All roads lead to Duluth.

In the early 1980s a group of feminists put together a model to approach domestic violence called the Duluth Model.  Under this new (feminist) model the focus is not on actual violence, but on fighting the patriarchy and “male privilege”.  This is something the Duluth organization is very open about.  For example, in Countering Confusion about the Duluth Model they explain (emphasis mine):

The underpinnings of the Duluth curriculum do come from a historical analysis. When Europeans came to this continent, they brought religion, laws, and economic systems that institutionalized the status of women as the property of men through marriage. From the church to the state, there was not only acceptance of male supremacy, but also an expectation that husbands would maintain the family order by controlling their wives. Various indiscretions committed by wives were offenses to be punished by husbands. This system of male dominance (like any social structure where one group oppresses another) was perpetuated by: a) a belief in the primacy of men over women; b) institutional rules requiring the submission of women to men; c) the objectification of women which made violence acceptable; and d) the right of men to use violence to punish with impunity (Dobash and Dobash 1983).

…Do all men who batter want to dominate women? This is a complicated question. Clearly, many men who batter believe that women should be submissive to men and there are others who share a variation of these sexist beliefs—“The man is the head of the household” or “You can’t have two captains of one ship.” However, there are other men who batter that don’t believe that their wives or girlfriends should be subservient because of their gender, but they still batter. These men use violence to control their partners because they can and violence works…

we do not see men’s violence against women as stemming from individual pathology, but rather from a socially reinforced sense of entitlement

Opponents of a feminist analysis of domestic violence continue to argue their theory that women are as violent as men and that the level of mutual violence calls out for changing arrest and prosecution policies as well as advocating for marriage counseling to stop the violence. This may be an attractive theory to some in the mental health field and “men’s rights” activists…

The Duluth curriculum’s central focus is exploring and understanding power relationships and the effects of violence and controlling behavior on domestic partners.

The Duluth curriculum is an educational approach. The philosophical core of the model is the belief that men who batter use physical and sexual violence and other abusive tactics to control their partners

Back in the 1970s, battered women’s advocates were rightly concerned about how the mental health community used psychological explanations to describe wife beating. They correctly worried that battered women would be labeled psychologically and that mental health practitioners would collude with men who batter by treating offenders’ personality disorders rather than working to change their beliefs and attitudes about women, men, and marriage

Under the Duluth model, the idea of headship is not only abuse itself (male privilege), it is the very root of all domestic violence.  The focus of the program is to change men’s sexist beliefs (emphasis mine):

[We want men] to genuinely struggle with their beliefs about men, women, relationships, and entitlement.

A central assumption in the Duluth curriculum is that nature and culture are separate. Men are cultural beings who can change the way they use violence in relationships because beliefs about male dominance and the use of violence to control are cultural, not innate. Facilitators engage men who batter in a dialogue about their beliefs. Through curriculum exercises, group participants are immersed in critical thinking and self-reflection. Some of the men in our groups begin to understand the impact that their violence has had on their partners, children, and themselves.

A key teaching tool is the control log that helps group members analyze their abusive actions by recognizing that their behavior is intentional and inextricably tied to their beliefs.

This is critical to understand because when they talk about violence, they really mean power and control, and specifically they are concerned about men having power and control over women.  This isn’t really about abuse or violence at all, it is about radical feminism.  This is why under the Duluth model domestic violence by women is seen as wholly different than violence by men.  Violence by men is a tool of the patriarchy, while violence by women is a tool to fight against the patriarchy (emphasis mine):

When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the context of that violence tends to differ from men. First, men’s use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional avenues, while women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Secondly, many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered. Their violence is primarily used to respond to and resist the controlling violence being used against them. On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.

Making the Power and Control Wheel gender neutral would hide the power imbalances in relationships between men and women that reflect power imbalances in society. By naming the power differences, we can more clearly provide advocacy and support for victims, accountability and opportunities for change for offenders, and system and societal changes that end violence against women.

Since this is radical feminist theory, who and whom is paramount.  For this reason not only do the Duluth model creators tell us the model should not be used to confront abuse of men by women, but it also should not be applied to women who abuse women or men who abuse men:

Battering in same-sex intimate relationships has many of the same characteristics of battering in heterosexual relationships, but happens within the context of the larger societal oppression of same-sex couples. Resources that describe same-sex domestic violence have been developed by specialists in that field such as The Northwest Network of Bi, Trans, Lesbian and Gay Survivors of Abuse, www.nwnetwork.org

The other key thing to understand about the Duluth model is that its influence isn’t limited to the kooky women’s studies departments that gave birth to this kind of analysis.  The Duluth model has been widely accepted as the model for understanding domestic violence.  Not only has this model been adopted by police departments and courts (criminal and family) across the West, it has saturated both secular and Christian thinking on the topic as well.

Complementarian Absorption of the Duluth Model

Very often the impact of the Duluth model isn’t entirely obvious on the surface.  For example, according to the CBMW founding document one of the reasons they created the organization was:

6. the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family

This was in 1988, and while there wasn’t an actual upsurge in physical and emotional abuse in the family in the 1980s, feminists had managed to dominate popular thought via the Duluth model earlier in the decade.

A more direct example of the Duluth model influencing complemetarian thinking can be seen in the post Signs of an abusive relationship by CBMW board member and Women’s Studies Professor Mary Kassian. Kassian doesn’t reference the Duluth model by name, but just as the Duluth model teaches she explains that abuse is about power and control:

An abuser will use a variety of tactics to manipulate and exert power over you…

Power and Control is core to the Duluth model, and chances are at one point or another you have seen an adaptation of the Duluth Power and Control Wheel. In that wheel all of the forms of “abuse” are presented, with violence mixed in with “Using Male Privilege” and “making her feel guilty”.  Keep in mind that like the feminists who created the Duluth model she (covertly) presents, Kassian is all about power and control, so long as the wife is the one wielding it.  Kassian teaches wives to set boundaries for their husbands and enact consequences if their husband doesn’t do as she tells him to do.  If a husband does this Kassian calls it abuse, but if a wife does it Kassian calls it submission (emphasis mine):

Submission is neither mindless nor formulaic nor simplistic. Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.

Kassian concludes her post on signs of an abusive relationship with a referral to an organization named Focus Ministries:

Get more information and support at Focus Ministries, a domestic violence and domestic abuse ministry for Christian women.

The Book of Duluth

While Kassian doesn’t name the Duluth model when she presents their paradigm, Focus Ministries is very open in promoting the Duluth model.  In Weapons of An Abuser: Power and Control Focus Ministries presents modified versions of the Duluth Power And Control Wheel and the Duluth Equality Wheel, explaining that this slightly modified radical feminist ideology represents God’s teaching on marriage.  They go so far as to say that the Equality Wheel represents God’s design for relationships (emphasis mine):

Domestic Violence Help For Women

Adapted from the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project
Duluth, MN

…[The Power and Control] wheel symbolizes the relationship of physical abuse to other forms of abuse. Each spoke represents a manipulative tactic used to gain power or control.

[The Equality] wheel represents God’s design for relationships. The eight components are held together by Mutuality, each person submitting and serving the other. The core is Equality for each image bearer of God.

Focus Ministries presents modified versions of the two Duluth wheels in another article titled Healthy vs Abusive Relationships: What’s the Difference? This article identifies “Using Male Privilege” as a form of abuse, and explains that abuse is about power and control (emphasis mine):

In order to have a healthy relationship, both partners must treat each other as equal and independent human beings. The husband must respect his wife more than his need to control her. While the wife should respect her husband’s role as the spiritual leader of the home, the husband should be an example of Christ’s love as he takes the position of a servant leader. Both must submit to the Lord and to each other as they learn how to combine the scriptural principles of Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 13. The relationship becomes abusive when the husband or wife usurps control of the other person’s thoughts, actions, emotions, freedom, and individuality. Abusers believe they have the right to punish their partner when they disobey or fail to measure up, and often use violence to intimidate them, keep them in line, and regain control.

Again, Kassian teaches women to set boundaries and punish their husbands when they transgress, but this isn’t abuse, because abuse is about the patriarchy.  Wives fighting against the patriarchy by definition can’t be abusive, only husbands can.

In yet another article, this one titled Power and Control—Weapons of an Abuser, Focus Ministries again presents the Duluth model, explaining that domestic violence is about men wanting power and control over women (emphasis mine):

The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth, Minnesota demonstrates through a “Violence Wheel” chart the kind of behavior abusers use to get and keep control over their partners. This chart uses a wheel as a symbol to show the relationship of physical abuse to other forms of abuse. Each spoke represents a tactic used to gain power or control, which is the hub of the wheel. The rim which surrounds and supports the spokes is physical abuse. It holds the system together, and gives the abuser his strength.

And again, everything is presented as men abusing women, not because the target audience is abused women, but because this is fundamental to the Duluth model.  This leads to definitions like:

Using Children
An abuser who wants to use the children as weapons may take his ex-wife to court when she withholds visitation because the children are sick. An abuser will also feel a great sense of control by keeping the children past the court-appointed time of visitation…

Complementarians and the Duluth Model; a Marriage not from Heaven

While feminist activism around the Duluth Model in the 1980s clearly influenced the founders of the CBMW, part of the alignment between the two groups is coincidental.  Both groups are deeply hostile to the idea of male headship, and prefer instead to have women in charge.  This is why complementarians like Kassian teach that wives should set boundaries for their husbands and enact consequences when they sin, but consider it abuse if a husband even points out that Scripture says a wife should submit to her husband.

Complementarians endorse wives smashing the family china (a “godly tantrum”) or threatening to leave and take the children, or using denial of sex (here and here), in order to gain power and control in marriage.  Wives who do this are presented as being forced to take drastic measures by their disobedient husbands.  Yet these very same acts would be considered abuse if a husband were to do them.  The difference between abuse and he had it coming comes down to who both the Duluth model creators and complementarians think should rightly be in charge.  The fundamental difference between the two groups in this respect is the Duluth model creators are honest about their feminist objectives, while complementarians claim to support biblical headship.

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Domestic Violence, Duluth Model, Feminists, Mary Kassian, Social Justice Warriors, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to All roads lead to Duluth.

  1. Pingback: All roads lead to Duluth. | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Pingback: All roads lead to Duluth. – Manosphere.org

  3. Something we all knew. Feminism and everything associated with it has infected the Church.

    Props for doing the investigative work Dalrock.

  4. Chris Nystrom says:

    It reminds me of the time that I told a black co-worker that “Jet” magazine was rascist, and he politely explained to me that it could not be racist because blacks could not be racists. Only whites.

  5. Chris Nystrom says:

    “When Europeans came to this continent, they brought religion, laws, and economic systems that institutionalized the status of women as the property of men through marriage.” – I am sure the Indians were all about equality of the sexes.

  6. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Normal Orthodox Marxism with Hegelian Rhetoric. Just substitute women for the working class. No drop of original thought.

  7. RPchristian says:

    Paul is obviously highly abusive according to “Focus Ministries.” God is also abusive due to Numbers 30.

    How will these people react when they meet God face to face? He’s clearly not the God they want.

  8. The wife still loves her Mary Kassian and argues that she is a “reforming feminist”.

    Color me skeptical.

  9. BillyS says:

    Notice she uses a picture of a man screaming at a woman to color the view of authority she then writes about.

  10. Jim says:

    “When Europeans came to this continent, they brought religion, laws, and economic systems that institutionalized the status of women as the property of men through marriage.”

    As it should be.

    I am sure the Indians were all about equality of the sexes.

    The Idiot Left attributes all sorts of wonderful things to the American Indians that’s just BS. They’ll never admit how savage they could be.

    Normal Orthodox Marxism with Hegelian Rhetoric. Just substitute women for the working class. No drop of original thought.

    Since when do they ever have original thought? The best they can do is be a poor imitation of men.

    Paul is obviously highly abusive according to “Focus Ministries.” God is also abusive due to Numbers 30.

    How will these people react when they meet God face to face? He’s clearly not the God they want.

    Believe me they’re going to be so surprised when they’re facing Him. The Eternal Patriarch is going to give them an eternal whipping and no white knights will be there to rescue them.

  11. BillyS says:

    She is attempting to reform feminism to let Christians chow it down God is Laughing.

    Probably not what your wife realizes however.

  12. feeriker says:

    Paul is obviously highly abusive according to “Focus Ministries.” God is also abusive due to Numbers 30.

    That is EXACTLY what they obviously believe. For some unfathomable reason they’re too cowardly to openly admit it; if ever there was a day and age in which openly denouncing Scripture and embracing the god of modernism was risk-free, today is it. It’s not as if they would be blindsiding anybody with their honesty either. In fact, the waffling and evasion has become a tiresome insult to our collective intelligence. I might actually accord these people some grudging respect if they would just be honest about their apostasy.

    How will these people react when they meet God face to face? He’s clearly not the God they want.

    I don’t think most of them really believe in the God of the Bible, all of their hollow verbal platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding. I don’t think they give even so much as a millisecond’s worth of serious thought to “Judgment Day.”

    As to how they will react on that day of rude awakening when they discover just how real (and angry) the God of Abraham is … well, it’s been said that God’s presence is so overwhelming that even the proudest human will be humbled. I don’t doubt this at all, but I still can’t shake the image of the typical clueless, arrogant narcissistic humanist trying to argue with God. The evil and amority are THAT profound.

  13. Neguy says:

    You could also have referenced Jason Meyer’s sermon on abuse that you previously wrote briefly about. Meyer is John Piper’s successor at Bethlehem Baptist Church. His matrix likely draws directly from this framework. By his own objective standards Kathy Keller would be qualified as a “Severe Physical Abuser”, but of course we know that applies only to men. The Gospel Coalition very approvingly linked this sermon in a post where comments were disabled. It is literally the only article I’ve ever seen at TGC where they disabled comments.

  14. Sandy Sue says:

    The Bible presents the correct relationship balance between men and women. Every other ass-umption is blather and not worth the breath to discuss. Historical records and laws and man-made rules are worthless as they muddy the waters and tread upon the Truth throwing a dark veil over adhering to His Truth. Violence perpetrated by anyone is usually born out of fear, a history of abuse by authoritative figures, and the perpetuation of mankind’s irrefutable sinful beliefs and practices. If mankind readjusted philosophy to realign with Jehovah’s plan for the human race, no other reasoning is necessary.

  15. sipcode says:

    The root of their view is Gen 3:16, the disease. One of the symptoms of the disease includes men acting violently and Black Lives Matter and ….. There argument is with the word of God. But since they cannot see Him they take it out on His representatives: men.

    Thanks for ‘proving all things’ Dalrock.

  16. sipcode says:

    Sandy Sue: there is no ‘balance’ between men and women. That is [another one] one of the fables of the church, exercising their carnal mind.

  17. Hmm says:

    I noticed that at least the Focus quote mentioned “husband or wife”:

    “The relationship becomes abusive when the husband or wife usurps control of the other person’s thoughts, actions, emotions, freedom, and individuality. Abusers believe they have the right to punish their partner when they disobey or fail to measure up, and often use violence to intimidate them, keep them in line, and regain control.”

    Whether they carry this through is another question. Kassian certainly doesn’t.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Neguy

    You could also have referenced Jason Meyer’s sermon on abuse that you previously wrote briefly about.

    The only post I recall is this one: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/real-men-dont-hold-purses-unless-their-wife-tells-them-to/

    Is there another one I’m missing?

  19. @BillyS,

    Even though my wife acknowledges that the Duluth Model and FotF are evil, her go to more is that we are not entirely correct in our doctrine and not to start casting stones. This seems like little more than equivocation to me. I’m at a point now where she knows my opinion, that I disapprove of Kassian, and the only discussion we are likely to have is one in which we disagree. (Along with the Kendricks for another example).

  20. Dalrock says:

    @Hmm

    I noticed that at least the Focus quote mentioned “husband or wife”:

    “The relationship becomes abusive when the husband or wife usurps control of the other person’s thoughts, actions, emotions, freedom, and individuality. Abusers believe they have the right to punish their partner when they disobey or fail to measure up, and often use violence to intimidate them, keep them in line, and regain control.”

    Whether they carry this through is another question. Kassian certainly doesn’t.

    This is misdirection since it is in the context of applying the Duluth model as God’s plan. The Duluth model is sex specific, so pretending to be gender neutral while presenting the Power and Control and Equality wheels is disingenuous. Note that the same page defines “Using Male Privilege” as abuse. Also, this one page is an outlier in pretending to present a gender neutral representation of the Duluth model. The other two pages I linked to (the one that presents the wheels as God’s plan, and this one) do not.

  21. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Dalrock This post is gold and full of well-researched wisdom. Thank you!

  22. Jim says:

    Even though my wife acknowledges that the Duluth Model and FotF are evil, her go to more is that we are not entirely correct in our doctrine and not to start casting stones.

    Translation: She doesn’t like it. That’s all it is GiL. That’s why she’s vague about it (judging from your description).

  23. She’s moving Jim, but sometimes it’s like pulling teeth and other times it’s just waiting for the revelation of the evil to dawn on her.

  24. Dalrock says:

    @GiL

    The wife still loves her Mary Kassian and argues that she is a “reforming feminist”.

    Color me skeptical.

    Funny. That would be a very slow thaw, since Kassian was part of the founding of the CBMW back in the late 80s. Give her another 30 years and we can expect some real progress!

  25. Dalrock, it is Kassian’s association with Nancy DeMoss-Wolgemuth, a person I had respect for before she hyphenated, that has my wife questioning my stance. After the hyphenation I’m beginning to think the same about women’s ministries as chick flicks, never go there.

    Nancy started her women’s prayer concert by including Steven Kendrick too. I’m starting to grok that this generation of women should be altogether barred from ministry as the are overly prone to rebellion.

  26. David J. says:

    Dalrock: Related to your post, see Kassian’s blog post from 2 days ago: http://girlsgonewise.com/does-a-husband-have-the-authority/

  27. sipcode says:

    GiL:

    Rebellion: It’s what women do (gen3:16). It is their nature. It never stops being their nature. Men and women of God need to let that sink in. And, “shall rule” is a command for men. If we love Him we keep His commandments.

  28. Dalrock says:

    @David J.

    Dalrock: Related to your post, see Kassian’s blog post from 2 days ago: http://girlsgonewise.com/does-a-husband-have-the-authority/

    Thanks! Hmm shared that link as well the other day. I plan on writing a post on that one as well. There is a fundamental problem with that post that is separate from her bomb throwing associating husbands with abuse, so I wanted to address her teaching on abuse first so I can get to the fundamental problem with that post separately.

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

    Chris Nystrom
    I am sure the Indians were all about equality of the sexes.

    Bear in mind the original Duluth document was a produced of 2nd stage feminism, circa late 1970’s, at the tail end of a “back to the land” hippie / noble-primative movement. So I’m sure the feminists of that era would have had some Gaia-given story about equalitarian Indians to spout whenever needed.

    Mary Daly was writing then, too.

  30. Scott says:

    They correctly worried that battered women would be labeled psychologically and that mental health practitioners would collude with men who batter by treating offenders’ personality disorders rather than working to change their beliefs and attitudes about women, men, and marriage…

    This passage does more to explain the difference between the way psychologists and social workers approach interpersonal problems than anything I have ever read.

    I haven’t stopped thinking about it since I read it like 6 hours ago.

  31. Minesweeper says:

    I dont really know how Dalrock does it, he keeps trawling through rivers of churchian feminist sh*t and comes out the other side spotless, most people would have gone postal by now. Its probably slowly driving me nuts.

    I wish she would clearly just say it, “husbands submit to wives in everything, wives beat your husbands over anything.” (And everyone else join in too).

    The only safe way to have contact (if one so desired) with a woman nowadays, would be to arrange it via tinder and have the entire “activity” streamed live via periscope (or is it committing adultery to stream your own porn?).

    It is strange as D says that there is not a “man strike”, at some point will men ever have enough to start one of these?

  32. Sipcode, we have this instruction for older sisters:

    “The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2:3-5

    What I’m saying is that NONE of the women’s ministry appears willing to take this task seriously but thry all seem to want subvert it. Making them false teachers. Exceptional in their rebellion among generations of Jezebels.

  33. Mineter says:

    Disturbing…
    Gentlemen, the Duluth model states that should YOU point out that your wife is using, against you, one of the myriad ways the model claims is violence, you would be actually be guilty of “knowledge abuse”.
    I find it difficult to understand the angst that more and more men are refusing to get married. After all, they’re not ensnaring some poor woman to control and abuse.
    Feminism is the sort of doublethink Orwell had in mind.

  34. Pingback: All roads lead to Duluth. | Reaction Times

  35. sipcode says:

    Girls Gone Wise in the world’s eyes. Is this a time to “don’t answer a fool” in Mary K?

  36. sipcode says:

    GiL: I was just trying to reinforce your point. I do agree with your comment on women’s ministries. One of the exceptions though is Lori Alexander. She come very close to true

  37. Dal, this is first-rate scholarship. Thanks for taking the time and effort to spell it all out for anyone who doubts the cultural pollution we’ve seen from the radical feminists.

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    What I’m saying is that NONE of the women’s ministry appears willing to take this task seriously but thry all seem to want subvert it

    Oh, they take it seriously. They just define terms as they see fit. Look at pretty much any comment thread on CAF, Christian Forums, etc. The older, aging Boomer feminists are all over the “teach younger women” concept. You betcha.

    Lots of things get pretty easy once one gets done re-re-reinterpreting the Bible.

  39. Jim says:

    It is strange as D says that there is not a “man strike”, at some point will men ever have enough to start one of these?

    The man strike is already in progress. It’s called MGTOW. And this strategy is growing.🙂
    Meanwhile, the rest of the guys will live in terror of that 911 call that will produce a chickenshit white knight cop who will show up to do Jezebel’s evil bidding.

  40. Minesweeper says:

    @Jim, is even MGTOW enough to protect yourself from them ?🙂

    As for MGTOW in person, I know of 1. Im having relatives getting married too the guys <30.

    Im really not seeing a concerted effort yet. There is obviously a disconnect between what the guys think women can do to them in a relationship\marriage and what they can actually do to you. If the guys really knew, they would run a friggin mile.

  41. Jim says:

    @Jim, is even MGTOW enough to protect yourself from them ?:)

    Yes. Avoid relationships and you avoid that 911 call in your own house.

    Im really not seeing a concerted effort yet. There is obviously a disconnect between what the guys think women can do to them in a relationship\marriage and what they can actually do to you. If the guys really knew, they would run a friggin mile.

    No it’s a MAJOR thing yet. It’s growing though and it’s there if they want it. And yes, if these ignorant guys knew better they’d be pointing a can of Raid at any woman who wants a relationship while running the other way. It makes zero sense to invite someone into your own home and freely allow them to place you in chains while they can do whatever they wish to you with no consequences. And why sign a contract that makes this kind of misandric slavery legal?

  42. Neguy says:

    @Dalrock,

    Yes, that’s the link I was referring to. That sermon is a piece of work. One thing it contains is matrices of what constitutes abuse that appear very Duluth like. IIRC, also has an explicit “believe the woman” statement

  43. feeriker says:

    I’m starting to grok that this generation of women should be altogether barred from ministry as the are overly prone to rebellion.

    Absolutely. Nothing good will ever come of any “women’s ministry” in the Churchian Age, given that ALL of the material on which it is based is femimist progressivism thinly disguised as ministry (“churches” today rely on bestselling feelgood literature to replace the Bible, the latter being considered both “too difficult for laypeople to digest” and full of impolitic instruction that just doesn’t comport with today’s societal norms).

    And, as AR pointed out upthread, while there are plenty of older women willing to mentor the younger ones, what they’re mentoring them inisn’t something that’s going to have God saying “well done, my good and faithful servant” on Judgment Day.

  44. tsotha says:

    [We want men] to genuinely struggle with their beliefs about men, women, relationships, and entitlement.

    Yes, and having done so I realize 1) feminism is a cancer and 2) our society took a wrong turn post WW II when it became acceptable for women to abandon their traditional responsibilities.

  45. greyghost says:

    Well more power to you ladies. We are real close to a full on SHTF. I almost thought we had it that night in Dallas. Any man that makes any kind of commitment to a woman these days is an irresponsible fool. Either that or just plain blue pill ignorant completely terrified of the truth. The next six months should be it especially if Hillary (miss rule of law herself) wins this election.
    For all you christian wives out there your husband are all abusive assholes. Call the police on them now before the SHTF if you wait too long it will be too late and the police won’t be available to protect you from their abuse. Ask your pastor or preacher about it he will help you.

  46. Gunner Q says:

    “In order to have a healthy relationship, both partners must treat each other as equal and independent human beings.”

    I have trouble thinking of any relationship between two people that can exist only if they’re independent equals. Employment? Nope. Friendship? Nope. Hospitality? Nope. Vendetta? Nope. Christ and humanity? Whoa, I just stepped on a motive.

    feeriker @ 2:19 pm:
    “I don’t doubt this at all, but I still can’t shake the image of the typical clueless, arrogant narcissistic humanist trying to argue with God.”

    I hope God lets them do it. And lets us watch. And serves popcorn. Let them die as they lived, treating the Almighty as an equal.

    “It is strange as D says that there is not a “man strike”, at some point will men ever have enough to start one of these?”

    Not strange at all when you consider men want sex first and foremost. Fornication and modern porn relieve the sexual pressure that would fuel organized revolt against misandry.

  47. sonofdeathswriter says:

    This post needs a gold band. It points out clear rebellion of wives in this generation.

  48. feeriker says:

    This post needs a gold band. It points out clear rebellion of wives in this generation.

    Just to be clear, wives of ALL generations throughout human history have rebelled. The difference between every previous age and the one we live in today is that in all other ages past, a strong patriarchy prevented the rebellion from getting out of hand. That such a check is a no longer in place explains the hopeless mess human civilization is in right now.

  49. Pointed to Kassian’s article. Wife saw that it was Duluth. Positive step.

  50. greyghost says:

    Feeriker
    You are correct this behavior and attitude from women today is normal. The police and courts and law makers and church going along with this female rebellion instead of the constitution rule of law and the bible is what is different.

  51. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @David J.
    Dalrock: Related to your post, see Kassian’s blog post from 2 days ago: http://girlsgonewise.com/does-a-husband-have-the-authority/

    Interesting to read what’s in the link you posted. Kassian basically posts a list of certain actions on the part of the husband, then asks whether each action on the list can be considered as “potential abuse.” Surprise, Surprise, Kassian eventually reaches the conclusion that yes, all the actions on that list are without question examples of a husband’s abuse, and thus completely unacceptable. Kassian also informs us in her article that this list of actions was given to her by a woman named Ruth Tucker.

    Here’s where the plot takes an interesting turn. The same Ruth Tucker has also written a book claiming that she suffered years of abuse in a marriage to a man who was a declared “complementarian,” which ultimately brought her to the realization that “complementarianism” only exists to give husbands cover for beating their wives. Apparently that didn’t sit too well with Kassian, so she recently published a review of Tucker’s book detailing why she was wrong . . . . a review for which she’s now being raked over the coals by “egalitarians” and “Christian feminists” who scream that Kassian is making excuses for abusers and is in all likelihood herself being abused by her husband.

    Read it in all its glory right here: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/07/02/reformed-complementarianism-and-abuse-aimee-byrd-and-wendy-alsup-get-it-mary-kassian-does-not/

    Though I’ve got no love for the feminist crowd, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t enjoying the entertainment in a dust-up like this. Mary Kassian and her CBMW allies have always seemed to fancy themselves as a kind of “third way option” between thuggish patriarchy and libertine feminism. But the longer this fight drags on, the more evident it becomes that there isn’t going to be any middle ground. You can have a society with marriages centered on Christ or you can have a society of liberated feminists, but you can’t have both — the two have nothing in common and one will eventually give way to the other. Dalrock and countless others in the manosphere have been able to see this; It’s a shame that the complementarian crowd still chooses to remain blind.

  52. mrteebs says:

    Both groups are deeply hostile to the idea of male headship, and prefer instead to have women in charge.

    I might add the following:

    Both groups are deeply hostile to the idea of male headship, and prefer instead to have women in charge, but CBMW is actually more insidious because they maintain the illusion of the husband having headship. Only through careful inspection does one realize that the husband’s headship is a ceremonial role only, containing 100% responsibility and 0% authority..

    Not entirely unlike King and Queen on a chessboard.

    Aside from protecting the wife physically and her interests, and taking the fall for any possible negative outcomes in the family or relationship, one wonders exactly when Kassian would ever actually allow a husband to lead. Or forge ahead on a course of action with which his wife disagreed.

  53. From DA’s link, compare and contrast:

    “A husband is not imparted with privilege; he is entrusted with obligation—the obligation to love, cherish and shepherd, in emulation of Christ.

    Though complementarians have consistently upheld this view, this truth deserves to be stated and restated with clarity: It is not the husband’s right to force or coerce his wife to submit. Submission is voluntary on a wife’s part, and her choice entirely.”

    Notice the words voluntary and obligated. The wife is not obligated to submit though the Bible clearly tells her to. (What greater authority is there than that). Meanwhile, husband does not get to volunteer his love or “leadership”.

  54. To rephrase that, if God cannot obligate a woman to submit through clear and direct commandment how is a husband going to do it? Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

  55. shammahworm says:

    Something to keep in mind is a lot of these beliefs are also attitudes that are conditioned into people who don’t intellectually understand the goals behind them. It wouldn’t surprise me if most of the people who’ve risen to positions of leadership in these “ministries” haven’t even read a lot of the original material from the churchian feminists.

    It’s almost like a soft version of newspeak where the younger members of society are so conditioned in it they can’t even conceptualize a lot of the concepts the original Marxist philosophies were attacking.

  56. feeriker says:

    To rephrase that, if God cannot obligate a woman to submit through clear and direct commandment how is a husband going to do it?

    Y’know, it suddenly occurs to me to ask: if God cannot (actually, it’s probably more will not) force a wife to submit to her husband, might this not be why so many wives do not fear or respect God any more than they respect or fear their husbands?

    Because women are hardwired to respect demonstrations of power, a woman would probably be positively wet and tingly with reverential respect for her husband, and would submit to him with unbridled enthusiasm if God were to immediately and unmistakeably punish her for not doing so. God doesn’t work that way, however, and because women are neither future oriented nor abstract thinkers, they cannot grok the concept of deferred punishment. Ergo, in a wife’s mind God hasn’t punished her for not submitting to her husband because He either can’t or won’t, and thus He might as well not exist, the words of the Bible, not being backed by tangible force, having no more power and influence over her behavior than graffiti on a brick wall.

    Just a thought.

    Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

    Witchcraft, in all of its many forms, being infinitely more popular today even in churches than prayer and a spiritually disciplined life.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mineter
    “knowledge abuse”.

    Sure. Flip a coin, “heads I win, tails you lose”.

    There’s two sets of rule books, the official one men have to follow, and the … other set.
    Bear in mind that this is intrinsic in women, but feminism amps it up and gives it more “legs” by co-opting obedient men as rule enforcers.

    In many states, any call for “Domestic Violence” requires an arrest. Officer discretion has been taken away, because “male violence”, so someone has to be arrested and 90+% of the time guess who it will be? Even if the woman who made the call doesn’t want it to happen, mind you.

    Feminism is the sort of doublethink Orwell had in mind.

    Orwell knew Marxist-Leninist thought well. 2nd stage feminists included many Marxists and Communists in the group. Consciousness-raising sessions were modeled after Maoist indoctrination sessions. “Men and women are equal but women are more equal” is embedded into the Western legal system, courtesy of feminists and their White Knight lapdogs.

    And it’s not new. Look at the dates on the original Duluth “research”, it’s back in the Carter / Reagan years. “Social science”, oh, yeah.

  58. JDG says:

    “All roads lead to Duluth”

    Literally!

    This is some of your best work IMO. Well done once again.

  59. All roads lead to Duluth

    Well said Dalrock.

    I think the biggest thing we have to keep reminding ourselves of regarding counseling for domestic violence (or abuse, whatever that means to you) is that counseling centers don’t really have any other well defined methods other than Duluth. That is all that they’ve got, so that is pretty much all they can use. We need a new method and I think I’ve got it. It’s perfect. If counseling centers used my foolproof 8 word method for handling all domestic violence…

    “Do whatever your husband tells you to do.”

    ….there would be NO domestic violence. A woman could live with the most violent husband on the face of the earth and she’d have nothing at all to fear. In fact, my method would pretty much instantly put all domestic violence counselors out of work. They would have to find something else to do. So in that sense, its pretty much a non-starter.

  60. Feeriker,

    Ergo, in a wife’s mind God hasn’t punished her for not submitting to her husband because He either can’t or won’t, and thus He might as well not exist, the words of the Bible, not being backed by tangible force,

    Husbands are tangible. I suspect that is why God arranged things this way. And why rebellion is aimed at this physical manifestation of God’s will.

  61. greyghost says:

    I don’t think women have the capacity to even conceptualize God in a spiritual way. Think of the term “Christian” When you say Christian it is a special thing that defines a kind of goodness and morality. When women go to church or talk about God or the “women’s Ministry” as it were They don’t give a damn about the scripture or God and what he has to say all they are interested in is the “Christian” status attached to them.
    You know God does instruct men to love their wife. When a man takes off the blinders of pussy worship and sees the never ending rebellious nature of women that is something that won’t come naturally.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    CBMW is actually more insidious because they maintain the illusion of the husband having headship. Only through careful inspection does one realize that the husband’s headship is a ceremonial role only, containing 100% responsibility and 0% authority..

    Yep. The “chauffeur” model; “lead me, but only where I want to go”.

    Or, as someone coined on this blog once upon a time, “Figureheadship”.

  63. Moses says:

    I just don’t take feminists seriously anymore about anything. This Duluth thing is so over the top, absurd on its face.

    It shows how women think like children. They’re all feelz and groupthink. The ancients knew this. Hell, 100 years ago this was common knowledge.

    Good on ya Dalrock for ripping them apart via logic and cogent thought. I just don’t think they warrant it.

  64. greyghost says:

    I just don’t take feminists seriously anymore about anything. This Duluth thing is so over the top, absurd on its face.

    Don’t kid yourself you can be shot and killed by the government over that foolishness. This is how civilizations fall.

  65. They Call Me Tom says:

    “The Idiot Left attributes all sorts of wonderful things to the American Indians that’s just BS. They’ll never admit how savage they could be.” –Jim

    The Idiot Left fails to comprehend just how savage humanity itself was for most of it’s existence to be honest. They don’t grasp the benefits of the patriarchy because they don’t grasp the monsters being held at bay by the ever declining numbers of un-gelded men. When the dam breaks, most of the Eloi will be catatonic, at least for the seconds, at best minutes, that they continue to exist after the dam breaks.

  66. By successfully removing God’s delegated authority in a family from the husband, these evil witchcrafters have effectively defanged the foundations of Christian patriarchy — calling what God considers good as bad. They knew that there remains a vacuum in authority that needs to be filled and their only logical course of action is to target Christian leaders. Like how the serpent deceived Eve, they subtly brainwashed the Christian leaders and slowly subject sound Biblical beliefs that these leaders should hold to years of cultural erosion.

    So they haven’t defanged these Christian leaders; they turned them into Churchian leaders, enlisting them into their evil plan and becoming part of their massive army in rebellion against all things good and God.

    What we are seeing today is no different from what we read about the ancients (emphasis mine):
    “Asherah, along with Astarte and Anath, was one of the three great goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. In Canaanite religion her primary role was that of mother goddess… On occasion in Ugaritic myth, Asherah performs the maternal role of wet nurse. Ugaritic and other Canaanite materials further associate Asherah with lions (indicating power), serpents (representing immortality or healing), and sacred trees (signifying fertility).

    “Gen 2:4b–3:24 may further suggest the association of Asherah with sacred trees, since the way that Eve, “the mother of all living” (3:20), is described in the Eden story mimics in certain respects the role of the Canaanite mother goddess Asherah. If a correspondence holds, then the trees of life and of knowledge in the Eden narrative may also reflect Asherah imagery.

    “Whether women, more generally, were more likely to be devotees of Asherah’s cult is unknown… and the various female figurines found in domestic contexts at multiple Israelite sites might also suggest this, assuming, as many scholars do, that women played an especially important role in family-centered religious activities. Nevertheless, the presence of Asherah’s cult in the Jerusalem temple and in the cult city of Bethel indicates that worship of the goddess was also appealing to men, given that it was an all-male clergy that officiated at these (and at every) Israelite religious site.”

    Source – http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/asherahasherim-bible

  67. Spike says:

    Duluth Model feminists are extremely lucky that the majority of men either have not heard of the Power and Control Wheel and that fewer still have stopped to analyse it.
    Were men to do so, they would very quickly conclude that ANY interaction with a woman is defined as domestic abuse, so that the only method of providing men’s security is MGTOW.
    Under Duluth, telling a wife that the children need to go to school on time is abuse. Telling her that her spending is over budget and sending the household broke – is abuse. Complaining that laundry isn’t done or dinner isn’t made, is abuse. Typically, feminists have not defined what acceptable behaviour is, thereby making any normal interactions impossible.
    Duluth is an example of academic extremists with no real-world experience making strictly enforceable rules for society. One wonders why and how politicians and law enforcement didn’t spot the intractability of this model

  68. Duluth, Feminism, all of it is Frankfurt School critical studies Marxist claptrap. It is EXACTLY like Marx with the dialectic changed from rich/poor to men /women. Marx himself said it in the communist manifesto: “in a word oppressor and oppressed.”

    The goal is to undermine and fundamentally transform society via radical egalitarianism. If only there was a history of these attempts at collectivizing and homgenizing then we could study it and perhaps learn from it!

    Nah, let’s make the Duluth model the ONLY accepted model on domestic violence. Power to the people.

  69. feeriker says:

    Duluth is an example of academic extremists with no real-world experience making strictly enforceable rules for society. One wonders why and how politicians and law enforcement didn’t spot the intractability of this model

    Politicians and “law enforcement” know full damned well how flawed this model is. That’s the point: it gives THEM unlimited power over everyone else, which is, of course, their very reason for existence as a class. There’s nothing :”accidental” or “intentional” about this at all. See BPP’s post above mine for clarification.

  70. feeriker says:

    That should read “UNintentional””

  71. I still like my counseling method better.

  72. feeriker says:

    Husbands are tangible. I suspect that is why God arranged things this way. And why rebellion is aimed at this physical manifestation of God’s will.

    Sure, but let any “tangible” husband mete out punishment to a rebellious wife and he’ll see just how fast he’ll be doing hard time in the slammer, probably for most of the rest of his life.

    Once again, a husband exercising Biblical headship in marriage today is a criminal offense!. If you insist on doing it, be under no illusions about what the consequences will be. Be prepared also to have God AND GOD ALONE on your side. The law, the courts, the rest of the apparatus of the State, and the church will crucify you.

  73. Hells Hound says:

    It’s a simple matter of social realities, and the fundamental change of those realities.

    There was a time when domestic abuse wasn’t considered a social problem that needs legal remedy. Why? Because people normally lived in small, land-based, tight-knit communities founded on mutual trust and knowledge. Domestic violence couldn’t be hidden, and it was easily avenged by the male relatives of the abused woman, because the average woman had a responsible father and brothers she could count on, and vigilante justice against abusers was mostly tolerated by the community and the police, because there was widespread consensus that real abusers are shitheads who disrespect the institution of marriage. Yeah, male victims of abuse were in a helpless situation, but that didn’t change at all.

    Now all this is thrown out of the window. Today people normally live transient lives in small, disconnected families and atomized, largely dysfunctional communities. The old protections against domestic violence simply don’t work anymore. But evolutionary psychology keeps asserting itself, so we still subconsciously think of women as a hugely important reproductive resource who need protection at all costs, even though that’s an idiotic approach in a world of demographic implosion, voluntary motherhood, contraceptives, abortion and so on. So the social consensus is that women need strong legal and police protection from abusers if communal protection isn’t on the table. Needless to say, the resulting laws are bound to go way overboard, because gynocentrism and male disposability are still norms. That’s why we have shit like the Duluth Model and so on.

    It’s the same situation with rape. In the past, the average woman was seen as a chaste, dignified human who was either a potential mother or a mother, whose reputation was important and whose womb was immensely important. Real rape was seen as a threat against female chastity, against her ability to become a well-adjusted mother and wife, against the reputation of her entire family. So there was consensus that women, especially madiens, need to be protected from rapist by their entire community. Women were strictly supervised and protected, and generally kept away from men that weren’t vetted by the community, there were chaperones etc. The average woman didn’t even have many opportunities to meet a stranger in some secluded place.

    This has all changed. Rape is now seen as the violation of female individual autonomy and sexual freedom. Female chastity no longer has value, and nobody cares about a woman’s reputation or fertility anymore. But our fundamental subconscious approach is still the same: women need to be protected from rapists at all costs. So people are freaked out by a social reality where young women normally live alone or with female roommates for years, separated from their families, in completely atomized social environments where they meet male strangers all the time. And society reacts by going completely overboard. Again, if communal protection from rape isn’t on the table, the law and the police have to step up, even if that means false rape accusations and whatnot (men are expendable, you know). That’s why we have rape shield laws, the “preponderance of evidence” standard, the YMY law and so on. And that’s why rape has been redefined to a ridiculous extent.

  74. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Moses: It shows how women think like children. They’re all feelz and groupthink. The ancients knew this. Hell, 100 years ago this was common knowledge.

    Re: 100 years ago … there’s a whole subgenre of fllms set in Victorian England. Almost always there’s a nod to the emancipation of women. It’s an almost universal theme to films set 100 to 150 years ago, regardless of the story.

    Some buffoonish upper-class twit will patronizingly remark that “women are all children.” Or there’ll be a strong, intelligent woman who’ll outsmart the men, or lament her lack of opportunities to study science or medicine, or explore the Amazon, or engage in crime-fighting. Often there’ll be a modern man who agrees with her, and pedestalizes her for her courage and independence.

    The main story doesn’t even have to be about the women. I recently saw Century (1993), set in 1900. The main characters were two male, medical researchers. The elder one was initially portrayed sympathetically, by us learning that “he’s the first doctor in London to employ female lab assistants.” The younger doctor has an out-of-wedlock “common law marriage” with one of these lab assistants, because she refuses to surrender her freedom. He admires her for this, and in pleading with her to stay, promises never to expect her to change for his sake, or to any way impede her freedom.

    His respect for her independence isn’t even what the story’s about. Just the usual background theme for all films set in Victorian England.

  75. Dota says:

    A central assumption in the Duluth curriculum is that nature and culture are separate.

    False. Culture is an extension of human nature which itself is a function of evolution. Feminism is a rebellion against nature which is why it cannot win.

  76. Feminist Hater says:

    Duluth Model feminists are extremely lucky that the majority of men either have not heard of the Power and Control Wheel and that fewer still have stopped to analyse it.
    Were men to do so, they would very quickly conclude that ANY interaction with a woman is defined as domestic abuse, so that the only method of providing men’s security is MGTOW.
    Under Duluth, telling a wife that the children need to go to school on time is abuse. Telling her that her spending is over budget and sending the household broke – is abuse. Complaining that laundry isn’t done or dinner isn’t made, is abuse. Typically, feminists have not defined what acceptable behaviour is, thereby making any normal interactions impossible.
    Duluth is an example of academic extremists with no real-world experience making strictly enforceable rules for society. One wonders why and how politicians and law enforcement didn’t spot the intractability of this model

    That’s the point, to make life as difficult as possible. To make family formation as difficult as possible, to make interaction risky, to make mistakes so costly, to make the law so convoluted that society is crushed under its weight.

    That’s the point. The real crusher though is that most women buy this shit hook, line and sinker, which is why everything is targeting towards them. It brings about destruction of society when you promise women the impossible.

  77. Minesweeper says:

    @FH, that and the whole liberal – equalist – agenda seems to have taken us into an society level instability that will be difficult to recover from, everyone should be judged on their individual character, and women have really been found wanting. Men too, but not as widespread.

    Its sad we have gone from an era of marriage, family formation, stability, to the exact opposite. We are not going to recover this, somehow we need to go through this to get to the other side. And no one has a clue what is there.

    Society can change very fast, it can only lasts 3 generations. Nothing in society is forever.

  78. Lost Patrol says:

    @BPP: “Nah, let’s make the Duluth model the ONLY accepted model on domestic violence. Power to the people.”

    Right On! Well – power to half the people anyway.

    The fairer sex. How long has it been since that was true?

  79. Hmm says:

    @Minesweeper:
    The fair sex, but not the fairer sex. I am reminded of these lyrics from My Fair Lady:

    PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
    Why can’t a woman be more like a man?
    Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
    Eternally noble, historically fair.
    Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
    Why can’t a woman be like that?
    Why does every one do what the others do?
    Can’t a woman learn to use her head?
    Why do they do everything their mothers do?
    Why don’t they grow up, well, like their father instead?

    Why can’t a woman take after a man?
    Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
    Whenever you’re with them, you’re always at ease.

    Would you be slighted if I didn’t speak for hours?

    COLONEL PICKERING:
    Of course not.

    PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
    Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?

    COLONEL PICKERING:
    Nonsense.

    PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
    Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?

    COLONEL PICKERING:
    Never.

    PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
    Well, why can’t a woman be like you?

    One man in a million may shout a bit.
    Now and then, there’s one with slight defects.
    One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
    But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

    Why can’t a woman take after a man?
    ‘Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
    A better companion you never will find.

    If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?

    COLONEL PICKERING:
    Of course not.

    PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
    If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?

    COLONEL PICKERING:
    Nonsense.

    PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
    Would you complain if I took out another fellow?

    Pickering
    Never.

    PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
    Why can’t a woman be like us?

    [ Why can’t a woman be more like a man?
    Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
    Ready to help you through any mishaps;
    Ready to buck you up whenever you’re glum.
    Why can’t a woman be a chum?

    Why is thinking something women never do?
    And why is logic never even tried?
    Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
    Why don’t they straighten up the mess that’s inside?

    Why can’t a woman behave like a man?
    If I was a woman who’d been to a ball,
    Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
    Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
    Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
    Would I run off and never tell me where I’m going?
    Why can’t a woman be like me?

  80. Hmm says:

    Sorry – should have been @Lost Patrol.

  81. Minesweeper says:

    @Hmm, well those lyrics are hilarious, thats got to be next for a feminist remake surely !!

  82. Caligula says:

    “Die Gedanken sind frei” Thoughts are free. May I suggest that any “therapy” that coercively (i.e., with implicit or explicit threats that unpleasant things will happen if you don’t comply) attempts to change one’s beliefs rather than focus on one’s actual behaviors, or which judges behaviors differently depending not on the behaviors but on who or what one is (or what one believes) is inherently totalitarian and thus illegitimate?

  83. “Both groups are deeply hostile to the idea of male headship, and prefer instead to have women in charge.”

    I don’t see it that way. The CBMW is still male dominated. The board is all men, and the organization is run by men. They don’t want women in charge.

    What they do want is to not be TOO offensive to women.

    I suspect that instead of being “hostile to the idea of male headship”, they are actually hostile to the idea of losing a portion of their congregations.

  84. Prof. Woland says:

    When women start being arrested and punished at the same rate they commit domestic violence you will see changes in the way the legal system operates. Thanks to the VAWA, police have to assume that the person involved with the greater upper body strength (primary aggressor) is always at fault. They could have just said which one had a penis but that would have been too blatantly discriminatory. If I were a betting man and had to guess what organized women’s groups would do if they faced “equality”, it would be that they would begin to behave themselves.

  85. sipcode says:

    @Hmm:
    Great lines from a great movie. I could feel Henry Higgins pain as he spoke.

    I was watching another TV from the early 60’s recently [can’t remember the show] and it too hit the male-female thing square on the head just like this screenplay. But by the late 60’s that was taboo in Hollywood. Not sure why it took them so long, as progressive as they are.

  86. sipcode says:

    BTW: you may be familiar with Esther Vilar …she caught Hell for her 1971 book “The Manipulated Man.” YouTube interview of her at that time is so hostile. She is German but lives in Brazil so she sees several cultures [but we already know all women are alike: their predisposition]. Death threats, etc. she says have been going on ever since; she’s almost 80.

  87. The CBMW is still male dominated. The board is all men, and the organization is run by men. They don’t want women in charge.

    Different organizational chart, same result. Liberal feminists would gradually replace all the men on the board with women, perhaps excepting a couple of minorities or gays. Conservative feminists keep men on the board who will do what their wives and the women in the organization want.

  88. Snowy says:

    I like battered fish.

  89. Feminist Hater says:

    I don’t see it that way. The CBMW is still male dominated. The board is all men, and the organization is run by men. They don’t want women in charge.

    Figureheads. That’s what they are. The same is used for husbands. They are the figurehead of the family, not the actual head with authority to make decisions and to follow through on them. The idea is that the husband is the scapegoat, he is there to appear to lead but the woman has the ultimate power at the end of the day.

    The Duluth model merely does away with the figure head and gives women the ultimate say so thus removing men from their position of authority.

  90. Feminist Hater says:

    The entire reasoning has very little to do with abuse and very much to do with control. Removing the husband from headship means putting the woman in charge of the family decisions and family finances. Women are easier to control, easier to pander to, easier to deceive and thus removing the man from the picture allows the government to indirectly control families and family budgets/spending via the wife.

    A husband provides stability, savings and efficiency, none of which is wanted in the current realm of market finance and Keynesian Economics. Spend, spend, spend. Even divorce reform can be said to be another means of ‘spend, spend, spend and spend some more’. In that light, it very much does make sense to break up families. For the short term the gain through expenditure is quite large.

  91. Earl says:

    Surprise, surprise: Kassian’s blog has no comment section.

  92. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, as if anyone would be entitled to disagree with her.

  93. Really? Not even observations of the dysfunction are allowed?

  94. Feminist Hater says:

    Read her idea of what headship is and then read what a figurehead is and then see that they are the exact same thing.

  95. feeriker says:

    Surprise, surprise: Kassian’s blog has no comment section.

    Lol, as if anyone would be entitled to disagree with her.

    Really? Not even observations of the dysfunction are allowed?

    Very easy workaround for this. Just by the domain name “marykassianisfullofshit.com” and open up for business. Odds are that the “rebuttal blog” you set up will get more traffic by orders of magnitude than the source blog.

    Lather, rinse, and repeat for any other feminista blogger who thinks she can stifle criticism by not having a comments section.

  96. Cane Caldo says:

    One lesson to glean from this is how easy it is for a group of well-meaning people to be misled into carrying out an enemy’s conspiracy. I do not believe that CBMW set out to be Feminists, nor do I believe that they were infiltrated. Yet no actual conspirators could accomplish the subversion which the CBMW pulled on itself.

    The environment was such that it was already accepted as fact that we modern people are more enlightened than the ancients. That unavoidably implies they were rabid abusers, by comparison.

    Now the CBMW is made up of introverted and bookish folks (nerds) and how can they resist the lure of a system like the Duluth Model–with its references and charts and–above all–answers(!)?

    The answer is to the question: How can I show myself a better man than others?

    Once that question is entertained the conspiracy runs itself.

  97. feeriker says:

    Feminist Hater says:
    July 22, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    Yup. Exactly.

    Now if only they had the gonads to just be honest about their (painfully obvious) agenda…

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    I don’t see it that way. The CBMW is still male dominated. The board is all men, and the organization is run by men. They don’t want women in charge.

    The other day I saw a limo with several people in the back. The driver was clearly in charge of everything, including where they went, because he was sitting behind the wheel.

    What they do want is to not be TOO offensive to women.

    They are scared to death of offending any woman any time.

    I suspect that instead of being “hostile to the idea of male headship”, they are actually hostile to the idea of losing a portion of their congregations.

    To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to.

  99. theasdgamer says:

    Sexism sucks…including the sexist belief that women lack penises and testes…some people are such idiots, lol

  100. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    One lesson to glean from this is how easy it is for a group of well-meaning people to be misled into carrying out an enemy’s conspiracy. I do not believe that CBMW set out to be Feminists, nor do I believe that they were infiltrated. Yet no actual conspirators could accomplish the subversion which the CBMW pulled on itself.

    The environment was such that it was already accepted as fact that we modern people are more enlightened than the ancients. That unavoidably implies they were rabid abusers, by comparison.

    Now the CBMW is made up of introverted and bookish folks (nerds) and how can they resist the lure of a system like the Duluth Model–with its references and charts and–above all–answers(!)?

    The answer is to the question: How can I show myself a better man than others?

    Once that question is entertained the conspiracy runs itself.

    Yes.

    Although there is a paradox, because they also believe that feminism was spawned by a surge in bad behavior of men. This means they simultaneously believe that we moderns are more enlightened than the bad old abusers of the ancient world, and that we moderns are brutish oafs who can’t be trusted with messages which were perfectly safe to deliver to the sensitive new age guys of the ancient world. But the common theme is the men who founded the CBMW are better than other men (both their contemporaries and men in the ancient world).

  101. Dalrock, I realize that I’m pointing out a flatly obvious fact but here it goes. What about the traditions of the Church? Their interpretation and expression of the Word? In order to arrive at this Hegelian mess they had to become unanchored. In my mind this is because they lost the proper respect for the older and the wiser that went before them.

    We sold our heritage for higher “education”.

  102. Lost Patrol says:

    Thanks Dalrock, for the education on Duluth Model.

    Had I learned about this from some other venue, I probably would have gaffed it off as an anachronism from the 80’s, not especially relevant for me. Imagine the surprise to realize that I, and my sons, are under direct and current threat from this concept given the wide acceptance within law enforcement and the church.

    Followed the embedded links and pulled this from The Wake-Up Call:

    >>>The wake-up call narrative by the numbers.

    “1. A poor excuse for a man and husband does something (often something mysterious) to make his wife unhaaapy.
    2. As a result, the wife lashes out, very often in a way that threatens the family.
    3. Her sinful actions while of course not sanctioned (We swear! Really! No, I’m serious! Stop laughing!) turn out to be just the ticket required to shake her complacent husband into attention and get him to seek out God.
    4. His seeking out God (triggered by her lack of submission) fixes their marriage, makes him a better man, and brings them both to God.”

    So if the woman is vindictive enough, the man does not make it past step one. Duluth Model energized – man punished for abuse.

    Speaking of vindictive women found on embedded links. Now I know the godly tantrum, break china story. Wow! That was no tantrum, that was a carefully crafted ambush by a woman who knew she was holding all the cards. The old cowboys would call her a ‘dry gulcher’. She had to watch him like a sniper until he got within earshot, then calmly lure him further into the kill zone with carefully timed smashings. Cold blooded.

    I’ll stop now, but can’t until I address all the ‘men’ in the stories. These guys march lockstep through the wake-up call narrative. I understand at one level that I ought to feel some empathy for them, or pity, or something (because a case could be made that I was that guy); but all I’m left with is the feeling that they should be punched in the face.

  103. Dale says:

    >I dont really know how Dalrock does it, he keeps trawling through rivers of churchian feminist sh*t and comes out the other side spotless, most people would have gone postal by now.”

    Yes, I really appreciate the research Dalrock does. Even moreso, the calm, anger-free presentation. While righteous anger can be appropriate, the Bible warns against human anger (James 1:19-21) and perceived anger on the part of the writer is an excuse many people use to dismiss the message of the writer.
    Well done Dalrock.

    >It is strange as D says that there is not a “man strike”, at some point will men ever have enough to start one of these?

    I think Dalrock only indicated that he thinks there is not a large-scale man strike. I, for one, am absolutely refusing to even consider bringing a rebellious woman into my house as wife (Josh 24:14-15). The last time I dated a Canadian woman was 7 years ago. As Mineter says, this should please the “Christian”/feminist women around me, as this guarantees that I will not be oppressing any poor woman with my authority. I regularly thank God that I do not have a selfish, lazy wife. I am very grateful to be unmarried.

    Some of the points in the OP remind me of how critical it is to memorize Scripture. Humans, and Satan (Gen 3), are quite capable of giving fine-sounding excuses to ignore the words of God. A related example is those who feel the entirety of the OT can be ignored due to Christ bringing us a new covenant — no further need to consider God’s views on various crimes or God’s views on respect or obedience to God.
    For those who have not already done so, I suggest memorizing at least one of the following; shortest passage at the top.
    Col 3:18-21
    Titus 2:1-5
    1 Pet 3:1-7

    Luke 17:10, Numbers 1:51 and 18:7 are also interesting for “equality”.

    As others have pointed out, by labelling authority as abuse, these people categorize God as abusive. One example from Luke 17:
    7 “Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? 8 Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? 9 Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’”

    Jesus equated obedience to his teachings with love for Jesus in John 14:21-24.

  104. Boxer says:

    BTW: you may be familiar with Esther Vilar …she caught Hell for her 1971 book “The Manipulated Man.”

    That is a very, very good book. Vilar was a rare sort of honest feminist in the 1960s who just called it like she saw it. The only analog alive, that I know of, would probably be Paglia. Vilar wrote a second book entitled The Polygamous Sex which is dated but also interesting reading.

  105. Dalrock says:

    @Lost Patrol

    Speaking of vindictive women found on embedded links. Now I know the godly tantrum, break china story. Wow! That was no tantrum, that was a carefully crafted ambush by a woman who knew she was holding all the cards. The old cowboys would call her a ‘dry gulcher’. She had to watch him like a sniper until he got within earshot, then calmly lure him further into the kill zone with carefully timed smashings. Cold blooded.

    I’ll stop now, but can’t until I address all the ‘men’ in the stories. These guys march lockstep through the wake-up call narrative.

    True, and these men aren’t fringe characters, they are the movers and shakers in the complementarian world. Tim Keller (husband of china smashing Kathy Keller) is the cofounder and vice president of The Gospel Coalition, an organization arguably more influential today among complementarians than the CBMW.

  106. Taking another pass at how feminists have thrown away the Word and the traditions of the Church. How many of these women “ministers” in the current crop were discipled by Godly women in the Titus 2 model and how many have abandoned their Godly heritage in their older sisters in Christ for egalitarian credentialism? I suspect that is one of the critical ways that this broke down.

    Imagine if when a woman’s minister spoke she gave her elderly Godly mentor on introduction instead of what school of “divinity” she attended post-grad and which she went to for her degree in women’s studies.

    “Yes, I know Marla. She is a Godly woman who has respect for and submits to her husband of 40 years as a God fearing woman… she vouches for your character and your attitude towards your husband, I’d be happy if you discipled my wife or daughters….”

  107. MrMasculine says:

    Hey Dalrock

    If your wife ever calls the police for domestic abuse you can just suddenly “identify” as the wife and it will neutralize the situation. I think using the same game against these insane people is the only way we can come back to any kind of sanity.

  108. feeriker says:

    How many of these women “ministers” in the current crop were discipled by Godly women in the Titus 2 model and how many have abandoned their Godly heritage in their older sisters in Christ for egalitarian credentialism?

    There have been no “Titus 2 Women” in any significant numbers within the church for at least the last three generations, so the odds of any given female “minister” having been the beneficiary of the instruction of one are essentially ZE-RO, or south thereof.

    The egalitarian credentialism –indeed, “credentialism” in any literal form– is a given. The absence of Titus 2 women and their counsel has been a contributing factor, but the progressivism of the current churchian paradigm (and its visceral hostility toward the very concept of the “Titus 2 Woman” and everything she represents) made it inevitable in any case.

  109. Anonymous Reader says:

    Speaking of Kathy Keller…looks like her denomination is drifting towards women in church offices of authority.

    http://theaquilareport.com/actions-of-the-44th-general-assembly-of-the-presbyterian-church-in-america/

    About half way down:
    The AC recommended to the Assembly that a study committee be formed to investigate such matters as: 1) the biblical basis, theology, history, nature, and authority of ordination; 2) the biblical nature and function of the office of deacon; 3) clarification on the ordination or commissioning of deacons/deaconesses;

    and

    The study committee’s seven voting members are Irwyn Ince (convener), Jeffrey Choi, Ligon Duncan, Kathy Keller, Mary Beth McGreevy, Bruce O’Neil, and Harry Reeder; and advisory members are Nikisha Alcindor, Leon Brown, Dan Doriani, Kimberly Jones, Lani Jones, and Roy Taylor.

    No idea who these people are with the exceptiion of Kathy Keller. But I’m pretty sure where she will sit on the issue.

  110. Anon says:

    Wow. Could it be? The work that low-status men do to keep society running has actually been notice by a woman not named Helen Smith or Janet Bloomfield :

  111. feeriker says:

    Speaking of Kathy Keller…looks like her denomination is drifting towards women in church offices of authority.

    If it’s the PCUSA, they’ve had women in leadership positions for decades. Matter o’ fact, to call that “denomination” a “Christian church” is stretching things to the breaking point.

  112. feeriker says:

    Anon says:
    July 22, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    But is she praising that fact, or is she whining that too few women are involved?

  113. Anon says:

    But is she praising that fact, or is she whining that too few women are involved?

    I think she is praising, since she mentions that they are invisible, and that seems to indicate that these jobs are low-status despite being essential. Her other tweets are also anti-misandry.

    But it is sad that this is so rare that it becomes worth mentioning….

  114. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker says:
    July 22, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    “But is she praising that fact, or is she whining that too few women are involved?”

    She’s praising them. You’ll never hear a feminist whine about the “gender gap” in jobs like trash collecting or utilities maintenance. Police? Maybe.

  115. sipcode says:

    @Dale

    “Yes, I really appreciate the research Dalrock does. Even moreso, the calm, anger-free presentation. While righteous anger can be appropriate, the Bible warns against human anger (James 1:19-21) and perceived anger on the part of the writer is an excuse many people use to dismiss the message of the writer.”

    The good cop / bad cop delivery can be good but anger is only defined by the message, not the delivery. Righteous anger is solely promoting true / scripture and God . Unrighteous anger is promoting lies and self. That is the only separation. You can never draw a line between anger that feels comfortable or not. Christ braided a whip and started throwing tables. Even His disciples were taken back …until they recalled that OT verse on ‘zeal was His undoing.’

    Most people zone out when someone is angry, because that is what women do, what the church has taken on. I’ve always paid more attention to an angry person if I see they have a point to make and its not just me, me, me.

    Let them feel some Hell when the Lord leads you, just as Christ did !

  116. sipcode says:

    @Cane Caldo
    Many ministries/ministers start out with Godly inspiration but over time man tends to forget God and make it their ministry rather than His and do two things: 1) set their agenda rather than God’s, which includes forgetting God’s word and inserting man’s word and 2) people please, that is worship man and not God. CBMW, Piper, MacArthur, Wilson, etc have too much to lose: reputation of men, book sales, church members, lawsuits, hate crimes, etc. God will ultimately not work with those that have something to lose; something they are holding on to.

    OT and NT are ripe with criticism of pastors and teachers leading sheep astray.
    .
    All that said: God’s church going forward is individual men, like all those conversing here, searching scripture for themselves, sharpen iron together toward unity, leading their families in a far more scattered and underground church around the world. But it will be only His remnant.

    Men: Embrace Joshua 1:8. It is your first calling.

  117. Anon says:

    US Casualties in the Vietnam war by gender :

    Male : 58,212
    Female : 8

    So about 7500 to 1. That is more equality than WW2, where it was 20,000 to 1.

  118. MarcusD says:

    Please help – how should I talk to my husband about chores??
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1018665

    Does the church delay marriages because of age disparities?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1018729

  119. Heidi_storage says:

    @feeriker–Looks like they’re talking about the PCA, not the PCUSA.

  120. Hmm says:

    Heidi – Yeah, it’s the PCA. The conservative Presbyterian denomination started as a reaction to women’s ordination on the PCUSA.

  121. Avraham rosenblum says:

    sipcode: Joshua 1:8 is usually used as a proof that one should spent all spare time in learning the Old Testament in order to keep it. The idea of learning OT itself comes from the Five Books of Moses Deuteronomy ch 6 and also ch 11.

  122. Heidi_storage says:

    @Hmm

    Too bad. I dislike seeing good denominations going downhill. I hope my own OPC doesn’t go down the same route–no signs of it so far. You’d think they’d learn from the massive attrition of the mainline churches….

  123. Pingback: Who is she teaching? | Dalrock

  124. Pingback: Fatherhood and nation [Acts 28] | Dark Brightness

  125. goodluckduck says:

    “When Europeans came to this continent, they brought religion, laws, and economic systems that institutionalized the status of women as the property of men through marriage.”

    A complete lie, right out of the gate.

    Read _Albion’s Seed_, it covers marriage ways (and other “ways”) across four immigrations from England. In none of them were the women considered property or even put in arranged marriages against their will. Because of the Bible’s teachings.

  126. goodluckduck says:

    There is actually a small spat going on right now between OPC, Southern Baptist and PCA theologians concerning headship in the trinity, and whether it is the basis for male headship in the home.

    My layman’s 2 cents: The PCA purports to follow the Westminster Confession and Westminster Catechism as secondary documents (ie not infallable, secondary to the Bible, but a good summary of Biblical teaching).

    PCA Ministers are supposed to subscribe to these standards, and can state exceptions (many make exceptions for Sabbath). They are supposed to self-report if they find they can no longer follow the standards with good conscience.

    The Westminster standards clearly teach duties of superiors, inferiors, and equals.

    “Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
    A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents,[649] but all superiors in age[650] and gifts;[651] and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family,[652] church,[653] or commonwealth.[654]”
    Q. 125. Why are superiors styled father and mother?
    A. Superiors are styled father and mother, both to teach them in all duties toward their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them, according to their several relations;[655] and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents.[656]
    Q. 126. What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?
    A. The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.[657]

    It goes on to list duties and sins common to each role. Read the whole section.
    http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/

    This really can’t be stressed too much: Christians always saw themselves in a variety of relationships where sometimes they had a superior role, sometimes an inferior, and sometimes an equal.

    Mothers are the superior to the children, and and inferior to the husband. The husband was inferior to the elders of the church and to the governing authorities.

    Furthermore, the superior role has its own set of duties and requirements! Which aren’t all fun and games.

    A PCA pastor told me he wouldn’t talk about wives being in the inferior role in the family because people today wouldn’t understand it. I was stunned and think he was wrong not to talk about it, but I can understand a bit. The word inferior now has a negative connotation. I have no idea if it was always this way. I am guessing it used to mean just the opposite of superior, as in “superior officer and inferior officer.” I also guess that the advertising agencies are responsible for more language crimes by claiming “Brand X is the superior cleaning wax to the inferior brands.”

    PCUSA denies the deity of Christ and the inerrancy of the Bible, so they have long ago left the faith for a social “gospel” (although there might be some churches here and there that are sane).

  127. Hmm says:

    @Heidi:

    Strangely, our pastor just transferred in to the PCA from the OPC. Strange to think of us now having to reverse that process to transfer him – and the congregation – back to the OPC.

  128. Snowy says:

    I wish I knew what ‘Male Privilege’ is. If I knew what it is, I’d use it. It is a privilege to be a man, but what ‘Male Privilege’ is, I know not.

  129. Anonymous Reader says:

    There is actually a small spat going on right now between OPC, Southern Baptist and PCA theologians concerning headship in the trinity, and whether it is the basis for male headship in the home.

    That sort of “how big is the head of your pin that angels dance on” stuff is rather pathetic. Sure, argue all you want about intricate theological details while the women of your churches file 65%, soon to be 70%, of the divorces[*]. Fuss at each other about who passes the 458 question theology exam while women of your churches crush men under the Duluth Wheel from time to time.
    Don’t get up on your hind legs and declare that the Violence Against Women Act directly contradicts the Bible, oh, no, incorporate VAWA into your church governing system.

    Either one actively rejects feminsim or passively accepts it. Dig into that spat and I wager it would not take much looking to find conservative feminists arguing for “chauffeur model” marriage; the woman directs her figurehead where to lead her and Servant Leader that he is, he obeys.

    [*]When I first read here some years back that women filed 60% to 65% of divorces, it was a very eye opening moment, because the documented fact completely contradicted the pretty lie I’d been told about “men divorcing their wives for younger, hotter women”. Maybe that was true back in the early 70’s, although now I doubt that too, but it ain’t been true for decades. Now I’m seeing data that indicates the ratio is getting up to 65% – 70%. I fully expect to read a reliable number of 70% woman-filed divorce in the next 2 to 3 years.

    Down the road we will almost certainly see women filing 80% of divorces, just as 80% of the women find 20% of the men on OK Cupid to be attractive. Why? Because of hypergamy.
    Whether woman-filed divorce will reach 90% is an open question, but it is certainly possible for reasons beyond the scope of this comment.

    I don’t know how bad women’s behavior has to get before the conservative church going men actually begin to notice it in any large numbers.

  130. Minesweeper says:

    @AR, we are there already, the 70% stat comes from who has filed at the court house. In actuality, almost 90% of separations and divorces are initiated and pushed through by women.

    The missing 20% are men who have had to pay for her divorce as part of her settlement – the payer is logged as the filer, its a pretty well known carry on really. Its just never factored into the headline figure, as prob then the game would be up.

    Just like the 1 in 3 abortion figure – for women having one during their life. Again the game would be up.

    From the dozens ive known divorced, none were for swapping the wife for a younger model, a couple of guys just couldn’t stand who they were married to any longer (I can relate) or were screwing around with many, but the almost 90% of separations and divorces were women either “not happy” as “your an idiot or something is missing”, wives screwing around (alot of this), wives wanting to trade up (and generally ended with a big trade down) or making “bank” for their next relationship.

    Again its one of these feminist projections that they do and project onto men. As people dont really understand projection they get away with it completely. For now.

    The next generation of guys that are teenagers are not so easily fooled.

  131. David J. says:

    @Snowy: The fact that you don’t know what Male Privilege is is evidence that you have it. It’s like the Martian Virus a pathologist told me about once — a mysterious affliction that negligent doctors cited to explain the deaths of their patients: the fact that the pathologist couldn’t find any evidence of the virus was proof that it was the cause of death.

  132. Barnabas says:

    Very nice work, Dalrock. Could you take a look at the tables on domestic abuse presented by Jason Meyer? They look to be cut and pasted from secular feminist literature and I wondered if you recognize them from your research. http://www.hopeingod.org/sermon/fooled-false-leadership

  133. Barnabas says:

    He apparently gets them from John Henderson but I’m betting that they are lifted from secular/academic feminist lit.

  134. Pingback: The root of the problem. | Dalrock

  135. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2016/07/27 | Free Northerner

  136. Tim says:

    Was reading a post on a feminist site the other day with a title that read, “Does Misandry Exist?”

    I had to really laugh at the comments by feminists. One posted that she wasn’t comfortable with the word misandry because it implied that men suffered as much as women through institutionalized misogyny. Hilarious.

    Women didn’t demand equality with men until men made it safe for them to have equality with men. Women were given their equality on a silver platter by men when they demanded it. They didn’t fight and die for their rights the way men did. Instead, they simply demanded their rights as a result of men’s deaths. That’s because women want equality without the expectation of responsibility.

    Institutionalized misogyny? Men get far harsher sentences for the same crimes and that’s institutionalized misogyny? The vast majority of alimony, asset division and child support goes from men to women and that’s institutionalized misogyny? The male-only draft is institutionalized misogyny? That men suffer like 98% of war and workplace deaths is institutionalized misogyny? That the bulk of state and federal spending on health, education and welfare goes to women – even though men pay the majority of taxes – is institutionalized misogyny? That men are the majority of suicides in institutionalized misogyny? The list goes on and on and on. Isn’t this really institutionalized misandry?

    After reading a lot of feminist garbage, I’ve found that mostly what they do is cherry pick statistics or just create outright fraudulent statistics to further their true goal – which is the destruction of men. The most disastrous thing feminists do in their own defense is to point to the dictionary definition of feminism as proof that they don’t hate men – and then go on to promote laws and policies that further vilify and destroy men’s lives. Thankfully, men are waking up. Feminism is a nation destroyer.

    Hundreds of thousands of men’s lives get destroyed every year, in the US alone, through parental alienation, divorce, asset division, child support and false accusations – and yet men continue to give women life destroying power over their lives. It’s nuts! It’s no different than handing lawyers and women your money and smiling afterwards over your own self-sacrifice – while putting a gun to your own head! Crazy! The simple solution? Stop giving women and the government life destroying power over your life. Simply refuse to engage in what could result in your own life destruction. It’s all so simple – yet marriage for men is promoted as the end all – be all – of life for men. Wonder why. No real surprise. You can’t con people into their own destruction without blatant lies, illusions and enchantments.

    The real deal breaker is coming via the end of outsourcing of birth to the breeder nations upon which Westernized nations now so rely (India, the African Continent, South America, the Middle East, etc). The big secret of mass immigration is that – instead of it being based upon the acceptance of downtrodden refugees – what’s really happening is a frantic outsourcing of birth to patriarchal nations. Hilarious. That’s amazing – because as feminism spreads – the outsourcing of birth will be cut off – followed by decreasing populations and economic collapse. Just look at Japan. They lost a million in population over the past few short years. All of the aforementioned breeder nations are battling lower marriage and birth rates as well – all easily attributed to the growing power of feminism in their own countries.

    If one believes that the best one can do is to promote policies and laws that benefit women only – in the here and now – then feminism is the gold standard. My hope is to educate men and save them from the life destroying laws and policies that so ruin men’s lives on behalf of women and the state. The illusions and enchantments promoted in women’s favor aren’t true. Women are not sugar and spice and everything nice. The best men can do is deny women’s and white knight’s punishment – for being men – through the state and federal laws that force wealth and power from men to women. There’s no better choice. Simply cut off the forced wealth and power transfer. It’s so simple. Women walked away from the table long ago. Men are still sitting at the negotiation table foolishly expecting more illusions and enchantments – instead of the hard, cold truth. Men’s demise – all throughout time – is their naivete with regard to female nature.

    All of the above points will never be raised in the mainstream media. Why? Because our entire system is built around male disposability and deeply embedded cultural misandry. If this fact becomes widely known – it all comes tumbling down – hence the mainstream media’s and feminist’s hatred of MRAs and MGTOWs. Feminists only bring up men’s issues in an effort to implement new anti-male laws and policies – and the state and federal government always follows suit. Why? To maintain their own power through genuflecting to the gynocracy. Again – to save yourself – all you need do is to not play their game. It’s really that simple – yet tragically difficult to accept – at least for men.

    MGTOW

  137. Jim says:

    Institutionalized misogyny? Men get far harsher sentences for the same crimes and that’s institutionalized misogyny? The vast majority of alimony, asset division and child support goes from men to women and that’s institutionalized misogyny? The male-only draft is institutionalized misogyny? That men suffer like 98% of war and workplace deaths is institutionalized misogyny? That the bulk of state and federal spending on health, education and welfare goes to women – even though men pay the majority of taxes – is institutionalized misogyny? That men are the majority of suicides in institutionalized misogyny? The list goes on and on and on. Isn’t this really institutionalized misandry?

    Its like I tried to tell Dalrock earlier. It doesn’t matter what you think, say, or believe. You WILL be seen as a misogynist no matter what. Hell, these days they just INVENT things a man does just so they can accuse him of misogyny. If legislation like VAWA or views like the Duluth model (and so many other things) doesn’t make this blatantly obvious nothing will. And anything you suffer as a man doesn’t matter. PERIOD. You’re just a slave for the cunt. That’s it. Bow to her silly whims or else.

    Again – to save yourself – all you need do is to not play their game. It’s really that simple – yet tragically difficult to accept – at least for men.

    Yup. It’s extremely simple. Don’t play at all. What idiot thinks he can win a rigged game?

  138. Tim says:

    “Yup. It’s extremely simple. Don’t play at all. What idiot thinks he can win a rigged game?”

    To Jim:

    We’re on the same page, my brother. Thanks for your reply. Men like us will always be considered lessors. Why? Because we don’t tow the gynocentric line. Women and white knights love nothing better than to morally gang bang detractors. Other men are all too willing to hand power and control over to women – and all MGTOW want is to be free. We don’t feed the hypocrisy. We’re too smart for that. In the MGTOW reality, we’re normal. In the marriage world – were apostates. Isn’t that unreal?

    Tim

  139. Pingback: Ideas for a treatise on Patriarchal marriage | Christianity and masculinity

  140. Pingback: Hierarchy equals abuse. | Dalrock

  141. Pingback: The Scriptures, Tradition and Canon | Christianity and masculinity

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