Don’t tell women no.

Recently Zippy Catholic noted how shocking it was to see how vehemently the pro life movement opposes holding women accountable, or even discussing the idea of holding women accountable:

…just listening to the pro life rhetoric following the Trump gaffe – this was truly, genuinely shocking to me, and I am not easy to surprise – that most of the pro life movement just is pro choice when it comes to the woman who is choosing to abort herself. They may not agree with her choice and they may be against everyone who is facilitating it, but they are against legally punishing her for making it. Heck, they are against even talking about legally punishing her for making it.

I’m with Zippy on this.  I’m hard to shock, and yet even I was shocked at the open insistence that women never be held accountable.  The sentiment isn’t unusual for modern Christians, but usually great care is taken to deny that this is really going on.  Prior to the Trump abortion gaffe, the clearest example of this frame of mind was the absurd lengths Complementarians went to in order to pretend that the push to integrate all parts of our armed forces was driven not by envious rebellious women demanding equality, but by cowardly men insisting that women fight in their place.

But even the absurdity around women in the military is more open than usual.  Normally modern Christians are much more diligent about covering their tracks.  Normally it isn’t so much a conspiracy of commission, but one of omission.  Occasionally we are given rationalizations for this pattern, as Jason Allen explains at the CBMW in 5 Key Ways to Cultivating Biblical Manhood in Your Church (emphasis mine):

…we must be clear about what men must do. Biblical complementarity is not fundamentally about what opportunities women must forgo, but what responsibilities men must take up.

At first glance this seems like a good statement.  Men after all must lead.  However, the way Christian men are failing the most in our era of open feminist rebellion is by refusing to call out that very rebellion.  Allen wants men to lead, but the example he sets is to focus not on confronting the very open feminist rebellion, but on some mysterious and spontaneous change in men*.  This is especially ironic because his article opens by citing the gloating book by feminist Hanna Rosin The End of Men.

Rosin has a point, and it is an alarming one. While we recognize the challenges such statistics indicate for a society, as Christians our primary concern is not the country or the culture—it is the home and the church. If the latter are healthy, the former will be healthier.

Many churches are bereft of male leadership, and many congregations exist in a settled fog over what biblical manhood should look like.

Biblical manhood is failing precisely because organizations like the CBMW make their living by carefully avoiding challenging the feminist rebellion in their midst, while holding themselves out as the example Christian men must follow.  Men like Allen constantly bemoan the lack of good men, while the CBMW supports Women’s Studies professors Mary Kassian and Dorothy Patterson**.

More often though the omission isn’t even discussed.  Instead, great care is taken to frame every issue in a way that won’t offend the feminist rebellion.  At times this is taken to comical lengths, as is the case where Jeremy Young repents of his ugly feminism in: Ditch Your Delusions of Grandeur and Love Your Child

Down the hallway I stomped and there I stood in front of my kid on his porcelain throne. This must have been the thousandth time I needed to wipe his rear end. And frankly, I didn’t want to! I looked up to heaven, and threw my hands up and yelled (in my head and heart at least), “Surely God, I was made for something greater than this!”

This bit of unintended comedy reminds me of the joke about the drunk looking for his keys:

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is.”

Feminists, including Complementarian Feminists, are very open about their deep aversion to caring for their families in any way which is traditionally female.  It is women, not men, who are seething with resentment at wiping butts.  But women are in open rebellion while men are not, so it is far easier to call out men for women’s rebellion no matter how absurd the premise;  it is also as pointless as looking for your keys where the light is good instead of where you lost them.  Change the sexes and make the article relevant, and the CBMW would have a riot on its hands.  At some level they know this, which is why so much care is taken to avoid calling out feminist rebellion and instead focus on the weak men who are screwing feminism up.

 

*Allen is a featured speaker at the CBMW 2016 Preconference, speaking on Complementarity and the Disappearance of Men.

**See Kassian and Patterson explaining how Christians got it all wrong until the feminists enlightened us in the 1960s.

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denial, Donald Trump, Dorothy Patterson, Hanna Rosin, Mary Kassian, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up, Women's Studies. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Don’t tell women no.

  1. Eidolon says:

    Dalrock

    “Recently Zippy Catholic noted how shocking it was to see how vehemently the pro choice movement opposes holding women accountable, or even discussing the idea of holding women accountable:”

    Do you mean “the pro life movement”? It seems like that’s what you meant.

    [D: Yes. Thank you. Fixed.]

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Men must lead” – there’s a second part to that sentence. Or at least, their oughta be.

    I’m visualizing a man trying to get down a road. He’s holding a pair of reins. At the other end of the reins there’s a wild equine. Totally untrained, resisting any attempt to be led, rebellious, snorting, kicking, trying to yank the reins out of the man’s hand. Completely out of control, saddle cinch coming loose so that the saddle slides half way around…

    Then some preacher comes along, looks at the situation, tells the man, ” You have to lead. Just be yourself. What would Christ do?” and then he walks away. Oh, very helpful.

    Very helpful. Bonus points if preacherman picks the man’s pocket as he speaks, takes all the cash out of his wallet, and then drops the wallet on the ground under the hooves of the equine.

  3. Pingback: Don’t tell women no. – Manosphere.org

  4. “Men must lead” sounds like a variation of telling men to “man-up”.

    The trouble is, if men are too lead, we need to do so without the restrictions that these wolves place on us. If we can’t call out women for their misbehavior and sin, then what is the point of leading in the first place?

  5. Hey Dalrock,

    Its so bad to tell them no that you’re part of the topic of a Feminist lecture in the U.K.
    Check out @Lyde15’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/Lyde15/status/728556402881474560?s=09

    You’re at the intersection of PUA, MGTOW, Gamers and MRAs supposedly

  6. Haha, looks like Cane made it on that list too.

    Their categorizations are terrible though. No one on that list there is trad-con.

  7. DrTorch says:

    Men after all must lead

    When I was being henpecked into going to marriage counseling, and our small group Bible study members were filling me with blue pill advice, the cognitive dissonance that was (almost literally) driving me insane was that the leadership books I was reading for my career had answers for all the hard questions that left the blue pillers promoting some sort of neo-gnosticism.

    Leadership works, including in the home. What current “conservative” Christianity promotes is self-contradictory nonsense that makes things worse.

  8. Jim says:

    What current “conservative” Christianity promotes is self-contradictory nonsense that makes things worse.

    That’s because it’s all just leftist woman worshiping bullshit these days. They might as well just toss out the Christian veneer and start worshiping some pagan goddess. It would be a lot less hypocritical.

  9. Hey Dalrock, I know others have posted the Babies are Murdered Here movie before. But it really is worth the time to watch. Abolitionists have been bringing up this issue with the Pro-life movement for quite some time.

  10. LeeLee says:

    @DrTorch, did you feel like the book gave you answers for how to deal with a rebellious wife? And if so how?

  11. gdgm+ says:

    Small possible typo in the OP:
    “It is women, not men, who are seething with resentment at wiping _buts_.” Should there be a second “t” in that word, or was it written that way?

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

  12. DrTorch says:

    did you feel like the book gave you answers for how to deal with a rebellious wife? And if so how?

    They all had similar advice. One of my favorites (from a retired coach) phrased it like this, “If you have a player who won’t follow your direction, you should encourage them to find another team.”

    Obviously family law in this country makes it hard on men, and I couldn’t be the one to leave and lose my son, but the principle is there, and dread game may be necessary in really hard cases.

  13. Opus says:

    I have looked further at the lecture and find that not only are all the dozen or more speakers women and that the overall topic is Misogyny and Rape Culture but that H.M.G. are stumping up over £100,000 for this undiluted Misandry. I also see that the lecture is taking place at the Institute of Education which is part of University College, London. This doubly saddens me as I know the place fairly well for my girlfriend read there for her Master’s – in a sensible subject, I might add. The last time I was at the IoE I had the pleasure of listening to Dawkins himself explain how bad was the God of the O.T. He might well now think in the light of his recent no-platforming at Christchurch University in Canterbury and prior to that ElevatorGate that he would have done better had he concentrated his rhetoric on a group of people (Feminists) who whatever one thinks of the O.T. genuinely are fixated on entirely invisible and fictional things namely Misogyny and an invented culture of Rape. That this nonsense is what inhabits Academia these days is part of what makes people scathing of further education.

    Publicity is usually good and the almost Venn diagram shows that the Femi-Nazis are running scared. Interesting to note that Sargon of Akkad (as well as the likes of Undoomed, Bearing and Sandman) is missing from the diagram as Sargon presently has a petition out to force Universities to cease from teaching Social Justice of which this lecture is surely part – not far off one hundred thousand signatures.

  14. Novaseeker says:

    Again, they can’t call out women because, in their theology, men are responsible for all of the sins of women, going right back to Eve in Genesis. From their perspective women sinning is a mere symptom of men sinning, such that without the latter, you don’t get the former. So, according to that view, if you “fix” men, women will automagically not sin or rebel, and everything will be fine.

    It all has its root in a fundamentally flawed view of the nature of sin as it relates to men and women alike.

  15. TomG says:

    Holding women accountable has been done before. It’s just not done today. Women are always one step away from being held accountable, but women are held accountable in the sense that they realize they are pregnant and must take care of their children forever. The whole idea of giving up children for adoption has collapsed. Men are accountable too. Just that they pay their way out of accountability. Wouldn’t it be another type of accountability if custody is switched to the man so he is forced to take care of unwanted children of a failed relationship? Abortion, despite being despicable, is almost like an out. Nonetheless, the future is less abortion clinics and thus, less abortions.

    You can’t hold women in line. That’s patriarchy.

  16. The Question says:

    As long as the state enforces the FI there’s not a whole lot men can do about this entire situation. We can try to reason with these people all day and use logic and rhetoric and stats and data and evidence but why should they listen?

    Women can just vote to approve state violence that benefits them or use state violence to control behavior in men that contradicts the FI. Whatever is done through this process is considered legitimate because the state is considered legitimate.

    I recently published a post about this on my blog but at a certain point men have to be willing to be might as much as they are right. https://anarchistnotebook.com/2016/05/05/libertarians-must-have-right-make-might/

    Right does not make might and might does not make might,. But at the end of the day might wins.

    It means nothing to be right in this discussion if we are might as well. Our opponents have might as their highest moral value and if they know we will ultimately submit under threats of violence or coercion why should they care about winning the argument?

    The only way this current situation is going to change is when enough men, probably out of desperation, collectively tell women “no” on all these issues and are willing to violently resist any attempts by vichy males or the state to force them to comply with the latest dictates of the FI.

    If for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, the reaction to 40 years of feminism will be a political movement that takes the reins of government and enforces patriarchal values through the legal code. Like you’ve said before, the West is squandering so much good will among men that by the time the real conflict arises all that good will instead will be replaced by fanaticism.

  17. “Biblical manhood” is failing because churchianity has changed the definition of ‘biblical manhood’ to be “accommodate anything Christian women tell you they need you to do.” Men literally can’t not fail to live up to biblical manhood.

    Allen wants men to lead, but the example he sets is to focus not on confronting the very open feminist rebellion, but on some mysterious and spontaneous change in men.

    Again, as with feminism, “Biblical manhood” would work so well if only men would cooperate with women’s definition of it.

  18. Pingback: Don’t tell women no. | Reaction Times

  19. Don Quixote says:

    Great post Dalrock.
    My prayer is that someone at CBMW is reading your information, and understands what is going on.

  20. Thornstruck says:

    @Jeremy VanGelder
    I watched the BabiesAreMurderedHere video, it’s compelling for sure. I don’t have Abortion as a main focus of growing my faith and making disciples. For my part I can only control myself and whom I choose to have a child with.

    With observed hybristophilia (aka hypergamy), women chasing their perceived alpha men, I believe there is a connection with Abortion. I’ve not read any discussion on that puzzle piece of Social Sexual Interaction as yet.

    If you are looking for other resources on Abortion I’d also recommend the 180 movie from Living Waters.

  21. Darwinian Arminian says:

    You mentioned that the Trump abortion gaffe* got a lot of so-called “conservative” pro-lifers to suddenly declare that they wouldn’t ever be in favor of holding a woman accountable for an abortion. I find this idea interesting, because now that he’s all but clinched the GOP nomination, it starting to look like he’s also tipping them ever so closer into . . . . . endorsing Hillary Clinton as the only true conservative choice for President.

    No, that’s not a joke. You can see a “complementarian” make the case here: http://www.dennyburk.com/would-a-president-trump-be-better-than-a-president-clinton/

    And an atheist here: http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/04/sometimes-there-is-no-lesser-of-two-evils/

    A few years ago I would’ve thought this strange, but in light some red-pill knowledge and your thesis that conservatives are frightened out of their minds of telling a woman “no,” it actually makes a lot of sense. In fact, given some of their recent behavior I’d like to venture the notion that for the conservatives, candidate Trump is a godsend. With a quieter and less outrageous Republican nominee, they might have had to risk giving a woman the ultimate “no” by voting against her to deny her the Presidency. And in the sight of feminists, no less — that might look like something a misogynist would do! But with Trump as the nominee they can now breathe a sigh of relief and make a big show of holding their noses as they register a “protest” vote for Clinton — but only because the other candidate is so much worse.

    At some point, Trump will need to swipe Obama’s line on the conservatives: ” . . . You would think they’d be saying thank you.”

    *I’m still not regarding his abortion answer as a gaffe. Trump has a history of “careless” statements that somehow wind up operating like highly effective smart bombs in that they keep people talking about him and eventually even succeed in making his opponents look foolish in the process. Hell, in this case he ended up getting the conservatives claiming he wasn’t very “pro-life” to publicly admit that really they weren’t either.

  22. There can’t be any conversation about “biblical manhood” because there can’t be any MENTION of what Genesis 3:16 says: “and he shall rule over you.” That is the context for every one of the passages on a wife’s submission in the NT. It destroys the doctrine’s of “mutual submission” and “servant leadership” as they are applied to marriage.

    The castration of the church is the result of those doctrines. But it isn’t that difficult to deal with, the Bible has an excellent example of how to confront these folks when they push their toxic doctrines. But how can anybody have a serious conversation about marriage when nobody understands Genesis 2:24? And it seems that nobody cares. Even the men who “get it” when it comes to the RP-BP paradigm shift can’t seem to handle it when someone points out that it wasn’t feminism that crept into the church, it was the church that created feminism.

  23. Dave says:

    Don’t tell women no.

    That is the summary of the basis and progress of feminism.

  24. Stephen Ward says:

    @DrTorch which books were you reading? any recommendations?

  25. Anon says:

    It is funny that abortion is still a heated issue in US politics, given that :

    1) The law was passed 45 years ago, and there was never any chance of overturning it.
    2) Even the ‘pro life’ cuckservatives are hardcore feminists, and their solution is arguably more anti-male than that of the pro-choice crowd.

    Cuckservatives are so pathetic.

  26. Escoffier says:

    1) It’s not a law, it’s a court decision that overrides law. There have been many chances to overturn it (all squandered, to be sure).

  27. Anon says:

    Escoffier

    There have been many chances to overturn it (all squandered, to be sure).

    I don’t think there was any real chance of overriding the court decision after, say, 1980 or so. Plus, given how cuckservatives behave on the issue, overriding it may not even be an improvement (i.e. cuckservatives would replace Roe v. Wade with a law that expands the CS award calculation by 2x, with far more brutal enforcement, for example).

  28. @Anon

    Keep in mind that most of the stuff we associate with the 60’s actually happened in the 70’s, and the explosion of sexual promiscuity is one of those phenomena. Roe v Wade popped up at the time at which sexual promiscuity really took off at the high school level at a time when birth control wasn’t easy for minors to obtain. Especially in flyover country. Call it a match made in hell. When I was in high school there was a definite economic segregation to abortion because the nearest abortuary was well over a hundred miles away. Poor girls had babies, middle class and above had abortions. It’s not like it was a big secret.

    It was individuals within the church who paid for the abortuaries in the beginning because they were the ones demanding access to safe medical abortion when their teenage daughters came up pregnant. Everything happens on the margins and the market growth of abortion wasn’t about middle-aged women wanting to control their bodies, it was about middle-aged men not wanting to deal with the shame of a pregnant teenage daughter. Especially if he was a deacon in his church and had a lot to lose in terms of social standing and position in the community.

    By the time the church finally reached the point that it would tolerate “single moms” and cheer them on for being so brave for not aborting their children (20 years ago), planned parenthood had become big business with powerful allies. Now? Molech worship has become part of the culture.

  29. Dale says:

    @Anoymous Reader
    >I’m visualizing a man trying to get down a road. He’s holding a pair of reins. At the other end of the reins there’s a wild equine. Totally untrained, resisting any attempt to be led, rebellious, snorting, kicking

    I tried to give a suggestion to a pastor who had been speaking on a passage from eithe Ezra or Nehemiah. The passage was about the rebuilding of the city wall. Half the men worked on the wall. The other half held a sword to protect against attackers, each with his own family.
    The pastor, who claims to preach “expository” sermons, spent several minutes of the sermon time on complaining about men who play video games. Which had no relation I saw to the passage, as the typical man today is not needing to protect his family on an immediate basis from armed foreigners.
    I tried to suggest that in order for men to be able to protect their women, the women must be willing to be protected and to be obedient to their husband. I was not able to get any further, as he interrupted and when on a 3-4 minute rant, in which I was unable to get a word in edgewise, unless I had been willing to similarly raise my voice to be heard. Too bad I did not have James 1:19-21 memorized at the time (“… each of you should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. …”)

  30. Spike says:

    Jeremy Young is writing an article that reads like Jessica Valenti. What next? A big long article about how humbling it is to wrap Christmas presents for those annoying, life-ruining kids?

  31. Looking Glass says:

    @anon:

    Casey (1992). Kennedy flipped at the last minute from obliterating Roe. The finding still obliterated Roe, but it rearranged how things were done. It still lives the USA as about the only Western country that allows abortions past 12 weeks.

    Granted, the actual response that should have happened in 1973 is pretty straight forward, but it’s generally be considered unconscionable, even now.

  32. ray says:

    Darwinian — Originally I thought Trump stumped and caught in his spontaneity — changing direction constantly, and seemingly unprepared for an obvious American Landmine issue, abortion. One guaranteed to arise of the campaign trail. The political crescent-wrench issue; moves masses in moments.

    But even merely theorizing about ‘punishing women’ proved so revealing and productive about gyno-theocracy that I’m leaning your way. Certainly possible he is zooming and gaming, be typical for his character. I wondered that the abortion ‘error’ occurred within the cultural context of the Me-gyne Kelly Incident and the Michelle Fields Fakeout. Not much into coincidence.

    Anyway, all to the better if Trumps is aware of these problems at meta, and is working them from inside.

    Hey Cyrus was a pagan too but he ended up doing what God wanted, and God praised him for it.

  33. Vektor says:

    I suggest the nordic model for abortion. Criminalize to procurement of an abortion, not the selling of such service. ROFL!!!

  34. enrique says:

    Just kidding, I don’t really have cancer, there aren’t any “charities”, and it was all made up.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/06/australian-blogger-who-claimed-natural-remedies-cured-her-cancer/

  35. enrique says:

    btw, when you read a quote from the article (well, a subhead) like this: Belle Gibson winner social media star of the year at the Cosmopolitan Fun Fearless Female Awards in Sydney, Australia, 2014. Now that she has been proven a fraud:

    “None of it’s true,” she said.

    “I am still jumping between what I think I know and what is reality. I have lived it and I’m not really there yet.”

    And you are over the age of say, 40, 45…what comes to mind, now that these truths have been revealed about Ms. Gibson? What comes next…

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/anita-hills-testimony-compelled-america-to-look-closely-at-sexual-harassment/2016/04/13/36999612-ea2e-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

    “Historians have pointed out that the most visible outgrowths of the Hill hearings were legislative. Immediately following them, Congress passed a law that strengthened harassment victims’ rights to sue for damages, and President George H.W. Bush, who had rejected a similar bill the year prior to Hill’s testimony, signed it into law.”

    Other women will soon start defending Belle Gibson, particularly those more distant from the actual situation–like really suffering from actual cancer. How far behind can a “push to find a cure to the horrible disease that is cancer, as Ms. Gibson brought to our attention…particularly breast and ovarian?”

    It’s always the same cycle. Whether it’s a fake noose, a shit-stained swastika on a wall, or a “God hates fags” cake. Once proven either not true, or known to lack sufficient evidence to ever prove it’s truth–SJWs are not far behind to pick up the slack to defend the “principles of what was claimed”.

  36. @Swiftfox: “If we can’t call out women for their misbehavior and sin, then what is the point of leading in the first place?”

    Indeed it is not even leading at all. It is subservient.

    @AR: “I’m visualizing a man trying to get down a road. He’s holding a pair of reins. At the other end of the reins there’s a wild equine. Totally untrained, resisting any attempt to be led, rebellious, snorting, kicking”

    That image.

    —Now imagine while the horse is struggling and kicking and you are being thrown around, the pastor tells you to lead with the gentle spirit of Christ. The giving, humble spirit of forgiveness and all encompassing divine love.

    –Now the horse is stomping you repeatedly on the head with her rear legs and the pastor tells you this is because you are not loving her as Christ loved the church. You deserve whatever you are gonna get if you are not leading and loving your wife like Christ loved the church. What are you? A little boy who can shave? Man up.

    –Now your head is flattened out, stomped flat, and your brains are splattered as another hoof stomps more ketchup out of the gore and the pastor explains that the man is the head of the home and he is responsible for the behavior of his wife…Wait! What’s that? the voice box is still intact. The man is making a gurgling noise. It sounds like a request. Listen for it:

    “C…ccccan you ask her to stop stomping.”

  37. mike says:

    Dalrock, you may find it interesting to check out this podcast by boundless, where they interview an economist on the math of dating. Interestingly, the economist attempts to describe hypergramy but completely misses the cause and effects of hypergamy in his own situation. He basically says that men are the ones who are requiring that they marry women of less education. No, women will not men who have lower education than themselves in preference. He also says men could help combat hypergamy by marrying 40 year old women if you are a 40 year old man.

    A total trainwreck of an interview. It still is interesting to listen to the churchianity leaders of young adults and their clueless recommendations for men and women on the boundless blog. Part of the problem is that the interviewer is always a post wall woman who tries to frame everything from her perspective. i.e. – those evil men my age who prefer younger women, while ignoring her own preferences for a man unavailable to herself.

    http://www.boundless.org/podcast-section/2016/man-math-episode-430

    You can always count on boundless to leave women as blameless creatures and christian men as porn addicts that don’t deserve to date.

  38. mike says:

    His basic prescription is for older men to compromise and marry post wallers and for women to move to silicon valley because there is a higher male ratio. Unfortunately, he doesn’t understand that even for a beta bucks, women still prefer some sex appeal. Their discrimination against indian and asian males abundant in the valley never seems to be considered. The economist just thinks – high amount of men. The women don’t even consider them as men, but mules, maybe not even a qualifying mule for themselves.

  39. mike says:

    It’s actually hilarious to listen to them in another episode where they compare each other’s league next to each other without offending one another. The female delusion is high in this one. Sorry for the separate comments.

    http://www.boundless.org/podcast-section/2015/girls-and-dating-leagues-episode-362

    Back to the original post, I too was shocked at the pro-life movement who seems to see women as children who are being fooled. Maybe has something to do with the fact that they would have to live up to the reality of what many of them have done. It should be no secret by now that evangelicals use abortion as contraception at high rates. The church has an abortion epidemic because of pastors’ failures to confront the issue of female sexual desire and sin. They are unprepared for the big leagues – leaving for college, or even high school.


    http://www.christianpost.com/news/70-of-women-who-get-abortions-identify-as-christians-survey-finds-150937/pageall.html

  40. feeriker says:

    “Biblical complementarity is not fundamentally about what opportunities women must forgo, but what responsibilities men must take up.”

    At first glance this seems like a good statement.

    No, I’m afraid I must disagree. The very first thing that jumped out at me about Allen’s statement was the incompatibility of the first part of it with the second part. In order for men to lead, women MUST give up their insistance on doing so. This means, to put it in Neanderthal terms, that the women are to back off, sit down, shut up, cover their heads in church as Scripture commands them to do, and restrict their activities to roles that are Scripturally sanctioned – which do not include “leadership” of any kind.

    Allen is well aware that male leadership is impossible without women foregoing their rebellious desire and struggle for it. Like all churchians, he loads his pants in terror at the very thought of voicing this, knowing that it will alienate and anger women, whom he is obviously more concerned with pleasing (and appeasing) than he is pleasing God.

  41. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Hey Dalrock,

    I don’t know if you’re still on the lookout for cartoonish chivalry from complementarians — but if so, then I think I just found a real doozy.

    You may have heard about the recent law that was passed in North Carolina forbidding transsexuals from using public restrooms that didn’t correspond with the biological sex that they had at birth. The Obama Justice Department apparently didn’t like this at all — and has now notified North Carolina’s state government that they’re in violation of federal civil rights laws. The press has played this as being a story about local government using the power of the law to persecute a minority group. For myself, I saw it as an issue of social justice warriors agitating for the normalization of sex deviants. But Joe Carter of The Gospel Coalition has a spin on it that I never would have even considered: Apparently transsexuals wanting the legal right to use the opposite sex’s bathrooms is apparently all about a corrupt patriarchy that wants to abuse headship:

    “This is why complementarianism is not merely about “submission” within the family. It’s also about protecting women from a culture that worships male power and disdains femininity, and has no qualms about using the LGBTQIA movement to codify advantages for men into the law.”

    So even in the case of transsexuals pretending to be the opposite sex and many on the left (including a lot of women) supporting them, the true villain always has and will always be abusive, dominating men that hate women. Who knew? Joe Carter also finds this whole business sad because it could inadvertently lead to women being excluded from jobs that men might be better suited for on a physical level. Observe:

    “Anti-discrimination laws require employers to consider applicants as individuals, not based on stereotypical assumptions. If a factory job requires a worker to lift 40 pounds on a regular basis, an employer cannot express a preference for young male applicants based on the stereotyped notion that men are strong and older people and women are weak. Some women and older people can lift 40 pounds, just as some young men cannot. Rather, the employer’s job ad should state that the job requires ‘regularly lifting 40 pounds.’ Let’s imagine a company sets a requirement—intended to screen out biological women—that employees must occasionally be able to lift 75 pounds. Few biological women could meet that requirement. But under the Justice Department’s definition of ‘sex’ there would be nothing discriminatory since a ‘women’ who was, say, a bigender man (i.e., a biological male) could meet the requirement. It wouldn’t even matter if the company didn’t have any transgender people on staff. The mere fact that some ‘women’ (i.e., men) could meet the requirement would mean it wasn’t discriminatory. (Also, it would be discrimination to make the men reveal if they had a ‘fluid gender identity’ so the lack of openly transgender employees couldn’t be used against the company.”)

    “This is admittedly a simplistic example, but there are myriad serious ways the law will undermine the advances women have made in seeking equal treatment in the workplace. When men can identify as women (and employers can’t ask them if they are or assume they don’t identify as a woman), then the standard for proving discrimination against actual biological women is raised impossibly high.”

    “The Law will undermine the advances women have made in seeking equal treatment in the workplace.” And real complementarians don’t want that! It would be wrong!

    In fact . . . it even occurs to me now that you could also use a law like this to keep women from being admitted to the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs, who somewhat famously require exacting physical standards that many men can’t even reach. So I propose that in order to be completely fair, we need to allow for entrance by women into these prestigious positions at lower performance levels — ones that the women can realistically reach. That way, women will never be denied the chance to die on the field of combat as SEALs and Rangers, and the complementarians will once more have the opportunity to place the blame for their tragic deaths entirely upon the cowardly men who made women fight in their place.

    Carter’s article can be found here:https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/justice-department-men-can-be-women-too

  42. They Call Me Tom says:

    “I’ve not read any discussion on that puzzle piece of Social Sexual Interaction as yet.” –Thornstruck

    It would be interesting if a study could be done to find out what is a greater motivator for young women to get abortions, (1) Avoiding consequences and responsibility (immaturity) or (2) Keeping themselves available for the mr. perfect (because of hypergamy).

  43. evilwhitemalempire says:

    “If you believe there should be penalties for merely possessing drugs (but not selling them) then, if you’re prolife, why would you object to some punishment for females?”

    This is the line of attack for cucks and socons.

  44. feeriker says:

    It would be interesting if a study could be done to find out what is a greater motivator for young women to get abortions, (1) Avoiding consequences and responsibility (immaturity) or (2) Keeping themselves available for the mr. perfect (because of hypergamy).

    I’d wager that in 9.99 cases out of 10 the answer would be “both.”

  45. greyghost says:

    I’d wager that in 9.99 cases out of 10 the answer would be “both.”

    Agreed

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

  47. Dalrock says:

    @Darwinian Arminian

    I don’t know if you’re still on the lookout for cartoonish chivalry from complementarians — but if so, then I think I just found a real doozy.

    Thanks. Wow. Good find. I’m sure I can find a use for that.

  48. DrTorch says:

    Stephen Ward-

    Leadership books I have appreciated:

    Wooden on Leadership- John Wooden

    21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership- John Maxwell

    Winning- Jack Welch

    Failing Forward- John Maxwell

  49. Swanny River says:

    Thanks for this post Dalrock. Here is another example of this inability: at my conservative church they’ve gone as far as saying (maybe once in the past 5 years) that if the man makes enough money, the wife should strongly consider staying home, especially if they have toddlers. Sounds good but we had an elder at that time who fit that exception and a home where a small group is held, and lauded and approved those families. Who do you think is more popular, the family with nice cars and a big house to meet at and who never causes a troublesome conversation, or me, who has a tiny home, and who asks for support from my church for my headship and with my rebellious wife. The leaders get their cake and eat it too by saying that they are just being biblical and they avoid the struggle that you point out would happen, if they would just address it head-on.
    Is the conference available on transcript? I’m curious to learn what Kevin Deyoung said. He is a good candidate for stopping the crazy train once he’s heard and grasped the problem.

  50. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("YAC-YAC") says:

    “Men must lead” … in the specific and particular ways found in The List right here, see [holds up Feminist Imperative Manifesto] — and in no other ways, than what is on The List.

    Everything on The List is compulsory; everything not on The List is forbidden. It is mandatory to comply with everything on The List; it is forbidden to acknowledge The List exists, let alone that It drives all social policy; indeed, it is forbidden to acknowledge, that it is mandatory to comply with The List. But, it is mandatory to comply with The List.

    It is very important that male “leadership” do exactly as it is told, and comply with everything on The List, because, um … we are in charge here, not them. *This* is the crisis in Male Leadership, see: men won’t lead in compliance with the dictates of The List, as is their duty. What is it, with this “leadership” that will not go where it is led!?!

    The b@stards.

    Or something like that.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

    3:30 PM 5/07/16

  51. Swanny River says:

    Darwinian, thanks for the reminder of why I should continue staying away from TGC. It really was spiritually discouraging and I’ve been better off not being there. Joe is the strongest guy at that website, for an idea of context.
    More on my last post, the wife who works and in whose home is an official church small group is very friendly and warm, so she is not going to get the rebukes and silence a prickly old man like me gets.

  52. Opus says:

    In my naivety it seems it me that the bathroom problem is Homophobia for what man standing at the stall wants a man dressed in a skirt and blouse standing next to him. What better then than to pretend that that man is a woman and to expel him to the ladies. The downside however will be that if one group of men can use the ladies then surely it would be sexist to prevent all men from doing likewise.

    When I was in D.C. I lived in a house with a mixed bathroom and hated it – in fact would not use it.

  53. Micha Elyi says:

    I was startled to read of Zippy Catholic claiming to be surprised that the pro-life movement shrinks back from holding accountable females who choose to have their infants medically killed in the womb. It’s as if Zip hasn’t been paying attention his whole life. The find-a-man-to-blame, the-female-cannot-be-held-responsible, she’s-a man’s-victim attitudes are dogmas among pro-lifers. One can find such sentiments in the writings of Susan B. Anthony and they’re not new with her.

  54. Micha Elyi says:

    You (who?) mentioned that the Trump abortion gaffe* got a lot of so-called “conservative” pro-lifers to suddenly declare that they wouldn’t ever be in favor of holding a woman accountable for an abortion.
    Darwinian Arminian

    Standard operating procedure for Establishment Media reporters (a.k.a. Democrat operatives with bylines) is to ask a pro-life candidate if abortion is outlawed, will the female seeking an abortion be punished. Typically, the supposedly pro-life candidate hems and haws just as Trump did when he walked back* his original statement. Pro-lifers didn’t “suddenly declare” anything, avoiding holding the female accountable has been their stock in trade since Susan B. Anthony’s day.

    * every time Trump walked back a statement or changed his tune when the group he was in front of changed, he outed himself as the worst kind of politician.

  55. Micha Elyi says:

    It is funny that abortion is still a heated issue in US politics, given that :

    1) The law was passed 45 years ago…
    Anon

    In America, legislation is “passed” but court rulings–which are not legislation–are not.
    Perhaps if abortion wasn’t synthetically legalized by a court ruling that invoked the voodoo of “emanations of penumbras” the matter wouldn’t “still be a heated issue in US politics”. Americans have a tradition of resenting and resisting cram-downs from on high. It sparked the Revolution in 1775.*

    * The American Revolution began on April 19, 1775.

  56. Moses says:

    The elevation of female as a proxy for God is not confined to Churchian space. It’s everywhere.

    I work in the tech startup space. A woman CANNOT be simply an “entrepreneur.” She must ALWAYS be a “Female Entrepreneur”(TM) which is like a super special and awesome kind of entrepreneur.

    Support and mentoring groups for “Female Entrepreneurs” are on every corner. Every interview she gives must always focus on her femaleness, how it makes her more suited to starting and growing a company. There are legions of articles now about how women make better leaders than men. Swap the sexes in any of these pieces and you’d have slutwalks demonstrating outside the door.

    Insanity. Reminds me of the quote “If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.” This can’t continue. But on the other hand, in the long run we’re all dead.

  57. feeriker says:

    I work in the tech startup space. A woman CANNOT be simply an “entrepreneur.” She must ALWAYS be a “Female Entrepreneur”(TM) which is like a super special and awesome kind of entrepreneur.

    You can take some comfort in the realization that behind every –and I do literally mean every“female ‘entrepreneur'” in the technogy field is a MAN (an invisible one, to be sure) behind the scenes who is doing ALL of the technical “heavy lifting” and most of the organizational and financial as well. Remove him from the picture and the whole charade comes apart at the seems.

    I’ve seen this happen in at least a dozen instances of “technowoman wants to go independent and start her own company.” In my deep blue pill days I was even stupid enough to try to help one of them get started on her own – until I discovered how utterly devoid of vision, leadership, and technical ability she was and woke up. Needless to say, she’s still struggling to keep her head above water as a glorified independent contractor. CEO of a leading-edge technical services firm? Ain’t never gonna happen, despite all the “women in technology” articles she’s the focus of.

  58. Pingback: Social media is stupid, but you need to be there. | Morally Contextualized Romance

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