Their husbands forced them to do it.

As I’ve been pointing out, the conservative Christian response to feminism has been to pretend that feminists aren’t really in the final mopping up stages in the culture war and assert instead that what we are experiencing is a sudden and mysterious change in men.  There is no feminist rebellion, just weak men screwing feminism up.

As yet one more example, here is a quote of Pastor Tony Evans* from 1994.  W. Bradford Wilcox explains** that Evans gave versions of this speech to Promise Keepers events around the country (emphasis mine):

The primary cause of this national crisis, that is the decline of the family, is the feminization of the American male. The first thing you need to do is sit down with your wife and say something like this: “Honey, I’ve made a terrible mistake. I’ve given you my role. I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role. Don’t misunderstand what I am saying here. I’m not suggesting that you ask to be given your role back. I’m urging you to take it back.”

If you simply ask for it, your wife is likely to say: “Look, the last ten years I’ve had to raise these kids, look after the house and pay the bills. I’ve had to do my job and yours. You think I’m just going to turn everything back over to you?”
Your wife’s concerns might be justified. Unfortunately, however, there can be no compromise here. Treat the lady gently and lovingly, but lead. To you ladies who may be reading this, give it back. For the sake of your family and the survival of our culture, let your man be a man if he’s willing.

Evans is unusual in that he is telling men to take back the leadership.  But his simultaneous complete denial of the feminist rebellion is breathtaking. Here he is chastising men to show courage when he is too afraid to say what is actually going on.

As Jennifer A Marshal explains in the same piece, feminists were protesting Promise Keepers as a threat to the new model they had worked so hard to achieve:

This gathering alarmed feminists at groups like the National Organization for Women. Patricia Ireland, who was the president of that group at that time, accused Promise Keepers of being promoters of “a feel-good forum of male supremacy intent on keeping women in the back seat.” Some feminist activists even gathered outside of Union Station to heckle the men arriving at the rally. They taunted, jeered, and even threatened to disrobe themselves.

The attendees passed a throng of feminists eager to guard their hard fought progress to get into the event.  Many of the men went because their wives ordered them to go.  But once inside everyone pretended that there was no feminist revolution, men just somehow became passive, and this forced the poor wives to grasp for power.  To think otherwise was too terrifying.  This is nonsense on stilts, akin to the fantasy land claim that cowardly men are forcing women to reluctantly elbow their way into combat roles– while feminists publicly celebrate their victory.

*Many of my readers will recognize Pastor Evans’ daughter Priscilla Shirer, the women’s preacher and star of the movie War Room.

**H/T Daniel

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Priscilla Shirer, Rebellion, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, War Room, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to Their husbands forced them to do it.

  1. Trust says:

    They say actions speak louder than words. So consider this…

    You know who has the power by who is allowed to criticize who. Husband-wife, man-woman, pastors-feminists. Who in every dynamic is more critical, more criticized, more timid, and more bold.

  2. Pingback: Their husbands forced them to do it. | @the_arv

  3. Pingback: Their husbands forced them to do it. - Top

  4. Casey says:

    @ Trust

    Dead on.

    I am sick and tired of nightly talk shows trotting out some fool who has a ‘talking point’ to hammer on, usually heralding the person speaking to said talking point.

    Feminists aren’t brave, they are merely not being challenged for the captain’s seat.

    Feminists aren’t fighting against tyranny, they are themselves a tyrannical force.

    Feminists aren’t doing achieving anything new, they are rinsing & repeating what has already been accomplished.

    Feminists aren’t being held back, they are being enabled at every turn.

    Feminists aren’t beautiful, they are ugly.

  5. jazzdrive3 says:

    In one sense, isn’t it weak men who are part of the ultimate problem? We have women in the military because some men were too cowardly to just say “NO.” From the military higher-ups all the way down to the dads who encouraged a “go-girl” attitude in their daughters and bought into the spirit of the age.

    *This doesn’t absolve the women from their sin of envy and rebellion*

    But it’s not a coincidence that a lot of these women have daddy issues.

  6. Dalrock says:

    @Jassdzrive3

    In one sense, isn’t it weak men who are part of the ultimate problem?

    Absolutely. And it is also true that weak men really are screwing feminism up. But the reason we are tempted to frame the problem that way is the very cowardice you are referring to. Confronting the rebellion is terrifying.

  7. Frank K says:

    Feminists might be mopping up the culture war, but women, especially feminists, have never been so unhappy as they are today. They complain that they can’t find acceptable husbands (guys who are 6’3″, with abs of steel, a $200K+ income and who look like Brad Pitt or some other Hollyweird star). They even write articles about “where have all the good men gone?”, while still blaming men for all their problems, while men are discovering that bachelorhood is actually pretty good.

  8. voxofreason says:

    “Confronting the rebellion is terrifying”

    Let’s also keep in mind that there are bad consequences for confronting it as well. Not saying we shouldn’t do it but it’s not like if we do confront feminism nothing will happen.

  9. Frank K says:

    “Confronting the rebellion is terrifying”

    More and more men are concluding that there is nothing for them to gain by confronting the rebellion and are instead opting to remain single. A have seen a slogan on another blog: “No kids, no wife, no problems with life”

  10. Smultronstället says:

    In a way, our societies have become “masculinized” rather than “feminized.”

    Liberals and conservatives, left-wingers and most right-wing types all accept the stronk female politician; just look at how many alt-right-ish parties in Europe are led or co-led by women in pantsuits! The most prominent being Marine Le Pen in France. However, they do accept the feminine man. The female pantsuit politician is far more accepted than a man wearing a literal feminine pantsuit, the masculine woman far more accepted than the feminine man.

    What is breathtaking is that hardly anyone recognizes the simple fact that “masculinity” and “femininity” are complementary properties, and that you can’t have masculine men without feminine women and vice versa.

  11. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dalrock
    This is the litmus test for their faith in God and the fate of their salvation. How would God allow his servant to remain cowardly and craven? Certainly severe chastisement is his lot until he becomes the man God wants him to be. And cleared of deception by the power of the spirit.

    I pray that God cleanse his church in the west that there may remain refined purified Gold. Men who are truly men who are truly able to stand up to rebellious women especially since he has bowed to them for so long.

  12. Jeff says:

    Interesting article in the Washington Post:

    “Women just aren’t that into the ‘marriageable male’ anymore, economists say”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/16/women-just-arent-that-into-the-marriageable-male-anymore-economists-say/?utm_term=.818aa9bda6cf

  13. Iowa Slim says:

    ” I forced you to take my place…” =
    “I allowed you to usurp my authority. “

  14. infowarrior1 says:

    @smultronstallet
    What they are objecting to is the hierarchical inferiority of the feminine to the masculine in society.
    Where God outranks man and man outranks woman.
    Feminism/egalitarians always strawman the Patriarchy especially the Christian God ordained type as Tyranny. Yet they have yet to prove from scripture that is the case of God ordained Patriarchy.

    They claim that only the evil tyrant exists yet ignore the much more common incidence of the wise king. Of a Just and benevolent Patriarch that builds up those under his Authority and loves his wife and cherishes her as his own body.

    The evil tyrant and the benevolent wise king always existed. But they only claim the existence of the evil tyrant.

  15. Frank K says:
    May 18, 2017 at 10:57 am
    “Feminists might be mopping up the culture war, but women, especially feminists, have never been so unhappy as they are today. ”

    See:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sc-more-older-women-drinking-hard-health-0426-20170331-story.html

    From the article:
    “Most troubling was the finding that the prevalence of binge drinking among older women is increasing dramatically, far faster than it is among older men, the researchers noted.

    The difference was striking: Among men, the average prevalence of binge drinking remained stable from 1997 to 2014, while it increased an average of nearly 4 percent per year among women, the researchers found.”

    And this:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/ct-heavy-drinking-is-killing-women-in-record-numbers-20161223-story.html
    From the article:
    “Women in America are drinking far more, and far more frequently, than their mothers or grandmothers did, and alcohol consumption is killing them in record numbers.”

    So feminism is killing women too. It’s really a form of satanism, which destroys souls via 4 actions: scatter (divorce murders families, massively breaks social bonds), kill (abortion, male suicide following divorce rape, more women dying from alcohol), lie (men and women are the same and equal; men need to “man up”; women are not in open rebellion against their proper role as defined by Christ), accuse/condemn (men BAD, women GOOD!; Duluth model; Churchian pastors accusing men instead of challenging women on their rebellion).

  16. Ricky says:

    I read George Gilder’s 1973 Sexual Suicide (which became Men and Marriage in the 80s updated version). I attended the 1994 Promise Keepers Rally in Texas Stadium where Tony Evans spoke. I have listened to several decades worth of Man-Up, Step-Up messages to Christian men and always believed I was falling short of taking headship because of my own weakness. My mother’s most profound wish for me was that I would grow up to be the ultimate beta male provider and I didn’t disappoint.

    But for the past year, after reading Dalrock and other manosphere blog sites, I have decided to stop taking blame and stop questioning myself and started asking questions of my wife’s own role in the usurpation of authority (see Gen. 3:16). I wanted to see just how much of it was my own weakness and how much was her rebellion. Sure enough, I start to initiate acts of genuine authority by confronting some of her problems directly instead of avoiding them to keep the peace.

    What I suspected all along I now know for sure. Amazing. Her rebellion is significant. She feels constant guilt for not being the best mother, daughter, friend, or servant in the church. She goes to great lengths to buy gifts for women at church and is terrified of missing any events the children may be involved with. She sees herself as servant to all EXCEPT her husband.

    So I told her that she had no biblical grounds to feel guilty for everything else when her own marriage was being neglected. Her response was to tell me that she refuses to let me make her feel guilty for anything (spending too much money or lack of conjugal relations) since she already feels guilty for so many other things. My job, she said, is to help her not make her life more difficult.

    So there it is. My job is to be her helpmeet and not assert biblical headship. She doesn’t want me to take authority unless it is in an area that she doesn’t care about or doesn’t want to take the blame for if things go wrong.

    I finally took the red pill, and all it got me was the realization that I am about 20 years too late.

    “We have a rule. We never free a mind once it’s reached a certain age. It’s dangerous. The mind has trouble letting go.” – Morpheus to Neo

  17. Bruce says:

    “They complain that they can’t find acceptable husbands (guys who are 6’3″, with abs of steel, a $200K+ income and who look like Brad Pitt or some other Hollyweird star). They even write articles about “where have all the good men gone?”

    Men don’t seem to ask the same thing but should. If I had a nickel for every couple I’ve seen where the guy is average/decent looking/reasonably fit and the woman is a loud, morbidly obese Big Hilda Hippo well ……

    It’s funny because pop culture so often shows the opposite where the girl is attractive and the guy is a fat, dumpy slob that she has to put up with.

  18. Smultronstallet says:

    “It’s really a form of satanism (…) open rebellion against their proper role as defined by Christ.”

    Yep. Just as lesbianism is both a punishment as well as the cause for further punishment, feminism in general is both caused by sin and cause of sin.

  19. Stroller says:

    Erudite observation and articulation of cultural currents, as always Dalrock.
    Now I am going to diagnose the problem. Odds are the discussion with all its kvetching will move right on past the diagnosis. To diagnose, let me ask you these two questions:
    1) Was the rebellion going on – at some time, * not * going on? Say 50, 150 or 500 years ago?
    2) Let us say you turn the tide on this – let us imagine you (plural) take a winning position – will the rebellion stop?
    The rebellion is like a gut bacteria, always present, but usually under control. Conditions have changed so that it can no longer be kept under control. What are those conditions?
    I suggest there are at least two, which conservatives and traditionalists have become blind to. There used to be a good Anglo-tradition of having all sides of matter present, including the minority positions and minority reports. This led, in general, to better policy. Now we seem to identify tribe so rigidly with ideology we are barely able to tolerate such view diversity, and it shows in the outcomes. Boxer was a valuable contributor here. You are poorer without him.

    Anyway – the diagnosis:

    1) Conservatives and traditionalists are broadly in denial of the existence and efficacy of the collective – you won’t unite, you have been infected by materialist capitalism so that you treat all collectives as the enemy, so you collude in your self-atomization, then you turn around and condemn yourself for failing to lead as individuals

    Well – in the past – no one “led” as an individual – people pooled their strength and power, and unified around a cause, and those who conformed their agency to the cause, were able to lead in the cause. This was only possible, collectively.

    2) Conservatives and traditionalists reject the concept of social capital. Sounds too much like “socialist”. This is great for modernists and all of your adversaries, because they know they have more assets than you, so if you self-impoverish by leaving your social assets on the shelf, all the better for them. The Movement Will Go Forward!

    You need to re-socialize. That is not as in “a socialist economy”, that is as in: a social network. And people, unified to the norms of the social network, are welcome in the social network, contribute to a virtuous cycle of making the social network stronger, and enforce the norms of the network themselves. People who will not conform to the norms of the social network: banished.

    From this power, comes the power to lead, and to turn back the tide. Act up, rebel, … banished.

    Did the Chinese persuade the Hun? Did the Russian persuade the Mongol? Did the Spaniard persuade the Moor?
    What are you thinking with all of this argument?
    Stop arguing. Stop persuading. It doesn’t work. Instead: 1) build, 2) together and 3) banish.

    Unite around dead people and their great ideas, they can’t abuse power. Unite around social capital – literally use it in the place of financial capital. If you’re old enough to remember, you can remember that: this works (!), and like Orwell suggested – memory may be a criminal act. Find means of acting in unity, especially with respect to who is in, and who is out.

    Recognize that you have been lied to, not by social Marxists, not by feminists, but by capitalists. Capital in the service of capital is of this world. It isn’t for you. Capital is fine, in the service of humanity.

    If capital cannot be brought to heal in the societies you create, if a company or product undermines social capital: you will need to make hard economic choices and banish the capital and its purveyors. This too is something your grandparents – capitalists all of them – remember, and a reason why you need your Boxers if you are going to hope to get anywhere.

  20. Damn Crackers says:

    Someone brought this up in the last post. Even men with money are no longer needed:

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/17/economists-men-now-need-more-than-just-money-to-be-marriageable.html

    ‘Staying single can be a better bet for women, though, many of whom appreciate having more flexibility in terms of how to structure their personal lives than they did several decades ago. Sociology professor Pepper Schwartz writes, “Women now have choices that allow them to customize the arc of their lives and some of them find that it is best for them to put marriage aside.” Husbands who are “nonworking, noninvolved,” she points out, can be “useless.”

    Schwartz concludes that, now that they generally have economic and cultural freedom, women no longer are willing to settle: “While most women still want marriage, they don’t want it at just any price. They don’t want it if it scuttles their dreams.”‘

  21. jeff says:

    Even if you re-instate At Fault divorce you would then have to come all the way back to the real definitions of abuse and rape and/or marital rape. Bruises, blood, cuts, scrapes, ripped clothes, private investigator reports of infidelity or the wife catching husband.

    Steve Gregg has a few sermons that made my jaw drop. I don’t think he is RP, but he tells RP truths down to homeschooling, men having hard time finding jobs that women take when they should be staying home. That they should submit.

  22. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    Spring boarding from what Frank K said above, an alternative way to look at this is not as a mop up by feminists, but akin to the Battle of Stalingrad – the Germans nearly reached the banks of the Volga before they were surrounded in a surprise pinzer move, and they had exhausted their resources to get as far as they did. But their defeat didn’t come without cost to the Russians, and the city was totally destroyed.

    Feminists have done the same; as you’ve pointed out, they’ve destroyed marriage and the family, but the situation has only been possible through continuous pumps. If those pumps stop, the system collapses. As feminists seem poised to finish off the last trace of the family unit, the West heads toward another economic crisis. Add to that, that women are as miserable as ever. This is far from the victory feminists envisioned or promised.

    I see them on the brink of defeat, not victory. But that doesn’t mean their loss won’t have come at a hefty cost to our side, either.

  23. Werkof Rodann says:

    Threatened to disrobe themselves? Just goes to show how ugly feminists really are.

  24. Damn Crackers says:

    From the same article-if you want to be married as a man, go into tremendous school debt:

    ‘But if a steady income doesn’t make a man marriageable anymore, what does? Well, larger religious and cultural expectations can help. But education certainly seems to help most, possibly because it speaks to a person’s long-term job prospects and earning potential….If you want your son to be marriageable one day, tell him to stay in school now.’

  25. Gunner Q says:

    Ricky@ 11:22 am:
    “I finally took the red pill, and all it got me was the realization that I am about 20 years too late.”

    Here’s another Morpheus quote: If you could go back, would you really want to?

  26. PokeSalad says:

    She sees herself as servant to all EXCEPT her husband.

    She serves the church, you serve her. Nice gig if you can get it.

  27. Dalrock says:

    @Stroller

    Now we seem to identify tribe so rigidly with ideology we are barely able to tolerate such view diversity, and it shows in the outcomes. Boxer was a valuable contributor here. You are poorer without him.

    What are you talking about? I haven’t banned Boxer, if that is your insinuation.

  28. 8 in the Gate says:

    They tempt and lure with promises of new quixotic thrills
    To raise our Lance and Don our stead, charge headlong toward the mills
    Am I in awe of pristine knights, drawn Claymore from its sheath
    We never fail to slay the beast when the Lion has no teeth
    Yet all along subversion grows as we thrust at apparitions
    Our Shepherds nurse bombastic claims, inventing new positions
    How can I block the fatal blows when I’m blind to where they rise
    I watch as brothers take the hit and fall before my eyes
    It appears I wasn’t meant to win, I have a strong suspicion
    They send you off on a banzai charge, give your foe the ammunition
    The feminist will wear the dress, but prefers the pantalones
    To stand up to the mutineers will take some real cojones
    Make no mistake, if you engage, steel yourself within
    Your enemy is out for blood, you better fight to win

  29. Tarl says:

    Some feminist activists even gathered outside of Union Station to heckle the men arriving at the rally. They taunted, jeered, and even threatened to disrobe themselves.

    Feminists disrobing? The horror… the horror…

    That threat would certainly make me run away as fast as possible.

  30. Ricky says:

    Gunner Q@11:59 am:

    “You know, I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?
    [Takes a bite of steak] … Ignorance is bliss.”

    -Cypher from the Matrix

    Sometimes, I have to admit, ignorance is bliss. The problem for me, however, is that I was never REALLY ignorant. I was just drowning out the knowledge with passive acquiescence and distractions. And after all, Cypher did get burned in the end.

  31. Stroller says:

    I wasn’t insinuating that you banned Boxer.
    I am saying he brought a lot of value here and people involved in the nitty-gritty of arguments with him lose the larger picture of the need for people like him.

  32. Tarl says:

    She sees herself as servant to all EXCEPT her husband.

    She serves the church, you serve her. Nice gig if you can get it.

    The Church serves her too. It validates and reinforces her rebellion, and keeps her husband in line.

  33. Stroller says:

    Add another “capitalist” who hasn’t actually read the Wealth of Nations (what with all it had to say about social capital being the real capital and gold or mineral wealth being kaput) … or 10, or 100, or 1000, and you only get poorer. The quality literally reduces because it only takes one to march those lemmings off a cliff, and we see it happening everywhere. Takes a Boxer to know what he’s talking about and show people what knowing what you are talking about, looks like.

  34. Pingback: Their husbands forced them to do it. | Reaction Times

  35. Tarl says:

    In one sense, isn’t it weak men who are part of the ultimate problem? We have women in the military because some men were too cowardly to just say “NO.” From the military higher-ups all the way down to the dads who encouraged a “go-girl” attitude in their daughters and bought into the spirit of the age.

    The politicians shoved it down their throat. Military can’t say no to politicians. All they can do is resign in protest. It is nice to think that they would, but the fact is, there is ALWAYS going to be some careerist Colonel who will sell out his principles in exchange for a General’s stars.

  36. thedeti says:

    From the CNBC article “But if a steady income doesn’t make a man marriageable anymore, what does? Well, larger religious and cultural expectations can help. But education certainly seems to help most, possibly because it speaks to a person’s long-term job prospects and earning potential.”

    and concludes by saying that if you want your son to be marriageable someday, tell him to stay in school.

    Which ignores most of what’s going on here. Men are avoiding marriage in part because they’re not prepared for it and the signals to prepare aren’t getting sent to them, as Dalrock has written before. What they’re missing is that these men KNOW they’re not prepared for it, and they don’t CARE that they’re not prepared for it. And women don’t care that these men aren’t prepared for it either. They care only that they have their one or two designer kids, father or no.

    What they’re also missing is that both men and women can see marriage is a bad bet for them. Unless they are upper middle class and up, marriage just doesn’t work for a lot of them. Most of these men don’t have what it takes to attract and keep a woman. They just don’t. The more sexually attractive of them can get sex when they want (which is what they really want and which is why most men get married. Most men don’t marry because they really really really want to commit the next 20 or so years of their lives to working their asses off for a woman who really doesn’t like them, and to father HER kids. They get married because they want legitimate sex for minimal effort). And the women around them don’t have the character or wherewithal or future time orientation to stay with a working class or middle class guy.

  37. Dave says:

    More and more men are concluding that there is nothing for them to gain by confronting the rebellion and are instead opting to remain single. A have seen a slogan on another blog: “No kids, no wife, no problems with life”

    Not confronting feminism in our areas of influence is an evidence of cowardice, and also very dangerous. Just because men stay in their lanes does not mean these bullies will leave them alone. They’re coming after your income, possibly in the form of “bachelor’s tax”; they will come after your liberty at work and at play, maybe by enacting increasingly one-sided and onerous rules that favor women. We are where we are today because our parents failed to confront the evil of feminism in a sustained and intelligent manner.
    The good news though, is that many young women are rejecting the feminist label. At least 75% of American women reject the label of feminism. I was even surprised that the current Ms. USA would publicly reject feminism, calling it a “die hard, I-don’t-care-about-men” movement.

  38. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Dalrock
    As I’ve been pointing out, the conservative Christian response to feminism has been to pretend that feminists aren’t really in the final mopping up stages in the culture war and assert instead that what we are experiencing is a sudden and mysterious change in men. There is no feminist rebellion, just weak men screwing feminism up.

    This may be slightly OT, but I saw something today at The Gospel Coalition, and couldn’t help but wonder if it’s an example of what you’re talking about here. They just posted an article with a title that shouldn’t come as a surprise anyone here: Women Use Porn Too. Is it possible that after years of 50 Shades of Grey and church-approved divorce fantasies like Fireproof the so-called “conservatives” are finally ready to say that women are sinners too? Maybe there’s even a chance that they might stand up and call upon them to repent!

    I guess not, because after such a promising title, I read into the main article and found that the writer wasn’t angry with women who were committing sin . . . but rather with pastors who were hurting women by leaving their sins unmentioned:

    There’s no more frightening place to sit than alone in the shadows with your sin. The permeating decay of sin’s destruction is the stuff of true nightmares. But what if pastors and friends from church were inadvertantly helping you stay in the shadows? We can easily chat about total depravity, but the moment a pastor addresses only men on a Sunday morning to confront “their” porn problem, he’s unintentionally left women in the dark . . . with their sin.

    . . . Yet when we treat porn as a men’s issue, we withhold grace and help from women in their time of need (Heb. 4:16). Our great high priest doesn’t sympathize with just some of our weaknesses, but with all of them.

    What to make of something like this? On the one hand, I’m glad to see the church can at least manage to grit their teeth and admit that women are capable of committing sexual sins. At the same time, I can’t help but marvel when I see this writer acknowledge that women are being allowed to sidestep the consequences of their sins, only to move to the position that this is what makes women the real victims here. Even when she’s doing evil, there’s someone else besides her that needs to be scolded for allowing it to happen!

    Link for the TGC article is here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/women-use-porn-too

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ricky
    I start to initiate acts of genuine authority by confronting some of her problems directly instead of avoiding them to keep the peace.

    That’s the big first step. Betaized men are always willing to compromise themselves in order to keep the peace. It’s always a short term peace that is shattered by the longer term conflict. Men are raised to be conflict averse, conflict avoidant. The results are all around us.

  40. Dalrock says:

    @Darwinian Arminian

    What to make of something like this? On the one hand, I’m glad to see the church can at least manage to grit their teeth and admit that women are capable of committing sexual sins. At the same time, I can’t help but marvel when I see this writer acknowledge that women are being allowed to sidestep the consequences of their sins, only to move to the position that this is what makes women the real victims here. Even when she’s doing evil, there’s someone else besides her that needs to be scolded for allowing it to happen!

    Heh. Yet, she is making a point I have made repeatedly. She is right when she writes:

    Yet when we treat porn as a men’s issue, we withhold grace and help from women in their time of need (Heb. 4:16).

    The problem with denying women’s sins and attributing them to men is not that it is kind to women and mean to men. The problem is that it is unloving to both. This is critical because the cover for this is the unspoken claim that they are protecting women. They aren’t.

    Thanks for the link. It fits with a post I have in the works. One of the man up/step up articles tackles the question of 50SOG. Like so many of these, it is so bad it reads like self parody.

  41. PokeSalad says:

    Takes a Boxer to know what he’s talking about and show people what knowing what you are talking about, looks like.

    Boxer comes and goes as he will, it seems…I appreciate his thought-provoking posts, even if I do not agree with all of his views.

    Having said that for the record, are you his spokesman or something? Why all the posting-drool for Boxer? I’m sure he can speak for himself. Unless…. 😉

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    Darwinian Arminian
    They just posted an article with a title that shouldn’t come as a surprise anyone here: Women Use Porn Too. I

    Good news / bad news. Good news – a woman writing for a religious site admits that women use “porn”. Bad news – she defines it solely in terms of wifi / bandwidth, so most likely she’s referring to visual porn, videos. That gives all the girls reading 50 SOG a total pass.

    But it is still a step in the direction of reality and away from the neoVictorianism of tradcons.

  43. Dalrock says:

    @Stroller

    I wasn’t insinuating that you banned Boxer.
    I am saying he brought a lot of value here and people involved in the nitty-gritty of arguments with him lose the larger picture of the need for people like him.

    Then what is your point? I haven’t done anything to discourage Boxer from reading or commenting. I can’t make him read and comment. I have no idea why he has not been doing so. If you do, please feel free to share instead of slinking around the issue. It is creepy, and I have no doubt Boxer himself would be creeped out by your obsession with him.

    Add another “capitalist” who hasn’t actually read the Wealth of Nations (what with all it had to say about social capital being the real capital and gold or mineral wealth being kaput) … or 10, or 100, or 1000, and you only get poorer. The quality literally reduces because it only takes one to march those lemmings off a cliff, and we see it happening everywhere. Takes a Boxer to know what he’s talking about and show people what knowing what you are talking about, looks like.

    You are like a bad parody of GBFM, substituting Boxer for Books.

  44. catfoodmogul says:

    Never mentioned in the women are choosier department: dude with cash doesn’t want to wife up a skank given divorce laws. Marriage rates have collapsed for women over 25. This seems like a preserve-the-Narrative move.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/16/women-just-arent-that-into-the-marriageable-male-anymore-economists-say/?utm_term=.dece354e864d

  45. Boxer says:

    Dear PokeSalad/Stroller/Dalrock:

    Boxer comes and goes as he will, it seems…I appreciate his thought-provoking posts, even if I do not agree with all of his views.

    That’s correct. I was never (that I know of) banned from Dalrock. I love Dalrock’s blog and enjoy reading the expert takedowns of our common enemies here, but don’t have much to say that I haven’t said, ten thousand times before (cue the local polygamists who will surely reply to this.)

    Y’all can find me at my own blog, though I don’t have much to say there either.

    As Eeyore would say: “thanks for noticing me”. Carry on.

    Boxer

  46. BillyS says:

    Frank,

    More and more men are concluding that there is nothing for them to gain by confronting the rebellion and are instead opting to remain single. A have seen a slogan on another blog: “No kids, no wife, no problems with life”

    That is only true in the short run. Society falls apart in the long run, even likely in the lifespan of the one making that claim. Who will care for them in their older years?

    Hedonism rarely works well, something you should know. Sin is always pleasurable for a season, even sin that may seem justified by circumstances.

    I am referring to the sin of putting self first. Staying single is not a sin in and of itself, but the mindset that seeks “me, myself and I” is the foundation for lots of ruinous things.

  47. BillyS says:

    Ricky,

    My situation wasn’t identical to yours, but my wife also definitely disliked the ideas that I spoke based on my involvement here. Those seemed to be leading the reasons she filed for divorce in spite of knowing God prohibits it and not having any real grounds for it by even loose standards.

    I can see many things like the rebellion you note in retrospect. Many Christian women are very feminist, even if they seem to oppose feminism on the outside.

  48. BillyS says:

    Bruce,

    Men don’t seem to ask the same thing but should. If I had a nickel for every couple I’ve seen where the guy is average/decent looking/reasonably fit and the woman is a loud, morbidly obese Big Hilda Hippo well ……

    I have noticed that a lot recently. I am not thin myself, but even I am completely fit compared to most women today, even in churches. It is really sad.

    ====

    General comment:

    I would suspect Boxer is taking a break like Lyn87 did, for whatever reason.

  49. I know this is one of my constant refrains that “this stuff is really old”, but most of the ideological ground was lost by probably the 1880s. The “updates” to the KJV codified most of the cultural ground that has been won over the previous few hundred years.

    The Christians, at least the professing ones that noticed the problem, have all been rearguard actions. That’s the problem. No one is careful; no one wants to wants to be honest; no one in the Church actually wants to know. And, in the few moments of clarity that crop up, they always choose wrong.

    This is something that stretches back a very long ways, but, somehow, no one was ever willing to introspect hard enough to understand the problem. Even if most of it is pretty straight forward if you’re actually paying attention to the Bible.

  50. DrTorch says:

    “Look, the last ten years I’ve had to raise these kids, look after the house and pay the bills. I’ve had to do my job and yours.

    This is where it’s a cartoon. I’m sure you can find husbands who aren’t leading perfectly. But seriously, in today’s evangelical, orthodox, or even mainstream churches, where are these men who aren’t doing the general tasks?

    The only answer to this is among the single moms who were got pregnant outside of marriage.

  51. BillyS says:

    I want to do more blogging and writing, but I am struggling with how to aim it. While “hope springs eternal” in me at times, I am coming to the realization that trying to inform people is largely worthless, unless they have some desire to be informed.

    Some of this is related to my own job search being much tougher than I planned. I may take a much different direction than I would have thought, but I do not have clear direction from God beyond the command to write more.

    How can I best complement places like this and other sites? That is what I am pondering now myself.

  52. DrTorch says:

    I’ve seen where the guy is average/decent looking/reasonably fit and the woman is a loud, morbidly obese Big Hilda Hippo well

    Yeah. If Dalrock thinks pastors are terrified to address feminine rebellion, he ain’t seen nothing compared to the fear of addressing gluttony from the pulpit!

    She sees herself as servant to all EXCEPT her husband.

    Which is a way of being a servant to none. She only gets praised when she’s seen helping others, there is no criticism or consequence when she doesn’t (b/c no one seriously sees that as her obligation), so she’s not really a servant to them. She’s a praise hound (wh/ is true for many women). The “guilt” she feels is really just her jonesing for more adoration and affirmation.

    I get the sense you already understand all of this, but I’m just putting it out there.

  53. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    I would suspect Boxer is taking a break like Lyn87 did, for whatever reason.

    I love all you crazy mofos, but when I post here, I get drawn into two basic arguments: polygamy and the frankfurt school. You can find me saying the same thing, in about five hundred different places, on both topics. At some point, it becomes almost scripted.

    Those are, also, pretty much the only two topics I actually have any business writing about. I’m a theological novice and I’m not married, so I have no worthwhile advice for Dalrock’s target audience. I assume the rest of you guys can tell any newguys not to date single moms and not to give the feminists any attention.

    I continue to enjoy learning new things here, just the same. Keep commenting.

    Peace,

    Boxer

  54. SirHamster says:

    @Boxer:

    Y’all can find me at my own blog, though I don’t have much to say there either.

    Our last exchange must have left a mark if your blogposts invent fictional events involving me. From your April 10 post:

    It’s far easier to believe that Cane Caldo, SirHamster, and various sockpuppets are lying about Lyn87, because he won an argument with them.

    Boxer, you are welcome to show any evidence of my (1) arguing with Lyn87, (2) losing the argument, and (3) lying about Lyn87.

    But you can’t, because those are lies. If you kicked your habit of lying, I would have no issues with you.

  55. Boxer says:

    Dear SirHamster:

    It’s nice to see you here, still dancing for attention.

    I appreciate you linking my blog, and I’d encourage anyone here to also view the screenshots here:
    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/boxer-his-stable-of-kooks/

    tl;dr for the rest of you guys: SirHamster accused me — with no evidence whatever — of being a homosexual pedophile, simply because he lost an argument with me. The screenshots should be amusing.

    But you can’t, because those are lies. If you kicked your habit of lying, I would have no issues with you.

    I’ve never cared too much about your issues. In any event, one of us is indeed a liar. I’ll let the peanut gallery judge who.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    How can I best complement places like this and other sites? That is what I am pondering now myself.

    Blogs don’t have to be high traffic to be useful. Donal Grame and Cail Corishev’s sites sometimes go for quite a while between postings. Deep Strength has gone through phases where he didn’t post for a while, if I remember right. It’s the thinking that counts. You have unique experience and a somewhat different perspective than the rest of us.

    Many men are in the “if I knew then what I know now” situation. Sometimes I find myself wondering: If I could reach back 10 to 15 years and tell my “then” self things, what would I say? How would I say it? Perhaps there’s a niche there that you could address in a somewhat different way.

  57. SirHamster says:

    Boxer was challenged on a specific statement that “SirHamster, and various sockpuppets are lying about Lyn87.” All here can see that when the statement is challenged as a lie and Boxer’s integrity is brought into question, he dodges the challenge and attempts to change the topic to my supposed lying at some other time.

    Boxer does this because his statement is a lie, and Boxer has a habit of lying, doubling down on the lie, and projecting his faults on others. These are the habits of SJWs and Gamma males.

    I freely admit that when Boxer is not lying, he can make interesting and insightful posts. But his value in those areas does not excuse his lack of honesty and integrity when it comes to other men.

    tl;dr for the rest of you guys: SirHamster accused me — with no evidence whatever — of being a homosexual pedophile, simply because he lost an argument with me. The screenshots should be amusing.

    This too, is a lie. I riffed on Boxer’s statement, “Of course, I’m a faggot” and treated him as a homosexual.

    I have not accused the faggot Boxer of being a homosexual pedophile, but have inquired as to the age of his youngest homosexual partner. (of which a possible answer is, “I have had no homosexual partners”)

    Boxer has declined to answer that question, for whatever reason.

  58. Lost Patrol says:

    Time travel, 1994. Pastor Tony tells men to take back the leadership, tells the women…

    let your man be a man

    Inadvertently, I’ll presume, he is saying the man can’t take back the leadership without her permission. Where have we seen this kind of thing lately? He doesn’t even hear himself because he was brought up through the system. He’s telling men to take it back, but his subconscious is telling him “that doesn’t sound quite right – is that allowed?” Better buffer it for safety’s sake with an appeal to the ladies.

    Let him take back leadership my dear. Give him permission to attend Men of Excessive Emotion training. Self canceling advice.

  59. BillyS says:

    Interesting to think that this advice was 23 years ago. I wonder how well his current advice compares.

    I remember hearing Tony Evans recently and he had some good points, but several dubious ones woven in as well.

  60. Frank K says:

    “Just because men stay in their lanes does not mean these bullies will leave them alone. They’re coming after your income, possibly in the form of “bachelor’s tax”; they will come after your liberty at work and at play, maybe by enacting increasingly one-sided and onerous rules that favor women.”

    They can try a bachelor’s tax. Men will just drop out of society. And if the rules become excessively onerous, men will simply leave the country. If men do not cooperate, everything collapses.

  61. Frank K says:

    “That is only true in the short run. Society falls apart in the long run, even likely in the lifespan of the one making that claim. Who will care for them in their older years?”

    Since they don’t plan on having kids, many don’t care if society burns to the ground. Why should they? They know society hates them. As for who will care for them when they are old, most have already accepted that no one will. Sure won’t be the wifey who frivorces them and leaves them bankrupt.

    “Hedonism rarely works well, something you should know. Sin is always pleasurable for a season, even sin that may seem justified by circumstances.”

    Agreed, but too many men are secular, and they don’t care.

  62. Frank K says:

    “I’ve seen where the guy is average/decent looking/reasonably fit and the woman is a loud, morbidly obese Big Hilda Hippo well”

    What can Joe Average do if average looking girls will accept nothing less than a Brad Pitt clone and ride the carousel with Bad Boys while she waits for perfect man to show up? He can either go his own way, or date Big Hilda Hippo.

    Of course, the problem is that the female average has shifted for the worse. A non fat girl who in days past would have been a 4-5 is now a 7-8, simply because she isn’t a porker. And if she isn’t a “butterface” then she’s a 9-10.

  63. BillyS says:

    Agreed, but too many men are secular, and they don’t care.

    I readily agree with that, but I will still make the case that MGTOW has a dangerous element, however much I understand it. I don’t even know what I am going to do in the future, but I am almost certainly past the “having children” stage. (Marrying someone who could have children would also be VERY risky for me given the age of that woman.)

    ====

    General note to all: I am now legally divorced. Good to be through the process, but the weekend will still likely be an bit bumpy emotionally.

  64. Lost Patrol says:

    @Ricky

    “So there it is. My job is to be her helpmeet and not assert biblical headship.”

    Your story resonates with me and probably more than a few others here. In many ways it is a classic. Serving others even at the expense of one’s own family is a not uncommon female trait, and many women of the church are effectively taught that their husband is their SERVANT leader who should be “supporting” her in all this.

    Even before finding Dalrock and the ‘sphere I had grown weary of the model. “Well you know, like The Bible says, man was created to help the woman in all her endeavors”. I used to throw that one around in public before I knew there was an entire industry behind it. Good for studying people’s reactions though it made me an object of suspicion.

  65. @BillyS:

    May the Lord’s peace be with you.

  66. @Lost Patrol:

    It’s the emotional/neurophysical response. It’s little different than eating when you’re hungry. They get the response they want from those actions. They aren’t responsibilities. It’s the reason why playing games is more fun than doing your homework, for most people.

    One of the harder things to accept with the Red Pill is people don’t go “I’ll think this through, then I’ll act.” No, they have instincts and desires, then they rationalize all actions after that.

    It always pays to remember that most of what is, logically, insane about the way Women act is a corruption of the Features for survival. See Genesis 3 for more reflection on the problem. But they always start from a Desire and then hone everything to that Desire. It’s the reason why, in mass, Women are really bad at running anything without someone over the top of them. Solid workers, most of the time, but they will always lack the interior control systems that make a culture work. Or, more succinctly, Women always need a Structure over them because they cannot produce an Interior Structure to sustain it. They make pretty terrible Men.

    “It’s not about you; it’s about God” might be the most damning insult you can lay on a self-proclaimed Christian. To the modern Churchian, it’s all about them. Even when they’re debasing themselves. The weak Man still gets the Lift. It’s why they transform into cucks; literal or figurative.

  67. @BillyS

    As a single young man, I plan to enjoy God’s creation in the place He has my life right now. As new events unfold, I expect opportunities to help will come my way, and I will do what I can. But I don’t feel the need to flagellate myself over the fact I’m not scrimping and saving every precious moment of time and money in preparation for someone else’s benefit. That way lies the beta script. What is my frame as a man going to look like? I have no idea what God intends it to grow into, but I hope to enjoy the experience as much as possible.

  68. @BillyS

    Also, my Father finished his divorce recently. It’s bumpy afterwards, but the Lord provides succor and the strength to heal and live life. May His blessings be upon your future, as they were with Job.

  69. Snowy says:

    @BillyS

    Perhaps the simplest way to start is to set up a blog of your own. Might as well just stick to the WordPress platform.

    I’m not sure about your aim to “complement” Dalrock’s and other sites. You’d probably find that you’d be doing that anyway, without having to consciously focus on that goal. Just doing your own thing would be enough. If you’re looking at monetisation to produce an income, you’ll have to look long and hard at the multitude of options. Use the search term “Passive Income”, if you’re not familiar with the concept.

  70. BillyS says:

    I already have a blog here Snowy. I think it is linked to my name. Sparse recently, but hopefully adding more soon.

    Laboris,

    I’m not scrimping and saving every precious moment of time and money in preparation for someone else’s benefit.

    That would be a straw man, but one I do get accused of. I have no compulsion for you to seek marriage, I just have not seen much intent to serve God in most of the MGTOWs I have read about. I wouldn’t argue that must be full time ministry, except that all Christians are in full time ministry.

    I am also a civilizationist, so I seek to find a way to keep Christian civilization going, though this current mess could go down the tubes for all I care. I am not sure how to get there, but God rarely gives a complete lit path for a life ahead of time.

  71. Snowy says:

    Sorry BillyS, I didn’t realise you already had a blog going. I had a look. It’s not really up my alley for where I’m at in life at the moment. But I’m sure it’s just right for some people out there. I think I understand what you’re trying to do now, regarding complementing sites like Dalrock’s. And quite frankly, I don’t have a clue at the moment. I’m sure others here more switched on than I will be able to help.

  72. Snowy says:

    By the way, BillyS, I know what you’re getting at regarding the secular MGTOWs. However, don’t be too quick to write them off altogether. I’ve found that some of them have a lot of truth to preach, ironically, perhaps unwittingly, mimicking Christian thinking. God moves in mysterious ways. It’s perhaps tied in with many of them themselves having had Christian upbringings, all the while claiming to be secular now. And even those with a great deal of truth go overboard when they start getting into crap like transhumanism. I simply accept what can be accepted of their truth, and reject their BS. But some of them have real value to add.

    I can recommend Paul Elam “An Ear for Men”, Sandman, Turd Flinging Monkey, Raging Golden Eagle, Terrence Popp, Mark Dice, and Paul Joseph Watson, all on YouTube. Some of TFMs latest stuff is starting to get a bit too over the top, but sift through the earlier stuff to get a good understanding of his baselines.

    Again, take what you can take, and reject what must be rejected.

  73. @BillyS

    Not my intent to construct a strawman. I’m not MGTOW, I see it more as like this:

    Ecclesiastes 9:7-10
    “Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.

    Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.”

    Ecclesiastes 11:9-10
    “Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity.”

    And Ecclesiastes 12:9-14
    “And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.

    The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

    Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”

  74. Anon says:

    Dalrock, I had a question that I was hoping to see answered in some of your recent posts on this issue of Complementarianism, but figure I would just ask it outright:

    Prior to reading your articles on the subject, I had previously understood “Complementarian” was very similar to the infogalactic definition:

    “The Complementarian view of marriage asserts gender-based roles in marriage. A husband is considered to have the God-given responsibility to provide for, protect, and lead his family. A wife is to collaborate with her husband, respect him, and serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation. Complementarians assert that the Bible instructs husbands to lead their families as Head of Household, and to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. They cite the Bible as instructing wives to respect their husbands’ leadership out of reverence for Christ. The husband is also meant to hold moral accountability for his wife and to exhibit a sacrificial love for her. The wife is meant to respond to her husband’s love for her with love in-kind and by receiving his service and leadership willingly.”
    (https://infogalactic.com/info/Complementarianism)

    From your articles, I understand (with many other terms) they have essentially been hijacked (seemingly from the beginning for this one) by feminists and Christians who wittingly and unwittingly support their agenda.

    My question is: is the definition of Complementarian as defined above worth trying to save and/or wrest away form those who have corrupted it, or should a better term be developed that fits the definition above, and is distinct from the one co-opted and corrupted by feminist and their Christian cohorts?

    Along those lines, it would seem you follow something similar to the view defined above, rather than a full traditional patriarchal model. If I have read your posts correctly, you are not opposed to a woman working outside the home so long as she is still fulfilling her duties as wife and mother. The second part of my question is: is your “model” (for lack of a better word) patriarchal, closer to the Complementarianism described above, somewhere in between, or something else entirely?

    Thanks!

  75. Snowy says:

    @Laboris

    There’s no doubt about the wisdom of Ecclesiastes.

    I think at this point BillyS might be a little confused about the concept of MGTOW. I wouldn’t be surprised, since it can be confusing, especially since the basic premise is that it rejects the concept of marriage at a personal level. For me, I reject the concept of marriage in its current form in our society. But I certainly don’t reject Biblical marriage. It’s why I take such great interest in Dalrock’s blog. Just because I can’t see marriage in our society returning to the baseline of Biblical marriage in my lifetime, doesn’t mean I might not contribute to reform that might help future generations. And that MGTOW truths might not contribute to that reform too

  76. rdchemist says:

    If Promise Keepers provoked such feminist outrage, then I say it was a step in the right direction.
    These are baby steps we should encourage or even celebrate.

  77. infowarrior1 says:

    @Dave
    Rejecting the label doesn’t change the fact that many of them epitomizes the label themselves. Feminism is not only an ideology but a pattern of rebellion.

  78. Anonymous Reader says:

    If Promise Keepers provoked such feminist outrage, then I say it was a step in the right direction.

    You’d be wrong. Feminist outrage is no indicator of right, or wrong; nor of true or false. Feminists can be outraged one day about something they cheered for the previous day. Women’s moods change. Don’t make serious decisions based on women’s moods. We’ve been doing that for a few generations now, it hasn’t worked out well at all.

    These are baby steps we should encourage or even celebrate.

    Why should we encourage or celebrate repeated failure?

  79. rdchemist says:

    “You’d be wrong. Feminist outrage is no indicator of right, or wrong; nor of true or false. Feminists can be outraged one day about something they cheered for the previous day. ”

    This hasn’t been my experience. Feminists don’t cheer about anything. They begrudgingly accept if your lucky. Otherwise outrage is their default mode.

    If I had a choice between feminist outrage over men trying to reclaim what they lost versus outrage over men “screwing feminism up”, I’ll take the former.

    I’ll celebrate the baby steps as they happen. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

  80. Bee says:

    “As I’ve been pointing out, the conservative Christian response to feminism has been to pretend that feminists aren’t really in the final mopping up stages in the culture war….”

    It’s hard to hold ground if you can’t identify what you are defending. A lot of the failure of conservative Christians and Tradcons is they refuse to admit and confess that they are defending PATRIARCHY.

    Radical feminists know they are attacking Patriarchy. Look how much they discuss it.

    I recently passed through the Oakland, CA airport and saw a hardened, grim faced, shorthaired feminist wearing a black T-shirt that said, “Smash the Patriarchy”. She knew whom she was fighting, she knew what the high value target was. Complementarianism had not side tracked, or deflected her from the target.

  81. greenlander says:

    That’s correct. I was never (that I know of) banned from Dalrock. I love Dalrock’s blog and enjoy reading the expert takedowns of our common enemies here, but don’t have much to say that I haven’t said, ten thousand times before (cue the local polygamists who will surely reply to this.)

    I’ve developed a similar viewpoint. I used to post here a lot, especially when I was first trying to swallow the red pill. It was helpful for me in sorting through my angst.

    I figured that the path for me was to do specialized freelance consulting. Now I live in Russia making my living off a combination of investment income and very specialized consulting for clients in Silicon Valley. Russia has very little of the feminist nonsense that is so pervasive in the west.

    It’s clear that all this left-wing drivel is causing the decay of the west, but I’m not sure what to do about it. I don’t see any clear sign that the pendulum is swining back in the other direction. The election of Trump was refreshing but it’s just a blip on the radar in terms of the way things are heading. I think there will be no revolution or civil war, and the United States and the west will just slowly sink into something that resembles Brazil.

    In the meantime, what’s a single guy with money and the freedom to travel to do? Bread and circuses are actually fun, even if they aren’t sustainable in the long-run. I’m just enjoying the decline.

    I continue to read and enjoy this blog even though I don’t comment much anymore.

  82. feeriker says:

    What they’re missing is that these men KNOW they’re not prepared for it, and they don’t CARE that they’re not prepared for it. And women don’t care that these men aren’t prepared for it either. They care only that they have their one or two designer kids, father or no.

    They also see, obvious and glaring as a summer day’s sunshine, that women aren’t being pressured in any way to prepare themselves to be wives (quite the opposite, in fact), so why should they as men abide a double standard?

  83. Smultronstallet says:

    @Dave
    “The good news though, is that many young women are rejecting the feminist label.”

    In a way that’s bad news because it is evidence that feminism has become so mainstream that you don’t even need to call yourself feminist anymore, let alone identify with some alternative subculture anymore to support the Satanic agenda of feminism. (Most people want to leave alternative subcultures around the age they also leave college.)

    The problem is, that too many “anti-feminists” are actually only opposed to the latest craze of some blue-haired tumblr chicks on liberal college campuses, while fully supporting what their feminist predecessors installed.

    It’s like with CH Sommer asking “Who Stole Feminism?” – to which the answer only can be NOBODY because it was a sociopathic and Satanic movement right from the very beginning. The problem is not “third-wave” feminism (implying that previous waves were a good thing!), the problem is not even “feminism” the problem is what would later be called “women’s rights”, i.e. including women’s suffrage.

  84. BillyS says:

    Snowy,

    I have seen quite a bit of MGTOW. You are about the only one (I recall at least) who put it in terms of enjoying God’s Creation. Most just put it in terms of pleasing themselves.

    I know I disagree with some here, even those I agree with on many other things, but I am not too worried. I just note it where appropriate and then sometimes get accused of preaching to marry sluts, which I do not support.

    Life is very hard, whatever path we follow. I am just convinced at a core level that God’s way is worth following, even if it chews some of us up (including me today).

  85. Anonymous Reader says:

    rdchemist
    This hasn’t been my experience. Feminists don’t cheer about anything. They begrudgingly accept if your lucky. Otherwise outrage is their default mode.

    Goalpost shifting. Let’s recap:
    You wrote:
    If Promise Keepers provoked such feminist outrage, then I say it was a step in the right direction.

    So your metric for success consists at least in part of “provoking feminist outrage”, therefore you use women’s emotions to determine if men are “doing right” or not. Do you see how foolish this is?

    I observed:
    You’d be wrong. Feminist outrage is no indicator of right, or wrong; nor of true or false.

    Do you agree or not? Please let me know, it matters.
    Finally, you are ignorant about feminists, they cheer all sorts of things, such as slutwalks.

    If I had a choice between feminist outrage over men trying to reclaim what they lost versus outrage over men “screwing feminism up”, I’ll take the former.

    False dichotomy, and no evidence that Promise Keepers really was about men trying to reclaim what they lost. A man falling to his knees in front of his wife in supplication because he was told to do so by a “spiritual leader” isn’t reclaiming anything, he’s losing more. He’s pedestalizing his wife, for a start.

    I’ll celebrate the baby steps as they happen. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

    What baby steps did Promise Keepers produce? Be specific. The 1997 Mall rallly is a poor example, because it produced nothing more thatn good feelings. It doesn’t look like you know much about the organization, although I could be wrong about that. Anyway, let me help you out:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Promise_Keepers

  86. Smultronstallet says:

    @BillyS
    “Most just put it in terms of pleasing themselves.”

    Recently, I listened to two great sermons on “Reasons for remaining single” from John MacArtur. Now, I’m very much opposed to dispensationalism (and other things he says, but that’s not the point here), but it was still good to finally hear some preacher simply admit what the Bible says (“It is good for a man not to touch a woman, etc.”)

    I think in regards to MGTOW now the problem is that Popery has turned 1 Corinthians 7 into an argument for their black-dressed priest class while Protestant Christianity has mostly ignored the beginning and/or even teaches that there’s something wrong with not having a wife, something suspicious, something creeeeeeepy.

    If official Christendom associates itself only with a “man up and marry” attitude, it’s not much of a surprise that MGTOW-leaning men think that they have to turn to a worldly kind of hedonism as the only alternative. http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2271213055

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    greenlander, good to see you again, was wondering where you’d gotten off to.

  88. Mark says:

    I have known Boxer for quite some time via this blog and have traded comments with him on a variety of subjects on many threads.I have yet to see a comment where he condoned homosexuality let alone admitting to being one.I find his comments both articulate and insightful.

    @greenlander

    Nice to see you again.I hope things are going well for you and wish you all the best in your endeavors.

  89. ys says:

    Evans tips his hand. If husbands had only forced wives to take power, then they would have no problem, and would be relieved, at giving it back. The fact that he implores them to give it back shows he has some understanding of what happened.

  90. Lost Patrol says:

    @greenlander

    I used to post here a lot, especially when I was first trying to swallow the red pill. It was helpful for me in sorting through my angst.

    I’ll bet this is not uncommon. It’s a place where you can air out your thoughts and get useful feedback on what are essentially taboo subjects most anywhere in real life. It’s a veritable public service. Reading back through old material here one sees once regular commenters (unknown to me) that are no longer or seldom seen anymore. Judging by greenlander’s remarks it doesn’t mean they aren’t still around.

    Even though it is largely virtual (some commenters seem to know each other IRL) there is a camaraderie among the participants here fostered by common concerns. Maybe it is a little tedious for some old timers to see “new joins” and watch them go through the processes, but it is definitely helping the new joins to ask questions and tell their own experiences to men that have already done the analysis and will interact with them. If all the veterans stood down Dalrock might have to correspond with everyone personally (how ’bout it Dalrock? Heh.).

    As a freshman myself I would encourage others to weigh in if so inclined. I’ve made points that seemed clear to me only to see they were not understood at all the way I meant them. I’ve made points that were understood clearly, only to have holes shot through them because they were lacking in some way. I try to use all of it to refine my own critical thinking, with the goal to be able to answer purveyors of feminist tripe right then, on the spot, with material that shuts them down.

    Also, since he has become his own subheading in this thread. I kind of like Boxer’s commentary.

  91. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    What Tony Evans and nearly all the pulpitiers ignore is that if a man were to try to become the head of his wife while she continued in her rebellion against his headship he has no choice but to escalate or to acquiesce. If he escalates the church, the courts and society will likely accuse him of abuse and crush him with the hammer of Duluth. He could find himself estranged from his income, home and children for such a gambit. For many men the choice is to either give up their balls or give up the things they swore to give up their lives to protect. It is hard to blame the man for surrendering to preserve his home when he has been taught to be like Christ in giving up his life for his wife.

    To call men to lead without a rebuke to women who won’t follow is to simply inflame a conflict that a man rarely do not lose, because to engage the conflict he must fight against his wife, the church and the courts. He is so busy fighting against that he is squeezed to fight for his family and the sanctification of his wife. If men are to lead then the sins of his contentious wife must be rebuked loudly in the pulpit, she must be taught to humble herself under his headship no matter how weak and then men can be trained to govern and sanctify his home. Barring that a man has to be able to spank his wife with the support of to society and the church G.W. McClintock style.

    Rebuking wives is needful, but IMO it must also include daughters if it is to be effective. Daughters need to be taught to submit to their fathers and then their husbands. The independent woman myth must be exposed as a lie and a meek and quite spirit ought to be preached such that the attention whoring evangelical is confronted in her sin and ashamed of her narcissism. She needs to be taught that she is not more spiritual, but more gullible, when she does not listen to her husband but insists he listen to her bad things happen like the fall of creation for a start. Her challenge of his headship is a fitness test that in this age is the kobayashi maru, no matter what he does he loses and when he loses she loses too along with the kingdom of Christ.

  92. Frank K says:

    “official Christendom” – I’m afraid there’s no such thing. Any man (or woman!) these days can open a “church” and declare him/herself “Pastor”

  93. AnonS says:

    Before marriage, require a dowry. “While bride price or bride service is a payment by the groom or his family to the bride’s parents, dowry is the wealth transferred from the bride’s family to the groom or his family, ostensibly for the bride.”

    This dowry will be placed in an irrevocable Nevada Asset Protected Trust (in the form of stocks or bonds) with the groom as the beneficiary.

    A NAPT has no exception creditors including divorced spouses. Calculating the amounts right means the wife’s family is pre-paying the grooms side of any child support that a divorce would require. In the case of no divorce they could use it as retirement money or inheritance.

  94. @BillyS

    Sounds like you and I are in agreement. My prayers go out for you.

  95. anonymous_ng says:

    @BillyS General note to all: I am now legally divorced. Good to be through the process, but the weekend will still likely be an bit bumpy emotionally.

    The day it became official, I only remember for her emotional breakdown. The day I filed the papers because she wouldn’t change her ways was the rough one.

    It took about four years for the first getting over it. Now, eight years in, I’m not sure I could generate an emotional response if I had to.

    These days, when I have to interact with her, I nearly always leave thinking that I sure am glad that I’m not married to her, and that I don’t have to deal with her regularly.

    I hope things work out for you.

  96. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    My question is: is the definition of Complementarian as defined above worth trying to save and/or wrest away form those who have corrupted it, or should a better term be developed that fits the definition above, and is distinct from the one co-opted and corrupted by feminist and their Christian cohorts?

    The term was corrupt from the beginning. It was an attempt to meet feminists half way. I gave some background on the term here that should help.

    Along those lines, it would seem you follow something similar to the view defined above, rather than a full traditional patriarchal model. If I have read your posts correctly, you are not opposed to a woman working outside the home so long as she is still fulfilling her duties as wife and mother. The second part of my question is: is your “model” (for lack of a better word) patriarchal, closer to the Complementarianism described above, somewhere in between, or something else entirely?

    I haven’t given a great deal of thought to terminology. Upthread (or on another recent thread) the term Patriarchy was suggested. That is a good term with a biblical foundation (even if that form of the word isn’t in the Bible). However, I believe for many it would connote Doug Phillips’ now defunct Vision Forum, so that is perhaps a reason to hesitate to formally adopt it. How about biblical Christian (for Protestants at least)? This is after all the intent, and it isn’t limited to the instruction on marriage. This is after all what Complementarians want to give the impression of (following biblical teaching on men and women), while doing extreme gymnastics to gin up novel interpretations that assuage feminists (eg here and here).

  97. melmoth says:

    @Smultronstallett,

    @Dave
    “The good news though, is that many young women are rejecting the feminist label.”

    In a way that’s bad news because it is evidence that feminism has become so mainstream that you don’t even need to call yourself feminist anymore, let alone identify with some alternative subculture anymore to support the Satanic agenda of feminism. (Most people want to leave alternative subcultures around the age they also leave college.)

    Yeah good point. Feminism and the FI are so totally entrenched that it hardly matters how women verbalize it. Whether or not they want to play with feminist hashtags or not is just a question about their social media strategies. It has nothing to do with them having any respect for men. If they’re ‘not feminist’ then run some manosphere tenets by them, see their reaction. Explain MGTOW and see they’re reaction to it. Make a comment like, “A lot of men can’t find good women, what with all the obesity and the loss of femininity,” See if they respect that viewpoint. You’ll see a feminist straightaway, 99 times out of a 100.

    You can’t just ask them if they’re feminist. That’s basically just asking them about their social media badge collection. Imagine a fish in the ocean saying, “I just don’t feel like I’m surrounded by water.” So you don’t feel like it or recognize it, you still are. That’s about like a women claiming not to be feminist when the FI has her life so sorted for her from one moment to the next that she doesn’t have to even think about it.

  98. Lost Patrol says:

    Make a comment like, “A lot of men can’t find good women, what with all the obesity and the loss of femininity,” See if they respect that viewpoint.

    Good one melmoth. I’ll use it. You know in advance you’ll get massive pushback, but a man has to have some fun with this along the way. Laughing in the face of death, and all that.

  99. rdchemist says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    You seem to be off into the weeds based on what I said, so I’ll try to bring you back to the point I was attempting to make.

    I’m probably not an expert on Promise Keepers, but I did attend an event a long time ago. It filled a football stadium in Chicago and lasted the whole day. Overall, I’d say it was a good experience. Dalrock’s post made me realize that there hasn’t been such a large assembly of men with the desire to reclaim biblical manhood since. The only other attempts I know of to assemble men on such a large scale like this is Roosh V and I wouldn’t consider his message to be biblical.

    Now if someone from Promise Keepers is saying that men need to take back headship–not ask, but take–while telling the women to stand by and let them, then I think that is a good message and fully consistent with what you guys are preaching here. The fact that feminists are shrieking about it is a sign that the message is being heard. Since feminism has such tight control on public discussion about family issues, then there’s a good chance that the biblical leadership message will get heard by others because now the feminists won’t shut up about it.

    The fact that I see the outrage as a good sign doesn’t have much to do about right and wrong, and I had no intention to suggest whether their outrage meant that you’Re doing the right thing or not. It was about exposure. It’s about getting the message out there. It’s about persuasion.

    The manosphere has a lot of interesting ideas and discussions, but I see a lot of analysis paralysis that cripple a lot of organizations. Nobody is going to persuade other people this way. You have to assemble and get the message out there. Promise Keepers did that. We might not agree with everything Promise Keepers said but that doesn’t matter. You can always adapt and refine the message as you go along.

    The important thing is to get started: baby steps. I hate to say it, but feminists have mastered the art of getting the message out there and pursua ding people and they are far from perfect and I doubt they had a polished message in the beginning. Now, they dominate culture, the media, education, and everything else while the men lurk around the manosphere talking about how feminism sucks and preaching to the choir.

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    rdchemist
    I’m probably not an expert on Promise Keepers, but I did attend an event a long time ago. It filled a football stadium in Chicago and lasted the whole day. Overall, I’d say it was a good experience.

    Emotionally it may have been a good experience. What was accomplished beyond emotion? What was the difference between that rally and a pleasant football game in the longer term?

    Now if someone from Promise Keepers is saying that men need to take back headship–not ask, but take–while telling the women to stand by and let them,

    Was that the actual message? I do not think so. Rather it was the same old same old, just as Dalrock has painstakingly documented for several years. Promise Keepers absorbed a lot of energy from a lot of men in the 1990’s and did nothing with it beyond have a lot of rallies. Why do you think this good?

    If I were a feminist, and I wanted to create a false-front organization to distract church going men with, directing them in a useless direction, it would look very much like Promise Keepers.

    The fact that I see the outrage as a good sign doesn’t have much to do about right and wrong, and I had no intention to suggest whether their outrage meant that you’Re doing the right thing or not. It was about exposure. It’s about getting the message out there. It’s about persuasion.

    You don’t understand feminists and probably don’t understand women.
    One more time, assessing any idea purely in terms of “it enrages feminists so it must be good” is really foolish.

    The manosphere has a lot of interesting ideas and discussions, but I see a lot of analysis paralysis that cripple a lot of organizations. Nobody is going to persuade other people this way.

    The androsphere is not an organization. It’s a loose constellation of men working on various problems. Any attempt to form an organization at this time is going to fail, see the National Organization for Men for one example. See the Good Man Project for another. As for persuasion, the facts do that job.

    You have to assemble and get the message out there.

    Why? It doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked for years, so what’s the point?

    Promise Keepers did that.

    And it failed. PK was more of a fad than any sort of “movement”. Did you read the infogalactic article? PK grew rapidly, produced yet another “stand around on the DC Mall” empty gesture and then flamed out. Some sort of PK organization still exists but since it’s just another “man up and take the blame but no authority” group it’s pretty small and very useless.

    We might not agree with everything Promise Keepers said but that doesn’t matter. You can always adapt and refine the message as you go along.

    You’re fighting the last war. The days of mass marches changing anything are over, or never were; the mass march of the 60’s and 70’s was always just the surface part, like the visible part of an iceberg.

    The important thing is to get started: baby steps.

    Promise Keepers wasn’t baby steps. It wasn’t any steps. It was a lot of sound and emotion that didn’t do anything. No legislation, no deregulation, no rollback of VAWA, no challenge to Duluth, no nothing. It was much more like a shiny, pretty object that distracted a lot of men from the real issues.

    I hate to say it, but feminists have mastered the art of getting the message out

    That’s a whole different argument. Suffice to say, if the androsphere had a bunch of money from the Ford Foundation and other organizations backing it, we’d be in a different situation.

    tl;dr
    PK failed. It failed because it was based on false premises. It wasn’t baby steps or any steps.
    There will be no mass march of men that accomplishes anything vs. feminism now or any time soon. Finally, men are not women, we do not form the same sorts of associations, so attempting to copy the feminist orgs of the 1970’s and 1980’s won’t work, because men are not women.

    Promise Keepers failed. What’s the point of repeating that failure?

  101. Anonymous Reader says:

    One more question rdchemist: what exactly is the message that you want “out there”, that PK put “out there”? Be specific.

  102. Jason says:

    Promise Keepers???? Oh yeah…..as I recall they got big and correspondingly around that time or just after all the hype (mid 1990’s), I vaguely remember the news coverage, and then a quiet internal revolution hit the church with their newest “silver bullet” called “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”

    This was gonna “fix” everything. Not Christ’s defeat of the grave. Not hard work, not prayer. Not the Word of God. Not repentance. Not No, a book written by a christian who was barely old enough to go outside the playpen with the real world and the big kids!

    ……the fallout and utter destruction from this has been massive. I came to Christ just over a decade after this book hit the shelves…and the “survivors” from this full-scale nuclear attack on the inner workings of ‘american christian dating / courtship’ and as an indirect result ‘american christian marriage’ have been forever changed, and not for the better.

    I can speak as an outsider on this…….and just to be crystal clear here, when I was in the world I was not some amazing ladies man concerning women, sex or dating. I’m still not. What I did find however “inside” the church was a really, really…..REALLY depressing state of affairs for the singles my age (at that time in my late 30’s early 40’s down to the very rare college-aged guy or gal).

    Promise Keepers turned just about all men into something no woman………secular or sacred would want to date or build desire and attraction to, and eventually marry. The ones who were already married seemed to be men who were taught that they were “wrong” their whole lives about their wives, and she “saved” the marriage and their relationship because she was the one who pushed her man to go to something or belong to something like this. This set the stage for all other “man up” and “building up / equipping men” workshops / seminars that followed…….look, I am going by just the results “i see right now” from all of this. I may be missing points, but as an outsider who came in post “promise keepers” / “I kissed dating goodbye”

    ………the fallout and utter destruction from this has been massive. Dating and marriage are something inside the church in general has been made into a paralyzed wasteland. Men who are spineless but talk “bold” and are assumed to take up a “provider” role only. Women who demand Jesus and perfection in an imperfect world and combined with a cultural “I can have it all” mentality has ruined christian dating / courtship.

    If I am wrong, I am sure most of you will tell me 😉

  103. Otto Lamp says:

    Most of this criticism of Promise Keepers is also valid for church today, and there’s a good reason for that.

    Promise Keepers was a product of the Vinyard Movement. The Seeker sensitive church model (which defines most mega churches) is also a product of the Vinyard Movement.

    The Vinyard/Seeker-sensitive church model has turned out to be a very feminized church model. It deemphasizes doctrine and focuses on emotion.

    Anyone who attended a Promise Keepers rally surely noted the crying guys and the songs about Jesus that walked right up to the homo-eroitc edge when sung by men. Anyone who has attended a seeker sensitive church has noticed the songs that walk up to and right past the hetro-erotic edge when sung by women.

    The Vinyard Movement is also highly charismatic (in the bad way, unfortunately). The Toronto Blessing (drunk in the spirit, holy laughter) and the Kansas City Prophets (belief that modern Apostles who hear “thus saith the Lord” messages not only exist today, but are common) are both Vinyard Movement.

    While most Seeker sensitive churches are not full blown charismatic, there’s no doubt they are more charismatic than thanks to the Vinyard Movement. The “Vision Casting Leader” concept, where the head pastor receives direct revelation from God to direct the church is common. While most of these pastors refrain from calling themselves prophets or apostles, the effect is the same. They are hearing God’s word directly; they are the conduit; opposing the pastor becomes tantamount to opposing God.

    It’s amazing how this idea of pastor as de facto prophet of God has slipped into so many churches unnoticed.

    I guess my point is that many modern churches are built upon the same foundation as Promise Keepers: the Vinyard Movement. Promise Keepers was the “camel nose under the tent” 20 years ago that allowed Vinyard Movement ideas/theology to enter churches.

  104. info says:

    @Otto Lamp

    As a matter of fact turning the relationship between the believer and Christ romantic as was the distortion of the 12th century:
    http://podles.org/files/Church-Impotent/ChurchImpotent_Chapter6.pdf

    Turned it erotic. Because all Romantic love is Erotic. As Dalrock noted when studying the distortion of courtly love and its corruption of the warrior code of Chivalry.

    Alot of the problems of modern churchianity is the result of inappropriate eroticism that has no place in sacred worship. Robbing it of its Kabod or Gravitas.

  105. rdchemist says:

    “Emotionally it may have been a good experience. What was accomplished beyond emotion? What was the difference between that rally and a pleasant football game in the longer term? ”

    It was a long time ago so maybe sketchy on the details, but I remember some positive messages about mentoring the youth, biblical leadeship, and being constructive role models in the community.

    “Was that the actual message? I do not think so. Rather it was the same old same old, just as Dalrock has painstakingly documented for several years. Promise Keepers absorbed a lot of energy from a lot of men in the 1990’s and did nothing with it beyond have a lot of rallies. Why do you think this good?”

    That men should take headship and women should step back and allow it to happen. My point is the message. I think you’re more vested in taking down promise Keepers that your ignoring my point about the message. You’r calling promise Keepers a failure. So what? Take the message and keep running.

    “If I were a feminist, and I wanted to create a false-front organization to distract church going men with, directing them in a useless direction, it would look very much like Promise Keepers. ”

    Diabolical! I’m glad you’re on our side 😉

    “The androsphere is not an organization. It’s a loose constellation of men working on various problems. Any attempt to form an organization at this time is going to fail, see the National Organization for Men for one example. See the Good Man Project for another.”

    Considering that you just accused me of not understanding women and feminists this statement is telling. There is “loose constellations” of feminists but they tend to unite around common goals. I`admit that feminists have advantages. A few whining women can convince a large number of men to fundementally transform a society. A few whining men will get ignored.

    “As for persuasion, the facts do that job. ”

    Bzzt! Wrong.

    Facts don’t pursuade. Emotions do. If there’s an issue that doesn’t involve an emotional trigger,then m a ybe facts alone can do the job but this is rarely seen. This has been known by cognitive science for a long time.

    It would be nice if people were pursuade by facts and science. I wish this were true. But it isn’t. Our brains just aren’t wired this way.

    “And it failed. PK was more of a fad than any sort of “movement”. Did you read the infogalactic article? PK grew rapidly, produced yet another “stand around on the DC Mall” empty gesture and then flamed out. Some sort of PK organization still exists but since it’s just another “man up and take the blame but no authority” group it’s pretty small and very useless.”

    I’m talking about the message, not the organization. PK was just the messenger at that time. In the future there can be a different messenger. Entrepreneurs fail many times before they get their product or service being sold. Once success is a c hieved the failures don’t matter.

    Femin ism succeeded because they triggered emotional reactions and it took decades to get their message right. Men’s groups are still in their embryonic stages.

    Persistence is key.

    “You’re fighting the last war. The days of mass marches changing anything are over, or never were; the mass march of the 60’s and 70’s was always just the surface part, like the visible part of an iceberg. ”

    Do I have to do all the thinking? Let me know so I can start charging you.

    The Internet is on computers now (say that the wise Homer Simpson)

    It should be easier than ever to collaborate without even leaving your chair.

    “Promise Keepers wasn’t baby steps. It wasn’t any steps. It was a lot of sound and emotion that didn’t do anything. No legislation, no deregulation, no rollback of VAWA, no challenge to Duluth, no nothing. It was much more like a shiny, pretty object that distracted a lot of men from the real issues. ”

    Then call it a” big baby” step. So what? Messag e message message.

    “That’s a whole different argument. Suffice to say, if the androsphere had a bunch of money from the Ford Foundation and other organizations backing it, we’d be in a different situation. ”

    I’ve observed a lot of politics to know that the biggest spenders don’t always come out on top.

    Did I say that it’s all about message, yet?

  106. rdchemist says:

    Anonymous Reader

    “One more question rdchemist: what exactly is the message that you want “out there”, that PK put “out there”? Be specific.”

    That men should take and assume headship while the women support them in their godly endeavor.

    That’s my third rephrase of the message. I’m not sure if it could be stated another way.

    But I know of an example that illustrates what I mean about how messages c a n be persuasive if crafted properly.

    The complementarian ideology in which husband and wife mutually submit to each other that Dalrock has been railing against.

    Notice that this message doesnt trigger any negative emotional reactions. Therefore, the message is more readily accepted.

    The message also appeals to our sense of fairness which is a positive emotion. So the message gets anchored into our minds.

    Add in some praise aND positive reinforcement from an authority figure or well regarded peers and the message is fully adopted.

    Yes, it goes against scripture. Doesn’t matter. The messages has been fully assimilated and attempts to undo it will trigger negative emotional reactions.

    Learn this lesson.

    Some of us may balk at using the tools of the devil in our movement, but you should no what you’Re up against.

  107. Gunner Q says:

    “Some of us may balk at using the tools of the devil in our movement”

    Yes, the sane people who understand lies and emotional manipulation ARE the Devil. You don’t follow Evil’s example and not end up evil yourself. Christ will not forgive those who accomplish right by doing wrong. Victory excuses nothing.

    People who live in defiance of facts inevitably shipwreck themselves upon them. We don’t need to do anything to win; reality will destroy feminism more thoroughly than anything we might invent. But we tell people the truth so they can escape that destruction.

    Your suggestion that we’re only a slick marketing campaign away from a sexually stable society is preposterous. PK taught exactly this lesson. Very well marketed–did not confront the truth–petered out an unqualified failure.

  108. Anon says:

    “The term was corrupt from the beginning. It was an attempt to meet feminists half way. I gave some background on the term here that should help.”

    That was one of the key posts that got me questioning what Complementarianism actually was. The definition I posted in my initial post was (prior to reading your posts on CBMW) was the only one I had been aware of in the Christian circles I had experience with. Where do you think such a vast difference in meanings came from?

    Without someone else having work that predates the CBMW material you referenced before, it’s clear they coined the term, I just find it interesting that such disparate definitions existed (seemingly) independent of each other.

  109. info says:

    @rdchemist
    ”That men should take headship and women should step back and allow it to happen. ”
    The fact that they need permission is the odious part. Submitting to her man as Sarah did and treating him as master and lord causes headship to happen automatically.

    Since the burden of responsibility and authority is given to him by this action.

  110. rdchemist says:

    “Christ will not forgive those who accomplish right by doing wrong. Victory excuses nothing.”

    If you believe that Christ didn’t employ manipulative and pursua sive techniques, then I have a bridge to sell you.

    Sure, he valued truth and facts but they were always couched in persuasive rhetoric.

    “People who live in defiance of facts inevitably shipwreck themselves upon them. We don’t need to do anything to win; reality will destroy feminism more thoroughly than anything we might invent. ”

    I wouldn’t count on it. The tenants of feminism just get incorporated into the cultural zeitgeist of the time period.

    If things reach a breaking point, watch feminism rebrand itself. Say, for example, feminists start advocating stay at home mom’s as a vlaid choice once it becomes trendy again. History is cyclical. Always cycling between extremes.

    ” But we tell people the truth so they can escape that destruction.”

    My point is that such truth must be delivered in a way that doesn’t trigger a negative emotional response.

    “Your suggestion that we’re only a slick marketing campaign away from a sexually stable society is preposterous. ”

    Not one marketing campaign but perhaps several.

    “PK taught exactly this lesson. Very well marketed–did not confront the truth–petered out an unqualified failure.”

    So we found one way not to do it. Someone m a y stumble on a more effective way.

    My point was feminist rage against PK was a good sign.

    Do you think such rage increases or decreases coverage of your cause?

    Do you think this “manipulation” of feminists to spread your message is a righteous, or not?

    Jesus railed against the pharisees even when he knew it would be his death.

    But so many fear a shrieking harlot.

  111. rdchemist says:

    “The fact that they need permission is the odious part. Submitting to her man as Sarah did and treating him as master and lord causes headship to happen automatically.

    Since the burden of responsibility and authority is given to him by this action.”

    Rephrase it however you want.
    But the goal is biblical headship for the man of the house. Wouldn’t this accomplish this?

    Also, telling women they should “submit” would trigger a negative emotional response. You would lose this battle.

    At this point we need to convince women to allow male headship in the first place. Then when it is shown to work and hold such marriages up as role models and ideal and optimum arrangements, then their minds will be more open to the idea of biblical submission.

  112. Gunner Q says:

    rdchemist @ 7:33 pm:
    “If you believe that Christ didn’t employ manipulative and persuasive techniques, then I have a bridge to sell you.”

    When did Christ ever manipulate people to accomplish His mission or persuade people to follow him? When did Christ pretend Christianity was fun and profitable? The Sermon on the Mount? The woman at the well? His parables? His monologues about the Pharisees? The only word games He played were the games His enemies started.

    John 6:60-69 is an excellent counterexample to what you claim.

    “Say, for example, feminists start advocating stay at home mom’s as a valid choice once it becomes trendy again.”

    They wouldn’t be feminists if they advocated this. Your first error is that feminism, like Christianity, is a group defined by its behavior. Your second error is that feminism, like Christianity, does not have worldly power as its primary goal.

  113. feministhater says:

    At this point we need to convince women to allow male headship in the first place. Then when it is shown to work and hold such marriages up as role models and ideal and optimum arrangements, then their minds will be more open to the idea of biblical submission.

    Oh lol! A panderer! Haha! Fucking joke is on you pal!

    Also, telling women they should “submit” would trigger a negative emotional response. You would lose this battle.

    Cause pandering to the sensibilities of women has just worked so well, hasn’t it, oh wait, no it hasn’t..

    Triggered?! Lol good, trigger the little bitches all day long. They are going to submit either by choice or by reality. The first step to stop pandering and the second step is to tell them ‘no’.

  114. rdchemist says:

    Gunner Q, feministhater
    TL;DR version:
    We don’t need to fear persuasion techniques as evil or ungodly. Christ himself used them

    Long version:
    “When did Christ ever manipulate people to accomplish His mission or persuade people to follow him? ”

    Virtually through the entire New Testement.

    “When did Christ pretend Christianity was fun and profitable?”

    Never. In fact he preached the opposite and he still had followers.

    How do you accomplish that without persuasion?

    “The Sermon on the Mount?”

    You cited the same example that I was about to. That was Christ’s persuasion at its finest!

    “The woman at the well?”

    Yep.

    “His parables?”

    Parables were the main persuasion tool in Christ’s arsenal.

    I imagine curing blindness and raising people from the dead could be very persuasive as well.

    “His monologues about the Pharisees?”

    Definitely yes. How else did the Pharisees see Christ as more than a wretched person that casts his lot with leapords and prostitutes? Persuasion. The Pharisees saw his influence and tried to warn the Romans. Then they arranged to have him executed on trumped up charges.

    When confronted with a choice between freeing Christ or freeing a murderer they opted to free a murderer.

    It might seem like we are reading different bibles, but we’re not 🙂

    feministhater,

    “Oh lol! A panderer! Haha! Fucking joke is on you pal!”

    Are you sure about that? Has even the idea of biblical headship reached mainstream discussion or is it just a meme floating around the manosphere?

    Has it even gained enough exposure to be mocked on the Daily Show? Return of Kings has that honor at least. So has gamergate.

    “Triggered?! Lol good, trigger the little bitches all day long. They are going to submit either by choice or by reality. ”

    This is another persuasive technique that won’t work

    “The first step to stop pandering and the second step is to tell them ‘no’.”

    A good first step.

    My suggestion is don’t frame it as biblical headship. Use more practical terms.

    I agree with some respondents that men understand cause and effect much better than women in general.

    Eventually, you will be proven right so many times, that their instinct will be to trust you.

    Then maybe you can speak about how well biblical headship is working because you are a living example.

    Right now there are too many broken and dysfunctional marriages and religion is perceived as being responsible for all the world’s problems. So simple preaching of the message isn’t going to be very effective. I suppose when things get truly bad, some may see the light, but I’d prefer to act sooner and head off disaster if its possible. And that, is no joke.

  115. rdchemist says:

    I almost forgot ,

    “They wouldn’t be feminists if they advocated this. ”

    It depends on how its framed.

    Right now, men are being accused as “screwing feminism up”.

    More men are dropping out of society and earning less.

    Illigitemate births are up.

    Crime is up.

    etc etc.

    Then blame all these problems on the patriarchy.

    Things get so bad that marriage (till death) becomes a radical idea, then the fastest growing trend, then an acceptable social contract as long as it’s “done on the woman’s terms”

    The changes in framing and perception will be so subtle over time that we won’t even notice, except in hindsight.

    “Your first error is that feminism, like Christianity, is a group defined by its behavior. Your second error is that feminism, like Christianity, does not have worldly power as its primary goal.”

    Let me tell you some of your errors:

    Assuming that labels and symbols are static and don’t change or get co-opted over time as society evolves (changes).

    Underestimating the power of persuasion and framing to push a message. If you don’t believe me, then look at our current president. He is a consummate genius when it comes to frames and persuasion.

  116. Anonymous Reader says:

    rdchemist
    That men should take and assume headship while the women support them in their godly endeavor.

    PK said the first part. Not the second part. You keep pretending that the “ought” was the “is”.
    Moving your goalposts all over the place won’t change that. Pretending that what PK should have been is in any way congruent with what it was doesn’t change reality.

    Your emotional nostalgia for your youth in Chicago would be better indulged privately. I’m sure the rally was a good time, but it accomplished nothing more than good feelz. Rolling in good feelings of the past is not going to get you anywhere.

    I thought you had been on this site for a while and read more than just a few postings and therefore knew some things about feminism, the androsphere, the last 25 years of history, etc. but it appears that was a mistake on my part.

  117. PokeSalad says:

    Yes, it goes against scripture. Doesn’t matter.

    Boom! Ya had me right there! 😉

  118. rdchemist says:

    We’re in full analysis paralysis now. (I know it when I see it)

    So I’ll sum up my point and leave it at that. Let it marinate.

    The tone of the blog and responses over the years suggests to me that there was a desire to convert or influence the culture to the idea of biblical headship and rollback feminism and it’s abominations.

    I suggested that pissing off feminists is a signal that your on the right track. At least your message has a chance of receiving mainstream attention.

    Then you can refine the message to pursuade people. It’s not “moving the goal posts” it’s a reframe. Google the difference.

    The goal is to shift the Overton Window (google this). Right now biblical headship is so far outside the window that it won’t be accepted until the window shifts enough in the opposite direction to make the idea plausable. Gay marriage proponents used this strategy to great effect. So have feminists and I do know quite a bit how they achieved what they did. They are better organized than we are and know how to pursuade. Like Jesus, they appealed to a segment of the population that felt marginalized.

    I gave a few ideas on how to procede, but I’m not a master. I’m still learning myself but it seems we need to try things until we find something that works. I’m experimenting with some of the women in my life, including my wife. It’s not polished yet but baby steps seems to be the way to go.

  119. info says:

    @rdchemist
    No. Its not exactly persuasion but polarization. Hence on one side fervent disciples, on the other side Jews demanding his execution.

    Many people turned away after Jesus taught that they are to eat his flesh and drink his blood and they shall have life.

    Not exactly persuasive or when he taught he and his father are one and people picked up stones to stone him.

    Indeed people were often enraged at his teaching and tried to throw him off the cliff in his hometown of Nazareth.

    By his teaching and miracles some people believed but others thought he was mad or demon possessed.

    The Gospel polarizes and gives rise to conflict.

  120. info says:

    @rdchemist
    ”Yes, it goes against scripture. Doesn’t matter. The messages has been fully assimilated and attempts to undo it will trigger negative emotional reactions.”

    All that Christ taught and acted was according to scripture. Never has he gone against scripture else he would sin.

  121. Pingback: Servant Leadership in two easy lessons. | Dalrock

  122. Opus says:

    It came to my mind: we always talk of domestic violence distinguishing such violence from violence outside the home. Why then do we not talk of Domestic Rape? I suggest that the reason that we do not do so is because we all know that really there is no such thing. We should then refer (ironically) to Domestic Rape the next time some Feminazi asserts that some unfortunate man had sexual intercourse with his wife (or girlfriend) and where she asserts that it was less than enthusiastic on the part of the woman – the same applies to Manginas and indeed anyone who fails to use the adjective Domestic. Watch their heads explode or otherwise puzzle the difference (very popular with followers of Derida). A world where Fb can detect no less than seventy-two ‘genders’ can surely find space for two types of Rape.

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    Why then do we not talk of Domestic Rape? I

    Where have you been for the last 40 years? It’s been in all the papers.
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Marital_rape

  124. PokeSalad says:

    So I’ll sum up my point and leave it at that.

    Promise?

  125. Otto Lamp says:

    http://bulletin.uga.edu/MajorsHome.aspx

    “Fairfield man sentenced for raping wife”

    “Before announcing the sentencing, the judge emphasized that gross sexual assault can be committed by one spouse against another…“Rape is always illegal,” Maloney wrote in an email. “Being married does not change that. This sentence shows the state takes this crime seriously, always. … I would like to be sure the public knows that we prosecute marital rape. I want victims to feel comfortable coming forward.”

    According to radical feminist (you know, the kind that are paid by the government to teach your kids in college), ALL sex between a husband and wife is rape.

  126. BillyS says:

    Someone needs to campaign against that judge in future elections.

  127. Spike says:

    My – more painful – version of Evan’s address was,
    “You demanded I change for you. So I did. Then you despised me for that change. So I tell you what: I’m changing back. If I don’t become what I was, then whose fault is it?”
    The Red Pill. Bitter medicine, but medicine nonetheless.

  128. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/05/21) - Social Matter

  129. Pingback: The Weak Force | Spawny's Space

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