I’ll be out of pocket for a few days so I’m turning on moderation. I’ll be back towards the end of the week.
Update: Moderation is now off.
Merry Christmas, @Dalrock, and enjoy the trip!
Dalrock, don’t know if you’ve seen this yet, but Wilson finally defined what he means by “the Dalrock Route”. Scroll waaay down the page, or just search for “Dalrock”.
“Keith, from what I have seen, I would describe the Dalrock route as over-realized patriarchy. This is not the same thing as extreme patriarchy (the toxic kind), and it is not the same thing as my own version of (amazingly balanced) patriarchy. I speak as a man, as Paul might say, and that’s the problem, as RHE might say. Over-realized patriarchy has a tendency to assume that the complementarians who gave away the store (and I agree with Dalrock that many of them did give away the store), did so on purpose. In other words, what they tend to describe as conspiracy, I would describe as a mix of conspiracy from some and confused foolishness from others. This also has had an impact on how Dalrock has interacted with some of my stuff, looping me as one of the conspirators to feminize everything. Since I know that he is persistent in reading me incorrectly, eventually I quit reading him.”
[D: Thank you.]
When you’re back Dalrock, let minnow 👀
Pingback: Gone fishin’ | Reaction Times
“Out of pocket” means spending your own money on vacation.
[D: Except when it doesn’t.]
Yet another old white woman fleeced by a much younger Third World husband: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-46549705
When 60-year-old Edinburgh woman Diane Peebles married a man less than half her age and went to live with him in his native Sri Lanka, she called it her “one shot at happiness”.
Six years later, she is homeless, penniless and a widow after spending an entire £100,000 inheritance on Priyanjana De Zoysa. …
Diane, a former council worker from Musselburgh, met Priyanjana De Zoysa while on holiday in Sri Lanka in 2011. She was in her late 50s and he was 21. He cleaned rooms in the hotel where she was staying. …
She moved to Sri Lanka. Married him. Supported him. Gave him all her money.
Then, last year, Priyanjana was shot dead.
Diane believes he was killed for his cash by people who had seen the things she had given him. He was seen as being wealthy.
She then discovered that he had another wife – he had married her in 2016 when she was 18, and was living in her mother-in-law’s home with Priyanjana’s family.
Diane was unable to leave Sri Lanka for 18 months after her husband’s death.
She had no money, her in-laws did not help and she relied on strangers she met online to help her buy a plane ticket.
Back in Scotland, Diane is trying to piece her life back together.
She explained: “I am trying to sort out housing and get a job because my small pension from my old work is not enough to live on.” …
Dalrock thank you for your work. I get more out of reading your blog and your commenters statements than I do just studying the Bible by myself. I appreciate the video feed that you add to your post cause I don’t have television and wouldnt know who Wilson and chandler and the rest of these preachers are without it
If you haven’t seen this yet you might enjoy it http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/07/yes-evangelical-abstinence-culture-bust-answer-isnt-sexual-free/
Merry Christmas Dalrock, stay solid.
Hey Dalrock, long time reader here. Thought this article might be of interest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-46600325
I find it interesting that they don’t outright condemn the infidelity of these women. But not surprised that these women were prepared to go the grave with these secrets. It’s also evidence of the promiscuity that was no doubt present ‘back in the day’ though women were better at hiding it then.
I would describe the Dalrock route as over-realized patriarchy. This is not the same thing as extreme patriarchy (the toxic kind), and it is not the same thing as my own version of (amazingly balanced) patriarchy.
Quite a telling statement. The patriarchy Wilson balances is what Dalrock over-realizes. This means–I believe it can mean nothing else–that Wilson’s view is that the right balance to patriarchy is to keep it no more than mythical; never material as well.To over-realize patriarchy–to manifest it–is to unbalance the status quo. It would disturb the delicate feminist splendor in which we languish.
New levels of sickness … an 11-year-old drag queen dances in a NYC gay bar: https://www.dailywire.com/news/39409/11-year-old-boy-dressed-drag-dances-gay-men-bar-amanda-prestigiacomo
On December 1, an 11-year-old boy dressed in drag danced on stage in a sexual manner at a gay bar in Brooklyn, NY, called 3 Dollar Bill. The child, Desmond Napoles, was dressed as a Gwen Stefani-lookalike — full drag make up, a blonde wig, and crop top included — as he bounced around onstage to No Doubt’s “Like a Girl” and collected dollar bills from male adults viewing the number.
The Daily Wire has reviewed and confirmed the “performance” through video and photo posts on social media but has chosen not to link to the exploitative footage.
The performance, first flagged by YouTuber Yosef Ozia, was promoted on Eventbrite by 3 Dollar Bill.
“Only in New York… a nightclub that makes you go WHOA!!!,” reads the promotion. “FEATURING: Upcoming Legend from Television and the Runway: DESMOND IS AMAZING!!! PERFORMING LIVE! … This stage, this dance floor, this house… is ours as long as we protect it.”
The promotional ad notes that 3 Dollar Bill bar is “queer owned & operated and we foster a safe space from love. We respect all human persons as long as those human persons are also respectful to the ones around them.”
Proof for those who predicted that normalizing homosexuality will lead to normalizing pedophilia.
>”Over-realized patriarchy has a tendency to assume that the complementarians who gave away the store (and I agree with Dalrock that many of them did give away the store), did so on purpose. In other words, what they tend to describe as conspiracy, I would describe as a mix of conspiracy from some and confused foolishness from others. This also has had an impact on how Dalrock has interacted with some of my stuff, looping me as one of the conspirators to feminize everything.”
So…….. if I’m reading him right, the Doug did not say “over-realized patriarchy” is wrong about gender roles. He did not say “over-realized patriarchy” is against the Bible. It’s only fault is that people who believe in “over-realized patriarchy” (aka Dalrock) are treating other believers in a supposedly uncharitable manner?
Over-realized patriarchy = patriarchy that makes me look bad.
Have a great break Dalrock, and a merry Christmas to all.
Pardon me, sir, how did you say you’d like your eggs?
A sincere Thank You to Dalrock and all the fine men of the blog for all that you do. May you all have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
… Dalrock has interacted with some of my stuff, looping me as one of the conspirators to feminize everything. Since I know that he is persistent in reading me incorrectly, eventually I quit reading him.
I think 100% of everybody who disagrees with Doug Wilson, must just be reading him wrong. LOL /S
… my own version of (amazingly balanced) patriarchy.
I try to go off of what God has actually said. Apparently Wilson “balances” that with some other shit. Amazing!
Pingback: Doug Wilson Multi-Cucks | Gunner Q
t is not the same thing as my own version of (amazingly balanced) patriarchy
Perhaps someone should provide Pastor Wilson with a list of physical therapists in Moscow who could treat the shoulder he has surely injured by patting himself on the back with such enthusiasm.
I do not recall the part of Proverbs that advised arrogange as a virtue, surely it is there…
Maybe, but more like “If you aren’t acting like me you are Doing It All Wrong”. In the 8 or more years I’ve participated in the androsphere I’ve seen that plenty of times, often from some aging Boomer who married in his 20’s and has zero clue what men under 40 have to deal with. They know everything except when they don’t.
Anonymous Age 60-something at the late Spearhead commented that when he ran groups for divorced men back in the 1980’s it was a regular event, some new man would join and immediately inform him “This is all wrong, listen…” and would suggest something that had already been tried and found to not work.
Careful reading of the article liked above by Wilson reveals zero Bible quotes, zero actual concrete criticisms of the “this will not work” variety. It appears to be more about tone. Dalrock and the rest of us might as well have been caught wearing white shoes after Labor Day, or a straw hat before Easter, or failing to open a door quickly enough for a delicate flower of womanhood along the lines of Andrea Dworkin. Social faux pas’, poor tone, but no actual, actionable, critique.
In the comments a couple of persons who have done drive-by-run-away trolling here showed up (Katecho is a prime example.) with more of the same attempts at tone-policing. So once again, it’s not about something concrete such as Proverbs 14:1 or Ephesians 5:22 or 1 Peter 3 or even Proverbs 21:19, it’s about “tone”. The “tone” of this site and the commenters here just isn’t up to snuff, humph, harumph, HARUMPH! Plus we made one of The Ladies sufficiently unhappy that she developed the vapors!
Gasbaggery isn’t logic or reason. It’s just a vaporous form of squid ink.
 If people want to engage in a debate in an open forum, it can be difficult because of the wide variety of persons in that forum. However, dropping into a comment stream, posting half a dozen comments that show zero indication of actually reading and thinking about the replies then flouncing “out the door” declaring victory is quite immature. All that is “proven” by that is the bad faith of the person(s) in question.
AH ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah!
Laughs in Mgtow: “It’s easy to set aside grossly misogynist responses to the #MeToo movement. But recent surveys suggest that a much subtler backlash is occurring and threatens the efforts some companies and organizations have made to support the advancement of women through leadership ranks.
Three recent surveys arrived at similar troublesome findings: A growing number of men report being uncomfortable or afraid to work alone with a woman. Senior men are increasingly reluctant to mentor younger women or include them in opportunities like business travel or client dinners.”
@AR – Wilson’s critique of Dalrock’s approach is very specific. The point Wilson is making does not need scripture to back it up, so none was cited.
Over-realized patriarchy has a tendency to assume that the complementarians who gave away the store … did so on purpose. … This also has had an impact on how Dalrock has interacted with some of my stuff, looping me as one of the conspirators to feminize everything.
WIlson is willing to believe that some folks who gave away the store did so unwittingly, not on purpose, due to “confused foolishness”. Wilson does not like that Dalrock loops Wilson as one of the conspirators. I assume that means that Wilson thinks he is not one of the conspirators. But I don’t see where he denies that he is one of the complementarians who gave away the store. So – if Dalrock has proof that Wilson is one of those complementarians who gave away the store, and Wilson claims he is not a conspator, then all we are left with is the notion that he has acted as he has out of “confused foolishness” (Wilson’s own phrase).
I don’t know enough about Dalrocks critique of WIlson to take sides here. I’m just commenting on what appears to be a lack of logic in the words that Wilson used. Perhaps he meant to deny that he is one of those who gave away the store and just forgot to. But since he did not deny it, and he claims to not be a conspirator, all we are left with is “confused foolishness.”
I think Wilson’s tongue-in-cheek “amazingly balanced” comment indicates that he thinks he has neither purposely nor inadvertently given away the store. His liberal and progressive critics would agree – they regularly cry out against his support of patriarchy. With the outcry from the manosphere coming from the other direction, it looks like he believes that he is successfully walking the fence.
Your experience may vary.
@Hmm: I suggest that “walking the fence” for Wilson means “being shot at from all sides,” which isn’t ideal.
Conservative feminists always insist on their moderation by pointing to the more radical feminists. This is how they wind up “conserving” the radical feminism of 20 to 30 years ago.
Test my assertion: ask any churchgoing woman if VAWA or Title IX need to be overturned. Only a feminist would defend such things. Every single complimentarian I have ever asked was completely in favor of those laws, as well as Affirmative Action for women. Thus they conserve the radical feminism of the 1960’s and 1970’s, except for abortion, lesbian weddings and now transvestism – therefore they claim to be a “moderate in the middle”.
Dalrock described this years ago as the “sea anchor” effect.
I suggest that “walking the fence” for Wilson means “being shot at from all sides,” which isn’t ideal.
On the contrary, conservative feminists and others enjoy being shot at from both sides, because it validates their split-the-baby philosophy and provides Pokemon points as a “moderate”.
…all we are left with is “confused foolishness.”
This is predictable when reading text by Doug Wilson. Some might even say it is predestined…
OK, I have been lurking around Dalrock’s blog for about 3 years, and I thank him for his work.
I just had to come in here and share the following link; which indicates that feminists/ strong women’s message is still not getting it right. The world needs more feminism and stronger women.
I have a feeling that they will never get it right.
>”With the outcry from the manosphere coming from the other direction, it looks like he believes that he is successfully walking the fence.”
Wilson himself basically admitted in his post “Take Me Instead” that he was just trying to play peacemaker between feminism and Biblical Patriarchy all this while:
“There are times when I feel like that peace-making fellow at Gettysburg who decided to usher in national harmony by parading between the two armies wearing a blue coat and gray trousers. The only thing that happened was that he got shot at by both sides, and retired from the field a bit wiser.”
Perhaps the closest we’ll ever get to an admission of guilt from him.
@Heidi: ‘I suggest that “walking the fence” for Wilson means “being shot at from all sides,” which isn’t ideal.’
As AR says, for some kinds of beliefs, that is validation enough.
This is the part that reveals Wilson as a woman-on-the-pedestal feminist:
I speak as a man, as Paul might say, and that’s the problem, as RHE might say.
I know he’s trying to portray himself as a middle ground man here, but the phrasing is not what an unapologetic man would use. He is self deprecating with the imagined words of a feminist.
I think that in his statement about RHE, he’s not in the least aligning with her. His antipathy to what she stands for is well documented. Instead, he’s making a point of humor. “I speak as a man. For some feministas, that’s a problem (but not for me).”
This is not meant to offend, but I think that his verbal mesmerization technique is working on you. He speaks in a deliberately ambiguous manner in order to allow the reader to believe Wilson is agreeing with whatever the reader thinks.
He is a lot easier to understand now that I see him relating to complementarians as the National Review relates to the mainstream media.
The article that nooneofanyimport links to is very good. It substitutes early marriage for purity culture with practical suggestions. It introduces a term, new for me, “fecundophobia”.
“Find a way to overcome the fecundophobia you’ve been taught and start thinking of your future sons and daughters as people whom you will love with all your heart rather than as distractions from “real” life.”
Pingback: The Tone Police – to protect and serve the rabble | Σ Frame
Comments are closed.