Hair shirts and chest thumping.

Conservative Christians are terrified.  They are terrified of offending women, especially women in feminist rebellion.  This creates a problem, because conservative Christians still want to condemn the outcome of feminism.  The question is, how to condemn the outcome of feminism without offending feminists?

For an example of the fear conservative Christians have of offending feminists, critics accused the movie Mom’s Night Out of not only failing to pander to women, but of being anti-feminist:

Directed by brothers Andrew and Jon Erwin, this ostensible femme-powerment film is strangely unsympathetic, even demeaning, to its target audience. Rather than pandering to moms, this unfunny, unabashedly anti-feminist comedy consistently points out how wrong or unnecessary or ungrateful they are.

Failing to pander to women, and even worse, being anti-feminist are serious charges to a conservative Christian!  According to The Blaze, the creators of the movie were alarmed at these accusations.  ‘Moms’ Night Out’ Director Blasts ‘Alarming’ Media Reviews Calling Film ‘Unabashedly Anti-Feminist’ and ‘Borderline Dangerous’  (emphasis mine):

Erwin said he was “blown away” by the fact that critics seemed to go after stay-at-home moms by claiming that the movie, which simply portrays their lifestyle, is “anti-feminist.”

“I think we all want to live in a country where no one’s bullied for their way of life and that should extend to moms,” he told TheBlaze. “Every woman should be free to choose her way of life … and I think this word ‘tolerance’ should be enforced in this regard.”

Erwin clarified that Mom’s Night Out went out of its way not to make any judgment about the decisions of mothers, including women who choose to be single mothers:

“If at any point in the movie the stay-at-home mom [and protagonist], Allyson, said, ‘This is how you should live life,’ then there would be grounds for some of this stuff. But that’s not in the movie,” Erwin added. “And the movie features a single mom, a full-time working mom — and they support and encourage people throughout the film.”

Erwin reiterated the importance of not restricting women’s choices:

“The message that I would deliver to critics is that I think we should embrace the ideal that every woman is free to choose whatever life she feels like she wants to live,” he said. “And that we believe in a world where no one should be bullied for their way of life and that should extend to stay-at-home moms and it’s obviously not right now.”

Normally conservative Christians don’t come right out and say they support women choosing to become single mothers.  Normally conservative Christians instead ignore the sins of single mothers and focus on blaming men for the fact that single mothers don’t want to be married.

If only men would man up, women wouldn’t want to be single mothers.

We see this sentiment from conservative Christians all the time.   Glenn Stanton, the Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family (FotF), explains:

Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies.  But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well…  Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.

Pastor Mark Driscoll explained the same thing:

The latest statistics, 40 percent of all children are born out of wedlock. It is now at the point where women aren’t even pretending they’re gonna ever get married. They go to college, get a good job, get pregnant, have a kid. They’ve lost any hope of ever finding a guy who can actually carry the load, and that’s tragic. We’re a culture that is working hard to protect women and children, and no one has the common sense to beat on the guys who are the cause of so much of the pain.

There is a variation of this same message from Honor Your Father Today:

In a society where fatherlessness (or at least dads who aren’t stepping up to the plate) runs rampant, one thought must race through the minds of so many men and women out there: “How do you honor someone who isn’t honorable?”

Many of the programs listed on the Honor Your Father Today resource page are founded on similar statements.  Father School explains the premise of their program (emphasis mine):

Father School was originally established by Duranno in October, 1995, in Seoul, South Korea, in response to the growing national epidemic of abusive, ineffective and absentee fathers. Father School was founded on the premise that when the father stands firmly as the head of the household, society will too stand firm, ultimately making the world a better place.

UNCOMMEN explains:

UNCOMMEN exists to encourage men to be better Leaders, Husbands and Dads by equipping individuals and organizations with inspiring and educational resources. Our vision is to help men succeed at being the man they were always meant to be…

When men win, we don’t have to build as many shelters for abandoned families, or pay the psychological and emotional toll for fatherless kids, or care for so many abused and neglected wives.

If we’re going to solve societal ills…

Legacy Minded Men states (emphasis original):

The greatest challenge this country, and yes the world, faces is not unemployment, the environment, drugs, violence, teen pregnancy, government corruption or even terrorism. The greatest challenge we face are men who have abdicated their role as leaders, husbands and fathers. Legacy Minded Men exists to bring this truth to light AND provide the tools to reverse this trend.

Clearly there is wide agreement that if men would only man up, the feminist assault on the family would be reversed.  But how can men man up without offending the very feminists assaulting the family?  Since biblical patriarchy and headship are out of the question, conservative Christians were forced to invent an entirely new “Christian” seeming ritual. This ritual is what conservative Christians are talking about when they say Man Up! or Step Up!

What is the “Man Up” ritual, and how do your perform it?

The Man Up ritual consists of equal parts hair shirt and chest thumping.  The hair shirt comes first, and it consists of finding the flaws in men that are causing women to sin.  While the headlines often misdirect with claims of abuse or men impregnating innocent women and refusing to marry them, the real focus is on carefully cataloging the most minor sins of the best married Christian fathers.  In fact, the more petty the accusation, and the more godly the father being accused, the better!  This change in focus is critical because it is almost exclusively the responsible married Christian fathers who are performing the ritual.

For an example of the hair shirt part of the ritual in practice, see the Focus on the Family review of the movie Courageous:

That’s the life lesson Adam Mitchell, an Albany, Ga., deputy sheriff, learns in Courageous, Sherwood Pictures’ follow-up to Fireproof. Adam is someone many fathers will identify with. He wears his uniform with pride. He provides for his wife, Victoria, and his two children. And because of that he figures he’s not actually required to join his teenage son, Dylan, in a 5K father-son race. And even though 9-year-old Emily is the apple of his eye, he’s quite positive that he’s too dignified (read: embarrassed) to dance with her in a parking lot just because she begs. “I’m dancing with you in my heart, honey,” he explains.

Adam’s sins in the movie are:

  1. Not dancing with his young daughter in a parking lot.
  2. Asking his son to help build a shed, when the son would rather run with his father.

Note that the FotF reviewer agrees with the message of the movie.  Adam needs a stern wakeup call so he is properly motivated to wear the uniform of the married Christian father, the hair shirt.  Without spoiling the movie, I can assure you that Adam receives the harshest wakeup call imaginable, and proceeds to wear the hairiest hair shirt he can find.  From there Adam joins with other hair shirted fathers, and their wives instruct them in the proper way to thump their chests.  It is a truly glorious message (if you are a conservative Christian).

What is the proper method of chest thumping?

There is no single right way to chest thump, so long as it is hyper masculine while being non offensive to feminists.  For this reason, actual headship is out, but borrowing from images in secular culture is in.  Military/combat and sports metaphors are probably the most popular.  For example, the featured program by Legacy Minded Men is a football based program called Move the Chains:

What would the world look like if men were REAL men? What difference would it make in your home, community, workplace or church? It’s Time to MOVE THE CHAINS!

2-time Super Bowl champion Lee Rouson, Legacy Minded Men founder Joe Pellegrino and Certified Life Coach Juan Garcia provide the men with powerful and fun tools to answer this important question wrapped in a football metaphor.

The program even has a football themed chant to ground men’s ministries (emphasis mine):

“Our Move the Chains Workshop had over 60 men in attendance. Lee’s chant of “Go, Go, Get it, Get it” fired us up and laid down the ground work for our men’s ministry to begin understanding how God desires us to become better husbands, fathers and men of honor!” – Pastor Eric Butler, True Vine Christian Church

Be aware that at times it can be very difficult to distinguish between the hair shirt and the chest thumping.  For example, making a public resolution to be a better husband and father serves the function of both the hair shirt (he’s not good enough) and a chest thump (this is what a real man looks like).

What to do when the ritual doesn’t work?

Since the whole point of the exercise is to avoid confronting the feminist rebellion, the ritual doesn’t work.  But conservative Christians have faith.  Not in the Bible, but in the Man Up! ritual they have created.  They believe that if they only practice this ritual often enough and hard enough, all of the problems in our post feminist culture will go away.  Feminists have faith that feminism isn’t working because real feminism hasn’t been tried yet.  Conservative Christians have faith that feminism isn’t working because weak men are screwing feminism up.

hyf_app_manupWhen the ritual fails (as it is bound to do), this is proof that the men aren’t manning up hard enough.  They must seek out even hairier hair shirts, and thump their chests even louder.  If they do this often enough, hard enough, and publicly enough, they are certain it will work. Conservative Christians turn up the volume on their calls for men to Man Up!, and married fathers answer the call by completing more and more man up programs, hoping that this time they will get the ritual right and make the world safe for feminism.  This naturally has created a multitude of Man Up! programs, books, and DVDS.  There are even Man Up! apps* for your phone.

I’ll close by noting that there is a certain twisted logic to the Man Up ritual. Feminists have flooded the world with irresponsible unfeminine women.  Conservative Christians are countering by attempting to flood the world with hyper-responsible cartoonishly masculine men.

See Also:

*Available here, here, and here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cartoonish Chivalry, Christian Films, Complementarian, Courageous, Denial, Disrespecting Respectability, Fatherhood, Feminists, Focus on the Family, Glenn Stanton, Honor Your Father Today, Mark Driscoll, Mom's Night Out, Rebellion, The only real man in the room, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

147 Responses to Hair shirts and chest thumping.

  1. Pingback: Hair shirts and chest thumping. | @the_arv

  2. donalgraeme says:

    I find it amusing, in a sad kind of way, that “conservative Christianity”, which is basically non-Mainline Protestanism, has ended up like that. At its core you will often find anti-sacramental and anti-ritualist “theology,” and yet it has gone out of its way to create new rituals and new sacraments, such as this “Man-Up” madness.

  3. Someone says:

    So if I were younger man who just graduated college making some good money, I’m supposed to ‘man up’ and marry some single mother tart who would have rejected me but could happily give herself to a loser? No wonder churches have an issue with a lack of men joining.

  4. Mineter says:

    So… are there corresponding “Girl Up!” or “Don’t be a Slut!” programs?

    Oh, I forgot. A woman can do no wrong. And if she does, some man, somewhere, is responsible for it.

  5. Pingback: Give me your links! Give me your vids! Give me your haaawwwt chicks! – Adam Piggott

  6. Dave says:

    I think the conservative preachers are starting to get the message that men aren’t taking it lying down anymore. In the past, men would still drag themselves to church on Father’s Day, and get brow beaten by the pastor. Nowaday’s, they’d rather take a pass.

    The recent “Honor your father today” movement is a ruse to get men to come back. And it was poorly done.

    Mean ain’t coming back until they see a reason to do so.

  7. horatius67 says:

    When they say “man up and step up!” what they really mean is “pay up and shut up!”

  8. Dracstar says:

    Man, what has Christianity become? Its a patriarchy for a reason.

    I fear for my children.

  9. Lost Patrol says:

    The Erwin brothers are learning a hard lesson. They’ve given the feminists everything they thought would appease them. Free choice to live according to their feelings without consequences, and genuflection to heroic single mom. It was not enough.

    Same with guys like Stanton and Driscoll, and organizations like Honor Your Father Today. They have absolved women and doubled down on the themes that men need to do better. The feminists in their audiences remain dissatisfied.

    These ostensible Christians have all found or soon will, that there is no level of groveling self-abasement or man hating that feminists will consider adequate. All men can be sacrificed on this altar without gaining one ounce of righteousness before the women they seek to conciliate. It will never be enough. Never.

    Wake up boys. There ain’t no end to this ride. You’ve got to jump off.

  10. Scott says:

    All of the grandiose talk about men being the leaders and head of the household disappears as soon as try to nail down what it means, operationally.

    Even some of my dearest Orthodox priest friends just can’t bring themselves to explain it in concrete terms.

  11. Tarl says:

    “The message that I would deliver to critics is that I think we should embrace the ideal that every woman is free to choose whatever life she feels like she wants to live,”

    But every man shall not be free to choose whatever life he feels like he wants to live, oh my word no. He must man up and accept his responsibilities!

  12. Ron Tomlinson says:

    >Feminists have faith that feminism isn’t working because real feminism hasn’t been tried yet. Conservative Christians have faith that feminism isn’t working because weak men are screwing feminism up.

    Whoah. That’s an insight.

  13. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    every woman is free to choose whatever life she feels like she wants to live

    Truly free; the rest of us are supposed to cover all the costs. It’s their right after all, innit?

  14. infowarrior1 says:

    ”Conservative Christians are terrified. They are terrified of offending women, especially women in feminist rebellion.”

    They truly fear the charge of ”abuse” of various forms should they oppose the feminist narrative.

  15. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    Hey someone,

    When I was attending church my fellow brothers tried over and over to hook me up with wall approaching single moms, just like they had with every other guy there. It absolutely disgusted me. I already knew I could get better women on my own. I was hoping that at church I could find a good woman. I no longer believe that good women exist, but I do believe that you can make one woman a good one through sheer force of game.

    Learn game. Go out with many a sweet lass. You do not need to go full on PIV with them but you do need to go out with them and escalate and learn.

    Then when you find one you actually like, who only makes you partially disgusted, and who is trying so so so hard to please you (fallen hard into your frame) keep her. And make damn sure your frame is the superior frame through masculine leadership. True patriarchal masculine leadership. Which you will not learn from the church betacucks but rather peruse the Duluth power and control wheel for tips, pop on over and read old Roissy, go read the masculine principle blog, and join up the red pill. Places where masculinity still exists.

  16. Pingback: Hair shirts and chest thumping. | Reaction Times

  17. infowarrior1 says:

    Anyway what are your guys opinion on single moms? Now that they are single moms.

    I am thinking that they must give away to children to childless married couples.
    Ancient Rome assigned male guardians to tutor the children since they are already orphans since they are fatherless.

    But I do not have any better ideas.

  18. Emperor Constantine says:

    Do not EVER feel sorry for these women. They are disgusting, calculating, and they know what they are doing. They eat, wipe their mouths, and state they have done nothing wrong and keep going to Church.

    In my prior Blue Pill life, my ex-wife’s best friend had children from two different men out-of-wedlock (big Red Pill red flag there, take careful note who your potential wife’s best friends are). Classic bottom bitch of the cucked Church’s we are talking about here. She once told my ex-wife what she really wanted in a man was a guy who would come over, fix some things around the house, fuck her brains out, then leave. Cold, calculating, ruthless, arrogant bitches. Our job as patriarchy is to bring the wrath of God down upon them, never forget that.

  19. dvdivx says:

    Satan and the devil are mentioned in the New Testament at almost double the rate of marry and marriage. How many of these man-up churches talk of him? Or are they talking only of prosperity in this world ending as the proverbial rich man in the pursuit of rewards in this life with the stain of vainglory upon their garments.

  20. Desiderius says:

    “if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to”

    They can’t find them because the Stanton’s and Comeys and Muellers have made sure to strangle them in their cribs to gratify their own self-righteous vanity.

  21. WinT says:

    Being a man is just one thing: Do as they say. It’s never about what the man wants or hopes for his family. It’s about doing ridiculous things to show commitment. A man sticking around is committed. Why make it worse by humiliating him?

  22. info says:

    @Emperor Constantine

    Indeed. But the children. They did not choose this. Surely there must be something that can be done about them.

  23. CSI says:

    The reviewer in “The Wrap” isn’t a Christian I think, but is a rapid feminist. Her review reads like a parody of feminist doctrine:

    * Her main criticism is that the women are portrayed as flawed and not perfect. Their flaws are very minor, but even this is unacceptable apparently.
    * At one point a couple of characters, jokingly, mention the idea of wives submitting to their husband. Unacceptable!
    * The husbands don’t do enough housework (“share the load”).
    * One of the husbands spends one night a week with his buddies instead of doing housework. Unacceptable!

  24. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I remember when the “single mom by choice” issue caught the American public’s awareness.

    In 1992, in the TV “sitcom” Murphy Brown, career woman Brown decides to become a single mom, by choice. Vice President Dan Quayle criticized the character for being a bad role model.

    The sitcom responded with an entire episode mocking Quayle, in which the Brown character gives a speech attacking Quayle’s “traditional” concept of family. You can see some key scenes here:

    This episode got much publicity, and become a big issue in Bush’s 1992 losing reelection campaign. Murphy Brown, the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas “sexual harassment” controversy, and Hillary’s “I could of stayed home and baked cookies,” were among the reasons the Democrats’ 1992 sweep was called The Year of the Woman.

    (By contrast, the GOP’s sweep in 1994 would be dubbed The Year of the Angry White Man.)

    Quayle did backtrack on his remarks, saying that his criticism was really aimed at “deadbeat dads,” and not at single moms by choice — a laughably and transparently dishonest ploy on his part to feminize his remarks.

    The Murphy Brown controversy was a major victory in the Left’s attempt to redefine the family. I think that sitcom popularized the term “families come in all shapes, sizes, and colors.”

    Quayle’s backtracking was also an early, and perhaps precedent setting, cuckservative move to blame men for feminism’s ills.

  25. M&E says:

    “Feminists have faith that feminism isn’t working because real feminism hasn’t been tried yet.”
    Reminds me of Peterson´s “not real Marxism” thing.

  26. ys says:

    As others have mentioned, the lack of equivalents (woman up, etc.) for the females is telling. Women are assumed to just know, and to come out perfect as parents. If that’s the case (it isn’t) it explains why so many default to women-leading families. They’re better, right?

  27. feministhater says:

    Lol! Don’t worry about it gents. Just man up and don’t eat soy derived products! That will fix it!

    This is coming from media outfit who is apparently on the side of men. They will never, ever discuss whether in fact feminism in all its glory from first to 100th wave and the out right attack on men and the removal of authority from men has been the culprit of declining testosterone. It’s always something else to blame.

  28. Scott says:

    RPL-

    It’s important to recognize how long ago that was, too. 25 years.

    I was 21 years old at the time, and your basic American, left of center, consumer of the pop culture.

    I didn’t follow the Murphy Brown thing too closely, but I do remember thinking to myself “well, I thought we were all supposed to be, like, equal and responsible for our own choices and stuff.”

    It seemed like Dan Quayle kind of had a point, which was that choosing this puts a preventable weight around the child’s neck, and why would you want to do that? But the popular culture response was so overwhelmingly against Quayle, that I just integrated it into my own thinking. Until about 5 years ago.

  29. Novaseeker says:

    This is coming from media outfit who is apparently on the side of men.

    Yep. I would never trust media that features “conserva-babes”, because these are pretty much all cuckservative/femi-con outfits that feature empowered women in tight clothes prancing around before the cameras about how they aren’t feminists. It’s a big joke, really.

  30. ys says:

    Scott-
    One of your lines hit the nail on a different head of what people have said,
    “well, I thought we were all supposed to be, like, equal and responsible for our own choices and stuff.”
    And now, we have, as our host has detailed so well, men being blamed for the choices women make.

  31. feministhater says:

    That Dan Qualye argument was just another point in time where women could have decided that they needed men and wanted men in their lives and responded with agreement. However, true to form, they went with the narrative that fathers are optional… and now they dare to complain that men are not stepping up? Now they complain? After decades of saying men are not needed. Hello, ladies?! There is it, on video, a society wide debate about the use of men in families and what…. oh, right, they’re not needed… this was your doing, you made it happen, it was on your dime.

  32. Scott says:

    And yes, the standard response, (beside the “families come in all shapes blah blah blah) was “she’s been waiting for Mr Right to come along for all these years and there just aren’t any good men.”

    This rhetorical strategy has really not changed much in 25 years. It is effective because it obfuscates the following: It presupposes that a woman has a right to find a “good man” within X number of years, and a “right” to have a child regardless of whether or not one comes along. It shifts the focus away from the child (who is just an abstraction at this point) onto the poor, mother-in-waiting who just wants to have a baby!

    It was one of the first signals I received that a “rights” based society will eventually run aground because all that focus on the individual uber alles must converge into one giant cage match of absurdity.

    Society must be based on virtue, which does not come from the individuals conscience, but from an external source.

  33. feministhater says:

    Yep. I would never trust media that features “conserva-babes”, because these are pretty much all cuckservative/femi-con outfits that feature empowered women in tight clothes prancing around before the cameras about how they aren’t feminists. It’s a big joke, really.

    Oh definitely. The comments below the vids are always the same.

    “She’s so hot!”
    “Conservative babes are the hottest!”
    “Smart woman in a hot package!”

    And many of the same nonsense everyone expects. It feeds their egos. And never once does anyone ask why these woman are not married. Faith Goldy is almost pushing 30, give or take a few years. She’s hitting the wall and no marriage in sight. Hilarious stuff…

    Will Lauren Southern still be making videos as a single, prancing around Europe bemoaning migrants, crime and loss of sovereignty or will she actually get married and have children? My guess is she will follow the exact playbook used by feminists everywhere and end up married at 32 after her looks die down and her funding from her beta orbiters dries up, and pump out a kid or two and then become a ‘hot momma’ on the likes of some Fox News show or some trash.

    They’re feminists without the label, they agree with first and second wave feminism but just don’t like the other nasty stuff from third and fourth wave feminism that tends to remove the spotlight from woman like them and place in trans gendered queers. They also don’t like men dropping out, that means less attention and less freebies.

    I mean, it’s about time for another selfie with a gun and bikini for their twitter and facebook followers!

  34. squid_hunt says:

    It seems like what we have here are two distinctly seperate issues:

    1. There is a cultural concern that there will not be enough marriages and solid families having children. This is a valid concern for a sociologist, but really has no application in Christianity. A Christian man is very clearly not obligated, although encouraged to marry. The implication that a pastor or an organization can declare you obligated to get married and have children, particularly with a specific woman, is hilariously misguided. The idea that there are soul mates and so some hypothetical woman out there is missing her calling to be a mother is unbiblical. The Bible has no such teaching. The woman that whores around does so because she’s a harlot. That is her fault, not any specific or generalized man’s fault. I would also guess that there were always available gentle, kind, loving, godly, Christian men who would have been interested in dating the harlot, but they were boring.

    2. A man, particularly a Christian man, has an obligation to do everything he does unto the Lord. Whether he decides to marry or otherwise, he still has to serve God. So, if you marry, be a God-fearing father and husband who LEADS his family to church. This runs into another problem, which is that leading has been totally redefined. Despite what modern Christianity says, this is a totalitarian authority. He has the option for absolute tyranny if he so chooses and she is required to obey him. However, there is the warning that his wife is also a Christian, also has the ear of God, and has just as much right to plead her case before his throne as her husband. So he should dwell with her according to knowledge of who God is, with fear and trembling. But if you choose not to marry, that in no way implies that you are relegating countless women to harlotry. You have the choice to do either, only in the fear of the Lord.

    Where Christians missed this and are conflating the issues is beyond me. When you lay them out, the issues don’t even overlap. You could blame ignorance, but the Bible has been in English for over 400 years. I think part of the problem is that our choices for pastors always seem to be either chest thumping ego-maniacs or simpering, soft spoken wienies with serious envy issues.

    My question reading this, though, is do you think men do have a part in how things are turning out and can we do anything to change the formula?

  35. feministhater says:

    And yes, the standard response, (beside the “families come in all shapes blah blah blah) was “she’s been waiting for Mr Right to come along for all these years and there just aren’t any good men.”

    They’re not waiting either. They’re hopping from boyfriend to boyfriend. The old adage applies. They can’t find a good man because they are not good women. Simple.

  36. Elspeth says:

    It should be noted that despite the proliferation of these types of man-up programs, studies, apps, etc. VERY few good Christian husbands and fathers either 1) know they exist, 2) participate in them, or 3) even take them seriously.

    Most of the *good Christian men* we know (and we know quite a good number) are too busy being good husbands, doing the work of good fathers, and investing in their own churches to be so bothered with this stuff. These are things pushed by what are known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachurch_organization&quot;.para-church ministries, not churches. Men invest in their churches, not in these organizations because they have to use their extra time much more efficiently.

    And bear in mind that the audiences of para-church organizations radio programs, newsletters, and websites are primarily (if not all) female. This comes with its own set of problems of course, but there are not a lot of men buying into the lie that they are horrible men doing wrong by their wives and kids.

  37. Höllenhund says:

    @feministhater

    Good point. You forgot to mention the most obvious example, though, namely Ann Coulter, who’s basically a childless inner-city spinster. She would be the living caricature of feminist cat ladies if she didn’t happen to have a career as a rightist pundit. There’s also a female youtuber named Lana Lokteff, who gets lauded by thirsty rightist betas as the exemplary alt-right woman. She’s a 37-year-old childless fashion designer. No joke.

  38. yogi says:

    It’s all dissembling and subterfuge. It isn’t about the women, or their rebellion, it IS about the men and the fact that they aren’t being men. That’s why churches are grabbing the problem, so hey can define the bounds of the problem and control the solution. Being a man is not contingent on being anything else. You are not a man by being a father or by being a husband. You are a man by being a man–period. That’s what the churches do not want men to realize. If men realize this, there goes all the control over them.

  39. thedeti says:

    “And bear in mind that the audiences of para-church organizations radio programs, newsletters, and websites are primarily (if not all) female. This comes with its own set of problems of course, but there are not a lot of men buying into the lie that they are horrible men doing wrong by their wives and kids.”

    E:

    The problem arises when pastors and these “good Christian men” ‘s wives listen to said programs and peruse the newsletters and websites. They then use these as “authorities” and “evidence” for their “good Christian men”‘s failures and faults, and then use them as cudgels and bludgeons to criticize those men who were otherwise doing just fine.

    Wife reads how her husband isn’t a good husband because he wants more sex, when the problem is her lack of attraction. It’s not him, it’s HER. SHE is the problem. Pastor uses these things to criticize men, AMOG the men in his congregation, and score points with the women.

    The proliferation of these parachurch “ministries” is because most people in church are women, they can sell things to women, and, most ominously, these women want to run their marriages. They want to undermine their husbands’ authority so they can be in charge. And the main reason is because they want to control everything – the way the house is run, how much sex she has to have with this unattractive dolt she married, what kinds of sex she has to have, how the kids are raised and disciplined, how the money is earned and spent, what vacations will be taken and when and where… Everything.

  40. Daniel says:

    @feministhater – Right. Good men are looking for good wives. Virtuous Virgins. They are rarer than rubies. If there is a shortage, it is of good women. Although Godly young men who are willing to Pastor their families are not common.

    @squid_hunt – Yes “dwell with them according to knowledge” means knowing that you too have a master in heaven to whom you will give an account. Too often that is misinterpreted to mean know how to keep your wife happy.

  41. Damn Crackers says:

    They are cucks all the way down. It’s just like the virtue signaling SBC ’17 vote on distancing themselves from the alt-right. No matter how hard they try, every report on the story went into discussing how racist the Southern Baptists were/are.

    Same thing here. No matter how much Churchianity tries to empower women, they will be considered even more sexist. Never pay the Danegeld gentlemen.

  42. Dave says:

    You may have heard of hair shirts, but have you seen “hairy man swimsuits”?
    Penis envy is so 1999; it’s now chest-hair envy.
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/whats-hot/women-are-wearing-these-bizarre-hairy-man-swimsuits/ar-BBCDJpB?ocid=spartanntp&fullscreen=true#image=1

  43. Patrick says:

    The “Church” is dying in this country. I live in a small town in the upper south. In the past 15-20 years, most churches in the community have seen a huge drop-off in average Sunday morning attendance. The main Methodist Church in town has gone from 250-300 on Sundays in the 1980s to 70-75 now. The main Presbyterian Church from maybe 150 to 35-40 today. The main SBC church is struggling, down probably 20-25% in last 10 years, and several “non-denominational” evangelical churches are about the same. The only exceptions are the Roman Catholic Church which has stayed about the same, and one evangelical church where the preacher is really good at entertaining, is up. Once he leaves, or people get tired of his shtick, that church will drop back to where is was. Plus, did I mention, that the vast majority of regular worshipers in most of these churches are OLD.

  44. Frank K says:

    “She once told my ex-wife what she really wanted in a man was a guy who would come over, fix some things around the house, fuck her brains out, then leave.”

    Actually, I think they want TWO men to come to the house. A beta orbiter to fix things. mow the lawn, lend her money, etc. and an alpha thug to service her in bed and to sire her bastard offspring.

  45. Frank K says:

    “The only exceptions are the Roman Catholic Church which has stayed about the same”

    I have seen the same in my town in Colorado (which is a very unchurched state). the RCC parish is full, the mainline protestant churches are empty, a couple of evangelical megachurches are busy and the smaller ones come and go. There is also a newish Orthodox church, which bought out one of the failing evang church properties and while still small is growing.

  46. Daniel says:

    Eliminate patriarchy in your church, and you eliminate your church.

  47. Frank K says:

    “When I was attending church my fellow brothers tried over and over to hook me up with wall approaching single moms, just like they had with every other guy there. It absolutely disgusted me. ”

    If you can’t meet a nice girl at church, where can you meet one? If the best beta schlubs can hope for are single moms with a high N, then maybe bachelorhood is the best option.

  48. Gunner Q says:

    Scott @ 6:29 am:
    “It was one of the first signals I received that a “rights” based society will eventually run aground because all that focus on the individual uber alles must converge into one giant cage match of absurdity.”

    You are still conflating rights with entitlements. Also, still missing the purpose of favoring individuals over groups. One who converted to an obscure (in North America) branch of Christendom should not be quick to dismiss the concept of self-determination.

    “Society must be based on virtue, which does not come from the individuals conscience, but from an external source.”

    The Churchians agree. This is what they’re doing with their Man Up! rants and programs. The Beta men in the pews also agree. This is why they stay in feminized churches, because the decision to leave requires an internal source of virtue they don’t have and don’t want.

    Believers have eagerly reduced faith in God to membership and repetition since Moses. As a direct consequence, they don’t notice when their leaders replace God.

    Elspeth @ 7:17 am:
    “Most of the *good Christian men* we know (and we know quite a good number) are too busy being good husbands, doing the work of good fathers, and investing in their own churches to be so bothered with this stuff. ”

    That’s either a horrible fate–“good fathers” being kept so busy by others that they don’t have enough free time to even be tempted by the devil–or a severe misunderstanding of the purpose of parachurch organizations.

  49. John Whorfin says:

    Cut men off at the knees, then kick them for not climbing up a ladder to clean the gutters.

    I can’t for the life of me imagine why men aren’t running to sign up for this.

  50. Scott says:

    I haven’t conflated anything. I am merely reporting on the conflating that magically happened all by itself.

    I am fully aware of what “constitutionalists” and libertarians think a “right” is and where they come from.

    It’s just such a bummer that they can’t convince more than a few people to agree about that.

  51. Scott says:

    I was actually one of them for a very long time. I graduate school, there was a period of several semesters when I was the lone defender of that kind of thinking at the Stanford Review. I caught the good fight and argued as well as I could.

    The problem is, it has proven to be penetrable and easily manipulated by the vast number of mediocres under the curve.

    In order to survive, a system like that must have elements of authoritarianism infused in order to preserve its left and right limits. And a prerequisite IQ for participating.

  52. Cane Caldo says:

    This is a lethal post, Dalrock. If you do ever write a book, I think your thesis should be expanded and adapted from this.

    @Scott

    All of the grandiose talk about men being the leaders and head of the household disappears as soon as try to nail down what it means, operationally.

    Nailed it. And it disappears because of Dalrock’s opening sentence: “Conservative Christians are terrified. They are terrified of offending women, especially women in feminist rebellion.” Inforwarrior1 said that Con. Xian men fear the label of “abuse”, and that’s true, but they also fear to be perceived as merely “not nice” because for their whole lives their mommies told them that girls always want to be good and nice, and that girls like nice boys, and nice boys get treats, and good things always happen for nice boys. But no one is nice all the time so there’s always a reason for a man to take blame upon himself.

    Even some of my dearest Orthodox priest friends just can’t bring themselves to explain it in concrete terms.

    I believe that. You’re the only practicing Orthodox person I’ve met aside from a group of Coptic Ethiopians in Nashville (strangely enough). And every white Roman Catholic I’ve known is just as thoroughly feminized as every white Protestant I’ve known. (Nobody really expects brown and black men to be nice, or feminist, or nice feminists.)

    Anyone saying otherwise is deluding themselves because the infection set in before the denominations branched. We all brought it with us.

  53. Elspeth says:

    “Most of the *good Christian men* we know (and we know quite a good number) are too busy being good husbands, doing the work of good fathers, and investing in their own churches to be so bothered with this stuff. ”

    That’s either a horrible fate–“good fathers” being kept so busy by others that they don’t have enough free time to even be tempted by the devil–or a severe misunderstanding of the purpose of parachurch organizations.

    Only a life lived in service to something other than oneself is worth living at all.The Bible makes it pretty clear that we are to be serving others. Who the “others” are is something to be worked out between God and that man. It doesn’t have to be a wife and family. Nonetheless serving others is how the bulk of our lives are to be spent.

    How we choose to receive that responsibility, whether joyfully or grudgingly, is ultimately our own choice and it that choice which determines whether your first option is a “horrible fate”. And no, that doesn’t mean that a man (or a woman for that matter) can’t cultivate skills or pursue hobbies of personal interest. Just that it shouldn’t be the primary way our time is spent.

    That leaves us with parachurch organizations; their purposes, usefulness, and impact. It may well be that this is where the misunderstanding lies. With the exception of charitable outreach (feeding and clothing the poor) or sending missionaries around the world to equip native populations with the tools to start their own Christians churches, I don’t know why we need them. They don’t seem to be producing useful fruit outside of the capacities I mentioned and they siphon money away from local churches.

  54. Cane Caldo says:

    @Novaseeker

    I would never trust media that features “conserva-babes”, because these are pretty much all cuckservative/femi-con outfits that feature empowered women in tight clothes prancing around before the cameras about how they aren’t feminists. It’s a big joke, really.

    Just wanted to see that again.

  55. Boxer says:

    Dear Elspeth:

    That leaves us with parachurch organizations; their purposes, usefulness, and impact. It may well be that this is where the misunderstanding lies. With the exception of charitable outreach (feeding and clothing the poor) or sending missionaries around the world to equip native populations with the tools to start their own Christians churches, I don’t know why we need them.

    Well, Dalrock blog is a little media outlet that is at least as deserving of being called a “parachurch organization” than, say, Catholic Answers… where despite the name, you find much of the content is pro-divorce and pro-abortion.

    I’d say Dalrock blog is pretty useful, myself.

  56. Disillusioned says:

    Men do have to ManUp! If men have done that from the start there would be no problem.

    1. Ignore the sluts.
    2. Walk away from a feminist church
    3. Tell your wife you are the boss.
    4. Tell your children you are the boss.
    5. If you cant find a decent woman, dont marry or marry a pretty foreigner.

  57. anonymous_ng says:

    @Gunner Q “That’s either a horrible fate–“good fathers” being kept so busy by others that they don’t have enough free time to even be tempted by the devil–or a severe misunderstanding of the purpose of parachurch organizations.”

    I don’t follow what you’re saying here about the purpose of para-church organizations. I’ve always seen them as opportunistic parasites.

  58. Dry Holes says:

    In my (evangelical, Orthodox and Anglican) circles I don’t know a single family that is today lead by the father. These pastors and priests plainly hold the pagan belief in the superiority of female spirituality over male spirituality, and thus they actively work to overthrow biblical Patriarchy.

    The dudes work like slaves and come home to continue their henpecked enslavement to ditzy, estrogen-deranged professional consumers. He learns that his input is not desired, and his only role is to fund the squandering consumption of the Mater. He is not allowed to lead. He may be allowed to drink and watch sportsball. Then, he may also be permitted to can drink more and watch more sportsball. Give up, grow fat, drop testosterone. Buy bigger screen TV. Watch kids spiral out of control. Wash, rinse, repeat. Die. Most are dead already. Just not buried yet.

  59. Boxer says:

    I don’t follow what you’re saying here about the purpose of para-church organizations. I’ve always seen them as opportunistic parasites.

    Human beings self-organize. We’re social creatures. What you guys are calling “parachurch organizations” are very basic examples of this.

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with them, and they aren’t inherently parasitic. People join/follow/start them for the same reason we all read this blog, and interact in the comments section.

  60. “And that we believe in a world where no one should be bullied for their way of life and that should extend to stay-at-home moms and it’s obviously not right now.”

    Who does he think is bullying women for being stay at home moms? Here’s a hint: it rhymes with “zeminists”.

  61. Elspeth says:

    @ Boxer:

    CAF isn’t a parachurch organization, LOL, and neither is Dalrock. There are some very distinctive characteristics that mark parachurch organizations. Blogs and forums don’t qualify. Among the characteristics:

    -a shared statement of faith.
    -a large fundraising apparatus
    -a paid staff, and for the one outlined here, quite a large one.
    -a media presence more extensive than the web. Thousands of radio stations per day air them.
    – lots of evangelism
    – theological studies, colleges, schools, etc

    This is just a few, but it’s not uncommon for one parachurch organization, such as one the larger ones targeted here (FOtF), to be involved in ALL of these things.

  62. anonymous_ng says:

    @Boxer, maybe we’re talking past each other definitionally. I would say that Focus on the Family is a para-church ministry. It’s not a social organization like the Oddfellows or the Elks. It’s a crassly commercial organization that’s found a bunch of suckers in the Christian community. Their entire foundation is that we, the people in the pews, don’t know what the hell we’re doing, and we need the received wisdom of Dobson to get our lives right.

    At least that’s how it appears to me.

  63. Boxer says:

    Dear Elspeth:

    You’ve so far given me two distinct, mutually exclusive definitions for “parachurch organizations”. I was replying to the first one, which you linked from wikipedia, where we read…

    Definition[edit]
    These bodies can be businesses, non-profit corporations, or private associations.[1] Most parachurch organizations, at least those normally called parachurch, are Protestant or Evangelical. Some of these organizations cater to a defined spectrum among evangelical beliefs, but most are self-consciously interdenominational and many are ecumenical.[2]

    In Protestant and Catholic theology parachurch organizations are termed sodality, as distinct from modality, which is the structure and organization of the local or universal church.

    By this definition, this blog would certainly fall into the set.

    Obviously now that you’ve changed what you mean by the term to the following, I can’t really disagree with you. Specifically:

    CAF isn’t a parachurch organization, LOL, and neither is Dalrock. There are some very distinctive characteristics that mark parachurch organizations. Blogs and forums don’t qualify. Among the characteristics:

    -a shared statement of faith.
    -a large fundraising apparatus
    -a paid staff, and for the one outlined here, quite a large one.
    -a media presence more extensive than the web. Thousands of radio stations per day air them.
    – lots of evangelism
    – theological studies, colleges, schools, etc

    This is just a few, but it’s not uncommon for one parachurch organization, such as one the larger ones targeted here (FOtF), to be involved in ALL of these things.

    Where does this definition come from, by the way?

    Best,

    Boxer

  64. Boxer says:

    Dear anonymous_ng:

    @Boxer, maybe we’re talking past each other definitionally. I would say that Focus on the Family is a para-church ministry. It’s not a social organization like the Oddfellows or the Elks. It’s a crassly commercial organization that’s found a bunch of suckers in the Christian community. Their entire foundation is that we, the people in the pews, don’t know what the hell we’re doing, and we need the received wisdom of Dobson to get our lives right.

    At least that’s how it appears to me.

    I think that’s largely correct; but, the only difference between FOTF and Dalrock blog is the scale. If this blog went national, buying advertisements and employing writers to produce more content, you’d have what you guys are defining as a para-church ministry.

    And, really, there’s nothing in the definition of parachurch ministry that requires them to be nutty feminists. Some of you guys probably could start something like FOTF, and dispense the brutal truth we enjoy spreading here, in a more organized fashion. It’d just take capital and time.

    Boxer

  65. Jim says:

    The modern mainline Protestant Church is such a joke.

  66. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    It should be noted that despite the proliferation of these types of man-up programs, studies, apps, etc. VERY few good Christian husbands and fathers either 1) know they exist, 2) participate in them, or 3) even take them seriously.

    Most of the *good Christian men* we know (and we know quite a good number) are too busy being good husbands, doing the work of good fathers, and investing in their own churches to be so bothered with this stuff.

    As I recall, you told me about the movie Courageous before I had heard much about it. How did you learn about it? This stuff isn’t walled off as you are making it out to be. Very few Christians that I speak with spend time listening/reading any given para church organization. Very few are tracking the culture in the seminaries or national church governance bodies. But all of them know about Fireproof, Courageous, War Room, and Mom’s Night Out. None of them object to the messages in these movies. Courageous is a man up program in movie format, complete with accompanying workbooks and resolution. Also, you stated in a comment at Sunshine Thiry’s blog a few years ago that your pastor gave an anti father sermon on Father’s Day. Where do you think he got the idea?

    Basically your argument is, don’t worry, they only own the commanding heights of Christian culture. Aside from the media, seminaries, para church organizations, your own pastor, etc, they really don’t have any influence. This is absurd. What I’m describing is Christian culture today, at least in the west. That some, even many, Christians are clueless/apathetic about Christian culture doesn’t make the problem better.

  67. Gunner Q says:

    “It’s just such a bummer that they can’t convince more than a few people to agree about that.”

    The problem isn’t a concept too difficult for people to grasp, it’s leaders teaching evil to people. In which case, extolling external sources of virtue is the moral equivalent of throwing gasoline upon the fire. We can’t tell people to not decide things for themselves and then be surprised when they self-destructively trust the wicked.

    “The problem is, it has proven to be penetrable and easily manipulated by the vast number of mediocres under the curve.”

    All of Christianity has always been like that. You can either keep the current failed approach or trade it for a different approach doomed to fail. Either way, the most important thing you can do is give the mediocres the truth they need to choose well. Everything else is forcing a particular outcome.

    Elspeth @ 11:27 am:
    “Only a life lived in service to something other than oneself is worth living at all.The Bible makes it pretty clear that we are to be serving others.”

    What a female sentiment. Men work to win and accomplish, not to care and nurture. Don’t lecture us men on manhood.

    anonymous_ng @ 12:04 pm:
    “I don’t follow what you’re saying here about the purpose of para-church organizations. I’ve always seen them as opportunistic parasites.”

    Protestant churches tend to be small and financially isolated. Therefore, in order to do anything of significance they usually have to partner up with other churches. These partnerships often cross denominational lines so to keep leadership clear, third-party (or parachurch) organizations are set up. They do everything from missionary work to disaster relief to religious schools to magazine publishing. It’s a proven and useful method.

    In theory, the financial dependence of these parachurches to multiple, independent clergymen results in tight fiscal and moral oversight. In modern practice, hello virtue-signaling.

  68. elspeth says:

    Also, you stated in a comment at Sunshine Thiry’s blog a few years ago that your pastor gave an anti father sermon on Father’s Day. Where do you think he got the idea?

    I’d forgotten about that but now that you reminded me, do you recall how I said it went over? Like a lead balloon. Not one man in the church answered the call to come up if he thought he needed to pray/repent/be a better husband/father. And there are a decent number of men in our church, especially for a black church. At least 50% men in a nearly 1000 member congregation.Thanks for the reminder.

    <i.What a female sentiment. Men work to win and accomplish, not to care and nurture. Don’t lecture us men on manhood.</i.

    Fair enough.

  69. Clarence says:

    ” Men work to win and accomplish…” Speak for yourself, and think about what you say. What the heck do you think the purpose of a FATHER is?

    After all these posts about Fathers day, and you reduce men to Players of Games(Ian Banks reference) and you seem to deny we like raising puppies or growing things, and have to ‘win’ all the time.

  70. Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth

    Also, you stated in a comment at Sunshine Thiry’s blog a few years ago that your pastor gave an anti father sermon on Father’s Day. Where do you think he got the idea?

    I’d forgotten about that but now that you reminded me, do you recall how I said it went over? Like a lead balloon. Not one man in the church answered the call to come up if he thought he needed to pray/repent/be a better husband/father.

    This stuff is so normal that it doesn’t stick out. This is why it is so easy to forget. As I recall, you originally were OK with Courageous until I pointed out what it was doing. This stuff is everywhere, so you don’t notice it. You are in denial.

  71. Dave says:

    The “Church” is dying in this country. I live in a small town in the upper south. In the past 15-20 years, most churches in the community have seen a huge drop-off in average Sunday morning attendance.

    You can say that again. America used to send Christian missionaries to other countries. Now it sends gay apologists in the person of its former president.

    The only exceptions are the Roman Catholic Church which has stayed about the same, and one evangelical church where the preacher is really good at entertaining, is up. Once he leaves, or people get tired of his shtick, that church will drop back to where is was.

    The Roman Catholic Church is not immune to the drop off in attendance, actually. They’ve been able to weather the storm because of their “no contraception” doctrine. Since they don’t evangelize others, their major way to grow membership is through childbirth. Muslims employ this method as well, so it’s not unique to the RCC.

    What this country needs is a heaven-sent, Holy Ghost revival, that will shake it from coast to coast. And if Christians are willing to pay the price, we can have just that revival.

  72. anonymous_ng says:

    @Dalrock – Very few are tracking the culture in the seminaries or national church governance bodies. But all of them know about Fireproof, Courageous, War Room, and Mom’s Night Out. None of them object to the messages in these movies.

    Mom’s Night Out aside, I never heard of those movies except here.

  73. elspeth says:

    This stuff is so normal that it doesn’t stick out. This is why it is so easy to forget. As I recall, you originally were OK with Courageous until I pointed out what it was doing. This stuff is everywhere, so you don’t notice it. You are in denial.

    No, I see it. I just think it is, like most sociopolitical commentary of our day (it’s not driven by Scripture after all), largely taken in and taken seriously by a self-selected group of people. They are preaching to the choir, if you will. it is personality driven.

    I know a couple of men who are as close to “perfect” husbands/fathers as FOtF or the Kendrick brothers could dream up and who would still walk away from those types pf “man up” meetings convinced they need to do better.

    And I know other men who simply cannot be brow beaten into believing they have to be emotional, touchy-feely, wife worshiping men to be acceptable to God, and don’t give a crap about being deemed acceptable by those kinds of men.

    I do agree with you that mainstream Christian leaders seem deathly afraid of confronting female sin or being outspoken about the covert and insidious ways it manifests and causes damage to marriages and families.

  74. BillyS says:

    Elspeth,

    Only a life lived in service to something other than oneself is worth living at all.

    That is only true to a point and feeds into the modern “men must be full time servants” message that is do contrary to what the Scriptures teach. God created us to enjoy life, not just to live serving others. Serving is a vital part, but it is not the entirety. Even serving God is in the scope of a life with Him. He wants and does bless us as we go about our lives.

    This would take a lot more to draw out, but does fit with what I see as your underlying misunderstanding of things and failure (at times at least) to see the implications of what you are saying. We all can fall prey to that, but we must watch out.

    ====

    On parachurch groups: Arguing that this forum and others like it is not a parachurch group is not accurate. Any place where Christians connect outside a church would fall under the parachurch umbrella. That idea is not bad per se, it is the efforts of some that are bad.

    Humans can do both good and bad things. They usually need money to do those things, so that will always play a role. Even this site here requires money. Either Dalrock pays a nominal fee to WordPress (as I do) or they put ads in to make that as well. (Along with tracking user activities, etc.) Money is always involved.

    (A general saying – “If you don’t know what the product is, you are the product” – the readers and writers of blogs in this case.)

    It is easy to lash out against specific groups, but it remains a human problem that will always be with us, no matter how good or bad we get.

  75. thedeti says:

    “No, I see it. I just think it is, like most sociopolitical commentary of our day (it’s not driven by Scripture after all), largely taken in and taken seriously by a self-selected group of people. They are preaching to the choir, if you will. it is personality driven.”

    The people who take all of this seriously are:

    1) Christian women married to men they’re not sexually attracted to (which is at least half of them)

    2) Christian men who aren’t getting the sex they want or need from their marriages and who are mistreated in their marriages and who are desperately looking for a way to fix it (again, at least half of them)

    3) Christian marriages with a poor to nonexistent sex life

    4) Most mainstream mainline prot evangelical pastors.

    And that is why it really doesn’t resonate with you. Because none of these things apply to you.

  76. thedeti says:

    It also strikes me that, even if most of the Christian rank and file, and lay leadership, doesn’t know much about parachurch organizations, the pastors do. And the pastors know about these organizations’ twisted theology on men, women, sex, and marriage. We know these pastors know about that theology because it’s seeped into and infected the way most pastors talk about, teach and preach on these subjects. And that theology drives the plots and characters of all the Kendrick Brothers’ movies, and Moms Night out. That theology serves as the basis for all of Christian entertainment.

  77. Why do men continue to be blamed to such a high degree for the proliferation of single mothers and for “abandoning children”?

    We seem to be ignorant of the modern day field of play with respect to contraceptives.

    Women today have access, not to some, but to ALL of the most effective forms of birth control known on the planet:

    WOMEN:
    a.) Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive: Implant – 99% effective
    b.) Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive: IUD – 99% effective, copper or hormonal
    c.) The Pill – 96-98% effective, depending
    d.) abortion – 100% effective

    MEN:
    a.) condom – 82% effective
    b.) vasectomy – 99.98% effective

    The methods available to women are ridiculously effective. This is before we bolt on the feminist acquired unilateral legal authority and power afforded to women with abortion..

    Women have already been doing exactly whatever they want to, when they want to. What else possibly stands in their way, except not having men around to finance it or support it?

    Women are not only the gatekeepers of sex.
    They are also the assigned starting goalies regarding pregnancy for each and every game ever played during her “sex seasons”, i.e her fertility years.

    The fact that women tend to be awful or incompetent at being goalies (“Oh yeah, I forgot”), or that they resent having to be goalies at all (“This is expensive. It’s also unfair”), or that they would play goalie poorly just in order to earn proceeds from throwing the game (e.g. treating condom pack as a voodoo doll), is important for men to accept.
    But it would not substantiate reasons to blame men for outcomes that women unilaterally decide.

    The icing on the cake and ultimate irony is how only men are the ones charged and convicted with malice for rejecting abstinence and for being irresponsible for refusing to finance and support such unplanned children.

  78. Vasalgel’s anticipated availability may decisively turn such questions on their head starting in 2018.

    The price is still unknown, but anticipated to be around $900-$1700 “installed” with efficacy of 99.999% and valid for 8 years.

    I wonder what will happen when the current unilateral authority and power of being a father and being a mother is taken away from women and placed firmly and artificially inside the scrotum of the man?

    Of course, not all men will have the procedure. And would those who do have the “male prerogative” whether or not to disclose it?

  79. earl says:

    ‘The question is, how to condemn the outcome of feminism without offending feminists?’

    Go back to the old school. Start pointing out sin. Things like fornication, contraception, rebellion to God appointed authority, and the like are all sinful behavior with candy coated names.

  80. BillyS says:

    The fact they ask the question is the problem. Offending anyone should not be relevant if you are preaching the Truth. They lost the focus on the truth so they worry about who might be offended.

  81. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock & Elspeth

    The intersection of black men and feminism generally produces three results:

    1) The mutual strengthening of grievance/identity politics.
    2) Taking advantage of feminist rebellion and acting out to get laid
    3) Play the Black Card and ignore feminism that imposes on their self-interest Authentic Blackness.

    The black characters in these movies (Courageous, Fireproof, etc.) are Conservative Christian Obamas who are going to (finally!) inspire black fathers to get it together. It sells to white Christians because it gives them a feeling of such soft paternalism, and also inclusivity (we have black friends!).

    And there is another aspect at work, too: MC and UMC whites readily accept the caricature of black men as more manly, and black women as more honest. Both are seen as more wise when they are old. And I think blacks think these things about themselves, too. According to BoxOfficeMojo, Tyler Perry’s black movies (so excluding Star Trek, Gone Girl, etc.) have made $746,262,248. The Madea movies alone have made $435,116,118, according to the website The-Numbers. That’s white people money.

    All that is background to say that I can believe black men aren’t terribly receptive or susceptible to Man Up! propaganda; especially when compared to white men. Black areas of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit are worse than before Obama was elected. There are more than a few black pastors on-board the Man-Up! bus because who doesn’t want to be given a free pass to be seen as tougher, realer, and wiser than other men?

  82. Dry Holes says:

    To Scott’s comment: “Even some of my dearest Orthodox priest friends just can’t bring themselves to explain it in concrete terms.”

    I have not met an American Orthodox priest who believes the teaching of Sts. Peter & Paul re men & women are today applicable. None openly admit this- but they are plainly embarrassed by 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14, 1 Tim 2, 1 Tim 4, Titus 2, Col 3, 1 Peter 3, not to mention Gen 3:17- and work great efforts to counsel families to the exact opposite goal of these Saints and the Fathers. They have adopted leftist Enlightenment teachings on these subjects, in their stead.

    Thankfully the Russian Church has not been so compromised on these issues. The Russian Church grows as it maintains and promotes biblical and historic Patriarchy. The US Church dwindles as it endorses plain and open heresy.

    Funny (sad) how the US was supposed to be the defender of Christendom AGAINST the Russians only 30 years ago!

  83. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Scott: a “rights” based society will eventually run aground because all that focus on the individual uber alles must converge into one giant cage match of absurdity.

    Such as in Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979).

    That was 38 years ago. I wonder if today’s Generation Z even “gets” the satire. Rather than laughing, they might think, “Well, sure. Of course.”

  84. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Dave: You may have heard of hair shirts, but have you seen “hairy man swimsuits”?
    Penis envy is so 1999; it’s now chest-hair envy.

    The fashion industry is dominated by women and gay men. Hence, strange fashions emerge.

  85. Pingback: Against virtue signals [II Cor 13] | Dark Brightness

  86. Elspeth says:

    Tyler Perry produces glossy minstrel shows that no self respecting black person would buy a ticket for. Yet I know many who do but would our black card for being conservative.

    Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s true that black people think they are inherently wiser than other people. More openly vocal about human sexuality and human nature? Probably, which is why the “sugar and spice ” meme falls on deaf ears with black men. They took the first and hardest blows when the feminist second wave hit.

    But I truly don’t know a black person who would claim black people are more honest than most. LOL.

  87. Cane Caldo says:

    @ Elspeth

    Tyler Perry produces glossy minstrel shows that no self respecting black person would buy a ticket for. Yet I know many who do but would our black card for being conservative.

    Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s true that black people think they are inherently wiser than other people. More openly vocal about human sexuality and human nature? Probably, which is why the “sugar and spice ” meme falls on deaf ears with black men. They took the first and hardest blows when the feminist second wave hit.

    But I truly don’t know a black person who would claim black people are more honest than most. LOL.

    Right, because blacks are foreign to the following super-white phrases:

    “I just keep it real.”
    “I just tell it like it is.”
    “Yon’t know me!”
    “I ain’t got time for all that.”

    Etc.

  88. elspeth says:

    That’s not honesty. That is foolishness.

  89. Cane Caldo says:

    They are claims to honesty and you know it.

  90. elspeth says:

    Yes. It iis a claim of honesty about the person his or herself. It’s not a claim that every other black person is honest.

    And I know plenty 8of white and Latino people who say they are just “telling it like it is.”

    But you kind of lost me with the “Y’ont know me!” because that is straight up foolishness. :p

    Happy Father’s day, Caldo.

  91. Cane Caldo says:

    @Elspeth

    I recognize your concession.

  92. Mineter says:

    @Constrainedlocus
    I’ve also pondered this question.
    Why would a man be obliged to disclose, or volunteer, his fertility status, other than perhaps to his wife?
    Are women similarly obliged? Do they also tell the truth about it? What recourse does a man have for reasonable reliance on a false or misleading representation about it?

  93. CSI says:

    Regarding vaselgel, if you’ll online articles and comments where younger women manage to fall in love with men who have had vasectomies, then later decide they want children. The pressure they put on him to get a reversal is enormous! In most cases though I don’t think the man does get a reversal, but that’s only because the procedure is expensive and painful with no guarantee of success. Vaselgel will be much easier to reverse of course. I think few men would be able to resist their wives if they put the pressure on him to get it reversed.

    But the main point is that women often don’t like having to argue with and convince their husbands or boyfriends to have children. They often (usually?) just slack off on their contraception and have a convenient “accident”. Vaselgel, if enough men use it, will still change the dynamics considerably. It means both parties will have to at least discuss the decision before having children.

    (of course from a Catholic viewpoint this would officially be offlimits, being artificial contraception)

  94. Emperor Constantine says:

    CSI says:
    June 16, 2017 at 7:59 pm

    “In most cases though I don’t think the man does get a reversal, but that’s only because the procedure [reversing a vasectomy] is expensive and painful with no guarantee of success.”

    CSI, that’s not correct. Vasectomies are routinely reversed these days via outpatient surgery and the recovery is generally not too bad. 99% reversal rates are routine unless certain rare forms of vasectomy have been performed. Costs range from $1000 to $7000 or more for the best urologists working in this area.

    I’m personally aware of several children born from men who had this procedure.

  95. Mineter says:

    Strictly speaking, any contraception, artificial or otherwise, is against Catholic doctrine. Withdrawal is impermissible. Why the Billings Method gets a pass is beyond me.
    A lot of other things are also impermissible for Catholics. Pre-existing and extra-marrital sex, for example. Withholding sexual intimacy is another.
    Humans are fallible. Ok, a person is technically to remain a virgin until marriage. Why should it be a sin to mitigate the potential fall out of succumbing to the sin of lust and unintentionally impregnating a woman (and then marrying her with less than full and free consent)?

  96. rocko says:

    @Hollenhund

    Thank you for beating me to the punch regarding Ann Coulter. It’s amazing that in even manosphere sites like ROK, commenters will suddenly turn beta white knights and defend Coulter (and also pretty boy Milo, but that’s another subject) even though she’s the antithesis of a traditional woman. She’s bitter, angry, definitely looks mannish, a spinster. Heck, I would go out on a limb and say she’s one of those “nasty women” that Trump associated with Hillary Clinton.

    And people wonder why not only my respect for white Americans has eroded over time, but also why I became an atheist.

  97. feeriker says:

    “I think we all want to live in a country where no one’s bullied for their way of life …”

    Unless they are Christian husbands and fathers who believe in the biblical model of marriage and fatherhood. Off to the gulags with THEM!

  98. info says:

    The west needs the power of God. No joke. The most apostate and full of heresy. And one of the most hostile to God no question. As for those churches declining. God is pruning his church and cutting down all trees that bear no fruit.

  99. Dale says:

    @Elspeth
    >parachurch organizations… they siphon money away from local churches.

    That’s actually a good thing. I give more than what I think could reasonably be expected for attendance at my local church, and then give the remainder of what I have decided to give to charities outside of my country. I think the foreign charities are more worthy, and also more useful for helping others, than my local country and churches.

  100. Pingback: Hair shirts and chest thumping. - Top

  101. Höllenhund says:

    @rocko

    It’s a recurring problem. In a society where female hypergamy is unrestricted, any oppositional or countercultural group attracts lower betas and gammas to a disproportionate degree, because such men correctly see that they have little to lose and potentially much to gain by rejecting mainstream norms. This isn’t the case in a society of normalized monogamy and restricted hypergamy, where even such men have an investment in society and thus no incentive to rock the boat in any way, so to speak. They are also likely to be pussy-begging orbiter types, as we can see in the case of Ann Coulter, as you mentioned, and similar female pundits, who easily elicit attention from thirsty betas.

    And generally speaking, such groups tend to have a very lopsided sex ratio, because women tend to be politically and socially less engaged in general, and are also less likely to risk social ostracism and reject conformism in any way. This creates more problems down the line, because such groups are likely to grab the interest of less attractive women, and generally women who are dysfunctional, abnormal or screwed up in some way, because they correctly see that their relationship prospects are much better when the sex ratio is so unbalanced.

  102. Mike J Baron says:

    Tomorrow is Father’s Day Sunday. In many churches across the nation pastors will thank all the fathers, remind us of our roles and responsibilities, and then finish up by telling us how pathetic we are and tell us we need to do better.

    And the unhappy Christian wives in the service will think to themselves, “You tell ’em pastor!,” while the emasculated Christian husbands all seem to nod in approval and enjoy the scourging.

    Some Christian authors claim that real men are fed up and don’t even attend church, and the ones who do are wimps for Christ because they agree with everything their pastor preaches and respond to anyone who yanks on the rings through their noses.

    AMBEC should be loaded with posts on Monday morning about the intensity of the father-bashing they endured. But AMBEC will be empty on Monday morning because it has too few members and virtually no posts from them.

    And I won’t make a post because my pastor has no “anti-male bias” and will likely be kind and appreciative of fathers on Father’s Day.

    The gender level at the foot of the cross is so uneven now it’s as if ROMANS 3:23* now comes with an asterisk! (*ALL are sinners, all except females.)

    If churchmen don’t wake up soon, church will be taken over by women simply because there will be no real men left in church. You fortunate husbands who feel you have a good marriage or a great marriage will be shocked when she becomes unhappy and leaves you..and the church assisted her departure and blames you for the marriage failure!

    You think I am blowing smoke! You think this will never happen to you! Read this published story and see how closely it resembles mine! And keep your ears wide open tomorrow and REPORT here any incidences of AMBEC.

    (Search facebook for AMBEC to read his story and mine, and then join AMBEC!)

  103. “Desiderius says:
    June 15, 2017 at 10:55 pm
    “if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to”

    They can’t find them because the Stanton’s and Comeys and Muellers have made sure to strangle them in their cribs to gratify their own self-righteous vanity.”

    1. They also “can’t find Good Men” because of the simple reason that ‘Good Men’ want ‘Good Women’ — and there are VERY few ‘Good Women’ anymore (IF ANY).
    —-aanndd—-
    2. BRRRRIIING!
    “Hello. This is the Voicemail of the Good Man who WOULD have been your perfect husband — the man who would have loved you, married you, and cherished you all of your life.
    Sorry, but he cannot come to the phone — not now or EVER — because he was aborted before he had a chance to be born.
    Be sure and thank your feminist sisters for this. Goodbye.”
    CLICK.

  104. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Ann Coulter has bragged that she’s dated every important man in the conservative movement.

    At least, she’s been reported as saying that. I can see her saying it, as she’s given to hyperbolic statements.

    I guess she’s run out of conservatives and is now dating actors. I googled, and learned that she’s now linked to 1970s Good Times actor Jimmie Walker: http://www.vulture.com/2017/04/norman-lear-says-that-ann-coulter-is-dating-jimmie-walker.html

  105. thedeti says:

    Ann Coulter is typical of mainstream conservative Republican women. They live and speak as conservatives in every area other than their sex lives. Same with most Christian women. They are basically feminists in every sense of the word except that they oppose abortion. They have sex outside marriage and engage in serial monogamy. Before their marriages, most of them did the same – serial monogamy, dated lots of boyfriends, had sex with them. But they are abortion opponents on “moral” grounds, and that makes them good Christians in their own (and most others’) eyes.

    Conservatives and Christians consistently look the other way when young single women have sex, but at the same time pound young single men over the head with the exhortations to sexual purity and avoiding premarital sex. Because, you see, women’s sex drives are good, pure, clean, moral, healthy, normal and in right relationship; while men’s sex drives are evil, corrupt, dirty, immoral, sick, abnormal and perverted.

    Interestingly enough, Coulter has dated liberals too: the now-deceased actor Ron Silver (who in his dying days professed conservatism), and Andrew Cuomo (the liberal governor of NY and son of of the sainted Mario).

  106. Xwarper says:

    Probably the easiest thing conservative Christians can do is keep a firm voice and talk low but determinedly. Attitude usually carries the day.

    — xwarper.wordpress.com

  107. Höllenhund says:

    There are basically two differences between feminist women and “anti-feminist” women in the West today. “Anti-feminist” women want lower taxes, and they kinda sorta believe that all this sex-positive, anti-male stuff in the media is kinda sorta bad, because it makes it more difficult for the daughters of anti-feminist women to find “eligible” husbands.

  108. Xwarper says:

    When the hardest-core feminists scream at rallies and expose their topless assets, they are acting out of _personal lives_ that are deeply unsatisfying. It is in the nature of women to project what is going on, emotionally, sexually, inter-relationship-wise, in ways that can escape their internal censors … resulting in a load of gibberish and mistaken “logic.” The man viewing the furious ugly Amazon with naked chest screaming about patriarchy will assume she is genuinely arguing polemics.

    In reality, 10 times out of 10, she’s mourning the death of a cat, her inability to get along with her mom, her nearly bankrupt bank account, and the guy who promised to meet her in the park at age 14, 35 years ago, but never showed up. The public process of shrieking is just an excuse to manifest unacceptable behavior in a public way. In online magazines like _Jezebel_ you see the same process among their shoddy writers: declarations from sob sisters going through menstrual manic mechanical meltdowns of the mind, insofar as women have minds, which is debatable.

    A true mind can analyze and debate, and is not prisoner to its own emotions. _Sic semper tyrannis_.

    — xwarper.wordpress.com

  109. feeriker says:

    Inre Ann Coulter, the woman is just your garden variety AW: loud, opinionated, nasty, sure of her own superiority, and the center of her own universe. She may have had something insightful and relevant to say, once, back in the mid 1990s, but not since then. Today she’s just another tradcuck poseur(esse) – and one decidely past her physical “sell by” date. The guys she’s dated know this too, which is why none have ever “put a ring on it” (notwithstanding that she’s probably also as much of an insufferable bitch in her personal life as she projects publicly).

  110. Anon says:

    Ann Coulter is actually not bad. While her life is that of a big-city media/lawyer never-married, she DOES in fact fight misandry in a way you would never see from Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, etc. She points out how divorce is unfair to men, how women should pay their own way (a position almost impossible for a Republican women to concede), and how marriage is a bad deal for men.

    I think the fact that she is not really a conservative (but rather a centrist actress who is extremely good at playing to audience of needy, deprived cuckservatives) is indeed how she is less misandric than the typical Republican female… So yes, I defend Ann Coulter because she is the only one who is the real deal as far as opposing misandry. By contrast, Sarah Palin stayed married to one man and had five kids, but is pretty much a Republo-feminist through and through.

    Ann Coulter, like Laura Ingraham, dated Dinesh D’Souza in the 80s. Neither married within their fertility window, and thus are alpha widows

  111. BillyS says:

    Take,

    Or they left the dedicated man because he got in the way of them pursuing their own happiness….

  112. feeriker says:

    “Ann Coulter has bragged that she’s dated every important man in the conservative movement.”

    I just noticed this for the first time and the word “important” stuck out at me. Re-reading this, I interpret it to mean that Coulter has dated exactly ZE-RO men in the movement, as the word “important” applies to neither the conservative movement nor any man in it.

  113. BillyS says:

    Many f us no longer consider ourselves conservative since that movement couldn’t conserve much of anything useful, including bathrooms.

  114. Scott says:

    BillyS

    Correct. All systems of political thought are open for honest assessment.

    A serious critique of “conservatism” must question the veracity of its claims at “conserving” by asking “what has it conserved?”

    The answer is self evident.

  115. Anon says:

    A serious critique of “conservatism” must question the veracity of its claims at “conserving” by asking “what has it conserved?”

    The answer is self evident.

    Even worse, all of their supposed ‘principles’ are tossed out of the window when the prospect of groveling to women presents itself.

    1) Matching authority with responsibility? Not for women.
    2) The state seizing wealth from one group and giving to another? That is wonderful when it is done to men for the benefit of women. In fact, we don’t do enough.
    3) A high-trust society that enforces contracts is important? Not if a woman is inconvenienced.
    4) Small government is good? As long as no money going to women is cut (since this is most govt. spending, this makes the entire desire a non-starter).

    Cuckservatives are hence the worst. They love any and all leftism that can be packaged as ‘man bad, women good’. If leftists knew this, they could get cuckservatives to fall in line much faster than they do already, by spinning stories like ‘global warming harms women more than men’ or ‘withdrawal from the Paris accords harms women’, etc.

  116. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    BillyS: Many f us no longer consider ourselves conservative since that movement couldn’t conserve much of anything useful, including bathrooms.

    Here in Los Angeles, all the Starbucks bathrooms have gone unisex. Used to be one for men, one for women. Now both men and women can use either.

    Starbucks made no announcement. Simply, quietly, without fanfare, put the male/female logos on both bathrooms in several of their stores.

  117. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Scott: A serious critique of “conservatism” must question the veracity of its claims at “conserving” by asking “what has it conserved?”

    Support for Israel. Conservatives (like liberals) always go to the mat for Israel. More money. More wars. The Jewish ethnostate will be conserved and expanded, at American expense. It gets to have its wall. It will be protected against Muslim refugees, non-Jewish immigration, and threats of diversity.

    Even “America First” Trump promised to outdo Obama in spending for Israel. Even “America First” Trump attacked Syria because Israel wanted Assad attacked.

  118. feeriker says:

    Even “America First” Trump promised to outdo Obama in spending for Israel. Even “America First” Trump attacked Syria because Israel wanted Assad attacked.

    I really hope that these two events finally put to rest, once and for all, any remaining doubts about who REALLY owns and controls Amerika.

  119. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Abortion is far more restrictive in Israel than in the U.S., where even Western feminism takes a backseat to Jewish babies. Jewish lives are precious. The lives of Christians and Muslims, blacks and whites and browns, not so much.

  120. BillyS says:

    I have supported Israel for years and I still do. I am just convinced that our military should not do their bidding. We should just cease to try to tell them what to do as well. We should oppose all outside forces that try to force evil on Israel, just as we should on anyone else.

    I do believe the land is theirs due to God and conquest. We should not attack another country for them, but we should not do anything if they feel compelled to do the same for their own security (in general of course).

    That road has not really been tried, unfortunately.

    I am not worried about Trump’s actions in Syria. He is not the Messiah after all and only has to get a few things right, some of which already happened, to be a good thing for the US.

  121. BillyS says:

    That link doesn’t work right MarcusD.

  122. Novaseeker says:

    Here in Los Angeles, all the Starbucks bathrooms have gone unisex. Used to be one for men, one for women. Now both men and women can use either.

    Starbucks made no announcement. Simply, quietly, without fanfare, put the male/female logos on both bathrooms in several of their stores.

    Probably the most clever way to do it, because it skirts the issue of “who is what”, and just says anyone can go anywhere in a free for all situation. It must be odd for a genetic woman who walks into a bathroom with urinals, however.

  123. feministhater says:

    Marcus, are you sure you have the right link there? It links to a closed thread on Islam for Infidels..

  124. MarcusD says:

    Somehow managed to drop the last digit…

    Am I not meant for marriage?
    https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1055486

  125. “Novaseeker says:
    June 18, 2017 at 7:42 am
    …It must be odd for a genetic woman who walks into a bathroom with urinals, however.”

    Did Starbucks remove the urinals? (I wouldn’t be surprised, since some ‘female’ somewhere sometime would undoubtedly whine about urinals being “OFFENSIVE”…)

  126. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    There were no urinals. There were two bathrooms, each with one toilet and one sink. One labeled for men, one for woman. Now they’re both unisex. So it was an easy switch.

    But I suppose bathrooms with urinals are next on the unisex/tranny agenda. Change happens in increments. That way people are less likely to protest, or even notice.

  127. Novaseeker says:

    There were no urinals. There were two bathrooms, each with one toilet and one sink. One labeled for men, one for woman. Now they’re both unisex. So it was an easy switch.

    Ah, I see. Well then that’s a very easy thing for them to do, since they were basically unisex bathrooms anyway, just with a different sign on the door. I’d expect, given that women seem to use bathrooms more (and longer) than men do, that this is a net gain for the genetic women as well, really, in terms of having more toilet space available than previously, and at no cost at all to them.

    I’d expect that this will be the beginning of a push to end urinals in public bathrooms gradually. Radfems see urinals as a sign of the patriarchy anyway (male privilege to pee standing up, don’t you know?), and if they can kill two birds with one stone (get rid of patriarchy’s urinals while making the world’s bathrooms safe for crossdressers), all the better in their eyes.

  128. Bee says:

    Regarding Ann Coulter. She has opposed women voting and single mothers and thus is better than most other conserva-babes. But-but-but, she would have advanced Western Civilization more if she had stayed home and birthed 4 or more kids*.

    * 3 kids is just replacement, treading water.

    Note how few children most conserva-babes have.

  129. Anon says:

    Bee,

    But-but-but, she would have advanced Western Civilization more if she had stayed home and birthed 4 or more kids*.

    But that is just it. Sarah Palin is a Republo-feminist. Jenny Erikson had 2 kids, divorced, and how has one with no father.

    Number of children has only a very loose correlation to their opposition to misandry.

    Novaseeker,

    I’d expect that this will be the beginning of a push to end urinals in public bathrooms gradually.

    Sweden already does that.

    The idiots who end urinals will just cause men to pee outside, as happens in most countries where bathrooms are insufficiently pleasant. This widens the gender gap, rather than decrease it (just like during a long group hike, men can pee in a tenth of the time as women, as they don’t have to go nearly as far for privacy).

    The precision with which ‘feminism’ (and the FI in general) is diametrically opposed to every aspect of modern civilization is a sight to behold…

  130. feeriker says:

    Note how few children, if any, most conserva-babes have.

    Fixed.

  131. MarcusD says:

    On a related note:

    Swedish military lion gets the snip after women troops protest
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-502497/Swedish-military-lion-gets-snip-women-troops-protest.html

  132. Bee says:

    @freeriker,

    Yes. Good fix.

  133. Bee says:

    @Anon,

    “Number of children has only a very loose correlation to their opposition to misandry.”

    I agree. Defending Western Civilization is a war with many fronts.

    Right now Jenny Erickson is just treading water. I sure hope she does not birth any more children. Also I don’t count any single or divorced moms having children as a positive. I should have specified it would be better if Ann Coulter was married, never divorced, and home having 4 or more children. Those details used to be obvious and implied.

  134. Anon says:

    I should have specified it would be better if Ann Coulter was married, never divorced, and home having 4 or more children.

    Even then, Ann Coulter is better than Sarah Palin, for the former calls out misandry. Sarah Palin and her daughter(s) are just another cuckservative cliche…

  135. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    Conserva-babes are often of the “I’m not a feminist but . . . ” variety. They may loudly proclaim their opposition to feminism, but it’s the sea they’ve all been swimming in their entire lives, and it takes a lot more tenacity and self-analysis than most display to overcome that societal inertia. Most seem to be seeking a pedestal to be placed upon, and like many a politician, happy to perpetuate policies that benefit them, even if said policies were instituted by their putative enemies.

  136. feministhater says:

    Note how few children most conserva-babes have.

    Mostly because they price themselves right out of the market. Female hypergamy cares not. What man can compare to the mounds of thirsty men online that promote their behaviours? Few, if any. Their hunger for male attention is what drives them on; a husband and children destroys that notion. And besides, where would all their beta cuck girlfriends go if they couldn’t worship their anti-feminist goddess of the week?

    It’s nothing new, they’ve just discovered a new niche in which to fill. The amount of positive affirmations they get is unprecedented and in the end, nothing they say is of any real worth, it’s been stated by men for decades, centuries or millennia even, but because it comes from a pretty woman…. now that’s a cow worth milking for all its worth.

  137. Fiddlesticks says:

    Rising to the challenge of hairiest hair shirt of Father’s Day 2017 is Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), a photogenic Gen X anti-Trumper with rumored national ambitions.

    0:35 “I’ve missed Little League games because I misprioritize. ‘Cause I screw up. I’m often lousy at this calling. And you know what? All a’you dads out there are!”

  138. The rhetoric of men like Ben Sasse is typical reverse psychology.

    Football coaches may apply the same tactic at halftime when you’re up 24-0 and the opponent’s first string quarterback just went down with a shoulder injury.
    You all walk in laughing, high-fiving and satisfied, only to hear your coach go on a tirade, snapping clipboards in half over his knee. throwing chairs and telling everyone on the team how utter crap the first half performance was.
    .
    Conservatives want men to feel they should do far better and far more – that their very honor and manhood is always under scrutiny and at stake. They desperately want men angry and fearful of approval. They want men hungry and motivated to continue providing and protecting, not taking plays off.

    Sometimes this works. And the team comes out to win 59-0.
    Othertimes it backfires.

    But it seems like Sasse and his conservative Christian cohorts are not gauging such messages appropriately.

    Husbands and fathers as we know them today are common and ordinary. We only notice such men in their absence. And even when husbands and fathers are present, clearly they are the least venerated, least respected, most ridiculed and most reviled position in modern society, hands down. Single mothers have taken the crown of all societal attention, adoration, respect and pedestalization, despite their own wide and deep trail of failure and the human wreckage in their wake.

    Using reverse psychology to beat up on a bunch of guys who are under constant barrage on all sides as it is – from work, the wife, the church, the media, is unlikely to yield the desired effect.
    Most men in the west are now numb to it.

  139. PokeSalad says:

    Swedish military lion gets the snip after women troops protest

    The Swedish military was ‘snipped’ decades ago.

  140. PokeSalad says:

    They want (lower and middle class) men hungry and motivated to continue providing (taxes) and protecting (the corrupt legal system), not taking plays off.

    Slight modifications. Cuckservative, Inc has just as much stake in an obedient, sheeplike, taxpaying cohort of men as the looniest BernieBro.

  141. hippiefreak says:

    Telling men to be leaders is not enough because the unspoken next question is: Do the women agree to be led? If not, there’s your problem.
    It’s cowardly to say nothing to women as far as what is expected of them if men are to be their leaders.

  142. Rico says:

    “Jenny Erikson had 2 kids, divorced, and how has one with no father.”

    Seriously?

    Seriously.

    Between this, her divorce, her attention seeking GMA piece on Victoria Secret – how can she look herself in the mirror? There aren’t strong enough words to describe what a bald-faced hypocrite she is.

  143. Tim J Penner says:

    What do you do when your false god fails you? You double down.

    1 Kings 18:28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed.

  144. info says:

    @Fiddlesticks @Constrainedlocus

    ”And even when husbands and fathers are present, clearly they are the least venerated, least respected, most ridiculed and most reviled position in modern society, hands down. Single mothers have taken the crown of all societal attention, adoration, respect and pedestalization, despite their own wide and deep trail of failure and the human wreckage in their wake.

    Using reverse psychology to beat up on a bunch of guys who are under constant barrage on all sides as it is – from work, the wife, the church, the media, is unlikely to yield the desired effect.”

    All people need to do is substitute father’s with mothers and men with women. And say and do the same thing that they currently do to fathers. Then they will be see somehow.

  145. Pingback: Man up and share your feelings. | Dalrock

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