples….you can do better.

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

    There used to be a program called “Model Mugging” taught by some schools. The “mugger” would be a man dressed up in so much padding and protective gear (including eyes) he looked like the Michelin tire man or maybe something out of a 1950’s bad science fiction movie. That was so the women students could strike with their full power. If I remember right they were taught a few basic sequences, such as “eye strike – knee kick – throat strike – genital kick”. Not “eye strike and see what happens”. The idea was to program a kata-like sequence they could go through without thought, and the last part was crucial: Run Away. Strike/kick/strike/kick/beat-feet.

    Every once in a while some young, healthy, althletic woman would get the idea that Model Mugging had made a street fighter out of her. A few minutes sparring against the “target” man dressed in street clothing tended to deal with that because sexual dimorphism is real. Men are bigger, stronger and faster than women as a very, very general rule. Testosterone is powerful

    And that’s just another example of Piper’s FAIL. I believe that at heart he is a conservative feminist, so deeply brainwashed with the 1970’s equalitarian feminism that he can’t even begin to imagine how far away from reality he actually is. It would be impossible to argue him out of this position because he didn’t reason himself into it, he was brainwashed into it. Leading edge Boomer…

  30. PuffyJacket says:

    They actually want more men to get themselves killed, so that the gender ratio favors the pastor…

    Yes, I’ve often pondered how much the severity of the white-knighting instinct is due to heightened male sexual competition.

    As unchained hypergamy runs its course, male competition escalates, and white knights increasingly seek to to jail or kill other men for even the smallest of feminist grievances (until it inevitably reaches the cartoonish levels we see here).

    This is wrong-headed, but perhaps a completely natural response to our present circumstances.

  31. Oblivion says:

    Girls are the best at everything, until they have to pay a high miserable price for it. Outside of my lady or family, I’m not protecting any woman. It’s not the 1950s anymore.

  32. Spike says:

    Kids should be in church on Sunday morning, not watching cartoons.
    It isn’t just the chivalry that’s wrong. So too is the preoccupation with occultism, the idea that monsters are cute, and the Illuminati symbolism.
    Disney is even worse. In “Brave” , our young heroine can look after herself. So too can new Star Wars chickky-babe. Sexual symbolism and innuendo abounds unchecked. When cases of pedophilia happens in Christian institutions, at least all members of that institution consider it a bad thing. Not so Disney, who grooms it’s soon-to-be-sex kittens from an early age. Don’t believe me? Consider Brittney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Ariana Grande Miley Cyrus. All of them get photographed in lingerie the minute they turn 18. But there isn’t any corporate aforethought to make them sex objects while still underage, is there?

    I would like to pose a question to Pastor Piper:
    If “Jason” has to fall on the knife for “Sarah”, even though she has a black belt in karate*, what does “Jason” get in return? Not more income (“77 cents in the dollar! Not fair!”). Not chastity (Andrea Dworkin:”women should have at least 36 partners before marriage!”). Not fidelity (adultery rates among American women 30%). Not security (no-fault divorce, in case of husband being “abusive”). Not legitmacy(11% of all children in Western world being raised by men who are not biological fathers, often unknowingly, with no avenue of DNA testing and no recognition in courts).

    In short, “Jason” is an expendable piece of garbage no better than a feudal serf, and “Sarah” is worth saving…because…vagina….

    *Wrong assumption too: every martial arts master will tell you that confronting an assailant with a knife when you don’t have one will give you at best a 50-50 chance if you are highly trained. The best defense is to run.

  33. feeriker says:

    …used in lieu of biblical teaching which would offend the feminists in the pews.

    An enduring fantasy, one that would require a red-pill pastor and thus which will never come to pass:

    The scene: a large (not quite mega) evangelical church packed to overflowing on Sunday morning. The pastor, ptobably a visiting pastor, has broken protocol by preaching a sermon on marriage that includes the much reviled verses 22 through 24 of Ephesians 5. He then pours gasoline on the newly ignited blaze by jumping over to 1st Corinthians 7, verses 10 and 11, followed by 2nd Timothy 4, verses 9-15, in order to solidify the point.

    By this time there is audible murmuring and grumbling, several disgusted sighs of disapproval from the women in the congregation, and worried looks on the faces of several elders, as well as a few women heading for the exits, snarls on their faces, their chagrined husbands in tow.

    At this point the pastor shouts “all you ladies who object to this message, stand up! Come on now, make your presence known! Husbands of these ladies, stand up with your wives. Come on now, time to show some support. On your feet!”

    “Okay, now ladies, I want you to remember that I’m just the messenger here. It’s GOD with whom you’re upset. After all, I didn’t just make this stuff up – unless you’re trying to credit me with writing major portions of the New Testament. What God has to say is there in B&W for you to read. Anyway, since it’s God with whom you’re angry, with whose assigned roles for women you take issue, you should be honest enough to tell Him how angry you are. After all, God wants us to bare our hearts to Him. So go ahead right now and tell God just how upset you are with Him, how much unmitigated gall He has expecting you to fulfill His role for you, a role you find demeaning and unempowering. Don’t hold back either – let God have it with all the pent up rage your heart harbors. If that includes a few “f bombs,” so be it. God can handle anything you throw at Him.

    “You husbands of these ladies, you start in too. Tell God how much you resent Him trying to make you lead your wives. Tell Him how uncomfortable pants are and that you can’t stand the thought of wearing them. Tell God how terrified you are of your wives! Come on now, guys – God expects sincerity of heart and honesty from you too. Let it all fly! We’re not moving on until you and your wives get this out in the open!”

    As this unfolds either all the doors to the sanctuary have been closed and barred, revealing the the full extent of the feminist demons as they flee from the light, or those singled out storm out in a huff vowing never to return – a promise to which they are held.

  34. Gunner Q says:

    Anon @ 8:34 pm:
    “It is time to consider a curfew for men.”

    I like this idea! I’ve been working all day this Sunday to make deadline and still have another hour to go. Here’s my project and deadline, Barbie, I gotta go home to my pizza and video games before sunset. It’s the law!

  35. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Just to close some circuits: It’s within (your superbly titled) Sunday Morning Cartoon space that men like Driscoll can find purchase. You touched on that before. If you can believe it, it was Chandler who wrested control of Acts29 Network* from Driscoll; a inter-denominational church-planting group that Driscoll founded.

    @Anon

    There might even be something more sinister here, since the pastor manginas certainly would not make this sacrifice themselves….

    They actually want more men to get themselves killed, so that the gender ratio favors the pastor more, and the pastor may get to fuck the now single women. These evil pastors actually want to cull out some men for THEIR benefit.

    I think that is a misreading of these men. The more likely explanation is that they cannot see themselves as effective, and they have no desire to fight. They have to give themselves (and therefore us) these pep-talks to rise to the occasion of becoming mere speed-bumps; a pseudo-spiritual version of “I’m a lover, not a fighter”. However; they really do think that is superior, and they do want women generally to also see these “lovers” as superior. This stance is actually very like the position of the “enjoy the decline” crowd. The only difference is the former prefer to feel smug and the latter to feel pleasure; the classic rivalry of ministers and minstrels.

    These preachers and priests (in my experience, clergy of the traditional denominations are as frequently effeminate) heavily emphasize the fact that “God is love”. If they will turn back a few pages to before we are told “God is love”, we are told, “The Lord is a man of war: The Lord is His name.” So Piper and Pope Francis and can go on talking about Jesus crying His eyes out in Heaven over human behavior, but, behold, the winnowing fork is in His hand.

    *The SJW-convergence aware crowd might be interested in Matt Chandler’s vision for the Acts29 Network since he took control. Here are the values:

    1. Plant Churches that Plant Churches
    2. Be Known for Holiness and Humility
    3. Become a Radically Diverse Crowd
    4. Be Serious about Evangelism and Conversions

    It’s not an irony that Chandler stands and moves like a woman. It coincides.

  36. Spike says:

    Anon says:
    February 21, 2016 at 8:34 pm
    “It is time to consider a curfew for men.”

    Good idea, (Ms) General Custer. the only men who will obey such a curfew are the ones who are most likely to protect women by their presence alone. The men who did all of the attacking aren’t those ones. They are mainly Muslim migrants who don’t drink alcohol, so lumping all men into “drunken men” categories is disingenuous, also because the vast majority of Germans don’t binge-drink like Anglo Saxons.
    If Ms Murphy wants rapes to increase, this is a good recipe.

  37. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader says:
    February 21, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    “The idea was to program a kata-like sequence they could go through without thought, and the last part was crucial: Run Away. Strike/kick/strike/kick/beat-feet.”

    That’s a good policy for anyone. You don’t want to stick around long enough for the assailant’s friends to gang up on you. But, yes, it’s especially important for a smaller/weaker defender.

  38. nastynate says:

    And here’s the Sunday morning cartoon version of how to stop a rape. God help the west.

  39. Bill Smith says:

    Nothing wrong with #1, #2 and #4 Cane. #3 is very unclear, though should almost certainly be considered through a SJW lens.

    We are called to “go forth and make disciples.” It is incredibly perverse that doing that has been twisted so much.

  40. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Spike: It isn’t just the chivalry that’s wrong. So too is the preoccupation with occultism,

    Right there is a theme worthy of multiple posts — how the media promotes Wicca as a religion of female empowerment.

    TV shows — Charmed, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. — plus countless “young adult” fantasy novels, depict teenage girls finding Grrl Power and self-esteem thought witchcraft. TV teaches young girls that Wicca is a religion that taps into their “natural powers” that comes from the Goddess. That every girl is a Goddess, a “truth” that has been suppressed by the patriarchy, by men who fear strong, independent women.

  41. ray says:

    I go with Nova on this one, it’s not mental illness, but a type of predation and self-service. Mixed with some male genetic-imperative stuff that it pleases themselves not to understand. So, Biblical wolves. Wolves use collective tactics and hunt in ministr . . . packs. Howling at Conferences.

    Powerful forces of Romanticism permeated American culture from the Thirties through Sixties, and this (largely pagan) mentality has been adopted by ‘mainstream’ American religionistas, only now catching up to the culture, and still …….. getting it rong lol. A little romanticism in courtship or established marriage is fine, but the ‘Christian leaders’ misuse the concept and urge as part of the pander-a-thon. Sells to one another tho, like American Idol.

    Satan knows exactly which buttons to push in females, envy and security and rebellion, and likewise we see men who, while often demonstrating knowledge of the Bible, are led to use their pulpits and influence as weapons in petty, boring Sperm Wars psycho-sexual manipulations, which they then call doctrine based on Scripture, while women in the pews nod. The religious leaders in the time of our King pulled all this stuff, too, of course. Slightly different spin, but same basic motivations.

  42. freebird says:

    It is pretty sick the Culture puts into boys heads the way
    to heroism is death on some unknown battlefield,either far away
    (*East Asia) or some random white knighting at home.What a glorious death to aspire to..
    Forget that noise,it’s all lies.

  43. Opus says:

    The Asians have any number of Martial Arts: Judo, Karate, Ju-Jitso and probably others. When one looks back at cheap movies and T.V., shows from the 60s and 70s our hero is always able to evade capture and overcome adversaries by a blow to the back of the neck. Does this really work? Likewise Judo: Is a one hundred pound female even with Black Belt able to defend herself against a man intent on overpowering her? I have no idea (but I have my doubts). I have never taken up any form of self-defence technique for even though violence by men on men is far greater than on women the chances of assault are usually slim and were I forced to defend myself I would use my fists.

    The trouble with inculcating in the minds of women that they need to defend themselves against men is that it creates imaginary monsters and the woman ceasing to be a potential victim and becomes the aggressor for as with the women in the video linked by nastynate the man may only have been keen to return the woman’s purse that she inadvertantly dropped.

    I seem to recall Mrs Reagan fronted a campaign where the take-away message was ‘Just Say No’. That of course was not about Violence but Drugs. How exactly did that play out for you? for frankly I have to say I always had my considerable doubts as to its likely success; likewise holding out the palms of ones right hand or saying ‘No’ to a mythical white male, seems equally clueless. What is needed is a slut-walk!

  44. PokeSalad says:

    That is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen. Thanks for my daily laugh, Scott.

  45. Ahlstar says:

    I’ve noticed the women around me tend to believe pretty much everything they see on television. Women are the best zombie killers, severe surgical alteration makes you beautiful, American Idol contestants have talent, shit like that.
    They know better than to admit it, but their actions tell the story.
    Sounds like the preachers are watching too damn much tv.

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    Just to close some circuits: It’s within (your superbly titled) Sunday Morning Cartoon space that men like Driscoll can find purchase. You touched on that before. If you can believe it, it was Chandler who wrested control of Acts29 Network* from Driscoll; a inter-denominational church-planting group that Driscoll founded.

    Good point. I wasn’t aware that Chandler has wrested control, as the offical narrative is that Driscoll had too much on his plate with Mars Hill. A few years later Driscoll and Mars were booted from Acts 29 though

    Along the same lines, Piper was Driscoll’s mentor, and this gave Driscoll credibility. I can’t find the link but one doc I read a few years ago said that Piper lead the group in drafting the original Danvers Statement (founding doc of the CBMW). Even aside from that, Piper and Grudem are accepted as the theological heavyweights behind the founding of the CBMW (see their joint book on the topic shortly after the Danver’s statement). Piper now seems more aligned with The Gospel Coalition (TGC). You can see him prominently in their video about who they are. TGC is lead by Tim “godly tantrum” Keller to connect the dots there. And Driscoll was part of TGC until his fall. Also, in the video linked from the OP (and linked below in reply to Anon Reader) Piper is speaking with Darrin Patrick, who is VP of Acts 29. As you mention, Chandler is the President of Acts 29. Acts 29 has as one of their five core values complementarianism.

    All of this is important because the folks I’ve been writing about are the A listers in complementarianism, and complementarianism is the Evangelical answer to feminism (aside from overt enthusiastic adoption). I didn’t just pick out some wacky stuff that doesn’t really represent Christian culture. This is it. These are the leaders and founders of the movers and shakers.

    @Anon Reader

    And that’s just another example of Piper’s FAIL. I believe that at heart he is a conservative feminist, so deeply brainwashed with the 1970’s equalitarian feminism that he can’t even begin to imagine how far away from reality he actually is. It would be impossible to argue him out of this position because he didn’t reason himself into it, he was brainwashed into it. Leading edge Boomer…

    If you haven’t already viewed the video linked in the OP, here it is. This would be hilarious if it were a parody. As I noted above, these are the Evangelical big hitters when it comes to teaching manhood:

  47. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    *The SJW-convergence aware crowd might be interested in Matt Chandler’s vision for the Acts29 Network since he took control. Here are the values:

    1. Plant Churches that Plant Churches
    2. Be Known for Holiness and Humility
    3. Become a Radically Diverse Crowd
    4. Be Serious about Evangelism and Conversions

    It’s not an irony that Chandler stands and moves like a woman. It coincides.

    Interesting. I had no idea. But looking at Darrin Patrick (VP of Acts 29, TGC board member, author of books on Christian manliness, man Piper is talking to in the video I embedded just above) he is very much in the SJW space, with a focus on White privilege. On Nov 25 (during the Ferguson riots), he published How Should You Respond to Ferguson? at TGC:

    Over the last few months, the elders and other leaders at The Journey have been encouraging our church and the wider community to let their guard down and step into hard conversations about justice, privilege, and race. To further equip our church, we gathered together several members of our church from different backgrounds with different cultural and political views for a roundtable discussion. We believe the way forward must include these kind of discussions with people who don’t share our skin color, preferably around a dinner table.

  48. Chris says:

    Jim, Feminists claim to want it both ways, but most will balk when it comes to do-or-die.

    That’s why a part of me supports the growing calls for mandatory military service for women should the draft ever make a comeback. They say they can anything a man can do – let them prove it.

  49. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    If you haven’t already viewed the video linked in the OP, here it is.

    Well, I viewed it and once again I’ll have to get Piper’s pale imitation of Jimmy Swaggert out of my ears….that may take a while…gee, thanks…and nothing that Piper drones in that segment changes my opinion. He still looks like a man totally brainwashed with 2nd stage Feminism. Nothing about that monologue changes my opinion, so I’m not sure what your point is.

    But there is a bonus to viewing the vid.

    At about 11:24 Patrick talks to Piper about modern culture, in terms of “Twilight”. Piper has no clue what the book / movie series is, ‘Well, I’ve heard the word…chuckle…”.

    He. Has. No. Clue.

    Patrick claims he’s never seen it, but he knows all about it, and talks about “Twilight” in terms of male protectors, totally ignoring the rom-porn / sexual aspects. Both are just ignorant of what this particular rom – porn series makes blaringly obvious about women’s sexuality. So in essence, these two oh-so-wise men validate women’s porn choices as somehow being OK, because “protector”. I’m certain that carousel riders, even babymommas, get a warm welcome in their churches, no matter what their past and ongoing behavior may be. AF-BB? No problem! AF-BC? Well, er, we must take care of the little children…

    Utterly clueless White Knights. I wonder how many divorces per year happen in their domains?

    It is a huge irony that church leaders who claim to be qualified to critique the larger culture do so from a position of utter, absolute, total ignorance.

    PS: I’ve never read any of the “Twilight” novels nor have I seen more than a few clips of the movies, but as a man who wears The Glasses / has taken the Red pill, I know what’s in there; hypergamy just for a start.

  50. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Well, I viewed it and once again I’ll have to get Piper’s pale imitation of Jimmy Swaggert out of my ears….that may take a while…gee, thanks…and nothing that Piper drones in that segment changes my opinion. He still looks like a man totally brainwashed with 2nd stage Feminism. Nothing about that monologue changes my opinion, so I’m not sure what your point is.

    I didn’t intend to change your opinion. I was reinforcing what you wrote. As I said, it would be hilarious if it were a parody. Unfortunately it is serious.

  51. Gunner Q says:

    Cane Caldo @ February 21, 2016 at 11:02 pm:
    ” ‘These evil pastors actually want to cull out some men for THEIR benefit.’

    I think that is a misreading of these men. The more likely explanation is that they cannot see themselves as effective, and they have no desire to fight.”

    Anon has it right, these pastors want the other men gone. When a leader knows he’s incompetent and refuses to improve himself, he always preemptively eliminates his rivals. But the pastor cannot just kick the laymen out because then there isn’t enough money to stay open, not to mention it’d be pretty obvious he’s running an Alpha harem (or uglier, a Gamma harem. One high-status man servicing the emotional needs of many women). So he lets the men in, takes their money, beats them down, doesn’t miss them when they quit and when the supply of men dwindles, he complains weak men are screwing up the system.

    Gamma harem. I like that. It’s a perfect description of modern church life.

    Opus says:
    February 22, 2016 at 5:19 am

    “I seem to recall Mrs Reagan fronted a campaign where the take-away message was ‘Just Say No’. That of course was not about Violence but Drugs. How exactly did that play out for you?”

    Much better for girls than today’s message of ‘Yes Means Yes’. That was the last time I can remember girls being taught to shun and disrespect evil. Probably not a coincidence it stopped with the Reagans.

  52. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Dalrock
    But looking at Darrin Patrick (VP of Acts 29, TGC board member, author of books on Christian manliness, man Piper is talking to in the video I embedded just above) he is very much in the SJW space, with a focus on White privilege.

    Patrick is cut from the same cloth as Driscoll and Chandler. He hammers down on men’s sins while simultaneously insisting that women’s “missteps” can be explained away as a result of the men’s sins, thus justifying him to hammer on the men even harder. While it’s not available online, his book “The Dude’s Guide to Manhood” makes clear that he’s fully on board with the complementarian project of raising up the men to accept all the responsibility for a family’s direction — so long as the wife first approves of where he’s taking them. A key moment comes at the end Chapter 7, where he provides a list of principles for being a better father, the first of which is . . . .

    “DEFER TO YOUR WIFE:

    Here’s something I just know: your wife has a sensitivity and awareness of your children that you simply do not have. She knows things about them before they do, even years before you do. Smart leaders follow others in their strengths, an it’s no weakness to lean on your wife in parenting. It’s simply common sense.”

    . . . Why, one might even say that this is all because your wife ‘s being a woman just makes her light years closer to God!

  53. feeriker says:

    So he lets the men in, takes their money, beats them down, doesn’t miss them when they quit and when the supply of men dwindles, he complains weak men are screwing up the system.

    Obviously he only ever had weak men in his congregation to begin with. No real man would ever sit there and take that kind of abuse from the pulpit without leaving, or maybe smashing Feyboy’s teeth down his throat first just for good measure.

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    I didn’t intend to change your opinion. I was reinforcing what you wrote. As I said, it would be hilarious if it were a parody. Unfortunately it is serious.

    Got it, thanks.

    Say, is it just me, or does anyone else reallllly want to convince Piper that he should dye his hair bright red? I think that bright red hair and, hmm, maybe a red rubber nose on him would make it so much easier to view Piper.

  55. Looking Glass says:

    @AR & Dalrock:

    “Among the gospel churches Christ is now in fact little more than a beloved symbol. “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name” is the church’s national anthem and the cross is her official flag, but in the week-by-week services of the church and the day-by-day conduct of her members someone else, not Christ, makes the decisions. Under proper circumstances Christ is allowed to say “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden” or “Let not your heart be troubled,” but when the speech is finished someone else takes over. Those in actual authority decide the moral standards of the church, as well as all objectives and all methods employed to achieve them. Because of long and meticulous organization it is now possible for the youngest pastor just out of seminary to have more actual authority in a church than Jesus Christ has.”

    A.W.Tozer, May 15, 1963. Published 3 days after his death.

    http://www.awtozerclassics.com/articles/article/4938678/86408.htm

    I’ve been in great need to read more Towzer, simply because he greatly understood most of the problem. The only thing he seemed to lack was the information we have available now. We know the details of the problem stretches much further back than anyone earlier than the 90s would have ever probably had access to, as original text from before the 1880s is much more easily available.

    But, on Piper et al, I’ve mentioned before a friend. An man in his 60s, now. A good, honest Christian that’s been through a lot. But I also know I could crush his entire self-image in two sentences. The built up delusions of the “modern” World have to be reinforced, or they are so left without understanding that they are petrified in fear. So what we see in these Pastors is the same problem, writ large. They are convinced of the correctness of their views, so they can never stop to examine them.

  56. Anon has it right, these pastors want the other men gone. When a leader knows he’s incompetent and refuses to improve himself, he always preemptively eliminates his rivals. But the pastor cannot just kick the laymen out because then there isn’t enough money to stay open, not to mention it’d be pretty obvious he’s running an Alpha harem (or uglier, a Gamma harem. One high-status man servicing the emotional needs of many women). So he lets the men in, takes their money, beats them down, doesn’t miss them when they quit and when the supply of men dwindles, he complains weak men are screwing up the system.

    The lengths the Lifters will go to.

  57. The breathless constant examination of and emoting over the role of men, of husbands, the lower the man’s stature can be made, by spreading it as thin as a quark, the more pathetic they can make men look…..well then how much more redeemed can a man be when he is redeemed indeed?

    They say that where sin abounds grace abounds also. Nah, they (these guys) probably don’t say that. They say where men abound, women also must abound lest grace be found a dry well.

    To be redeemed by woman….men could do a lot worse than that eh?

    The two Funko Pops talking about how men grew up not seeing dad do this and that and are now anti marriage….maybe there is some Boomer idiocy that can be part of the differential diagnosis.

  58. Carlotta says:

    I have read your links and watched the videos.
    1. I don’t believe I would feel safe in the company of either pastor. They both appear to have never actually been in a fight, let alone a situation where life was on the line.
    2. To be honest, I had a physical reaction of revulsion to both of them.
    3. Piper appears to be nuts.
    4. All the men in my family, immediate or otherwise have never said a word to me about how they would beat someone up for me or any random women ala chandalar. They don’t have to. Their protection is there. I know it. I was trained by my mother and train my daughters not to take it lightly. Don’t start trouble. Of course, they happen to be very physically imposing and we’ll trained. Only an idiot would start with them. But it has happened. I think that those that can simply do and are protectors. That pastor is desperately trying to convince people he is some kind of would be tough guy. It is very sad and uncomfortable to watch. I think he has never even actually wrestled as play.
    5. Piper thinking a women could disarm a man with a knife easily shows he has no real world experience. I am a tall, very strong and we’ll trained women. Only in an emergency where I am alone would I even try it. I mean life and death. Even then, it would be through God’s grace if it went well. I cannot think of a single man in my family that would want or let me handle any dangerous situation. They would laugh if I even brought up my training or strength. That is to help me protect children in an emergency till they can get to us only.
    6. Men should provide life sacrificial protection to their wives and children and family members. You want that? Get your own man. Seems like these pastors have churches full of single women with no protectors and are trying to convince men to offer it without the marriage. Too bad. Maybe more women in these so called churches will wake up to the co opting of their protection and provision and fight back Feminists hurt us the MOST ladies!

  59. DrTorch says:

    Great post and many great comments. ” these are the Evangelical big hitters when it comes to teaching manhood” Seriously? I haven’t listened to Xian radio in some time, but John Piper?

    Speaking of Piper, it’s worth noting that in one of his video series (I have seen it firsthand) he speaks that when he was a teenager he had a severe case of acne, and had to get painful, and probably useless, treatments for it. I suspect that he was wounded at this age because of tis, he feared and pedestalized girls from then on.

  60. The Question says:

    One thing I would note about the morning cartoon analogy is that while the bad guys in actual cartoons are one dimensional, they are still in fact the actual bad guys.

    That is not the case with what’s going on in our society. In the cartoonish world they’ve created, feminists are impotent fringe elements but not the real bad guys. The “real” bad guys as they see it are men who aren’t playing by the rules – rules they refuse to admit feminists created decades ago and after years of acceptance are considered “traditional values.”

    As evidenced with the whole “weak men are forcing women to enlist” fantasy, it’s not that they subscribe cartoonish one dimensional motivations to the “weak men,” but the weak men don’t even exist. It’s kind of brilliant; if the men don’t exist, then that means no one is going to defend the reason for these men’s presumed cowardice, so it is presumed to be the case. Pastors can scream and shout at these nonexistent men without fear of losing tithing or drawing condemnation. Meanwhile, they receive praise for their courage and bravery for daring to tilt at windmills.

  61. Bill Smith says:

    Gunner Q, you assume far too much intelligence on the part of those men.

    Being stupid is a much simpler explanation.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Empath
    The breathless constant examination of and emoting over the role of men,

    Oh yeah, there’s that TV evangalist intake of air followed by … pause … then WORD.
    That’s really grating. It’s showmanship. It’s performance. Like putting the word
    “God” out with long hangtime, “GAH-uhd”, it’s done for effect. To fill up a spotlight.

    It is not plain speaking. Some man claims to be doing “plain talk” but he TALKS like a
    TENT P-ah-REECH-Uhr, he’s just another salesman. The logical question: what’s he
    selling?

    Looking Glass
    The built up delusions of the “modern” World have to be reinforced, or they are so left without understanding that they are petrified in fear.

    I don’t get that, though. Sure, I have regrets of the “if I’d only known 15 years ago what I know now” type, but still, I’d rather live in the real world where women are what they are, than in some theme park land full of plastic Barbie dolls riding plastic unicorns up the plastic rainbow. Because basing life decisions on delusions doesn’t lead anywhere good.

  63. “Is a one hundred pound female even with Black Belt able to defend herself against a man intent on overpowering her?”

    I am a black belt in karate. I have been knocked out by women and I assure you the answer is no. A woman could pretend to submit and then crush the man’s testicles just before the rape but that is about all she can do against a man. Judo may let her get a temporary joint lock or choke or a throw which might let her get the hell away from him but “overpower” is going to happen in about 1 in 1000 cases (even with a Black Belt) and only then because she surprised and sucker punched the guy who was holding back. Even then it is simply not in the nature of a woman to leap onto an opponent and start wailing away at him and that is what would be needed because while she might stun a normal sized male opponent, unless she mercilessly and violently pressed the temporary advantage she is going to lose when he shakes it off.

    PHYSICS > BIOLOGY > CULTURE

  64. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Interesting. I had no idea. But looking at Darrin Patrick (VP of Acts 29, TGC board member, author of books on Christian manliness, man Piper is talking to in the video I embedded just above) he is very much in the SJW space, with a focus on White privilege. On Nov 25 (during the Ferguson riots), he published How Should You Respond to Ferguson? at TGC:

    Over the last few months, the elders and other leaders at The Journey have been encouraging our church and the wider community to let their guard down and step into hard conversations about justice, privilege, and race. To further equip our church, we gathered together several members of our church from different backgrounds with different cultural and political views for a roundtable discussion. We believe the way forward must include these kind of discussions with people who don’t share our skin color, preferably around a dinner table.

    Interesting. Pastor Baucham, what’s your take on the situation in Ferguson?

    I love Baucham’s redirection back to truth at the end. The chick want’s some political pugilism, but Baucham said he’s a pastor so he’ll talk about Christ.

    @Bill Smith

    Nothing wrong with #1, #2 and #4 Cane. #3 is very unclear, though should almost certainly be considered through a SJW lens.

    Yes. It’s a fly in the ointment, and it matters. The list of Acts29’s values is a kind of symbol. That’s why they made the list.

    Suppose Acts29 was a church or cathedral. You walk in and look around to catalog the symbols…

    1. There’s a cruciform.
    2. There’s a baptismal
    3. There’s a statue to the unknown god
    4. There’s a Bible

  65. Dalrock, every time I see that video of that skinny, effeminate, whiny little dough boy telling MEN what they need to do to be a man my blood pressure goes up to the 400’s. Words fail me and that is saying a lot.

    @Carlotta: “Men should provide life sacrificial protection to their wives and children and family members. You want that? Get your own man….they would laugh if I even brought up my training or strength. That is to help me protect children in an emergency till they can get to us only.”

    Hah! I like you. In the theater that is exactly how it would go down- the bullets would have to go first through my body and then through hers before they got to our kids. That is indeed the way of things and we don’t need a limp wristed mangina with no real world experience telling us where the bear sits.

    He acutally lisped in the knife example: “I say you are not a thweeel man.”

    The girl goes free and the guy goes down. How about: The pastor goes to Heaven and the Lord says: I never knew you.

  66. Joe says:

    Only a little boy or a numbnuts would watch Saving Private Ryan and think, “I wish I was there with them.” Nope. The movie was hard to watch because, despite serving 10 years and in three – what do we call them now, Hazard Pay Areas? – there were familiar things in the modern battle experience. The sounds were quite good, the effect from blasts realistic. They didn’t quite get the full horror. The archetypal image etched in my mind from after a tank battle my unit was in, was a boot with a tibia sticking out of it, foot intact, in the middle of the road, smoldering. Holy fuck… we had no idea how it got there. Saw aw hole lot of other shit including logstacks of bodies that looked like bags of soup after the Highway of Death, and in some stuff that would exceed anything Hollywood could put together in a couple more or less peacekeeping zones after that. The smell of kids with infected napalm burns never really leaves you, nor do orphan stumper kids missing various limbs thanks to sloppy minefield mitigation and marking. I got out nigh on two decades ago but all that sticks with me like it was yesterday. It doesn’t haunt me, no, it just sticks, like a scar that doesn’t bug me or a mortgage payment that’s due, or remembering banging my first girlfriend. It’s vivid, present, and the colors don’t fade. Doesn’t bug me, but I wouldn’t wish it on anybody either.

    Would I do that all over again? Or sign up for my older relatives’ wars? Sure. In a heartbeat. War is a natural part of man’s makeup, it’s part of who I am. Would I enjoy it, or wish I was there while somebody else was doing it? Not in the sense you enjoy a good football game, though blowing shit up and shooting big freakin guns has a lot to be said in favor of it. But it’s not a gleeful, “gee, I wish I could do that” thing any more than eating a can of beans or going to the gym or taking a dump or scratching my ass or getting in a fistfight with some asshole is. It’s more satisfying, like a long day’s very hard work, and just a thing you do that seems like the right thing to do at the time. It’s all good so long as it doesn’t turn out badly for you personally. My ancestors were Irish and Scots military hooligans who fought in pretty much every war in this country – and some in the old country – up to the present day. Perhaps we’re more fighty than the average family, we tend to be enlisted or commissioned leaders and a little more attack dog-ish than run of the mill civilians (some of us have been cops too), but I don’t think we’re that many standard deviations from the norm.

    Which makes me think something about our feral natures. We talk a lot about hypergamy and the feral nature of women in mating. I think men have a feral nature too and war, fighting, hunting, and getting into a hierarchical pack is maybe an expression of it. Cooperative agriculture and the specialist economy over the past few millennia have moderated that natural tendency a bit, and the hypergamous feminists are trying to neuter it out. But what I have seen of good men with claws and fangs out (never mind what the evil fuckers do) makes me think men’s feral nature is just as strong, as naturally bred in and as dominant as women’s, maybe moreso in the right situations. Some men have some reluctance but most of us have it in us, and some enemies – like the worthless hadji scum – are very good at bringing it out. This isn’t about reflexively jumping in front of a woman to take a bullet because we’re chivalrous. It’s about fighting because we sort of like it, despite what they tell us we’re supposed to think about it.

    Those who have a warrior princess fantasy are not in very good touch with reality. Maybe it’s exciting to be around all those other men folk in uniforms and what not. But I don’t think they are going to like being around real men who are actually trying to kill each other before they lose their taste for it. It’s big boy rules, ugly by the standards applied by normal civilized people, and even minor setbacks on the battlefield are pretty catastrophic o n a personal level, and those setbacks happen a lot to the weaker and slower. It’s not about being insulted by your friend and being made to cry. It’s more about whether it’s going to be the debrided bottom half of your leg in your issue boot on fire in the road or some other dumb bastard’s. They don’t seem to get the crux of the whole thing.

    We’ve protected the women for too long. They seem to think we’re hiding something nice from them out there. I favor forcing them into the infantry now and letting them bear the brunt of it, triggering a rapid disaster right freaking now, rather than letting them water down the combat arms over a long period of time ad then having a disaster just when we need our military to be as hard as steel. We need to kill the fantasy and just talking about it, isn’t going to get it done. Arguing with a woman that something she wants to do is a bad time, just makes her think you’re hiding secret fun out there, like strippers or your buddies watching a football game. They have to learn by experience at this point, since they don’t respect what we are saying.

    As for how you get a pastor, a grown ass man, out of a fantasy world based on romantic chivalrous fantasies, well, you got me there son.

  67. Solomon says:

    Jason and Sarah- knife guy does Jason a favor sending him to paradise out of this sick world

    but the knife guy does not get get karate-chopped after all

    because, of course, he is Knife-guy McBadboy, and he ain’t no sucker like Jason.

    It’s too bad that pastor forgot to introduce things into that scenario like Psalm 91 and God’s real and actual power effecting their escape or protection. Scripture is what wins souls.

    wait, what were we doing?

  68. Fifty Seven says:

    Just for grins, I just Googled Piper and Chandler.

    College boys, both of them. Been down with The Jesus since forever. Probably never been involved with anything violent that didn’t involve a referee and Gatorade.

    I’m an ex infantryman, Iraq vacations times two. Go on, soft church men– tell me more about danger and risk and violence. Tell me about bravery; tell me about fear. From the post:

    “Think of the movies we like to watch. We want the fight. We want our lives to matter. We want to lay it down. We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.”

    No you don’t, soft church man. I know you don’t; not as anything except a daydream. You want to know how I know that, soft church man? BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T SIGN UP TO GO DO IT.

  69. Joe says:

    Thank you for speaking up Fifty Seven. It’s one thing when people who just don’t know wax poetic about it, it’s something else when people who proclaim to be our spiritual leaders do it. Kind of makes you wonder what kind of people these guys are – are they just deranged in their own little fantasy world? Or some kind of vicious cynics, peddling lies for their own personal gain?

    One of my padres when I was a kid was named, no shit, Father (then Monsignor) Murphy, this hard ass old Irish priest. He was a Gold Gloves champion in college, then a priest, then joined the Marines early in WWII and provided spiritual nourishment for the Marines through some of the toughest days in the Pacific, with line infantry battalions. In his early 60’s when I was a kid he would put the gloves on with you for a workout in the church meeting hall basement or if he thought you had a little too much energy for a boy. He had fists like big ass rocks, glad he never really tried to hit me hard. *Not a pussy.* When he said he was working to help lead you to God, you could trust his advice. Never asked him about the Marines, just heard from some of the men in the parish who had served in the pacific who held him in extremely high regard. He never said anything about military service or this faux chivalry either. Not a word.

  70. annihilist^2 says:

    Just a question for you all.

    How long do you think our western society or models of church can survive ?

    Can we make 100 years on this trajectory ?

  71. feeriker says:

    No you don’t, soft church man. I know you don’t; not as anything except a daydream. You want to know how I know that, soft church man? BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T SIGN UP TO GO DO IT.

    Without exception, the loudest mouths spewing the most moronic bullshit about war and the military are people like these soft little churchian manginas whose sole exposure to anything even remotely military is having had a G.I. Joe doll as kid and maybe having seen a couple of (highly historically inaccurate) war movies. Not only should anything that they have to say about said subjects be ridiculed and torn to shreds whenever they open their ignorant mouths or put their fat, stupid fingers to keyboards to pound out their imbecilic drivel, but they should also be greeted with a swift, firm kick in the (spot where their) nuts (would normally be), preferably by a steel-toed boot-clad combat veteran.

  72. feeriker says:

    Just a question for you all.

    How long do you think our western society or models of church can survive ?

    Can we make 100 years on this trajectory ?

    A century? Not a chance. Even 20 years is an optimistic estimate. Matter o’ fact, given the enemy’s ceaseless pouring of gasoline on the blaze, ten years might even be a too-generous lease on life.

  73. annihilist^2 says:

    @feeriker

    May we all survive the next 25 years ! With all the western gov’s indebted up to their eye balls, spending our tax on causes we never signed up too. And men downgrading their income and tax payments as fast as they can. why shouldn’t they ?

    Whats next I wonder.

    Kudos D. May you be with us for a while.

  74. Novaseeker says:

    Can we make 100 years on this trajectory ?

    The wildcards are technological and economic. We can already see today the strains that the economic situation is placing on large swathes of the population. Up to now it’s been a bread and circuses approach, with the emphasis on circuses — distract the common people with social media, and mindless consumption. That’s starting to wear thin, as we can see from the current political situation in both the US and various countries in Europe. The wildcard is whether anything is actually done to provide more bread and circuses, and whether there is some kind of technological change that, again, mollifies the situation.

    Feminism as currently constructed requires a fairly broad prosperity to work. It’s kind of a “luxury good” that emerges when societies become very prosperous, and women have access to that prosperity. So the real issues are economic ones. If some way is devised to perpetuate broad prosperity (odds look long for that, but you never know), then the social system created by feminism can last for quite some time. If not, then not.

  75. Fifty Seven says:

    “One of the most horrible features of war that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
    –George Orwell “Homage to Catalonia”

    “The empty can rattles the most”
    –Metallica, “My Friend of Misery”

    I’m not one of the “I would never fight for this feminazi society!” guys. I don’t regret signing up. But these soft, pale people, trying to front like they have any idea, at all, what they’re on about… No. Them trying to shame others into human-shield behavior… Abhorrent. You want to show everyone your courage For The Wimminz? Go to Saudi Arabia and start running your mouth.

    My father taught me a great phrase: “Cheap grace”. You get all the feel good kudos of Standing Up For The Right without incurring any, you know, risk or anything.

  76. annihilist^2 says:

    @Fifty Seven

    Lets be honest, these guys are the biggest cowards on the planet. Let them lead the way, we will listen to them when they have showed what sacrifice is.

  77. Jim says:

    “Think of the movies we like to watch. We want the fight. We want our lives to matter. We want to lay it down. We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.”

    This guy is an idiot.

    I’ve never been in the service but even I know there is no way in hell I’d ever want to do that. I’d have to be completely mad! What idiots wants to suffer in that living hell? Even watching some of the films about war is hard enough but actually live it for real? You’d have to be totally bat shit insane!

    Also, since as a man I have no rights anymore thanks to feminism there is no way I’d want to go now. I’m not fighting to continue my own slavery.

    And and Mr. Preacher no, I don’t need to have my legs blown off or end up in a body bag to have my life matter thank you very much. What a complete moron.

  78. greyghost says:

    This from Carlotta

    I have read your links and watched the videos.
    1. I don’t believe I would feel safe in the company of either pastor. They both appear to have never actually been in a fight, let alone a situation where life was on the line.
    2. To be honest, I had a physical reaction of revulsion to both of them.
    3. Piper appears to be nuts.
    4. All the men in my family, immediate or otherwise have never said a word to me about how they would beat someone up for me or any random women ala chandalar. They don’t have to.

    This is why Christian men and boys need to be taught red pill and game at bible class right along side scripture. Think about a red pill man with game and this Chandler guy talking that shit to him. Not going to happen and maybe a one more woman can respect that man. Teaching that shit in that church only made a room full of men women can’t respect. More than half of those women don’t know why. Nothing but divorce adultery and miserable sexless marriages.

  79. Mike T says:

    No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.

    So help me out here, fellas. The Right Honorable Holier than Thou Rev John Piper says a man shouldn’t shoot another man in defense of his wife’s chastity and life, but he should throw himself like a wild man at a better armed man who is assailing a woman who he isn’t even dating.

  80. Carlotta says:

    Interesting. If you let the video play a bit they begin to discuss how the men in church need to be “parented” by the pastors because their parents did such a bad job. Funny, because even women brand new to the faith are encouraged to take leadership roles because they are so annointed. But men need to be told how to wear their pants (actual example they gave).
    I have seen good, solid men who became christians told they basically need to leave the leading of their wives and children to the professional pastors since they are so new to the faith. They then fill every moment with them reading some book by John macarthur, never the actual Bible. The church told elders will be chosen, but no one ever is. No one is ever as perfect as the Pastor. Between this and Piper basically teaching men not to protect themselves or their families, but to seek death to somehow protect women and the evil attacker from hell (and with the man dead…..just what does Piper think will now happen to the women left behind?) this seems way more sinister and evil then I ever imagined. Come to church. Turn over your wife and children to the pastor. Become the pastors son. Get ready to die for any women at any time…….
    No wonder people run the other way!

  81. Kaminsky says:

    “Even Ronda Rousey who is undeniably competent at unarmed combat has essentially NO CHANCE against a male opponent of sufficient size and strength”

    Well, however you define size and strength there, but I think that’s taking it way too far. A top level professional female fighter would do very well in a street fight with most men. Granted a 210 lb man with fight training would not be good news for Rousey. But a 170 pound man who doesn’t have fight training would get killed. Bing-bong to the chin and sweet dreams. They practice their craft eight hours a day. Holly Holm would destroy 80% of normal men in a street fight. Big men could overpower her in enclosed space. They can see a telegraphed roundhouse right just as well as male professionals, side-step it with ease and put one right on an amateur’s jutting chin. But we’re talking about 100 women worldwide so they’re not worth mentioning really.

    I often wonder about the whole Kung-Fu, mystical chops to the neck, Wing Chun, Aikido training is really worth. MMA came along and you quickly saw what rose to the top; strength, speed, conditioning, solid and direct strikes, low kicks (if any), solid grappling. We’ll see if Conor McGregor ever gets put to sleep with some weird, little finger poke to the temple accompanied with some mystical, oriental yipping noise. Waiting on that….My point is that you can’t teach a physically weak 130 pound woman to do some nifty, over-involved wrist lock after capturing a grown man’s flying right fist with some kind karate movie hand-magic. So all the forms, wrist-locks and artistic hand tricks have found absolutely no place in MMA.

  82. annihilist^2 says:

    I do wonder as have many in this thread and others after watching chandler mincing around the stage offering platitudes like a girls best gay friend.

    without being too crude, I do wonder if the phrase “the boy goes down and the girl goes free” could refer to preferred sexual intentions.

  83. Kaminsky says:

    HA HA. Annihilist2

  84. They Call Me Tom says:

    Kaminsky, don’t dismiss the strength discrepancy between men and women.

    Now, a good grappler could do some damage to various joints and bones…if they could work their way to the right hold and take advantage of the body’s soft spots and leverage in time…

    …but straight up throwing punches… I guess it’s a question of whether we’re talking men smaller than 140 lbs. or men in the 200 lb. – 300 lb. range.

  85. They Call Me Tom says:

    On wild cards… the Greeks turned the tables on the Persians in part because the discovery of new silver mines gave them more resources to expand their navy closer to the size of the Persian’s. That and what the weather, another wild card, did to the Persian navy on an occasion or two. Wild cards are the kind of things I hope and prey for when I see where things appear to be headed.

  86. Micha Elyi says:

    We’ve protected the women for too long. They seem to think we’re hiding something nice from them out there. I favor forcing them into the infantry now and letting them bear the brunt of it, triggering a rapid disaster right freaking now, rather than letting them water down the combat arms over a long period of time ad then having a disaster just when we need our military to be as hard as steel. We need to kill the fantasy and just talking about it, isn’t going to get it done.
    Joe

    I hear you. Feminism sprouted in America in 1848 at Seneca Falls, NY. Then came the Civil War and very few women were at all interested in feminism, suffragettes, and the voting privilege accorded to those who carry the full burden of citizenship. Why? Because those women had seen what men who were called up in that war went through and decided they’d rather not have men’s privilege of voting if it came to that, thank you very much. Only after most of those who lived through the Civil War had died off and voting foolishly was separated from the duties of the full citizen did most women begin to support such things as the 19th Amendment.

    Yes, it’s time to kill the fantasy. Draft females. It’s their country, let them fight for it. (Send Mrs. “Bullets in Bosnia” Clinton in with the first wave!)

  87. nastynate says:

    “But a 170 pound man who doesn’t have fight training would get killed. Bing-bong to the chin and sweet dreams. They practice their craft eight hours a day. Holly Holm would destroy 80% of normal men in a street fight. ”

    If we are talking about ring fighting, an elite top tier woman who is currently competing, ‘might’ have a chance with gear, refs, and a nice soft ring to fall on. But in the real world, on the street with no rules, there is no way. I had Karate, Jujitsu, Judo, Taekwondo, and boxing training in my younger years and have seen plenty of trained MALE fighters get their asses handed to them by street brawlers who had the raw will to let it all hang out. Many a fighting “expert” has been humiliated by brawlers who learned how to fight from the hard knock life. A lot of people who haven’t seen many street fights tend to have an exaggerated view of how much training can tip the balance. Don’t get me wrong, it definitely helps a lot, but it’s no replacement for displacement. Don’t underestimate muscles, granite jaws, bare knuckles, and anger. I’ve been hit hard, closed fist and bare knuckled by strong women before; and although it hurts like a son of a bitch, it still lacks the innate strength and mass of a mans strike. If the average guy we’re talking about doesn’t have a glass jaw, and she doesn’t get a massive shot to the temple, throat, or crotch, and the man has the WILL to actually hurt the woman as much as he would another man, It’s no contest 99% of the time. Rhonda Rousey is 5’6″ 135lbs; and she’s one of the best female fighters in the world. An average healthy, non elderly, enraged 5’10” 170lb man could have her body slammed and pounding her head against the ground in seconds. The only issue issue here is will. Most men don’t have the will to ‘really’ hurt a woman. It’s not in our nature. And by will, I mean killing will, like the kind you have when you fight another man.

  88. Dale says:

    @Boxer
    >We should imagine a healthy society where the weakest and most loserish 10% is prohibited from marriage.

    Interesting idea to make marriage honoured. But I fear that those who think a man should be the authority in his home would be considered mentally defective, and thus part of the 10% forbidden to marry.

  89. Anon says:

    But a 170 pound man who doesn’t have fight training would get killed. Bing-bong to the chin and sweet dreams.

    I think Rousey could beat up about 60-70% of men. Still, that means about the top one-third of men could beat her. She can punch and kick hard and with precision, but I doubt she can do the rudimentary 185 lbs bench press or 70 lbs barbell curl.

    Micha Elyi,

    Feminism sprouted in America in 1848 at Seneca Falls, NY.

    This bizarre myth will never end. The Female Imperative (FI) has existed in all eras across all cultures. Just check non-Western mythology from centuries before 1848 to see how common it was for entire armies of men to die just to save *one* woman. Was Walter Raleigh not before 1848? Wasn’t the ‘women and children should be saved’ meme not before 1848?

    The notion that Feminism only happened through conscious intervention is a surefire way to ignore how deep-seated female pedestalization is to the human psyche. This is why a lot of Republicans/Churchians truly think they are against feminism, despite being enthusiastic abotu 99% of it. That is also why the term ‘Cuckservative’ is so apt for the typical establishment conservative (like Jonah Goldberg and others).

    Cuckservative = someone who does not realize how much FI governs their beliefs, even while believing themselves to be against feminism (necessitating a belief that feminism would not have happened if not for X recent historical event, or a group that is under 2% of the population).

  90. paddy says:

    Concerning Rousey vs (some man), you might want to check out the fight between Joey Buttafuoco and trained wrestler/fighter Chyna. Chyna’s billed stats of 5’10 and 180lbs (82KG) more closely approximate a man. Yet Joey easily dominates and wins the fight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUDcTLaWJuo

  91. paddy says:

    OOPS! I cut and pasted the wrong video link… This is the correct one … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuLWWDoN85E

  92. MarcusD says:

    Domestic abuse: Everything you need to know about the new psychological abuse law
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-psychological-abuse-law-a6789271.html

    A bit old, but I don’t recall seeing it mentioned anywhere.

  93. Kaminsky says:

    Yeah but a guy name Buttafuoco probably has had some fight training. I’ve seen a similar one where a local tough guy accepted a kickboxing fight with a female pro and he got dismantled and had his nose broken within a minute. Fight over. There was no grappling. He was really trying to kill her too. She blocked everything easily and then kicked his head in. It was a buttkicking and the guy was pissed off and humiliated, wouldn’t shake her hand.

    Rousey is more likely about 155 walking around. I’d take her over most men sub 185. Forget men over the age of 45 who are sub 180. She kills 95% of those guys. Anyway, it’s hardly worth pondering really because the top tier females are just a handful worldwide. I just thought the original post was saying Rousey basically has ‘no chance’ against pretty much any man out there. I think that is hugely inaccurate.

    People mistake fighting skill for general masculine worth. A guy can roar and huff and puff but fighting is a sport. If someone’s flying, spinning heel bone connects on the chin, the guy drops. It’s not dick measuring.

  94. Opus says:

    I have to confess that I have never been concerned for so much as a micro-second that I was going to be overpowered by any woman. On those rare occasions when a woman has attempted to rough-me-up I act as if she is a flee on the back of an elephant – though obviously, had she a knife it would be a different matter – as it is beneath my dignity as a male to even acknowledge that she might have some physical power. I am no different form other men in this and men do so automatically and without reflection; thus any physical attack made by a woman on a man is always effectively a sexual proposition – such as the woman I got talking to last Saturday morning at the M&S [up-market Walmart] check-out who kept pushing my arm in response to whatever it was I was saying to her – we being otherwise strangers; she wasn’t by pushing me trying to force the queue [line] further in the direction of the check-out girl. Had I been nudging her arm that would of course have been an assault and of a sexual nature and probably a prelude to rapety Rape. So much for the equality of the sexes

    The same dynamic (of not taking a woman seriously) plays out in work situations and in sport.

  95. God is Laughing says:

    So this brings up an interesting point. Roosh is lately all about not restricting the sexual freedoms of men. If that means invading your country and raping/fornicating with your daughter so be it. At what point do we have an obligation as fathers to protect our daughters. The Roosh PUA crowd will lampoon paternal protective behavior as outmoded and out of touch white knightery. False chivalry. Where is the balance?

  96. Joe says:

    >>> @Kaminsky
    >>>I often wonder about the whole Kung-Fu, mystical chops to the neck, Wing Chun, Aikido training is really worth. MMA came along and you quickly saw what rose to the top; strength, speed, conditioning, solid and direct strikes, low kicks (if any), solid grappling.

    It probably depends on the art involved, the person, the matchup and the context. BJJ and Muy Thai are pretty dominant in MMA because they exploit the weaknesses of a lot of other arts, and they also happen to translate pretty well to street fighting. A number of very effective traditional martial arts can’t be used in competition because they either have very obvious weaknesses or are not good for athletic competition because they are based around maiming blows, and a sports league can’t go around blowing out the elbows and knees of star competitors. Some of the military combatives, which typically combine a number of martial arts without prejudice in a single extremely fit, clever and aggressive man, are incredibly lethal and can overcome all manner of traditional arts practices.

    Belts, philosophies and peacocking about styles are weak tea in a real fight, where you don’t have to be comprehensively better than the other guy, you just need to win using whatever is handy: fists, feet, a beer mug or pool cue. No referee, no bell, no four minute rounds. Who the fighter is matters most. One of my Hapkido senseis was an elderly fellow who appeared crippled until you fought him, then he was sheer hell. Hapkido is one of those dangerous arts, but he was also tough as nails. A family friend is a high level Hwa Shin Wing Chun (Bruce Lee’s type of Kung Fu) practitioner and also a former Olympic judoist (great grappling, throws, sweeps – similar to Akido). Wing Chun is a showy, dancey, physically soft sort of martial art that BJJ guys could peacock about, right? But Family Friend got in a brief bar fight, then bumrushed by 8 or 9 of the guy’s friends after taking that guy out, and then took them all out with concussions and broken arms in less than a minute, like some Jackie Chan film. Family Friend was around 50 at the time and is just a little dude, maybe 5’5″, nothing special to look at, but he is a lifelong martial artist and career *librarian.* Wasn’t even a great athlete as a kid. Nobody really cared what art he was using or the philosophy of the Chi, it worked fine for him. Return your books on time, right?

    My son just entered his teen years and one of the things I’m teaching him is that it’s a man’s job to be polite and disciplined, but very dangerous and really fucking hard to kill if confronted by bad men. He wants to take a martial art and when it’s a little less dangerous for him in a year or two (head blows and youts, not a good thing) I’ll volunteer to pay for BJJ lessons. It’s a practical skill for a young man to have, and if he really likes that I’ll pay for Hapkido or another similar practical, fighting-oriented martial art. Shoot, we’d do this Zen / Chi relaxation and mind clearing thing after the senseis beat our asses for two solid hours a couple times a week. That was enjoyable mystical asian horseshit (hey look, my Chi opened accidentally) but the fighting skills weren’t. The nitpicking debated on internet forums about the relative merits of individual arts is frequently irrelevant bullshit.

  97. Dalrock says:

    @GIL

    So this brings up an interesting point. Roosh is lately all about not restricting the sexual freedoms of men. If that means invading your country and raping/fornicating with your daughter so be it. At what point do we have an obligation as fathers to protect our daughters. The Roosh PUA crowd will lampoon paternal protective behavior as outmoded and out of touch white knightery. False chivalry. Where is the balance?

    I don’t think there is much of a conflict here, but if so it doesn’t matter; protect your daughter. The problem would be if we sent our daughters out to sample the carousel, and then complained that any given man won’t man up and marry her once she has found the penis she wants to keep around. Protecting our daughters doesn’t mean a kinder gentler carousel, it means keeping them off the carousel and focusing on marriage. From what I read from others about Roosh’s writing I don’t think he would argue with this. But if he did object, it isn’t something that would give me pause.

  98. God is Laughing says:

    Yes Dalrock, I realize my point was a bit off topic. I see a rift opening between the men who want to understand the female sin nature in order to cope with it and those who want to understand it to exploit it.

    I put Matt Chandler and John Piper in the same bus as the PUAs exploiting the female sin nature to satisfy their own lusts. Be they emotional or sexual gratification.

  99. nastynate says:

    “The same dynamic (of not taking a woman seriously) plays out in work situations and in sport.”

    Well, that’s because 99% of the time it’s an accurate feeling.

  100. Gunner Q says:

    Kaminsky @ 5:18 am:
    “A guy can roar and huff and puff but fighting is a sport.”

    A sport universally segregated by sex and weight class… because we big men are scared of being put in our place by little girls?

    “Think of the movies we like to watch. We want the fight. We want our lives to matter. We want to lay it down. We love Saving Private Ryan, everybody getting shot up on the beach. We want to run up on that beach with them. It’s in us.”

    This just sank in with me. Healthy boys don’t fantasize about LOSING fights. I want to charge Omaha Beach because it’s a turning point of history, a chance to fight evil, big-time bragging rights and courage before God, not because my wife and gov’t will be pleased at my martyrdom.

    The battle scenes of SPR were great; the plot was trash. The US President personally intervenes on behalf of a civilian woman with a sob story, Tom Hanks’ character approves of it because he wants his wife to be proud of his service to Ryan’s Mommy and the movie ends with Ryan begging his wife for a not-given recognition that it was he who deserved the special treatment. If Piper thinks male honor comes from female approval then… that explains a lot.

  101. Dalrock says:

    @GIL

    Yes Dalrock, I realize my point was a bit off topic. I see a rift opening between the men who want to understand the female sin nature in order to cope with it and those who want to understand it to exploit it.

    I put Matt Chandler and John Piper in the same bus as the PUAs exploiting the female sin nature to satisfy their own lusts. Be they emotional or sexual gratification.

    I don’t think so. You are right that PUAs and men like Chandler and Piper are exploiting female sin nature for their own lusts. But our disagreement with the PUAs likely isn’t where you think it is. Look at Heartiste. He is busy enjoying the decline, and yet at the same time he is like a parasite worried about the host. He regularly points out how insane it is for Christian fathers to flood the world with slutty daughters. He worries about the cost of the breakdown of marriage to our society. He wants a world where there are plenty of sluts, but he also wants a functioning, stable society.

    The same is true for Roosh. Roosh’s Open Letter To The Parents of American Daughters should give you a sense of this. Where Roosh took nearly all of his heat for being “pro rape” during his recent aborted meetups was from an article where he proposed a mechanism to discourage unrestrained female sexuality and thereby protect women from rape. It was a satirical piece, but his true point was actually very similar to a point Pastor Doug Wilson made (for which he as well has been falsely accused of supporting rape).

  102. Dalrock says:

    For another example, see this comment from KrauserPUA:

    I’ve just been looking through your yahoo answers profile (and your incredible 76% best answers from 58 answers) and I can only salute your sterling work. That’s an incredible amount of direct 1-to-1 good work you are doing. While I am an atheist I do believe biblical marriage is the best model for civilised society and personal happiness so I commend you on promoting it.

  103. Dalrock says:

    Also, from the Reason write up on the aborted meetups for Roosh:

    None of Roosh’s views are right, from the left’s perspective. From the perspective of most Americans, really. His work routinely stresses that women should be “submissive,” that their highest value is as sex objects and mothers, and that America would be greater if only women were skinnier and had less sex outside marriage.

    But while such views on gender roles are far from normative in 21st-century America, it’s not as if they’re relegated solely to Roosh and his crowd. There are still a good deal of evangelical Christians who preach female submission to their husbands, with a lot of blogs kept about the subject.

    Roosh was most hated for arguing against female promiscuity.

  104. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    “Look at Heartiste. He is busy enjoying the decline, and yet at the same time he is like a parasite worried about the host. He regularly points out how insane it is for Christian fathers to flood the world with slutty daughters.”

    Heartiste is a better advocate for the wellbeing of men, especially Christian men, than any of these White Knight pastors because unlike them, he warns them about the risks of marriage and what they need to do to spark genuine attraction in women. He oft says that what’s good for him isn’t good for society; he tells men to look out for their own interests, while the cuckservatives try to gaslight young single men into believing that what’s good for them is to do as they’re told for the betterment of a society openly and actively looking to exploit their good nature. And somehow it’s branded as “godliness.” I don’t trust any man whose livelihood is based on being a “truth teller,” because as you’ve shown here repeatedly, he who pays the Piper will always call the tune.

  105. God is Laughing says:

    I think there is still a place for chivalry (from a position of masculine strength) apart from white knightery. Chandler does away with the authority (and thus the strength) while insisting on the “good” deed, Roosh vaunts the strength while mocking the Godly application of it.

    Roosh’s latest bashing of the alt right seemed to leave a lot of room for criticism of the patriarchy.

  106. God is Laughing says:

    What I’m seeing is the PUAs accusing ANY masculine defense of family or culture an apish form of over the top chivalry. As if they cannot distinguish between what you describe here and what I advocate.

  107. Boxer says:

    Dear Mr. D.:

    He is busy enjoying the decline, and yet at the same time he is like a parasite worried about the host.

    That’s possible. While I think I understand your point of view and the origins of this assumption, you shouldn’t underestimate just how vacuous the heartiste lifestyle is (at least for a normal man).

    When the magic and mystery of female sexuality is reduced to the mundane, much of our reason for living as civilized human beings melts away. Someone (not heartiste) once analogized the random animalistic banging of sluts to drinking one’s own piss. It may be necessary while we’re stuck in feminism’s collapsed mine-shaft, but even the connoisseurs admit (more or less immediately) that there are better ways to live.

    Boxer

  108. The Question says:

    @ God is Laughing

    “What I’m seeing is the PUAs accusing ANY masculine defense of family or culture an apish form of over the top chivalry.”

    I might see some of that, but at the same time it seems rather absurd for anyone to attack men like Roosh for sleeping with Western women by inferring that he is taking advantage of pure, innocent maidens. Does anybody really think any of his sexual conquests would have made great wives and mothers had he never met them? You can’t con an honest man.

    I understand the Alt. Right lambasts the hookup culture and promotes motherhood, which is refreshing and admirable, but trying to shame a PUA for taking advantage of women actively looking for casual sex counterproductive. If these women weren’t looking to sleep with a PUA then Roosh wouldn’t be one, and if there were real life consequences for their behavior, the women would make better life choices.

    I’m all for advocating for the family and culture in masculine manner in principle, but I will not lift a finger for those who don’t want it, don’t deserve it, and have treated those who have tried to do so with utter contempt. When the carousal ride finally breaks down, men like myself will not be there to fix it or keep it running or help those injured in the process. Better to look out for the far fewer innocent women who do not deserve the harm and actually want to be protected.

  109. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    He is busy enjoying the decline, and yet at the same time he is like a parasite worried about the host.

    That’s possible. While I think I understand your point of view and the origins of this assumption, you shouldn’t underestimate just how vacuous the heartiste lifestyle is (at least for a normal man).

    Agreed. When I used the term enjoying the decline, I didn’t mean it as an endorsement. Heartiste has made it his life’s work to profit from our society’s dysfunction. At the same time he is incredulous at our foolishness for permitting, and really creating the dysfunction he is exploiting. This was my point. That his intent to profit will result in ruin is a separate point but essential to understand. This is what I meant by us not disagreeing with PUAs in the way GIL expected.

  110. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    “Heartiste has made it his life’s work to profit from our society’s dysfunction. At the same time he is incredulous at our foolishness for permitting, and really creating the dysfunction he is exploiting.”

    Exactly. Heartiste and men like him take what is offered, but they don’t demand or create the supply. Yet our culture keeps feeding them women while insisting they not go along with their desire for casual sex. They take advantage of opportunities, but they aren’t the ones responsible for those opportunities existing in the first place.

  111. God is Laughing says:

    @ The Question.

    My problem isn’t with Roosh and his ilk banging sluts. It’s the way they seem to be willing to degrade all culture with a “you’re a Nazi or white knight” for wanting to preserve women from the carousel.

    The argument I’m seeing is that if our daughters want a ticket to ride we might as well shrug and send them off to be debauched by grandpa Roosh.

  112. God is Laughing says:

    Dalrock, I’m not looking to have my red pill verified. I’m suggesting that there is a natural rift between red pill aware barbarians and red pill aware paterfamilias. I think as things degenerate the FI is going to be subsumed in the fight between those lines. They’ll accuse me of white knighting and I’ll accuse them of degeneracy. One day these lines will crystallize into direct action and there will not be a special snowflake action princess to be found. And I will not advocate sticking my neck out for the dumper or the dumpee, and no amount of familial or civilizational persuasion will compel me.

    In my opinion, as you know, it’s all going to burn and all we really have left is to let God show us where to stand. These CBMW jokers aren’t going to hold a damn thing together and neither are the feminists, but I repeat myself.

  113. God is Laughing says:

    Spinning this whole thing back to the topic I would ask Piper why Sarah was out with Jason after dark in such a disreputable locale? Where is her father? And why did he send her out with this loser who walks into such a no win situation?

    If the answer is that the dad approved her death is on his hands, if she thought it was a good idea and didn’t consult him or defer to him then when Jason runs away her death is on her own head (IMO).

  114. Kevin says:

    The conflict between PUAs and non loser manosphere is so wide and so ingrained it can hardly be spoken about without people losing their minds. Yes, the PUA in action oppose every single thing good in the patriarchy and the first step of the patriarchy would be stringing them all up and executing them. That we pretend they are on our side because of some shared ideas and words continues to be hilarious to me.

    As far as fighting goes I am a very average strength guy who goes to the gym rarely and never in my life felt any fear from a woman. Rousy or Holm – give me a break. I only know those names because it was in all the news that they fought which is disgusting (women fighting each height of savagery). However in that brief time I was able to learn that the base for most successful MMAs is wrestling. My understanding is this is true in most real fights, they devolve to grappling very quickly. So Rousy who is used to punching can probably beat me because I have a glass jaw (never been in a brawl since junior high), but most men who survive her initial strike and gets to the grappling phase is going to win if they are any sort of shape. I would estimate top 30% of size matched men, but top 50-70% of normal men if any experience taking a blow. The psychology and physical response to the blows is really the separating factor.

    It’s hard to understand most these pastors. Do they really want their sons to live ready to die for strangers who hate them? Darlock hits a home run pointing out the grotesque fact they really revel in others opportunities to die for women.

    Finally, Rolla is right that the female imperative is an ingrained biological fact in humans and most mammals for the reproduction of the species. It’s not a feminist invention. Evolution is correct it’s better to preserve the female and the chance at continuing the species. That does not translate into every man needing to be in the sad state of being eaten alive like a male praying mantis.

  115. God is Laughing says:

    Rousey’s base is Judo. Holmes outstruck her and had decent takedown defense. Both have about as many fights as a schoolboy from my generation.

  116. Anon says:

    TQ,

    I might see some of that, but at the same time it seems rather absurd for anyone to attack men like Roosh for sleeping with Western women by inferring that he is taking advantage of pure, innocent maidens

    Of course. When they do this, this is also a form of swallowing parts of feminism whole.

    If they really don’t like PUAs, then they should make their daughters marry at 21, as virgins, and with no right to divorce their husbands.

    But when delay marriage to 30, 32, or later, and live by themselves, then of course they are having casual sex with men. Now, suddenly, these whiteknights are aghast that some men are working to improve their prospects.

    To oppose PUAs when these women are already carousel riders who have no intention of settling for Beta Bux until 30+, is just another form of whiteknight misandry.

  117. Anon says:

    but trying to shame a PUA for taking advantage of women actively looking for casual sex counterproductive.

    It is no different than a cuckservative who thinks divorce only happens due to a misdeed by the man (and has ensured that the laws are built around this presumption),

    Or a cuckservative who thinks abortions only happen because of some male misdeed, and hence the way to reduce abortions is to somehow punish men. When that does not work, double down on more of the same.

  118. Anon says:

    You can’t get rid of PUAs (and most do not reveal themselves to be PUAs, unlike Roosh), unless you :

    1) Get rid of the carousel.
    2) To get rid of the carousel, women need to marry at 20-22, as virgins.
    3) Divorce should be hard to get. Custody should never go exclusively to the woman.
    4) There should not be so many affirmative action jobs for women, where they get enough money to finance a single-woman life, where they slut it up.

    Until you get rid of all this, you will not get ride of PUAs. Plus, women don’t want PUAs to vanish, for where will the Alpha Fux come from?

  119. greyghost says:

    As you have noticed and commented on Dalrock the PUA seem to understand the nature of women and the value of Christian marriage far better than most any preacher today. The Christian men here seem more agitated about the speaker of the truth than they are about anything else. It seems the Christian men want what they view as proper to prevail. The PUA are living the base human nature and scripture everyday with out any righteousness hang ups ( I always knew red pill was clarified and enhanced when combined with scripture) They seem much more in tune with reality and the mechanics of actually leading civilization starting with marriage and family. Todays Christian men with a few exceptions here and there are too polluted with righteous Christian show and are contributing to the decline of the west. It is amazing to see even the commenters here righteously follow a path to doom, (the ole road to hell paved with good intentions thing)

  120. PuffyJacket says:

    Most of the more widely-known PUAs were at one point beta (some are coy about it, but it is implied). A “natural” has nothing to teach, and therefore no reference-point to beta male frustration or anything being amiss in the culture.

    30 years ago a Krause or Roissy-type would have been married with kids. Putting the blame on PUAs not only demonstrates complete misunderstanding of the SMP, but is merely another cowardly form of refusing to call-out female behavior and cartoonish pedestalizing. AKA more Cuckservative nonsense.

  121. greyghost says:

    Anon
    The difference between a PUA and cuckservative is the PUA is living in reality. Cuckservatives and most anybody it seems are trying to make lies work

  122. greyghost says:

    Puffyjacket

    30 years ago a Krause or Roissy-type would have been married with kids. Putting the blame on PUAs not only demonstrates complete misunderstanding of the SMP, but is merely another cowardly form of refusing to call-out female behavior and cartoonish pedestalizing. AKA more Cuckservative nonsense.

    Nailed it. Refusing to understand this shows a total lack of faith and maturity.

  123. The Question says:

    @greyghost @Puffyjacket

    Outstanding!

    Not sure how old/young anyone is here, but there is an episode of the Batman Animated Series from the 1990s titled “The Trial” where Batman is forced to endure a kangaroo court by the inmates at Arkham who “blame” him for their life of crime. His “defense attorney” points out with every single villain that they would have been the same person they are without Batman because what caused them to enter crime had nothing to do with him. However, she shows with Batman that he is a product of their criminal behavior. He exists because they existed first, not the other way around.

  124. Until Kevin and other cucks here can tell women ‘no’. No, they don’t get the vote anymore, no, they don’t get to go to university, no they don’t get to leave home before marriage, no, they don’t get to be leaders, no they don’t get to go be around strangers until late at night, no they don’t get to choose their career, no, they don’t get do to whatever they want.

    Until that is done, shouting at PUAs is like pissing in the wind, it just comes back straight in your face. You won’t get to execute PUAs, Kevin, you dipshit, who will do it for you, do you have some sort of army? Who? The men you look down upon whilst giving your daughters everything for free and allowing them to do whatever they want? Screw you! They won’t do it because deep down they know PUAs are a product of your daughter’s freedom, given to her by cucks, manginas and the state. Control your daughters, control their urges, control them and this problem ceases to be, just like that.

    It is you and yours who cause this situation to occur.

  125. Looking Glass says:

    @The Question:

    That actually is one of the best episodes of the series. It’s important to remember that the DA that was captured to be Batman’s attorney wanted to lock Batman up. She changed her opinion by the end.

    @Kevin:

    PuffyJacket gets it a bit closer. What we see with the PUAs are Men that wouldn’t exist in their current form if the society wasn’t the way it is. They’re being opportunistic in a society that despises Men. They’re not being illogical and they’re not even really being very evil.

  126. God is Laughing says:

    Cannat wait for granpappy Roosh to lead civilization out of the dark forest of feminism with his incisive wisdom.

  127. God is Laughing says:

    Batman fictionally fights the creeps he doesn’t diddle them. PUAs have no reason to want to see an end to feminism. They prefer to roll in it/with it.

  128. PokeSalad says:

    To oppose PUAs when these women are already carousel riders who have no intention of settling for Beta Bux until 30+, is just another form of whiteknight misandry.

    Exactly. I can oppose the PUA viewpoint and still respect the fact that they are intellectually honest and upfront about our society and what they are. I harbor much more disgust and anger for the Pipers/Driscolls/Chandlers of this world….their emotional predation of their female flocks is every bit as abhorrent as Roosh/Roissy’s physical lusts…..conducted under a guise of Biblical authority. I know where the real evil is.

  129. greyghost says:

    God is laughing
    Spoken like a good Christian man. Some sinner is going to fix it for you and Roosh isn’t the right kind of sinner. You must know you are going to heaven so you are good to go. The rest of us on the bubble will continue to discuss how to model a civilization for the productive benefit of all men. This kind of thing is worldly and unrighteous the kind of things “good” Christians with a place reserved for them in heaven best not involve themselves with. They might fuck up and get their souls dirty and piss God off. 9Might even lose your place)

  130. PuffyJacket says:

    They’re being opportunistic in a society that despises Men.

    More accurately, beta men.

    Not only are beta men missing the “signal”, society is beeming them an incredibly strong “anti-signal”: Namely that the possession of any beta-male attributes whatsoever (the ones that actually make a civilization work) is utterly disgusting.

    That women will risk everything to flock around a Charles Manson type, yet unremorsefully destroy a family man just for failing to make her tingle, should tell beta men everywhere exactly where they stand in the SMP.

  131. PuffyJacket says:

    @GIL

    Cannat wait for granpappy Roosh to lead civilization out of the dark forest of feminism with his incisive wisdom

    In fairness, Roosh understands BOTH civilization and feral female behavior better than 99.9% of the Churchian population. And that’s being quite generous to Cuckservatives.

  132. greyghost says:

    The key to a thriving civilization is for the government of that society to cherish and respect the productive beta male. And to always honor and respect males the commit to wives and fatherhood in laws , policy, and government culture. Example. No man that has children while married and provides a home for them should ever be in doubt that he will never have his children taken from him even with such behavior.

  133. greyghost says:

    BTW here is an article from Chateau Heartiste , The guy that only preaches fucking sluts.
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/study-no-consent-divorces-favor-women/
    Find a solid Christian preacher that has this article and introduce them to each other.

  134. Coloradomtnman says:

    @God is Laughing

    I have three teenage daughters and couldn’t disagree with you more strongly in regard to pointing the finger at the manosphere. In my case the die was cast when their ‘mom’ frivorced me and took cash and prizes. How many daughters do you have? I cleaned my assault rifle on the back deck when boys visited; they were truly never the issue it was their whore mom that opened the gates no matter what I did. She’s not alone, it’s the society as a whole that is sick and degenerate and any man with half a brain isn’t buying the paradigm any longer.

  135. Gunner Q says:

    There’s little point in telling the PUAs to stop fornicating when we don’t have an alternative to offer.

    Boxer @ 12:45 pm:
    “you shouldn’t underestimate just how vacuous the heartiste lifestyle is (at least for a normal man).”

    You shouldn’t underestimate just how rewarding the Heartiste lifestyle is. Normal men are strongly motivated by sex and female affection, not marital burdens and martyrdom. I don’t know what you mean by the “magic and mystery of female sexuality” but it doesn’t sound like “getting it on until my husband is exhausted”.

    By the way, there’s a regular here named Boxer.

  136. God is Laughing says:

    Don’t disagree mtman, feral women are the problem and all of their allies.

    Greyghost, you might be surprised where I fall out and the things I have to be ashamed of. Don’t presume lily whitness upon me. I have my pick on who to go into the battle with and its not any type of pussy pedastilizer of any stripe. Be that Piper or grandaddy Roosh.

    PUAs are like a yeast infection, no pussy equals no single cellular life.

    Raar ain’t they neomasculine?

  137. God is Laughing says:

    BTW Piper is a dispensationalist who thinks that he’s leaving on a Holy Ghost jet plane before all this shit hits the fan, I am not.

  138. Boxer says:

    Gunner Q:

    You shouldn’t underestimate just how rewarding the Heartiste lifestyle is. Normal men are strongly motivated by sex and female affection, not marital burdens and martyrdom. I don’t know what you mean by the “magic and mystery of female sexuality” but it doesn’t sound like “getting it on until my husband is exhausted”.

    You completely misunderstood my reply. That aside, if banging random skanks is “rewarding” to you, then congratulations. You’re the type of self-deceptive degenerate I make a point of avoiding in meatspace. Normal men hold their nose long enough to get their needs met, then sublimate their romantic aspirations into their careers or educations. (Big capital doesn’t mind the status-quo.)

    Boxer

  139. Boxer says:

    Dear Grey Ghost:

    The key to a thriving civilization is for the government of that society to cherish and respect the productive beta male.

    What the playas call beta male was yesterday’s alpha. He’s the guy who built the rocket ships and kept the trains running on time.

    Some neat papers could be written on the historical shift from lionizing engineers, soldiers, farmers and longshoremen (as was the case in the first half of the 20th century) to the pedestalization of lawyers, bankers, political hacks, and members of other shady trades who were earlier mistrusted for their tendency to be “on the make”. I believe that this trend paralleled the growing matriarchal influence in society. In a man’s culture, strong and wise men are valued. In a woman’s degenerate society, money is the marker, no matter how one comes by it.

    Boxer

  140. Anon says:

    What the playas call beta male was yesterday’s alpha. He’s the guy who built the rocket ships and kept the trains running on time.

    This is just another way of saying that female nature is precisely and diametrically opposed to civilization. Civilization advances when women are tightly regulated to live a life of net productivity (be a wife and mother). Only 10-15% of women are truly capable of adding significant value to the workforce as career women.

  141. Boxer says:

    This is just another way of saying that female nature is precisely and diametrically opposed to civilization.

    Well, feral female nature certainly is – same as feral male nature. Look at the fatherless boys in any trailer park or housing project to get the idea.

    I’m starting to become a big fan of a revision of the r/k selection idea. We have two basic natures. The forward thinking men and women of yesterday were taught self control in a two parent household. The waste-cases in the lower castes of today who live animal-like existences aren’t. I don’t know if there’s solid science behind the r/k stuff. I just know certain interpretations of it seem to track the social truths I see around me.

    Boxer

  142. KP says:

    Joe,

    Only a little boy or a numbnuts would watch Saving Private Ryan and think, “I wish I was there with them.”

    You might guess again. There are plenty of men who see this, or something similar, and say “If only I had had a chance to prove myself like they did!” You can usually tell us because we aren’t spouting the sort of nonsense Piper spouts.

    Would I do that all over again? Or sign up for my older relatives’ wars? Sure. In a heartbeat.

    See?

    Oh, and later on a different sub-subject, Joe says:

    “Some of the military combatives, which typically combine a number of martial arts without prejudice in a single extremely fit, clever and aggressive man, are incredibly lethal and can overcome all manner of traditional arts practices.”

    This. This on steiiods. I know someone, local to me, who has trained (as a civilian contractor) quite a few of our troops in combatives. They actually train them at two levels: (a) the “policing” kind of stuff that was prominent during the Iraq “occupation”, and (b) serious fighting where the rule is “you’ll probably only get one chance”. In the latter mode, “incredibly lethal” is the watchword.

  143. Coloradomtnman says:

    @ God is Laughing

    ‘BTW Piper is a dispensationalist who thinks that he’s leaving on a Holy Ghost jet plane before all this shit hits the fan, I am not.’ I hear that, keep the powder dry.

  144. Anonymous Reader says:

    ‘BTW Piper is a dispensationalist

    Source? I admit up front this is one of those issues I know very little about. However, his bio claims the exact opposite.

    According to this article:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Piper_%28theologian%29

    Piper does not don any of the typical hermeneutical frameworks, but claims he is furthest from dispensationalism, and closest to Covenant Theology, or a New Covenant Theology in matters of the Law and covenants, but agrees with the dispensationalist belief that there will be a millennium.

    Frankly I don’t see how that makes any difference in terms of Dalrock’s OP.

  145. Micha Elyi says:

    It’s “Xena: Warrior Princess”.

    Xeena is the Worrier Princess. Men, you definitely don’t want to marry her.

    [D: Thanks. Fixed.]

  146. Kaminsky says:

    Boxer,

    “You completely misunderstood my reply. That aside, if banging random skanks is “rewarding” to you, then congratulations. You’re the type of self-deceptive degenerate I make a point of avoiding in meatspace. Normal men hold their nose long enough to get their needs met, then sublimate their romantic aspirations into their careers or educations. (Big capital doesn’t mind the status-quo.)”

    Hello ‘Room’….I’d like to introduce you to ‘The Only Real Man’. I’m sure you’ll work together quite well.

  147. Boxer says:

    Dear Kaminsky:

    Hello ‘Room’….I’d like to introduce you to ‘The Only Real Man’. I’m sure you’ll work together quite well.

    This would help you understand my position, if you were able to understand it.

    http://www.epicurus.net

    Regards,

    Boxer

  148. Micha Elyi says:
    Feminism sprouted in America in 1848 at Seneca Falls, NY.
    Micha Elyi

    This bizarre myth will never end. The Female Imperative (FI) has existed in all eras across all cultures.
    Anon

    1848 & Seneca Falls aren’t a myth.

    And Feminism, an organized ideology, is not the same thing as your “The Female Imperative”, which is a collection of vague, mostly female sex hormone fueled subconscious drives. Feminism is a Western invention-a perversion of Western values–so waving at unnamed “entire armies of men (dying) to save *one* woman” from “non-Western mythology” only further undermines your credibility.

    Oh, and do try to avoid your words “Churchians” and “cuckservative”. They only add to your discredit.

  149. Anon says:

    Micha Elyi,

    Feminism is a Western invention-a perversion of Western values–so waving at unnamed “entire armies of men (dying) to save *one* woman” from “non-Western mythology” only further undermines your credibility.

    Your understanding of these issues is close to nil. You perfectly fit the profile of a Churchian conservative who is certain that he is not a feminist, yet places female well-being and pampering above everything else.

    Female-centrism (some call it the FI) is very deep-seating to human psychology. To cling to a belief that it only happened by overt effort in 1848 is to advertise your own intellectual limitations.

    Oh, and do try to avoid your words “Churchians” and “cuckservative”. They only add to your discredit.

    Really? Those terms are used widely here, by many commenters. That is because both terms are accurate. Being ‘discredited’ in the eyes of a cuckservative is a plus (much like earning the disapproval of a blue-haired feminist).

    Asserting what you wish is not the same thing as a fact. Women tend to think this, but as an alleged man, you should know better.

  150. Anon says:

    Micha Elyi,

    1848 & Seneca Falls aren’t a myth.

    I suppose that women became the scarcer reproductive resource only after 1848, as decreed in Seneca falls. 10 women and 1 man can produce a lot more babies than 10 men and 1 woman, yet this only became true after 1848 after a meeting at Seneca falls.

    Just about every society in the world was always happy to send 20 men to die rather than risk one woman. If this baffles you, perhaps you may want to read up on some 4th grade biology. This is true even of Muslim societies which cuckservatives feel they need to whiteknight the women out of (without the women requesting any such rescue, mind you).

  151. Anon says:

    PuffyJacket,

    but is merely another cowardly form of refusing to call-out female behavior and cartoonish pedestalizing. AKA more Cuckservative nonsense.

    Well said. This need to give women unlimited benefits with no hesitation about any costs to men (or children) is so deep-seated in the psychology of most people that they just cannot see any other way. It is part of human hardwiring, and is certainly not because of some event in 1848, 1969, or a group that is 2% of the population. We see it in all eras and almost all cultures. Only when this is somewhat contained does some progress occur for society.

  152. Bill Smith says:

    Any insult seems to be a good insult to some AR.

    I am planning on leaving on the first flight out before God pours out His wrath on the world as noted in the Book of Revelation. None of you have any idea how much worse that will be than the worse man can do on his own that make light of it.

    Things can get very nasty before then and have in the past. Imagine living in Rome before it was sacked by the Barbarians, for example. Expecting to go out means we believe God’s Word that His wrath is for His enemies.

    On the PUA issue: You cannot solve a stray cat population by fixing the males. A spare male will always arise to take care of as many females as possible. You must deal with the female first. It is the same in human relations. Female sex must be restrained to restore normalcy.

    PUAs should still be strung up and will be whenever society finally returns to some form of stability. That may not happen for a long time, but it will eventually come about.

    Those who think the PUA lifestyle is so great should read a bit of Ecclesiastes, written by a man who had more than enough sex. It is not ultimately fulfilling. God made man for more and even sin is only pleasurable for a season. It is somewhat amazing that any who believe in Christianity can claim otherwise. Some may get it completely wrong on the other end, but that doesn’t make a loose lifestyle worthwhile either.

    Kind of sounds like high school where those boasting how good it was weren’t getting anything.

  153. Kaminsky says:

    Boxer,

    Get over yourself.

  154. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I wonder what percentage of PUA’s are eventually hit with a paternity suit or a false rape allegation. Then there’s the chance of getting a sexually transmitted disease or incurring the wrath of one of the woman’s many jealous past lovers, or even suffering violence at the hands of a crazy carousel rider (who can strike a man, but against whom the man cannot strike back).

    The PUA lifestyle sounds inherently risky. And it will likely get more risky as the law increasingly favors scorned women, making it ever harder to dump, or even offend, a past or current female lover.

    MGTOW is the increasingly safest route, lonely though it may be.

  155. greyghost says:

    Any woman a man ever had contact with can now legally as she ages to retirement can come back and sue for rape.

  156. Boxer says:

    Dear RPL:

    I wonder what percentage of PUA’s are eventually hit with a paternity suit or a false rape allegation. Then there’s the chance of getting a sexually transmitted disease or incurring the wrath of one of the woman’s many jealous past lovers, or even suffering violence at the hands of a crazy carousel rider (who can strike a man, but against whom the man cannot strike back).

    The men who call themselves MGTOW tend to inflate the chances of these scenarios, though they obviously all exist. In any event, celibate bros are not immune from the risk either. Consider:

    A woman claims she got raped last night on the corner of Main and Louisiana. Checking with google and apple (of course this isn’t done, these two companies value your privacy) the cops have determined that ten different smartphones were within 100m of the rape.

    Six of those smartphones belong to women. Of the remaining four men, two were PUA types who have the benefit of females backing up their alibis. One was a cop. The last one is you. You know you were on your way home from work last night, but no one was with you.

    You’re down at the station now. What do you do?

    The PUA lifestyle sounds inherently risky. And it will likely get more risky as the law increasingly favors scorned women, making it ever harder to dump, or even offend, a past or current female lover… MGTOW is the increasingly safest route, lonely though it may be.

    MGTOW and PUA aren’t disjoint. As near as I can tell, the whole thing is a spectrum, with most of the men claiming allegiance in either camp actually falling close to the middle of the bell curve. PUA types just try to have sex with better looking women than the types that they would otherwise fall in with by chance.

    Boxer

  157. elmertjones says:

    Get a load of this one Dalrock. Former Salon writer and still single journalist has deconstructed the marriage strike, and it’s women manning the ramparts. The iconic cover photo implies how women are “flipping the bird” at marriage and are opting for empowerment instead. So much material, so little time :

    The most powerful voter this year, who in her rapidly increasing numbers has become an entirely new category of citizen, is

    The Single American Woman By Rebecca Traister

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/political-power-single-women-c-v-r.html

  158. elmertjones says:

    A masterpiece in Photo-journalism : Women are not abstaining from or delaying marriage to prove a point about equality. They are doing it because they have internalized assumptions that just a half-century ago would have seemed radical..

    The stock photo model background lends credibility because she is a “woman of color”.

  159. DrTorch says:

    Women are not abstaining from or delaying marriage to prove a point about equality. They are doing it because they have internalized assumptions that just a half-century ago would have seemed radical..

    And there you have it. Feminism is completely, violently opposed to W. Civ. Strike that, to any civilization.

  160. God is Laughing says:

    @AR, Piper believes in the rapture, which is the heart of dispensationalism. I was answering a point by Greyghost. From what I’ve detected he’s trying to better mash Calvanism into a Scofield-light can.

  161. feeriker says:

    And there you have it. Feminism is completely, violently opposed to W. Civ. Strike that, to any civilization.

    We really need to just quarantine them, ALL of them. You identify as a feminist, you’re on a one-way flight out. Give them a big swathe of Sub-Saharan Africa to call their own homeland. (This region is already hopelessly f***ed up anyway, so it’s not like a Feminist Utopia would do any more identifiable damage. Besides, the UMCs who make up the bulk of the feminist “leadership” would have a golden opportunity to evangelize their ideology to their oppressed brown sestren. Noblesse oblige, and all that).

    If they want to build a civilization based on nihilism, so be it. Let them do it with only themselves as potential victims of their own stupidity.

  162. Kirk Parker says:

    Boxer,

    Checking with google and apple (of course this isn’t done, these two companies value your privacy)

    Sorry to rain on your hypothetical, but the only entity that could provide that amount of location information is the cellular provider. It is, sadly, already well established that their cell tower location information is not something that they can keep private.

  163. theasdgamer says:

    My latest post is about relationships and GTFO inspired by Proverbs. https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/proverbs-says-gtfo/
    The Bible is so Red Pill if you just read it without all the feminist lenses.

  164. Kevin says:

    I said talking about PUA’s makes people crazy and people go crazy because thinking is hard. My personal favorite has become “cuckservative” because that’s just a way to advertise you are retarded and inarticulate.

    My point was simple – people who want to make the world a better place should not work in concert with people who are actively making the world a worse place. I did not say our current sexual world was made by PUAs. We all know thanks to Darlock – the sexual market place we have is the one women wanted and created. PUAs are just along for the ride. That does not change the fact that they are morally incontinent losers just like sluts.

    If women are indeed herd animals than the patriarchy are the sheppards. And shepherds kill wolves. If we have a return to patriarchy part of that would be getting rid of the wolves. People claiming control your daughters only have half the picture. Fathers build fences, they also chase off losers who might sully their daughters (and whom their daughters might eagerly want to be sullied – makes no difference). Thats a very old tradition that is impossible to practice in our current environment. 100s of changes that are never going to happen would need to happen, which is why I was exploring a hypothetical to illustrate how there is no common cause with PUAs even if they understand some very important ideas -because they work against you. But whatever, its just a website where we share ideas and learn from our host and some of the PUAs are very insightful. I just don’t have any illusions they are on my team.

    Unrelated. @God is Laughing
    I was talking about articles like this where for most the male MMA champions wrestling is the key
    http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/1/Sherdogs-Top-10-MMA-Wrestlers-85413

  165. infowarrior1 says:

    @Kevin

    Show me a conservative that has repudiated the principles of the enlightenment that are the root causes of modern day isms in the 1st place including leftism.

    And hold views that pre-enlightenment peoples held as sane and proper.

    Show me a conservative that hold views that aren’t old progressive views including those of the “Progressive era”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

  166. Boxer says:

    Dear Kevin:

    I said talking about PUA’s makes people crazy and people go crazy because thinking is hard. My personal favorite has become “cuckservative” because that’s just a way to advertise you are retarded and inarticulate.

    You should never bother apologizing on Dalrock for hurting anyone’s feelings. The only time I’ve ever apologized here was when I was too quick to hit submit, and posted something that was unsourced or legitimately unclear. Even then, the people I apologized to for being unclear took it as a personal apology and a sign of weakness. (I can live with that – honor demands we not be deceptive, and I can’t help the way people take my articles.)

    My point was simple – people who want to make the world a better place should not work in concert with people who are actively making the world a worse place. I did not say our current sexual world was made by PUAs. We all know thanks to Darlock – the sexual market place we have is the one women wanted and created. PUAs are just along for the ride. That does not change the fact that they are morally incontinent losers just like sluts.

    I have had sex with hundreds of women. I’ll be having sex with another one in a few hours. Of all the people here who should be all upset at what you posted, I probably have the greatest claim, and it doesn’t bother me at all.

    Those of us who don’t have the self-discipline to be celibate, and/or those of us who have too much to lose to risk marriage, should recognize what you’re saying and acknowledge your position.

    I see lots of excuses in these parts. “Oh, I’m leaving her better than I found her” and “It doesn’t make a difference, because she’s willing.” In reality, you’re not leaving her better than you found her, and it does make a difference. More importantly, when you get down and rut with some anon slut you picked up, you’re not improving yourself either.

    I have needs and little self-discipline, and I have a pretty good life with some material things that I want to keep. I refuse to lie to myself, however. I don’t tell myself that I’m doing something harmless (or even good). It’s not true. I’m voluntarily entering into what Marx called a state of alienation, using someone and being used, without even the pretense of an authentic human transaction.

    More importantly, I’m too damaged now to be a good husband, even if I wanted to be one. There’s just no question that after a couple of years I’d be banging some young hottie on the sly. Men who claim that they can live this lifestyle and then get married are kidding themselves.

    Nothing that you said above is inaccurate. In a healthier era, people like me would get married at 17, or we’d live at the fringes of society, using prostitutes and working dead-end piecemeal jobs. That’s as it should be.

    Boxer

  167. Anon says:

    Kevin,

    My point was simple – people who want to make the world a better place should not work in concert with people who are actively making the world a worse place.

    Female sluts, single mothers, feminists. and moochers outnumber PUAs about 100,000 to 1. Again, you are still afraid to call women out to the same degree. You do the bare minimum to skirt by.

    Furthermore, PUAs are doing a lot more to fight evil than these churchian pastors and other cuckservatives, since the PUA is effectively showing other men a path out of oppression. They have dug a tunnel out of the slave camp, so to speak.

  168. Anon says:

    On the Rhonda Rousey point, here is a picture of her with Dwayne Johnson, who is about 6’3″ in real life (certainly not the largest actor/wrestler) :

    Even if he is a ‘fake’ wrestler, the size differential (compare the arms of the two) indicates how poorly Rousey would do in a fight against any largish man, especially with any training.

  169. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kevin, you seem to be quite fond of the idea of murdering certain people. Is this part of your personal philosophy, your religion, or just some sort of frustration?

    For the record, I’m opposed to murder.

  170. Anon says:

    Kevin said :

    That does not change the fact that they are morally incontinent losers just like sluts.

    How are they ‘losers’ when they have hyperoptimized something that almost all men want to be good at (at least when single)?

    You may wish to look up what projection is.

  171. annihilist^2 says:

    “Ronda Rousey reveals her heartbreak after both her father and grandfather committed suicide, as she vows to speak candidly about her own battle with depression

    The 29-year-old said last week that she thought about killing herself after her defeat by Holly Holm in November

    This is the kinda of thing men only think about at the bottom of their game when its all over.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3463909/Ronda-Rousey-insists-won-t-feel-weak-ashamed-having-suicidal-thoughts-shares-heartbreak-dad-grandpa-taking-lives.html

  172. Pingback: Aborted morality. | Dalrock

  173. Pingback: It isn’t insincerity, but fear losing women’s approval. | Dalrock

  174. Pingback: She isn’t impressed. | Dalrock

  175. Jim says:

    My personal favorite has become “cuckservative” because that’s just a way to advertise you are retarded and inarticulate.

    So much projection here.

    Kevin,

    My point was simple – people who want to make the world a better place should not work in concert with people who are actively making the world a worse place.

    Agreed. So you need to stop making things worse. What a loser.

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