Christian goddess worship; we are not worthy!

The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.  Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.  And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter?  saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

— Jeremiah 18:1-6 KJV

In The Shared Essence Cane Caldo argues that the Pro-Life movement’s horror at the idea of punishing women who seek abortions stems from viewing women as divine:

Pro-Lifers, a multitude of whom are professed Christians, are hiding their belief that, on the issue of babies, women are like God. They believe that the child belongs to the mother as its creator, just as Christians believe we all belong to God as our creator. They believe that because women give birth, women–like God–have power over life. They believe that therefore we must not trespass on a mother’s power to kill their creations.

My theory of their belief is consistent with the Feminist belief that a woman’s body is her temple to herself, and whatever is within is hers to do with as she will…

[There is an] essence shared by both the Feminist and Pro-Life movements. That essence is the desire to worship women.

Cane expands on his observation that modern Christians are worshiping women in follow on posts The Shadows Cast by Goddess Idols and It’s Like an Amen.

While the Pro-Life movement’s terror of holding women accountable can be sufficiently explained in more simple terms, Cane is definitely on to something here (as is Zippy).  The Pro-Life movement very openly acts as if women are on a higher spiritual and moral plane, and that men must not interfere with women’s ability to do what would be a crime if done by anyone else.  When the Trump abortion scandal first came out, Ted Cruz explained that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with whether a particular woman chooses to kill a particular child or not, and should instead be in awe at the fact that as a woman she holds the power to bring life:

Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.

This kind of woman worship (or at least quasi-worship) is so common now that it goes by entirely unnoticed, and Cruz’s bizarre argument didn’t even cause a minor controversy.  Of course we should focus on a woman’s power to bring life into the world and not trouble ourselves with details which are above our spiritual pay grade;  does the pot question the pot-maker?

We see the same pattern in what I have termed wife worship, and the worship of women doesn’t just happen after the marriage ceremony.  Recently Christianity Today caused an uproar over a classified ad* they ran for a father seeking a husband for his daughter.  The controversy surrounded the father noting that his daughter was a virgin;  but there was no controversy around the fact that the only stated requirement for the future son-in-law was that he recognize that he was unworthy of marrying such a goddess:

Her: godly, gorgeous, athletic, educated, careered, humorous, travelled, bilingual, 26-year-old virgin.

You: unworthy, though becoming less so daily.

You can see the same issue with the common terminology we use for Christian women.  Christian women call themselves “daughters of the King”, as Mary Kassian does in her sermon on the true meaning of 2 Timothy 3:6-7:

God doesn’t want His girls to be wimps. A daughter of the King is not wimpy and weak.

Again, this is something that no one notices because it is normal.   There is also a head-fake here, as this is not about setting Christian men and women aside from other men and women as God’s children; it is about setting Christian women aside as divine royalty.  It is used to distinguish Christian women from Christian men.

*H/T Darwinian Arminian

 

This entry was posted in Abortion, Cane Caldo, Christianity Today, Mary Kassian, The Real Feminists, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to Christian goddess worship; we are not worthy!

  1. Pingback: Christian goddess worship; we are not worthy! | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: Christian goddess worship; we are not worthy! – Manosphere.org

  3. orthostrov says:

    Y’all are overthinking this.

    The reason pro-lifers don’t want women to be punished for abortion is that they’ll lose a massive amount of support from pro-life women and their husbands… since a not-insignificant number of them have gotten direct abortions and many, many more have aborted their children chemically through the Pill (primarily), IUDs, etc. But you had better not say that aloud if you want the checks to keep rolling in to the National Right-to-Life Society, the American Life Lobby et al.

    If you want to win a war, you start taking casualties. And the first casualty of war is the truth.

  4. Minesweeper says:

    O, yep, I think you are right. They want the vote and money from the baby killers.

    Just how lacking in credibility are these people ?

  5. Minesweeper says:

    *and those that support them. Cruz seems particularly repulsive to normal un-brainwashed females, even his own daughter recoils from him. Maybe the younger generation see the error of letting female nature run completely unchecked.

    Blergh, would you let this near your own daughter ?

  6. Minesweeper says:

    Sorry for creeping you all out, but this one is even better.

  7. Minesweeper says:

    Its the dichotomy of female nature. I’ve seen it endlessly, they are deeply attracted to men that worship them at the same time utterly repulsed by them. And are also attracted to men on another level that don’t worship them and are very angry at them that they dont.

    Comfort vs sexual attraction.

  8. Concerned Citizen says:

    Dalrock, how do you keep going? This stuff is just vile and repulsive. Is it like the fascination some have with poking at a puss filled sore to see what will come out? Or is it like the desire to slice off the rotten or moldy part of something to salvage the rest?

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Concerned Citizen

    Dalrock, how do you keep going? This stuff is just vile and repulsive. Is it like the fascination some have with poking at a puss filled sore to see what will come out? Or is it like the desire to slice off the rotten or moldy part of something to salvage the rest?

    Heh. It is the latter. But I don’t find it difficult to keep going, because this is just a closeup view of what we already know is going on. I think there is a risk of double counting these sorts of things. There are times I tire of blogging, but that is about (temporarily) running out of something I want to write about (so I stop writing). I do however make it a point to limit the amount of time I devote to it.

  10. Hank Flanders says:

    Even though “daughters of the King” is an accurate description for girls and women who follow Christ, I do wonder what the reaction would be if people constantly were saying “sons of the King” in their sermons when describing guys.

  11. Marissa says:

    From a Catholic perspective, the greatest creature is Mary and she called herself a servant: “I am the handmaiden of the Lord”. She didn’t call herself a princess. Far less should any other woman call herself.

  12. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, let the divine royalty marry themselves!

  13. kfg says:

    “let the divine royalty marry themselves!”

    And then let’s see them create a baby.

  14. Minesweeper says:

    @kfg says: ““let the divine royalty marry themselves!”
    And then let’s see them create a baby.”

    Easily done, sometimes with complications.

    http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/04/white-woman-sues-sperm-bank-after-getting-black-mans-sperm/

  15. For some reason I just realized I’ve never heard a Christian woman talk about being 100% against abortion. The most recent example: “I would never have one, but I just can’t imagine not allowing it for someone else, you know, depending on circumstances.”

    While I agree with that position, it does indeed echo Dalrock and Cane’s intuition. I’m not sure many thousands of years of female evolution will ever change, but I am sure that Christian philosophy seems to have had no effect.

  16. Scott says:

    I always found this line from Terminator 2 by Sarah Conner to be bizarre:

    You don’t know what it’s like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death and destruction.

    The context is her comparing men (like Miles Dyson) who have invented technologies, constructed skyscrapers, built infrastructure to women and having babies.

    Even then, I thought “what a weird to thing say. Its not like she is actively ‘creating’ life inside her.”

    And of course, that’s not a “Christian” movie, but its focal point is the same as what you are discussing here and makes more sense to me now.

  17. Looking Glass says:

    @Hank Flanders:

    Since most “Christians” have turned off the higher functions of their brains with respect to the Lord, I honestly wonder sometimes how most would react if someone pointed out that all believers are “sons” of the Lord via adoption, and thus inheritors with Christ. (Romans 8:12-17)

    Granted, the Lord also calls us sheep, quite a bit, which tends to be the more apt description.

  18. Looking Glass says:

    This is probably the point we should mentioned that Pagan Female Deity Worship is pretty much the de facto religion that humans create for themselves. Monotheism is God’s gift, not Man’s creation.🙂

  19. BillyS says:

    A few have called men “sons of the King” Hank, though not many and not much recently.

    Ortho,

    Pro-life people have very little interest in votes based on their past failure to win at much of anything. I don’t buy the vote angle.

  20. Minesweeper says:

    “Her: godly, gorgeous, athletic, educated, careered, humorous, travelled, bilingual, 26-year-old virgin.
    You: unworthy, though becoming less so daily.”

    What man wouldn’t want to be a part of this ? As a grovelling beta\omega male to be stepped on daily by your new wife and all her family. He should have appended, you need to have enough assets for her to have a comfortable life when she files for divorce.

    Just lovely.

  21. If women should not be punished for committing abortion, then I guess we better let all the mothers out of prison who have been convicted for strangling, drowning, etc. their own children, right? Every once in awhile, you hear of these cases where a mother will slip a gear and kill her own children, and it usually makes national news.

  22. Minesweeper says:

    @Timber St. James says: “For some reason I just realized I’ve never heard a Christian woman talk about being 100% against abortion.”

    I’ve never heard that either. It is a possibility that the female mind only considers a human growing inside her as a extension of her body. Until its cut free.

  23. Minesweeper says:

    @boydoesntmeetgirl says:”If women should not be punished for committing abortion, then I guess we better let all the mothers out of prison who have been convicted for strangling, drowning, etc. their own children, right? Every once in awhile, you hear of these cases where a mother will slip a gear and kill her own children, and it usually makes national news.”

    You’ll notice as well its always the fault of the mental care system, a tragedy caused by gov neglect. Women even when they kill kids or husbands are either reacting to something that someone should have fixed\not done, or are in need of help that she never materialized.

  24. Out of Nod says:

    “You shall have no other gods before me.” – Ex. 20:3

    “You shall not covet…” – Ex. 20:17

    The first commandment speaks to the original sin of Adam in that he put his wife before God. The tenth commandment speaks to the original sin of Eve which is that she coveted and pursued that which God had forbidden. We still see this playing out today.

    I think it tends to flies under the noses of many pastors and Christians considering that their seems to be an aversion to the old testament (it’s old law, we are free from that so why bother studying it).

  25. Bill Crooks says:

    Her: godly, gorgeous, athletic, educated, careered, humorous, travelled, bilingual, 26-year-old virgin.

    You: unworthy, though becoming less so daily.

    Only three if those qualities are actually important. Who wants to guess which ones?

  26. feeriker says:

    There is also a head-fake here, as this is not about setting Christian men and women aside from other men and women as God’s children; it is about setting Christian women aside as divine royalty. It is used to distinguish Christian women from Christian men.

    This just adds further weight to my assertion that women generically do not believe in God as the Supreme Deity, or in his Son as the Divine Savior of mankind.

    At best, “God” serves as a kind of cosmic security blanket that woman can mentally curl up in a fetal position with when life overwhelms her (which is most of the time). However, when it is made apparent to her that God is rather more than that and that He actually expects something of her as an adult human being, something that will put other people and other things ahead of herself, then that’s when God has got to go and when the real deity, herself, takes over. Said deity fails her repeatedly, but lacking an understanding of cause and effect or capacity for introspection, she never sees this or learns from the experience. In times past strong male Christian patriarchy/headship mitigated the extreme damage inevitably resulting from this. The near extinction of this restraint, however, has ensured that the monster remains unleashed. No further proof of this is needed than the neo-pagan goddess worship that has largely supplanted biblical Christianity in the western world today.

  27. feeriker says:

    I think it tends to flies under the noses of many pastors and Christians considering that their seems to be an aversion to the old testament (it’s old law, we are free from that so why bother studying it).

    Actually, among evangelicals, the opposite is true. There is a fixation on the Old Testament – the violent sections of it anyway. The Law? Not so much. The fact that this and the Gospels are largely avoided/ignored explains a great deal of what we’re seeing in the church today.

  28. Opus says:

    “Athletic”, “careered”, “travelled”… and also a virgin. Amazing! for the first three words taken together are usually synonymous with uber-slut – anyway how would he know? Far too many fathers act with incestuous possessiveness towards their daughters – and he sees her as ‘gorgeous’ – on the basis that ‘if I can’t have her’ (and some regrettably do) then neither can anyone else. Thus: no man is ever worthy.

    …. and since when were women humorous?

  29. Heidi_storage says:

    At least my lesbian witch acquaintance (who wrote celebratory poetry about her abortion) was open about declaring the space between her legs to be the most sacred spot in the solar system (not an exaggeration). She, too, would on occasion muse upon her immense power as a fertile woman.

  30. Pingback: Christian goddess worship; we are not worthy! | Reaction Times

  31. Out of Nod says:

    @freeriker I have rarely heard the old testament preached at the churches I’ve attended before 2010 so I’ll take your word on it. I will agree the Law is generally ignored. The last few OT books I’ve heard preached in an evangelical church were Nehemiah, Malachi, and Esther. And the interpretation was poor for Esther and Malachi (for some reason, Xerxes wife justified disobedience to husbands and divorce was somehow okay despite the fact that God hates it).

  32. feeriker says:

    Opus said:

    Athletic”, “careered”, “travelled”… and also a virgin. Amazing! for the first three words taken together are usually synonymous with uber-slut – anyway how would he know?

    Even more than ueber-slut, these three attributes spell “ueber self-centered bitch.” And indeed, Daddy probably doesn’t know nearly as much about his wittle pwincess’s “virtues” as he thinks he does.

    Much more important is this: does Daddy really think that all the “YouGoGrrllllllll” attributes he highlighted in his ad are things that will attract a quality man looking for a Christian helpmeet? To a Christian red-pill man seeking such a woman, Daddy’s ad prompts a reaction of “NEXT!!!”

    An obviously feminized beta schlub like Daddy in this case tells red-pill Christian man on a wife quest that this guy’s daughter is an ueber-princess harridan whom spineless beta Daddy is desperate to get out fron under his roof. Pass.

  33. TomG says:

    Trump got the abortion policy wrong so now you decided to punish Cruz? The issue about punishing women for abortion is wrong and it has nothing to do with her own morality, which goes back to having sex in the first place and not realizing that sex creates babies. We don’t punish mothers for abortions as a matter of policy for they are regarded as victims. They also don’t perform their own abortions.

  34. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol Tom, do women have moral agency or not. They know full well what an abortion is, they realise full well sex can create babies. They are not mothers, they are murderers and should be punished accordingly.

  35. Feminist Hater says:

    Trump got it right. Women need to be held to account for their actions. If they were, perhaps they would think twice before having sex before married. Restrictions on women’s sexuality and her saving it for marriage and a very, very, very good thing.

  36. feeriker says:

    Opus asks

    …. and since when were women humorous?

    Well, it IS extremely funny sometimes to watch them act like second-rate men while trying to prove themselves superior to the real article. It’s also often guffaw-inducing to read their literary ramblings on said subject as well.

    As for their deliberate and calculated attempts to be humerous, I concede your point. Concrete blocks generally have more success at doing jumping jacks than the typical female comedienne has at consistently inducing laughs over any topic other than her own pathetic personality, particularly when it comes to love and relationships.

  37. Novaseeker says:

    Tom —

    How is a woman who pays someone to murder her child a victim?

  38. feeriker says:

    Tom —

    How is a woman who pays someone to murder her child a victim?

    Oh come now, man, don’t you get it? The fact that she has to PAY someone to do something for her makes her a victim! If she were a man, one of those oppressive, patriarchal brutes, she could just kill her baby herself and be done with it. But since she’s a woman and doesn’t have the emotional and intestinal fortitude of a man, she has to ask one of THEM to kill her baby for her (unless she finds a female abortionist who has been “blessed” with a man’s killer instinct and talents).

    So you see, she’s been victimized THREE TIMES.

    1. She got pregnant when she didn’t want to. “Some man’s”/God’s fault.

    2. She had to pay some man to kill her baby for her, a monetary inconvenience and a wound to her pride. Again, “some man’s”/God’s fault.

    3. Because God didn’t give her the attributes necessary (attributes of a sex she probably hates and envies) to kill her own baby whenever she wants to, she’s left at the mercy of men who can do it for her. Primarily God’s fault, but still room left to blame “some man.”

  39. CarpeOro says:

    Mr Crooks raises a salient point which most women would identify the three traits completely incorrectly (verbally. they know the truth but have been programmed to avoid it at all cost).

    Regarding the “daughter of the King” bit, this is just another of example of why according to scripture women are not allowed to be leaders of worship. The focus slips from being God to being them all too easily.

  40. Rus says:

    The girl seems normal. Cute, in a nerdy kind of way. Certainly not gorgeous.

    But father in law is beyond creepy. No wonder he has to bribe potential suitors.

  41. Damn Crackers says:

    Don’t you know that God had a wife named Asherah, the Queen of Heaven?

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

  42. Cane Caldo says:

    Great post, and thank you for the links.

    Again, this is something that no one notices because it is normal. There is also a head-fake here, as this is not about setting Christian men and women aside from other men and women as God’s children; it is about setting Christian women aside as divine royalty. It is used to distinguish Christian women from Christian men.

    Nailed it. Some commenters have suggested that, to provide balance, perhaps we should refer to Christian men as “sons of the king”. It won’t change anything because the term “daughters of the king” isn’t a statement of fact, but a term of adoration. If one were to say, factually, that men are “sons of the king”, it would immediately be thrown back how poorly the princes behave, or that a real prince isn’t too proud to scrub the commode in a house of a daughter of a king. Vox Day would call this the error of mistaking rhetoric for dialectic, and so responding with the wrong counter.

    Until the idolatry of women is admitted as a normal heresy among Christians, there is no response they will find reasonable. So we shouldn’t fear to be considered unreasonable; though we should avoid sin.

  43. No, not that guy says:

    The question is, what is politically viable? And then how do we go about moving what is politically viable towards what is optimal?

    I’m not sure I want to ascribe guilt to politicians who are expressing what is politically viable (not punishing women for having an abortion) and trying to move things that way instead of being absolutists about it.

  44. Will S. says:

    ‘Daughter of the King’… Why aren’t men ‘Sons of the King’?

    Telling that evanjellyfish never invoke such language for sons; only puffing up their daughters…

  45. Will S. says:

    Didn’t see it, but what Cane said above.

  46. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @feeriker
    Actually, among evangelicals, the opposite is true. There is a fixation on the Old Testament – the violent sections of it anyway. The Law? Not so much.

    Even that’s being generous. In modern Evangelicalism they also don’t have much use for Wisdom, either.

  47. Neguy says:

    OT, but Christianity Today ran a long interview with Saeed Abedini in which he denies all of the abuse allegations against him:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/may/ct-interview-saeed-abedini-abuse-allegations-prison.html

    I would give CT credit for this, esp since Beaty is very feminist. The questions were fair I thought, and they did not even bring in others to dispute what he said. I thought it was notable at the time that after the initial abuse allegations, CT went radio silent as she kept doubling down and ultimately filing for separation.

  48. Opus says:

    I have just read the article concerning Christianity Today’s grovelling apology for the ad. I don’t understand: why is it wrong to advertise the daughter’s lack of promiscuity. Were I to advertise a motor car for sale and assert that it was brand-new or otherwise unused this would surely be a selling-point and to say so when it was not would be the equivalent of running back to zero the odometer that is to say perpetrating a fraud on the buyer. Most women seeking marriage and not just marriage but male attention do their utmost to hide any prior sexual partners.

    Were I in the market for a wife, I would be pleased by green flags (e.g. an ability to cook, a willingness to do housework, neatness, thrift, modest behavior and so on) would want to examine more carefully orange flags and would swipe left for so much as one red flag. Whether one regards lack of virginity as a red or orange flag it can certainly not be Green.

    Were I in the market for a wife and in advertising myself to describe myself as financially solvent (and to any degree you like) would that be a matter for apology?

  49. Bruce says:

    If you’re a leftist, you worship historically oppressed peoples. It’s what you do. Women, minorities, etc.

  50. JohnK says:

    I saw a video of a woman who almost had an abortion, years back in her life. She was in college. Religious. The father was her eventual husband. She said something revelatory. When she found herself pregnant, she felt her entire life closing in on her. Backed into a corner. She felt (as I characterize it), “it’s him, or me.” (“him” meaning their baby).

    And then she said that over the years she’s come across a lot of women who feel just like that; that (using my terms), “it’s him, or me.”

    I submit that this naked panic, this “it’s him, or me,” and not ‘women are goddesses, I can do anything I like’, is what drives at least some abortions.

    And I think that most women just do not want to give up that ‘out’ for themselves. That’s why they don’t want other women to be punished for aborting.

    They want that ‘out’ for themselves. Because for them, in that case, it wouldn’t be wrong. Because in their particular case, it would have been “it was him, or me.” It was self-defense, don’t you see?

    Women — good women, sane women, decent women, religious women — reserve the right to strike out in panic. And they really, really don’t (natively) see anything wrong with that.

    It’s like a moral optical illusion for them.

    However, a woman can be backed out of her moral optical illusion on this point. But she still won’t be able to ‘see’ differently. We can be talked out of normal normal optical illusions, but the lines in the optical illusion will still ‘look’ like they’re not the same length (for example).

    However, it won’t be a logical argument that makes her moral optical illusion less compelling for her. Only alleviating some of the panic will do it. Then she might be able to gain some perspective and see that it’s not OK to end this particular life in her.

    Distance, less stress — not argument — can work. You change her position by literally changing her position — by backing her off her panic. She can’t be ‘argued’ out of her moral optical illusion. It’s just there. It remains. Just like the two lines in the normal optical illusion that still ‘look’ unequal, no matter what. So most probably, she will still reserve her ‘right’ to abort, if some other pregnancy ever becomes “him, or me” in her perception. Because that’s what seems ‘obvious’ to her.

    So a woman doesn’t really see the point of punishing another woman for the simple act of trying to strike out in panic. She wants that right to strike out in panic herself.

    It also would seem ‘logical’ to a woman that therefore, ‘stress’ is the cause of abortion. When it gets to the point of “it’s him, or me,” all argument ends.

    Even when it looks like other women are aborting out of convenience or callowness, the motive, not the act, must be condemned. The woman should not be punished. For the right to strike out in panic when it’s REALLY “him, or me” must be protected.

    I suspect that sheer callow evilness in women ‘explains’ a lot of killed babies — but not all. I’m referencing the panic all women feel when “it’s him, or me,” not their individual response to it. All women know that they have their breaking point. Even if ‘breaking point’ and ‘inconvenient’ mean the same for some, it doesn’t mean that for all. It’s the wish to reserve the ‘right’ to strike out in panic when it’s YOUR breaking point that unites women here.

    If panic/’stress’ is the real cause of abortion, then introducing additional fear (of punishment) is not good for relieving stress. That’s ‘obvious’. A better way to reduce abortions is to remove the stress. Reducing the opportunity to abort is second-best, but it’s OK. That’s why punishing abortionists is OK. The stress of that is on them, not on you.

    But the temptation to purchase an abortion when you’re panicked — that is not named these days as a temptation, as an occasion of sin, as we used to say, as a “moral optical illusion” that can be expected to occur when panic sets in.

    For women not taught this, not warned about this in-built temptation to strike out against your baby when panicked, what else is there but abortion without consequence?

    Because when “it’s him, or me,” women have a blind spot — not as something learned, but as something in-built — and all bets are off. Then their potential sin is limited by external disincentives, by their inability to get what they ‘need’, and/or by diminution of extreme panic so that they can regain some perspective and courage (if they have some).

  51. Bruce says:

    If they dress like this, then they’re probably worthy of being called Daughters of the King.

    http://www.thekingsdaughters.com/

  52. Will S. says:

    @ Bruce: I don’t know about that, but it’d be a good start.

  53. 26, educated, well traveled, virgin? Bul*couch*it!

  54. White Guy says:

    JohnK,
    Nice ‘crawfishing’ for womenkind there. So you are saying that they can’t be held responsible (i.e. Agency) well because…punishing them would make them feelz badz? That is a bunch of bull. Treat it like any other murder (first degree no less), heck a public execution down at the court house, figure one for each of the 50 states. Besides the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it would end abortion in a week. Women are no fools, their sophistry is their strongest characteristic.

    Though if that is too strong a punishment, how ’bout 30 days in the joint and permanently removing part a couple of square inches of her hair (from laser hair removal), for every abortion?

    Seems as though shaming women seemed to work for the previous 5000 yrs of human history, betcha it could still work.

  55. Feminist Hater says:

    I’m sure she is edumacated and well traveled, it’s the virgin part that is highly doubtful.

  56. Looking Glass says:

    @JohnK:

    You make a very well reasoned argument for why, given the current state of the Legal Environment, the policy position is to hold only the Abortionist accountable. You also, further, give a great explanation for why Women should never be allowed in leadership positions.

    Though you’ve missed the point that what may be effective policy is not a moral position. It’s simply a policy position to limit some of the carnage, but it’s become rationalized as a high moral position. Which is an evil event unto itself.

  57. Feminist Hater says:

    Daddy just realized she is 26 and about to hit that wall, also Obammy Care means she will be on her own plan this year, someone has to pay for it, damn it!

  58. Bruce says:

    I don’t think “athletic” is a positive quality (it can be a negative one) unless it simply means “not obese.”

  59. c matt says:

    The Pro-Life movement very openly acts as if women are on a higher spiritual and moral plane, and that men must not interfere with women’s ability to do what would be a crime if done by anyone else.

    Seems to me it is the opposite, it holds women on a much lower spiritual and moral plane. Basically, it holds women who procure the abortion of their own offspring are too spiritually and morally immature, retarded, weak, stupid, whatever to be held to the same spiritual and moral capacity as others who may be involved. They probably should not be allowed to handle sharp spiritual and moral objects.

  60. Liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth over Hillary “anti-late-term abortion” stance.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/04/26/1516663/-Hillary-Clinton-the-Feminist-who-is-Open-to-Taking-Choice-out-of-Pro-Choice

    Still have my Trusted User status over there, it’s entertaining in the silly season they are having over there.

  61. craig says:

    Opus says: “I don’t understand: why is it wrong to advertise the daughter’s lack of promiscuity. Were I to advertise a motor car for sale and assert that it was brand-new or otherwise unused this would surely be a selling-point….”

    It is a virtue-signalling artifact of late-affluent churchian decadence. The romantic fiction is that marriage is all about love (i.e. sentimental ‘twue luv’) and that love should never be denied or obstructed by crass practical concerns. (At least not by the groom; no-one expects the bride to abide such silliness. While it may be unacceptable to speak of a bride in the same terms of sale used for livestock, no such hesitancy attaches to the groom.) You can tell this because it’s not only virginity that one is not permitted to openly inquire about; most churchians would also recoil from wanting to know her FICO score.

    Before the moderns elevated sentimentalism to a religion, it was entirely normal among rich and poor alike to evaluate what each party brought to the prospective altar. Read some Shakespeare and Jane Austen, for pete’s sake.

  62. greyghost says:

    JohnK
    Your comment shows what lack of female agency looks like. Civilized society is needed just for that reason.

  63. Opus says:

    @craig

    By good fortune I have just been re-reading one of Jane Austen’s books. As an A’ level student (aged eighteen) I was marked down by my Oxbridge educated Literature teachers (both male) for my views on Persuasion, because I had little sympathy for the heroine who it seemed to me had not only hit the wall but spent her entire time feeling sorry for herself but I did have empathy for her married sister with the somewhat distant husband and several small children who were frequently ill. Have I after so many decades had cause to change my mind? Was my youthful lack of interest in the wall-banging Anne a misreading of the text?

    In a word, No: English Lit teachers are White Knights: I reaffirm my original judgement. Having said that, there is no suggestion whatsoever that Anne Eliot the heroine (or for that matter her alter-ego Jane Austen) were anything other than virgins at the time of their respective marriage/deaths. All of Shakespeare’s heroines are virgins. The entire plot of Middleton and Rowley’s The Changeling turns on how the heroine can somehow fool her husband to be that she has lost her virginity – she comes to a regrettable end – and in Middleton’s The Roaring Girl its counter-culture heroine greatly rejects the assertion that just because she is a bit boyish that she is thus also anything other than a virgin – but that is early Seventeenth Century London for you – at about the time The Mayflower set sail for Cape Cod.

    It is one thing for the Washington Times to treat a protestation of virginity as akin to an admission that the woman is suffering from Herpes or some other ineradicable and unmentionable disease but Christianity Today?

  64. Opus says:

    I might also add that Anne Eliot does eventually marry the physically fit, and handsome Naval Captain (with the large salary and pension rights) that she had a decade earlier rejected and is utterly dismissive of his rival a lowly curate who is assuredly not physically dominant – a man on a zero hours contract and with few probabilities of advancement. Austen thy name is Hypergamy

  65. RichardP says:

    Does God view a redeemed whore differently than he views a redeemed virgin? Google the phrase “remember them no more” if your memory is faint about what God does with the sins of the redeemed. If God doesn’t view those two differently (as the Bible suggests that he doesn’t), then should we?

    I haven’t read the CT apology – but I’m guessing it is motivated by the reality of my previous paragraph. What does it matter to God if your daughter is a virgin but is not redeemed? What does it matter to God if your daughter was a whore but is now redeemed? I’m guessing that someone at CT realized that someone’s virginity status matters less to God than their salvation status. Therefore, focusing on virginity status might be misleading for a potential (christian) husband – since it might signal a salvation status that actually doesn’t exist for that person.

    Also – for those who may not know: Trump was asked “if abortion were illegal, should a woman who gets an abortion anyway be punished?” (paraphrased) That is different from being asked if he thought women who get abortions should be punished. The first focuses on being punished for breaking the law. The second focuses on being punished for having an abortion. The two are not the same.

  66. OKRickety says:

    JohnK said on April 26, 2016 at 12:58 pm
    However, it won’t be a logical argument that makes her moral optical illusion less compelling for her. Only alleviating some of the panic will do it. Then she might be able to gain some perspective and see that it’s not OK to end this particular life in her.
    […]
    Even when it looks like other women are aborting out of convenience or callowness, the motive, not the act, must be condemned. The woman should not be punished. For the right to strike out in panic when it’s REALLY “him, or me” must be protected.
    […]
    For women not taught this, not warned about this in-built temptation to strike out against your baby when panicked, what else is there but abortion without consequence?

    Just how do you support your claim that the “right to strike out in panic … must be protected”? Abortion is not self-defense manslaughter. Do we have the right to respond to any fear with murder?

    It seems, then, the root cause of abortion is the ignorance that abortion is killing an unborn child. Current society teaches that the unborn child is not a human being, and thus it is not murder. I don’t think this will change unless abortion is made illegal, and that is highly unlikely. Unfortunately, I do not think preachers today are willing to plainly state that abortion is sin, specifically murder. Nor do I think pro-lifers state this. Until this is taught by Christians, and agreed with by all Christians, I don’t expect there is any possibility that the whole of society will agree with that position.

    As to a woman’s “moral illusion”, let’s call it what it is — justifying their sin. Such justification would be difficult if abortion was universally recognized as sin by Christians.

    As to the concept of “it’s the baby or me”, there would be a different perspective if there were negative consequences resulting from an abortion, obvious to the mother before an abortion. It would then become a case of “I’m having a baby, or I’m going to have these negative consequences”.

    You say “the motive, not the act, must be condemned. The woman should not be punished.”. Just how do you condemn the motive sufficient to stop the act? If abortion is murder, then why shouldn’t the woman be punished? I’m not advocating that obtaining an abortion be made a crime (although there is a logical argument for that). What else will work? The consequences must be adequate to dissuade abortion.

  67. @RichardP,

    “Does God view a redeemed whore differently than he views a redeemed virgin?”

    Matt Chandler, is that you?

  68. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    I think a lot of goddess worshiping isn’t done in total sincerity. I think a lot of it is done because the conservative mental point of origin is to qualify themselves to the Left. So when the Left makes an accusation they have to prove to them it isn’t so. They assume these claims are made in good faith or sincere belief. They want approval from people who hate them.

    The spectacular success by feminists in painting the church as a source of misogyny run by wife-beating cavemen who oppress women is a testament to this phenomenon. It’s a theater performance and virtue signalling intended to prove “we’re not really misogynists and we’ll do whatever it takes to convince you of that – even if it takes forever!”

    It’s like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. No matter how many times he tries, no matter how many times Lucy pulls it away, he keeps going back trying to finally do it.

  69. Feminist Hater says:

    GIL, Richard is quite notorious in his white knighting, don’t take any notice. This isn’t about salvation and a man is better off choosing a virgin for marriage compared to a whore or anywhere in between, that is the truth. God doesn’t have to marry these women. Only men have to and are thus able to discern for themselves what they would prefer.

  70. @Feminist Hater, I had seen some very white knight-like comments over the years and have rarely troubled myself to remember the sources. I guess RichardP finally rose above the blue pill subliminal roar.

  71. Dalrock says:

    @TomG

    Trump got the abortion policy wrong so now you decided to punish Cruz?

    Cruz is a politician, and as such is saying what he thinks will sell to his target audience. He turned out to be right in this regard. This isn’t so much about Cruz (just one man), but what his argument tells us about the audience he is pandering to.

    The issue about punishing women for abortion is wrong and it has nothing to do with her own morality, which goes back to having sex in the first place and not realizing that sex creates babies. We don’t punish mothers for abortions as a matter of policy for they are regarded as victims. They also don’t perform their own abortions.

    One thing nearly everyone agrees on is that this isn’t really the reason. See orthostrov’s Pro-Life defense up thread that the movement is really just lying for political expediency. The idea that modern women (as a group) have no idea that sex creates babies, or alternately that they don’t know what species they are pregnant with, is so absurd that I’m not surprised no one is buying it.

  72. Dalrock says:

    @RichardP

    Does God view a redeemed whore differently than he views a redeemed virgin?

    A woman’s value to God is different than her suitability to be a wife. The same is true for a man’s value to God and his suitability to be a husband, or bus driver, or mechanic, or pro football coach…

  73. Dalrock, I know I’m a mystic. I get the feeling that Donald Trump is a mirror handed to us by God. He has been sent on a mission to reveal the underbelly of Churchianity. His ham-handed foray into Pro-Life support was just another way for God to expose the moral rot embedded in Pro-Life GOPers and their supporting non-profits. God is in the process of separating out the wheat and the chaff and Trump is providing the hot air.

  74. Also, to take another stab on how God might view a whore and a virgin differently…..

    One may have children, one may have the contrite spirit of a broken sinner thankful in a completely different way than a redeemed virgin. Does the substance of our beings, our individual walks and way get annihilated in the sea of forgetfulness. I think that would diminish what Jesus accomplished on the cross for me.

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    RichardP
    “Does God view a redeemed whore differently than he views a redeemed virgin?”

    Let me answer that question with a question.
    Suppose a man convicted of embezzlement converted while in prison, and after release he came to your church. Do you think it would be a good idea to let him count the money collected every Sunday, all by himself? What could possibly go wrong?

  76. Johnycomelately says:

    Social programmers have to be commended for their cunning.

    They understand that a woman’s Achilles heel is status vanity and have thoroughly taken advantage of this weakness.

    They also understand that the Christian’s weakness is his guilt conscience and the vanity of moral superiority.

    They have cornered the market, they control the discourse in promoting status and more importantly have usurped upright moral judgement via the ubiquitous sin of intolerance.

    Unwittingly, Christians, by appealing to tolerance have been suckered into promoting sin, all the while wallowing in the smugness of moral superiority.

    Not only does appropriate social sanctioning no longer exist, the very method of its implementation (specific use of words, bastards, whores, rakes etc.) has become a sin.

    Name a pastor that has the chutzpah to use the words bastard and whore in its original context.

  77. The Question says:

    @ God is Laughing

    I don’t think people who argue about that kind of thing are being intellectually honest. It’s about allowing people to avoid paying for mistakes.

    It’s critical for the FI to have reassurances for women in advance that their actions won’t have consequences once they are finished riding the carousal. Otherwise their strategy might be compromised.

    This mentality of “forgive and forget” within the context of selecting a spouse is absolutely pandemic and toxic. It’s totally backwards. Single men should be looking for, and be encouraged to marry, the best woman they can find to be their wife and the mother of their children. They shouldn’t be encouraged, shamed or nagged into selecting a spouse. They’re not there to prove their self-righteousness by how much they are able to overlook in a prospective spouse’s personal failings in marrying her.

    We don’t have to put a ring on a finger to forgive someone.

  78. feeriker says:

    The Question says:
    April 26, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    What you describe is definitely a possible motivator, but I honestly believe that something even darker is the culprit: cuckseervative churchian men fear the threatpoint so acutely that they’ve succumbed to what can only be described as emotional, mental, and spiritual Stockholm Syndrome.

    Just as “Christian” women don’t fear (or really even believe in) God because His punishments for their sins aren’t immediate and palpable, neither do many Christian men truly trust (or really believe in) Him either to have their backs and guide them in righteousness when dealing with rebellious women, especially rebellious wives.

    Subconsciously most of these men know that, far from their wives being spiritually superior, their wives are spiritual frauds who pay lip service to Christianity only so long as its ritualized form (i.e., churchianity) defers to the FI – at which it is peerless. As soon as Scriptural precepts for living clash with the Hamster, which they inevitably will, then woman goes quickly off the rails and into rebellion mode.

    It has ALWAYS been this way. The difference is that through most of human history, society and Caesar fully supported a man’s right to rein in his wife’s Hamster-driven rebellion by just about any means necessary short of murder. For this reason the church never had to consider “threatpoint” by women because it was never a serious problem. Also, there existed mutual respect, if not symbiosis between church and State such that Caesar didn’t interfere with a man’s authority over his family or church doctrine concerning such, nor did the church either. It was only in the middle of the 20th Century when the last vestiges of church-state symbiosis were eliminated (in the U.S. by a series of SCOTUS decisions) and secular laws favoring woman’s privileges at the expense of civilization became entrenched that all of this changed.

    Suddenly Christian men discovered that where in ages past they could control their rebellious wives, now they were criminals for doing so. Church leadership realized that Caesar was no longer an ally (or at least not an adversary) in enforcing biblical marriage and family values. Reverence for Caesar being as deep as it is within the western church, said leadership realized that disobeying Caesar on matters concerning “the new morality” would have very immediate and dire consequences that they weren’t willing to risk (“we can see and feel Caesar. God? Not so much.”). They also realized that, without Caesar’s protection (or at least his guarantee of non-interference), their wives were now free to rebel against them at will and on a whim, with the option of bringing the wrath of Caesar down upon husbands and even whole churches. The old order was dead.

    Clergymen may be spiritual men, but they’re also pragmatists. While the miracles of the New Testament are a fascinating read, they’ve been sort of “scace” in the nearly two millennia since the Gospels were written. Besides, didn’t Romans 13 tell Christians to “defer to the authorities?” So if Caesar says no more husbandly headship, then by God, the church isn’t going to argue with him. After all, it’s as if God Himself said it. Christian husbands will just have to learn the new game on the board and if they don’t, well, then they deserve what they’ve got coming to them.

    The new “game” on the board was appeasement. Bribing the women with deference in hopes that they wouldn’t destroy their families. Catering to their every emotional whim in hope that they don’t foresake the church for the culture (for some unfathomable reason there’s this lingering assumption that there’s still a difference between the two). Pastors and lay leaders “chasing the lift” in hopes that their wives don’t dump them for Fuckbuddy Rockdrummer and Chad Thundercock. Men of spiritual conviction willing to stand up and fight for what’s right based on scriptural precepts chased out of the church for shining light on darkness and for exposing the “leadership” as the nutless sellouts that they are.

    So yes, while the points that you make about shallow politics are valid, even these are ultimately driven by threatpoint.

  79. My lover’s got humour
    She’s the giggle at a funeral
    Knows everybody’s disapproval
    I should’ve worshipped her sooner
    If the Heavens ever did speak
    She is the last true mouthpiece
    Every Sunday’s getting more bleak
    A fresh poison each week
    ‘We were born sick, ‘ you heard them say it
    My church offers no absolutes
    She tells me ‘worship in the bedroom’
    The only heaven I’ll be sent to
    Is when I’m alone with you
    I was born sick, but I love it
    Command me to be well
    Amen. Amen. Amen

    Take me to church
    I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
    I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
    Offer me that deathless death
    Good God, let me give you my life

    Take me to church
    I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
    I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
    Offer me that deathless death
    Good God, let me give you my life

    If I’m a pagan of the good times
    My lover’s the sunlight
    To keep the Goddess on my side
    She demands a sacrifice
    To drain the whole sea
    Get something shiny
    Something meaty for the main course
    That’s a fine looking high horse
    What you got in the stable?
    We’ve a lot of starving faithful
    That looks tasty
    That looks plenty
    This is hungry work

    Take me to church
    I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
    I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
    Offer me that deathless death
    Good God, let me give you my life

    Take me to church
    I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
    I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
    Offer me that deathless death
    Good God, let me give you my life

    No masters or kings when the ritual begins
    There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin
    In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene
    Only then I am human
    Only then I am clean
    Amen. Amen. Amen

    Take me to church
    I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
    I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
    Offer me that deathless death
    Good God, let me give you my life

    Take me to church
    I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
    I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
    Offer me that deathless death
    Good God, let me give you my life

  80. ray says:

    Cruz quoted: “Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.”

    OP: “This kind of woman worship (or at least quasi-worship) is so common now that it goes by entirely unnoticed, and Cruz’s bizarre argument didn’t even cause a minor controversy.”

    Straightforward, if unconscious, goddess-worship. Woman is American deity. The political, legal, intellectual, and ideological are just convenient extensions of that (now assumed) reality.

    This is the CONSERVATIVE candidate for President of America, still the most influential nation on Earth. The candidate who is supposed to be the antidote to, and shield against, the collective madness of Hilary, Barack, and so on. Cruz is the ‘Christian’ candidate, for God’s sake.

    Issue arises of holding U.S. females responsibe for their own wickedness — even with childrens’ lives at risk — and Mr. Christian Conservative trips all over himself blubbering about the wonders of woman-ness, their miracle of giving birth (like, you know, hedgehogs do), and there shouldn’t even be any ‘talk of punishing women’. Um what? Isn’t Equality the foundation of the U.S.?

    When I bring this up to the Cruzers, their candidate facilitating abortion and Planned Parenthood…. hostility or silence. No guys tried to get into women’s restrooms until after thirty or forty years of enforced Equality, I recall. But the Cruzers don’t want to hear about that either.

    I hate politics and rarely take sides. But as usual, until I read this site, nobody in Vast Pundit-Land or in Official Christianity pointed out this clear instance of idolatry. So how close to God can those supposed Christians be? Worse, as the OP notes, it didn’t even enter their frame of reference, their consciousness, that the response by Cruz was not OK. This is an example of a religion so entrenched it’s become assumed. Even recorded gloating over the profit and slaughter of abortion victims doesn’t move them.

  81. Dave says:

    Before I allow any pastor near my family, I will have to vet him very well.
    I became a Christian at a fairly young age and I practically grew up in the church. Looking back on my life however, I can confidently say that the most profoundly painful experiences I have had were inflicted by so-called pastors. Pastors are some of the most dishonest people in existence, intentionally or not. No one expects them to have all the answers. But when they not only pretend to know it all, but also claim to speak for God, they can cause a lot of damage. It is no wonder that the commonest warnings throughout Scripture are about false ministers.

  82. Gunner Q says:

    No, not that guy @ 11:57 am:
    “The question is, what is politically viable? And then how do we go about moving what is politically viable towards what is optimal?”

    Working on it now. In 2-3 months, I might need some red-pill California minions. Stay tuned.

  83. feeriker says:

    I can confidently say that the most profoundly painful experiences I have had were inflicted by so-called pastors. Pastors are some of the most dishonest people in existence, intentionally or not. No one expects them to have all the answers. But when they not only pretend to know it all, but also claim to speak for God, they can cause a lot of damage. It is no wonder that the commonest warnings throughout Scripture are about false ministers.

    Far too many men in positions of authority within the church today, regardless of the denomination, fear and seek to please man (or perhaps more accurately and specifically, woman) far more than they fear or seek to please God.

  84. ray says:

    “Her: godly, gorgeous, athletic, educated, careered, humorous, travelled, bilingual, 26-year-old virgin.

    You: unworthy, though becoming less so daily.”

    Outrageous. And, once again, completely assumed. And I thought the first half of the post was horrific. I may have to stop reading halfway thru.

    The commercial comes on sports channels, Yeah she’s a princess, you got a problem with that? Oooh-rah!!

    Who’s demanding power, here? Daddy, mostly. Power over other males. Power in the legislatures, churches, courts, military barracks, etc.

    No question that the hidden engine in the establishment of American Matriarchy over the past forty years has been the parents, especially dads, of girls. The co-option and weaponization of this demographic can’t be withstood long, not even by a wealthy empire. But it’s too attractive economically, psychologically, and so forth. And conservative men, especially, refuse to hear that they are complicit. Instead they puff out their chests over their perfect, fabulous, careerist daughter and demand we comply with the slow abortion of our own nation.

    Otherwise they’re back to the Traditional Method, which was a compromise amongst all parties. He’s quite happy with the new, unilateral arrangements.

  85. feeriker says:

    Instead they puff out their chests over their perfect, fabulous, careerist daughter and demand we comply with the slow abortion of our own nation.

    I’ll bet the chest puffing stops tout de suite when Princess loses her job, gets her car and house foreclosed on, has her credit wiped out, and then moves back under Daddy’s roof to once again become one of the balls and chains around his ankle (her Momma is other one).

    That’s almost certainly what happened in HaplessBetaChurchianDad’s case, which is why he put the ad in Churchianity Today looking for a mark, er, “fiancé” to take her off his hands.

    Oh, and does anyone wanna bet that her student loan debt balance is more than the mortgage balance on Daddy’s house? Something else that the mark, er, “fiancé” will be expected to eat up in the “bargain.”

  86. The Question says:

    @feeriker

    Well said. This is why I think the Matrix analogy, even the “They Live” analogy, the manosphere uses isn’t quite as appropriate as “The Firm” analogy. Not sure if you’ve read the book by John Grisham but I think it’s a better comparison because it most accurately conveys the motivations of those trapped within the institution. It’s not ignorance that propels a lot of married to behave as such but self-preservation.

    I think past a certain point most married men are Red Pill aware. Either they discover it on their own or their wives reveal it to them by their actions or words. The problem is they can’t do anything about it. They will protect the Firm to protect their own egos.

    I think a lot of it is rather sadistic; they don’t want to see other men escape the system because it would make them look dumber and foolish by comparison. They want to reassure themselves there’s nothing they could have done to avoid it. To see yet another young man enter marriage ignorant as to the FI is to reaffirm this belief. Misery truly does love company if for no other reason than to comfort them in the knowledge it was unpreventable.

    It’s ironic. The truly bitter men are the ones most eager to see young men remain Blue Pill even though they themselves know it’s a lie because they can’t stand that they got played for a sucker.

  87. @Richard P “If God doesn’t view those two differently (as the Bible suggests that he doesn’t), then should we?”

    God is not fornicating with those women. We can love and forgive them as God calls us to do but we are not required to man up and marry a slut. Agape is different than Eros and there are consequences for sin. Forgiveness does not mean there are no consequences for sin. If you used up your body with cocaine and then found Jesus, your cravings will still be there and so will your damaged physical body. If a used up slut finds Jesus, her spiritual body is forgiven and clean but she is still an Alpha widow and her physical body (and far more importantly her mind) are damaged for marriage.

  88. Ron says:

    Traveled, 26, college educated, atheletic, bilingual?

    She may be a virgin, she may even make a good wife, but none of the things hes listed imply either conclusion.

  89. Anon says:

    You: unworthy, though becoming less so daily.

    He actually said that! At first I thought it was a paraphrase. But he actually said that!

    Since the father put an email address in his add, we could troll his add with potential suitors..

  90. Spike says:

    Over the last entry or two, the idea has emerged that it’s up to fathers to educate their daughters about the realities of life: That is, get a husband and be married off while you’re still hot and enthusiastic about sex.
    The modern father of daughters does not do this. He becomes her first pedestalizer. “Not my daughter…”, “I have a shotgun waiting….”, etc etc. He wants her to go to college and get a higher education, get an established career, and he turns a blind eye to the cock carousel.
    Her pregnancy might derail this whole image – his idol. it would make him a failure.
    So while he openly is opposed to abortion if he is a Christian, he (and mother – who also had a wild slutty past) secretly wants it there “just in case”. That is the clause that has led to the worst mass murder in history. It is why white Europeans aren’t replacing themselves and their culture, it is why we have to import vast numbers of unassimilatable barbarians from the Third World.
    Civilization starts with fathers – Anthropologists will attest to that. Reversing the decline will start with them as well.

  91. Anon says:

    (posted on wrong thread)

    In the ad by the father, the daughter’s blog address is posted.

    The blog has since been deleted, but the Wayback machine has archives :

    http://web.archive.org/web/20160215023102/http://therachelmemoir.blogspot.com/

    The profile has a picture of part of the girl’s face. She is average looking. Certainly not ‘gorgeous’.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20160308171412/https://plus.google.com/109485296036196122220

    The sad thing is, the poor girl herself did not want the ad to be posted. The cartoonish father has unwittingly DECREASED his daughter’s marriage prospects with his stupidity.

  92. Tom K. says:

    I have been saying ever since I took the red pill that women are the greatest mass murders since the beginning of time. Over 50 MILLION of them have murdered at least ONE child.

  93. BillyS says:

    Dave,

    No one expects them to have all the answers.

    Many people expect pastors to have all the answers. That doesn’t mean they can or should pretend they can, but the pressure is certainly there from some.

  94. ray says:

    Spike — “Civilization starts with fathers – Anthropologists will attest to that. Reversing the decline will start with them as well.”

    Guaranteed. America can get busy on that and succeed, or keep on present path and fail. Either way, fatherhood is getting restored in Christ’s Kingdom, and what we have experienced and witnessed won’t be allowed to recur. Ever.

    The Question: good analysis.

    feeriker: I wish they’d learn from daughters’ unhappiness, but I’m seeing double-down instead. Partly from Big Man syndrome as you guys noted, and partly from the culture so comprehensively facilitating his bad choices. Constantly being reinforced, chided, frightened, and steered. The latter part we can do something about (Rev. 12:11; Malachi 4)

  95. ray says:

    “Dalrock, I know I’m a mystic.”

    During the prior series on abortion, I was going to make similar comments. I don’t think it’s mystical, more like completed homework, and common sense.

    I’ve also felt that God is using Trump to accomplish certain ends, and I don’t think Trump is aware of either the matter or the method. His ignorance is to the good probly. Safer.

    The ‘guiding legislation’ in this instance, I think, is 1 Thess. 4:16. The word Trump is sufficiently rare, and study of both Scripture and current events suggests that we’ve endured the Falling Away years, perhaps forty years? with Jacob’s Trouble and Christ’s return ahead.

    That’s not an endorsement of Trump politically btw, nor to equate him personally with God’s trump. To some currently indeterminate extent, however, I do see him under use as God’s ‘instrument’.

    Also, the probability that difficult events are ahead shouldn’t dissuade or frighten Hebrews or Christians that have kids. Strive towards righteousness and let the Lord take care of the ultimate protection of your generations. Don’t fret and fear. I think some of them alive today will see Him on his throne in Jerusalem.

  96. Hells Hound says:

    Why does a father seek a husband for her 26-yr-old daughter in online ads the first place? “athletic”, “educated”, “humorous”, “travelled”, “bilingual”? Does he really think that adding these will increase her chances? I can sort of understand adding “careered”, because it implies she’s gonna at least pay for her own shit.

    And, of course, there’s absolutely no chance that a 26-yr-old travelled, educated, careered American woman is still a virgin.

  97. Pingback: Observations (27/4) | chokingonredpills

  98. greyghost says:

    This is why I’m here

  99. Opus says:

    I assumed it was just an American thing – advertising one’s daughter’s willingness to marry. Having had a look at the linked Wayback machine, I see a photo of a woman with not just one but two small children. Is this she? If so, is she a professional virgin? She looks vaguely Indian, and if that is she, is this a case of attempting an arranged marriage? I always thought arranged marriages to be a good idea (given sensible parents – TFH said the system would not work in America) but otherwise, advertising ones availability looks like desperation. Worse still, Dad does not seem to grasp what might, even in a small Ad, entice a man to show interest.

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    Greyghost, Tommy Sotomayor is a walking, talking androsphere. Granted that the security guards are a sympathetic audience – the white guy has been through family court – he still comes across as totally relaxed and always read with a factual and humor-embedded response to anything. That man is quite poised.

  101. No, not that guy says:

    When it comes to this, I’m torn with respect to my daughter. She’s got a genius-level IQ from what I can tell (she’s two years ahead in math, and excels at all her schoolwork). I’m struggling with finding the balance of how much to guide her towards motherhood, and how much to push her academically.

    That might make an interesting topic for you to write about, Dalrock.

  102. Pingback: Victims versus perpetrators: why it all matters | Christianity and the manosphere

  103. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Dalrock Love your blog – so thought provoking lately!

    It might be time for an update on Saeed; here is an article yesterday that explains that what took place was exactly as we discussed here and as predicted. She called 911, he spent the night in jail and then she recanted. http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/april/saeed-abedini-speaks-out-about-his-marriage-life-after-prison

    On another note, he has confirmed that she has a restraining order against him.

    Lastly, this past Friday evening he was checked into the hospital for chest pains and then released. Proverbs 9:19 – a special place in Hell for Naghmeh.

  104. Bee says:

    @Hells Hound,

    “And, of course, there’s absolutely no chance that a 26-yr-old travelled, educated, careered American woman is still a virgin.”

    You make a very good point.

    Single women should not travel without a heavy handed chaperone, preferably their father.

    I won’t go as far as you and absolutely claim she is not a virgin but the odds are slim. Anecdotal, but a lot of “good girls” lose their virginity on overnight trips. Some examples; Grace Driscoll, wife of Mark Driscoll, lost her virginity on a high school overnight trip (she lost it to some other guy, not Mark), the woman from Ireland that was on vacation in Spain and blew a bunch of guys publicly on the dance floor at a night club, Natalie Holloway was a high school senior on a trip to Aruba. I don’t know if she was a virgin or not, but she lost her life by agreeing to go walk on the beach with a strange man she had just met at the nightclub.

  105. Dave II says:

    “Her: godly, gorgeous, athletic, educated, careered, humorous, travelled, bilingual, 26-year-old virgin.”

    Ok a few things bug me about this. Why on earth is a gorgeous, athletic (I assume this means she is thin enough to be attractive) virgin woman unmarried at age 26? I can only see two reasons. Either:

    1) She is not in fact as awesome as her father makes her out to be and has been rejected for marriage a few times. This is plausible. Nowadays’ parents have a hard time seeing their own kids as less than perfect. I, like some have mentioned before me, also doubt that she is a virgin (given what we know that educated, careered women easily get up to when they travel), though I can fully believe that she told her father so and he chose to believe it.

    Or:

    2) She truly is all (or maybe most) of those things, has been approached by various suitors and has turned every single one of them down. This is also plausible. What I imagined happened is that daddy, who is a church elder (as says the ad), has actively contributed to the feminisation of the bachelors in his own congregation. If princess is indeed a virgin, it shows that she may hold a strong respect for the dignity of marriage and thus I expect her to be utterly opposed to divorce for the same reason. As a consequence, she is not likely to say “Yes” easily, since she would anticipate that spending the rest of her life with the wrong man would be personally devastating. So she would be holding out for a quality man. And of course, we all know that no woman has “beta male” in her List of Quality Men. No, betas go on the “Settle for” list, the last resorts when all other desirable options, and time, run out. So ironically (and sadly), this father who pedestalises his own daughter has helped create the very kind of men his daughter wants no part of. And still he remains oblivious to this.

    “You: unworthy, though becoming less so daily.” Nonsense. Disgusting nonsense. Was Jesus unworthy of His bride? Or is princess here so gosh darn godly that she has transcended the Bible’s metaphor typifying a marriage between a man and a woman as the relationship between Christ and the church? Well, actually in this man’s eyes, though he may not realise it, yes, she has. Because to be greater than Christ, who made Himself equal to God, it to be greater than God. And if princess is greater than her potential husband, who is her head, she transcends God’s own will for the marriage, and thus transcends God Himself. In both a physical and a spiritual sense, she thus becomes… a goddess.

    I wish this was just creative fiction.

  106. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @JohnK
    I submit that this naked panic, this “it’s him, or me,” and not ‘women are goddesses, I can do anything I like’, is what drives at least some abortions. And I think that most women just do not want to give up that ‘out’ for themselves. That’s why they don’t want other women to be punished for aborting.

    They want that ‘out’ for themselves. Because for them, in that case, it wouldn’t be wrong. Because in their particular case, it would have been “it was him, or me.” It was self-defense, don’t you see?
    Women — good women, sane women, decent women, religious women — reserve the right to strike out in panic. And they really, really don’t (natively) see anything wrong with that.

    I actually think you’re on to something here. I regularly attended churches that were regarded as “conservative” throughout my twenties, and on occasion I even dated some of the women I met in them. It was not uncommon at all to hear a supposed “Christian woman” tell you that while she really didn’t like the idea of abortion, she still considered herself to be pro-choice. That used to surprise me, but eventually I figured out that their rationale was similar to what you said. Abortion might be an evil, but if things should go wrong, it was also an evil that could serve as an escape clause for her. And who wants to give up a perfectly good “Get Out of Jail Free” card?

    The irony is that if they really do have that “blind spot” you’re talking about, then it also makes a great case for why they should have far fewer choices made available to them if they actually get pregnant. If you really do think a baby’s life is important, and then why would you entrust the woman with it now? She just told you that she’s preemptively made her peace with the idea of snuffing it out to save her own skin.

  107. feeriker says:

    “You: unworthy, though becoming less so daily.”

    Any “man” who would put up with that attitude from a prospective FiL is a doormat unworthy of holding a “man card.” My own assumption would be that if this is how her father talks to other men, why would any man think that she would be any different in her attitude and demeanor toward men?

    I wonder if any real men have responded to his insult by telling him to go “fornicate with” himself?

  108. Casey says:

    Certainly abortion is the law of the land in the USA & Canada (& most if not all western nations)
    Agree or disagree with abortion, the law is unlikely to change any time soon.

    That said, the part missing in all this ‘rights & authority’ that women have over themselves & their fetuses is the desperate need for ‘responsibility & accountability’. The very thing they are circumventing in the first place with an abortion.

    If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort. It is her right, as it is her body (current law). She does not require the approval of the father to get said abortion. She has ultimate control over her decision to become a mother or not.

    If she decides to KEEP the child, well now the Father still has no choice…….and will be flogged financially for her decision to keep the child. He is forced into a life of fatherhood, and financial servitude.

    It begs for a resolution of the lack of any accountability to women in both scenarios.

    Either you can have an abortion (under your rights and authority) with no say by the Father
    OR
    You can have the child at your own expense (why should a man be forced into an unwanted fatherhood any more than a woman can be forced into an unwanted motherhood?) and take up the torch of ‘responsibility and accountability.

    Women should not have one (rights & authority) without the other (responsibility & accountability).

    I know that is wishful thinking, especially on this blog.

  109. Hank Flanders says:

    RichardP

    Does God view a redeemed whore differently than he views a redeemed virgin? Google the phrase “remember them no more” if your memory is faint about what God does with the sins of the redeemed. If God doesn’t view those two differently (as the Bible suggests that he doesn’t), then should we?…I’m guessing that someone at CT realized that someone’s virginity status matters less to God than their salvation status. Therefore, focusing on virginity status might be misleading for a potential (christian) husband – since it might signal a salvation status that actually doesn’t exist for that person.

    Does God view a redeemed crone differently than he views a redeemed hottie? Google the phrase “remember them no more” if your memory is faint about what God does with the sins of the redeemed. If God doesn’t view those two differently (as the Bible suggests that he doesn’t), then should we?…I’m guessing that someone at CT realized that someone’s physical attractiveness matters less to God than their salvation status. Therefore, focusing on physical attractiveness might be misleading for a potential (christian) husband – since it might signal a salvation status that actually doesn’t exist for that person.

    See how that sounds? Does any guy really think a woman’s physical attractiveness or chastity is an indicator of salvation? This isn’t an issue of salvation. This is an issue of attractiveness.
    A pretty face is attractive. Virginity is also attractive in a woman, so why is that men are supposed to overlook a women’s bad behavior, but a hideous face is a perfectly acceptable reason for dismissing a woman as a potential mate? After all, a woman has more control over her behavior than her facial features, does she not?

  110. “Fetus” is the murders term Casey. Just saying.

  111. Peter says:

    They believe that the child belongs to the mother as its creator…

    This is the serpent’s promise to women, “you shall be like gods”. God is creator, and man is made in His image and likeness, therefore he is creator also.

    This is seen in the fact that the woman’s egg is lifeless. The man, however, creates life within his body (the sperm) which then are released into the woman’s vagina, and swim to the egg, whereat one of them takes over the egg to produce a new human. male or female. I will repeat, the sperm is alive, aware, mobile, and targets the egg.

    Also, note that this is shown by the fact that the child’s blood type is determined by the father, when one would think of that as being given by the mother. Not. The father is creator, the mother is bearer. That is the divine truth, so this idea of female godhead is a satanic delusion.

  112. Casey says:

    @God Is Laughing…..

    If it helps you, I am no supporter of abortion.

    My grievance beyond that is the ‘heads I win’ & ‘tails you lose’ duality of the implied argument surrounding ‘planned’ parenthood.

    Zero accountability
    Zero responsibility

  113. Not picking a fight Casey, Not fond of the dehumanizing term “fetus” is all. The only purpose I see that term serving is to throw flak around the obvious nature of abortion.

  114. greyghost says:

    No, not that guy
    Run with both together. It is not an either or. Her IQ is an asset to be used to expand her ability to be a help mate.

  115. jeff says:

    No, Not that guy,

    When it comes to this, I’m torn with respect to my daughter. She’s got a genius-level IQ from what I can tell (she’s two years ahead in math, and excels at all her schoolwork). I’m struggling with finding the balance of how much to guide her towards motherhood, and how much to push her academically.

    You obviously are not in the Word. She can run her own home well with that kind of intelligence. I am in the same boat with my daughter, but I am directing that intelligence to being able to be a keeper at home.

    If your daughter is that intelligent she can can save her husband a ton of money, be industrious within the home. Fixing things, staying healthy (attractive), efficient. She can teach her children (a son who will have her intelligence) and be an example to women in the church.

    If she is intelligent, she will not complain…. Oh, wait intelligence doesn’t mean wise… Is she wise? Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Will she follow and submit?

    1 Cor 1:26-31

    Read it and see to it that you obey the Lord.

  116. Dalrock says:

    @Dave II

    “Her: godly, gorgeous, athletic, educated, careered, humorous, travelled, bilingual, 26-year-old virgin.”

    Ok a few things bug me about this. Why on earth is a gorgeous, athletic (I assume this means she is thin enough to be attractive) virgin woman unmarried at age 26?

    From reading just a bit of her blog from the Wayback Machine, I get the sense that her father has high financial expectations for a son in law. This would fit with him listing his own credentials in the ad (CFO, MBA) along with all of the stress on her education and career. This would also fit with common expectations by older brides.

    One thing I will say is that her response to all of this is to her credit. She has not dishonored her father, even in a situation when the press and the culture would encourage her to do so. She also shut down her blog, when the temptation to parlay this into greater internet fame would typically be fairly great for a young unmarried woman. This latter item suggests to me that she does indeed wish to get married.

  117. Coloradomtnman says:

    Can someone pinch me and wake me up from this crushing nightmare of destruction of Christendom? http://www.infowars.com/lutheran-leader-claims-jesus-was-a-hermaphrodite/

  118. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    My first thought especially reading the apology article showed her well to me. The apology from the magazine looked to be more of a personal ad in a business employment page trashing the magazine trying to be taken serious.

  119. m11nine says:

    Its called genderfluid now. You would think a liberal would be up to speed on these things and give up the hate language of the past.

  120. m11nine says:

    A too quick correction:

    re: my post responding to Coloradomtnman, the headline writer at infowars said hermaphrodite, and the Lutheran called it intersex. oops

  121. A Regular Guy says:

    @ Minesweeper re: Creepy Ted Cruz & his daughter

    I’m no longer a Ted Cruz supporter, but that is reaching. That a father playfully showing affection while enjoying her daughter’s annoyance that pubescent teenagers feel towards their parents in that awkward time of their lives.

  122. greyghost says:

    I’m no longer a Ted Cruz supporter, but that is reaching. That a father playfully showing affection while enjoying her daughter’s annoyance that pubescent teenagers feel towards their parents in that awkward time of their lives.

    My son does that with his mother at times.

  123. greyghost says:

    blew that blockquote he is 10

  124. Kevin says:

    In my faith we frequently refer to the boys as sons of God as well as the girls as daughters of God. I find nothing unusual about that.

    I have already posted enough on this. It’s hard to separate strategy from deep held personal belief. I don’t know what the people who actually dedicate their lives to fighting abortion and not just making blog posts beleive in their deepest heart but I know 100% that their desire to not focus on punishment is largely a strategic decision. As I have posted, to many common people the nuance of explaining we want to punish women for destroying a few cells is so esoteric as to be counter productive.

    In general I think there is a fear of calling women out for sin. But being surprised that Cruz would pander to women is as surprising as Trump pandering on immigration to whites. And because I never tire of saying it – neither has a snowballs chance of winning the White House, but Trump probably costs Republicans the house and senate and governorships and tons else.

  125. feeriker says:

    Coloradomtnman says:
    April 27, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    I don’t think any of us should any longer be surprised when a representative of a traditional Protestant denomination says something blasphemous or heretical. These denominations largely relinquished decades ago any right to any longer be considered Christian once they capitulated fully to the culture and drank the modernist koolaid. AFAIC this guy and everyone who belongs to his “church” might as well be Madeleine Murray O’Hare, Christopher Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins.

  126. BillyS says:

    Defending your country from a massive invasion is not pandering.

  127. ray says:

    “In my faith we frequently refer to the boys as sons of God as well as the girls as daughters of God. I find nothing unusual about that.”

    Definitely not unusual. I don’t like it. It doesn’t rile me like Daughter of the King does, granted. Let’s let the King choose his own daughters shall we? Very typical of modern self-elevation, and of the urge of people, especially Christian fathers, to elevate their daughters to artificial status. When dads pander to their own girls, how is society supposed to hold the line? It doesn’t.

    “But being surprised that Cruz would pander to women is as surprising as Trump pandering on immigration to whites”

    Apples and oranges. To date, immigration is the main plank for Trump’s platform. But, at least overtly, pandering to women is not the main plank for Cruz’ platform.

    There was no surprise in Cruz pandering, the surprise was how quickly and passionately this supposed icon of ‘conservatism’ moved from the topic of female responsibility to abject subjugation over female sanctity. It was the speed of the Default Kneejerk that amazed me. This guy is attempting to be the masculine imago for the most powerful nation on earth, and yet like almost all American men, he’s just a clever boy, seeking to please mommy. Not Father. I was very pleased this incident didn’t escape Dalrock’s attention. Nobody’s separating you. You’re separating yourselves.

    The Left is the movement/party of collective Woman. The ‘conservative’ and especially ‘Christian conservative’ movement/party representing the Right is supposed to offer an ALTERNATIVE to feminism; instead, the Right is also dominated by collective Woman. The Cruz incident revealed just how much.

  128. Minesweeper says:

    @ARG,
    “That a father playfully showing affection while enjoying her daughter’s annoyance”

    Am i missing some kind of intersex play going on here ? Did he\she\it vote for the bathrooms thing ?

  129. When I read the father’s description of his daughter, something says to me, “ballbuster”. I get the same impression when I hear women complement each other about being “bold” or “strong”.

  130. The crazy thing about ancient pantheistic religions, not all of them have a God of the Sun, Justice, War, Fortune, Weather, Sea, etc… but regardless of the pantheon, they nearly all have a fertility goddess. The worship of women is the oldest and possibly the most prolific sin there is.

  131. @Ray: “at least overtly, pandering to women is not the main plank for Cruz’ platform.”

    All the references to Carla repeatedly smashing the glass ceiling suggests otherwise. Lyin Ted was practically dancing around her Ashera Pole trolling, genuflecting, and bowing down to the almighty vagina like a good little White Knight. Lyin Ted is suddenly all about female approval (votes). Sickening.

  132. @ Opus

    I used to think Christianity Today was anything but. As of late, I’m afraid that it is.

  133. Dalrock says:

    @Kevin

    I have already posted enough on this. It’s hard to separate strategy from deep held personal belief. I don’t know what the people who actually dedicate their lives to fighting abortion and not just making blog posts beleive in their deepest heart but I know 100% that their desire to not focus on punishment is largely a strategic decision.

    The more sanctimoniously this defense is offered, and the more times it is repeated, the more humorous it gets. I haven’t counted the number of people who (like you just did) have chided me and others for not understanding that our moral superiors are merely lying when they make absurd arguments, but it has to be at least a dozen. And again, the more serious, the more sanctimonious, the more ironic.

    It reminds me of the joke about having defended someone.

    Hey, I want you to know I defended you the other day.

    A group of guys were talking about you, saying that you stink.

    I said “Like crap he does!”

  134. @ Johnycomelately
    “Name a pastor that has the chutzpah to use the words bastard and whore in its original context.”

    His name is Steven Anderson. This sermon was from this past Sunday titled: “Iceland: A Nation of Bastards”

  135. Novaseeker says:

    The Cruz campaign is acting rationally: they are attacking Trump on one of his electoral weak points (women). The campaign knows Cruz can’t get to 1237, but they think they have a better chance at convincing voters to prevent Trump getting to 1237 by shoving in the voters faces one of Trump’s electoral weaknesses. It may or may not work, but it isn’t an irrational gambit by Cruz, given where he is. Fiorina is weaksauce, no question. And the attacks that could come on her (and which now will) could backfire against Cruz and undermine the raison d’etre for the pick itself. But this is a naked bid to pit conservative women against Trump, and from the pure, raw, dirty political point of view that is not irrational if you are in Cruz’s position right now.

    I had an interesting discussion earlier today with a prog dem who is pretty plugged in with people downtown. His perspective is that if Trump wins the GOP nomination, many voters who would otherwise vote Republican will backlash against Trump and vote for Hillary in a protest vote. I’m not sure that will happen, but what I can tell you is that this is what the progressive thinkerati are saying currently.

  136. Anon says:

    Tommy Sotomayor is something you almost never see : a Man who does Activism for Men’s Rights (most self-described MRAs don’t actually do any activism)…

  137. Cane Caldo says:

    @Kevin

    In my faith we frequently refer to the boys as sons of God as well as the girls as daughters of God. I find nothing unusual about that.

    Well that is not what was said. The term that was used is “daughters of the King”. It is a specific idea in Christian churches, and it carries a specific tone of superiority. There is no corollary term for Christian men.

    As I have posted, to many common people the nuance of explaining we want to punish women for destroying a few cells is so esoteric as to be counter productive.

    What was said was (the easy to understand fact) that if something is illegal, then trespassers should be subject to penalty. Somehow, you turned that into “we want to punish women”.

    You should ask yourself how came to be that when you were told a truth, in you it became a lie; and how it came to be that you prefer the soft expedience of lies to the glory and power of truth.

  138. Anon says:

    I bet Kevin thinks that the way to reduce abortions is to punish men. That really is the end conclusion he is strongly hinting at.

    Kevin seems to think that calling something illegal is still compatible with not punishing the lawbreaker in question. Then what is the significance of the term ‘illegal’ in the first place?

  139. Anon says:

    For the typical cuckservative :

    1) Saying abortion must be ‘illegal’ = They feel they are being biblical…
    2) Insisting women should not be punished for the very act that they insist is illegal = They jump at the chance to grovel to women and repel them with their betatude (a cuckservative’s heaven)…

    The natural conclusion in the cuckservative mind thus becomes that somehow men must be punished for abortion. That is the only conclusion that appeases both of their sordid fetishes.

  140. ray says:

    Agree bluepill. I meant overt political platform. Certainly ‘pandering to women’ has never been mentioned as part of Cruz’ stated political agenda. That’d be to admit there was an empress, not just she’s naked. Right now everybody’s pretending the monstrous regiment ain’t real. But those dead babies say it’s real.

    Cruz’ response to the Trump comment on abortion, however, did show such pandering was part of his sub-rosa agenda. This of course is standard, and largely unconscious, amongst the politicos and pagans and, as this blog illustrates, Christians too.

  141. Pingback: Throwing Out the Baby to Conserve the Bathwater | Things that We have Heard and Known

  142. Kevin,

    I never tire of saying it – neither has a snowballs chance of winning the White House, but Trump probably costs Republicans the house and senate and governorships and tons else.

    We’ll see. We WILL see. He wins the nomination. That was decided back in New Hampshire in early February.

  143. Looking Glass says:

    @Dalrock:

    The part I’m still curious about is when they legitimately changed from “strategic reason” to “moral stand”. Because, at this point, everyone rationalizes not “punishing” Women, but in the 90s, to my knowledge, that was the pretty obvious result of abortion-on-demand being made illegal again.

    I’d take a guess it was due to the “new generation” coming into politics that was born after Roe. (So 1991 and on) I was first thinking it probably happened after Casey (1992), and that’s probably more true as a result of random timing, as the effects of new actors in the situation is what would change most things.

    Granted, we could say it’s just no different, now, than a type of virtue-signaling.

  144. Feminist Hater says:

    In my faith we frequently refer to the boys as sons of God as well as the girls as daughters of God. I find nothing unusual about that.

    Of course, and as everyone knows, only things that happen to you are reality for everyone else. Even when the article that uses it refers only to the women as ‘daughters of the king’ and the men as useless bottom feeders who need to ‘man up’ and are not worthy of God’s daughters.

    Same old shit. Come up with something new other than you don’t notice it and therefore it doesn’t happen.

  145. Casey says:

    @ God Is Laughing

    Agreed, the term ‘fetus’ is dehumanizing……’child’ would be the better term.
    Not looking to pick a fight either.

    I expect we could agree that women are not held accountable for very much (if anything) these days?

  146. Minesweeper says:

    @Casey says:”I expect we could agree that women are not held accountable for very much (if anything) these days?”

    Have they ever ?

    And for every daddy who is pro-mommys-choice – I wonder how his kids would feel if they were told, your dad would have let your mom abort you.

    Do they ever really think ? Yes abortion didnt happen to you, but it maybe did to your sibling, your cousin, your aunt\uncle, your nephew\niece, the gf\wife you could have had.

  147. Hank Flanders says:

    I just found this gem on my way to work this morning, but this clip may have been covered here before. In it, Chandler states he’s going to go after both men and women, but in Chandler fashion, this doesn’t mean what it should. Instead, he goes after the men (or “boys who haven’t grown up yet”) for playing with women’s emotions, and then, he goes after the women for letting the men do that, not for selfishly using men and playing with their emotions, as well.

    To be fair, there could have been another part of the sermon in which he actually does say something to women about behaving selfishly in dating, and if anyone has such a clip, feel free to share it. Anyway, I was about ready to turn the above clip off half way through, but I’m glad I didn’t, since I got to hear him throw in “daughters of the king” when describing Christian women.

  148. feeriker says:

    To be fair, there could have been another part of the sermon in which he actually does say something to women about behaving selfishly in dating, and if anyone has such a clip, feel free to share it.

    I think you can safely wager a year’s salary that no such audio segment exists anywhere.

  149. Kevin says:

    @No not that guy

    Your daughter sounds like my mother, also genius level (not me sadly- and apparently based on above very obviously). I think the key is to accept that in the modern world the tide pushing her to maximize her talents cannot be overcome. What you can do is direct it. My mother had children, then as we were grown she pursued full time her academic life and has been wildly successful. I encourage my daughter, and I would suggest you encourage yours, to pursue marriage young, have children, and then when they are older pursue her career. Just invert the order the world gives which is stupid and anti-biological. That way she loses nothing and gains the joys of children when she is young and strong not the frustration of trying to have children after 35.

    @Dalrock
    I will grant you that my post was sanctimonious – I apologize for that, it was underhanded and unnecessary. Even removing the sanctimony it still remains true that this resistance to punish women is politically sensible and expecting pro-life advocates to take up the mantle of convincing average people that we should punish women for killing a few cells (in the most extreme sense a baby starts as a few cells and this would be where they were forced to make their case) justifies punishment. Should it be less when they kill a zygote vs a viable baby? These arguments would be hard to decide among the most ardent Christians much less expose a multicultural society to. What punishment would you offer for a woman who used the after morning pill illegally? What evidence would you provide to decide whether or not she actually killed a baby vs took the pill prophylactically? The whole discussion devolves into incredible difficulties. So, the majority here may agree in principle that women should be punished for getting an abortion we are not even close to being able to translate that into a simple policy position for a simple public. You make a good point that as a culture we are hesitant to punish women and I am willing to accept that may extend to pro-life advocates deep in their bones, but even if they wanted to punish women and were being duplicitous their position would be untenable. Essentially, what goes on in their hearts would make no difference to the prudent policy position.

    I am quite sure you understand all this, but since you keep posting on it I feel fine posting my disagreement.

    @Cane
    Chill. That is what was originally said, the conversation has evolved far beyond that. Changing my words to the more technically correct “We want to make receiving an abortion of a few cells illegal and only women can break this law” does not substantially change my comments.

    In my faith we also call the women Daughters to a King sorry that I internally misphrased it while I typed. But Sons to a King – though I have heard it in church – sounds clumsy and the more frequent phrase would be Sons of God which would be considered equivalent. I am unaware of the special meaning here so my apologies if still not getting it.

    @Anon
    The solution to abortion is to convince enough people it is morally evil that they personally refuse to engage in it and want to make it illegal. At that point we can debate how to best enforce that law. We cannot even motivate Americans to make it illegal to put scissors through the back of a viable babies spine and suck it brains out. We are not close to serious discussions about who to punish – but if makes you feel better I favor punishing practitioners (mostly women who are ObGyn these days) at all phases and women who get abortions at all phases as well (I might hedge on pre-viability…not sure what I would do about very early abortions as a matter of policy despite feeling t is wrong).

    @Innocent
    Sure, we will see if all previous knowledge about elections, demography, negatives (highest ever of a presidential candidate) are wrong. A bet I would take.

    @Feminist Hater
    I never said it was universal. I simply provided a counter example to the position that it was extreme. My church is small maybe we are extreme.

  150. Minesweeper says:

    @Hank, you need to place a vomit warning before listening to that !

  151. Hank Flanders says:

    Minesweeper

    @Hank, you need to place a vomit warning before listening to that !

    Haha, yeah, but I thought mentioning Chandler’s name was warning enough.

  152. Minesweeper says:

    @Hank, well you have me there !

  153. Gunner Q says:

    Kevin @ 11:58 am:
    “Even removing the sanctimony it still remains true that this resistance to punish women is politically sensible and expecting pro-life advocates to take up the mantle of convincing average people that we should punish women for killing a few cells…”

    The “politically sensible” thing to do, at every point in human history and experience, is to serve the Devil. Why die just because you won’t burn a little incense in front of a little statue? Why ruin your reputation by insisting upon beliefs other people might not share? Why put yourself out for a clump of useless human cells?

    You foolish Cuckservatives would rather be “politically sensible” than admit your own beliefs, as if regarding abortion as murder is somehow inappropriate for polite society.

  154. Kevin,

    @Innocent
    Sure, we will see if all previous knowledge about elections, demography, negatives (highest ever of a presidential candidate) are wrong. A bet I would take.

    Whats the bet? I am betting that Trump wins the GOP nomination. With all his delegates, it is now a mathematical certainty. You want to bet against me on that, name any wager and I will cover it. Because you will lose, that I guarantee you.

    Are you betting against Trump beating HRC? Well sure that is possible (maybe even likely.) I wont cover that bet. But I never said Trump would be elected POTUS. All I said (and am still saying) is that we WILL KNOW what will happen in the Senate and the House and the Governorships for the GOP with a Trump GOP POTUS candidacy.

    Any other point you try to make on this particular matter, is pointless and pure hooey.

  155. feeriker says:

    You foolish Cuckservatives would rather be “politically sensible” than admit your own beliefs, as if regarding abortion as murder is somehow inappropriate for polite society.

    Cuckservatives have done one thing flawlessly, and ONLY one thing: they have proved over and over and over again that they are completely and utterly devoid of any moral principles whatsoever.

    .

  156. Minesweeper says:

    “Ted Cruz is ‘Lucifer in the flesh’, says former speaker John Boehner”
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/29/ted-cruz-is-lucifer-in-the-flesh-says-former-speaker-john-boehner

    We know, we know….

  157. Snowy says:

    If you look at it from the purely biological perspective, all the pregnant woman is, is an incubator, a vessel for the creation of the new being. She’s not really creating the child herself. Besides, it still takes 2 to tango. Women give themselves far too much kudos; think far more of themselves than they ought. They ought to pull their heads in.

  158. Minesweeper says:

    Snowy, on one hand can they really claim ownership of anything ?

    The egg that was fertilised was created inside her when she was in her mother, the sperm is external, nothing is created inside her body after her own birth that leads to a child, as you say, she is just an incubator waiting for her eggs to mature, who after sex just needs to leave well alone and things will take care of itself in most cases.

  159. Hank Flanders says:

    Kevin

    But Sons to a King – though I have heard it in church – sounds clumsy and the more frequent phrase would be Sons of God which would be considered equivalent. I am unaware of the special meaning here so my apologies if still not getting it.

    Let’s get real. “Daughters of the King” sounds no less clumsy than “sons of the King” does, but church people push “daughters of the king,” because women (at least Western women) are already affectionately referred to as princesses just for breathing. How often are men referred to or treated as princes in a positive way?

    I even had a conversation about the princess subject with my mom recently when she was referring to her little granddaughter, my niece, as a princess. I asked her if she was going to call her grandson a prince if she had a grandson some day. Her response was, “That’s different.” I don’t remember exactly what I said, but I basically told her that yeah, it is different, because people are so used to the double standard that they accept it as normal.

    Likewise, in church, if women are constantly told they’re royalty, while men aren’t, then what are those women likely to act like? Are they likely to display humility, or are they likely to display pride and a sense of entitlement?

    As Dalrock pointed out previously, Chandler himself summed up the churchian double standard treatment of the sexes pretty well:

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

  160. Greetings says:

    This is on point. I see this within my church and other churches all the freaking time. Pastors who keep making fun of themselves and putting their wives on imaginary alters. Yes at times it can be funny but every week? And then the women in the congregation go back home and nag their husbands on how they should be treated like that as well. Spirituality has gotten into a lot of “christian” women’s heads to the point where they view everything they say and do as a gender is a divine revelation from God. It’s nauseating. The bible talks about how rare a good woman is. So now Christian girls are saying “im a christian woman! Look at me! See how rare i am? Look the bible says it. Everything i say you better listeb to because I’m a pure virgin and my vagina seeps angel tears!” Its so subtle and no one realizes it. Does this explain why the churches are filled with more women than men? I’ve definitely seen that trend at various churches.

  161. Pingback: Weekly Roundup #9 - Charles Sledge

  162. Pingback: Is fear of women the beginning of wisdom? | Dalrock

  163. Pingback: Worship of Women: A Christian Value? at Faith and Heritage

  164. Tomasz G. says:

    From recent Rollo’s commenters: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fifty-shades-of-grey-50-shades-false-rape-claim-false-accusation-incest-rape-a7189786.html

    – churchian worship of women (deity) has a little complement (like saint’s) reverence of “children”. Jesus loved children etc. The intersection of sainthood and innocence are of course the “girls” – so they could never lie or have any bad intention.

    After I read this, I started thinking if it shouldn’t be possible to “disown” children in extreme cases.

    Note the “teach the father a lesson” idea.

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