Headship is unchivalrous.

Last week I shared the tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.  Today I’ll share the tale of The Wedding of Sir Gawain.  I fear that fans of last week’s tale will be disappointed to find that today’s tale doesn’t include a three way between Sir Gawain, a dude, and the dude’s wife.  However, once they get past their homoerotic disappointment I am confident they will still find much to love in today’s tale.

In The Wedding of Sir Gawain, King Arthur must find out what women most desire in order to save his life.  Arthur meets an ugly woman (Ragnelle) who promises to tell Arthur the answer if Sir Gawain agrees to marry her in return.  Sir Gawain agrees, and the ugly woman tells Arthur the answer to the riddle:

King Arthur tells her that Sir Gawain accepts her terms and she reveals to him that what women desire most is sovereynté, the ability to make their own decisions.

With Arthur’s life saved, the only thing remaining is for Sir Gawain to put this new found wisdom into practice.  Gawain marries Ragnelle and gives her sovereignty.  As a result, he is blessed with a beautiful wife!

…the new pair retire to the bedroom. After brief hesitation, Gawain assents to treat his new bride as he would if she were desirable, and go to bed with her as a dutiful husband is expected to do. When he looks up, he is astonished to see the most beautiful woman he has ever seen standing before him. She explains she had been under a spell to look like a hag until a good knight married her; now her looks will be restored half the day. She gives him the choice to have her beautiful at night, when they are together, or during the day, when they are with others. Instead, he gives her the sovereynté to make the choice herself. This answer lifts the curse for good, and Ragnelle’s beauty returns permanently.

See Also: It started with a whimper (a servant leader is born).

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Chivalry, Headship, Infogalactic, Servant Leader, Submission, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Headship is unchivalrous.

  1. earl says:

    ‘King Arthur tells her that Sir Gawain accepts her terms and she reveals to him that what women desire most is sovereynté, the ability to make their own decisions.’

    God: Your desire will be for your husband.

    That’s why these things are fairy tales.

  2. earl says:

    ‘ She gives him the choice to have her beautiful at night, when they are together, or during the day, when they are with others. ‘

    Simple answer, during the night when they are together.

    ‘Instead, he gives her the sovereynté to make the choice herself. This answer lifts the curse for good, and Ragnelle’s beauty returns permanently.’

    Does she in turn use that beauty to attract a different man seeings how she now makes decisions for her own? These are the questions fairy tales never answer.

  3. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    “However, once they get past their homoerotic disappointment I am confident they will still find much to love in today’s tale.” lzozooozozoz butthzttehxtxlzolzozolzozozo

  4. Wikipedia says that this story is probably a parody of the romantic medieval stories. It is a re-telling of Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Wife of Bath’s Tale”, one of The Canterbury Tales.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wife_of_Bath%27s_Tale

    It’s fun to read Wikipedia’s interpretations of these stories, as people try to jam these stories into modern narrative boxes. My guess is that the thinking of people in the 14th and 15th centuries is almost incomprehensible to us today.

  5. Pingback: Headship is unchivalrous. | @the_arv

  6. Dalrock says:

    @LK

    Wikipedia says that this story is probably a parody of the romantic medieval stories. It is a re-telling of Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Wife of Bath’s Tale”, one of The Canterbury Tales.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wife_of_Bath%27s_Tale

    It’s fun to read Wikipedia’s interpretations of these stories, as people try to jam these stories into modern narrative boxes. My guess is that the thinking of people in the 14th and 15th centuries is almost incomprehensible to us today.

    I saw that. They may be right. This is a common defense of Courtly Love; none of it was meant to be taken seriously! My own guess is that the authors used the same kind of subterfuge modern authors do when selling a deviant message. They pretend they aren’t serious until the idea has become commonplace.

    But either way, the problem is that people today take these ideas very seriously. Even if it truly was created as a way to mock husbands who gave their wives sovereignty, somewhere along the way conservatives adopted this as the way to be a good Christian husband.

  7. opus vitae says:

    This is so perfectly feminist, I’m inclined to think it a joke, or a warning.

  8. Sharkly says:

    So, I guess the moral of the story is that: Satan and the forces of evil have been attacking subjection to patriarchy and male headship and offering up female rebellion as their preferred alternative for hundreds of years. They even go so far as to equate female sovereignty with beauty.

    1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

  9. earl says:

    @Sharkly…

    That’s why they are fairy tales when the claim that female rebellion brings about some sort of reward. Funny because some people accuse the Bible of being fairy tales, when it’s been the main thing that has the truth about what female rebellion does.

  10. squid_hunt says:

    That sound you just heard was the sound of thousands of white knights crying out at the crushing agony of realizing they gave themselves up to the cause, married the ugly, bitter, mean feminist, and are stuck with her looking hideous for the rest of their days, and they don’t even get credit for being more noble, honorable, and all around better than other men.

    You’re a cruel man, Dalrock.

  11. Sharkly says:

    I also see that sex with a beautiful woman is the lure/reward for men abdicating their sovereignty. that is how it has been up until my generation. However now there seems to be a shift towards punishment. You’ll be fired, preached against at church, called out, boycotted, and Etc. if you don’t support women rebelling. We need a new fairytale more relatable for this younger generation. Maybe now, the ugly woman turns into a monster and eats Gawain when he stands his ground.

  12. earl says:

    Rebellion only works if you package some fantasy reward to get them to go along with it.

    I mean I’ve seen enough beautiful women go ‘F U dad’ to get that it doesn’t make them more beautiful over time. How long have women had more of this ‘own decision’ making and have they got more beautiful as a result?

  13. Damn Crackers says:

    @Sharkly – Men abdicate their sovereignty for the ugly shrike now.

  14. c matt says:

    Simple answer, during the night when they are together.

    Exactly – the best of both worlds: Hot babe at night, and no chance of superior Alphas taking her away.

  15. rhodigian says:

    And this story, my friends, says once for all that beyond every woman there is an ugly schoolmarm.

  16. thedeti says:

    The moral of the story is:

    It is a noble thing when a man relinquishes his headship, will not make a decision for her that impacts his union with her, and lets his woman decide what is best for their union. And a man will be rewarded beyond measure when he valiantly submits to his woman.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry Kummer
    Wikipedia says that this story is probably a parody of the romantic medieval stories. It is a re-telling of Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Wife of Bath’s Tale”, one of The Canterbury Tales.

    Possible. Also possible the story was around for 14th century, and Chaucer’s stories were republished by others as their own, too. Given the difference between “what women want” in Chaucer’s “Wife of Bath” and this tale I suspect this one is later, therefore Wiki may be correct.

    But…

    Meta: “Wikipedia says” is about as reliable or trustworthy as “CBS News with Dan Rather says..” because an increasing number of editors at Wiki are SJW’s. It used to be that only heeaviy and obviously political pages such as anything to do with the Middle East or Feminism were in a state of lockdown. Now it is possible to find some SJW editor squatting on just about any page, ready to reverse any edit that doesn’t fit the standard narrative. The whole issue of Thomas Ball’s Wiki page revealed that with crystal clarity.

    It is not an accident that links to infogalactic are increasingly common.

  18. earl says:

    Exactly – the best of both worlds: Hot babe at night, and no chance of superior Alphas taking her away.

    Nah the best of both worlds is if her looks at night are traded for cooking skills during the day.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    This is a common defense of Courtly Love; none of it was meant to be taken seriously! My own guess is that the authors used the same kind of subterfuge modern authors do when selling a deviant message. They pretend they aren’t serious until the idea has become commonplace.

    At the end of Canturbury Tales Chaucer wrote a post script in which he basicallly said “Hey, it’s all a joke, don’t take these stories seriously, if this offended you I’m sorry; look at this other story I wrote that is pious / respectful / etc.” This was supposedly common in theater plays of the time as well. It was a way to keep one’s head in place, in a very literal sense.

    As Larry observed, it is standard now for moderns to project their own prejudices backwards onto history and literature of previous eras. It is rather solipsistic to do so.

    The Female Imperative is a feature of women, not a bug. All three (so far) stages of feminism are just the manifestations of the FI over the last 150 – 200 years or so; it manifested in other ways in other times.

  20. feeriker says:

    So … why hasn’t Lifetime or The Hallmark Channel turned this into a made-for-TV movie or a miniseries for the estrogen demographic? Or have they?

  21. Darwinian Arminian says:

    King Arthur tells her that Sir Gawain accepts her terms and she reveals to him that what women desire most is sovereynté, the ability to make their own decisions.

    Is there any chance that the modern church also holds this up as the highest good? Because if so, I could see this playing into some potentially advantageous situations for alpha men. Say, for instance, that one night I enjoy an experience with my girlfriend similar to what Gawain must have ended up enjoying with Ragnelle. A few weeks later she comes by to tell me that she’s pregnant and she’s considering an abortion. What should I do?

    If we follow the lesson of the story, then the answer is clear: I tell her that the choice is hers to make and she should feel free and justified in doing whatever she likes. Some in the church might protest that I failed to “take responsibility,” but no! Responsibility would imply that the choice was mine, when the choice should always have belonged to her alone. They also might protest that my failing to persuade her to keep the baby and help her support it led to her deciding to have the abortion, but in doing so they would only reveal that they’re still missing the lesson. They’re implying that an abortion would have been wrong; but not so, if she chose it herself! Because as we learned from the story of Gawain and Ragnelle, her free choice was itself what made the act holy.

  22. feeriker says:

    How long have women had more of this ‘own decision’ making and have they got more beautiful as a result?

    If “beautiful” is obesity, tats, piercings, ugly male clothing, butch haircuts, foul language, mental illness, STDs, and hatred, then we’ve been “blessed” with most most “beautiful” generation of women in all of human history.

  23. Joe says:

    “feeriker says:
    May 14, 2018 at 1:58 pm
    So … why hasn’t Lifetime or The Hallmark Channel turned this into a made-for-TV movie or a miniseries for the estrogen demographic? Or have they?”

    Say what you will about the Hallmark Channel, but I see a lot of Alpha gaming there. I watched one last night, the main guy character gamed the female throughout the movie. Successfully, as usual.
    Proof positive that girls fantasize about being gamed by alphas.

  24. SJB says:

    @Dalrock: You skipped Ragnelle’s lines:

    Whilles that I lyve I shal be obaysaunt;
    To God above I shalle itt warraunt,
    And nevere with you to debate.

    That’s how to tell it’s farcical.

  25. earl says:

    The real life story is he meets a beautiful woman who says she’ll give him all the sec if he let’s her make the decisions. Not only does she get uglier, the sex dries up and he doesn’t realize this until the divorce.

  26. Pingback: Headship is unchivalrous. | Reaction Times

  27. squid_hunt says:

    @Earl

    Yeah, but think about what a noble, honorable gentleman he’ll be to give her all his stuff, including his children, and pay her to live with another man for the rest of her life. Bestill my beating heart.

  28. thedeti says:

    The Question:

    Interesting post at Reason.

    Progressivism’s promise is to move toward social arrangements that increase the number of winners and diminish the number of losers. But until we achieve a utopia where everyone wins, we’ll have to figure out ways to offer relief to the losers. This will require liberals to start taking the plight of people like the incels seriously, and stop penalizing intellectual mavericks like Hanson who have the nerve speak up on their behalf.

    The post argues the sexual revolution needs to be completed by finishing the process of “commodifying” sex. Clearly, the writer suggests

    –legitimizing and destigmatizing porn

    –legalizing prostitution.

    a couple of thoughts.

    Both suggestions would legalize and legitimize conduct that is immoral from a Christian perspective.

    I think it’s time to recognize that the objections to porn and prostitution are less moral than they are simply that no one cares about unattractive people. And especially, no one cares that unattractive people cannot get human companionship or sex. Put more crudely, no one cares that incels can’t get sex. No one cares that unattractive, low value women are either pumped and dumped, or ignored.

    People care more about unattractive, low value women. At least they can get sex. At least they can get basic care and services. Even the lowest low value woman has some value – she can get pregnant and have children. And even if she can’t get pregnant, she will still be protected because men are hardwired to save every last woman who can be saved. No matter what a woman’s attractiveness or usefulness level is, a man or group of men will always make sure her basic life needs are met. A man or group of men will always make sure she has food, water, shelter, clothing, and medical care. Always. Without fail.

    Not so for men. No one cares that incels can’t get laid. Even other incels don’t care. And no one wants to destigmatize porn solely because it’s a sexual release for incels. No one wants to legalize prostitution to give incels sexual release. Because everyone has visceral reactions to incels, and they especially get skeeved at the thought of incels having sex, even if it’s prostitution sex that no woman must volunteer for.

    It’s also a sense that incels aren’t “real men”. Men are expected to solve their own problems, figure out their own way, and to devise ways to get their needs and wants met. An incel, being an involuntary celibate, can’t solve the basic problem of attracting and keeping a woman for sex. And so people don’t see these men as “real men”, because there’s a distinct sense that men who cannot get sex for themselves are “less than” other men. I’m not saying this is true. I am theorizing that a big part of our inability/unwillingness to deal with the “incel problem” is that people by and large think a man who can’t get a woman to have sex with him isn’t deserving of anything from society. And incels know this. And that’s one reason why they get so angry.

    Of course, the main reason anyone is talking about incels now is because before, incels were largely kept in check in their communities and were isolated from one another. Now, incels talk to each other on the internet.

  29. Novaseeker says:

    Deti —

    I think you’re correct that people despise incels, particularly male ones, because they have in a very real sense failed their burden of performance. They are, in a very real sense, failures. And men who fail the burden of performance are well and truly despised by men and women alike, because meeting the burden of performance is a baseline requirement for being a man.

    Of course there have always been such men. In the past, we found things to do with such men — like a life in the military (which always had whores following it around) or a life in the monastery or the priesthood or what have you, where some face was saved, even if “Uncle Bill is kind of odd, isn’t he?” was always the talk about him. The problem today is that these avenues have diminished for the most part and at the same time sexuality and access to sex has become the very center of social life and existence, especially for the young. It’s a double-whammy that makes the situation acute for incels, and then, as you say, the internet comes along and links them up together, and it just has a tendency to get very radicalized in some cases in ways that it would not have been if there had been other life paths, if sex were not the center of social life for the young, and if there were no internet.

  30. Hugh Mann says:

    @Dalrock – “Even if it truly was created as a way to mock husbands who gave their wives sovereignty”

    The story is echoed in old ballads like “King Henry”, so I doubt it’s meant in jest. In the song the king is weary from hunting and asleep, when he’s woken by a hideous woman who demands first food, then drink, then that he sleeps with her. He grants all these in full (even though she eats his hounds and horse), and wakes with a beauty in his bed who says she’s never met such a noble knight “who gave to me all my will”.

    But I doubt it was read as an example to be followed by Squire John or Peasant Peter. King Henry or Gawain are aristocrats, superior beings who can do things that lower churls cannot. Remember the King could cure some diseases by touching the patient – or it was thought they could.

    Think of it more like a tale of some great Chad-like PUA like Tucker Max. He may have been able to walk out of a student bar with his pick of the ladies, and it makes a good story. But that doesn’t mean that you or I could necessarily do the same.

  31. da GBFM zlzoolzlzzlzozlzloozozo says:

    When one gives the wife power
    One gives the corporate state churchian church power
    Hence the corporate state churchian church
    promotes feminismzmzllzzolz

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    And men who fail the burden of performance are well and truly despised by men and women alike, because meeting the burden of performance is a baseline requirement for being a man.

    Of course there have always been such men.

    However, in the past we did not deliberately set up the majority of boys and young men for failure by teaching them to act like girls beginning at the age of 5. The femmcentric orientation of K – 12 school has been around for at least 20 years if not longer, and now we see part of the payoff in 20-something InCel men.

    Looking around in the college zone one can see fat, nerdy young men who are pretty much doing what they were taught to do by their teachers, their church leaders (if any) and likely their parents. If you do what your teachers tell you to do, and you wind up miserable, sure the action is on your head, but “Hey, you trusted us, you screwed up!” is not the best answer to give someone.

    As an aside, this is a big part of why women under 30 are amazingly hungry for masculinity.

  33. Lex et iustitia says:

    How much education and life experience is shared between this panel? Despite that, they don’t come close to actually explaining why. Lol

  34. Burner Prime says:

    @Larry, @Dalrock:
    “They pretend they aren’t serious… ” This is a game Jon Stewart plays. His political attacks are vicious and dead serious, but when called out as a hypocritical hack, says, “What, what, I’m just a comedian….I’m making a joke…”, claiming immunity.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    To continue my previous thought, few people over 30 have any idea what K – 12 is like now.

    Schools have cut elementary school recess from twice per day to once per day, or cut it out entirely. This just sets up boys to be disciplinary problems; do I have to explain why?

    In a lot of highs schools Physical Education has become either entirely optional, or something that is a one-year requirement. One year out of four, and it’s probably just running laps – no weight training, no track, no indoor sports (wrestling is nearly dead in the US), no outdoor sports.

    Testosterone is a powerful compound that shapes the male brain, but only if it is present. The downgrading of PE and recess puts more boys into worse shape physically, but also mentally. Note that the InCels are generally emotional, they relate to the each other and the world in a rather feminine way. Is this an accident of history? It is likely that lack of physical exercise in school years is a contributing factor, along with obesity.

    Every man should be familiar with the signs of low T. Anxiety, moodiness, depression and other emotional states are among them – look at the InCels and consider what their actual problem may be.

  36. lavazza1891 says:

    I can’t find the joke again but there is a text where you scroll empty lines to find the morale of the story being that whether a woman is ugly or beautiful, she is still a witch, or words to that effect.

  37. Dalrock,

    “This is a common defense of Courtly Love; none of it was meant to be taken seriously! ”

    My knowledge of medieval literature is near zero, but I had the opposite interpretation of saying this was a parody. I assume that they meant that courtly love was taken serious by the author’s society, and the “Wife of Bath” was a parody mocking it.

    That makes sense, imo, since I doubt the “feminist” perspective was taken seriously in medieval times.

  38. Anon Reader,

    “Meta: “Wikipedia says” is about as reliable or trustworthy as “CBS News with Dan Rather says.”

    That’s quite false. Several studies have found that Wikipedia is in general as accurate as major reference studies. The largest I’ve seen compared it favorably to the Britannica.

    Also, Wikipedia has an advantage over most reference and news sources: it gives links to the source. I suggest never rely on it without checking the link. Those links give Wikipedia entries credibility — and allow readers to confirm it.

    In my experience, Wikipedia is quite accurate except for politicized topics. But then few reference sources do better.

  39. patriarchal landmine says:

    so it’s the thing women want most, but if a man won’t grant it to them they would rather be slaves.

    makes perfect sense.

  40. PokeSalad says:

    As an amateur military historian, I am interested in how this links to the evolution of warfare at about the same time/somewhat before, to wit (apologies for the lengthy quote,boldface mine):

    ” ..in these changes we see the first blossoming of a new military order, the feudal, which provided the security necessary for Christendom to take root and grow. But as the Church was the ministry of the eternal, and the feudal state represented no more than the temporal, it followed that complete religious dominance could only be possible when war, as much as peace, was conducted according to the rulings of the Church. Out of this struggle for dominance emerged the medieval conception as war as a trial by battle, in which the Church refereed for God. War was…recognized as part of man’s very nature, the fruit of original sin, which was the fulcrum of the Church’s power. Therefore, war could only be restricted and mitigated by Christianizing – ennobling – the warrior and limiting its duration.

    As war teaches men how to die bravely, war is the school of heroism: such was the pagan ideal. But as death is the portal of the life eternal, war must also be the school of righteousness, or death can only lead to eternal damnation: such is the Christian outlook. Thus the classical soldier is transformed into the idealized Christian knight of chivalry, “uniting”, as Lecky writes, “all of the force and fire of the ancient warrior with something of the tenderness and humility of the Christian saint…” Fuller, Decisive Battles of the Western World, Vol I, p 352

  41. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    If “beautiful” is obesity, tats, piercings, ugly male clothing, butch haircuts, foul language, mental illness, STDs, and hatred, then we’ve been “blessed” with most most “beautiful” generation of women in all of human history.

    Note how forced it seems when a pastorbator pedestalizes his church fatties by calling them ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’ (three times).

  42. earl says:

    And men who fail the burden of performance are well and truly despised by men and women alike, because meeting the burden of performance is a baseline requirement for being a man.

    That’s true with most things in life when it comes to a man.

    Problem when it comes to this arena is there’s another sex with free will involved when it comes to this. It’s just as plausible to explain that women have failed in their performance greatly that it is making it pretty difficult for a lot of men to have a shot.

    And if it sounds like I’m making excuses…which sex is the one driving the marriage rate down?

  43. PokeSalad says:

    What’s the ‘baseline requirement’ of being a woman, and who despises them for failing it, in 2018?

  44. Yes, exactly. I nearly fell into that category myself. Followed all the rules, got myself a good education, tried to be “attractive” in the way I had been taught. Only to find myself at 28 and never having made it to “first base.” Thankfully I finally found a good woman (and Dalrock soon after), but it was nearly by accident. Looking back, I cringe at myself. Still do sometimes, but I’m getting better.

    Thing is, I have decent looks, intelligence, hobbies. Those “saved me” to some extent. For any guy who struggles in any of those areas (probably through no fault of his own), he’s sunk. Your average decent guy can make a perfectly acceptable husband with a bit of good training and effort, but they are led astray instead.

  45. info says:

    @Anon
    ”Note how forced it seems when a pastorbator pedestalizes his church fatties by calling them ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’ (three times).”

    As he raises his wife’s son.

    If ugliness is beautiful then no sin is ugly. Its beautiful,beautiful,beautiful.

  46. info says:

    @AR
    Its time to abandon the Prussian model of an education system and go back to classical education.

  47. Spike says:

    So, that’s what’s behind all of those tales of chivalrous yore:

    “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.”
    -2 Corinthians 11:14
    That’s right: Leftism/ Feminism/ Female Sovereignity is just satanism disguised. And we have to be among the few thousand who do not bow the knee to Baal.

  48. Sharkly says:

    Lex et iustitia Says: How much education and life experience is shared between this panel?

    I’m not sure if you’re talking about the Dalrock Blog. But if you want a piece of Life’s experience, here is a tiny bit just from today.

    I’m finding out the “family” courts, are rigged against me as a father. Today I was at my lawyers reading the results of my Brief Focused Assessment, as to whether I will get to spend time with my boys unsupervised. The document was a severely biased overreach, in an attempt to give my wife everything she wants while denying me anything. This despite the fact that I underwent a full psychological evaluation and testing showing that I have no mental disorder or psychological disorder, and am not likely to pose any danger to my children. My wife was not required to undergo any evaluation, but has been diagnosed as having at least two disorders as a result of some psychological counseling she recently got. A mental disorder, and a major mood disorder, in addition to another previously diagnosed mood disorder. And I think there is still more to be discovered. anyhow on to some of the silly new stuff the “neutral” (divorced Psych lady) has thrown at me.
    Apparently I’m a risk, because I wasn’t talked out of the option to paddle my sons. Apparently the wisdom of Solomon is under question. They actually quoted “spare the rod, spoil the child” as being my belief in the document, and then went on to cite a number of papers claiming spanking is the root of all sort of dysfunction. LOL When I pointed out to my lawyer that they think they’re wiser than Solomon and God, she said, “No, they’re just saying that your method is highly controversial.” LOL their “neutral” party is throwing whatever sh1t they can at me. My wife apparently was talked out of spanking the kids, so she’s safe now.
    Furthermore, I’m exceptionally strong and healthy for my age, but that is a bad thing! Apparently because I haven’t been to the doctor since my last physical exam four years ago, and don’t currently have a personal physician(the last guy moved away), in spite of having good insurance, I’m being a bad example for my boys. Seriously! You can’t make this Sh1t up. Apparently even though I’m a health nut who has spent years researching the world of supplements, weightlifting, nutrition, and other self improvement strategies, and have only used one sick day in the last 4 years to actually stay at home sick, that’s not good enough. I now have to submit myself to the medical cabal to have my nuts pulled, and my butt probed, far more frequently, on pain of never regaining unsupervised access to my children. I could go on…

    Romans 1:22 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

  49. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Another church leader turns tranny: http://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/providence/ri-church-leader-taking-sabbatical-to-transition-to-a-woman/1177914132

    According to an announcement by RI State Council of Churches Governing Board President Chontell Washington, Dr. Rev. Anderson shared with the Governing Board last fall that she is transgender and is “in the process of transitioning.”

    The organization has granted Rev. Dr. Anderson a three-month sabbatical to take the time she needs to do that “free of the day-to-day operations of the council.”

    Washington also noted during the sabbatical Rev. Dr. Anderson will be changing her name from Donald to Donnie. She added, “The council is appreciative of Dr. Anderson’s ministry and totally supportive of her transition. Please join us in wishing her well in this time of transition.”

    Rev. Anderson is expected to return to her role at the RI State Council of Churches in September. She has served the council for 11 years.

    Rev. Anderson has been vocal in her opposition to the Trump presidency social policies and an advocate for the creation of “sanctuary churches” to protect undocumented Rhode Islanders.

  50. Sharkly says:

    during the sabbatical Rev. Dr. Anderson will be changing her name from Donald to Donnie.

    So when do we get up and hit the gong? This craziness has gone too far. We need a reboot. If America’s founding fathers were to suddenly come alive today, they’d be drug before the “world court” and charged with a slew of crimes against humanity, genocide, human trafficking, civil rights violations. Even having all those wise and brave men back, might not help fighting against hundreds of millions of people with no fixed principles. We need divine intervention. And I’m afraid we have no solid church to even call on God. We are each left like Daniel to pray for our nation alone.
    Like Spike says: Leftism/ Feminism/ Female Sovereignity is just satanism disguised. And we have to be among the few thousand who do not bow the knee to Baal.

  51. info says:

    @RPL
    ”Another church leader turns tranny”
    When soyboy reaches the final stage resulting in physical castration.

  52. Zelda says:

    However, in the past we did not deliberately set up the majority of boys and young men for failure by teaching them to act like girls beginning at the age of 5.

    The most common and conspicuous attribute of the “Nice Guy ™” that so many women and feminists rail against isn’t his bitterness or his supposed sense of “entitlement,” it’s how stereotypically feminine his behavior towards the opposite sex typically is. The typical” Nice Guy ™” is a guy who is uncomfortable with and/or inept at the standard male role of being the one who initiates, and so he tends to favor a more passive strategy- he makes himself visible to women whose interest he would welcome, is pleasant towards them, tries to present an appealing image, perhaps gives off some demurely ambiguous hints of romantic/sexual interest, and hopes that she’ll make the first move. Or, alternately, he becomes friendly with a woman out of platonic motives but later develops a romantic interest, then places his hopes in the same passive strategy.

    In other words, the typical “Nice Guy ™” is a guy who acts like a typical woman. Even his means of consoling himself after repeated failure, lamenting the opposite sex’s shallowness and unreasonable standards of beauty and attractiveness, is stereotypically feminine. Combined with his other failings of masculinity, as a man who is sexually unsuccessful and who publicly talks about his pain and distress (and mere emotional pain, at that!) in public, and it’s no wonder that- just as most any school of feminist theory would predict- he inspires so much hostility and disgust.. I don’t buy into the idea that contempt for gender non-conforming men is actually disguised or redirected misogyny, but if I did and was going to argue for that position the intensity of the hatred and contempt directed at the figure of the “Nice Guy TM” would be one of my go-to examples.

  53. earl says:

    What’s the ‘baseline requirement’ of being a woman, and who despises them for failing it, in 2018?

    Well if I go back to why God created them….being a helpmate.

    Which situation would bring out the best in a man when it comes to women…a woman helping them with their mission or a woman undermining them?

  54. MichaelC says:

    The answer is half-right. Women want the ability to make their own decisions and do as they please. BUT, they also want somebody (Daddy, white knight) to rescue them from the consequences of their bad decisions.

  55. Magneto2975 says:

    We are way past God and what he intended at this point. While its true that St. Paul teaches that 1) the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, 2) and that just as the Church is subject to Christ in all things, and 3) therefore a wife subject to her husband in all things, the laws of the several United States establishes the exact opposite as the reality of the situation. The wife has all the power, if she has the will to use it.

  56. Kevin says:

    @Deti
    There is another problem the reason article ignores, which is not that incels are simply the losers in the new sexual market, but that the numbers are going to skyrocket as women attempt to return to pre-civilization levels of 20% of men having sex and 80% of men shut out (at least until their late 30s when some carousel rider jumps off looking for a sucker).

    Looks like Shrek was a retelling with a twist of the tale of Sir Gawain.

    Women always have their choice and in that way the tale is selling a false idea as well, good women just choose to submit.

  57. Gary Eden says:

    God: Your desire will be for your husband.

    The ugly woman in the story agrees Earl actually. We know what she desired most, it is what she asked for in exchange for the secret. But like all women she wanted to have her cake and eat it too so she asked for sovereignty.

    And then the false god pushed by the author blessed her by giving her the other thing all women want: beauty. So she got the trifecta.

  58. John James R says:

    @MacDonald the Old,

    “Your average decent guy can make a perfectly acceptable husband with a bit of good training and effort, but they are led astray instead.”

    ….So, man up?

  59. feeriker says:

    What’s the ‘baseline requirement’ of being a woman, and who despises them for failing it, in 2018?

    Well if I go back to why God created them….being a helpmate.

    Add to that the role of mother of and nurturer to children. That being the case, the majority are miserable, useless failures who really don’t merit expenditure of any of the resources required to sustain their existence on this earth.

    We need divine intervention. And I’m afraid we have no solid church to even call on God. We are each left like Daniel to pray for our nation alone.

    Correct. The organized “church” in today’s western world is a lost cause. However, the good news is that the real church consists of millions/billions of individual believers raising their voices in prayer for deliverance, prayers that God is hearing.

    It is a sobering, even terrifying thing to reflect on how small the body of true believers is. And how terrible will be the process of separating the wheat from the tares once Jesus returns.

  60. Novaseeker says:

    However, in the past we did not deliberately set up the majority of boys and young men for failure by teaching them to act like girls beginning at the age of 5. The femmcentric orientation of K – 12 school has been around for at least 20 years if not longer, and now we see part of the payoff in 20-something InCel men.

    But even most of the guys who go through that system don’t become incels. Incels are literally guys who have never had a date, never kissed a girl type of thing. That’s not common. It’s quite common that guys are getting the dregs of the market, having long dry spells, not happy with their romantic lives, maybe even giving up and sitting out — but these are not the incels, and they don’t identify as incels. The incels are the really hard cases, not the undersexed masses of 80%. We don’t have 80% incels after all. Yes, most of the undersexed are undersexed because they are following social cues that make them end up undersexed, but they still aren’t incels — incel is a more acute situation and I think it has always been here, regardless of the socialization. So while it’s true that in addition to incels we now have the large 80% undersexed, that large group isn’t the incel group — the incel group is much smaller and likely is the way it is for reasons extrinsic to the socialization in most cases, and intrinsic to the individuals involved.

    In other words, let’s not conflate the 80% undersexed betas with the incels — they’re two different groups. Even most of the fat gamergate neckeards aren’t incels in the true sense of the word because most of them have had at least some experiences with the opposite sex, as dissatisfying as they may have been. Incels are something else, there is some quirk of personality that makes them very unappealing to women in a way that is stronger than the typical undersexed 80% AFC crowd.

  61. Pingback: Modern Christian teachers of the lesson in The Wedding of Sir Gawain. | Dalrock

  62. thedeti says:

    Women’s “baseline of performance” is marriage, motherhood, and family.

    You can see this in women who haven’t married or had children. Women consistently show it’s better to be married and then divorced, than to have never been married. It’s better to be able to say “I actually got a man to make the ultimate commitment to me, but it didn’t work out” than to say “I couldn’t get a man to make the ultimate commitment to me.”

    Women crave motherhood. Most women who have never had children, even by choice, and especially because of medical problems, deeply regret it. Being unable to get pregnant and have children is deeply, excruciatingly painful for women. And it’s easy to see why: The primary function of a woman is to incubate, give birth to, and rear, children. A woman who can’t do that has failed her “burden of performance”. And however men might view her is NOTHING compared to the false pity, scorn, and derision she has to endure at the hands of other women.

  63. Gary Eden says:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/domestic-dispute-germany-man-arguing-parrot-120043145.html

    Had it been in the US they’d have arrested the man…

  64. earl says:

    And however men might view her is NOTHING compared to the false pity, scorn, and derision she has to endure at the hands of other women.

    I’ll play a small violin for their pity they endure from other women as a result from them willingly taking contraception and avoiding being oppressed in marriage.

  65. CSI says:

    Incels are something else, there is some quirk of personality that makes them very unappealing to women in a way that is stronger than the typical undersexed 80% AFC crowd.

    Incels are a strange group. They are pretty rare I think. While there would be many who are genuinely ugly, most of the ones who show their photos seem to be average or better looking. There could be some sort of behaviors set of that makes them seem weird and off putting, I think the main reason for their Inceldom though is that they barely try. The impression I get is that they are extremely negative, have distorted self image, borderline paranoia about how people perceive them, and hypersensitivity to criticism and rejection. All attributes that would make it painfully difficult trying to ask out women.

    To justify not trying the Incel community has invented the “Black Pill” theory. That women are only genuinely attracted to men who are naturally gifted with the most attractive looks. Unless you are tall, have a naturally mesothermic build and have a strong chiselled jawline, no women will ever be attracted to you for anything other than your money, and there’s nothing you can do to change that.

  66. Höllenhund says:

    It’s a double-whammy that makes the situation acute for incels, and then, as you say, the internet comes along and links them up together, and it just has a tendency to get very radicalized in some cases in ways that it would not have been if there had been other life paths, if sex were not the center of social life for the young, and if there were no internet.

    This reminds me of a pretty hilarious phenomenon that has become rather apparent in the last couple of years:

    1. Socially shunned communities like MGTOW, PUA, MRA, Incels, alt-rightists etc. gain media attention.
    2. Lots of people draw the conclusion that online “echo chambers” are dangerous avenues of radicalization for young cishet white males.
    3. 99% of these people are leftists who, of course, very much enjoy having their own online echo chambers, and see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

    (Obviously I’m not saying Novaseeker is one of them.)

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.