It is far worse than he suspects.

Pastor Doug Wilson explains that it is much easier to confront men on their sin than it is to confront women*.  Men, even men who have done terrible things, expect to be called on their sins, while women rebel against the very idea:

When a man mistreats a woman, the current climate still allows a pastor to confront him, and to deal with it thoroughly. Even though the world gets conviction of sin all wrong, this climate does mean that the simple message of repent and believe is one that can still be delivered to men. The men usually expect it, which is good, because they deserve it.

But that is not the case anymore with women. Any counselor who actually tries to address feminine shortcomings in a dysfunctional relationship is a brave counselor. One of the things that happens is that any such an attempted address is immediately construed as “taking the side” of the abuser. And to anticipate an objection here, this is not a function of the counselor being male — my wife has seen the same reaction that I have, and sometimes more quickly.

However, even while sharing this, Pastor Wilson explains that he has often observed men to be sinning terribly, but the sins he observes of women tend to be inappropriate reactions to men who are abusing them (emphasis mine):

Taking one thing with another, over the years I have seen many instances of men doing awful things to their wives and daughters. And when I say “awful,” I mean awful. Their abusive treatment has ranged from wicked to blindingly stupid. Not only do I not excuse it or explain it away, I rejoice in the liberty that I still have in such instances to call sin sin

Now I know that some women have done awful things to men also, and I take it as a given that this can and does happen. I do not assume that the man must be the worst offender. But in the counseling I have done over the years, the thing that usually wrecks the woman’s joy is not the fact that her sin is equivalent to the man’s, or greater than the man’s, or less than the man’s, but rather the fact that her sin is untouchable. We are dealing with a culture-wide insistence that women not be held responsible for what they do. This assumption has crept into the church, even into the conservative wing of the church, and has now been weaponized.

He knows that in theory women do awful things to men, but in practice he has observed men doing awful things to women.  That he has observed men doing such things doesn’t surprise me.  He has been a pastor for long enough that I would be surprised if he hadn’t seen men sin in the ways he describes.  Yet at the same time he suggests that he hasn’t observed similarly outlandish behavior from women against men.  This is truly astonishing.

If his observations are accurate, this would mean that the women in Pastor Wilson’s congregation are generally behaving better than the men, despite the men being far more open to rebuke. I find this unlikely.  It also surprises me because while I undoubtedly have less direct experience with the kinds of situations he is describing, I have observed plenty of men and women treating others terribly.

While it is theoretically possible that the women in Pastor Wilson’s congregation are better behaved and yet more rebellious against authority, I strongly suspect there is something else in play here.  As Wilson explains, it is far harder to hold women accountable.  Even men who have sinned greatly tend to not only accept, but expect to be rebuked for their sin.  But women tend to be far more resistant to being called out.  Moreover, calling other men out comes with a sort of satisfaction, while calling women out feels cruel.  Given simple human nature, we tend to follow the path that is easy and satisfying over what is difficult and uncomfortable.  As Wilson points out, conservative Christian culture has been infected, but I don’t believe he sees the full extent of the rot.  It isn’t just that we tend to avoid addressing women’s sins when we see them, but that we tend to find ways to not see them in the first place.

This is why the leaders of the CBMW have gone to such absurd lengths to deny the feminist rebellion with women in the military, and have created a fantasy land where cowardly men are forcing women to push their way into combat.  This would also explain why Pastor Wilson not only hasn’t observed truly bad behavior by wives, but why he argues that only after a thousand years, when the stars have aligned, could we consider holding women who have abortions accountable.  It would also explain why he can’t see the very open feminist push for women to delay marriage.

*H/T Hmm

This entry was posted in Pastor Doug Wilson, Rebellion, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

222 Responses to It is far worse than he suspects.

  1. Pingback: It is far worse than he suspects. – Manosphere.org

  2. Yes, he never sees women behaving badly because he’s simply unable to do so. Only men do evil of their own accord. When he sees a woman acting badly, he looks for the man responsible, the same way he would see a tree falling in the forest and look around for a beaver or a lumberjack. Trees don’t just fall down, and women don’t just commit serious sin.

    As you touch on in the last paragraph, most Christians today, on seeing a woman walk voluntarily into an abortion clinic and pay to have her baby killed, reflexively treat her as blameless — maybe even a victim on par with the baby — and look for a man to blame: a man must have raped her, abused her, abandoned her, threatened her, paid for it, etc. If one can’t be found, they’ll blame it on male-dominated society. The one thing they absolutely won’t do is call a woman committing an act that they themselves define as murder a murderess.

  3. feeriker says:

    . Yet at the same time he suggests that he hasn’t observed similarly outlandish behavior from women against men. This is truly astonishing.

    It’s astonishing for the simple reason that it’s an obvious and blatant lie. Wilson, like very nearly ALL churchian men in authority positions today, fears Woman more than he fears god. His blindness is willful and will remain that way. Not only has he seen awful behavior from women in his congregation, but he has seen more than a few wives go Waffen SS on their marriages and destroy not only their husbands, but their children too (and of course that just HAS to be entirely the husband’s fault, right?). NO man who has pastored a churchian franchise over the last four decades has NOT seen multiple instances of this in his flock.

    As Dougie admits, though, it gives women deh feelbadz to call them out on their sins and might even make them angry, which thus gives Dougie deh feelbadz too (of course it didn’t give God deh feelbadz to send His only son to die on the cross for you, did it, Dougie?). Better to just stick with doing what feels good and what’s easy and painless than to do what’s right and what needs to be done. After all, that’s the route Jesus and His disciples all took, right? /sarc

  4. Patrick Albanese says:

    In other words, Wilson is guilty of exactly what he accuses others of.

    The inability to hold women to account.

    Maybe this is his desperate cry for help. 😉.

  5. Jim says:

    Yet another hypocritical pussy cuck pastor. No better than cockroaches.

  6. Looking Glass says:

    We call some things “willful blindness”, but, to the Churchian, isn’t some of Wilson’s lack of observation simply his own solipsism? He only understands “Men sin”, but since he lacks Wisdom, he is simply unable to comprehend the way Women sin. That makes more sense, much in the way some of the hilarious stories from anthropologists watching tribesmen attempting to understand what a Helicopter was. (The story goes that they called it a giant bee for a long time, but that eventually didn’t work. So they simply ignored that it existed. Their minds simply weren’t able to process the information.)

    Though I don’t fault anyone for thinking Wilson is being a blatant liar, as he’s either lying or he’s called out his own blindness yet simply lacks the introspection to understand that point.

  7. Anon says:

    These pastorbator cucks are too much.

    Here is a video of Ann Coulter arguing with a cuck pastor about single mothers. The cuck pastors keeps praising how strong they are and how ‘all the fathers left’. Ann Coulter even challenges him : “Who is the Christian here.”. The audience is full of government-subsidized resource sinks.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    He only understands “Men sin”, but since he lacks Wisdom, he is simply unable to comprehend the way Women sin.

    Because he’s still got that feminist “men and women are the same except for baybeez” premise, IMO. He sees “sin” pretty much in terms of the male behavior. Therefore his blind spot regarding women’s bad behavior, sin, is huge. For example, a man berating his wife in public is “sin”, a woman nagging and berating and tearing down her husband for years in private is something he simply cannot see. Even if a man came and told him of it, he wouldn’t be able to really “see” it.

    I’ve written this before: anyone who isn’t actively rejecting feminism is passively accepting it. Because Wilson and other Boomer preachers do not reject feminism actively they passively accept it.

  9. Robert says:

    From what I know Doug Wilson is a good pastor. He admits fully that he has a hard time calling women out, but he is the best of any one out there at doing it (and Baucham). He is HATED by the feminists. They are constantly camping out not only on everything he shares publicly, but actually make trips to Idaho to do so in person. He is constantly ridiculed, threatened, lied about, you name it.

    He’s not perfect, none of us are. But anyone hiding behind an internet moniker, who does not have their livelihood, reputation and even freedom threatened does not in my opinion get to be so free with their criticism.

    His every word and action is on display to parse, dissect and criticize. Imagine that your every word and action was under such close scrutiny. How would you be judged? Even by your own internet personality?

    I also ask you weigh it against the weight of his whole ministry and what he does and teaches that makes feminists- and all those who have bought into the lies of satan- so very angry. A few things can be drastically taken out of proportion very easily. If a teacher of God’s Word is doing his job right he should be making just about everyone uncomfortable- including himself. And I believe he does.

    He’s not perfect, but neither were Peter or Paul. From what I know of the man I’d attend, worship, give and even be a member of his church.

    Fire away boys. But I’ve stood behind the pulpit. I’ve lived under the internet’s eye. We don’t all live in a manosphere blog that you get to solely focus on one subject, and everything is judged through that one lense 100% of the time.

    I’ve come to believe you can pretty accurately judge a man by his enemies. Google Him. See who comes up hating him. See which blogs and “forums” despise the man. He appears to be a man you can ride the river with. I said it before and I’ll say it again, I’ll stand by Doug Wilson.

    Dalrock, I love your work. I believe you are extremely important in the message you share. But you are going off the rails with who you are going after these days. He’s got his hands full fighting of feminists, now he’s got to watch his back also.

  10. sonofdeathswriter says:

    “We are dealing with a culture-wide insistence that women not be held responsible for what they do”

    Makes me wonder how long is he going to take to finger out Marriage + Divorce = Unlimited funds to woman in the courts.

  11. I am convinced that all counselling does is emasculate men and destroy lives. If I get married, I will make it clear ahead of time that marriage counselling is off the table.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    Robert

    His every word and action is on display to parse, dissect and criticize. Imagine that your every word and action was under such close scrutiny. How would you be judged? Even by your own internet personality?

    Are you omnescient, Robert? Yes, or no?

    I also ask you weigh it against the weight of his whole ministry and what he does and teaches that makes feminists- and all those who have bought into the lies of satan- so very angry. A few things can be drastically taken out of proportion very easily. If a teacher of God’s Word is doing his job right he should be making just about everyone uncomfortable- including himself. And I believe he does.

    So there’s no room for improvement, or at least no one should ever tell him that?

    He’s not perfect, but neither were Peter or Paul. From what I know of the man I’d attend, worship, give and even be a member of his church.

    I for one don’t demand perfection from anyone. But I for one live in a world where any errors I make can be scrutinized at length, so I’m always trying to do better at what I do. If someone told me I had a blind spot, eventually I’d thank them for it.

    Fire away boys. But I’ve stood behind the pulpit. I’ve lived under the internet’s eye. We don’t all live in a manosphere blog that you get to solely focus on one subject, and everything is judged through that one lense 100% of the time.

    So you are omnescient then, Robert? You know what I and other men do for a living, as well as voluntarily in spare time, etc.? You know this with certainty?

    It’s a good thing you are so humble. If you weren’t, someone might suggest that arrogance isn’t a virtue.

  13. RichardP says:

    The following quote gives a better sense of what Pastor Doug was pointing out with his article. I challenge the commenters here to read the article first before commenting.
    “… in the counseling I have done over the years, the thing that usually wrecks the woman’s joy is not the fact that her sin is equivalent to the man’s, or greater than the man’s, or less than the man’s, but rather the fact that her sin is untouchable. We are dealing with a culture-wide insistence that women not be held responsible for what they do. This assumption has crept into the church, even into the conservative wing of the church, and has now been weaponized.”

    The men, when confronted with their sin, are made uncomfortable because they know the pastor is correct in the sin he has pointed out. The women, when confronted with their sin, are made uncomfortable because the paster is pointing out their sin. There is a huge difference between those responses. One is sorry for their sin. The other is sorry (or, rather: furious) that their sin is being pointed out. That is Pastor Doug’s point.

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    He appears to be a man you can ride the river with.

    One thing that annoys me is when chair-parade types appropriate phrases from a much harder part of the world. Robert, I’ve known men who really did “ride the river” various border sectors. A couple of them are still on active duty. I have some idea what it really looks like. Do you? I doubt it.

    Suggest you tone that “tough guy preacher” act down. Way, way down. It’s not a good look.

  15. Every time Dalrock uses a well-known pastor as an example of the pervasiveness of the female imperative in Christian circles, we get people coming to defend him from Dalrock “going after” him. That’s not what’s going on. The point (as with the previous one about Ken) isn’t to bash this or that pastor or say that they’re bad. The point, which I thought Dalrock made just fine, is that it infects virtually all churches and pastors — even the ones who are doing their best to oppose liberalism and stick to traditional, scriptural teachings as best they can. That’s how pervasive it is, that even the ones who are usually singled out as being ultra-conservative and hated by feminists reflect the female imperative without being able to see it.

    Dalrock wouldn’t be talking about this guy if he were a typical liberal goddess-worshipper. We already know they’re worthless. He’s talking about him because he’s one of the good ones, relatively speaking — yet he still has this blind spot, just like the rest of society.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    One is sorry for their sin. The other is sorry (or, rather: furious) that their sin is being pointed out.

    Yeah, so? He can’t take that fact and go forward? Like he can’t realize that men and women are different, and therefore can’t be treated the same? Apparently not. Therefore he can’t be expected to get his head around the fact that 65% to 70% of divorces are filed by women and only a trivial number for adultery / abandonment / abuse, therefore it’s about unhaaaaapiness.

    Therefore he cannot actually understand why divorce happens in the US. Therefore he cannot understand what the carousel is, what effect it has on women, and why blaming men for it is futile. Therefore he’s essentially useless for defending marriage.

    Doug Wilson is useless in defense of marriage. Ditto the other Boomer, pedestalizing preachers.

    First principle for anyone who actually wants to defend marriage:
    Let me put it in Bible terms: The sin of Adam is not the same as the sin of Eve.
    Only a feminist would find that an ugly or unacceptable statement.

  17. Dave says:

    But anyone hiding behind an internet moniker, who does not have their livelihood, reputation and even freedom threatened does not in my opinion get to be so free with their criticism.

    Herein lies the whole problem. He who pays the piper dictates the tune.
    In today’s America, women spend the most money, and have great influences on whether a family attends a particular church. Thus, the temptation to avoid offending women by preachers who are dependent on women’s money is incalculable.
    A preacher who truly believes he is called to preach must be willing to trust God for his livelihood, reputation and freedom, and not cower behind “society” which prevents him from being bold enough to declare the whole counsel of God.
    God is not interested in having fair weather preachers who are like reeds shaken by the wind of societal opinions; He wants men who are strong as the oak, and are willing to stand against the tide, whatever the cost.

  18. Anon says:

    Every time Dalrock uses a well-known pastor as an example of the pervasiveness of the female imperative in Christian circles, we get people coming to defend him from Dalrock “going after” him. That’s not what’s going on

    Indeed. It is the same thing as when the pastor goes after men because that takes the least courage, while holding women accountable takes the most. Dalrock has not ‘gone too far’ by any measure.

    Facing such a huge truth takes courage, and it is hard to do at first. Robert is on the path, but it is not an easy one.

  19. Anon says:

    Robert said :

    I’ve come to believe you can pretty accurately judge a man by his enemies. Google Him. See who comes up hating him. See which blogs and “forums” despise the man.

    What a naive thing to say. This entire blog has documented how cuckservative churchian culture agrees with lefty feminists on 99% of matters, yet still manage to persuade themselves and declared ‘feminists’ that they are not feminists.

    ‘Feminists’ hated Sarah Palin. Yet, she was all about the female imperative herself. Surely you know that much.

    Get a clue.

  20. feeriker says:

    “Robert” says:

    [Wilson] admits fully that he has a hard time calling women out, but he is the best of any one out there at doing it (and Baucham).

    You can’t put Voddie Baucham side by side with Wilson here. With only one or two minor slips that I can recall, Voddie has been probably the most consistent of all of the prominent pastors in calling out feminism and female sin for what it plainly is without resorting to manblaming and weaselspeak.

    Wilson, on the other hand, has yet to take any kind of firm stand that I’ve ever seen that makes clear his recognition of female rebellion against God and modern “Christian” woman’s full culpability in it. If he’s the BEST we can now expect from a North American pastor in the fight against feminism (Voddie, IIUC, is now in Africa on an extended mission), we’re in serious trouble indeed.

    As someone upthread said, there are no half measures or halfhearted commitments in this effort. You either battle feminism and female rebellion head-on and with all that is within you, or you are complicit in its advancement. So far, by that criterion, Doug Wilson can only be considered to be fully within the feminist camp.

    He is HATED by the feminists. They are constantly camping out not only on everything he shares publicly, but actually make trips to Idaho to do so in person. He is constantly ridiculed, threatened, lied about, you name it.

    OK then, here’s the $64,000 question: if what you claim here is true (which I don’t believe it is, but will accept for the sake of discussion), then what does Wilson have to lose by fighting the full good fight? Feminists already hate him, he will never placate them, and he will never win by appeasing them, so why doesn’t he stop the pedestalizing, take the blinders off, put the spiritual boxing gloves on, and fight the Godly fight that is his sacred duty as a pastor? If God is for him (as God certainly would be), then who could be against him?

  21. Dave II says:

    Balance, everyone. This is a blog that disagrees with certain ideas. In doing do it inevitably shines light on certain instances of their manifestation, and that inevitably involves the people who carry them because ideas are carried by people. It does not mean the person is bad as a whole, just that their idea in this particular instance is bad. And if we can’t criticise an idea just because the person holding it has good ideas at other times, then no bad idea will ever be exposed and social progress will be impossible.

    I felt that Wilson showed the beginnings of a red pill unplugging. I am not familiar with him or his ministry so I cannot be sure, but while the fundamental inability to call women out is still there it is encouraging that he is at a stage where he can recognise and call out that it’s wrong. I say give him time to prove where he stands by his actions. Doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with the still-existing problem, but doesn’t mean in doing so we’re saying he’s a bad person either.

  22. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    Wilson, on the other hand, has yet to take any kind of firm stand that I’ve ever seen that makes clear his recognition of female rebellion against God and modern “Christian” woman’s full culpability in it. If he’s the BEST we can now expect from a North American pastor in the fight against feminism (Voddie, IIUC, is now in Africa on an extended mission), we’re in serious trouble indeed.

    Remember that it is common for such a pastorbator to refer to the 5s and 6s in his flock with the gratuitous ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’ description. Not one ‘beautiful’, but three.

    This practice is not just evidence of being a mangina cuck, but displays a complete lack of genuine faith.

  23. Pingback: It is far worse than he suspects. | Reaction Times

  24. RichardP, read your own quote again. Wilson never says he calls out women on their sin. He rejoices in the opportunity to do so with men, but he never says the same thing about women. In fact, he says what “wrecks women’s joy” (whatever the heck that means) is the fact that they aren’t ever called out on their sin, but are untouchable — presumably even by him, or he’d say otherwise. You’re reading something into his words that’s not there.

  25. Eidolon says:

    For the “he’s a nice guy, please don’t disagree with him” folks, remember that this isn’t just some guy. This is a teacher. If he has wrong (that is, false) ideas, he will teach them to others, and thus become a false teacher. Remember the verses about what happens to false teachers.

    I don’t understand the idea that a pastor, someone who has chosen to teach others, ought not to be expected to know the truth and speak it plainly. If not them, then who? Did they fail to criticize the men of their congregation since they get a lot of things right too?

  26. Novaseeker says:

    Again, the root of this is the misreading of Genesis, where Adam, in the place of all men, is seen as being responsible not just for his own sin, but also for Eve’s sin. If you have that view, the culpability of women for their own sin is always lessened, when compared with the culpability of the “relevant responsible man”, whether he be husband, father, boyfriend, brother and so on. This is the root of the issue here, and why feminist ideas in the same general vein (men are oppressors, women are oppressed, therefore men are to blame for women acting out) have such a grip on much of Christianity — it’s not because most serious Christians are feminists and think in terms of oppressor/oppressed, but rather that many of them see women as having lesser moral agency than men do, and as always having a morally responsible man who is more responsible, and accountable, for the women’s sins than they themselves are, due to this interpretation of Genesis.

    It’s two different and wrong, yet symbiotically mutually reinforcing, perspectives that are at play here, and this is what explains the commonality between so many even conservative Christian views on these issues and feminist ones, in practice as opposed to theory.

    By the way, your favorite “ex” feminist Christian criticism groupie, IB, called Pastor Wilson out on the carpet for this article a few weeks ago, goddess bless her feminist soul.

  27. mrteebs says:

    @Anon

    I couldn’t make it past the two-minute mark on the Coulter clip. The auto-immune response emanating from the audience was predictable, palpable, and sickening. I wonder what percentage were themselves “heroic” single mothers? Probably 70%+. The tone deafness is astonishing.

  28. Boxer says:

    Dear Cail:

    As you touch on in the last paragraph, most Christians today, on seeing a woman walk voluntarily into an abortion clinic and pay to have her baby killed, reflexively treat her as blameless — maybe even a victim on par with the baby — and look for a man to blame: a man must have raped her, abused her, abandoned her, threatened her, paid for it, etc. If one can’t be found, they’ll blame it on male-dominated society.

    One of the last and most difficult red-pill hurdles I cleared was the abortion question. I know that I used to indulge in the same sort of escapist excuse-making.

    It’s not just female hypoagency at work here (though that’s part of it). A large issue in some people (at least the ones with my disposition) is solipsism (which is a greater sin in some traditions -http://www.churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-sins.php – lol).

    I would probably euthanize my unborn baby if it were the product of a violent rape (as opposed to most so-called regret rapes), or if it were genetically determined to have a disease that would kill it anyway, or if it were genetically determined to have a disease that would make it suffer through a long life, or if it would damage my own health to an extent I would likely never recover.

    Since I feel this way, as a solipsist, I assume that all these women who are lining up into the baby butcher’s office must feel the same way. They all must be making a terrible choice which they will be sad about for the rest of their lives, regret immensely, and grieve for years to come over.

    Except they don’t. Legit abortions (at least the ones I find legitimate) are probably less than 1% of all abortions. Most of these pigs are just irresponsible idiots who are too shortsighted to use birth control, and who can’t control their sex drive long enough to abstain from anon bangs in the public toilet of the nightclub. It’s wrong to feel sorry for any of these people. None of them merit or deserve any sympathy. They’re just trash.

    The one upside to the abortion question is the tendency for feminists and other damaged freaks to abort their children. Weird feminists, queer trannies and other sick people are thus limiting their damage to the collective gene pool. I still don’ t think it’s a net benefit, but it’s the only positive outcome of the abortion trend.

    Boxer

  29. feeriker says:

    I don’t understand the idea that a pastor, someone who has chosen to teach others, ought not to be expected to know the truth and speak it plainly. If not them, then who? Did they fail to criticize the men of their congregation since they get a lot of things right too?

    I’m have no doubt that Wilson and others of his ilk are thoroughly familiar with EXACTLY what Scripture says on this subject and also know EXACTLY what they are supposed to teach and counsel on it. But they refuse to do it. Why?

    Because they are completely lacking in faith.

    THEY DO NOT TRUST GOD!

    A serious accusation? You bet it is.

    But what other conclusion are we to reach based on the evidence of their actions (or lack thereof, if you prefer)? They refuse to take a stand that, while clearly Scriptural, is unpopular and that swims counter to the current culture. But lots of Scripture fits that description, and God couldn’t care less. Jesus made it clear to those who followed Him how much it would cost them to do so, and that no one who refused to deny himself would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Surely a pastor, of all people, would understand that better than almost anyone else. That he clearly doesn’t, or that, worse yet, he REFUSES to do as Scripture demands that someone in his position as a teacher do, is borderline heresy, if not the real thing. He is showing by his refusal that he fears (Wo)man more than he fears God. A person with that attitude has effectively repudiated their own fitness to be a Christian leader.

  30. BillyS says:

    But anyone hiding behind an internet moniker, who does not have their livelihood, reputation and even freedom threatened does not in my opinion get to be so free with their criticism

    And you write with full exposure of your name?

    Pot meet kettle.

  31. Boxer says:

    He is showing by his refusal that he fears (Wo)man more than he fears God. A person with that attitude has effectively repudiated their own fitness to be a Christian leader.

    That’s exactly right, bro.

    One of the most depressing things I see on this blog is these Christian losers who turn their collars around to make a few bucks, but who don’t have the balls to actually stand for something.

    http://lovespeaksthetruth.blogspot.com/2007/10/joel-osteen-and-spirit-of-feminism.html

    This fool, for example, is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Men in his congregation gave him that wealth for years. In return, he has never said thank you to them, but instead has made his wife a co-minister, so she can preach to the men of the church, and she has in turn encouraged the wives in his congregation to be bad to their husbands.

    The best thing you observant bros can do is quit giving these faggots any of your money. You’d all be much better off just praying and studying your religious texts at home, or perhaps in small groups with other serious people, and letting these ministers shift for themselves at regular jobs. They don’t deserve any reward for spreading feminism. They’re actually the enemies of every decent American.

    Boxer

  32. Anon says:

    The best thing you observant bros can do is quit giving these faggots any of your money.

    AND pump and dump the church sluts. Use up all the women and move on to a different church.

    Let the pastorbator then assuage the egos of the used up 5s and 6s by calling them ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’ three times…

  33. Eidolon says:

    “Except they don’t. Legit abortions (at least the ones I find legitimate) are probably less than 1% of all abortions. Most of these pigs are just irresponsible idiots who are too shortsighted to use birth control, and who can’t control their sex drive long enough to abstain from anon bangs in the public toilet of the nightclub. It’s wrong to feel sorry for any of these people.”

    What really galls me, what utterly disgusts me, is that this goes on — while there’s a surplus of parents looking to adopt. It’s already despicable enough to murder your own child. But to do so, knowing full well that that child could have a good home, and all you’d have to do is bring it to term and hand it off? To choose for your child to die because otherwise it would take up some of your time and impose a slight risk, even though you can be rid of it immediately and never have any responsibility for it again, but still know that it was happy and cared for? That’s another level.

    Honestly, our society is worse than the ancients they look down on so much. The Romans left babies in the wilderness to die, where Christians were able to rescue some of them. No such luck for modern babies.

  34. Vektor says:

    Western Christianity, like western masculinity….is finished. Done. It’s a zombie. The walking dead. Still walking, but dead, and stinks like fuck. No balls…no convictions. Nothing.

    The problem…..on every level….is fear. Fear of conflict. Fear of confrontation. Fear of making women unhappy. Western men…collectively….have enslaved themselves to make women happy. Men….collectively….dare not do anything that makes women unhappy.

    Cowardice.

  35. OKRickety says:

    It’s amazing how much criticism can be launched at someone who it appears is making an effort to be Biblical in his work. Having followed the comments on that post for some time, I don’t remember seeing much criticism of his failure to hold women accountable. In fact, I think there is much more criticism that he has the audacity to even consider a woman might have any sin when the man is an abuser in a dysfunctional marriage.

    It seems he does some work as a counselor who believes in biblical principles. Sure, he may not be as staunch as you think he should be. But, before casting stones, how many of you are taking action outside of your own household to encourage and support biblical principles?

  36. Gunner Q says:

    Robert @ 7:48 pm:
    “Imagine that your every word and action was under such close scrutiny.”

    For many of us, no need to imagine. You realize how many guys reading this have been personally attacked, frivorced and/or professionally ruined by feminists, bored wives and gov’t tyrants in every possible combination, suffering much worse persecution than Wilson has ever had to face? And I fully expect my every blog comment will be brought back to haunt me in the coming kangaroo courts. The likes of Zuckerberg guarantee that.

    If Doug Wilson fuels the fire, intentionally or no, then he’s fueling the fire.

    Dave II @ 9:00 pm:
    “I say give him time to prove where he stands by his actions.”

    Better yet, let’s forgive him when he repents. I have no more patience for friendly fire.

    Vektor @ 11:43 pm:
    “Western Christianity, like western masculinity….is finished.”

    Preposterous. In some ages God wants quantity, in other ages God wants quality. He has no need of mortal victory, having already secured eternal victory.

    1 Kings 19:14,18.

  37. Novaseeker says:

    A bit OT for this post, but notable, and tolerable, I hope, D:

    I wrote this a couple of years ago: http://veritaslounge.com/2014/02/25/the-lords-of-the-new-church/

    Mary Eberstadt, who is an author I respect a lot, has published a new book, and teased some ideas out here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436602/sexual-revolution-secular-quasi-religion

    I feel fairly vindicated. Not that this could not be discerned by anyone else, but to be honest folks we can’t fight this properly if we think it is a cultural or economic or regional or political war — it’s a spiritual war, and in the American context that means it impacts all of the other wars we are engaged in amongst each other in the culure.

  38. Looking Glass says:

    @Novaseeker:

    All of Progressivism is based on the rejection of God, thus it is required they build up a new morality. It’s simply 200 years in the making.

  39. Novaseeker says:

    LG —

    True, but people need to broadly understand that the enemy is a religion-esque one — arguments against secularism fail because it is a religion in terms of proposing a (to adherents) satisfying metaphysical perspective.

  40. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I find this quote telling:

    I have seen many instances of men doing awful things … I know that some women have done awful things …

    People often do this. Casually contrasting many against some when making an argument.

    There are many who agree with them, while acknowledging that some might disagree. There are many wrongdoers on the other side, while acknowledging there might be some wrongdoers on their side. Etc.

  41. Feminist Hater says:

    Don’t worry Doug Wilson. Marriage is going down the tubes and soon, soon, there will be no more men being able to abuse those perfect angels, the daughters of the King! Rejoice Wilson, rejoice!

  42. Looking Glass says:

    @Novaseeker:

    I fully agree with you. Though I think too many are going to be stuck thinking this is new. This is the result of a process that’s slaughtered millions over the last 200 years. We’re just seeing the last pretenses of the cover they used within Christianity being stripped away.

  43. Linx says:

    @Robert.
    “Now I know that some women have done awful things to men also, and I take it as a given that this can and does happen. I do not assume that the man must be the worst offender. But in the counseling I have done over the years, the thing that usually wrecks the woman’s – joy- is not the fact that her sin is equivalent to the man’s, or greater than the man’s, or less than the man’s, but rather the fact that her sin is untouchable.”

    Robert. You seemed to have missed the fact that he is trying to stop women from wrecking there joy not confronting sin head on. For God sin is sin no greater no lesser. The issue is when he says….

    “Taking one thing with another, over the years I have seen many instances of men doing awful things to their wives and daughters. And when I say “awful,” I mean awful. Their abusive treatment has ranged from wicked to blindingly stupid. Not only do I not excuse it or explain it away, I rejoice in the liberty that I still have in such instances to call sin sin…”

    he is indirectly making the sin of men greater than those of women and having no qualms confronting it yet feels “uncomfortable” calling out the sin of a women.

    “But you are going off the rails with who you are going after these days. He’s got his hands full fighting of feminists, now he’s got to watch his back also.”

    That is a feminist type statement. Highlighting a flaw in an argument is not a personal attack on on the individual.

  44. Novaseeker says:

    Though I think too many are going to be stuck thinking this is new.

    Yep, totally correct. The enemy is the same, he is never new. His tactics are always fresh, however, which requires a fresh look — but he himself is the same adversary since Genesis. And he’s formidable precisely because of how he hides himself in contemporariness.

  45. JDG says:

    AND pump and dump the church sluts. Use up all the women and move on to a different church.

    This is not of the Lord. Does anyone here actually believe that our Lord Jesus, the Son of God (who hates sin), wants men to encourage, pursue and engage in fornication?

    Stop supporting such places with your money, AND speak out against the lies being taught OR leave and seek out fellowship with believers who are willing to hear the truth.

  46. Boxer says:

    This is not of the Lord. Does anyone here actually believe that our Lord Jesus, the Son of God (who hates sin), wants men to encourage, pursue and engage in fornication?

    I understand why you guys find anon’s advice crass and off-putting, but it’s strategically effective. By having playas invade the church, the doings of pseudoreligious women (who are already fucking on the downlow) are made manifest to the few serious people who are still being cucked (at least financially) by the preacher. I believe there is generally a positive correlation between the patriarchal holdout and the financial donor, and the more people with good values that see what a cesspool their church has become, the easier it will be for these few good people (who I suspect shoulder a disproportionate burden of supporting the church) to wander away and do something more productive, leaving feminist congregations to collapse under the weight of its own single mom and freeloader population.

    This doesn’t necessarily just apply to Christians, either. I have a buddy who went to the local reform temple and gamed hoes there. He picked up a moderately attractive professional singer at one point and kept her in his rotation for a long time. Non-Christians and Non-Jews have an advantage, I think, by appearing exotic to the local chicks.

    The only practical problem with anon’s advice is the fact that church hoes tend to be fat and unattractive (said opera singer was a definite outlier in my experience).

  47. sipcode says:

    Right on, Dalrock.

    At least Doug is partway there. Unlike most pastors he at least got the words out of his mouth to say women won’t be corrected. Hopefully in time he will see the reason why women won’t be corrected: they ARE the problem; they created it ALL. They don’t want to give up their position of power, endorsed by the church.

    The truth is being told. Slowly, but being told. Hang on longer guys. I’m doing it’ it’s not easy but press on. This is training for more persecution to come, that we will need to help our families through.

  48. JDG says:

    The wages of sin is death. Brothers in Christ need to encourage one another to stop sinning, and we need to lead those not in Christ to Christ.

  49. JDG says:

    Another thought. In churches where the behavior of slutty females is exposed, it is still the man’s fault in the eyes of the blind majority. Worse yet, some misinformed souls will most likely not hesitate to marry them (FI rules numbers 1 and 2*). I don’t see anything but gasoline on the fire with the “pump and dump” proposal.

    *1 – Women can do no wrong.
    2 – If a woman does something wrong a man made her do it.

  50. Dave II says:

    Feminism is of the devil (yeah I said it). So is fornication. Anyone who thinks pumping and dumping in the church will help reform it or otherwise spare some of the flock is simply justifying working for the same enemy without realising it.

  51. Dave II says:

    Imkight add, by the way, that most of feminism’s victims (followers) also don’t know they’re working for that enemy.

  52. Dave II says:

    *I might add. Please excuse the typo.

  53. Dave II says:

    “I don’t understand the idea that a pastor, someone who has chosen to teach others, ought not to be expected to know the truth and speak it plainly.”

    Eidolon has a point. I just read an article by a self-proclaimed feminist arguing that abortion is wrong:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430152/abortion-roe-v-wade-unborn-children-women-feminism-march-life

    She makes a good case, but manages to literally blame everyone AROUND the woman for the abortion, including the environment, but never the woman herself. And in case anyone could pin some blame on the woman she already set up the argument that no woman having an abortion actually wants it. It made me realise that while Wilson is showing encouraging signs of waking up, the real problem lies in that, for goodness’ sake, he is a pastor, not a new convert. This is far below the level he should be at. People look up to him. His inability to call out women’s sins is identical behaviour to that displayed by avowed feminists. As long as this persists I would wonder whether he really belongs behind a pulpit (at this stage, at least), let alone leading a congregation.

  54. I have read several of Wilson’s books on marriage and family and if I understand him correctly, he is not suggesting here that men are more guilty than women, but that women don’t listen to correction. As a counseling strategy he believes that men will repent more often than women as a result of a rebuking of their sin. Women are more likely to change as a result of male repentance. But I do not speak for him.

    I do not agree with the counseling tactic, because it makes men hyper responsible for female rebellion and does little to proactively stop female rebellion from taking root. It would be much better IMO to condemn, belittle and outright stomp feminism from the pulpit in all its forms, from vocal misandry to passive aggressive manipulation and then in counseling reinforce the expectations of female submission, meekness and contentment. Better to tell women to submit then to condemn men who cannot lead a mutinous wife.

    If the women won’t listen to correction from their own husband and from the church then Wilson would have to face the fact that the church is compelled to discipline her and that is what it seems he is most loath to do for it violates his own sense of honor. Don Quixote could not admit that Dulcinea was anything less than a princess of pure virtue, though she was just a common barmaid. Yet Quixote went on his delusional quest to defend and win her honor . Wilson knows that some women are sinners, he just wants to keep his white-knight self image as he defends all the Dulcineas of his congregation.

  55. Robert says:

    @ Linx
    You must have a reading comprehension problem. Your point is the point Wilson is making in your first paragraph-he is in fact calling out women about being called out. Your second point is a valid one. But it is simply one paragraph or sentence in decades of writing and teaching almost daily. Christ, Peter and Paul all said a great many things that if taken by themselves you’d get a slanted view of their teaching because you were reading it through your bias. You are doing exactly that.

    @BillyS
    Within minutes of my post on Ken feminists were remarking on their websites that I was on the internet. Women who would love to see harm come to me who know my name and have been through my & my family’s life with a fine tooth comb. You sir speak of things you know not about.

    @Dave
    Before you spouted off at me and Wilson, did you actually google him and see why feminists hate him? Did you even take the time to do your research before you condemned a brother who is fighting a good fight? My bet is you didn’t take five minutes but threw your brother under the bus, which is quite hypocritical because that is what you are accusing Wilson of.

    @Anonymous Reader
    You are a special kind of dumb shit and blow hard.

    @ Cail
    What Dalrock is doing is cutting off men like Wilson & Ken at the knees. They are fighting battles all around them. It is easy to rebuke Elijah for being afraid while we are hiding in our cave- and that’s assuming you are one of the 7,000 who have not bowed their knee ever. Which I know you are not. And neither am I. This is not a Paul calling out Peter to his face “in front of everyone” situation. Do you think Wilson would not take an email from Dalrock? I know Voddie took one from me and I am but a peon in comparison. We are losing this fight for the same damn reason patriarch’s from of old had to move far enough away from each other, and it’s not because our goats and their goats combined don’t have enough grazing. It is because we expect things to be done our damn way without exception. We don’t get along. We are too easily divided by the enemy. We undercut one another too easily. Wilson is not perfect. I am sure he needs rebuking, as we all do from time to time. A quick search of his church web page shows he has ample men to do it around him. But no, we take it to play out in front of our enemies who rejoice in such matters. “See,” they say, “even Dalrock hates Doug Wilson.” Sure they hate Dalrock, but they know a house a divided against itself cannot stand so they rejoice with great glee. Do you think Wilson is not facing enough battles that brothers at his back would be more helpful (in getting him on point biblically if he was off) than taking him off at the knees. One could make the argument, I’d not buy it fully, but it could be made that was what Dalrock was doing. But by allowing the comments he does without rebuking these nim whits who start calling Wilson a cuck, churchian, etc he is basically putting his stamp of approval on them. It is how it is perceived by everyone, including our enemies. I won’t even get into this pump and dump garbage that needs to be rebuked so thoroughly and completely.

    @ everyone I dropped out of the blogosphere because I realized those who were my supposed allies were basically blowhards that never showed up to fight alongside me when needed. I’ll give one example (though I could give many) and then go back to being quiet. Several months ago Dalrock run several posts on Pastor Saeed. People went on for a thousand plus comments but when I reached out to Saeed through F. Graham’s retreat and was contacted by Saeed’s sister saying yes indeeed he did need help and he (and they-parents, sister) would welcome ours. I posted that here, “just contact me via email,” I said and we can put together funds, a visit, just something or anything to help out a brother who was willing to sacrifice his life for Christ and was being thrown under the bus by churchians and feminism. I did not hear back from a single person at Dalrock’s. Not one. You want to win this fight brothers, step up to the damn plate, grow a pair and stop being such blow hards. Be loyal to your brothers. Don’t undercut them, stand by them- in words, action and prayers. And don’t cherry pick a small portion of a message to confirm your bias. It is not only inaccurate, dishonest but harmful to the Kingdom of God.

    Dalrock, I love your work. I’ll stand up and say that to anyone. I recommend you early and often to men to read. I think you are one of the good guys. A christian man who loves the Lord who has an extremely valuable message. I’ll stand with you anytime and anywhere, even now, but I think you are wrong in going after Ken & Wilson publicly. Men like Wilson have to teach the whole of the Bible, they are not allowed to focus on one topic for years on end without ever deviating. He has a completely different calling and mission, and therefore his message is going to be completely different. You were called to build bricks. He was called to build houses. He will at times build bricks, but due to his mission sometimes he works in wood, electrical, plumbing, tile and other facets-both because there is more to building a house than masonry work but also because masonry is not always the solution to every problem. If he were to simply build bricks, even though they are incredibly valuable, he would not being doing his job nor would he be doing it well.

  56. Joseph says:

    @Robert: You have a point my friend. If the MRA swallowed the particulars and rallied around some modest things we can agree on things would be a lot different. Donald Trump said in a conference that these days men have to be afraid to talk to women. I think every MRA out there should be advocating for Trump. I think he is the closest we will have to a candidate ever. In some ways we have to take a play from the feminist handbook. Their views are illogical and all over the place but they still have most women voting with their vaginas.

    Also, what happened with Elliot Rogers is sad and a failure of the MRA movement. We should be organizing community groups that mentor young men to be successful. We aren’t going to get help from the government, but men became successes without the government in the past and we can do it again. What we need to encourage young men to do is IGNORE women. Most young women are stuck with the emotional maturity of a teenager. They are moody, self-centered, unreliable, and irresponsible. Men who want to succeed in life don’t need that kind of baggage which is why I am MGTOW lite. The PUA community in fact shoots its self in the foot with the “pump and dump” meme because its like fraternizing with the enemy. When women realize en masse that men are rejecting their bad behavior they will be left with the choice of changing or remaining miserable. In either case they will never have a leg up on a successful man.

    I often hear that college hookup culture is the result of young men setting the rules since we are the minority. That is poppy cock. Hookup culture is actually the result of women calling the shots. Evolutionarily speaking the female needs to guarantee her supply of low cost sperm. That is how she reproduces and uses the male to provide for her. Although young women aren’t looking to have babies the proclivity to procreate is still there and they want the benefits without the consequences. If I were a MRA group, I’d be telling young men to “run and ignore” not “pump and dump!” Ignoring women drives them crazier than an orgasm! THAT is when their poor behavior will reveal itself on the world stage and men use that to once and for all make the case that female emotion needs to be kept in check.

  57. Feminist Hater says:

    Robert, no one cares. For me personally. I don’t care about keeping this shit afloat. Down it must go. There is only a rebirth to look forward to, that or death. I care not which.

    You forget yourself when you’re on a forum like this. This is your shit, not ours. You built the gynocentric shit house you now inhabit, so… deal with it.

  58. DC.SUNSETS says:

    It is a pillar of masculinity to eschew battle with inferior adversaries. This is the heart of why men encourage women, children & chronically inferior minorities in most endeavors. This is how civilization is being destroyed.

  59. PokeSalad says:

    But anyone hiding behind an internet moniker, who does not have their livelihood, reputation and even freedom threatened does not in my opinion get to be so free with their criticism.

    Ah, I love it every time this crap is spewed.

    This is the ole “Come on out, Anne Frank, be brave and tell those Nazis to their faces how bad they are” routine. *eyeroll* That you don’t see the types of organized witchhunts that go on against those who speak out, and the chilling effect it has on pastors like Wilson, speaks volumes to your involuntary or willful blindness. You may have spent time ‘in the pulpit,’ but you didn’t preach anything controversial.

    It is the ARGUMENT that is central. It is the argument that you must refute, or accept, as the case may be. If the argument is sound, its origin is of no consequence. If the argument is false and you disprove it, its provenance again matters not. If you knew anyone’s name here, would you suddenly accept the merits of their argument? No. A tired but continually employed red herring.

    Anyone hiding behind a ‘pulpit,’ who cannot refute these arguments from the Scriptures and not strawmen/worldly opinion/shame tactics, does not in my opinion get to be so free with his criticism.

  60. @Robert
    You’re acting like a Faggot.
    “B-b-b-but feminists are not f-f-f-friends with Doug, s-s-so Doug is not friends with f-f-femnistisists, so th-th-that means we cans’t criticize him no mores” – @RobertGay

  61. OKRickety says:

    Novaseeker said on July 2, 2016 at 9:43 pm
    By the way, your favorite “ex” feminist Christian criticism groupie, IB, called Pastor Wilson out on the carpet for this article a few weeks ago, goddess bless her feminist soul.

    I’m not certain if Novaseeker is praising IB or criticizing her. It doesn’t matter because, just as I think Dalrock’s and other’s understanding of Wilson’s post is out of line, I believe IB’s response is also out of line. I will give two reasons for this.

    IB objects to Wilson’s statement “Any counselor who actually tries to address feminine shortcomings in a dysfunctional relationship is a brave counselor. One of the things that happens is that any such an attempted address is immediately construed as ‘taking the side’ of the abuser.”. Her concern is the idea that Wilson says the woman’s failures should also be addressed when this is an abusive relationship, rather than focusing on providing the woman safety, protection, or comfort.

    She also objects to Wilson saying “We are dealing with a culture-wide insistence that women not be held responsible for what they do.”.

    IB’s response:
    Well call me crazy, but I ain’t walking into the office of a lawyer who has these words posted over his door, “We are dealing with a culture-wide insistence that women not be held responsible for what they do. […] In fact, anybody who holds those words close to their heart better stand 30 feet outside my personal space bubble.”

    In other words, it is irrelevant that women have agency and should be held accountable for their failures and sins. I would describe IB as a Christian woman who no longer wants to be a feminist, but the beliefs still exist to some degree, and she often displays them in her posts and comments. Paraphrasing someone, you can take the girl out of feminism, but you can’t take the feminism out of the girl.

    Yes, IB called out Wilson on his post but it was for entirely different reasons than Dalrock. I see no compatibility between the two sets of reasons, as they both are extremes and, I believe, both display misunderstanding of Wilson’s post.

  62. Bob says:

    My take on what Dalrock is doing with posts like these is simply analyzing statements by popular pastors and cultural influences in the country. He brings attention to what part of their arguments are strong and correct, while he also points out the weaker points or outright fallacies while providing constructive criticism of what they need to be improved. Helping strengthen a brother’s hold in this cultural battle is one of the most loving things someone can do – if I was a famous spokesperson and Dalrock critiqued one of my posts I would be very grateful and honored. I may have to pop by his critique post to argue a few points but the sentiment would remain the same.

  63. Linx says:

    @Robert
    “You must have a reading comprehension problem. Your point is the point Wilson is making in your first paragraph-he is in fact calling out women about being called out.”

    -Sigh-. That wasn’t my point.

    “Your second point is a valid one. But it is simply one paragraph or sentence in decades of writing and teaching almost daily.”

    And that it is a specific piece that I discussed. Because you stood behind the pulpit you are making this some or other personal issue.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand when his job depends on not understanding it” -Upton Sinclair.

    “Christ, Peter and Paul all said a great many things that if taken by themselves you’d get a slanted view of their teaching because you were reading it through your bias. You are doing exactly that.”

    Well what bias might that be Robert? Like I said, you are thinking like a Feminist.

    “I said and we can put together funds, a visit, just something or anything to help out a brother who was willing to sacrifice his life for Christ and was being thrown under the bus by churchians and feminism. I did not hear back from a single person at Dalrock’s. Not one. You want to win this fight brothers, step up to the damn plate, grow a pair and stop being such blow hards. Be loyal to your brothers. Don’t undercut them, stand by them- in words, action and prayers. And don’t cherry pick a small portion of a message to confirm your bias. It is not only inaccurate, dishonest but harmful to the Kingdom of God.”

    So our prayers for him weren’t good enough for you. You are the blow hard here acting self righteous and cherry picking what we should or should not confront how it should be confronted and the way we should we should show support to our brothers. You don’t know us Robert nor do you know our circumstances. God has given each one of us our own battles to overcome. Not just the ones you cherry pick for us to make you feel better.

  64. enrique says:

    Eat, Pray, LEAVE….

    https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/elizabeth-gilbert-separates-husband-jos-190008902.html

    “The husband was my favorite souvenir of that trip,” Gilbert told PEOPLE last fall of her bestselling travels. “

  65. catfish28 says:

    If the woman concerned happens to be a covert narcissist, things get even worse. You are dealing with somebody who will NEVER take responsibilty for any wrongdoing. Even if such trespasses are admitted to in a cursory way, there is ALWAYS an excuse to deem the ill behaviour in some way plausible. Many of these women crave status in the church just as much as they do middle-class respectability. What they actually possess is a hidden cruelty and their speciality is play-acting. William Gurnall called them “preaching, praying devils.”

  66. Gunner Q says:

    Robert @ 10:30 am:
    “@ everyone I dropped out of the blogosphere because I realized those who were my supposed allies were basically blowhards that never showed up to fight alongside me when needed.”

    You assume this why? What makes you think none of us are doing anything more than arguing? You don’t know what we do in real life, you despise us for not doing what this world tries very hard to keep us from doing, you hate us for not virtue-signaling when we spotlight a backstabbing “ally”. Who the hell are you to judge us?

    “It is how it is perceived by everyone, including our enemies.”

    You just failed the Cuckservative Litmus Test: you care what our enemies think. Are you trying to impress them or something? Win them over with your gentle spirit?

  67. Feminist Hater says:

    Do you think Wilson is not facing enough battles that brothers at his back would be more helpful (in getting him on point biblically if he was off) than taking him off at the knees. One could make the argument, I’d not buy it fully, but it could be made that was what Dalrock was doing. But by allowing the comments he does without rebuking these nim whits who start calling Wilson a cuck, churchian, etc he is basically putting his stamp of approval on them. It is how it is perceived by everyone, including our enemies. I won’t even get into this pump and dump garbage that needs to be rebuked so thoroughly and completely.

    You see, this is the problem. Dalrock can do what he likes, it’s his blog. However, even a casual read of Dalrock’s actual post, not the comments, doesn’t reveal a man cutting off Doug Wilson at the knees but one doing exactly what you said, correcting him…

    The comments are better left free, censorship will kill a blog like this quicker than a harpy could. Call it a ‘stamp of approval’ if you want but Dalrock has never actually stated he supports PUAs at all, I don’t think he cares one way or the other.

    What does a douchnozzel like yourself care what a bunch of dimwits like us do anyway, fuck off! If that is what you think, then this is not a problem at all, is it?!

    Men need a space to rant, free of the crushing censorship of tyrants and sycophants more interested in the words used than the actual message given.

  68. Men need a space to rant, free of the crushing censorship of tyrants and sycophants more interested in the words used than the actual message given.

    Correct

  69. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Pastors are in one way or the other trying to support the idea of keeping God’s Law. They should be complemented.

  70. I have read several of Wilson’s books on marriage and family and if I understand him correctly, he is not suggesting here that men are more guilty than women, but that women don’t listen to correction. As a counseling strategy he believes that men will repent more often than women as a result of a rebuking of their sin. Women are more likely to change as a result of male repentance. But I do not speak for him.

    That’s exactly what it says here, so it’s good to know Dalrock picked a representative quote. Stripped of some of the noble language and waffling, what he says is, “No one in this world ever corrects women, so they won’t tolerate it. Fortunately, while I believe women are capable of evil, I can’t prove it by what I see. But you can bet I’d be upset if I saw it, yessiree.”

    He’s sort of humble-bragging on women’s behalf, saying that he knows they can do wrong, but at the same time suggesting that they always know it and feel bad about it and want to change — unlike those “wicked and blatantly stupid” men. So women have more conscience than men. Men must be corrected because they’re wicked and stupid and wouldn’t do it themselves; women (supposedly) crave the correction they’re not getting because they’re so sensitive to their own sin that it wrecks their joy. Women are just awesome, even when they suck.

  71. It all boils down to the fact that women cannot be criticized for their poor decisions and lack of good judgement. There are always social conventions and excuses that will attack such a notion before it even begins. “Are you a misognyist or something? You sure sound like one.”

    Conversely, men make easy targets for indictment, and threats. Pastors who throw fire and brimstone at the men in the congregation while kissing the proverbial asses of the females are disingenuous tools. I do not blame such men for shutting some sermons off in their minds until its over.

    But what can today’s pastor really do? The first pastor who starts speaking truthfully about how women have also sinned and have also lost their way, providing anecdotes and examples of how they do it, would witness them walking out and joining the “loving pastoral care” of some other feminized, cuckholded pastor and his corrupted church. It is not surprising to see Christian pastors coddle the ladies like the children that they are. Unaccountable, unresponsible and excused from impropriety.

  72. Cane Caldo says:

    The portion Dalrock which Dalrock has highlighted can be read as a sort of feint to expose those such as IB and the droves of enablers of female sinners which inhabit his comments. An investigation into his previous posts should reveal whether he is actually judging members of both sexes with fair weights, or if he is tips the scales into female favor.

    I would have liked to read Wilson’s post more charitably and come away with an impression silimar to RichardP who wrote:

    The men, when confronted with their sin, are made uncomfortable because they know the pastor is correct in the sin he has pointed out. The women, when confronted with their sin, are made uncomfortable because the paster is pointing out their sin. There is a huge difference between those responses. One is sorry for their sin. The other is sorry (or, rather: furious) that their sin is being pointed out. That is Pastor Doug’s point.

    RichardP is largely correct that point of Wilson’s post was to wag his finger at women. But he ignored the fact that Wilson had more than one point. Another point of Wilson was an exhibition of his ability to flatten men on his way to finger-wag at women. This secondary point is not a secondary concern. Wilson’s whole strategy relies on a show of strength (by bullying men) and then showing his soft, gentle, understanding side to women who, after all, have been a bit naughty. Isn’t he charming.

    My judgment, according to the scores of posts I have read over the years, is that Wilson tips the scales in favor of either exonerating, minimizing, or flat-out ignoring sin by women; yet delivers to men zealous–and even sometimes even pitiless–rebuke. He communicates a thrill at skewering men which is absent from his already seldom rebukes of women. If Dalrock has made a mistake with this post, it is assuming that his readers would do their due diligence regarding Wilson.

    @Robert

    Get out of the way.

  73. I don’t think pastors like Wilson are being disingenuous; I take him at his word that he believes what he’s saying. There are many pastors out there who say whatever it takes to keep women happy and their checkbooks open; those pastors don’t get attacked by feminists. “Conservative” pastors have shown a willingness to endure feminist attacks and lose members over them, so I think you have to assume that wherever they draw the line is where they truly think it belongs. They just can’t see that there’s still a fair bit of feminism on their side of the line.

    If this were just a pose to keep women in the pews, you wouldn’t see the same ideas from fathers and other men who don’t face that financial threat. These pastors reflect the fact that everyone in our society sees women as blameless or self-correcting, having a superior conscience/sensitivity/spirituality/wisdom that ensures they do the right thing.

  74. Kevin says:

    I read it as he sees women who do worse than their husbands, and equal, and less but that is irrelevant because the real problem the women have is an obstacle to dependence since no one can call them on it when their sis worse, or the same as, or less than the husbands. He has clearly seen all of these as he says in his counseling. I think you are working to hard to find fault with his words, in the context of many things he has said that might be the reasonable conclusion but what I read is a man willing to call out the church on its failure to call women to repentance AND identify that this hurts them spiritually. That is a message to be celebrated.

  75. Lord Rofl says:

    “But what can today’s pastor really do?”

    When your customers are women, or submit to women’s caprice as most American men love to do these days, Christianity doesn’t sell.

    If you can’t sell, you’ll have little money to work with. So your strategy must change: ditch the overhead of paying for a dedicated church property, get a real job to survive, take your ministry to the internet, meet in private homes as necessary.

    (This approach is tough, but it eliminates several long-term vulnerabilities. Financial dependency or “capture” as outlined above… and, perhaps more importantly, the (likely) upcoming restrictions on freedom of religious association and speech. “Nice congregation you’ve got there. You wouldn’t want a lawsuit, would you?” Says the gay cake mafia.)

    I’d do it, but I’m a heathen ignoramus. Surely a holier man with a technological bent and a calling could run with this.

  76. Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Boxer said:
    One of the most depressing things I see on this blog is these Christian losers who turn their collars around to make a few bucks, but who don’t have the balls to actually stand for something.

    http://lovespeaksthetruth.blogspot.com/2007/10/joel-osteen-and-spirit-of-feminism.html

    This fool, for example, is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Pastor James Manning of Atlah.org in NYC, mentioned once on a talk show that he attended a conference in the late 1980s where Joel Osteen’s father mentioned that his son is lazy and has no desire for the ministry and he may hand it over to his daughter. (slightly paraphrasing) I guess Joel followed the money perhaps?

  77. Kevin says:

    Typing on phone errors
    Dependence should be repentance
    Sis should be sin

  78. Disillusioned says:

    Pastors are operating as if though this was 1980 or before when the majority of marital problems may have originated with the husbands. I know that the pastor of the church I attend still thinks that way. I think that they just can’t believe how slutty and stupid women have become even in the church. They are reacting to issues the way that they were taught back in 1970 at seminary when times were different. This pastor is beginning to comprehend the rot that there now exists but still doesn’t totally grasp it.

    This reminds me of the Allies stance during WWII when the evidence of the holocaust was staring at them in the face but couldn’t fathom, accept or believe it. This was simply because such a thing was incomprehensible among civilized nations. Well, western women are no longer among civilized beings.

  79. They Call Me Tom says:

    On the Coulter video…

    Funny that Father Talkshow Host cares less about making children’s lives better than making it look like their lives ‘look’ better. Having a concern for appearance over substance is why the Church fails its flock more often than not.

  80. Cane Caldo says:

    @Kevin

    I think you are working to hard to find fault with his words, in the context of many things he has said that might be the reasonable conclusion but what I read is a man willing to call out the church on its failure to call women to repentance AND identify that this hurts them spiritually.

    Perhaps you are just not fluent in the “metalanguage”[1]. Compare these two statements on sinners. The first is towards male sinners:

    Taking one thing with another, over the years I have seen many instances of men doing awful things to their wives and daughters. And when I say “awful,” I mean awful. Their abusive treatment has ranged from wicked to blindingly stupid.

    Male sinners are awful, abusive, wicked, and blindingly stupid. Then he writes of female sinners:

    Now I know that some women have done awful things to men also, and I take it as a given that this can and does happen. I do not assume that the man must be the worst offender. But in the counseling I have done over the years, the thing that usually wrecks the woman’s joy is not the fact that her sin is equivalent to the man’s, or greater than the man’s, or less than the man’s, but rather the fact that her sin is untouchable.

    Female sinners wreck their own joy.

    I’m going to repeat this refrain to demonstrate what this sounds like when the lyrics (the “metalanguage”[1]) are harmonized the across posts, blogs, and the overall message of pastors to their congregations:

    Men are awful, abusive, wicked, and blindingly stupid. Female sinners wreck their own joy.
    Men are awful, abusive, wicked, and blindingly stupid. Female sinners wreck their own joy.
    Men are awful, abusive, wicked, and blindingly stupid. Female sinners wreck their own joy.
    Men are awful, abusive, wicked, and blindingly stupid. Female sinners wreck their own joy.

    Simplified again; just picking out the rhythm:

    Men are bad. Women are unhappy.
    Men are bad. Women are unhappy.
    Men are bad. Women are unhappy.
    Men are bad. Women are unhappy.

    And here’s the backbeat:

    Beat the men. Lure the women.
    Beat the men. Lure the women.
    Beat the men. Lure the women.
    Beat the men. Lure the women.

    It is the “Problem with no name”. It is the Whispers.It is the motivation and the impulse of rebellion and Feminism. And it wholly fits Novaseeker’s diagnosis.

    [1] It’s entirely possible I’ve incorrectly used this word. I thought I was making it up just now, but it turns out to be a real word.

  81. greyghost says:

    from Boxer originally
    One of the most depressing things I see on this blog is these Christian losers who turn their collars around to make a few bucks, but who don’t have the balls to actually stand for something.

    Jack Russell Terrorist commented that Pastor Joel Osteen was worth
    in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Balls would just get in the way of his accumulation of worldly wealth. Standing with God is not where the money and pussy approval is.

  82. theasdgamer says:

    Robert is off the mark. Dalrock has it right.

    Support where correct. Correct where incorrect.

  83. theasdgamer says:

    @Cane

    One interesting undermining of the FI metanarrative is that, according to Wilson, women are responsible for making themselves unhappy…it’s no longer men’s fault. Women’s suppression of their acknowledgment of sin is what makes them unhappy. Now, maybe Wilson will find a way to blame men for women being unable to acknowledge their sin and get back on the FI track.

  84. RICanuck says:

    Can women be called out on their sins?

    On a previous comment thread on this site, one commenter put in a link to Catholic Answers Forum, where a wife asked, should she obey her husband if he wants her to wear a bikini?

    One of the first answers on CAF was “No, men ask that so they can feel good when other men lust after their wives”

    WTF!

    I commented, paraphrased, “You (meaning the first answerer) have done evil. You have attempted to poison the heart and mind of a young wife against her husband. At the creation of man, and woman, Adam looked at Eve and said ‘Flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones’. God created men to be visually aroused, and even before the fall, God said ‘it is good.’

    “A husband wants intimacy with his wife, he wants to look at her, and be aroused by her. After many years of one flesh intimacy, of possessing her, and having her want to be possessed, she can be in her 70’s and her husband will look at her and see the slim waisted, firm breasted, 20 something he fell in love with.

    “If the heart and mind of the wife is poisoned against her husband, by imagining he wants to look at her to impress other men she will reject the request to wear an bikini, and the wife’s resentment will grow. The husband will feel hurt and rejected, and that will show in in his thoughts and actions. Which will cause the wife to withdraw even further.

    “You, (meaning the first answerer), have born false witness against a young husband. You have attempted to poison the heart and mind of a young wife against her husband. You have blasphemed against the sacrament of marriage and against God’s creation before it mas marred by original sin. That is a lot of sin to pack into one sentence.”

    My answer did not make it through moderation, and I have been banned.

    Let us blame the gays, then, for the unwillingness of Christian men to marry!

  85. Andrew says:

    The issue is that Dalrock sometimes sees only what he wants to see. Which means he sometimes attacks straw men. Like this time

    Read the piece again, without a criticizing eye. Recognize that, unlike Dalrock, this man is very much in the public eye (for example, he has interacted with men like Christopher Hitchens & Kohn Lennox as a peer). Sometime he must-speaks. And sometimes he builds barriers to misunderstanding before he gets to the point

    Para 1: proactively defends against the over-sensitive: yes, men do bad things, and it’s acceptable to call them out on it

    Para 2: gets to the point: “But in the counseling I have done over the years, the thing that usually wrecks the woman’s joy is not the fact that her sin is equivalent to the man’s, or greater than the man’s, or less than the man’s, but rather the fact that her sin is untouchable”. In other words, women sin just like men, but people are afraid to call them out on it.

    Or, to put it another way, Dalrock presents himself as nobly disagreeing with wussy Wilson, when they are both in fact making the same point. Wilson is just making it with a little more humility and a little more sugar

  86. Andrew says:

    Must-speaks -> mis-speaks

  87. If you can’t sell, you’ll have little money to work with. So your strategy must change: ditch the overhead of paying for a dedicated church property, get a real job to survive, take your ministry to the internet, meet in private homes as necessary.

    Correct.My church where I have been “red pill pastor” has been Bloomberg View for the last year. It appears, my congregation there is…. growing. Go and do likewise gentlemen.

  88. Well Pastor, I suppose if you are getting flack from BOTH sides of the river then you must be over the target.

    Women’s refusal to accept blame for ANYTHING and men’s powerlessness to oppose this tyranny IS indeed the target and it is destroying Western Civ. I am not convinced it is “cowardice” to oppose it because I am not convinced it is a hopeless fight and thus good strategy. It is somewhere in the middle.

    Dalrock is, in a way, providing cover for the offending pastor. He can now say these guys are criticizing me because I won’t directly call out women’s sin while you feminist (of the purple hair, foul mouth, and screaming at me in my office) are upset that I simply use words like “Feminine” and “Shortcomings” in the same sentence.

  89. Feminist Hater says:

    Andrew, it flew right over your head.

    Read it again.

    Here’s the men’s part..

    “over the years I have seen many instances of men doing awful things to their wives and daughters….”

    and the women’s part..

    “Now I know that some women have done awful things to men also, and I take it as a given that this can and does happen…”

    Do you not see that difference? He has seen many men do many awful things but he’s sure, not that he has seen it, that women do these things too and it’s only ‘some women’ after all but the real trouble is that they don’t get called to task because society is too scared and women are too prideful. Second part is true…

    In his words, there are no ‘some men’ but ‘many instances’ and it is always ‘some women’… he cannot get himself to say that many women do the same shit as men and society lets them get away with it because … well, you can’t judge them after all but they can and will and do judge men all the time. Amazing!

  90. seventiesjason says:

    Heck…..we live in “frat-boy” Christianity today with the larger churches and their celebrity pastors……….the alpha guy in this scene IS the pastor. Period. No other man in the church can “be him” and “he’s got permission to be the big-monkey from God” evidently.

    Notice all these (cough) ‘bold’ pastors who speak ‘biblical truth’ in their churches STILL have a majority of women in them? Makes me wonder. All the studies (they conduct mind you) tell us that men want rock music, light shows, entertainment, and ‘bold’ pastors who “confront sin and speak truth”

    All we get is a muddled form of hipster-Christianity, women with itchy ears applauding the worship show of when the pastor belittles the spineless men who are already there that they themselves made them into. We get the married men of the church who talk tough but for the most part have to get permission from their wives to use the bathroom at home. We get pastors MY AGE (forties) who dress like they walked out of an ‘Urban Outfitters’ to connect to the “youth and young guys” and at the same time get belittling sermons to “man up”

    Dricoll’s screamfest of “How dare you!” to all the sinful, terrible wicked men in his (now closed Mars Hill churches). Perry Noble telling men that they are to have a “serving towel” over their arm for their wives when they come home from moving sixteen tons all day…..Matt Chandler…with well intentions but still clueless how to talk to the un-churched man to convince him he needs a Savior in Jesus Christ…….and him telling us that if married men don’t go to bed exhausted everyday, something is wrong. Yeah, it’s called driving a working-class man to his early grave. It may be easy to say this as a pastor who sits behind a desk for job…………………tell a man who WORKS PHYSICALLY this. The answer is that man WON’T want to be there or surrounded by men who think and act this way in today’s church.

    So, yeah……calling out sin is a “bold” thing but sadly 99% of pastors don’t do this. It’s a job and career for them sadly. Not a passion.

    A real man of God who is a pastor / priest would not care about the size of his church. He’s a man, he doesn’t care about these things. He cares only about the sinner. Male or female.

    Revolutionary indeed.

  91. feeriker says:

    If the women won’t listen to correction from their own husband and from the church then Wilson would have to face the fact that the church is compelled to discipline her and that is what it seems he is most loath to do for it violates his own sense of honor.

    No, what it “violates” is the security of his bank account.

    Wilson and every other pastor knows that if ANY churchian franchise were to ever seriously launch a “church discipline” campaign aimed at women, there would be a stampede of shrieking estrogen heading for the exits, never to return, dragging cucked, emasculated husbands along with them by the stumps of their genitals. Even more white knights would leave of their own accord while screaming to have Wilson stripped of his ordination credentials. In other words, it would plunge his church into organizational and fiscal ruin.

    No churchian has the faith to withstand that, because they never put any serious faith in anything but human good will in the first place. Faith in God never enters into the equation; if it did they would be preaching the whole Gospel without shame or fear of temporal consequences, knowing that God is in control.

  92. No, what it “violates” is the security of his bank account.

    Wilson and every other pastor knows that if ANY churchian franchise were to ever seriously launch a “church discipline” campaign aimed at women, there would be a stampede of shrieking estrogen heading for the exits, never to return, dragging cucked, emasculated husbands along with them by the stumps of their genitals. Even more white knights would leave of their own accord while screaming to have Wilson stripped of his ordination credentials. In other words, it would plunge his church into organizational and fiscal ruin.

    Correct.

    Dalrock’s “threatpoint” has created a “threatpoint” in churchianity. If a pastor doesn’t preach feminist imperative churchianity, then the women will leave and take their husband’s tithes with them. Now the pastor and his family doesn’t eat.

  93. Anon says:

    No, what it “violates” is the security of his bank account.

    Wilson and every other pastor knows that if ANY churchian franchise were to ever seriously launch a “church discipline” campaign aimed at women, there would be a stampede of shrieking estrogen heading for the exits, never to return, dragging cucked, emasculated husbands along with them by the stumps of their genitals.

    This is simply more proof that democracy fails over time. The institution of marriage, and a gender-normative religion, just cannot survive the unnatural distortion engendered by female suffrage.

    Female suffrage ensures that marriage and democracy cannot coexist for long.

  94. Female suffrage ensures that marriage and democracy cannot coexist for long.

    It is intrinsic to a woman’s nature, to listen to the snake (the devil) and to start eating apples. She just… can’t help it. As has been said over and over and over… women lack all forms of moral agency. It just doesn’t exist for them. Only a partnership between government, the church, and the husband (working together as one unit under God, never against one another) can keep the intrinsic feral nature of woman…. in check.

  95. Let me further add that I am saying this as a man who LOVES women but HATES feminism. This need to keep women from going feral, this is out of love for women. And when blue pill feminists claim that you are just misogynist for feeling this way, remind them (gently) that you LOVE women, you just HATE feminism. The two are not the same. And if the blue pill feminist digs his or her heels in and claims that they are one and the same (feminism = women), gently remind them that it is getting WORSE for them, and this is their own doing. Their actions and reactions are pushing men towards MGTOW.

    When a man goes full MGTOW, now its too late. Its too late because men who are MGTOW, no longer love women. MGTOW do not hate women, oh no far from it. Its worse, far worse than hate. MGTOW feel nothing but indifference towards women. The opposite of love is not (nor has it ever been) hate. The opposite is indifference.

  96. Kevin says:

    @Cane Caldo

    I agree that is the general song but I don’t see it here. I am not the only one that reads the Pastors words and sees him acknowledging the women can be the bigger sinners and that they make themselves unhappy not facing their sins and the church helps them out by being unwilling to call them to repent. That’s a good message and to be celebrated as rare truth. Darlock is a purist that does great work showing how far society has strayed, how sometimes we are so thick in the mess we cannot even recognize the evils. His blog has been very valuable to me, but I think he got over zealous here.

  97. Moses says:

    This is why the leaders of the CBMW have gone to such absurd lengths to deny the feminist rebellion with women in the military, and have created a fantasy land where cowardly men are forcing women to push their way into combat.

    There are similar forces at work re: ethnic differences in crime rate. African-Americans commit violent crime at FAR higher rates than other groups. I.e:

    This is why the leaders of Black Lives Matter [for example] have gone to such absurd lengths to deny high rates of black violent crime, and have created a fantasy land where white racism is the sole culprit for black violence.

    “Institutional racism” is a convenient boogeyman. You can’t see it, smell it or prove it yet it’s all around us.

  98. sipcode says:

    Here is how far worse ……..

    Derek Prince on witchcraft: its source and its attack on men.

    See about 12:00-15:25. Derek was a very credible Bible scholar and had great knowledge of the Holy Spirit, Israel, etc. He used to come speak at my father’s church in 1968-75.

  99. Spike says:

    ” But in the counseling I have done over the years, the thing that usually wrecks the woman’s joy is not the fact that her sin is equivalent to the man’s, or greater than the man’s, or less than the man’s, but rather the fact that her sin is untouchable….”

    -Now, about that pesky problem of , oh A MILLION ABORTIONS A YEAR, Pastor Wilson!
    You surely shouldn’t hold a woman accountable for walking into a clinic and getting one, no?

  100. Cane Caldo says:

    @Kevin

    I agree that is the general song but I don’t see it here. I am not the only one that reads the Pastors words and sees him acknowledging the women can be the bigger sinners

    Why is his acknowledgement theoretical? Wilson claimed to speak out of the breadth of his experience counseling men and women. I have no reason to doubt that he has in fact counseled many men and women.

    He goes on to say that in the course of these counselings he has seen men be sinful in ways that are wicked and stupid, but he merely theorized that women can be as sinful.

    Why hasn’t he seen it in women? Why has he seen the worst sin in the one, but can only speculate about it in the other?

    Even in those cases he did not call them evil morons as he did of the men, but mere saboteurs of their own happiness. I used the word mere twice, so to highlight the uneven application of judgment, for your benefit.

    It is either willful blindness, or he playing to an audience as I said and as Andrew seconded. Though, for some foolish reason, Andrew affirms the tactic of “Beat the men. Lure the women.” Either way: It is not just. It is not merciful. It is not even productive.

  101. Anon says:

    IBB,

    As has been said over and over and over… women lack all forms of moral agency. It just doesn’t exist for them. Only a partnership between government, the church, and the husband (working together as one unit under God, never against one another) can keep the intrinsic feral nature of woman…. in check.

    So, in other words, women are mostly obsolete.

    They can only be useful within the triple alliance partnership you described above. Their utility is little beyond bearing and raising children. Since our civilization no longer needs a birthrate of 10, 6, or even 2.0, women do not generate enough useful purpose relative to the resources they consume.

    Women are obsolete. Quite a few men are too, but with women it is an overwhelming majority of them.

  102. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Genesis is meant as an archetype. The events surrounding the tree of knowledge were not one time events but apply in every generation to every person. The idea is clear the woman listened to the snake and thus sinned and thus caused the expulsion from the garden of Eden.

  103. Anon,

    So, in other words, women are mostly obsolete.

    They can only be useful within the triple alliance partnership you described above.

    Women are not mostly obsolete. It is just that for most of them (perhaps almost all of them) they have to be forced to be a man’s helpmeet to be of any use. But that is not the society that you and I live in anymore. Two of man’s allies (government and the church) are now the allies of women at the expense of man and God. So the feral nature of women is commonplace and (basically) to be expected of them.

    If man did not love women so much (and we do) then it would be perfectly logical and rational for all men to go all “prepper” so to speak, to design a life in the absence of women. Not shun them, just ignore them. But it is not in man’s nature to do that. This ignoring of women, this is a “learned” behavior of the men in the MGTOW community, a community that has (for better or for worse) “opted out” of this situation we all find ourselves in. So…. well, here we are.

  104. BillyS says:

    @Robert,

    Within minutes of my post on Ken feminists were remarking on their websites that I was on the internet. Women who would love to see harm come to me who know my name and have been through my & my family’s life with a fine tooth comb. You sir speak of things you know not about.

    I only know what you post here Robert. I am not responsible to know what you post everywhere on the Internet.

    How unhappy feminists are with you is also very irrelevant. They are unhappy people so them being unhappy proves nothing.

    You claimed that hiding behind an user id was wrong, but then did so (here at least). My point stands.

    Using your full name in places like this is not the wisest move these days. It doesn’t require the nefarious motives you assigned to it. But you should use your own full name if you want your claim about hiding to be appropriate.

  105. Dave II says:

    In the first part of the entire article Wilson explains that pointing out one’s responsibility in a dispute should not be taken to mean that the responsibility of the other in the dispute is diminished . This appears to be the mistake some counselees [sic] make which cause them to reject the advice and lose trust in the counselor. Based on this premise, he then goes into the part from which Dalrock quoted above.

    Now I agree with his message and with the preceding premise. I even learnt a bit about moral responsibility. However that is besides the point. This blog entry is about being unable to call women out on their sins and, in the case of conservative christians, the fact that it seems to be so deeply rooted that they struggle just to see these sins, let alone call them out. And whenever the sin is blatant enough it is often reframed as a symptom of a man’s mistake. This is an attitude that is identical to common feminists. And Wilson’s words indicate that he holds this view. He’s seen men commit awful and blindingly stupid sins to their wives and daughters. He merely assumes women are capable of the same and worse. Maybe he is toning it down for a readership he knows is hyper-sensitive to even minimal criticism of women. Or maybe he has a serious female sin blind spot. I sincerely hope it is the former and we have only misunderstood his words, but it certainly doesn’t seem so on first reading.

    As for the three fingers pointing my way, I acknowledge that I should, ideally, have pointed this out to Wilson directly. But like I said earlier, disagreeing with an idea is not the same as disagreeing with the person who carries/believes it, and my initial discussion was in that spirit.

  106. BillyS says:

    @Eidolon,

    Many women note that they do not want to be disconnected from their child through adoption, as if murdering the child doesn’t do that. They want to be the killer, not someone who will never know how the child turned out.

    It is really disgusting.

    @Novaseeker,

    It is a spiritual battle, but even secular societies had things correct here, so a spiritual approach is not the only required component.

    Having so many “spiritual people” supporting idiocy also makes that approach even harder.

    @JDG,

    I agree. God doesn’t sanction sin, whatever the justification. Those who pump and dump female church members will have strong enough consequences as well. Doing stupid is not a smart approach to life.

    @Boxer,

    Christians are commanded to not rejoice in evil. It may happen and even be a logical result, but we should not rejoice in it or its consequences.

    Jack,

    I listened to some teachings from John Osteen and those seemed very different from the tiny bit I have heard from Joel Osteen. Many in John Osteen’s circles went off the deep end in too many ways, in my view. I continue to believe many of the core doctrines, but the love of money seems to have poisoned many in those circles from what I have seen.

  107. BillyS says:

    Few women are likely to seek out counseling when they are the ones who are really wrong. That would easily explain the lack of Pastor Wilson seen such women in his counseling. Few men will run to the church (or anywhere for that matter) for counseling, especially since they are likely to get blamed no matter what.

    He may not have seen it because such women (or their husbands) never came to him for counseling. What women will come to be told she is wrong, especially when she knows she is wrong?

  108. EastBay1 says:

    So where do men go from here? Western Christianity has devolved into Cuckstianity, with nothing but failures to show for the past 50 years.

    What are the churches going to do when the baby boomer donors die off, and they’re left with entitled, bratty unwed mothers?

  109. Caspar Reyes says:

    @BillyS

    I become more and more convinced that a woman never thinks she’s wrong. I become more and more convinced that a woman never thinks she’s capable of wrong.

    If a wife needs counseling, she has a counselor: “let them ask their husbands at home”. Wives do everything they can to get out of obeying a husband, but they become all about authority structures and submission when it comes to their husbands’ obedience to the elders, and the elders are only too happy to oblige.

  110. Trust says:

    Women think the command to respect their husbands is outdated patriarchal ego stroking, while at the same time the husbands commands to love their wives are timeless and unchanging.

    Fact is, the need to respect husbands benefits wives as much, if not more, that it benefits husbands. A wife who disrespects her husband puts herself in a tailspin. I have a close friend who recently divorced… the standard story of her affair leading to divorce incentivized by cash and prizes. When she started cheating on him and realized he had no clue, she began to see him as an idiot, which further justified her cheating.

    Wives who cheat will always blame an inattentive husband, and even pastors will jump on board with this. The fact is, the husbands almost always more attentive than the affair partners, but the attentiveness takes many indirect forms like working long hours to support a family of five, spending time with the kids, etc. All the affair partner has to do is show up at the scheduled rendezvous to have sex with her… funny how other responsibilities like paying her bills and taking care of her kids don’t distract him during their few hours together.

    And of course, she’ll sit in a sermon and hear that women are attracted to good men, so her tingles will tell her that that man banging a married woman is actually a better person than the husband tending to her kids while she’s “shopping.”

    Yes, the church’s guidance on marriage, responsibilities, fault and the Tingle Gospel is far worse than he expects.

  111. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Why is his acknowledgement theoretical? Wilson claimed to speak out of the breadth of his experience counseling men and women. I have no reason to doubt that he has in fact counseled many men and women.

    He goes on to say that in the course of these counselings he has seen men be sinful in ways that are wicked and stupid, but he merely theorized that women can be as sinful.

    Why hasn’t he seen it in women? Why has he seen the worst sin in the one, but can only speculate about it in the other?

    Even in those cases he did not call them evil morons as he did of the men, but mere saboteurs of their own happiness. I used the word mere twice, so to highlight the uneven application of judgment, for your benefit.

    It is either willful blindness, or he playing to an audience as I said and as Andrew seconded. Though, for some foolish reason, Andrew affirms the tactic of “Beat the men. Lure the women.” Either way: It is not just. It is not merciful. It is not even productive.

    Indeed. Moreover, by framing it the way he did he made his post painfully unwieldy. The defense is he was merely trying to show that he holds both men and women accountable, but by framing women’s sins as secondary he forced himself to go through a long and drawn out process, culminating in:

    Now before reading any further, you the reader have to agree to remember all the qualifications I have made above. I made all those qualifications for a reason. Do we have an agreement? Shake on it?

    Do a word count on the text above the part I just quoted, and you will find it took over 1,300 words to get there. Some of this was generic explanation that each person’s sin’s are their own, irrespective of how others might have sinned against them. But this point would have been far simpler had he not been intent on belaboring the point that men sin against women, and women sometimes commit secondary sins either before or after.

    The criticism of my post is that I overlooked his one true message, that you can criticize men but not women. But I didn’t overlook this message at all, I merely didn’t overlook the tediously warped framing of what should have been a very straightforward message. He twisted the simple into the dizzyingly complex, moving at the same time away from reality, and I’m somehow at fault for pointing this out. This is par for the course with Pastor Wilson’s defenders, as I received all of the same complaints when I pointed out his insistence that women aren’t really culpable when they enlist the services of others to abort their unborn children.

    There is a pattern here, where Wilson denies and/or minimizes the sins of women, and his defenders explain that it is unfair of me to point this out since I write under a moniker. The bizarre defense is that Pastor Wilson really wants to tell it like it is, but he is simply far too afraid to do so. With friends/defenders like these, Wilson certainly doesn’t need enemies. They are accusing him of being a coward, and I’m assuming it isn’t cowardice but a very common blind spot. Who again is being uncharitable towards Pastor Wilson?

  112. Trust says:

    “it is unfair of me to point this out since I write under a moniker.”

    I’ve received that criticism too. The sad fact of the matter is those on the other side of the aisle, though preaching tolerance and “coexistence”, will attack you personally, turn you into a public pariah, run you out of your job, put you under threats of violence, and even threaten your family and children.

    When you are a married father in today’s climate, the moniker is necessary to protect your family.

  113. Trust says:

    I’ll add…. my direct boss is a public figure. If I ever mentioned their name, it would be very easy to find out who I am, which may very well make life very tough on my wife and kids. So the need for a moniker is not theoretical on my part.

  114. PokeSalad says:

    Cmon, Anne Frank! Come out of hiding and give them Nat-zees whut-fer!

  115. Ken says:

    @ Robert I agree with you completely my friend,

    The reason the church is in trouble is because the older godly women are not training the younger ones. Many pastors have a blind spot to seeing the underlying rebellion of many Christian wives because the lie is so insidious, but to fault a pastor like Wilson who is willing to speak out because he doesn’t “get it” like you do is unchristian. Point out what he doesn’t get, like Dalrock has a knack of doing well, but let’s stop the name calling and the idea he is somehow “afraid.” We are not going to agree completely on not only the theological aspects of things, but certainly will not agree on the application of truth as it relates to this topic.

    If the church was doing it right it would be raising up an “older godly woman’s” ministry and when the pastor gets a couple who has a difficult marriage, after the first session he says, “Now I want to see you both back in 8 weeks, but I want Sarah to be assigned to one of our older godly women and meet with her weekly.”

    There are only two Biblical prescriptions for teaching a woman, apart from the gathered church. She learns from her husband at home, and is trained by an older godly woman.

  116. theasdgamer says:

    @Kevin

    I am not the only one that (mis)reads the Pastors words and sees him acknowledging the women can be the bigger sinners

    Many men and some women are sinners, per the pastor.

    Darlock is a purist

    Bullshit. If anything, Dalrock is far too tolerant of Blue Pill shit. For example, many men here adhere to the Madonna/Whore dichotomy. AWALT is red pill. Madonna/Whore is blue pill.

  117. theasdgamer says:

    @SillyBilly

    Few women are likely to seek out counseling when they are the ones who are really wrong.

    lolz…you are very blue pill…you don’t understand women

  118. bluepillprofessor says:

    >>Don’t understand women.

    I got that also. Women are NEVER wrong. Pointing out there sin is like grasping oil. Public stoning and burnings are the only way to even get them to even stfu.

  119. Trust says:

    @SillyBilly

    Wives are VERY likely to see counseling when they are clearly wrong, knowing most arbitrators will make the husband the culprit, plus it feeds the impression that they are trying to solve the problem.

  120. BillyS says:

    I said they would be much less likely to seek counseling when they knew they were wrong. But Co time ue to claim I don’t know anything if that makes you feel better.

  121. feeriker says:

    The reason the church is in trouble is because the older godly women are not training the younger ones.

    *SIGH*

    Once again, for the 151,213st time:

    The reason that “older godly women” are derelict in their duties to train the younger women is because THERE ARE NO “GODLY” OLDER WOMEN in the churches today (or rather, there are so few of them that they might as well be non-existent).

    Again, even the youngest generation of today’s “older” women came of age when Second-Wave Feminism was in its ascendancy and when it completely subsumed the entire culture, including the church. These women drank of rebellion deeply and early in their lives and it has permeated their very being. The instructions contained in Titus 2 are offensive to these women, which is why NO ONE reads these verses anymore, most certainly the not older women for whom they were specifically written.

    TL;DR version: “Titus 2” women are in the same category as California Grizzly bears, passenger pigeons, and dodo birds: EXTINCT.

  122. Cane Caldo says:

    @Ken

    As Dalrock pointed out, Wilson’s defenders are as likely as his detractors to put forward the idea that Wilson is acting out of cowardice. But I think it is something else: A despair born of weariness, and contributing to blindness.

    I have a saying which is almost always poorly received, but which I find to be generally true. “Women can learn, but they cannot be taught.” You can perfectly instruct them all day long, and never make a dent because they don’t learn that way. They learn almost exclusively by mimicry. The inability of women to learn from instruction nullifies counseling; even from a pastor…which is what he does.

    My theory also fits with what you rightly point out from the scriptures: Those who are to instruct younger women are husbands and older women. Let’s remember parents, too. The thing is: To teach a woman who cannot be instructed one must be there. Well what pastor has the time to be with every parishioner every day, and what parishioner would want it?

    Pastors (and others) may not admit this truth, but they feel it. They are aware of it, and they despair and move onto the business which seems to be fruitful; which is instructing the men. Yet they cannot help–being ministers–that they must somehow reach out to the women. And it happens to be true that if a man strikes another man, women pay attention. It is too tempting for most pastors to resist even if it is unjust.

    Of course this has a bang-on effect because women learn by mimicry, and they have just been given the example of “Beat on men. Lure the women.” This reinforces to women that anyone who rebukes them is:

    1) Beating on them (Discipline never occurs to women.)
    2) The rebuker obviously is a dolt who doesn’t understand how the game is supposed to be played.

  123. Anon says:

    I would like to flag something in the housework post from a few days ago. Dalrock said :

    My wife hears this complaint from other Christian wives all of the time. Each time she starts by giving them time to explain why their no good husband isn’t doing enough around the house. Then my wife offers suggestions that don’t involve the wife assuming authority over her husband and making him do work the the woman (falsely) believes is humiliating. For women with children old enough to help, she advises having the children do more of the housework. Other times she will identify time consuming work the woman is focusing on which could just as well be left undone. In other cases she will suggest ways to get a “problem” job done that better frees up her day (cooking with a crock pot, etc). The response is always the same, because the issue is not about the woman having too much work. Invariably once the discussion turns toward solutions that don’t involve making the husband do more housework, the women lose all interest in the conversation.

    Emphasis mine.

    This is quite telling, considering that :

    1) These are ‘Christian’ women in seemingly stable marriages. No one except us red-pillers recognize how they have almost the same level of misandry as a self-described ‘feminist’.
    2) The goal is to humiliate the husband, even with a task that is not need to run the home. If this is so important to a large majority of wives……. men should be aware of this.
    3) The man might be a skilled professional, who charges $200, $400, or even $1000/hour. The wife is not even the slightest bit concerned about this. This exposes the shocking inability of women to grasp what productivity is, which also exposes why women almost never produce useful innovation, and cannot succeed as entrepreneurs or executives without government affirmative action.
    4) If this sort of passive-aggressive abuse is the norm even in ‘stable, Christian’ marriages, then the hidden costs of marriage to men are even higher than people think. This sort of abuse is not even recorded in the equation of whether marriage is worth it for the man.

  124. Frank K says:

    I strongly suspect that the reason the good pastor cannot see women’s sins is because his livelihood depends on him not seeing them. Being an evangelical pastor he and his church find themselves competing in the evangelical marketplace of ideas. If you offer the “wrong” ideas you will find that your church will slowly shrink and eventually vanish as your female parishioners bolt for feminist friendly pastures and take their husbands an families with them. And the wrong ideas are any ideas that alienate the women in the church, even if it’s preaching the Gospel. This is why we hear about rubbish like “Godly tantrums” and pastors supporting women who rebel against their husbands. It’s why so many pastors want the young men in their congregation to marry harridans and help them raise their illegitimate children, instead of encouraging those same young men to be picky and to choose with extreme care and caution the woman they will marry. These pastors think more like businessman than Apostles.

  125. Trust says:

    I also think many pastors who have godly wives have a blind spot regarding their ego. To preach “good men = good marriage,” they are preaching that their good marriage is due to their goodness. To preach how much of the marriage quality depends on the wife is to give the pastor’s wife much credit.

  126. Robert says:

    @Cane “Just get out of the way” I have dropped out of the internet, except when I see true brothers in Christ attacked. Other than that, you’ve got it. But I will stand by my brothers and fight if they also are fighting the good fight.

    @BillyS I do not post anywhere on the internet any longer. My point was that those who are calling coward at this man do so from behind a internet moniker to protect their livelihood, freedom and family’s- by their own admission. In other words they have no problem being a coward while screaming coward at another (they call it smarts, and I might agree, but what I think Wilson is doing is also smart- see below- I just have a problem with them calling a man coward concerning his livlihood while doing the same). As for my last name, it was not needed for those who wish me harm to know it was me, they knew as soon as I posted it, literally within minutes. If you need to know it I’m glad to tell you as they already know my last name and more info about me than my own mother knows.

    @ Dalrock The bible is pretty clear that we are to teach different groups of people in different ways. It is also pretty clear we are to rebuke different kinds of people in different ways. Older men are to be rebuked softly for example. Doug Wilson has also spent 30 plus years behind a pulpit. He’s not just a teacher, he’s in sales. I don’t know if you’ve sold anything to a woman, but you sell different to a woman than you do a man. I sell a product worth tens of thousands of dollars to both men and women, and you use different tones, different ways to get to the same end. If you don’t you will fail. Marketers know this and the Bible also teaches us this. Men and wired much differently. So I will ask you this- is Doug Wilson successful in building a church where women are in their proper roles both in the home and the church? Is the outcome of what he is doing a success for the Kingdom of God? View his church website, Are the (who are MANY) women with long hair and many children who are still married to their husbands? Are their husbands respected and praised at the city gates? Are their women elders or leadership? Is his church raising children up to serve God and make disciples? I think you will find all these things in his church. You continue to see thing through one lense-my brick analogy. I am saying Doug Wilson is reaching his audience with a biblically accurate mesage but he is not running a manosphere site. It will not read like one, nor can it. But the proof is in the pudding no? The fruit tells us does it not? Run through the checklist if you have taken the time to thoroughly examine the man and his ministry. He is a man who operates in the time and space God has set him in. In much the way Christ used farming metaphors to teach because the people he was speaking to could grasp them. Wilson has to speak to the women in the way they will hear him. If he were Dalrock, or Cane, or fill in the blank of your commentator, the women would be gone. Feed to the wolves that are in almost every nook and corner of society and church. You want him to immediately feed meat to women, who have never even drank milk because the church and society has not only not made them but rejoiced in not making them-his point of the whole thing you posted. Bottom line, is the fruit there? I believe it is. I also believe you expect him to run his church and have his sermons read like a manosphere website- which is a recipe for disaster. Bottom line, look at his church and what do you see? I see something counter cultural. I see something that resembles a true Christian church- no small feat in this day and age. Which tells me he gets to the meat plenty often when it’s time to serve meat.

  127. Looking Glass says:

    @Robert:

    Your argument really boils down to Pastor Wilson being ashamed of the Word of the Lord. Your defense is making the implications even worse.

    You also haven’t grasped that this wasn’t even an attack on Wilson. It was pointing out his deficiencies and a failure. Your attempt to defend him keeps making the situation worse. It’s far more likely that his position is born out of ignorance and culture, but your defense keeps shifting it into sinful self-interest.

  128. It’s far more likely that his position is born out of ignorance and culture, but your defense keeps shifting it into sinful self-interest.

    Exactly LG.

    Robert, you need to stop this foolishness. Yes, Pastor Wilson is into sales. Your words. He is selling churchianity (not Christianity) to empower the feminist imperative. It doesn’t matter how long the women wear their hair in his Sunday morning coffee house if he refuses to call them out on their sin. And he refuses because he knows, to do so, means his church is empty and his kids don’t eat. That is what he is selling, whatever the women want to hear.

    Let it go Robert. You’ve lost this one.

  129. seventiesjason says:

  130. Daily Llama says:

    Wilson probably sees men physically abuse their family members and others more than women do. Men may be open to rebuke, even expect it, but it doesn’t mean they change. Some of us can be really bullheaded.

    @Lutherian, Doug Phillips is a nasty piece of work/douchebag. And he’s been one for as long as I’ve known him.

    This may be far worse than we expected also https://web.archive.org/web/20080411024737/http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1728520,00.html?

  131. Anonymous Reader says:

    Robert
    View his church website, Are the (who are MANY) women with long hair and many children who are still married to their husbands? Are their husbands respected and praised at the city gates? Are their women elders or leadership? Is his church raising children up to serve God and make disciples? I think you will find all these things in his church.

    Question: are there women in leadership / elder positions in Wilson’s church?

    If so, are they fit to “ride the river with”?

  132. BillyS says:

    Robert,

    Wilson is preaching the Word. He is therefore accountable to preach the whole Word, not just the comfortable parts.

    I will gladly talk with anyone about any specific part of the Word in person. I do not have a pulpit ministry, but I would stand behind my words with my real name were that my main focus in life.

    Confusing what I do for my “day job” and ministry is not productive in the current environment, but my main job is not the pulpit, so your claim is not relevant.

  133. Ken says:

    @ Robert You are spot on. Thanks for trying to help bring perspective here and taking the hits.

  134. Cane Caldo says:

    @Robert

    You wrote a whole bunch of crap that is fairly summarized as “Beat the men. Lure the women.” which I already said. For some reason you like it better when you say it, and in enormous paragraphs. It’s still wrong.

    Robert, while I’m thinking about it: Stop bringing up the fact that the weirdos at Free Jinger as if they represent a horde of Injuns coming after you on the prairie. It wasn’t a big deal. In fact, if it were to mean anything it should be a badge of honor. Whenever freakshow feminists link to me I trumpet it!

    By the way: Some feminist in England has me in a PPT show. It was part of a $100,000 program. God is good, and I am thankful he lets me have a tiny place in His fearsome army. I don’t spread fear of the enemy because I am a man whom the Lord is with, and because I understand morale. When I told my wife that a Feminist wrote about me, she wanted me to become a professional blogger. (Which is crazy idea, but in a very supportive and loving and give ’em hell way.)

    So don’t tell stories about how some Feminists made you piss your pants and then try to pass it off as the wisdom of a true warrior.

    @Ken

    Robert is spot-on in a sense. He understands Wilson’s tactics, but I notice that you did not praise me with a “spot on” for describing those exact same tactics. That is because I call them out as the injustice they are rather than praising them as “good marketing and psychology”.

    To Hell with that noise. Boomer Christians have been obsessed with that garbage, and their children leave the church immediately after the last youth group session. Their sons are ignoramuses. Their daughters are sluts. Their wives are in rebellion. Their measure of themselves is how well they please men.

    It is wrong and unnecessary to put men and husbands down, to make them look bad, to bring suspicion on them, to make oneself appear good and appear balanced the women even if the goal is to win women over for really important things; especially when the bigger problem is women’s sins and men’s avoidance. 70% of divorces are pursued by women. 100% of abortions are pursued by women. Women decide when birth control is used. It’s acceptable to sell women’s porn at eye level, in arm’s reach, in the checkout line. Women’s demand to be in the workforce cratered men’s wages. The majority of women aren’t doing enough housework considering it is their primary responsibility even though the majority of men are doing nearly half of it. From top to bottom we have had generations of men who are dried up and broken and the women use them for fire. Every generation is more coddling and appeasing to women than the previous, but things keep getting worse. Wake up.

  135. Looking Glass says:

    @Cane:

    Great comment, I quite agree.

    It also struck me that Robert & Ken both have a natural “tone policing” aspect to their responses. Funny how that displays differently between Men & Women. I hadn’t actually put my finger on it until just now.

    Also, to reiterate my point, while some here would take Pastor Wilson to be craven, quite a lot of us don’t. We view him as simply a part of his culture and bound to it. (Joel Osteen? Yeah, that’s craven self-desire.) Which means, if Pastor Wilson is honest in his faith, that he is correctable. He can be shown the errors he makes and could correct them in the future. All the better for himself and his church.

    But Robert’s defense shifts Pastor Wilson into the craven lying realm, which implies Wilson knows he’s wrong and chooses otherwise. Which, if true, means Wilson is both lost & damned. “Stop helping” is generally would I would advise.

  136. Dalrock says:

    @Robert

    So I will ask you this- is Doug Wilson successful in building a church where women are in their proper roles both in the home and the church? Is the outcome of what he is doing a success for the Kingdom of God? View his church website, Are the (who are MANY) women with long hair and many children who are still married to their husbands? Are their husbands respected and praised at the city gates? Are their women elders or leadership? Is his church raising children up to serve God and make disciples? I think you will find all these things in his church. You continue to see thing through one lense-my brick analogy. I am saying Doug Wilson is reaching his audience with a biblically accurate mesage but he is not running a manosphere site. It will not read like one, nor can it. But the proof is in the pudding no? The fruit tells us does it not?

    First you explain that he can’t say what he really wants to say because the women in his church are in open rebellion and will not accept rebuke when they are in sin. Then you plead with me to see how well he has lead the women in his church. I haven’t looked at the pictures, but I’ll take your word for it that the women have long hair. This is good, but if they have long hair but reject any and all rebuke when they sin (and like all of us they do sin, no matter how long their hair and how feminine and pleasing they are dressed), then this is not the kind of fruit we should be looking for. It is of no value to clean only the outside of the cup.

  137. Robert says:

    @Cane I do wear it as a badge of honor and yes, I initially pissed my pants. Mike Tyson was on to something about getting hit in the face. I don’t care about my livelihood, nor really my freedom. But I do care a great deal about my wife & children’s safety. It took me a few months after being hit in the face to catch my wind, get my feet under me and get perspective. I’m okay with that. It was something both Moses & Elijah, among others did. Perhaps yourself. It is not the reason I am not on the internet. Regardless, whatever you said is exactly the opposite of what I said. See response to Dalrock.

    @ Dalrock I leave it at this. Who says he cannot say what He needs to say? I certainly am not. I am telling you that he is getting to the goal line. You want him to wind up and chunk a 50 yard bomb, right down the heart of the defense. A kill shot to end it once and for all. But Wilson uses his running game. He sends his Big Meaty Running Back right through the left tackle and guard for five yards. Comes back and sends Him right up the 4 hole on the other side. He continues at this right to the end zone. In your mind it’s cowardice. In my mind I look up at the scoreboard and I see him up by a lot. Maybe he’s coward or maybe he is wiser to the enemy and the enemy living within women’s hearts and like the woman at the well when Christ meets with her, does not tell her she’s a no good whore but lays out the facts and says “Go and sin no more” or in this case, “you need to be called out on your sins”.

    Your doubting his play calling. Easy to do from the sideline. So you run a great blog and have a submissive wife. You know what? so does he. He also runs a church with HUNDREDS of submissive wives. You guys keep asking for fruit- that women would be submissive to their husbands (be keeper of the homes, available sexually, be chaste & modest and stay out of the pulpit & leadership) and this guy has more fruit than anyone I see around. And yet you who have never run a church, who expect 50 yard bombs, look up at the scoreboard and proclaim he is doing it all wrong. Look I was accused accurately at times (mostly by Cane) of trying to be the man in the room. Perhaps I’m not the only one. Look at the end of the equation and work backwards for me Dalrock. Go and examine his church. The women, the marriages, etc in his church. Work the equation backwards and see if you come to the same conclusion. I think you are going after not only an ally, but someone you could probably learn something from (as he could from you). As for me, I will fully admit you are both my superior in this battle. I’m just trying to stick loyal to a brother, really two brothers, at a time when they are in disagreement.

    @Ken I will be forever grateful to you for standing by me when no one else (outside of Earl, God bless you Earl) did in internet land (allies seem to have a way of disappearing in internet land, especially the ones with monikers). But next time you run a post on someone and you censor that person’s comments- well it ain’t going to be me. I think you and your wife are doing a fine work, and even though I can’t always get behind your approach 100%, I will always consider you a brother and will stand by you if needed. Drop me a line if you ever need that help.

    @ Anonymous Reader You do realize that ride the river was a cowboy phrase long before it was taken over by others (some worthy of taking the phrase over)? Son, I’ve been bucked off more than one horse and castrated more than one cow- and while not really much good as a cowboy as cowboys go, I live in the land where cowboys are still a real thing. I’ve known & led a lot of men and only a small percentage are men I’d ride the river with. You sir are not one of them at this moment, doesn’t mean in a few years you won’t be.

  138. BillyS says:

    Robert,

    Some of us have no idea who you are outside of your posts here. Lumping us into the pool with others who left you is not just. I might have held you accountable for accuracy to God’s Word, but I am not the type to throw anyone on the bus. Modern society interprets any disagreement as that however, so perhaps I would be charged with that too.

    He also runs a church with HUNDREDS of submissive wives.

    The more I analyze reality the more I dispute this statement. My wife is better than most, but we are finding many more feminist ideas woven into her than either of us would have thought years ago. Many in the modern church completely overlook feminist characteristics in women, especially those in its congregation.

    How many in his church really live up to 1 Peter 3:1-6? I would bet most choke on that, taken seriously.

    The error I see Dalrock addressing is one that ends up undercutting the very men people like Pastor Wilson claim to support. It is a comprehensive issue and we can only advance properly when we recognize where we are.

  139. Linx says:

    @Robert
    “Go and sin no more” or in this case, “you need to be called out on your sins”.

    But that isn’t what he said Robert. He said that it needs to be called out because it interferes with their joy. He is claiming that women should walk the straight and narrow path because it’s fun not because it is righteous.
    You are twisting what Christ said.

  140. Pingback: Are women incorrigible? | Crowhill Weblog

  141. Dalrock says:

    @Robert

    You want him to wind up and chunk a 50 yard bomb, right down the heart of the defense. A kill shot to end it once and for all. But Wilson uses his running game. He sends his Big Meaty Running Back right through the left tackle and guard for five yards. Comes back and sends Him right up the 4 hole on the other side. He continues at this right to the end zone. In your mind it’s cowardice.

    This post isn’t about his style. It isn’t about how he delivered the message, but the message itself. I also am not calling him a coward; this is what his defenders are saying. This is about a very common blind spot.

  142. >>>Robert & Ken both have a natural “tone policing” aspect to their responses. Funny how that displays differently between Men & Women.

    This is the crux of the matter. Dalrock is pointing out an obvious, glaring blind spot and defenders use TWO standards to evaluate them. One standard for men. One standard for women. THAT is the blind spot and neither Robert or Ken even sees it. These are the SAME guys who claim that Adam’s sin was as grievous or even more grievous because “Adam was given dominion and failed to control his wife.” Now, today, they do everything possible to DECREASE that ability to control the wife while at the same time excoriating men for their sins AND for the sins of the wife while doing everything possible to avoid identifying (or even seeing) those sins.

    The pastor is tone policing and moreover, he is tone policing in a feminist/SJW direction while claiming he teaches holy scripture. Heresy from an enemy is expected but it is the heresies from within that are most damaging.

    Again, I think Dalrock is giving the pastor some cover for his words which he clearly wants to take further but for Mammon whispering in his ear.

  143. Barnabas says:

    I criticize Doug Wilson from the right a bit myself but the fact is that he is the closest thing to an ally that any of you has in the church and he’s built the closest thing to a traditionalist Benedict community that I’ve seen thus far.

  144. Anonymous Reader says:

    I repeat my question to Robert:
    Question: are there women in leadership / elder positions in Wilson’s church?

    Forget the football analogies, the sales aspects, the women with long hair and answer the question, Robert.

  145. Jim says:

    he is the closest thing to an ally that any of you has in the church

    Boy is that ever a sad testament to the state of the Church.

  146. Robert says:

    All male leadership boards and pastors. Not a female insight until you get to the secretaries.

  147. It isn’t just that we tend to avoid addressing women’s sins when we see them, but that we tend to find ways to not see them in the first place.

    Wilson answers his own question without knowing it. What Wilson is necessarily ignorant of is that the expectation of men’s ‘bad’ behavior has been conditioned into him in order not to acknowledge women’s sinfulness.

    http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/

    A new study on gender disparities in elementary-school performance — the first study to examine both objective and subjective performance — found that boys were given lower grades than girls, even in cases (such as math and science) where their test scores were either equal to or higher than the girls’ test scores.

    It seems like out-and-out discrimination, except there is an interesting wrinkle: teachers didn’t downgrade boys who had identical test scores to girls if they seemed to share the girls’ positive attitude toward learning. In fact, the opposite seemed to occur: the well-socialized boys received a small grade “bonus” for their good behavior relative to other boys, suggesting that teachers may be overcompensating when they encounter boys whose behavior exceeds expectations. In other words, boys who match girls on both test scores and behavior get better grades than girls do, but boys who don’t are graded more harshly. Which means that the issue of what to do with underperforming boys just got a lot more complicated.

    Extrapolate this feminine-primary predisposition to the church. Wilson admits that it’s “crept” into the church because saying it’s ensaturated church culture to the point that it informs doctrine and articles of faith is too much for him to bear. It’s not his church anymore, it belongs to the Feminine Imperative and he knows he treads on very thin ice for even making public remarks (no matter how measured he is about men being horrible) about how women escape rebuke.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/09/18/161159263/teachers-expectations-can-influence-how-students-perform

    They can also see, Pianta tells me, how teacher expectations affect both their behaviors and classroom dynamics.

    Pianta gives one very specific example: the belief that boys are disruptive and need to be managed.

    “Say I’m a teacher and I ask a question in class, and a boy jumps up, sort of vociferously … ‘I know the answer! I know the answer! I know the answer!’ ” Pianta says.

    “If I believe boys are disruptive and my job is control the classroom, then I’m going to respond with, ‘Johnny! You’re out of line here! We need you to sit down right now.’ ”

    This, Pianta says, will likely make the boy frustrated and emotionally disengaged. He will then be likely to escalate his behavior, which will simply confirm the teacher’s beliefs about him, and the teacher and kid are stuck in an unproductive loop.

    But if the teacher doesn’t carry those beliefs into the classroom, then the teacher is unlikely to see that behavior as threatening.

    Instead it’s: ” ‘Johnny, tell me more about what you think is going on … But also, I want you to sit down quietly now as you tell that to me,’ ” Pianta says.

    “Those two responses,” he says, “are dictated almost entirely by two different interpretations of the same behavior that are driven by two different sets of beliefs.”

    Wilson is the “teacher” basing his expectations of men on the same premise. The influence of the Feminine Imperative is already in him.

  148. Barnabas says:

    Wilson is accused of catering to the women in his congregation but his congregation is likely an order of magnitude more conservative than the evangelical leadership at large. He is far more likely to suffer sanction from the evangelical leadership than from the women in his church. Call that cowardice if you like but the man has things to lose that an anonymous internet commenter doesn’t. I think you also see him working through the same red-pilling process that the rest of us did. It doesn’t happen overnight.
    I would encourage you guys to spend some time lurking in his comments section. Do you see any other public Christian figure allowing such uncensored discussion?

  149. Boxer says:

    Re: Catholic Answers…

    One of the first answers on CAF was “No, men ask that so they can feel good when other men lust after their wives”

    The mark of a serious position is its openness to scrutiny. Dalrock lets me, and those (non-Christians) like me, comment here, for example. Arguing in good faith strengthens our positions and lets us hone our arguments.

    Catholic Answers generally promotes indefensible nonsense, and they protect their positions by deleting and banning anyone who asks unauthorized questions or doubts their official version of things. It is a forum that is not really Catholic, nor does it contain many meaningful answers.

    If you were a sincere believer, or even just a casual observer who was looking for serious information about Catholic teachings, would you ask an avowed atheist or seek out a radical lesbian feminist? I didn’t think so. Following the same line, you should not pay serious attention to any of the regulars at CAF (Blue Lady, Xanthippe, etc.) who openly claim to be atheists and feminists, and who regularly can be seen there counseling nice Catholic families to divorce each other, get abortions, and other such weirdness.

    Boxer

  150. crowhill says:

    The video with Coulter is amazing. And who the heck is this Fr. Albert guy?

  151. Oscar says:

    I mentioned this on Dalrock’s post about Ken Alexander’s post. We all have blind spots, and by their nature, we can’t see them, but others can. We need Christian brothers to point our blind spots out to us. That is what Dalrock is doing here. He’s pointing out a brother’s blind spot, not making him out to be an enemy. Let’s keep that in perspective.

  152. PokeSalad says:

    The level of squealing shows that the charge has hit its mark. The sum of the defense appears to be, “Well, yeah, he could do better/be more Scriptural but he’s the best we’ve got.”

  153. Cane Caldo says:

    @Barnabas

    I criticize Doug Wilson from the right a bit myself but the fact is that he is the closest thing to an ally that any of you has in the church and he’s built the closest thing to a traditionalist Benedict community that I’ve seen thus far.

    And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Nothing.

    There is no evidence that Dalrock hates Wilson, or wants him to fail, or wishes him ill. If you, or Ken, or whoever don’t like something said in a comment, then address that comment and commenter.

    @Robert

    Your doubting his play calling. Easy to do from the sideline.

    Why do you insist on putting down other husbands and fathers as not in the game? Wilson is a pastor, so his game has more secondary participants, but each of us husbands and fathers are very much in the game–whether we like it or not. Should I argue that I have more skin in the game because I have more children than Wilson? I don’t think so.

    Here’s a good one: Ken has wrote here that Lori ministers to thousands with her blog. Mustn’t you say he lied and that Lori is actually just sitting on the sidelines? If blogging is merely sideline activity then you must. Why didn’t you? Ken, if you are in such agreement with Robert as you have said, are you going to close your browser and tell Lori not to take her sideline antics seriously and stop calling it a ministry?

    Let’s look at it from a different perspective since you are fond of the business model of leadership. No business owner should say to his employees “Some of your managers are wicked and stupid.” because that would crush morale. We know that would only give excuse to the employees to rebel and be slothful.

    Should a man say to his wife in front of the kids: “Sometimes you have been wicked and stupid.” then go over to his children and say, “This is wrecking your joy.”? Will that motivate the wife, or discourage her? Will that encourage the children or demotivate them?

    @BPP

    Again, I think Dalrock is giving the pastor some cover for his words which he clearly wants to take further but for Mammon whispering in his ear.

    It is not about the money. Those people are easy to spot, e.g. Osteen and his kind. To go looking at the treasury for the motivations of a man like Wilson is a distraction; not to mention a slander because he does say some very good things. I believe he is trying, and I have hope that he will “get there” just as I do for Ken…whether they would agree or not!

    It is the state of things that the majority of men in church are of a mind with Wilson, Ken, and Robert. It is natural for anyone to measure success of a communal or social thing by gathering more people. It is also natural for like to attract like.

    In other words: There is a cultural process and filter that produces the effect where most married fathers who regularly attend church see the world and sin and men and women in the same way these men do. They do actually agree and these pastors are, essentially, democratically elected because they best fit the paradigm and expectations that the men in churches want.

    There’s a book that the men’s group of my previous church read for instruction in titled Me, an Evangelist by William McKay. If you want to see what church’d men think is good instruction, read it; preferably near a commode because it is full of crap. Every chapter includes this imagined scenario where a man and his wife attempt to evangelize to their recently widowed neighbor. This is to be done by the husband going over to her house and being the man in her life; doing chores and fixing things while inviting her to come to church. But wait, there’s more! The man is depicted as being a socially awkward retard who needs instruction from his wife on how to be successful. He shouldn’t just dive into asking her to church; he needs to woo her first with service and empathy and an openness which I must call emotional intimacy.

    Me, an Evangelist is a disaster. It is a manual for a how to become a beta-orbiter. The great majority of men are going to seduce themselves by its instruction because the great majority of men are sentimental and if emotional intimacy is achieved, then they will develop a crush.

    By the way: It was written in 1992. It’s target audience, with whom it was a success, are now grandparents. That means it is embedded at least three generations now. No wonder the seduction community/social dynamics crowd is full of former and non-practicing Christian Nice Guys grasping for a rope. They were primed for it.

  154. All male leadership boards and pastors. Not a female insight until you get to the secretaries.

    This is the first refrain I expect from women who don’t like to face the fact that church culture exclusively caters to their imperatives. Leadership in the church is irrelevant when the business model depends on the revenue of women deciding where they’re “spiritually fed”. In fact, all-male “leadership” works to the advantage of the Feminine Imperative: women can still claim dispossessed status while still having the message work in their favor.

    This is why “influential women speakers” in evangelical church culture have become a hot career prospect. None of them dare pastor a church. We’re meant to presume it’s all about Patriarchy, but there’s far more money in blogs, self-published books and “empowerment” speaking engagements at all-female christian conferences than trying to float an actual church.

  155. Cane Caldo says:

    Regarding “Me, an Eveangelist?”: I read the book along with the group, and made us all stop at every instance where something foolish was wrote. By the second meeting, I got regular eye-rolls and by the third meeting I was told–in front of the other 20 or so men–to be quiet until the end; which I obeyed because I was the youngest man there by more than 20 years. Then, at the end, I’d let the portion of the book we’d just discussed have it. Most of the men would ignore me and rudely hold private conversations about work and wives or whatever. Two of the oldest men admired my passion, and would privately encourage me. Some of the rest would openly sneer.

    They didn’t disagree. They just didn’t care. To them I was a fool to argue over what in their minds was essentially just a homework assignment. In their minds, I should just do the homework and then congratulate ourselves for pretending to interest in evangelism at all. Their object wasn’t to learn. Their object was to checkmark a box and then bullshit about retirement.
    Their adult sons couldn’t be reached for comment as most of them don’t go to church at all, and if they do they couldn’t care less to be there one Saturday morning a month.

  156. craig says:

    “The video with Coulter is amazing. And who the heck is this Fr. Albert guy?”

    “Father” Alberto Cutie (yes, that’s his real name) is a former Catholic priest from Miami who turned Episcopalian after he was discovered canoodling with a female in public. I don’t know if she was one of his parishioners or not. Note that the Episcopalians aren’t big on moral qualifications for pastors, as long as one is theologically and politically left-wing.

  157. Robert says:

    @ Cane Lori Alexander blogs under her real name. Ken & her might not run a church, but they have to face the consequences for their words. They who have faces have to deal with the faceless. Those who can be a little more free with their criticisms and armchair quarterbacking.

    I will ask you and Dalrock this, and let us assume (a big assumption in my opinion): What are the scriptures that are relevant in rebuking a man like Wilson? Have they been followed here? How does a family that airs it’s dirty laundry in front of everyone in the name of helping a brother, help him and the Kingdom? Wilson’s phone number, email and even address are readily available. You are telling me he is indeed not a foe, but an ally, who just has a blind spot. And yet it’s also readily admitted he’s under attack by the world. So I will ask, do you think he will not answer your email or phone call as a brother in Christ?

    I was accussed earlier of caring what the feminists think. I do not. I very much care about those who are sitting on the fences though, making up their minds. With friends who call me out on the internet for the world to see, who needs enemies. That is the best case scenario. I’ll ask again- how would any other organization handle someone who handled this situation like that. Say a lieutenant who writes what he thinks of the general on the internet so freely for all to read. Or a VP in a company who does this of his CEO. A ball player who does it to his coach. You name the setting, and I will tell you that not only is scripture not being followed in the name of following scripture but basic wisdom to even those who call themselves unbelievers is not being followed.
    Be loyal to a brother. Man at least email him ahead of time and tell him I think you’re one of the good guys but you’ve got a blind spot. I’m going to post this no matter what but I’m going to give you a chance to respond. He knows it’s coming. He can face it head on like a man. He’s not having to defend his back from his brothers while he fights the world from the front.

    And all that is assuming you and Dalrock are right. You are not. You both are the ones with blind spots this time around. You are both not handling this right in a biblical sense and a man like Wilson deserves better from his brothers. The Kingdom deserves better. Those not as strong as you or I, will fall away from handling things like this. I won’t be a part of it.

    Cane, you and I knock heads. We aren’t going to agree. We never do. I’ve got my faults, as do you. I’ve said my piece. You’re alright in my book, just wrong sometimes. Those reading can put it in their pipe and smoke it. What they do with it is up to them. But I’ll stand by a brother in a time of need.

  158. Ken says:

    @ Oscar I think you sum it all up perfectly. We all have blindspots, as no one person will ever hold complete truth in their mind apart from Christ Jesus, nor be able to perfectly place the right emphasis on one truth as it relates to the whole of truth. Certainly the believer who is the student of the Word has a far greater chance of hitting both targets, along with the one who is not emotionally wrapped up in a subject because of past hurts and pain.

    The last time I saw such unkind and over-emphasized points in discussions was when I jumped on the feminist site to try and set some of their wrong headed writings about us straight. There is so much hatred towards men and fundamentalism, so much defense of their position, that they can’t give an inch in the argument no matter how much sense it may make. Is that not some of what is happening with the comments?

    For those who have ears to hear it, Robert is not wrong in what he is expressing here. If we are to criticize those we know are men of God who are serving on the front lines of the battle, let’s not lob the grenades without giving the correct acknowledgements for the things well done in the their ministries. Such grace is a part of the body of Christ, and I do not see it on display in far too many of the comments. Perhaps some day I will “get it” better, but for now too many comments look like bashing a good man instead of contributing anything that advances the kingdom or honors the Lord. And this is especially true when Robert tries to point this out, then you go after him personally. It begins to look a lot like the feminist site, just the opposite extreme.

    I know the comments are not Dalrock’s responsibility, but I think some here detract from his work instead of allowing his prophetic voice to be heard within the church. He gets tainted by ungracious comments. Is this a feminist bashing site, or one that is trying to open the eyes of the church to the virus that is now ingrained within it? How many here feel burned and harmed by feminism and you now cannot control your anger and frustrations? Sounds like the women who hate men, especially conservative Christian men. Just the opposite polar extreme.

  159. Anonymous Reader says:

    Robert
    All male leadership boards and pastors. Not a female insight until you get to the secretaries.

    Previously it appeared you were boasting of women elders, but it was probably a mistype.
    Thanks for the clarifying statement.

  160. Anonymous Reader says:

    @ Anonymous Reader You do realize that ride the river was a cowboy phrase long before it was taken over by others (some worthy of taking the phrase over)?

    Possibly.

    Son,

    You are not my father, therefore you have no right to address me that way.
    Understand?

    I’ve been bucked off more than one horse and castrated more than one cow- and while not really much good as a cowboy as cowboys go, I live in the land where cowboys are still a real thing.

    So?

    I’ve known & led a lot of men and only a small percentage are men I’d ride the river with.

    I know men who have had a price of $20,000 cash put on their head by Mexican cartels just across the Rio Grande. Yet they still went out and rode the river, often at night, because it was their duty to do so. Some of them still are doing that today.

    Now, you tell us all what kind of credible threats have been issued against you, just because you sometimes stand up in an air conditioned building for one whole hour and talk for a while to docile men and women that are probably hard put to kill a fly. Otherwise, stop comparing your cushy office-chair life and “leadership” with that of men who risk everything just to keep people like you safe in bed at night.

    Understand?

    You sir are not one of them at this moment, doesn’t mean in a few years you won’t be.

    Chuckle. Dude, your opinion just doesn’t matter to me at all.

  161. Lord Rofl says:

    “What are the churches going to do when the baby boomer donors die off, and they’re left with entitled, bratty unwed mothers?”

    Aided by state proxy and various NGOs, “churches” will simply continue their transformation into Progressivist madrassas.

    As avenues for early inculcation and cognitive dissonance-proofing of the mob and for radicalisation of anointed “agents of change,” they’re simply too valuable to abandon.

    This isn’t a one-shot deal. It’s a long-term project. Its debris is strewn about everywhere.

    For example, examine the network of funding for “ecumenical” organizations operating in the US today. Keep looking upward. Organizations don’t attract millions upon millions of dollars in funding for nothing. To the patron, there is always an objective.

    This isn’t anything new; observers like us are just a little unsettled as they watch the last shrouds of tradition lose inertia and slip away. Onward and upward… for now… Multispectrum Ultrainclusive Spacebeings!

    (Check out today’s Google Doodle. Faggots. lol.)

  162. Anonymous Reader says:

    Barnabas

    I would encourage you guys to spend some time lurking in his comments section. Do you see any other public Christian figure allowing such uncensored discussion?

    I did that. I see that aging, 2nd stage feminist “Insanity Bytes” under yet another name posting her misandry there. That’s a bad sign. Granted, I also see more level headed women posting there, some who even seem to regard men as humans. That’s a good sign.

    The comments are run via Disqus, which is very easy to manage. That discussion is NOT uncensored. It appears to be rather lightly censored.

    All that said, I don’t hold Wilson responsible for the comments section of his blog any more than I hold Dalrock responsible for this comment section. I hold Wilson responsible for his words and actions only. His words show a huge blind spot with regard to women’s bad behavior, but not as bad as Mark Driscoll’s or some others.

    So far as I can tell, Dalrock is pointing out errors, in the hope that Wilson will improve.
    Wilson’s defenders are arguing that there’s no need for improvement.

    Assuming that Wilson is a fallible human, which of these positions is more credible?

  163. Dalrock says:

    @Robert

    I will ask you and Dalrock this, and let us assume (a big assumption in my opinion): What are the scriptures that are relevant in rebuking a man like Wilson? Have they been followed here? How does a family that airs it’s dirty laundry in front of everyone in the name of helping a brother, help him and the Kingdom? Wilson’s phone number, email and even address are readily available. You are telling me he is indeed not a foe, but an ally, who just has a blind spot. And yet it’s also readily admitted he’s under attack by the world. So I will ask, do you think he will not answer your email or phone call as a brother in Christ?

    I’m not rebuking him. I am pointing out what I think is a gap in his understanding. As I explained when the same concern was raised after I challenged his claims that women aren’t able to understand that abortion is wrong, and that men and not women are the ones driving the delay in marriage:

    Pastor Wilson has been blogging for some time, so he has to know this is how blogging is done. Blogging is more of a conversation that traditional publishing. Not only do you get immediate feedback in the comments, but other bloggers will write posts in response. This then gives the original blogger the opportunity to write a response.

    What I personally hope for is the responding blogger:

    1) Links to my post.
    2) Quotes the part he disagrees with.
    3) Explains his disagreement, offering links to facts if applicable.
    4) Bonus points if they keep the disagreement focused on my arguments/statements and not me as a person.

    This wasn’t a fisking, and I didn’t call him an idiot (nor do I think he is). I quoted his argument and explained where he went wrong.

  164. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Still think that pastors are trying to do a kind of work that is admirable. I am not Christian, but I appreciate the work they do since I have seen the results of their absence. That is without the work they do I think societies would not be moral nor anywhere near the Law of Moses. So if they get people to be even a drop better than what they would be otherwise they should be encouraged.

  165. feeriker says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    July 5, 2016 at 3:23 am

    AMEN!

    Cane also says, inre “Bible” study reading of “What, Me, and Evangelist?”:\\

    They didn’t disagree. They just didn’t care. To them I was a fool to argue over what in their minds was essentially just a homework assignment. In their minds, I should just do the homework and then congratulate ourselves for pretending to interest in evangelism at all. Their object wasn’t to learn. Their object was to checkmark a box and then bullshit about retirement.

    So very typical of “Bible” study in most churchian franchises, and an excellent explanation for the depth of the current rot. Pick a Churchianity Today-endorsed bestseller written in feel-good language targeted toward a Seventh Grade reading level, go light on the theology (if you have to include it at all; best to avoid any references to Scripture altogether), and avoid any passages that come too uncomfortably close to impolitic truth, especially truth that offends the FI. Rinse and repeat. Happiness, bliss, and blessed spiritual ignorance in abundance, without need to wage any of that ugly spiritual warfare.

    Obviously I don’t need to tell Cane this, but one should never, EVER demonstrate biblical literacy (heck, literacy or critical thought of ANY kind, for that matter) or passion for the truth of the Word in today’s church. Not only does it pose a direct threat to the pastor’s position of authority (the extent of biblical illiteracy among many pastors today is truly horrifying), but it also reminds the laymen in the congregation of their own spiritual sloth and negligence, as demonstrated by Cane’s example of his fellow “men” in the congregation demonstrating where their true treasures are stored. Nothing but hostility awaits the man who would tear down the mask of complacency.

    God help us.

  166. Anonymous Reader says:

    freeiker
    (the extent of biblical illiteracy among many pastors today is truly horrifying)

    Well, hmm, I wonder what the typical seminary school curriculum looks like? How many semesters spent on the Bible vs. semesters spent on counseling, music, “youth educations”, etc. and so forth? Might be interesting to trawl around the web a bit. See what the typical requirements are.

    For sure any degree at all is enough to get into a seminary. I doubt it’s like law (LCAT) or medicine (MCAT), if a GRE is required at all it’s probably not a very high number. Hmm. Wonder what undergrad degrees are typical? Philosophy? English Lit? “Communications studies”? Education?

    Just what requirements are there to become a preacher in most denominations?

  167. Cane Caldo says:

    @Robert

    I’ll ask again- how would any other organization handle someone who handled this situation like that. Say a lieutenant who writes what he thinks of the general on the internet so freely for all to read. Or a VP in a company who does this of his CEO. A ball player who does it to his coach. You name the setting, and I will tell you that not only is scripture not being followed in the name of following scripture but basic wisdom to even those who call themselves unbelievers is not being followed.

    1) Wilson is not my general. He is not my coach. He is not my CEO. In no way do I report to him except in the manner he reports to me; which is to say none of a hierarchic nature.

    2) As a pastor, Wilson is a kind of general with men under his charge. Into their midst he either threw or misfired a grenade of being “wicked and stupid”. While the fragments do not hit me directly (as I am not within his range) they yet have a demoralizing effect on husbands and an energizing effect on rebellious wives–wives whom he admits he cannot even get to admit that they sin! Boy is it a really bad idea to frag men in the midst of wives who believe they are blameless in their rebellion. It is incredibly foolish. In fact it further hardens those women against truth, and teaches them that if they feel a bit put upon by their husbands, it’s probably because of his big sins, not her little unhappiness. You did not call him “unchristian” for doing that. Dalrock did not call him unchristian either; nor did I. Yet you wielded that against us.

    3) It has been Wilson’s defenders who most adroitly made the case that Wilson meant to frag the troops due to his cowardice. Dalrock’s posts and comments assume it was a misfire due to bad intelligence culled from malicious and ubiquitous propaganda from the enemy. Shouting “Cease fire!” is not an act of rebellion.

    4) I am a husband, and a father. I AM the front lines; so when you belittle the efforts of husbands and fathers as mere arm-chair quarterbacks and sideline hacks then it is YOU who are attacking your own front lines. Pastors are not the front line. Pastors are generals. Generals make pronouncements from the rear.

    Pastors at least have the social capital with being a recognized authority to bolster their families’ perceptions. Most wives and children have no such external encouragement–they have to take it on faith alone that the man in charge of them has a right and responsibility to be there and that they have a right and responsibility to obey him.

  168. Cane Caldo says:

    @Ken

    The last time I saw such unkind and over-emphasized points in discussions was when I jumped on the feminist site to try and set some of their wrong headed writings about us straight.

    First of all: I truly find that hard to believe. More importantly: You see warlike behavior there and from me (I won’t speak for anyone else) because we both recognize that we are engaged in a spiritual war. In particular we war over the Feminist’s enslavement of women, butchery of men, and hatred of God.

  169. craig says:

    Robert says: “I’ll ask again- how would any other organization handle someone who handled this situation like that. Say a lieutenant who writes what he thinks of the general on the internet so freely for all to read. Or a VP in a company who does this of his CEO. A ball player who does it to his coach. ….”

    Since all your examples involve people critiquing those directly in authority over them, they are unwittingly revealing: your complaint is that the commenters here are guilty of lese-majeste. Do you look up the Pope’s phone number and invite him in for a chat before critiquing Catholic doctrine? The bishop of your local diocese, if airfare to Rome is too high? I doubt it; you don’t see either as a shepherd in authority over you. Unless you’re willing to rethink that, I don’t see why you should command any greater deference here from us. This forum is strictly man-to-man, with no appeals to authority and only scripture, reason, and empirical observation to guide the discussion.

    Dalrock has been exceedingly gentle, and has maintained all along that the problem is not cowardice but a widespread failure of observation, made worse by the gaslighting that everyone is subjected to by this current anti-Christian culture. It is those who claim Dalrock’s words are hard sayings which the people cannot bear, who are accusing Wilson et al. without intending to.

  170. craig says:

    Cane Caldo: I should remember to refresh the page before I post. I could have saved myself the trouble had I seen your 2:31 pm comment.

  171. Lord Rofl says:

    “Just what requirements are there to become a preacher in most denominations?”

    Here is a selection of Harvard Divinity School’s courses for 2016, straight from their course catalog:

    “Contesting Sex and Gender, Making Early Christianity (HDS 1505)
    Religion has been and remains a critical site both for constructing and for contesting sex/gender identities, roles, and sexualities. Women’s relationship with religion has been particularly fraught. We will examine early Christian and contemporaneous texts through different lenses, drawing upon: feminist biblical interpretation and hermeneutics, literary and legal theory, anthropology, historical-critical studies, theology, lesbian-feminist theory, transgender studies, rabbinics, and classics. We will give special attention to critical theories of religion in gender/feminist studies, emphasizing the plural possibilities, contestations, and instability of religious texts. We will introduce various resources for critically engaging constructions of sex/gender/sexuality of both “orthodox” and “heretical” materials in conversation with Greek, Roman, and Jewish materials. The aims are to promote analytic reading strategies that engage the constructed, contested, and multi-perspectival character of varied religious materials and to discuss both the limits and the possibilities that this material offers for imagining a more expansive sphere for human flourishing today. Jointly offered as Religion 1410.”

    “Feminist Theory and The*logy [sic, yes xhe really put an asterisk in Theology. ahahahahaha!] (HDS 2689)

    “Sex, Gender, and Sexuality (HDS 2692)
    The course will explore the theoretical articulation of sex, gender, and sexuality in twentieth-century theory, particularly in psychoanalysis, philosophy, and feminist and queer theory. Readings will include texts by Sigmund Freud, Simone de Beauvoir, Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin, Julia Kristeva, Monique Wittig, Judith Butler, Moira Gatens, and others. Jointly offered as Religion 1572.”

    [Simone de Beavoir, St. Augustine, eh, what’s the difference?]

    “Latina/o Theory: Being and Knowing (HDS 2795)”

    “Postcolonialism and Religion (HDS 2799)”

    “Introduction to Religion and Ecology (HDS 2798)
    This course will explore the intersection between religious traditions and ecological activism, with special attention to current conversations about “ethical eating.” We will consider both the resources that religious traditions provide to ecological activists and the ways these activists have challenges aspects of traditional religion. The course will also function as a general introduction to the multiple ways of knowing that comprise the scholarly study of religion, with attention to scriptural interpretation, history, ethnography, theology, ethics, and comparative studies. Jointly offered as Religion 1046.”

    [“Ethical eating.” Multiplication of Dolts.]

    “Virginia Woolf and Religion (HDS 2965)”

    “Religion, Gender and Politics in Transnational Perspective (HDS 3223)
    The course follows key themes in religion and gender as these were shaped and reshaped through the colonial and post-colonial eras. In particular, the religious history of American women and the history of women in Islam primarily in relation to the Middle East (professors Braude’s and Ahmed’s fields respectively) are intertwined and brought into conversation. The interaction of religion, gender and sexuality and the turns and complexities imparted to these by the politics of imperialism, race, resistance, and the politics of class, are examined in the context of the emergence of modernity, nationalism, feminism and the globalization of religions in the wake of empire and Christian mission. Jointly offered as Religion 1009.”

    Plenty of gems here. There are more references to Nietzsche and the usual postmodernist crew than Jesus, occurring at a ratio of at least 10 to 1.

  172. Jim says:

    The last time I saw such unkind and over-emphasized points in discussions was when I jumped on the feminist site to try and set some of their wrong headed writings about us straight.

    So? Both sides stab, shoot, and bomb. That’s the nature of war pal. Do you think George Patton defeated his German opponents during WWII by being nicey wisey? The biggest difference is that their cause is wrong and ours isn’t. If you’re too timid or soft to handle it just step aside. If not then join the war. It’s going to be a long one with many casualties.

  173. Feminist Hater says:

    One need only type ‘Doug Wilson’ into the search bar of Dalrock’s site to see why he is not in agreement with most men on this blog. He is not an ally, his post over abortion makes that abundantly clear. His ability to tear down men whilst drawing a complete blank when women kill their children is mind boggling.. the point that they do not understand what abortion is but still get to vote, really Wilson, pull the other one!

  174. Feminist Hater says:

    Calling us the opposites of feminists is merely the equivalent of calling someone a ‘Nazi’ because you disagree with the. Futile but expected.

  175. Feminist Hater says:

    …’disagree with them.’

  176. GoldenEye says:

    Dalrock, I’ve been a lurker for two years, so I wanted to say thanks for the blog. It’s really helpful, and gives me hope that intelligent, masculine Christianity isn’t totally gone from America.

    I think the best way to describe these Churchians is to paraphrase a H.L Mencken quote:
    Churchianism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, is actually Christian.

    [D: Thank you. Welcome.]

  177. Anon says:

    Ken said :

    The last time I saw such unkind and over-emphasized points in discussions was when I jumped on the feminist site to try and set some of their wrong headed writings about us straight.

    This is a very lazy analysis, especially since the men here are more compliant with both the Bible and the concept of personal responsibility.

    Ken’s quote above is no different than when a lefty says that staunch Christians are the same thing as radical Muslims.

    Plus, all these mental acrobatics are merely the result of Ken wanting to pedestalize women, and seek the approval of ‘feminists’, despite the fact that nothing he does can ever win them over (as if that were even a desirable thing).

  178. Cane Caldo says:

    @Craig

    We would be the poorer if you had. Great comment.

  179. Kevin says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Have missed a lot of this thread so catching up from far above. In your response you say theorized, but Wilson does not say that. He says,

    “Now I know that some women have done awful things to men also, and I take it as a given that this can and does happen.”

    The whole argument between posters who think the criticism goes too far or not seems to be about whether this statement is read as meaning he has seen women’s sins, as in men and writing about experience without literarary symmetry; or whether he has not seen it and is writing about something theorectical. I read that as he has seen their great sins because he says, “I know…I take it as a given”, not, “I have heard” Or “People suggest” but either way it is a thin interpretation to build a criticism from. If this were real life one of us would ask, “Have you seen women with these great sins?” and Wilson could answer and then we would have a lot to talk about. As it is, this is simply too thin of proof to get excited about either way. Maybe Dalrocks interpretation is correct, maybe mine is, but unless we ask Wilson for some clarification it is potentially much ado about nothing and our trying to convince each other by further parsing his words is likely to go nowhere as their is so little evidence for either side. It feels like debating poetry meaning in college lit, except more austere. Thankfully, we can agree to disagree on Wilson’s acceptance of the sinful nature of the women right in front of him.

    IF Wilson really cannot see women sins and has missed them in his counseling than Darlocks post is a home run and good work pointing out this blindspot. I heartily agree.

    As per the second part, I am even less committed to any particular point of view. A barrier to repentance erected by women and the church and supported by pastors might be the greatest crime done and worth commenting on. It does not happen for men so there is nothing to be said, we all recognize their sin.

  180. Oh, good grief. “I take it as a given” means you haven’t seen it yourself, so you’re talking the word of others for it. That’s what the phrase means. You don’t come in out of the rain and say, “I take it as a given that it’s raining out,” unless you’re an idiot. You say that when someone else comes in and tells you it’s raining and you don’t know.

    Now, that doesn’t mean he hasn’t seen women do awful things. It’s possible that he has seen it, but doesn’t want to say so for all the reasons we’ve discussed here. Either way, he’s saying he hasn’t seen it. Note he didn’t have to “take it as given” that men do awful things; he had specific adjectives to describe that.

  181. “Is this a feminist bashing site, or one that is trying to open the eyes of the church to the virus that is now ingrained within it? How many here feel burned and harmed by feminism and you now cannot control your anger and frustrations? Sounds like the women who hate men, especially conservative Christian men. Just the opposite polar extreme.” – @Ken

    The women who hate men, especially conservative Christian men, do so because (1) they are retarded, (2) they are unappreciative, and (3) they were raised terribly if at all.

    The men who hate feminism with uncontrollable anger and frustration do so because the movement has (A) turned their daughters into little whores, (B) turned their sons into aspiring Faggots, and (C) turned Husbands and wives against each other, resulting in high depression and unhappiness, high crime rates, many babies murdered in the womb, and other bad things that do not need to be mentioned.

    As Lyin’ Ted once said, there is no “moral equivalency” between the two. Feminists are idiots. They need a good anger-fueled bashing.

  182. The last time I saw such unkind and over-emphasized points in discussions was when I jumped on the feminist site

    Shaming. That’s new.

  183. Anonymous Reader says:

    Shaming. That’s new.

    Moral equivalence, too. Never seen that before..

  184. @Robert: Feel free to notify the brother about our concerns on his blind spot and the social and spiritual problems it causes that are so contrary to Scripture. Invite him to post as the stalwart and brave Ken has done.

    On Married Red Pill we are a locker room and when guys come stumbling into the locker room asking a stupid question they get their ass handed to them. Men are direct, and to the point. Sometimes we are rude and obnoxious, and loud and in your face. We are men. Granted, Dalrock calls out people on his blog (rather than coming for help as people do on MRP) so it is not exactly the same thing- but Dalrock’s blog is male space. There was no anger or retribution in Dalrock’s post. He called out a brother using the same forum as the brother used. This is appropriate and righteous. It was not an attack on a brother but a criticism of an obvious blind spot that was righteously pointed out.

    @Ken! You are so close to opening your eyes and seeing the real world. I will pray for you. Unplugging is a bear but it is reality. Fortunately, Red Pill praexology and knowledge is 100% compatible with Christianity and scripture. Not that this is a surprise to me. Red Pill is just the truth. It is not God, because God is love and unfortunately much of the truth is not love nor is it of God. It is truth that 60,000 men a year commit suicide, mostly from broken relationships. It is truth that women have gained the upper hand and that our young boys, our children, are in a terrible situation while many men have been brutally treated with great cruelty and malice.

    I have basically a PhD in feminism and I was steeped deeply in the ideology of female oppression. When I unplugged I could not believe how wrong I had been. I was ashamed I had not stood up more to them. I was ashamed at the state of my marriage. I was ashamed that I could not see the obvious male disadvantage everywhere while women still continually play the victim. After many months of study I was able to reconcile “truth” with these new ideas and it really did set me free, in much the same way (albeit orders of magnitude less in importance) than my Baptism so many decades ago.

    I hope you will take the time to read Athol Kaye’s book Married man Sex Life Primer to get an idea what has happened in marriage along with my own humble offering to the manosphere- “Saving a low sex marriage”

    https://bluepillprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/hello-world/

    Although you may want to start with Rollo’s The Rational Male.

  185. sipcode says:

    Robert says:
    July 5, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    Robert:
    The husband’s condition is none of the wife’s business. That is the mistake that Wilson made. That is the mistake that all marriage counseling that I have seen has made. You do not discipline a superior in front of a subordinate. It is none of the subordinate’s business. We have bought the devil’s temptation to pit, compare, etc, husbands and wives and the purpose and the result is to tear down authority. That is what Wilson has done. And he is supposedly one of the good guys. And that then models the tear down for God’s authority. The husband’s actions are none of the wife’s business. She just salutes and executes orders. Oh, and curiously, that is what our God has required of us. But this is troublesome to the church because it is conformed to the world.

  186. Anon says:

    BPP,

    I have basically a PhD in feminism and I was steeped deeply in the ideology of female oppression. When I unplugged I could not believe how wrong I had been.

    Wow. You might be one of the rarest of the rare – a full mangina who saw the light and became red pill. It is almost impossible for a committed mangina to convert, but you did, and for that, you should be proud.

    Most of use are not like that. We were nominally blue pill but still skeptical of the FI early in life (for example, I noticed very early that women were not good at math, and had no interest in chess, astronomy, etc.).

  187. Looking Glass says:

    @Cane:

    You know, fragging their own Men might be the best analogy for what always seems to happen with modern Pastors attempt to talk on Sin. Almost as if they’re actually afraid or incapable of targeting the enemy properly. They really should wonder why they do that.

    (This was actually what clued me in that a lot of Pastors didn’t have any idea what they were doing in a lot of areas. And that’s from when I was about 10.)

  188. Barnabas says:

    “I read that as he has seen their great sins because he says, “I know…I take it as a given”, not, “I have heard” Or “People suggest” but either way it is a thin interpretation to build a criticism from.”
    Yes, its a very thin criticism to base outgrouping the one potential ally in the evangelical movement. Dalrock and others are on very firm ground criticizing Wilson for going along with the trope that women that have abortions shouldn’t be punished and there is a strong chance of convicting Wilson into walking back that very weak position but jumping off on a turn of phrase like this just makes the critics look like ideological partisans. Wilson should be wooed. I understand that there are many who feel otherwise and they should be working on building alternative churches.

  189. PokeSalad says:

    Moral equivalence, too. Never seen that before..

    “The truth is not a golden mean between two falsehoods.” – Theodore Dalrymple

  190. Sir_Viver says:

    I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT

    Pastor Doug Wilson claims he has observed men doing awful things to women.

    I doubt it. This is not the way it happens at churches.

    Based on my experiences and my observations of pastors, I believe Pastor Wilson’s claim would be more accurate if he had written, “I have HEARD of men doing terrible things to women.” But he wrote “observed,” and I seriously doubt he has “observed” the evil rather than been told about it.

    Why do pastors preach with such authority that “All human beings are sinners, and all human beings fall short of the Glory of God!’ (Romans 3:23), and “The human heart is deceitful and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9), but when listening to the complaints of an unhappy wife, pastors often believe EVERY THING SHE SAYS ABOUT HER ROTTEN HUSBAND?” It’s as if pastors automatically exempt wives and women from sin and wickedness.

    I have observed that pastors DO NOT listen to a wife’s complaints and then sit with the husband and hear his side of the story! Husbands are not even contacted!

    By the time the unhappy, divorcing wife has finished her convincing stories of abuse and cruelty, the pastor falls for them hook, line and sinker. The pastor is so repulsed by the husband’s aberrant, cruel, and sadistic behavior that he passes judgment on the husband and closes the case. The poor husband never even learns what e’s been accused of, and the pastor and the church rolls out the red carpet for the “abused” wife to leave her marriage!

    I believe Pastor Wilson is giving himself way too much credit when he says he “observed.” He likely LISTENED to many unhappy wives and concluded their stories of abuse were all TRUE!

    Many loving Christian husbands and fathers are being abandoned by unhappy wives without any valid reason and then they are screwed by their own pastors and their own church friends who fell for the wife’s BIG LIES. I am one of them. YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IF I TOLD YOU!
    *************************************************
    Please visit AMBEC which I recently founded, and read AMBEC’s PURPOSE. Then JOIN AMBEC with one mouse click. We must correct the injustice that is happening to husbands and fathers inside the church! YOU may be the next victim of the hell I have just describe! YOU could be next.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/reportAMBEC/

  191. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Sir_Viver comment is a classic. Amazingly accurate and to the point.

  192. Cane Caldo says:

    @Kevin

    The negative response to parsing of his words is laughable. To not do so when concerned with a matter of importance–even with someone with whom one agrees–is either laziness or foolishness. Anyway, the criticism that I parsed is either a mischaracterization or a distraction. What you presented evidence for is that I cherry-picked.

    Except I did not. I pointed out multiple instances–in a coherent manner from one post of his–which demonstrates how he proclaims things unjustly, in favor of women (wives) at the expense of men (husbands). Furthermore, unjust proclamations have precedent and a whole context in the writings of Wilson which support my criticism.

    @Barnabas

    I haven’t “outgrouped” anyone. I’ve never before even heard the word.

    Wilson should be wooed.

    So women and Wilson should be wooed, but men should be beat. Why doesn’t wooing men suit your purposes? What are you purposes? Did you tell Wilson (who is a a man, after all) that he should be wooing the individual pastors (husbands and fathers) of their homes instead of belittling them? Those are rhetorical questions.

  193. Anonymous Reader says:

    Re-scanning this comment thread and the comment thread about housework (Wilson and Ken, respectively) I see something interesting. Both Ken and Robert tend to respond emotionally to rational criticism. Robert with his “toughest good old boy in the room” pose, Ken with his earnest “can’t we all just get along?” betaness. Sure, Robert offered some “look at the other things Wilson does!’ statements and Ken something similar, but their basic, initial, and ongoing response is emotional. I can see why this comment thread is frustrating for both of them, because (a) the critics of Wilson have reason on their side and won’t budge (b) some of the critics can do emotion right back at them, and they are clearly not used to either one.

    Something I’ve noticed over the years is how many men who go into the preaching business are primarily emotional, and only secondarily able to reason. Some don’t do reason at all, it’s 100% emotional-foam-party.

    We know that women are creatures of emotion. We know that all men have emotions but a lot of us learn one way or another to keep a more or less tight rein on them. And we know that preachers tend to side with women.

    Self-selection for “driven by emotion”, i.e. “heart rules head” in pastors for a couple of generations, pretty soon that’s all you got, and emotional people resonate with other emotional people, so voila! A whole crop of preachers that just naturally sympathize and maybe even empathize with women, but not so much with men.

    The divorce rate among evangelicals is nearly 40%. Women initiate 65% to 70% of those divorces. Seems pretty obvious to me that giving women a near total pass on their behavior isn’t working out. But, then, I’m not a preacher.

  194. Robert says:

    @ Dalrock
    Here is my problem with your response. Is the Bible outdated? I don’t believe you think it is when it comes to marriage advise. But somehow you believe the internet and “blogging” change what is biblical when addressing a brother in Christ. It does not.

    I’m guilty of this, even in this conversation (@Anonymous Reader, see below) but even far more in blogging, of not following what is biblical. So I point this out not from a place of superiority or as one who has it mastered it, but as a brother who believes you can do a great work but are not only cutting down a brother but what you are trying to achieve. We can’t get to biblical by being unbiblical.

    As to Wilson himself, I will say it again, take it or leave it, but until you stand behind the pulpit and have to deal with real people day in & out and wrestle in the mud of their sin with them you will not fully grasp it. Wilson is working out his faith like the rest of us and believe it or not, that is messy and things are not always clear. If he has one big fault is he should put his damn keyboard down. If there’s one lesson we all need to learn “is that when there are many words, sin is present.” Sometimes when a teacher is working out their faith especially it can be too public and cause the weaker brothers to stumble and the stronger ones to run short on patience.

    I do not see in either article the blind spot or culpability you see in his three blog posts I have read. I see a man who is wrestling with tough issues and probably muddying the water due to the depth of them of trying to reach those who aren’t ready for milk, are ready for milk and those ready for meat and trying to address everyone- women, men, saved and unsaved all at the same time. He’s trying to lay out complex issues and the intricacies of them that needs a divided audience and more time/words. You are ready for meat. 98% of America is not- most not even ready for milk.

    Regardless, I believe the biblical principals of how we are to rebuke one another and deal with one another apply. Wilson deserves that.

    @Anonymous Reader Listen, I haven’t mastered this whole internet thing. In real life, men (and women) just (usually) listen (follow) to me. The internet debate is a lost art to me as it must take a different set of skills than real life. As much as I read Vox (and Cane) who seem to have this internet debate/pissing match thing down to an art- it’s just a skill I don’t have and I should stop it. Forgive me for insulting you. I was wrong to do so. Both in intent and delivery.

    That said, you commented on a man you knew nothing about, and about me who you knew nothing about and used a phrase you did not know the history on all the while preaching to me about it. I was trying to call you on it. For the record, I have not stood behind the pulpit for a good fifteen years, except for an occasional guest deal. I’ve run my own business and worked as hard as any westerner I know in that time. The callouses on my hands run deep and dirty. And for the record I have stared down the barrel of a gun a few times, broken up more than one knife fight, been on the street as bombs went off during a revolution and took communion last week with a 9mm strapped to my hip. And was once voted the second worst husband in the world on one of the leading feminist websites for my biblical teaching on marriage. There’s a lot of things I am, but almost none of them as you described. I’m no national hero or the toughest SOB in the world as some of your friends but I’ve got a little more grit to me than you described and more than few said I was one they’d ride the river with. I’m going to try and give my brothers I don’t know a little more credit until proven otherwise, maybe you should do the same.

    I’m going in peace brothers. God bless-

  195. Linx says:

    @Robert
    “But somehow you believe the internet and “blogging” change what is biblical when addressing a brother in Christ.”

    Galatians 2:11-13
    Paul Confronts Peter
    11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

  196. feeriker says:

    Something I’ve noticed over the years is how many men who go into the preaching business are primarily emotional, and only secondarily able to reason. Some don’t do reason at all, it’s 100% emotional-foam-party.

    Yes. Churchianity feeds this phenomenon too, as it is, for lack of a better term, a “business” that requires butts in the pews in order to sustain itself as a going concern. A preacher who is rational, a critical thinker, a teacher who applies the Scriptures to daily life and who demands that his congregation learn from and apply his messages is going to be VERY unpopular with contemporary American churchgoers (note that I did NOT say “Christians”), These are people who are mostly looking to be entertained, with a thin veneer of “Jesus” or “Bible” painted over it to justify the church attendance part.

    As I said in either this thread or a related one, attending services in most evangelical churches today is a MADDENING experience for anyone who is a biblically literate critical thinker. Unless you want to be ostracized or de-fellowshipped, you bite your tongue and until it nearly bleeds and learn to tune out both the “praise” noise and the grotesque stream of misinformation coming from the pulpit (generally crafted for either a double-digit IQ audience or people with a Fourth Grade education), culling the few worthwhile bits of true spiritual food out of the fatty dross that is the vehicle in which it arrives.

    Finding an incorporated church that is not like this is akin to finding a four-leaf clover. I now understand why the “home church” movement is beginning to take off like the home school movement has…

  197. Barnabas says:

    “Why doesn’t wooing men suit your purposes? What are you purposes?”
    I’ve been working daily at red-pilling Wilson’s community, online and on occasion in person, for two years. This blog is one of the places where I repeatedly refer men from that community. You have exactly zero social capital with those men. If they come here and find petty, niggling criticism based on nothing more than a turn of phrase, they are going to see that as an attack on a man they understandably respect. They are going to tune out and tell all their friends to do the same. Its poor judgement, tactically. So, I ask, what are YOURE purposes? That’s an entire traditionalist community that’s sympathetic to your cause. If you want object lessons of evangelical feminism for your readers, you can find much better ones than this literally anywhere. If you want to influence Wilson or the men in his church, you and Dalrock are going to have to be more wise in how you go about it.

  198. Barnabas, sorry, but the criticisms here will always seem niggling and petty to people who are new to them. To the blue-pill point of view, the problems we’re talking about fall somewhere between nonexistent and insignificant, so it makes no sense to spend this much effort on them. Ken’s passive-aggressive reframe of it all as hurt men lashing out is typical of the response most will have at first.

    Yes, there’s plenty of lower-hanging fruit out there. We could talk about openly feminist pastors, but why bother? Even mainstream conservatives recognize what they are. Dalrock’s going deeper, into issues that are interesting precisely because they’re not obvious until you work through some layers of prejudice and misconception.

    It’s up to Dalrock to set the terms here, of course. But I’d suggest that if newbies to these ideas can’t handle the raw conversation here — and that may be true — you’d be better served by giving them excerpts or individual articles rather than linking them directly here at first.

  199. PokeSalad says:

    13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

    Oh, the irony just writes itself.

  200. Dalrock says:

    @Robert

    Here is my problem with your response. Is the Bible outdated? I don’t believe you think it is when it comes to marriage advise. But somehow you believe the internet and “blogging” change what is biblical when addressing a brother in Christ. It does not.

    I’m guilty of this, even in this conversation (@Anonymous Reader, see below) but even far more in blogging, of not following what is biblical. So I point this out not from a place of superiority or as one who has it mastered it, but as a brother who believes you can do a great work but are not only cutting down a brother but what you are trying to achieve. We can’t get to biblical by being unbiblical.

    Regardless, I believe the biblical principals of how we are to rebuke one another and deal with one another apply. Wilson deserves that.

    I don’t think we are any closer to agreement, but at least I think we are getting closer to understanding why we disagree. Your objection is to me blogging about the public statements of other Christians across the board, not to me doing so about Pastor Wilson’s public writing. When the Kendrick brothers make a movie trashing headship, or Stanton explains that a wife’s role is to lead her husband, or when Tim and Kathy Keller write a book teaching wives to have godly tantrums, or when Pastor Dave Wilson explains that if your wife isn’t sexually attracted to you it is a message from God, it is not appropriate to publicly disagree with these public teachings. The only proper response would be to privately contact them and explain that they are wrong. Likewise, I assume this must apply to the criticism in the recent threads of Pastor Joel Olsteen’s prosperity gospel, and commenting on the appropriateness of Joyce Meyer’s preaching. For I don’t think we are in a position to say that the Christian faith of any of these is less than that of Pastor Doug Wilson. Do I correctly understand your position?

  201. BillyS says:

    based on nothing more than a turn of phrase

    Words matter.

    [Mat 12:34 KJV] 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
    [Luk 6:45 KJV] 45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

    The words used show the heart.

  202. Robert says:

    “For I don’t think we are in a position to say that the Christian faith of any of these is less than that of Pastor Doug Wilson. ” Maybe that is one of our main differences, for I most certainly do. You guys think I’m against war, for it is definetly war we are in. I am not against battle. I just believe we treat our allies as prescribed in scripture, just as we should treat our enemies as prescribed in scripture. We are told to judge those within the church and by the fruit we will be able to tell. I once again ask you to examine the fruit and work the equation backwards. Thanks for responses Dalrock and being hospitable and treating me with respect. I don’t think we will come to agreement but I appreciate the way the disagreement was handled by you. God bless-

  203. craig says:

    Robert, you were skewered as a hypocrite and you didn’t even notice. You reserve the right to declare others heretics and their Christian faith lacking, but you demand personal exemptions for yourself and your “allies” such as Doug Wilson. Basically, “it’s not wrong when we do it.”

    If Osteen and Meyer are fair game for criticism, so are you and yours. (I made the same point July 5, 2016 at 2:52 pm, using the Pope as an example.) But you’re in a conundrum: while Catholicism distinguishes between authority and orthodoxy (a bishop can be a true successor of the apostles and yet be a heretic), Reformed doctrine does not: it holds that authority is a derived attribute of orthodoxy. The problem with this is that any challenge to a Reformed minister’s interpretation of scripture, or even to his assertions of fact, he takes as an implicit challenge to his authority. And we can’t have that, because he is one of the good guys — he tells you he is one, not like those bad people over there.

  204. Dalrock says:

    @Robert

    For I don’t think we are in a position to say that the Christian faith of any of these is less than that of Pastor Doug Wilson.

    Maybe that is one of our main differences, for I most certainly do. You guys think I’m against war, for it is definetly war we are in. I am not against battle. I just believe we treat our allies as prescribed in scripture, just as we should treat our enemies as prescribed in scripture.

    Setting aside your judgment on the faith of the others I mentioned, the Scripture you referenced does not have different standards for enemies and allies. If you were correct that the rules of rebuke effectively rule out public disagreement, then the rules would be the same for disagreeing with Pastor Doug Wilson’s blog post as they are for disagreeing with Pastor Dave Wilson’s video series. Your argument I believe is that Pastor Doug Wilson’s error is smaller, and therefore it is more important to follow the rules of rebuke. This doesn’t make sense.

    What would make sense is if you had written to Pastor Doug Wilson when he criticized Trump’s position on punishing women who have abortions, explaining that he was wrong to publicly disagree with Trump (a man who states he is a Christian), and explained that had an obligation to write or call Trump privately instead of blogging about it. This would make sense, given your argument.

    But your argument is wrong. My primary focus, as was Wilson’s focus with Trump, was on the argument, the ideas, not the man. Pastor Wilson wasn’t trying to save Trump’s soul, he was trying to counter what he saw as incorrect and harmful teaching on the morality of punishing women who have abortions.

    We are told to judge those within the church and by the fruit we will be able to tell. I once again ask you to examine the fruit and work the equation backwards.

    You are mixing different things here, and it makes for a bizarre cocktail. Adding this to your other arguments, one should only follow the rules of rebuke if the brother’s faith has borne good fruit. Also, you keep telling me that Pastor Wilson has created a church where women are submissive, even though I quoted Pastor Wilson writing that the women in his church reject all rebuke. Whom am I to believe, you or Pastor Wilson?

    Thanks for responses Dalrock and being hospitable and treating me with respect. I don’t think we will come to agreement but I appreciate the way the disagreement was handled by you. God bless-

    It has been my pleasure. Thank you as well, and may God bless you and your household.

  205. Barnabas says:

    Is Wilson tainted by feminism? Certainly. Do you have a list of pastors and churches untainted by feminism so that you can tell men to leave church X in favor of church Y? If not, then do you have plans in the works to found such churches? If the answer is again “no” then what is you goal? Is it to influence existing churches and pastors? If so, then you are going to have to be mindful of the tribal and status dynamics at work when you, as a tribal leader, address him as a tribal leader.
    I’ve criticized John Piper and Jason Meyer very sharply. I did that because I did and to some extent still do consider both of them enemies. If I were trying to win over anyone in that circle I might make some headway criticizing Jason Meyer but those people are going to be very loyal to John Piper. Truth, especially presented in a harsh manner, is going to trigger what Johnathan Haidt would call a loyalty module. I’m just an outsider attacking their chieftain. Now I have nothing against attacking enemies for practical purposes or even just to increase cohesion among our own tribe but if everyone is an enemy then you are going to be very limited in the amount of influence you have. This is a natural temptation in the alt-right where every online community is a tiny gnostic cult or group of acolytes surrounding an itinerant philosopher. Status in such communities is built around maximum truthiness presented with minimum deference to other concerns. We are going to have to fight that dynamic to gain wider influence.
    In conclusion, dalrock.wordpess is a tribe and Dougwils is a tribe. Our tribes are natural allies in a “me against my brothers, me and my brothers against my cousins, me and my cousins against the world” kind of sense. Wilson my not be in authority over you but show some respect to him as the chief of another tribe. Spend some time in the Dougwils comments section, bonding with your brothers. Team up with them to beat up on your cousins in more liberal denominations. Build alliances and THEN spread your brand of truth. Avoid unnecessary fractiousness, pick your battles, accept incrementalism as necessary and recognize that Doug Wilson may be limited in how far and how fast he can move because he has to apply those same concerns to our cousins in the broader Christian community.

  206. Looking Glass says:

    @Barnabas:

    I think you have a pretty heavy misunderstanding of this location. This is the ER’s Surgery Room, not the waiting room. This isn’t the place to be concerned about Tribe building or nor “playing nice” with people. This is about sorting out the details of what is really going on, and thinking through the implications.

    Which is why your attempt at tone policing is both misguided and annoying. This blog is likely the most intelligent collection of Christian Men you’ll find on the face of the earth, gathered together to discuss topics. We are quite aware of when to apply different tactics, but this isn’t the venue for those discussions. This is a place we build a wealth of information about the contours of the problem to be faced.

    Also, much like Robert, the assumption this deconstruction of Pastor Wilson’s blind spot is even slightly “harsh” leads me to think neither of you have ever dealt with much of anything harsh. Partially because I’m used to the Internet, but this thread barely reaches “mildly critical”.

  207. Robert says:

    Barnabas,
    That is much of what I was trying to say. Thank you-

  208. Linx says:

    “It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error. It is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than falsehood that comforts and then kills.”

    ―Adrian Rogers

  209. BillyS says:

    @Barnabas,

    Paragraphs are your friend. Your message is easier to at least read when it is not a solid block of text.

    Your argument is quite lacking, which must be why Robert likes it, but at least format it so others can read it without so much challenge.

  210. Anonymous Reader says:

    Robert
    @Anonymous Reader Listen, I haven’t mastered this whole internet thing. In real life, men (and women) just (usually) listen (follow) to me.

    Ok, and so you brought an unconscious assumption of authority with you; that all you had to do was bark “Frog!” and men would start hopping. It is an understandable mistake.

    The internet debate is a lost art to me as it must take a different set of skills than real life.

    That depends on what someone’s real life is. Over the years I’ve noted that cops and journalists are not used to people talking back to them, and they don’t always do well in internet debates. Academics are a mixed bag. I would expect that preachers (one-way communication oftentimes) might have difficulty as well.

    As much as I read Vox (and Cane) who seem to have this internet debate/pissing match thing down to an art- it’s just a skill I don’t have and I should stop it.

    Or just consciously change your style. Sometimes it helps to visualize someone sitting across the table from you, and ask yourself “Self, would I say this to a real, live man holding a cup of coffee?”.

    Forgive me for insulting you. I was wrong to do so. Both in intent and delivery.

    I forgive you. It is easy to get carried away in these discussions. I’ve done it myself.

  211. drexcathedra says:

    As a licensed psychotherapist, I stopped working with women several years ago. I don’t deny the possibility that my own character and style made it a usually unsuccessful match. But what decided it for me was the inability of the women in my practice to face their own role in creating the situations that brought them to see me. It was always someone else’s fault. (Not uncommon as a presenting narrative for both sexes.) At first, I would be cast in the role of the exceptional male who understands and supports them, but once the pathological issue reared its ugly head between us, in the room, and I failed to mirror their own victim narrative, they blamed me and fled. Men, on the other hand, when confronted with their own part in creating their problems, roll with it and try to work with it. Some are even grateful for seeing that they now have some power to change things rather than simply being the object of outside forces.

  212. feeriker says:

    drexcathedra says:
    July 7, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Thank you for sharing your experience.

    Yes, I can easily believe that the responses to therapeutic treatment between men and women are … well, “different.”

  213. Gunner Q says:

    Barnabas @ July 7, 2016 at 10:28 am:
    “Truth, especially presented in a harsh manner, is going to trigger what Johnathan Haidt would call a loyalty module.”

    You have no idea how right you are.

    “Wilson my not be in authority over you but show some respect to him as the chief of another tribe.”

    Aren’t you a Protestant? You know this is not how we do business. If our leaders turn their backs on Christ then we turn our backs on them and tell the world why.

    “Team up with them to beat up on your cousins in more liberal denominations. Build alliances and THEN spread your brand of truth. Avoid unnecessary fractiousness, pick your battles, accept incrementalism as necessary.”

    Flick you, ‘Barnabas’. These are not philosophical discussions. This is not a denominational turf war. Our entire civilization burns in the fires of Hell and you people won’t even smell smoke. The demons you team up with would be offended if you did.

  214. PokeSalad says:

    Build alliances and THEN spread your brand of truth. Avoid unnecessary fractiousness, pick your battles, accept incrementalism as necessary and recognize that Doug Wilson may be limited in how far and how fast he can move because he has to apply those same concerns to our cousins in the broader Christian community.

    Ever hear the term, “cuckservative,” by any chance?

  215. Dalrock says:

    @Barnabas

    Is Wilson tainted by feminism? Certainly. Do you have a list of pastors and churches untainted by feminism so that you can tell men to leave church X in favor of church Y? If not, then do you have plans in the works to found such churches? If the answer is again “no” then what is you goal? Is it to influence existing churches and pastors? If so, then you are going to have to be mindful of the tribal and status dynamics at work when you, as a tribal leader, address him as a tribal leader.

    I don’t have a list of “untainted” pastors, and don’t have a plan to found new churches. There are certainly better pastors out there, which is I think the best we could hope for even in the best of times. But over the years I’ve come to recognize that the problem isn’t about the churches and pastors per se, but about Christian culture. Since churches and pastors are made up of people steeped in Christian culture, they will nearly all reflect the culture itself. This isn’t to say that congregations and pastors can’t intentionally fight the problems with modern Christian culture, but it is a different recognition as to where the problem lies and how we must fight it. While it would be very helpful to have pastors committed to the cause, we won’t be lead out of this by one or a handful of courageous pastors (alone). A big strong man won’t save us from ourselves, and won’t save husbands from their wives. We need to focus on the family level, especially the leadership of families (husbands and fathers), and help support men to return towards real headship. Congregations are made from groups of families, and of course lead by men with their own families.

    I’ve criticized John Piper and Jason Meyer very sharply. I did that because I did and to some extent still do consider both of them enemies. If I were trying to win over anyone in that circle I might make some headway criticizing Jason Meyer but those people are going to be very loyal to John Piper. Truth, especially presented in a harsh manner, is going to trigger what Johnathan Haidt would call a loyalty module. I’m just an outsider attacking their chieftain. Now I have nothing against attacking enemies for practical purposes or even just to increase cohesion among our own tribe but if everyone is an enemy then you are going to be very limited in the amount of influence you have. This is a natural temptation in the alt-right where every online community is a tiny gnostic cult or group of acolytes surrounding an itinerant philosopher. Status in such communities is built around maximum truthiness presented with minimum deference to other concerns.

    I don’t see Piper as an enemy, but I do believe that he is mistaken and that the complementarian movement which he and Grudem founded is a dangerously misguided attempt to solve the problem of feminist rebellion by making feminists happy. My focus is not to win a tribal leader over to have him lead us to victory. My focus is on untangling and cutting through the tremendous hairball of lies we are living in as much as possible.

    The first step here is to address the denial. No, the CBMW isn’t really fighting for biblical roles for men and women, they are trying to appease feminists by making biblical roles more palatable to feminists. And no, the movies by the Kendrick brothers don’t teach biblical roles, and in fact teach the opposite. And no, cartoonish Chivalry isn’t biblical headship, nor is it biblical at all.

    We were lulled into our current state by pretending that big strong tribal chieftains were fighting the good fight against feminism, when in reality they are not. Very often in fact they are using the claim of being traditional to emasculate the men in the congregation, setting themselves up as the only real man in the room, the alpha, the tribal chieftain. You keep referring to Pastor Wilson as a tribal chieftain, and you repeatedly warn that I will offend his big man sensibilities by pointing out where he is cutting the men in his congregation off at the knees. If Wilson is an ally (as a fellow husband and father and brother in Christ), he should want to know when he is (inadvertently) doing this. I may not be the one to successfully deliver the message; perhaps it is you or another one of his readers. If he is the big man in the room, and is invested in as Cane describes flattening husbands to uplift himself, then your counsel is probably correct and he will violently object to having this pointed out.

    We are going to have to fight that dynamic to gain wider influence.
    In conclusion, dalrock.wordpess is a tribe and Dougwils is a tribe. Our tribes are natural allies in a “me against my brothers, me and my brothers against my cousins, me and my cousins against the world” kind of sense. Wilson my not be in authority over you but show some respect to him as the chief of another tribe.

    Yet more tribal imagery. I understand that some of this is unavoidable as human nature, but I have no intention of being the big man leading a “tribe”, nor to find a big man to do this for us. I wish to humbly lead my family, and lead it well, and help other men do the same as much as I can. Much has been made about my choice not to write under my own name, but I have no desire for credit, nor to be seen as the big man leading the movement. I’m not here to sell books or for recognition. I’m here to (as best as I am able) try to untangle the ball of deceit and help others do the same. We can’t stop doing stupid things until we identify them as such. I strongly suspect this will be a multi generational effort, and that the men (husbands, fathers, pastors) who will ultimately deserve credit for turning things around are either unborn or still young.

    One last note: I have seen from my limited time reading the comments at Wilson’s blog that you are in fact working to help drive clarity as well. You have my respect for this, and I pray that God will bless you in this effort and that He will bless you and your household.

  216. Ferdinandyend says:

    A lot of the problem stems from political correctness. Society has lost the ability to think clearly about certain topics because we aren’t supposed to speak clearly about them. All men prefer young, fertile, chaste, inexperienced wives who are eager to help and even serve their husbands. This is just a fact. But saying this at the office will anger your female co-workers and get you a stern talking-to from HR.

    A lot of the problem also stems from people failing to understand how dramatically the marriage market has changed in just a few decades. In 1960, the average female age at marriage was 20. Now it’s 27. That is a massive and rapid change. Almost a 50% increase in age. If you assume (for the sake of argument) that the biologically healthiest years for pregnancy are, say, 18 to 36, the delay of marriage from 20 to 27 means that instead of women spending almost 90% of their most fertile years with their husbands, they spend only 50% of their most fertile years with him.

    Even more dramatic is the increase in number of sex partners for a certain type of young woman. If we look at, say, attractive, college-educated, city-dwelling single women, the number of sex partners they’ve had vs. their equivalents in 1960 has probably increased at least 200%.

  217. Ferdinandyend says:

    For secular young women, it’s not a question (at least in their own minds) of sinning, it’s more about doing what their peers do and failing to take the long view.

    It’s true that society tells young women not to marry right away, and it’s true that they aren’t much interested in getting married at age 20 anymore. But very few 20 years old girls SET OUT to ride the cock carousel until they are 35. It kind of “just happens,” somewhat to their surprise.

    They accept the dating market as it is. Currently, on college campuses, there is no courtship and really no dating. Just hook-ups arranged by text message. Young women are interested in young men, and the only way to spend one-on-one time with men is to meet up and hook up late at night. This state of affairs was caused by women more than men, but the average college girl of today takes it as a given. Many of them are interested in having a serious boyfriend, and they foolishly think that casual sex is the route that will land them one. And in fact, the girls on campus who DO have serious boyfriends actually DID land them this way. Casual sex developed into something more.

    What they fail to anticipate are the consequences of this behavior. Their pair bonding chemicals start firing, they spend their college years and beyond pining for one sexy jerk after another, and they develop a sense of how hot a guy they can attract. They fail to understand, in spite of its obviousness, that men will gladly have sex with women they’d never consider for marriage. But the pattern gets established. They become attracted to a guy, have sex with him, become even more obsessed with him when he won’t commit, and enjoy the sweet suffering of their emotional turmoil. After repeating this cycle a few times, they lose their ability to be attracted to a man closer to their own marriage market value who would actually consider them as a wife.

    They also fail to understand how this behavior diminishes them in men’s eyes. Feminists tell them that men *shouldn’t* “judge” women for promiscuity, so young women erroneously conclude that men *don’t* judge them for promiscuity. Wrong. Instead of listening to their women’s studies professors and their sorority sisters, they should have listened to the common-sense wisdom of their great-grandmothers.

    The inability of today’s young women to step back, realistically assess their long range goals, and plan and act accordingly, is quite striking. I think a lot of them really, really DO want to be married (someday), but lack the time horizon and self-discipline to work toward long-term goals. They are MUCH more concerned with feeling attractive TONIGHT, with having fun TONIGHT. MOST single 35 year old women I know still act like college sophomores. MOST are regularly sleeping with uninterested alphas, often married men, stalking them on facebook, asking their girlfriends to help them “interpret” text messages like “I’m going to be traveling for the next three weeks. Let’s hook up when I get back.” Even at age 35, they still won’t give the time of day to the type of guy who would actually take them to dinner. And they have no idea how much lower their marriage market value has already fallen since they were 25. After all, feminists told them that the “real” alpha men PREFER “strong, sexually experienced, older career women.” When in fact I have NEVER encountered a psychologically healthy, marriage-minded man with that preference.

    The vast majority of attractive, urban-dwelling, college educated single 35-year old women I know are essentially already alpha widows. They are addicted to the roller coaster of being pumped and dumped by men out of their league, and in denial about the fact that 85% of their fertile year are ALREADY GONE. The ones with *slightly* lower time preferences start to panic and manage to land a provider beta by 38 to fund their fertility treatments. But MOST of the women still acting this way at 35 will never attain the status of “married with children.”

    tl;dr: It’s not just that today’s young women are sinners who prefer to ride the cock carousel. It’s also that they foolish, undisciplined, and subject to terrible advice. They take all their cues from their female contemporaries and get no (honest) advice from older women. And they fail utterly to align their behavior with their stated long-term goals. And they are eternally hopeful that their failing behavior will finally yield the desired results if they just keep repeating it.

    (Note: young men are similarly misinformed and taking too many cues from their contemporaries. Beta males often DO get trapped into “bad deal” marriages with women of their same age, when their interests would be much better served by marrying younger women. Women delaying marriage has doubly backfired on them by giving men enough time to figure out the game. 25 year old men used to marry 25 year old women. Now 35 year old men marry 25 year old women. And the 35 year old women are out in the cold. They should have settled down when they could have. With a man of any age. Now they are out of luck.)

    (One final thought: a woman I know just defended her gender by arguing that the old-time wifely skills have been replaced by career skills as dual-incomes have become increasingly necessary to fund a middle class lifestyle. This is not entirely false. But it’s worth noting that even professional women are more likely to bring student and consumer debt into a marriage than savings, even after a decade of corporate life. Their lack of assets suggests that their prioritization of career was NOT really about contributing to family finances or providing for children. The career tends to fund the lifestyle until they find a beta provided lifeboat.)

  218. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, it appears that the carousel may be slowly phasing out to some degree or perhaps mutating to a different form. Search on the term “sugar babies” for details.

  219. Looking Glass says:

    @AR:

    Considering I first heard about the move to Sugar Babies a good 4-5 years ago, I think it’s more just mainstreaming of the practical reality of most “dating” already. The formalized term is just a way for rich Deltas to have sex with prettier Women.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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