Is Christian marriage only for elite women?

Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

–Romans 12:10, ESV

Last week Pastor Michael Foster and I had an excellent exchange in the comments of my post Unless the men are *Christian*.

The discussion was around what it takes for Christian young men to gain the respect of older Christian men, as we both agree that this is very important for a Christian man who hopes to attract a Christian wife.  Pastor Foster explained that for a Christian man to be respected by other Christian men he needed to prove himself to be exceptional:

In general, men gain status through diligent work. They outwork their peers in efforts and/or wisdom. That is what he meant by, “You’ll get men to respect you by working hard.”

I pointed out that only elite Christian men would be able to marry under this model, since he had also argued that earning the respect of other men was essential to finding a wife.  We can’t make the average man extraordinary, we can only improve the average.  Pastor Foster responded graciously and said he will consider the issue.  This is as much as I would ask for.  In the meantime I wanted to explore the question further in a post.

The larger issue is that modern Christian men tend to outdo one another in withholding honor.  This isn’t true just for young men looking to marry, it is true for married Christian fathers who bring their families to church.  This is why Christians have turned a secular holiday dedicated to honoring fathers into a day to dishonor fathers.  It is also why the much loved movie Courageous modeled discussing our fathers with contempt:

I wonder where all the good fathers went.
Ain’t that the truth?
What? I remember you talking about your dad.
Wasn’t he an usher at your church?
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean anything.
Soon as the church service started, he’d step out back for a smoke.
You know, one time he says to me, “I better not catch you drinking. ”
Had a beer in his hand when he said it.
My mom used to nag him.
That is, till they got divorced.
Look, it’s not like I don’t love the guy, but it’s hard to respect a hypocrite.
What about you, David?
Um…
I had a good dad.
I guess.
I mean, the guy wasn’t perfect.
My parents split after he had an affair.
But I think he regretted it.

Part of the temptation here is pride, but another part is finding a way to seem traditional without offending our feminist and chivalrous sensibilities.  Surely Christian women deserve only the best husbands;  they are after all the daughters of the King most high, the pearl of great price.  Non exceptional men don’t deserve a wife.  This last part is technically true.  No man deserves a wife.  But we should keep in mind that just like men half of all women are below average, and the vast majority of women are unexceptional.  Most women can’t attract an exceptional man.  All of those women who are married to the poor excuses for men that we look down on?  They are every bit the losers their husbands are!  If they had better options they would have taken them.  Even if a woman had better options but chose a poor slob for a husband, this generally tells us the woman was gifted with attractiveness but blew it due to being below average in wisdom.  Granted there will be a handful of true exceptions, but these aren’t the rule.

So when we look down on unexceptional men as unworthy, we are implicitly looking down on the loser women who can’t do any better.  But as Romans 12:10 reminds us, this isn’t a Christian way of looking at things.  It also sets marriage up as something only for elite men and women.  For if we take the non elite men out of the marriage market, who will their counterpart women marry?

And it isn’t just weddings we are saying unexceptional Christian women should be shut out of.  For those who are married, we strongly tend to deny them the hallmarks of Christian marriage.  We may be willing to hold our nose and go against chivalry and tell a woman married to an exceptional man to submit to him with fear and reverence, but we draw the line at the wives of those other slobs.  This is framed as an act of love for these women, with the implicit claim that God’s design for wives isn’t good.  For we would never deprive a Christian man of his obligation to love his wife and wash her in water with the word simply because he couldn’t attract an exceptional wife.

None of this is to say that we shouldn’t challenge fellow Christian men to excellence.  It is good for a man to demand excellence of himself and of his brothers (according to their individual capabilities). It is not good to expect men in general to be extraordinary.

This entry was posted in Courageous, Disrespecting Respectability, Finding a Spouse, Marriage, Miserliness, Pastor Michael Foster, Submission, The only real man in the room. Bookmark the permalink.

182 Responses to Is Christian marriage only for elite women?

  1. Out. Of. The. Park.

    Dalrock, you have an annoying habit of convincing me beyond my ability to expound to others. But don’t stop.

    [D: Thank you.]

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    All Daughters of the King are Pearls of Great Price who are ready to come alongside a man who will continuously earn their respect by placing a hedge of protection around them. Like the children of Lake Woebegone, they are all above average and thus deserve an elite man.

    Men just need to step up, that’s all.
    All of them. Every single one.

  3. Damn Crackers says:

    Your analysis is confirmed by Charles Murray’s book “Coming Apart.”

  4. Hmm says:

    Reminds me of Garrison Keillor’s old sign-off from Lake Woebegon: “Where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.”

    Dalrock, I consider this post a word in season. As an elder in my church (which is largely upscale), I don’t tend to look at any of our men as “average” (our young boys, either). This is in a large part due to self-selection. What we often face is the problem of men who are elite in the wrong way to be attractive in the modern culture. We tend to be a studious lot of highly educated theological weenies.

    But I see some of our teen and pre-teen boys born or growing toward the unexceptional (because self-selection doesn’t apply to our children), and this post is a wake-up call for me as I look to assist them in entering the adult world. Are such men doomed to fail in the marriage market, even among the similarly unexceptional Christian girls in our congregation? I intend to work as I can to make sure that this is not so. Help and advice (other than “hopeless” or “MGTOW”) would be appreciated.

  5. James Pyles says:

    What makes anyone think that any Christian man (or woman) is exceptional?

    One of the most “politically correct” environments I’ve ever encountered is the church. In church, at least when “fellowshipping,” in Sunday School, or some other social setting, everyone is doing their level best to convince everyone else that they are the model Christian. Sure, you might let your proverbial hair down with one of the Pastorial staff (if they’re trustworthy and receptive) or a close friend, but you’d better hope that whatever you reveal about yourself in private never becomes public.

    I know. It’s pretty silly.

    I’ve never met a Christian who doesn’t have some flaw, some struggle, some spiritual, psychological, or other flaw. Being Christian doesn’t mean we’re not human, and in fact, being Christian often reveals how imperfect we really are, particularly compared with God’s righteousness.

    Christian men and women come together for more or less the same reasons that any other couple come together: because they complement each other or fill gaps in our lives that can only be completed by a proper mate. This isn’t to say that the marriage is perfect or that the couple doesn’t have their own struggles. Believe me, they do and they will across the long march of years and decades.

    Heck, just being human on a day to day basis is a struggle, which is why I tend to gravitate more toward Jewish teachings, although I factor them into my Christian faith. In Judaism, it’s not all about already being a perfect human being as a child of God. From a rabbinic point of view, Judaism isn’t an all or nothing religion. It’s a faith and a praxis that you grow into over the course of your lifetime, striving to become a better servant of God tomorrow than you were yesterday. It’s a process you never actually get to finish and then declare, “That’s it. I’m done. I’m a perfect Christian now.”

    Hang onto your hats, because I’m about to quote Talmud:

    The position which baalei teshuvah [penitents] occupy cannot be occupied even by tzaddikim [completely righteous] (Berachos 34b).

    Rabbi Abraham Twerski, is also a therapist who has treated uncounted numbers of alcoholics over the past several decades, so he’s seen plenty of human imperfection. He states:

    A surgeon once encountered difficult complications during an operation and asked his assistant to see if there was anyone in the surgical suite who could help. The assistant replied that the only one who was there was the chief of the surgical staff. “There is no point in calling him,” the operating surgeon said. “He would not know what to do. He never got himself into a predicament like this.”

    As far as people’s own functioning is concerned, it might be better not to have made mistakes. Still, such perfection makes them relatively useless as sources of help to others who have made mistakes, because they have no experience on which to draw to know how to best help them correct their mistakes.

    A perfect tzaddik may indeed be most virtuous, but may not be able to identify and empathize with average people who need help in correcting their errors. The “position” to which the Talmud is referring may be the position of a helper, and in this respect the baal teshuvah may indeed be superior to a tzaddik.

    From that perspective, a younger Christian man would earn the respect of older Christian men (who can be just as flawed in many ways as their younger counterparts), not by “being” perfect, but by striving to elevate themselves by the Grace of the Holy Spirit. As an adviser, the older Christian man would only be useful to the younger Christian, if the older man has made his own mistakes and learned from them.

    As far as marriage goes, the relationship develops and changes over time as do the people involved, so marriage too is also in a process of continual elevation. Thing is, that doesn’t happen to be a linear process. If it were, all older Christian men would always be more elevated than all younger Christian men, and they aren’t, at least not in every case.

    And then what do you do with Johnny come lately guys like me who didn’t come to faith until after age 40, and 25 years later, I’m still working through my relationship with God?

  6. scarletlagomorph says:

    So long as women have options other than destitution and social scorn for divorce, the situation will never improve. One cannot fight the Pareto principle as it relates to how females select mates.

  7. wilandmari says:

    Perhaps women deserve “the best a man can get.” Like these guys. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPPf3sZIo-Q

  8. Dale says:

    This message is especially important in our foolish culture, where we tell children that they can be anything they want re profession, and tell people that we are all the same and all equal.

    We are not all equal. Some are more desirable as potential spouses than others.
    And even the same person will see a markedly declining value as they age. I accepted that I would not be able to attract a 19 year old for marriage, and adjusted my expectations accordingly. And then adjusted them further as I continued to age.

    The “less than average” man and woman should treated with respect, and allowed to marriage. But respect starts with honest speaking, not lying to make them feel good with an inflated ego. Dalrock wrote a very good article on this topic called something like “killing/harming with kindness”, but I cannot find it at the moment.
    Those who are sub-standard do best to lower their self-assessment and expectations. And when the majority of women think they are above average, the majority need to lower their self-assessments.

  9. 7817 says:

    We may be willing to hold our nose and go against chivalry and tell a woman married to an exceptional man to submit to him with fear and reverence, but we draw the line at the wives of those other slobs. This is framed as an act of love for these women, with the implicit claim that God’s design for wives isn’t good.

    Oof. Tough words today Dalrock. Thanks for telling the truth even when it’s not pleasant.

    That is a nagging problem I’ve always had with the self improvement “be alpha!” pbilosophy. It’s just not going to work for most of us. Something like “be the best man you can be, and have a basic understanding of women” is a better plan.

  10. thedeti says:

    There are a lot of reasons for this.

    1) Most older men in the church aren’t good at doing much of anything other than church. So church is the one place they can try to AMOG other men, especially younger men.

    2) Older men think that their “Women are Wonderful” and “stay away from porn” and “as Christ Loved The Church” messages are “exhorting” and “building up” and “bringing along” and “teaching/training” younger men. They’re not. Younger men in church see older men as nagging, scolding, and browbeating them, much as a parent, a teacher, or a girlfriend/wife would.

    3) Everyone, including younger men, are hearing women constantly complaining about men at church. Either they’re not “Godly” enough, or they just want sex, or there aren’t any “good men” at church, or none of the men there ask them out, or when they do ask them out it’s not done at a good time, or the men doing the asking out aren’t good enough or are “just friends”. So the messages that young men get are that they can’t do anything right at all.

    4) Younger men see the atmosphere at most churches and just think “nope, not for me, this place doesn’t have anything for me”.

  11. thedeti says:

    And, the women complaining about men in church comes with an implicit demand: Men, you need to do something about this. Men, you need to step up and man up and start asking out these wonderful women who want nothing more than for one of you to marry them. And older men need to get going on getting these younger men whipped into shape. And older women need to bother their husbands about it.

  12. thedeti says:

    Hmm:

    One of the first things we need to do is to get the hell off these younger men’s backs. And we need to tell everyone else in the church to get off their backs.

    As older men in the church we need to sweep our own houses. We don’t do a good job of this, instead trying to AMOG younger men and “impress” them with our “knowledge and experience”. When I was younger I got this message and i resented it; just as much as i am sure younger men now resent it when I’ve inadvertently done this. Most can’t simply live by example and let their lives speak for themselves.

    The “studious lot of theological weenies” is a huge part of the problem. We’re not good at anything but church. If we gather as men we are supposed to do a bible study together, drink coffee, eat donuts, and self flagellate over our lust and porn use. We should do things together as friends and fellow Christian men, and find some common ground. Except that most of these men don’t want to because they don’t have a lot in common with most of the other men except church, and half of them are there because their wives make them come.

    So a good start would be to just leave these younger men alone and stop bothering them all the time about “their prayer lives” and making sure they’re “walking with the Lord” and “do you have an accountability partner to monitor your computer use” and “make sure you’re not masturbating or thinking about sex”.

  13. Damn Crackers says:

    @thedeti – So a good start would be to just leave these younger men alone and stop bothering them all the time about “their prayer lives” and making sure they’re “walking with the Lord” and “do you have an accountability partner to monitor your computer use” and “make sure you’re not masturbating or thinking about sex”.

    It’s interesting. Masturbation was considered sexually deviant until a few decades ago. One of the reasons was that women were readily available in some form, whether through marriage, prostitution, or rape. The hysterics against it were mainly from philosophic and scientific quarters in the 18th and 19th centuries (such as Immanual Kant and Dr. Kellogg).

    Note – This isn’t an endorsement of porn or masturbation. It’s just that men had other outlets when marriage wasn’t an option. Everyone from the Talmud to St. Thomas regarded masturbation as way more sinful than even heterosexual adultery/rape/fornication. It’s just that we inverted the deviancy hierarchy of sexually sinful acts.

  14. Damn Crackers says:

    Porn, video games, drugs, etc. are symptoms of modern feminist marriage norms, not the cause.

  15. Oscar says:

    @ James Pyles

    What makes anyone think that any Christian man (or woman) is exceptional?
    ….
    I’ve never met a Christian who doesn’t have some flaw, some struggle, some spiritual, psychological, or other flaw. Being Christian doesn’t mean we’re not human, and in fact, being Christian often reveals how imperfect we really are, particularly compared with God’s righteousness.

    I don’t think the word “exceptional” means what you think it means.

  16. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    Agreed that Dalrock “hits this out of the park.”
    Warning, the rest will display much arrogance by me. If by exceptional we mean as this world measures, I have been exceptional in most categories all my life. As a result, my wife of 37 years lives with fulfilled hypergamy. What to think of the 99.9% of men who are below me in what this world considers objective measures of excellence troubles me. Clearly before God I am no better than anyone, but before biological female urges, I am more desirable (naked beautiful women have literally climbed on top of me while I slept, to which I politely refused).
    Note that the Bible ascribes all the great accomplishments of humanity in Genesis to the line of Cain. Christ mentions this: Luke 16:8 And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.
    It is troubling to me that the modern Church encourages hypergamy and praises men like me who are spiritual midgets with large brains and wallets; rather than spiritual giants who might be janitors. What can or should be done about it I have no idea. The reality is men with an IQ below 80 are barely employable now, and less so as technology progresses (soon I also will be easily replaceable by AI). The reality also is that an IQ of 80 is about average for subsaharan Africa, and not much higher for most immigrants. There are also many men with physical impairments, leading to the joke that marriageable men in the Church are like parking lots; the ones not taken are handicapped. I’m afraid that investing in cat food and accessories is an excellent long term strategy.
    Dalrock certainly points out that the Church is pouring gasoline on this fire by encouraging female self esteem to absurd levels. However, does anyone have any constructive suggestions?

  17. Lost Patrol says:

    All Daughters of the King are Pearls of Great Price who are ready to come alongside a man who will continuously earn their respect by placing a hedge of protection around them.

    There’s a lot to unpack in that sentence.

  18. Paul says:

    half of all women are below average

    Technically speaking that should read “half of all women are below median”.

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Paul says:

    half of all women are below average

    Technically speaking that should read “half of all women are below median”.

    Even that isn’t consistently true if we are being sticklers.

  20. CSI says:

    “For if we take the non elite men out of the marriage market, who will their counterpart women marry?”

    The answer here would be polygamy, although I’m sure that’s not what these pastors intend.

  21. thedeti says:

    Jesus Rodriguez, Jan 14, 1:12 pm:

    This is the kind of AMOGing I was talking about.

    The modern Church, churchianity, doesn’t praise men like you. It browbeats men like you while it is simultaneously intimidated by men like you. The modern church would tell you to get more spiritual, while telling spiritual giants who are janitors to just be more like you.

    This schizophrenic mindset about men is one of the reasons i think the church should just get off younger men’s backs altogether.

  22. miforest says:

    I think that all the women in the church deserve to marry a man in the top 5% of men . If you don’t think so , you must hate women.

    there , that settles it!

  23. Anon says:

    I think that all the women in the church deserve to marry a man in the top 5% of men . If you don’t think so , you must hate women.

    All things considered, women do prefer polygamy.

    The GOPe cuckservatives assumed (based on their extensive knowledge of female psychology) that Muslim women would love them for their whiteknighting in the form of ‘liberating’ those women from oppressive Islam. The cuckservatives were baffled when this did not happen (but did not change their views even then).

    Two-thirds of all Western converts to Islam are women.

  24. Cane Caldo says:

    Excellent post.

    Even if a woman had better options but chose a poor slob for a husband, this generally tells us the woman was gifted with attractiveness but blew it due to being below average in wisdom.

    And how would she gain that wisdom?

    By submission to her “poor slob” of a husband with fear and reverence.

    @thedeti

    The “studious lot of theological weenies” is a huge part of the problem. We’re not good at anything but church.

    The overwhelming evidence is that we’re not very good at church either. Otherwise we wouldn’t be in this predicament.

    Even these attempts of “godly masculinity” by the theological weenies would-be reformers are mere imitations of the larger social movements. In this case it’s what Rollo (to whom they will listen) would call the Christian Kosher Version of Man Up; the self-help social movement which has in its grip everyone from Roosh to The Atlantic staff to Jordan Peterson. It’s the Christian Rock phenomenon all over again, or the “Christian” health fads of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    I’d be delighted to be shown wrong, but I can hardly find a teacher of “godly masculinity and femininity” who even mentions that Christian women: should *obey* their husbands; should have long hair and it is a *shame* to them if they do not; should cover their heads as *signs* of submission; should be *silent* in church, they should *take care* of their children and homes. I bet it would not be even one in hundred sermons or tweets from which such teachers of “godly masculinity” pretend to show that they love God’s instructions for how we should live.

  25. thedeti says:

    Christian marriage is not only for elite men.

    But Marriage 2.0 is increasingly only for elite men. Those have been the predictions and trends for at least the last 7 years. The only marriages that work are those where there is hard sexual attraction from her to him, and upper middle class on up marriages. The former work because she’s so besotted with him. The latter stay together because divorce destroys him emotionally, her socially, the kids mentally and educationally, and all of them financially.

  26. Cane Caldo says:

    Said another way: American Christians have raised at least four generations of brassy whores and all we can do is talk about how to be the kind of men brassy whores prefer to marry.

    [D: Hilarious!]

  27. thedeti says:

    And, the modern church has accepted Marriage 2.0 as the model for what Christian marriage ought to look like. And as Dalrock and Cane have pointed out, that is exactly the problem.

  28. Asaph says:

    To borrow a meme,
    “Dey iz Queenz ya’ll”

  29. Quartermain says:

    Evangelicals… I liked them better when they were called Fundamentalists.

  30. James Pyles says:

    @Oscar:
    According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    1 : forming an exception : RARE
    an exceptional number of rainy days
    2 : better than average : SUPERIOR
    exceptional skill
    3 : deviating from the norm: such as
    a : having above or below average intelligence
    b : physically disabled

  31. 7817 says:

    Christian Kosher Version of Man Up

    Exactly, and it is so neutered and cringe.

  32. Asaph says:

    I was originally a Muslim, from a sunni Muslim family. I laugh at what cuckservatives say about the treatment of women in Islam. I really wonder what exactly goes on in their heads.
    The worst part is these cuckservatives feel proud of the fact that they value “equality” and “female liberation” as virtues.
    Like why? Why do they think like that?!
    I dont get it.

  33. djz242013 says:

    if it’s not sacramental Holy Matrimony is it really Christian Marriage?

  34. Novaseeker says:

    A couple of points.

    On the religious side, I think a significant part of the problem is the tendency, which is quite pronounced, among American Christians in particular, to hold men responsible for the deficiencies and sins of women. That is, it is acknowledged that women are less than perfect, or in some cases below average, but if that is the case there is always a man who is assessed blame for that — be it the father, stepfather, brother, husband, ex-husband, other responsible man, etc. It is a core conviction of much of American Christianity that the reason women can be flawed and imperfect is always found at the feet of a man, and that therefore men are to blame for these issues with women, and therefore matching these women up with men who are less than perfect themselves is only going to multiply the problem. It’s a view that assigns little actual de facto agency to women (while paying de jure lip service to agency), and assigns blame to men for women’s various imperfections — and therefore concludes that such women also need much more perfect men to help them out of the ditch that other imperfect men left them in. The onus is always on the man, because female agency is seen, de facto, by most American Christians as being less than male agency, and being dependent/contingent on male agency. This is the whole debate about Adam and Eve in the Garden and the prevailing view among most American Christians about that, and how it pervades everything about men/women that most Christians believe.

    On the human side (which is relevant because all people, including all Christians, select mates based mostly on human criteria of attractiveness), it is simply the reality that women have the advantageous position now vis-a-vis most men. Not all men — the top men still have an advantage. But the pecking order now, because women have their financial independence from specific men, is top men –> top 60% of women –> next 50% of men –> rest of women –> rest of men. This is the culture today, and it’s based on economics, sexual mores, sexual technologies (abortion, contraception) and the like, and it’s not going away. It’s important for Christians as well, because Christians imbibe the cultural norms like everyone else. There are a very small number of Christians who do not, but most Christians, including most church-attending ones, are thoroughly imbued with the cultural system, just like everyone else is. So, when they come to making judgments about who is entitled to what, they are making those judgments in part based on the de facto hierarchy that currently exists today, and is an existing reality in the market. That reality is that most women are more desired than most men are, period, and therefore it’s the men who need to perform and prove themselves and not the women.

    Hang onto your hats, because I’m about to quote Talmud

    Interesting to see another Christian who has wrangled with the Talmud. I find it interesting from time to time, from a curiosity standpoint, and there are also nuggets of wisdom in there as well.

  35. Oscar says:

    @ James Pyles

    According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    1 : forming an exception : RARE
    an exceptional number of rainy days
    2 : better than average : SUPERIOR
    exceptional skill
    3 : deviating from the norm: such as
    a : having above or below average intelligence
    b : physically disabled

    Oh good, you looked it up. So, does your question (“What makes anyone think that any Christian man [or woman] is exceptional?”) mean that you think that…

    1. No Christians form a rare exception to any general rule?
    2. No Christians have exception skill in anything?
    3. No Christians deviate from the norm?

  36. Pingback: Is Christian marriage only for elite women? | Reaction Times

  37. Hazelshade says:

    @Damn Crackers

    Porn, video games, drugs, etc. are symptoms of modern feminist marriage norms, not the cause.

    Well said.

    I think there’s a tendency, when thinking of marriage in the abstract or general sense, to assume it’s elite people involved. The antisocial nature of the modern feminist marriage symptoms DC listed make this tendency worse because there is less unmitigated exposure to average people. What also makes it worse is that making the assumption makes you appear elite yourself.

    Ignorance of the Pareto principle is similar. All the shrugs by these columnists saying men should just be better sound like “let them eat cake”.

  38. Joe2 says:

    The latter stay together because divorce destroys him emotionally, her socially, the kids mentally and educationally, and all of them financially.

    But if you happen to be in the uber-rich category like Jeff Bezos who’s worth north of $136 billion, the above observations don’t seem to apply.

  39. Oscar says:

    @ djz242013

    if it’s not sacramental Holy Matrimony is it really Christian Marriage?

    1 Cor 7:12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

    The Apostle Paul was addressing believers who converted from Paganism, and whose spouses did not. That means they were married under Pagan rites. And yet, the Apostle treats their marriage as sanctified. So, if that’s true of people who were married under Pagan rites, who are we to say that doesn’t apply to believers married today?

  40. Rudolph says:

    Novaseeker I don’t think your thoughts with regards to female agency are exclusive to Christians. It is also a fairly evident fallacy in third wave feminism. I guess The Church at this point is largely feminist. It doesn’t take much of a look to see that feminists don’t tend to think women have agency.

    If a woman makes less money and doesn’t get promoted it isn’t because she leaves at five every day and doesn’t come in on Saturday morning it is because of sexism. She can be anything she wants and if she can’t it’s because of sexism not because she isn’t amazing.

    We don’t need to go into the list of the double standards in this regard.

  41. thedeti says:

    Joe2:

    But if you happen to be in the uber-rich category like Jeff Bezos who’s worth north of $136 billion, the above observations don’t seem to apply.

    Sure. But Jeff Bezos would be one of the “exceptional” ones, no? Most men aren’t worth $136 billion, of course, so in the 99.99999999% of cases in the real world, the man will take the brunt of the divorce in all realms, really.

  42. Cane Caldo says:

    @Novaseeker

    This is the whole debate about Adam and Eve in the Garden and the prevailing view among most American Christians about that, and how it pervades everything about men/women that most Christians believe.

    Agreed, and that is Complementarianism. It is what you get if you decide to marry Chivalry with a literal reading of the Bible. It might be better said that it’s what you get if, having taken Chivalry as a good, then you try to read Chivalry into the Bible.

    Perversely, in America, absence from church can somewhat protect us from being consigned to blindness.

  43. American says:

    The lop-sided feminist government enforced legal contract, designed to subjugate males into indentured servants for the benefits of females, is available for all females cunning enough to trap a male into. It’s the modern equivalent of anti-male shy-locking or even in many ways a form of male slavery. I have never and will never voluntarily cede away my natural human rights much less to become some female’s “bitch.”

  44. Gunner Q says:

    Asaph @ 2:49 pm:
    “I laugh at what cuckservatives say about the treatment of women in Islam. I really wonder what exactly goes on in their heads.”

    It’s the Cult of Nice. Never speak ill of a not-American, not-Christian group unless the wimminz claim to be victims of it.

  45. Cane: I agree that submission must be taught. But I think men can make it easier for women by aiming to be fit to rule.

    I realize I sound dangerously close to whatever fresh new disaster the Kendrick brothers are planning. They excuse female sin, and tear down fathers, to get a guy to “shape up.” But the reason they can get away with pretending their movies are about goodness is because they half are. Men should shape up. Just for different reasons.

    If the cuckservative refrain is, “Man up to be worthy of these tatooed princesses, you worthless slobs!”, what they should be saying, is, “Come join the army, brothers! We’re gonna go redeem some chicks.”

    My problem with with just teaching submission is that it’s not actionable from a man’s point of view. Yes, women should submit in fear and reverence, but they don’t, and while we’re waiting for them to do so freely, what are we going to do, twiddle our thumbs?

    Alright, tear me apart. 🙂

  46. 7817 says:

    There’s a difference between just teaching submission and NOT teaching submission at all. The problem is that churches are not teaching submission. They already have plenty of Man-Up! preachers so why pile on there?

  47. 7817: I’m not talking about preachers. Preachers should teach submission, as should fathers. I am neither.

  48. Acksiom says:

    >”In general, men gain status through diligent work.”

    Except, of course, for when they don’t.

    Diligent work does provide status. But there are plenty of other ways for men to gain status, so the essentialist/foundationalist/fundamentalist characterization of “in general” is deceptive. Why then do the Pastors so characterize “diligent work”?

    Because it’s their role, their job, their resposibility to sucker other men into doing the dirty, dangerous, deadly work of civilization in exchange for as low a rate of return as possible from their communities. That’s who they are and that’s what they do: enforce the standards that keep men working as hard as possible for as little as possible in return.

    “They outwork their peers in efforts and/or wisdom.”

    See? Notice the change in terms? That’s not diligence. That’s two other, different things: *exceptional* work, and wisdom. Why did the Pastors switch the terms?

    Well, in terms of the latter, they need to maintain their own position of superior status. Hence, “wisdom” as a substitute for diligent work. Why? Because they cannot allow the question of what “diligent work” *they* have reciprocally done on behalf of the men in their communities to be raised.

    Why not? Most likely because they haven’t done jack freaking crap for them *in terms of their compensation from their communities for taking up the traditional male roles*.

    And why the former? Because the more a market of men compete with each other for the “top contributor” position, the less their communities have to compensate them for doing the dirty, dangerous, deadly work of civilization. “Diligent” work doesn’t do that. And doers of “diligent” work are more likely to expect “diligent” rewards for it.

    Hence Dalrock’s point about the rewards of marriage being limited to only exceptional men. By moving the goalposts to “exceptional” work, the Pastors evade the question of what rewards the merely diligent man can expect.

    >”That is what he meant by, ‘You’ll get men to respect you by working hard.’”

    Except that isn’t how it works. Women are fundamentally attracted to men who stand out from the crowd, period, not just men who are respected by their peers. Respect for men by their peers is just one small little subset of that wider social mechanic.

    It’s genetic. Women are the control group, and men are the experimental group. For the system to work, the control group has to be sufficiently attracted to the experimental group’s variability, and the experimental group has to be sufficiently attracted to the control group’s invariability. Thus, men are more attracted to a narrower range of characteristics in women, while women are more attracted to a wider range of characteristics in men.

    And that in turn is why peacocking works, if only for a while. It’s fundamentally why so much of Game works today. It helps men stand out from the crowd. Yes, physical fitness is king, but that’s because men and women have to overlap in their attractiveness criteria as well, otherwise the system likewise doesn’t work that way.

    So the wise old pastor isn’t. He’s just a judas goat, leading the men of his flock to the abattoir. And Foster isn’t much better.

    I understand Dalrock’s attempt to smooth things over and maintain bridges by characterizing Foster’s response as more gracious and responsible than it really is. But it isn’t really either of those things, and I don’t share Dalrock’s optimism. It wasn’t gracious; it was at best merely polite, and Foster did not, in fact, say he would consider the issues raised. One has to turn their head and squint to make it look as though he even implied it.

    The fundamental reason I don’t share Dalrock’s hope of changing Foster’s mind is that I also understand that Foster’s job is based on not understand the issues as presented here, and in other responses to his comments. Fosters’s job, and that of the so-called “wise” old pastor, are to get as much use out of the men in their flocks for as little compensation from their communities as possible. One of the things that Upton Sinclair got right is this: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

    The Pastors’ salaries depend on not understanding.

  49. Paul says:

    while we’re waiting for them to do so freely, what are we going to do, twiddle our thumbs?

    It’s the job of the church to publicly denounce sin, and if needed excommunicate stubborn unrepentant sinners. What we’re facing is a church who denies women are sinning at all, let alone denounce such sin, nor excommunicate unrepentant sinning women.

    So should we wait for women to start being submissive to their husbands? No, if we have a task, we need to start working on reform in the church. And it starts with raising awareness of the issue.

  50. vfm7916 says:

    Well, if you’re a still married father reading this:

    Don’t tell your daughters that they can be anything they want. Tell them that their highest calling is to be a wife and mother, in that order, and raise and educate their children.

    Don’t pay for college, in any way, for daughters.

    Get to know young unmarried men in the work you do, or in your social circle. Your target age should be about 5 years older than your daughter, and they should have a good start on their career, preferably in a non-stupid debt laden career. Introduce and don’t hinder.

    No smartphone for girls. Ever.

    To busy to think of more at the moment.

  51. Cane Caldo says:

    @seriously

    You have a bunch of assumptions I don’t share, and you glossed over what I recommended. Maybe I can do a post or two about it tonight or tomorrow.

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    vfm7916

    Also no social medial. Yeah, I’m sure that most churches run off of Facebook, it’s still a source of problems. Female narcissism enhancer? Check. Pushing political agendas? Check.

    Feeds envy? Check…

  53. Dylan Sexton says:

  54. Great! Happy to be corrected.

  55. JRob says:

    Novaseeker has commented, and I paraphrase to the best of my recollection, and hope I do him justice, Never in human history has the woman had 100% total control of her fertility. We don’t know how this will play out

    This concept coupled with absolute absence of any teaching of submission or accountability to women has given us what we now have, Uteroanity. I don’t think or write at the level of the heavyweights here, but even we average joes are beginning to get it. They all want elite husbands, nay, lovers because the furnace of hypergamy is stoked with the fuel of false empowerment given them by the Churchians. They can “have it all” as put forth by secular culture with the cherry of “God wants me to be haaapppyy!” on top. AND no icky submission because he doesn’t love me like he should.

    Naturally teaching at home doesn’t happen either as the father has been ejected from the home at the same rate as the secular. It’s just a ridiculous circle.

  56. vfm7916 says:

    When you think about it the old fashioned dowry for a girl was also a way to secure their future and status. A woman came in as a net positive, a very different situation than most debt laden careerist shrikes today. She also had an incentive to stay married, and would under today’s laws as well, when she has significant skin (heh) in the game. If the daughter saved her resources, and her parents did so as well, and then gave it to the married couple to start their lives with, there’s an incentive and obligation there to remain married, especially if it’s made clear that a broken marriage vow has permanent consequences to the family relationship.

    If you want serious consideration of the vow of marriage, make it serious business.

  57. 7817 says:

    @seriously

    Neither of us is a pastor, but that’s where a lot of the problem is. There is such a gaping void of good leadership. A good one is worth his weight in gold, and we need to take care of good leaders, donate, support, whatever we can do when we find them.

    As far as it goes personally, I’m not harping on submission in my home, I just try to pass the shit tests and my wife generally follows better when I do.

    I have not harped on how women should submit, and have not complained about how rare that is in a woman in front of my boys, because what would it to help them? All it would do is turn them cynical and discourage them before they even start.

    Instead, when I lift weight I invite the boys to come out to the garage and do something, chin ups or whatever.

    When they make progress at something or improve something in their character, I am trying to notice and compliment them more for it. It is easy to be too hard on them because I know they can do really good and I want them to succeed so bad. But being a good example myself, that’s the hardest thing to do.

  58. @7817: What can I do but applaud you? Your family is lucky to have you.

  59. CSI says:

    “All things considered, women do prefer polygamy.”

    Do they though? Women tend to get very jealous when they have to share their man with other women, especially if he’s perceived to be high value. Polygamy doesn’t seem to come naturally to women. So women all strongly want “alphas”, yet aren’t comfortable with the only solution that would make it possible (polygamy).

  60. The Question says:

    @ vfm7916

    “When you think about it the old fashioned dowry for a girl was also a way to secure their future and status.”

    Now, modern girls tend to bring debt rather than wealth to the marriage.

  61. Novaseeker says:

    Novaseeker I don’t think your thoughts with regards to female agency are exclusive to Christians. It is also a fairly evident fallacy in third wave feminism. I guess The Church at this point is largely feminist. It doesn’t take much of a look to see that feminists don’t tend to think women have agency.

    Rudolph —

    I agree, but the difference is that Christians will use the bible (their misunderstanding of it) to justify their views on female agency, which tends to make it “sticky” among Christians in a different and more troubling way.

  62. 7817 says:

    @seriously

    I was just trying to give positive examples. No hero here. Going to shut up about it now.

  63. Darwinian Arminian says:

    A great post here by Dalrock, and one that makes an even greater point.

    Couldn’t help but recognize that a lot of the talk I usually hear about fathers in the church sounds almost identical to that clip from “Courageous.”

    And then I remembered something that I’d recently seen Rollo Tomassi link to on his Twitter feed. He’s been having some discussions lately with the professional kickboxer Andrew Tate, who always has some good takes on the state of modern masculinity.

    One day he posted a story from his childhood that concerned his late father:

    Pay attention to the way that he talks about his dad. Then remember the way that you’re used to hearing pastors sneer on Sunday about the fathers who ended a long week of hard work providing for a wife and children by gathering them up to visit a supposed house of worship so that they might hear the words of God.

    Then ask yourself why there are many so men today who trust what gets said in the manosphere more than they ever will what they hear from the pulpit.

    There’s a lesson there.

  64. Sharkly says:

    @Dalrock
    Thank you for taking up the need to respect/honor (the innate image of God in) other men.

    Instead of typing up some new stuff, I’ll just highlight some of my past ranting with sourcing:

    Sharkly’s first generality.
    1. Men will never be respected by society while they refuse to respect each other.

    I believe Mennonite women tend to respect Mennonite men more than the rest of American society respects men, because Mennonite men usually show each other a higher level of respect than is typical in American society. And often the wife is witnesses to other Mennonite men respecting her husband, and no doubt that helps her to stay more contented with her choice.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/how-big-was-her-dick/#comment-278321

    I’ll say it again here:
    Society will never show men respect again, until we as men can show each other respect and model the behavior for the rest of society. Seriously! Can we expect them to respect us if we refuse to respect “us”?

    Men! Stop fighting, be dignified, and show the others the level of respect you’d like to receive.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/how-big-was-her-dick/#comment-278262

    1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
    22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
    23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

    If Jesus Christ the son of God did not even threaten, or revile, but instead suffered unjustly, I doubt your mission is to do those things. But, I might be wrong, so I’ll keep an open mind.

    However, as a general rule, we men need to show each other greater respect.

    James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
    9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
    10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

    We should not be so easily denigrating other men who are created in the image of our God. you can confront and correct a person without resorting to insults and threats.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/how-big-was-her-dick/#comment-278289

    I think “Honor” or respect, is a key piece of what is lacking, as the due reward for men who are “good” in society. The Beta male who does his part admirably, and is a good provider, and an upstanding cog in the machinery that brings technological, scientific, and true societal(moral) progress, gets slapped in the face for his good work, while actors, athletes, musicians, and models, the entertainers, the clowns, bards, and motley fools or our societies, reap the last remnants of respect or honor our society has for any men.

    I have said it elsewhere, until men can model the behavior of showing honor to other men, society will refuse to respect men who can’t even respect each other.
    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
    We patriarchs have to get our honor back, before they’ll ever vote us our necessary authority back at the ballot box, if that is even the providence of things to come. And we won’t get our honor back by just asking them for it. We have to start giving each other honor. It can’t just be the actors honoring themselves Like they do with non-stop award shows, or the Athletes honoring themselves with trophies, honorary games, and halls of fame. We all have to honor all men, for being created in the likeness of God, for being heads of families, for being gentlemen, for who they are, not only honoring men for what they’ve done that others haven’t. We need to honor other men just for being men and doing the ordinary things that men do to keep society civilized.

    https://v5k2c2.com/2018/11/18/a-holiday-prayer/#comment-4424

    If we are to be honored as men, first we must learn to show honor for each other as men and be examples of honoring other men in society.

    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

    I read too much petty reviling here on this blog.(I know most are worse)(and I’ve spent a lifetime reviling myself) We shoo away the women to create a male space, and then we bash each other as much as the male bashing Feminists, and we often do it over such trivial differences. It makes us look like a bunch of hurt puppies lashing out at each other.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    So, My respect and “Props” to all you great men of the Dalrock Blog! I salute you glorious men who strive to make society greater and to honor God and men. You do a noble service by coming here and publishing your truth and sharing your wisdom. Thank you all! And may God the Father, who created you in His own divine image, bless you with even more much deserved honor both now and in the life to come, by the grace of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ. Amen!
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/patriarchal-packs-part-1/#comment-265868

    Step one to restore the patriarchy is we have to believe in it and God’s design of it. We have to understand that men were created in the image and glory of God, and as the bearers of His image we are entrusted with sovereign reign over our wives in everything as Christ rules the church in everything. And we are to rule over our families well as the similitude of God.
    James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. 11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

    We need to begin by first showing other men the degree of respect we’d like to eventually receive from them and others in our envisioned patriarchal utopia. If we are so full of hate that we can’t even respect each other, we’re just deluding ourselves to imagine patriarchy ever working with our own lack of self-control. To be respected in our own homes, we have to be prepared to respect other men’s rule over their own homes, when they do everything quite different from how we would do it. We can’t be AMOGing telling their wives we are better men and would husband them better. We have to be able to honor other men despite our differences, just because they are in God’s image. And honor women as weaker creatures who only reflect the glory of man.
    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
    The patriarchy must start in your heart and mind, you must put yourself into subjection to it first.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/if-christianity-isnt-feminism-and-courtly-love-what-is-it/#comment-286747

    BTW I really like your post, and think we should try to get out the message that all men are respectable, just for being men.

    Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

    John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

    Men are images of God, little gods, adopted sons of God. We are worthy of our due respect. If some churchian cunt worshipper asks about your “better half”, tell that reviler, “you are the better half.” All women can marry up and satisfy their hypergamy, just by marrying a man. We just have to spread that good news.

  65. info says:

    There is a feminist in every Trad-Con:

    On the other hand, the Social Conservative denial of hypergamy is more difficult to detect. Social Conservatives don’t deny that women want to “mate up”, but what they deny, or effectively downplay, is the sexual dimension of hypergamy: the importance of alpha. For a variety of reasons, Social Conservatives have a real problem in acknowledging female sexuality. Religious puritanism, historical paternalism and enforced female silence on the matter have engendered a conservative cultural conception of womanhood that paints a picture of the ideal woman as being relatively asexual. Sure there is much approving talk about beauty and love in the context of feminine identity, but as soon the subject of overt female sexuality becomes mentioned, the conservative approval is far more muted or outright critical.

    If you look at it, pedastalisation, which is linked to the concept of romantic love, is really an expression of conservative anti-carnality. Women in mainstream conservative thought are are “above” the grubby desires of men, their purity and beauty as a sex, seems to disassociate them from any form of bodily function. It is a disconcerting thought to imagine the beautiful princess as moving her bowels or passing wind; and yet she does. Dante in his admiration of Beatrice never really raises the subject of tinea or body odour, because mention of such fleshy maladies brings Beatrice back to earth and out of the heavens. The flesh makes us real. So entrenched is the traditional conservative pedestalisation idealisation of women that that it shocks them when a woman’s “fleshiness” is made evident.

    Game, which is basically and understanding of female sexual desire, is attacked by Conservatives with pretty much the same language as used by its feminist critics, seeing it as some form of manipulation. It shocks the conservative that the pretty Taylor-Swift-like girl actually has desires of sexual ravishment. Indeed when sweet Taylor gets carnally intimate with Tommy the thug, the only explanation that the conservative gives is that Taylor was manipulated into performing the depraved acts. Never does the Social Conservative acknowledge that the woman is finding the manipulation extremely pleasurable and that she is allowing herself to be manipulated. There seems to be a failure to recognise the moral agency of women when it comes to sexual matters because the ideal conservative woman is relatively asexual (except when it comes to reproduction) This, of course, plays into directly into feminist hands when they wish to avoid the moral consequences of their actions.”

    https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2011/11/feminist-in-every-social-conservative.html

  66. info says:

    @vfm7916

    Thoughts on Brideprice paid by the Husband to the Wife’s Father?
    Expounded in Exodus 18:22-23

  67. info says:

    Exodus 22:16-17

  68. info says:

    ”Whilst Social Conservatism and Feminism are two different ideological currents, both share the same effective conception of female nature; a nature that devoid of fleshy biological sexuality. Hypergamy strikes at the core of feminism in flatly refuting it’s gender equality and it strikes at Social Conservatism by upturning it’s conception of the feminine; a conception that is central to its understanding of sexuality. What the Social Conservatives fail to understand is that their conception of de-sexualised femininity–as if erotic didn’t matter– effectively provided and continues to provide the ideological justification which feeds feminist beast.”

  69. Matt says:

    If the cuckservative refrain is, “Man up to be worthy of these tatooed princesses, you worthless slobs!”, what they should be saying, is, “Come join the army, brothers! We’re gonna go redeem some chicks.”

    You can’t redeem anybody. God redeems people, not you. If it’s not God doing it, it’s just you playing Captain Saveaho and you are not likely to be much good at it.

    Find a woman already following God, and marry her. That’s that, although it may of course be really really difficult to actually find such a woman.

  70. Acksiom says:

    @Dylan Sexton —

    Notice how they’re changing slogans from “The Best A Man Can Get” to “The Best A Man Can Be”?

    Notice the difference? They’re not trying to sell products through the message that they’ve made the best affordable to all men anymore. Now they’re trying to sell products through the message that all men aren’t good enough unless they buy from them.

    That’s what the transition from “Best A Man Can Get” to “Best A Man Can Be” means.

    And all this is happening as I have foreseen.

    Due to technological advances, men’s liberation is catching up to women’s, while more and more women are “cohabiting” with Big Government. As a result, more men are Going Their Own Way — dropping out, working less, not marrying, etc. Men’s participation in society is thus rising in price. In response to that, people try to shame and blame men more and harder, as an overall social negotiating tactic, to make them accept less compensation.

    This, along with increasing competition for the disposable income liberated men have — which would have once been spent on women in general and wives and children in particular — fuels the cycle. In response to the negative shaming and blaming on one hand and positive focus on their self-interests on the other, more men drop out and do with less. In response, more people try to shame and blame men, and more businesses begin to cater to men’s self-interest.

    And that’s why Gillette is changing slogans. There’s nothing conscious about it, no conspiracy, but that’s the reason. They can’t afford uppity men, so they’re trashing their customer base. They don’t really know why they’re doing it. They don’t really know why they’re picking those messages. They’re just running on autopilot. Mustn’t pay men more, so must lower men’s value.

    VR Pr0n and “sexbots” are just the tip of the iceberg. The real ship-destroying mass is vasal male birth control and artificial individuation. Consider Magic Leap’s virtual assistant “Mica”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBd-egUFV_4 .

    “Her” flirty behavior at the 1:00 mark should terrify anyone concerned about the potential for competition with normal society for men’s involvement and investment by such sources of artificial individuation.

    Add a ten-year default male veto on impregnation via vasal blocking such as Vasalgel or its original version RISUG and men’s prices for involvement and investment in their communities is going to inflate like the Venezuelan Bolivar.

  71. Spike says:

    Jesus said, “The leaders of the Gentiles lord it over one another. But it should not be so among you…”
    -Did not Jesus mean that Christians should not treat their brothers in Christ like the non-believers do?
    I grew up in a working class suburb famous for being – a working class suburb. It had previously been a cattle yard, an abattoir, had tanneries market gardens and farms (industries that smelled). Eventually, manufacturing came to it but it remained working class. There was one thing certain about what I grew up with: I was in no position to look down my nose to at anyone.
    The brainy kids at school were Christians. This initially was what set them apart from the other kids. I wasn’t a part of their group, but I ended up sitting with them on Speech (Presentation) Days, as I got good academic grades. Eventually they witnessed to me, I read the NT and became a Christian.

    A few years after, I began hanging around richer folks at Summer camps. Still Christian, but richer. And with the richness came snobbery. Also too as older teenagers there was something going on in the churches of these people that we working class kids found disturbing: a carousel of relationships.
    Yep. You would lose track of who was in a relationship with who, why they broke up, how they are still in the same church, how they could still be in ministries together, and so on.

    What was going on?

    The idea that relationships were a status symbol. One was IN the hierarchy when one had a girlfriend. Then one was higher placed the depending on female aesthetics: The hotter the chick, the higher you were.

    We working-class kids had older siblings. Inevitably they would pair up reasonably young. The girls would leave their jobs as secretaries, bank clerks or infant school teachers and have babies. They actually wanted to be mothers. That told us what relationships were for: to get married when you were stable and have a family of your own. To do so you had to be stable, have a plan, and not be an idiot. If you were an idiot, word got around that you were and girls tended either not to like you, or dads would tell their daughters that if they paired up with a loser, they would be on their own.

    The Cult of the Boyfriend / Girlfriend then came in and disrupted this ethos. Every now and hen I go back to my home town. What I find, even in the churches there is the same sexual anarchy that exists in the rest of culture. Boyfriends. Girlfriends. Drama. Instability.

    It isn’t going to end well.

  72. Acksiom says:

    @Matt –

    Except that’s not a good enough answer on its own, because we can’t trust our communities to keep up their end of the marriage contract. I agree that yes, it does matter very much how godly the wife is, but unfortunately, that doesn’t matter enough just by itself.

    Our communities are not going to change unless and until men start directly and explicitly negotiating with them over their marriage obligations, and men are not going to start directly and explicitly doing that unless and until we start telling them they can and should. A godly wife is not enough on her own. Marriage is also a contract between a couple on one side and a community on the other, and we can’t trust our communities to keep up their end of the deal.

    Are you listening, Pastor Foster?

    Are you thinking yet about what *you* will have to offer the men in *your* congregation to get them to step up to the altar?

  73. Sharkly says:

    @7817
    Neither of us is a pastor, but that’s where a lot of the problem is. There is such a gaping void of good leadership. A good one is worth his weight in gold, and we need to take care of good leaders, donate, support, whatever we can do when we find them.

    I usually agree with you, but I think your emphasis is wrong there.

    1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    Jesus told the future leaders of the church:
    Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

    Churchian pastorbaters invert the word of God. The church is Crist’s bride. Christ is the head of the church. Any man trying to be the head of Christ’s bride is a damnable interloper. Men however are the head of their wives and wives are to be subject to them in everything. Those who want to be chiefest in the church, only achieve that primacy by being the servant of all. They are called to mainly to serve, Christ is to lead the church. Men and especially women mislead the church. The minister should serve the men of the church by building them up in the eyes of their wives and children. Not try to steal men’s headship by foisting his call to “Servant leadership” in the church into other men’s families where their headship is to be complete, and the wife is to be the helper. Then after having foisted their servant duties onto other men who were to be heads, the arrogant fools try to head the church, which they were only to serve.
    We don’t need more good “leaders” in the church, we need more good servants of god and men. We’ve already got too many Chiefs, and not enough little Indians. Christ is the head of the church, and his servants are to serve his bride, not exercise lordship over her. A big part of the problem with the churches is you have too many ambitious controlling types who make good leaders, but are themselves very poor servants of Christ, and his flock. They’re not like the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. They’re dreaming of the day the church buys them a business jet and they can leave their poor sheep behind. They’re leaders with their own vision, when they should be servants, sharing God’s word with as little of their own opinion as possible.

  74. CSI says:

    “If you were an idiot, word got around that you were and girls tended either not to like you, or dads would tell their daughters that if they paired up with a loser, they would be on their own.”

    If girls behaved poorly, did they also get a stigma? Did parent warn their sons away from such girls?

  75. BillyS says:

    Acksiom,

    Why did they make her look like a boy? Is long hair too hard to use?

  76. Sharkly says:

    Respecting other men is so foreign to our culture that we’ll have to pioneer it. There are few men to watch, who do it. Not to get myself pilloried as a fanboy again, but, I think part of Jordan Peterson’s appeal to young men is that he talks to them with some respect for their being, not disrespectfully. He seems to quickly win many folks over with his arguments, at least initially, due to his ability to be respectful while challenging their beliefs. Young men crave the respect they have long been denied. But many have given up on getting it or even trying to earn what they’ve been repeatedly gipped out of. They deserve some innately, just by their creation in the image of God. I think there is a money making opportunity, selling respect to young and downtrodden men. I’ll have to stew on that for a bit.

  77. Dalrock, I think you stumped Pastor Michael Foster. To even dignify your question is Pastor Michael Foster admitting that he is entirely wrong. Admitting he is wrong on this core belief is as much a non-starter as The Wall is for democrats. I do not think we will hear from Pastor Michael Foster again, and that is unfortunate.

  78. Burner Prime says:

    “We can’t make the average man extraordinary, we can only improve the average. ”

    This is an astute observation and is precisely why game has shown diminishing returns. Early practitioners had a leg up on their male competition, but eventually everyone learned to display masculine traits, women became accustomed to it and adjusted to again identify the highest value males. So we’re all right back where we started.
    Game or any change in men’s behavior or any attempt to form cartels to unite and resist all the changes that empower women over men will fail and fail forever and ever.
    The competition among the surplus of men leads to backstabbing and men throwing each other under the bus as evidenced by universal contempt for fathers. The contempt continues full steam ahead in movies like Incredibles 2 with the bare tread, worn out, father-is-incompetent when it comes to his turn taking care of the kids (script written by a dude BTW). In an attempt to distance themselves from the competition, men point out how they’re the only Real Man™ in the room and the rest of ya’ all are losers – amiright ladies?… It’s one strategy — the suck-up strategy — by men thinking white knighting works.
    Anyway no strategy to counter current socio-sexual trends will work in the long term until women lose agency. And that will never happen as long as there’s a mass surplus of labor and money to keep the whole ship afloat.

  79. Acksiom says:

    @BillyS — Most likely. The longer the hair, the harder it is to animate.

    @Burner Prime

    >Anyway no strategy to counter current socio-sexual trends will work in the long term until women lose agency.

    Except, of course, for increasing men’s agency. Which is why the men’s movement should be pursuing vasal blocking birth control full force.

    >And that will never happen as long as there’s a mass surplus of labor and money to keep the whole ship afloat.

    Which is why increasing men’s agency will do it. The more agency for men, the lower the water level.

  80. BillyS says:

    Male birth control won’t solve the modern problem. It may minimize some risks and doom our society sooner, but it won’t eliminate the fact that marriage, the building block of society, is destroyed.

    That must be dealt with or our civilization will give way (eventually) to something that will.

  81. feeriker says:

    And, the modern church has accepted Marriage 2.0 as the model for what Christian marriage ought to look like. And as Dalrock and Cane have pointed out, that is exactly the problem.

    The problem is that the church has capitulated to the culture in nearly everything. The capitulation on marriage, sex, and family is arguably the most toxic and ultimately destructive aspect. In any case the church is effectively now insipid, flavorless sand and darkness rather than salt and light. As such it has no raison d’etre.

  82. BillyS says:

    On the animation: I have no desire to flirt with a boy, or a woman who looks like one. They may have the effeminate market down, but I don’t think that is as big as they think.

  83. NotaBene says:

    Don’t tell your daughters that they can be anything they want. Tell them that their highest calling is to be a wife and mother, in that order, and raise and educate their children.

    Don’t pay for college, in any way, for daughters.

    Get to know young unmarried men in the work you do, or in your social circle. Your target age should be about 5 years older than your daughter, and they should have a good start on their career, preferably in a non-stupid debt laden career. Introduce and don’t hinder.

    No smartphone for girls. Ever.
    ————————–

    So far, I’m doing all of these! The college thing is funny, because there’s no way I could afford college even if I wanted to.

    Gonna try to marry her off at 18 or so, we’ll see who bites 🙂

  84. Pingback: Gilette and the great replacement. – Adam Piggott

  85. Acksiom says:

    I’d dispute that, but you didn’t define “modern problem”. What I can point out is that

    A) *the specific kind of MBC addressed* absolutely will eliminate some risks, not just “minimize” them.

    B) Marriage is the building block of civilization, not society.

    C) Our civilization is not “doomed”, and a male default veto birth control method will not doom it faster.

    The critical element by my analysis is the government funded epidemic of single motherhood, which provides the greatest competitive threat to marriage. We would not have the marriage crisis we do today if government funded single motherhood was not there to pick up the slack in the population replacement rate. Vasal MBC will not eliminate that, but I think it will significantly reduce it, enough to make an environment of change possible in divorce and custody law.

    There’s one other trend I haven’t brought up which applies here. It’s how the increasing automation of all labor, men’s traditional work included, is more likely to kick more women out of the job market first. That’s because women have moved into the easier areas of what used to be mainly men’s labor, and that’s going to be easier to automate first.

  86. Flat Lander says:

    The “exceptional man” meme looks like another social convention expressing women’s hypergamous drive.

  87. Acksiom says:

    @BillyS

    Why are you assuming the next generation of the tech will stay that androgynous?

    Just because you’re not the target market doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And it’s not just that the market will be larger than you think. It’s that even a small increase in lower- to mid-tier men dropping out of the social market overall can have tremendous effects on the status and value of mid- to top-tier men.

    Look, I’m not blind to its limitations. There’s probably a bit of smoke and mirrors going on with that tech demo. Others have commented on the drop in resolution when it goes to the wider shot from the close-up, suggesting that they can’t actually make it that realistic in real time. . .yet

    Because have you seen Blade Runner 2049? If not, do a search for the “Joi” clips. ‘Mica’ is just the end of the beginning. ‘Joi’ is what comes next. Eventually the next level *won’t* be that androgynous, and will be customizable, and will learn the user’s preferences and modify their behavior to suit, and give them the sense of individuation that their own communities won’t. A virtual 10 doesn’t have to beat a real 10 to succeed. It just has to beat a real 5-6 or less. A male 5 or 6 with no hope of pairing up with a comparable real girl, and no community sources to provide alternative means of satisfying his pair-bonding needs, will be an easy sell.

    That’s why I meant it when I said ‘terrifying. . .potential’. Notice the attention-tickled smiling, followed by the shy, embarrassed gaze aversion from too-intense male eye contact, followed by the bit of tongue-tip poking out. How many average guys do you believe think they will ever have a real girl that attractive, boyish or not, react to them that way?

    It will look better than any real girl the user has any hope of attracting, will remember what he likes and doesn’t like, and act accordingly. It will sound the way he likes and move the way he likes. If he wants a raspy sarcastrix, it will be that for him. If he wants a waifish mooncalf, it will be that for him too. It will be anything he wants except tangible. . .until augmented reality tools like the Magic Leap start being integrated with sexbots, and then, well. . .as I said, if one is concerned about male involvement and investment in their community, the potential is terrifying.

  88. Nick Mgtow says:

    Drop everything guys, everything!

    Gillette challenges toxic masculinity!

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/p-g-challenges-men-to-shave-their-toxic-masculinity-in-gillette-ad-11547467200

  89. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    James Pyles: In Judaism, it’s not all about already being a perfect human being as a child of God.

    Christianity has never taught that any human being is perfect. Being a child of God doesn’t mean one is perfect. Christianity has always taught that all men and women are sinners, unworthy of salvation, which is a gift from God.

    Anyone who thinks that women are perfect pearls of a great price, or that men can be redeemed by a women, are heretics.

  90. Lost Patrol says:

    The lie sold to women…

    I remember someone posting that article when it was first published. From the regret hamster files:

    “I’ve been in love. I believe in love. I’ve loved men who didn’t love me back. I’ve loved men who weren’t ready to love me—or anyone. I’ve met men whom I wanted to love, hoping so deeply to fall over the edge into love with them that it ached. But in the end, I found myself single and unwilling, unable, to settle.”

    It’s all right there. AF/BB, alpha widow.

    But it’s ok now, she’s an Aunt.

  91. Acksiom & innocentbystanderboston,

    I’m listening & you’ll hear from me again. Responding to this post & the original is on my list of to-dos but not the top at the moment. I’m bogged with some pressing issues in my own denomination.

    BTW, I’ve only been “full-time” in the ministry for a little over a year. I worked as a landscaping foreman, an electrician, and owned my own business for many years. Ministry money-wise was a step down. Not *all* pastors are soft men looking for easy money. So I guess I reject APALT. Does that make me purple pill? ; )

  92. AnonS says:

    There is a difference between the idea of “leader” and the idea of “officer”.

    Is an officer a “leader”? In one sense he leads but in another his job is also to loyalty up the hierarchy.

    Who is the better “leader”, the man with knowledge, virtues, and compassion or the con man that leads lots of sheep to the slaughter?

    If “leaders have followers” is your metric then then con man is more successful because he has more followers.

    If we are supposed to be officers and “make disciplines” then loyalty towards God is more important.

    I don’t see a lack of officers, I see a lack of any followers submitting to them versus popular ear ticklers.

    Just accept that the path to damnation is wide and stop yelling at men to step up as “leaders” when loyalty to God doesn’t bring the crowds in.

  93. Oscar says:

    On Topic: Glenn Reynolds writes about “The New Class War”, and I think it’s pertinent to the marriage discussion.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/15/glenn-reynolds-class-warfare-elites-explains-world-conflicts-trump-column/2569252002/

    Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas called these party hacks the “New Class,” noting that instead of workers and peasants against capitalists, it was now a case of workers and peasants being ruled by a managerial new class of technocrats who, while purporting to act for the benefit of the workers and peasants, somehow wound up with the lion’s share of the goodies. Workers and peasants stood in long lines for bread and shoddy household goods, while party leaders and government managers bought imported delicacies in special, secret stores. (In a famous Soviet joke, then-leader Leonid Brezhnev shows his mother his luxury apartment, his limousine, his fancy country house and his helicopter only to have her object: “But what if the communists come back?”)
    ….
    But the New Class isn’t limited to communist countries, really. Around the world in the postwar era, power was taken up by unelected professional and managerial elites.
    ….
    But after the turn of the millennium, other Americans, much like the workers and peasants in the old Soviet Union, started to notice that while the New Class was doing quite well (America’s richest counties now surround Washington, D.C.), things weren’t going so well for them. And what made it more upsetting was that — while the Soviet Union’s apparatchiks at least pretended to like the workers and peasants — members of America’s ruling class seemed to view ordinary Americans with something like contempt, using terms such as “bitter clingers,” “deplorables” and flyover people.

    Suddenly, to a lot of voters, those postwar institutional arrangements stopped looking so good. But, of course, the beneficiaries showed no sign of giving them up. This has led to a lot of political discord, and a lot of culture war, since in America class warfare is usually disguised as cultural warfare. But underneath the surface, talk is a battle between the New Class and what used to be the middle class.

    Is marriage becoming one of these “institutional arrangements” that “stopped looking so good” to people below the upper-middle-class level? Could that be deliberate?

    I think it is.

    People have to depend on someone in bad times. Normally, people depend on family, friends, neighbors, the Church, and as a last resort, the government. Destroying the family eliminates one layer of support, and weakens all the others.

    Whom does that leave on whom people depend in hard times? Obviously, that leaves the government. Which grants the “New Class” greater power.

    Looks deliberate to me.

  94. farmlegend says:

    “But we should keep in mind that just like men half of all women are below average, and the vast majority of women are unexceptional.”
    In my experience, after many decades of interfacing with American women, I have observed that if you put a penis on them, most women would be considered what we commonly call “bums”, when held to a male standard. Lazy, underachieving, poor at managing money, short time-horizon thinking, slothful, and lacking in accountability for their circumstance.

  95. BTW, I’ve only been “full-time” in the ministry for a little over a year. I worked as a landscaping foreman, an electrician, and owned my own business for many years. Ministry money-wise was a step down. Not *all* pastors are soft men looking for easy money. So I guess I reject APALT. Does that make me purple pill? ; )

    You and CR Wiley are the type of man we need in the ministry. Bear in mind that a lot of men say they want help but don’t want to change or work to change the laws. It’s not your job to fix them. Not everyone in man-o-sphere is trying to improve themselves or conditions for men. Many are just here to complain and pick fights. It could be that many of these people are government psyop trolls found on so many blogs these days.

    You’re first duty, by far, is to your flock. The rest of us are just guys on the internet.

  96. Chuck B says:

    Asaph, they really do think that what women like and are attracted to is niceness, overt respect, and defending their agency. Of course that’s not true, but that’s impossible to convince them of, because they believe it for reasons of social morality rather than empirical evidence.

  97. Frank K says:

    it was now a case of workers and peasants being ruled by a managerial new class of technocrats who, while purporting to act for the benefit of the workers and peasants, somehow wound up with the lion’s share of the goodies

    This is also the hallmark of a third world country. While the masses survive on just a few dollars a day income, the managerial class, mostly in the government, but also in corporations (many of which are owned by the government) have first world paychecks. The new Mexican President has sworn to crack down on bloated high level government salaries, while giving low paid clerks and other low paid government workers a raise (we’ll see how that goes in the long haul).

    We of course are seeing this here in the US too. First level managers now often out earn their direct reports by wide margins, and they in turn dream of becoming “directors” because that’s when they start to earn the “crazy money”. Meanwhile, many individual contributors, even those with STEM degrees, often get no salary increases, not even cost of living increases, because “money is too tight to mention”.

  98. Frank K says:

    It’s all right there. AF/BB, alpha widow.

    I’m sure that when she was in her prime that riding the carousel was a blast and she thought that either it would never end or that eventually Mr. Big would put a ring on it.

  99. Frank K says:

    It will be anything he wants except tangible. . .until augmented reality tools like the Magic Leap start being integrated with sexbots, and then, well. . .as I said, if one is concerned about male involvement and investment in their community, the potential is terrifying.

    The fact that many men are already satisfied with lifeless dolls, imagine if they could put AI’s into said dolls, and give them limited mobility. The virtual girlfriend on the screen will be a stepping stone to girlfriend bots. Who knows, maybe the bots will also clean and cook, which would possibly make them more desirable than flesh and blood women. They will more attractive than most women.

    Imagine a society where 90% of men are incels with high tech dolls and the other 10% of men sire all the children, who the incels will support through taxation.

  100. Oscar says:

    @ Frank K

    Imagine a society where 90% of men are incels with high tech dolls and the other 10% of men sire all the children, who the incels will support through taxation.

    Even under the best circumstances, productive men don’t make up 90% of the male population. Without families, which give men the greatest incentive to produce, You can forget squeezing any taxes out of the vast majority of men.

  101. farmlegend says:

    CSI- ““All things considered, women do prefer polygamy.”
    Do they though? Women tend to get very jealous when they have to share their man with other women, especially if he’s perceived to be high value. Polygamy doesn’t seem to come naturally to women. So women all strongly want “alphas”, yet aren’t comfortable with the only solution that would make it possible (polygamy).”

    While women would consistently state that they don’t like polygamy, their actions indicate that they would much rather share a top-tiered man over straight-up monogamy with an average man. Over and over again.

    Actions over words. And five minutes of alpha over a lifetime of beta.

  102. JRob says:

    You can forget squeezing any taxes out of the vast majority of men.

    Exactly. Then regressive taxes such as sales tax will be raised to previously unheard of levels. Which will then fuel an aggressive black market.

    Then gubmint will really put the screws on Joe Sixpack who wants to go to work and have a family. The family courts already do this.
    https://guyvorce.com/greatest-nastiest-states-alimony/

  103. Novaseeker says:

    Re: animated assistant

    Almost certainly they made “her” a tomboy type because (1) it is easier with the hair and (2) they don’t want to be seen as creating glamorous, sexy things right off the bat (tends to get criticism in the current cultural moment, no?). And there certainly are men who like short-haired tomboys, and they aren’t gay or effeminate, generally. The odd thing about men is that while there are some women whom almost all men find attractive, there are pretty much almost no women whom no men find attractive. Every subgroup has their niche of male afficionados.

    Once that is perfected it will be customizable, and that’s where the thing will take off. Not there yet, though.

  104. Paul says:

    even those with STEM degrees, often get no salary increases, not even cost of living increases, because “money is too tight to mention”.

    Yeah, it’s the same bullsh*t for years; somehow there aren’t enough people finishing STEM degrees, but the markets show no signs of increase of pay. Only if you opt for managerial tracks, you can start to earn money. The only exceptions seem to be in Silicon Valley.

    I know for a fact that companies have secret deals to keep wages low, complain to the governments about hard to find people, thereby getting permission to hire candidates from abroad, with the only goal to keep wages low.

  105. Frank K says:

    Exactly. Then regressive taxes such as sales tax will be raised to previously unheard of levels.

    In most of Europe the sales tax (AKA, the VAT) hovers around 20% already, and can be even higher (IIRC, it’s 27% in Hungary).

    But yeah, people will do what they can to avoid paying the VAT, but you can’t buy everything at flea markets.

  106. Frank K says:

    The only exceptions seem to be in Silicon Valley.

    My employer, a SV based industry giant, is notorious for not giving yearly raises, even in SV. A lot of my SV based colleagues don’t jump ship because they are older and there is age discrimination in SV. On the plus side we get really good health insurance and have “unlimited” vacation days, of which I take as many as my generous manager will approve.

  107. Frank K says:

    Once that is perfected it will be customizable, and that’s where the thing will take off. Not there yet, though.

    Yeah, that was the idea in the new BladeRunner movie, that you could customize her. And as computing power continues to increase this concept will gain traction, especially on places like Japan.

    Imagine having a robo girlfriend who looks like a supermodel? Clearly, this isn’t an option for a Christian man, but for a secular man who can’t get the time of time from anything better than a foul tempered, tattooed land whale I could see sexbots being very tantalizing, especially once they become truly interactive with AI’s that could pass a Turing test.

  108. Marquess of 4500% Markup, Now With More Tikkun Ollam says:

    And that’s why Gillette is changing slogans.

    Gillette, the best my wife’s son can get.

  109. Joe2 says:

    “Once that is perfected it will be customizable, and that’s where the thing will take off. Not there yet, though”

    Don’t assume that men will be the only customers for these AI dolls. It won’t be much of a leap to create an Alpha male doll for the unexceptional woman which she can customize to suit her fancy. If there is a market, the possibilities are almost endless unless made illegal.

  110. Jack Russell says:

    The Gillette ads were made by a female who is supposedly a lesbo. Gillette is owned by Proctor and Gamble. What if they make an ad about a female product talking about not making false rape allegations, joint custody, etc. No more Proctor and Gamble products for me.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6593045/Piers-Morgan-slams-Gillettes-controversial-new-ad-says-brand-portraying-men-evil.html

  111. Jack Russell says:

    Here is a list of the brands Proctor and Gamble own.
    https://www.ranker.com/list/all-procter-and-gamble-brands/werner-brandes

  112. JustRae says:

    I had never thought about this before. (This blog is good for making me think new thoughts.)
    Just wanted to say I agree with those who say it has to start with men being respectful to other men. Building each other up instead of tearing down.
    Also, I really appreciate this blog. While not a marriage blog per se, some ideas I found here helped me a lot to be able to understand and get through a rough patch before our wedding this summer and also just helps me check myself and get my mind right about certain things. I love Lori Alexander’s blog but it helps a lot to have a male viewpoint. (Especially for those of us that don’t have a father or brother to talk to)

  113. Acksiom says:

    @Foster

    >BTW, I’ve only been “full-time” in the ministry for a little over a year. I worked as a landscaping foreman, an electrician, and owned my own business for many years. Ministry money-wise was a step down. Not *all* pastors are soft men looking for easy money. So I guess I reject APALT. Does that make me purple pill? ; )

    No, because you’re taking Ad Hominem attacks personally and trying to defend your identity against them. That’s straight-up Blue Pill. Responding to baseless personal attacks reveals insecurity. Also, don’t use emojis. You’re supposed to be a Man of God, not an giggly 12-year-old girl.

    Stop trying to be likeable to us. We’re so far outside your proper Circles of Commitment that’s it’s cringingly inappropriate. This is the internet. We’re never going to have the kind of real reciprocal relationship where our feelings matter to each other to the degree you’re signaling you want.

    You’re not purple pill until you’re actively vectoring away from that kind of Blue Pill Niceness and towards Red Pill Aloofness. Frankly your attempt to use the lingo comes across as forced and false. AWALT is a limited observation about human female behavior, not a generalizable principle about any class or category under the sun.

  114. PMF,

    I’m listening & you’ll hear from me again. Responding to this post & the original is on my list of to-dos but not the top at the moment. I’m bogged with some pressing issues in my own denomination.

    Fair enough

    BTW, I’ve only been “full-time” in the ministry for a little over a year. I worked as a landscaping foreman, an electrician, and owned my own business for many years. Ministry money-wise was a step down. Not *all* pastors are soft men looking for easy money. So I guess I reject APALT. Does that make me purple pill? ; )

    Not necessarily.

    I am of the opinion that the only Pastor that can properly pastor a congregation is a volunteer one who earns his money, elsewhere. That gives him the financial freedom to spread the TRUE good news of Christ (because the Good News is bad news for feminism.) Under that parameter, preaching the Gospel the true feminist will walk out of the parish (and take her money and her mule/husband with her under THREATPOINT if he does not OBEY) and you don’t sweat it. You don’t need her money. This is really the only kind of church I would want to be a member. For now, this forum is my church membership.

  115. Pastor Foster makes the common mistake that status and a capacity for provisioning is the only thing that factors into Hypergamy. It’s Alpha Seed and Beta Need. Beta Christian men only ever get the latter as an answer when they ask “what do women want?”

    Women want a man who other men want to be and other women want to bang. Christian men only ever focus on the first part of this. As a result it would behoove those men to actively withhold that respect or acknowledgement of a superior status man if he himself wants women to marry him. If status is all there is to the Hypergamous equation then it would serve a Christian man’s sexual strategy to tear down men who deserve respect or at least ignore his status.

    All of that is kind of a moot point though because there is the Alpha sexual arousal part of that equation that is really the primary influence for women in order to even get to the Beta Bucks appreciation Foster suggests is the key. This is where most youth pastors fail in their dating advice because (by necessity) they tend to have very little experience and understanding of the importance of physical arousal in that process.

  116. Gunner Q says:

    “I’ve only been “full-time” in the ministry for a little over a year. I worked as a landscaping foreman, an electrician, and owned my own business for many years. Ministry money-wise was a step down. Not *all* pastors are soft men looking for easy money. So I guess I reject APALT. Does that make me purple pill?”

    “Not necessarily.”

    Give him credit, he’s spent time in the real world. He’s even willing to engage us. Any man who knows honest, hard work gets street cred.

    Thank God this one isn’t another Joel Osteen clone from the Ivory Tower of Academia.

  117. tteclod says:

    Reblogged this on A Life Un-Lived and commented:
    I’m reblogging this from a phone, so forgive poor composition.

    Dalrock has this hopelessly backward. The presumption of Christian Life for men is marriage. Jesus himself made clear that he assumed men would lust for women, and commanded that each man marry the woman he fucks. Further, he can’t escape that marriage except by her infidelity. A woman, likewise, is commanded by longstanding Jewish law fulfilled and not overturned by Jesus, to reamain married once married, even if married to a man not Christian.

    Nowhere in this discussion is either a man or woman considered worthy, much less DESERVING of marriage. Couples join, and once joined, a man cannot quit a marriage unless his wife fucks another man. I’m not certain the same is even true for a woman with (non-Christian) philandering husband.

    I’m like a broken record on this topic, but Christians never seem able to see how plain the rules for marriage are according to scripture. The WORTH of a spouse isn’t relevant. Once a Christian couple fuck, they’re married.

    Now, on the off chance somebody says, “Hey, this is about guys and gals who can’t seem to find a spouse!” I answer, “Are these people virgins?” If you’re a man, and you’ve never fucked, then, sure, you can then talk about finding a “good” woman. But if not, then may owe somebody a proposal.

  118. CSI says:

    Well just as most men cannot be wealthy and high status, most men can’t be Alpha. If marriage is only restricted to “Alphas” then that restricts it to <20% of men.

  119. @Joe2

    I’m skeptical AI dolls will appeal equally to both sexes. A woman’s sexual strategy is by nature self-reflexive: it communicates her own status within the SMP as well as offering a proxy for her identity. No matter how well a doll can imitate the Alpha paradigm it will remain a doll, and hence imply that she was incapable of securing the real deal. Said socialization vector is much weaker in men which is why they are both pioneers and the obvious customers of the technology.

  120. 7817 says:

    As a result it would behoove those men to actively withhold that respect or acknowledgement of a superior status man if he himself wants women to marry him. If status is all there is to the Hypergamous equation then it would serve a Christian man’s sexual strategy to tear down men who deserve respect or at least ignore his status.

    That explains a lot about how the church treats men, and fits with Dalrocks posts on church leaders withholding respect from average men.

  121. Dalrock has this hopelessly backward. The presumption of Christian Life for men is marriage.

    Find that in the Bible. I can quote Paul when he said it would be better that the Christian man NOT take a wife. If you are unencumbered by a marriage and family, it may be much easier to spread the Good News, don’t you think tteclod?

    Now, on the off chance somebody says, “Hey, this is about guys and gals who can’t seem to find a spouse!” I answer, “Are these people virgins?” If you’re a man, and you’ve never fucked, then, sure, you can then talk about finding a “good” woman. But if not, then may owe somebody a proposal.

    No one owes anyone a marriage proposal. Its supposed to be a big deal only for someone who is really special. I think you might be trivializing it a bit. If I had never met a woman like my wife, I would still be a bachelor AND I would still be a good Christian.

  122. Warthog says:

    In the animal kingdom, and in Islamic societies, we see harems. All the women want to mate with the alpha male, so he has a harem. In America it’s a rotating harem, but as Donald Trump clearly shows, if the ladies think he is alpha they will try to poach him from his wife.

    The Christian and Biblical laws set up a different eco-system in which men give their daughters in marriage, as opposed to women choosing their mates. Blasphemy, I know. But that’s what it actually says.

    Societies that practice arranged marriage tend to have extremely high marriage rates. In Czarist Russia 95% of 40 year old women were married. That is ridiculously high compared to today.

    Someone I cannot recall coined the term co-alpha. I society of men who observe and uphold Biblical law and traditional family rights, including the right to give your daughters or withhold them to a husband, tend to have higher success rate of marrying women to men of equal station.

    All the women want to marry up, but if that’s true the man on the bottom can never get married. Co-alpha, arranged marriage is the only way the breakdown of the family is going to be reversed in the long run. The current system is merely the unraveling of assumptions that we imported 200 years ago with the cult of romance.

  123. Warthog says:

    The bottom line is that any society that allows women to choose their mates will devolve into alpha-male with a harem, with beta males and omegas begging for the crumbs. The problem is that alpha-males with harems don’t tend to have a large number of children with each woman. So the total society fertility is lower, and you get genetic bottlenecks and inbreeding.

  124. Patrick says:

    Being unexceptional is actually like 98% of what women want. They want a human male who is fully human and fully male. It’s like when say a female otter goes looking for a mate, step one is to find a male otter. Just that is going to satisfy 98% of what she wants. Or like a baby wants a mother. Any average unexceptional mother is going to be able to give a baby 98% of what it needs and a baby is “programmed” to develop attachment and love for the mother. Part of the problem is people are too convinced that they are unique and not 98% unexceptional.

  125. Patrick says:

    Or that’s my explanation anyway as a man with a completely lowlife father who is an ineffectual incompetent who taught me nothing and prepared me for nothing and had/has no ambition for himself or his family yet still by just existing in that role had my affection for decades.

  126. Sharkly says:

    To: All,

    Almost all of Christendom is missing the point. You have to teach others to do things for the right reasons,(God’s reasons) or the(idolatrous) false teaching will, fail them, and count against you when you are judged before “Jealous”.
    Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

    The anemic half-assed reasons our churches give for obedience to God will fail when people are tempted. The best reason is always fear. Great Fear!
    Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
    Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
    The Bible tells us, every good and evil thing you do will be judged by an austere God who expects your stewardship, and to reap where He did not sow.(Luke 19:22)
    Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
    Don’t fail to let God reign over your whole life. Fear for your life, and by that fear, you will flee from evil, which is the beginning of wisdom, as the Bible tells us.

    Your tongue is the pilot light of the hellfire that seeks to ruin you.
    James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
    James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
    James 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. 14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

    The reasons to honor other men are given to us by God. Firstly because men are made in the image of God,(a self-portrait) and we honor “Jealous” by honoring his personal image, not other graven images.(as part of the first and most important commandment) Secondly because God tells us to honor men that He made in His own image. Thirdly we honor other men, as we ourselves would like to be honored.(the second most important commandment. All the law hangs on those two commandments.)

    1Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you…

    Quit reviling other men, don’t be deceived, you’ll go to eternal hell for being an unrepentant reviler. We all need to work on that. We are part of an adulterous, idolatrous, ungrateful generation of mockers. We need to repent of our wicked ways, including being miserly with honoring other men. It is a contagious sin.

    1 Corinthian 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
    4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
    5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
    6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
    7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
    8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
    9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

    If you can’t follow the plain reading of God’s word there, and feel the need to twist that, ask yourself why? Why does God’s word offend you? Are you still infected by Feminism’s false equality? Are you ashamed to tell women that they are not in God’s image, like God tells us men are? Are you ashamed to tell your wife that she should reverence you, and why?
    Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

  127. Sharkly says:

    @Michael S.Foster,
    BTW, I’ve only been “full-time” in the ministry for a little over a year. I worked as a landscaping foreman, an electrician, and owned my own business for many years. Ministry money-wise was a step down. Not *all* pastors are soft men looking for easy money. So I guess I reject APALT. Does that make me purple pill? ; )

    I’ll try to be respect full while I respond, and yet point out your continued error.
    My first inclination is to mock your “accomplishments”. And show you that you didn’t earn respect just by claiming hard work. For example I could point out that my nation just elected a man who has sworn to build a wall to keep all the “landscapers” out. LOL Or I could AMOG and explain that while you were an electrician, I have been manager of an experimental avionics lab, and my own business manufactured electrical components that are in orbit over your head now. The point being you’re still making an attempt to do what you erroneously believe:

    In general, men gain status through diligent work. They outwork their peers in efforts and/or wisdom. That is what he meant by, “You’ll get men to respect you by working hard.”

    Leave off of your unbiblical nonsense. Nobody naturally respects the poor and unexceptional, even if they did something great due to their wisdom.
    Ecclesiastes 9:14 There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: 15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.

    You can’t base your respect off of what you’ve done, unless you are truly undeniably exceptional. For all men to be respected, you have to teach people God’s reasons. See my post above. We cannot do anything greater than being a man created in God’s own image and glory! What has been done for us as men, and been made known to us as Christians, is infinitely greater than what we can do for ourselves. All of us are like sheep gone astray. We can’t claim our meandering path is a valid reason to reverence us, can we? Is that what you are telling people?
    Just No! My reverence is due, because I am a god,(graven in God’s image) not because I earn it by my meager human striving.
    Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
    God did not say die like “people” or fall like a “princess”. Men are gods. Christ found it important enough that He repeats it to us.
    John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
    34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
    35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
    36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

    Are we not gods? Has the scripture not come unto you? Did you not now just read that?

    We are gods! Every hypergamous woman can marry way way way up. She can marry a god! preach that! Or go back to landscaping, the godly profession given to Adam by God.

    Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
    31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
    32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
    33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

    Do you still not get why all husbands, even mean and lazy unbelieving ones, should be reverenced? And why women are privileged to serve men, not enslaved by our God to do so, and why they are to serve us, as unto the Lord? Your feminism has blinded you to God’s glorious truth, and the privilege it is to be a man.

    The penis envying Feminists have got that part right: It is a great great privilege to be a man, a god, in the image and glory of God our Father. And woman’s greatest achievement here on earth is to become one with a man, the image of God, and to serve their god/God through serving their husband, being one in unity by submitting in all things as unto the Lord.
    I dare you to preach that! If you are man enough. And I know God made you man enough, and will hold you accountable to preach His truth, expecting to reap where He did not sow. So fear him, and teach others to reverence His image.

    Don’t waste men’s time telling them they have to earn respect that is already their due as a man. Teach the women to respect the stronger vessel, and wives to reverence their own God fashioned “idol”, their “emanuel”, their god with them in the flesh. A wife becoming one in the flesh with any man raises her up. Women desires to be one flesh with a god. Lies and deception have made men appear to be lower, like pigs and monkeys. The lie of Satan, is that fucking an Alpha male will take her higher, than other men. It is only placebo! the fully deceived believe that all men are equal to or lesser than women. She(because placebo) feels he took her higher, because she believed he was higher. Women will line up to fuck a short fat bald and ugly man, if they believe him to be a billionaire. And they’ll have enjoyed it, until they find out they got punked by an average broke dude posing as a billionaire. Satan has brought all men down to where people think men’s glory is minor and comes from shit they do or shit they own. Satan seeks to degrade men and to deceive and blind them into degrading themselves and each other. Live as a son of God among other sons of God. Proclaim your privilege. Shine as the image and glory of God in a darkened world. Share God’s glorious truth. Dispel the deception.

  128. Sharkly says:

    Just to clarify, above when I call the husband an “idol”, I mean that in a positive sense. An image of God, graven by God Himself, a token god, to whom the woman is given, a mystery, a representation of Christ and the church. I do not mean the wife is to reverence the husband above God our Father or Christ His only begotten Son, but that as an adopted son of God, or a wayward departing former son of God, the husband is still to be reverenced for being the delegated physically manifest representation of godhead in her life.

    And the woman’s greatest achievement here on earth, consummating marriage with a man, and being united with her god, and bearing him children etc., is because salvation is a gift not an achievement of ours.

  129. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Christianists protest Drag Queen Story Time at bookstore (i.e., drag queens reading to children):

    “Drag queens typically only perform at night, in bars, and have very little interaction with children. So something like this is really special for both groups of people,” said the Paperback Exchange’s Hepsworth.

    She noted that the purpose of the event is to promote literacy, tolerance and self-expression. “The queens dress appropriately and modestly and, of course, we don’t talk about LGBTQ sex. Why would we?” She went on to explain that her intention is to create a safe space for children, parents and all people in the community, “however they may identify themselves.”

    At The Cellar Door, Sherman-Nurick said she was especially motivated to continue the series after hearing an exchange between one of the readers and a young child in attendance.

    “It was a little girl who said to one of the drag queens after a reading, ‘My brother likes to wear my mommy’s dresses,’ to which the queen responded, ‘and that is perfectly okay.’ It was then that I knew we were doing something good for the community.”

    I say Christianists because that’s the word used by the site that linked to this story: http://www.artsjournal.com/

    As Drag Queen Story Hour Spreads, Christianists Stage Protests (And Scream At Children)

    Christianist? Is that like Islamist?

    I guess they’re trying to normalize trannies interacting with children — and also normalize hatred of Christians.

  130. @rollo “Pastor Foster makes the common mistake that status and a capacity for provisioning is the only thing that factors into Hypergamy.”

    That isn’t true. It was a single Tweet. You know very well the limitations of Twitter. There are clearly other factors but not making women your mental point of origin is one of them. That is what I heard in that pastor’s quip: chase your mission, not women. It was a starting place. Nothing more.

    The most offensive thing I counsel single Christian men looking for a wife to do is plate spin. Obviously, they must do it without fornication but I think it’s especially necessary in culture such as ours.

  131. Novaseeker says:

    The bottom line is that any society that allows women to choose their mates will devolve into alpha-male with a harem, with beta males and omegas begging for the crumbs.

    A bit oversimplified. In our culture, women were choosing their mates, more or less with their fathers blessing or not, well before the current SMP/MMP took shape. What really broke the system were two things: (1) women having reliable ability to unilaterally opt-out of becoming or remaining pregnant and (2) the economy shifting from heavy lifting jobs to less heavy lifting, more service oriented jobs.

    The first made it possible for women to have sex without worrying about pregnancy (which is the main driver for the sex market we see today — without this, we wouldn’t have what we see today, period) — including the ability to deploy sex in an effort to snag a high value man, and to be able to do so repeatedly because of the elimination of the risk of unwanted pregnancy. This effectively increased substantially both women’s control of the consequences of their behavior while at the same time significantly increasing their sexual power by permitting them to deploy it at will with repercussions solely controllable by themselves. This dramatically changed women’s sexual behavior and it did so in less than a generation — the change was blitzkrieg fast.

    The second made it possible for most women to support themselves economically such that they did not need to listen to their fathers/brothers/family in their choices, and also did not need to select men for sexual escapades based solely on whether the man was reliable/family-man/provider, etc. They were able to select men based on how hot he was, period. This is a luxury that pretty much no women have ever had in history before, and it fundamentally changed how women assess men for dating/sex/relationships/marriage, across the board. This one didn’t change behaviors quite as quickly as the first did, because it took a generation or two of women reaching a critical mass of them being educated enough to really benefit from the emerging service economy, but it really began to hit hard in the 1990s, about 20-25 years after the revolutions of the 60s/70s, and has only picked up steam since then. Women’s economic independence makes them think very differently about men in all of those contexts, and this is very new because in history only a tiny percentage of women has ever had this level of economic independence, and those were not also at the same time able to avoid/terminate pregnancy at will, no questions asked.

    No system of broad participation of fathers in mate selection can survive a situation where women are economically independent and able to self-determine completely their pregnancy status. The traditional model survives among groups that self-isolate, like the Amish or the Hasidic Jews, because a part of that self-isolation is isolating their women from the broader world of education/financial independence/sexual escapades (and the other part is isolating their men from having their fun in the modern day SMP as well). They do that by isolating themselves from the broader culture in rather obvious dramatic ways — physical concentration in living area, modes of dress, modes of family life and size, economic inter-relationships in a closed economic community and so on. The LDS do this as well, to a significantly lesser degree (and they also have more leavers than the Amish and Hasids do), by erecting very strong social bonds between LDS families such that outside of work, virtually one’s entire family and social life is lived out in an LDS web of other LDS families in your private life — it’s like social isolation without being geographically isolated/concentrated (although they also are quite concentrated in some areas of the Western US as we know). Most Christians are not willing to self-segregate like that, full stop. Not willing. And if you aren’t willing to do that, and your children are out there in the world of work once they are adults, and their only “refuge” is their own isolated family, or the typically Christian church that has also most of its members leading similarly integrated to the mainstream lives in an isolated way, there is no way you can buck the mainstream cultural system in a way that does an end run around the two factors I mention above in any meaningful or impactful way. There will be isolated success stories here and there, of course — there are always cases of succeeding against the odds in any context. But across the Christian culture here as a whole — not a chance. Almost everyone is way too invested in being a part of the mainstream culture for that to happen, and, as we have learned the hard way, pretty much everything is “downstream from culture”, including how people relate to their religious faith and how they choose their behaviors.

  132. feeriker says:

    The penis envying Feminists have got that part right: It is a great great privilege to be a man, a god, in the image and glory of God our Father. And woman’s greatest achievement here on earth is to become one with a man, the image of God, and to serve their god/God through serving their husband, being one in unity by submitting in all things as unto the Lord.

    Yes, and in typical female fashion they covet the status of men being images of God while ignoring/eschewing the great responsibilities that accompany that status. Similarly, they are unable to perceive the unique and unrivalled honor that comes with the privilege of serving one of these images of the Almighty God, because such service demands effort and occasionally even …***GAG!***… humility and self-sacrifice, things that the images of God whom they serve are compelled to exercise every day on behalf others (part of that nasty old “responsibility” thing).

    Here’s a point for the female collective to chew on, should any of them be blessed with the gift of introspection:

    What would give you the greatest sense of achievement and satisfaction: being the primary–and thus uniquely positioned– human influence behind an image of God, thus leading him to do potentially wonderful things for you and others while bearing and nurturing other images of God, or blindly following a herd as an anonymous, fungible, easily replaceable animal serving someone/something to whom you mean nothing and for whom you will accomplish nothing of lasting importance or value (should you accomplish anything at all)?

  133. thedeti says:

    The presumption of Christian Life for men is marriage. Jesus himself made clear that he assumed men would lust for women, and commanded that each man marry the woman he fucks.

    No. The presumption of Christian marriage for men is remaining faithful in marriage, if that Christian man decides to marry. Marriage is not commanded. Neither men nor women are commanded to marry. They are told, though, that if they cannot contain themselves, then they should marry, so that they do not sin.

    It is not sin to marry. It is not sin to remain unmarried.

    Nor are men commanded to marry the women they have sex with. Christian men are commanded not to have sex outside marriage. But if they sin and have sex with women outside marriage, they are not compelled to take those women as wives.

    Once a Christian couple fuck, they’re married.

    No. And Christ didn’t command that either. Christ (and God, through St. Paul) commanded that IF you marry, you have sex. If you do not marry, you are not to have sex. Marriage requires conscious assent to enter into marriage, and consummation.

  134. teotoon says:

    If only the exceptional men should enjoy God’s grace and have wives; then Christ might as well have been a Pharisee; for they were the best of men; all others being but filthy sinners.

  135. ys says:

    Gotta love goalpost movers. Love them.

    “Pastors are soft! Never done a hard day’s work in their lives! Wimps!”

    Pastor Foster, “I’ve only been in full-time ministry for a year. Before that, was an electrician, landscaper, etc.”

    A few respond with

    “Stop being beta and trying to impress us. Your credentials of hard work mean nothing.”

  136. drifter says:

    Though He will always have a remnant, inverting God’s instructions regarding the husband/wife relationship has destroyed the West.
    Start de-funding the perpetrators. I’m seeing more and more new names show up in the comments, indicating that Dalrock’s audience is growing. This is good.
    Now, to those who give regularly, cut off the funding unless the local church leadership promotes sound Biblical doctrine. Start reminding those who would steal your wives’ affections/respect who it really is that’s paying their (so often) exorbitant salaries.

  137. teotoon says:

    If marriage to “Christian” women is only for the “exceptional” Christian males; then who will the non-exceptional Christian males marry; shall they seek outside the church?

  138. Acksiom says:

    @ys

    >Gotta love goalpost movers. Love them.

    Gotta call out false accusers. Call them out.

    I won’t presume to speak for Sharkly, but you’re falsely accusing me. Not only did I never plant that goalpost ITFP, if anything, my comments imply it’s a false standard.

    Now let’s see how much integrity is backing up your criticism. How about it, ys? Going to admit you were wrong and misrepresented my position?

  139. Acksiom says:

    Novaseeker, there’s a third thing to add to your list: Government Funded Single Motherhood. It is every bit as critical to the system’s breakage. If it were not for GFSM, communities would both be more pressuring and more rewarding towards more women to be wives, mothers, and homemakers, helping to counter the other two factors’ effects. But instead, GFSM actively encourages the breakdown, by competing with marriage and driving it out of the market

    That’s one of the primary reasons I keep going on about vasal blocking birth control for men. The only thing I see that can validly force the reduction of GFSM is reducing the availability of sperm. The Pill isn’t going away, and the reduction of everybody’s economic independence through the coming automation of the service (and paperwork etc.) economy will be hit-or-miss at best. What else do we have? Political solutions aren’t going to happen. “For the children, and damn the fathers,” will still rule the public opinion and legislative roost.

    So sperm needs to go on strike.

    Hmm. Now that I look at it, maybe I should be calling it Taxpayer Funded Single Motherhood instead.

  140. BillyS says:

    teotoon,

    They must all be above average of course!

  141. ys says:

    Acksiom,
    I was speaking generally. I think you’re aware of that.
    Your call outs for integrity are try-hard. You sound like a Washington Post fact checker.

  142. Joe2 says:

    @The Inimitable NEET says:

    “I’m skeptical AI dolls will appeal equally to both sexes…”

    I agree, the market may be much smaller. But there still may be a sizeable market because a major sex doll manufacturer claims to offer 200 plus different types of customizable dolls including dolls for women’s use and has posted a testimonial from a woman praising their dolls. I’m assuming the testimonial is not fake.

  143. Sharkly says:

    feeriker,

    Very good response. And yes, being in the image of God, carries a great responsibility with it also. I totally agree.

  144. OKRickety says:

    Acksiom said: “Novaseeker, there’s a third thing to add to your list: Government Funded Single Motherhood. It is every bit as critical to the system’s breakage. [….] Now that I look at it, maybe I should be calling it Taxpayer Funded Single Motherhood.”

    Yep. If they can’t support themselves, then they can get the support through government interference.

  145. ray says:

    “Interesting to see another Christian who has wrangled with the Talmud. I find it interesting from time to time, from a curiosity standpoint, and there are also nuggets of wisdom in there as well.”

    There are plenty of wisdom nuggets in satan’s shit, too. Based on popularity, must go down pretty smooth.

    The Talmud was not ‘authored’ by God, as with the Canonic Scriptures. Just another waste-product of Old Babylon, making its big comeback in New Babylon.

  146. Rollory says:

    “Don’t waste men’s time telling them they have to earn respect that is already their due as a man.”

    The most screwed up people I’ve seen throughout my life are always the ones going around demanding respect by default, without earning it. It never works. If respect by default is the heavenly plan, you sure can’t conclude that from the results.

    “And the woman’s greatest achievement here on earth, consummating marriage with a man, and being united with her god, and bearing him children etc.,”

    If this belief was widespread – if there was a true, honest, awestruck sense on the part of women that men are beings from some higher plane – your advice and your arguments would be applicable. Imagining a society where such a belief could exist and be perpetuated would be a topic for speculative fiction, and your advice and arguments would form a background as believably fantastic as any rayguns’n’spaceships setting. In the world as it is today, they are hallucinatory.

  147. Acksiom says:

    @ys

    because Sharkly and I are the only ones I see criticizing Foster’s defensive crouching in response to the characterization of pastors as “soft wimps. Since I don’t recall Sharkly bashing pastors that way, and again, your characterization contradicts what I actually posted, no, you’re still falsely accusing us. We didn’t move any goalposts because we’re not responsible for other people’s standards. You only get to point that at the people who actually were characterizing pastors as ‘soft wimps’ originally, and I haven’t seen any of them do that. So in fact, you’re lying about everyone involved, because no goalposts have been moved.

    You’re a false accuser.

  148. Novaseeker says:

    Acksiom said: “Novaseeker, there’s a third thing to add to your list: Government Funded Single Motherhood. It is every bit as critical to the system’s breakage. [….] Now that I look at it, maybe I should be calling it Taxpayer Funded Single Motherhood.”

    Yep. If they can’t support themselves, then they can get the support through government interference.

    It’s true to a certain degree, but I see it as another form of economic independence. Even though on the lower end that takes the form of dependence on state support as compared to the upper end where it takes the form of paid work, the key commonality is that women are no longer dependent on specific individual men for their economic well-being. That’s the key. I do agree, though, that on the lower end the driver of this is state support, while on the upper end the driver is the economic changes that made it possible for women to participate to a much wider degree in the economy.

    I also think, though, that the women at the top have a disproportionate effect on the culture, because what they experience tends to be what is highlighted in the cultural production (media, film, TV etc), in part because the people creating that culture either are, or are surrounded by, such women to begin with. Therefore the whole “woman as careerist” model permeates the whole culture and warps it, even though not all women have access to that and some women are state dependent.

  149. Acksiom says:

    And again, my point is how the critical difference that separates TFSM in particular from economic independence in general is how it competes with marriage in terms of the population replacement rate, and how putting sperm on strike counters that. It’s a lot harder to target female economic independence in general than it is to target TFSM in particular, and for what return?

    How is folding TFSM into female economic independence supposed to help us more and better than singling it out?

  150. Paul says:

    @IBB

    “In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.”

  151. Sharkly says:

    Rollory says:
    “The most screwed up people I’ve seen throughout my life are always the ones going around demanding respect by default, without earning it.”

    We must not live on the same planet. My experience has been the exact opposite. The most screwed up woman I know spent her life down on her knees debating with her toddlers about why they should listen to her, instead of them telling her what to do. she’d argue with her spoiled children trying to get them to recognize that she had somehow earned the right to give them directions, instead of just giving them consequences for not giving her the respect due to a parent. my favorite teachers where the “businesslike” ones that insisted that they be treated with respect, and they in turn would usually treat their students with the respect that was due to them. Order was quickly established for what respect was due, and consequences were enforced to maintain order. You really can’t earn respect. Or everybody would stop their car, and get out to salute the unknown heroic homeless veteran living under the overpass, if respect could somehow been earned like Karma.

    And women did once call their husbands “lord” and recognize their place back in Patriarchal times. The apostle Peter gave Sarah as a holy example for women today to follow.(1 Peter 3:6) You have to head towards God’s truth.
    If I tell a churchian pastorbater that men are gods and women are mostly treacherous and foolish evil whores, and show him scripture confirming it, perhaps I’ll move him from complete cunt worship and man-bashing, to a point where he thinks women are only slightly better than men. Whereas if I start out the negotiation by just saying that I think men are a little better than you give them credit for, at the end, they are still so far below the clouds that his goddesses ride on, that I’ve had no effect on him at all, and I’ve insulted God and the men He made in His image, by under selling them.

    Aksiom, you are correct in that I didn’t stoop to presumptuously accusing the pastor of a lack of work or make any sort of implications about his past. That was somebody else. I’m more concerned about whether he is being the man God created Him to be, today. Is he boldly standing up for God’s word, or is he caving in and wiping Feminism’s ass with the pages from his Bible. Is he bashing and disrespecting other men, while telling people not to judge the recycled harlots for their ongoing lapses? What sort of man is he being. I know the type though that some of the other folks were getting at, the pampered pastor who isn’t subject to the attacks of Satan, because he’s to valuable of an asset to the devil. He is free to inhabit his own blissful delusion of Spiritual Amazonia, without the real world rudely intruding on his cloistered life. However, even though I didn’t bash him individually based on presumption, as a group the pastors of this generation deserve our condemnation for almost unanimously being shitbag liars and thieves leading their sheep to hell. They mock men made in God’s image, they effeminize God, they twist His words and preach flattery and license. Pray for their conversion or destruction.

  152. Name (required) says:

    “The only thing I see that can validly force the reduction of GFSM is reducing the availability of sperm. ”

    How many sperm donors do you think it would take to fill the demand? I’m guessing one or two males out of a hundred would be enough. In other words, I don’t see your male contraceptive changing anything.

  153. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    I do agree, though, that on the lower end the driver of this is state support, while on the upper end the driver is the economic changes that made it possible a government requirement for women to participate to a much wider degree in the economy.

    FIFY. Women benefit more from Affirmative Action than any other group. It’s so ubiquitous we don’t even notice it, but from a K – 12 schooling designed for girls to Title IX to women-only scholarships / tutoring to women-preferred internships to mandatory female quotas in the Fortune 500, they benefit from the heavy hand of the law and its enforcers on every single scale at every stage of life. The increased male suicide rate is merely a coincidence…

    But women still suffer from “discrimination” and “patriarchy”. At least I’m told that every day by the unbiased news media…

  154. Cabeza de Vaca says:

    My cohorts and I have found most christian conservative girls mercenary whores who only look at marriage as a means of fulfilling a lifestyle obsession.

  155. ys says:

    Acksiom,
    This is a waste of time. It’s no wonder that you jumped on Foster, calling him blue pill as soon as you thought you had the chance, and now pretending like I am a false accuser, when I never mentioned your name. Permit me to speak in generalities, as you no doubt do so many others.
    Why did you call Foster blue pill, and me a false accuser? Because you don’t want to repent. You want to be a bombastic, big-talking internet persona, that until every thing is perfect, you won’t repent. By the way, if you think I false accused you, I will quote your own words, that you used on Foster, back to you:

    “Responding to baseless personal attacks reveals insecurity.”
    So, Acksiom, by your standards, stop being so insecure and blue pill.

  156. Acksiom says:

    >This is a waste of time.

    And yet, nevertheless, here you are, further responding, still trying to justify your lying false accusations.

    >It’s no wonder that you jumped on Foster,

    Oh? Why not?

    >calling him blue pill as soon as you thought you had the chance,

    [sigh] No, as soon as he incorrectly tried to describe himself using the terminology.

    >and now pretending like I am a false accuser, when I never mentioned your name.

    Except, of course, for how you actually have falsely accused some of the commenters here, and how you didn’t need to mention anybody’s name for that to be true. For that to be true, you just had to misrepresent what happened by calling people ‘goalpost movers’, period. The problem for you is that nobody actually did that. The people generalizing about pastors as ‘soft wimps’ didn’t criticize his behavior as Sharkly and I did, and neither Sharkly nor I generalized about pastors as ‘soft wimps’. The goalposts weren’t moved, regards of how “generally” you spoke. Sharkly and I aren’t responsible for what other people posted, and other people aren’t responsible for what Sharkly and I posted.

    No matter how much you try to make your “speaking generally” fig leaf stretch to cover that, you’re still naked before it. You lied when you falsely accused us.

    >Permit me to speak in generalities, as you no doubt do so many others.

    You don’t need my permission to do anything. But that’s not what you’re really asking, now is it? What you’re really asking is “stop pointing out that ‘speaking generally’ doesn’t justify my behavior”. You want me to pretend that speaking generally doesn’t justify lies in general and false accusations in particular.

    Well, guess what.

    NO.

    Nobody moved the goalposts. There were two sets of people using two different standards. And you don’t get to assign responsibility to either group for the behavior of the other simply because you think “speaking generally” justifies it. Your lying falsely accused everyone involved.

    >Why did you call Foster blue pill, and me a false accuser?

    I called his behavior blue pill to explain to him how he was coming across as a fake try-hard in a defensive crouch wanting to be liked more than respected. I called you a false accuser because you falsely accused others of being goalpost movers.

    >Because you don’t want to repent. You want to be a bombastic, big-talking internet persona, that until every thing is perfect, you won’t repent.

    Nah, that’s all on you. Projection ain’t just a job at the movies, kiddo.

    >By the way, if you think I false accused you, I will quote your own words, that you used on Foster, back to you: “Responding to baseless personal attacks reveals insecurity.” So, Acksiom, by your standards, stop being so insecure and blue pill.

    By which argument you necessarily concede that “speaking generally” doesn’t excuse or justify your lying false accusations.

    Nobody moved the goalposts, you lied when you falsely accused people here of that, and “speaking generally” doesn’t make the two sets of posters responsible for each other’s comments.

  157. ys says:

    Acksiom,
    This is why it is pointless. I didn’t even read your whole wall of text, although I saw the kiddo. Cute job there son. Anyway, by your standards, you are blue pill. By your own words. Did you concede that point? No. Thus, internet arguing is pointless. It gets no where.

  158. Acksiom says:

    Your tacit admission that you cannot defend your actions and therefore concede that you lied by false accusations is appreciated. Thank you.

  159. ys says:

    My accusation was not false. But if it was then it would be baseless. You said defending oneself against baseless accusations is blue pill.
    My accusation was towards the group. Not you. Point me to your name or get out. You can’t or you would have.
    If speaking generally is wrong, then surely you would agree with a woman who came here and said she was traditional, and therefore not an AWALT, and therefore people here were lying about her? I think we know how such a commenter would be treated. But you can pretend otherwise.

    Try to find another accusation for someone who disagrees with you other than projecting. That is way overused here. It’s not clever or original.

  160. ys says:

    Additionally, Acksiom, since either of us are unlikely to concede anything, isn’t discussing the OP more interesting anyway?
    Is Christian marriage only for elite women (or men)? I answer, “Maybe so. Why should we care?”

  161. Sharkly says:

    In light of the Gillette commercial bashing and degrading masculinity as toxic, I think it is all the more important that we figure out how to treat each other with respect, since all the visible models are showing further disrespect for men. We need to be able to model respect for other men. This younger generation who grew up being looked upon as toxic pond scum, really is dying for lack of respect. I can’t imagine what it has done to their psyche, being degraded for what is actually special and wonderful about them. Even though I’ve got little in common with many of the younger guys at work, and nothing they need, I can hang out with them and act as the father figure many of them grew up without. It is sort of a natural mentoring situation where they end up coming to me for advice, and I am able to preach my socially unacceptable beliefs to them. I think it is because I give them genuine respect for their good character traits, and am not afraid to fight for what is right, that draws them to me. There is an opportunity out there to lead this generation of younger men for somebody willing to show them some respect and recognize their dignity. Many of them seem to be craving respect even more than sex or money. I had one tell me he wants me to start my own business again, so he can come work for me, and the kid is a good hard working one. Back when I was running my business, even though I could not afford to pay people industry standard wages, I could usually cherry pick the absolute best workers form other companies just by recognizing and praising their talents, showing understanding for their frustrations(it is very frustrating being highly intelligent among dullards) and offering them a flexible work environment where I would give them the trust and opportunity to work their magic for somebody who greatly valued them. I need to figure out a way to bottle respect and sell it.

  162. Acksiom says:

    >My accusation was not false.

    Except, of course, for how it was.

    >My accusation was towards the group.

    Which one? Because there were two. One group that generalized about pastors as ‘soft wimps’, and another group that criticized Foster for how her responded to that. Two groups. Not one. Two.

    Two groups. Do you understand yet? Two. Not one. Two groups.

    And every time you conspicuously ignore that, it’s just yet another tactit admission that you can’t defend your behavior, and therefore concede that you lied with false accusation.

    And no matter how many times you try to assert ‘one group’, neither of the two groups is responsible for what the other posted. No goalposts were moved, because Sharkly and I didn’t characterize pastors as soft wimps, and those who did do so didn’t criticize his behavior in response.

    There were two standards. It doesn’t matter how many times you try to deny that. It’s still true, and it still means no goalposts were moved, and that still means you lied when you falsely accused people here of doing so.

    Just like all men are not responsible for the behavior of some men. You do realize that your behavior is right in line with the Gillette ad’s characterization of all men as responsible for the behavior of some men? Gillette’s accusation is towards “the group” too. Categorically speaking, you’re doing what they did.

    >Not you.

    [facepalm]

    >Point me to your name or get out.

    Dalrock? I believe that’s your cue, finally.

    >You can’t or you would have.

    I don’t have to. You lumped me in with everyone else. You didn’t have to single me out for your false accusation to be a lie.

    >If speaking generally is wrong,

    It isn’t. It just doesn’t excuse you from responsibility for your lying false accusation.towards the commenters here.

    >Try to find another accusation for someone who disagrees with you other than projecting. That is way overused here. It’s not clever or original.

    It doesn’t have to be. It just has to be accurate, which it still is. You were projecting.

  163. BillyS says:

    Ys,

    I have no idea who is correct in your argument, but just let Sharkly have the last word and it will be fine. I have posted too much at times here as well, but I try to just let things die, even if it lets someone else think like they have “won”. It is not worth flogging a dead horse even if you are correct, and especially if you really aren’t!

  164. ys says:

    Sorry Billy, may agree sometimes, but gotta roll with it this time for Acksiom’s sake
    Acksion, in addition to all of your other tired arguments, a couple days ago you said something like, “Thanks for conceding that to me.”
    Pointing out a concession when there was none is typically a move from someone who has nothing to say. I have probably done it myself. But as an avid viewer and occasional participant in interewebbz arguing, I see it for what it is.

  165. American says:

    “My cohorts and I have found most christian conservative girls mercenary whores who only look at marriage as a means of fulfilling a lifestyle obsession.”

    ^ Which is why I’m already over my next tradcon date and I haven’t even met her yet. I cannot allow it to ever consummate into “marriage” for such reasons which carry seriously negative consequences when it goes bad. And for all the “liberal” Democrat “service sector” females throwing themselves at me lately wherever I go, they’re wasting their time. I already know how it ends. They’ll have to find some beta male to ensnare for the purpose of misusing government as a way to tap into his income and bolster the social services they’ll be receiving as single “mothers.”

    As for males attempting to use religion to degrade other male’s honor, and/or set themselves up as “the only man in the room” in an ego contest with all other males in the room: I’d advise them to watch their step. There are still a few hard men about that don’t go for that and such can take it personal. The young men I grew up with wouldn’t hesitate to blacken the eyes of someone disrespecting them and if it escalated to hardware… But then the Christian males degrading and dishonoring other men save it for Christian men who won’t do anything about it. You won’t find them doing that to a hard man outside of the assembly, not twice anyways. It’s a “Christian” problem.

  166. And yet, Pastor Foster has still not answered Dalrock’s question. That is because he can’t. I’m sure he’ll pop in here and say something or other about how he is still thinking about it or whatever, but he can’t answer it. To answer it would be to destroy his entire false value system.

  167. American says:

    You’re not clairvoyant innocentbystantderboston. The truth is that you don’t know what he’s doing. It’s wise to take the time necessary to qualify that which can alter one’s worldview. In fact, it’s a big step to alter or change one’s view of the world.

    I see no profit in pretending to read his mind while immaturely positioning what’s happened in a binary “us” versus “him” narrative, especially after he said he’s taking the time to consider what Dalrock has communicated to him.

  168. Ok. We’ll see. Or. maybe we will never hear from him again on this issue?

  169. American says:

    He stated that he reads Dalrock’s posts (though not necessarily our comments). I wouldn’t be surprised if he comments again at some point in the future though given his position it likely will be done carefully and concisely. Which, is wise. My two cents. Peace.

  170. Rollory says:

    @Sharkly

    This is late, but.

    “We must not live on the same planet. My experience has been the exact opposite.”

    Everything you write about indicates your definition of “earning respect” and mine are not at all the same.

    “The most screwed up woman I know spent her life down on her knees debating with her toddlers about why they should listen to her, instead of them telling her what to do. she’d argue with her spoiled children trying to get them to recognize ”

    I’ve seen this. This isn’t earning respect. It’s deliberately losing it. You don’t earn respect by asking for it, you earn respect as a parent by demonstrating that your seemingly arbitrary rules will be enforced evenhandedly and consistently, and that the paths by which the child can earn the parent’s respect are clearly laid out and consistently followed. Begging children to obey isn’t earning respect. Being a strict but fair and also, when possible, loving supreme authority does earn it: the child understands that the rules exist, they will be followed, that the parent submits themselves to the rules just as completely as they enforce them over the child, and that the result is a predictable and orderly universe maintained by the parent’s will and self-discipline. (Little of this is consciously realized by the child, of course.)

    “my favorite teachers where the “businesslike” ones that insisted that they be treated with respect, ”

    That’s not earning respect either. That’s establishing a baseline of behavior and buying time to display the teacher’s character. The students will permit such a grace period before trying with increasing inventiveness to test the limits, and during that time the teacher’s character – if strong and fair – will encourage the growth of respect. It’s very similar to parenting in that the fairness and exactness of the discipline and order imposed will result in respect or disrespect, depending on how things play out. I can think of multiple cases in my own life where somebody established such a baseline and then demonstrated that they themselves did not respect it or the rules insofar as they applied to their own self. The consequence in each case was a loss of respect, authority, and order, and it didn’t matter how angry they got about it or how much they insisted that everybody return to following the rules. Respect cannot be demanded.

    “and get out to salute the unknown heroic homeless veteran living under the overpass,”

    What does living under an overpass have to do with earning respect? It doesn’t. Of course, that’s not what you mean; you mean that because he put life and limb on the line for his country he deserves respect. That again is expecting it by default, not earning it; many people in the military don’t risk any physical harm at all. There are certainly people in the military who deserve respect; there are others who don’t. The average civilian seeing some random ex-military person is not going to have any reason to expect that that specific individual put themselves in harm’s way, and no way to to draw any conclusions about how much respect they are due simply from seeing the person is homeless. If they see a man under the overpass and realize it’s Joe Smith who used to teach kids machine shop on Friday afternoons and saved two of his buddies who’d been wounded by an IED – why then in that case the reaction will be entirely different. Because Joe Smith has earned respect. Faceless Nobody hasn’t.

    Everything you write indicates to me that you don’t understand the first thing about where respect comes from and how it is obtained. Even the stuff you have to say about your disputes with church elders. They are treating you with disrespect and you seem to be absolutely boggled as to why they would do that. Insisting that they respect you and pointing to the Bible as a reason why is, from what you’ve posted, getting you nowhere – because you’re taking as the starting point that they should respect you, rather than looking at why they don’t. Your wife left you, if I’ve understood various comments you’ve made correctly; clearly she chose to treat you with disrespect also. Whether she Biblically SHOULD have done that is a separate point; the fact is that something about your behavior with her caused her to go from respecting you – presumably she did, since she married you – to not respecting you. Demanding that the opposite happen, without adjusting anything about your behavior toward her that influenced the loss in the first place, is as productive as Canute talking to the tides.

  171. Sharkly says:

    @Rollory,
    Respect cannot be demanded.
    Sure it can. I think you and I have different concepts of respect. Yours sounds like what I might call “admiration”. While my definition is more likely fear induced: (To avoid violation of or interference with, deference)
    The Bible demands/commands that certain people be respected:
    Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.
    Lamentations 4:16 The anger of the Lord hath divided them; he will no more regard them: they respected not the persons of the priests, they favoured not the elders.
    The Bible also commands/demands that we not respect a person in matters of judgement, but that we respect all alike for the purpose of determining judicial matters.
    Deuteronomy 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
    That verse seems to imply that the respect of persons might naturally flow from being afraid of the man.

    I don’t recall the Bible mentioning earning respect, but it often commands us to give respect to whom it is due by nature of their position in God’s hierarchy. Our “repute” is what seems to be earned in the form of esteem in the eyes of others.

    I stand by my original comment to the pastor: “Don’t waste men’s time telling them they have to earn respect that is already their due as a man. Teach the women to respect the stronger vessel, and wives to reverence…” I shouldn’t have to earn my wife’s faithfulness, submission, Etc. And Pulpit Peckerheads who say that men should have to earn what was vowed to them, are why we have a near 50% divorce rate in the “church”.
    Who the hell is the judge of when respect has been earned? Some crazy woman who has decided to be unhaaapy? Her cunt worshipping pastorbater? My wife fears intimacy more than she fears God. I can’t overcome that with pandering or performance. She has to choose to stop unhingedly devaluing me. She has to chose to give me the respect I am due. I’m not asking for more respect than I am due. Firstly I’m asking for basic human decency. I don’t even get the respect she gives to a stranger. She intentionally withholds respect from me to create distance instead of unity. I don’t have difficulty with gaining and maintaining the normal respect of other men and women. Although it is more difficult now, than when I was formerly rich and successful, and my shit apparently smelled like roses. People are foolish in whom they respect and don’t, especially in this wicked generation. Don’t act like all respect is justly earned like “Karma”. Wise up. Our society respects reprobates and disrespects those whom God esteems.
    Psalm 138:6 For though the Lord is high, he regards the lowly, but the haughty he knows from afar.

  172. Pingback: The symbolism of the line of men grilling in the Gillette ad. | Dalrock

  173. Pingback: Warhorn interview: Define red pill, Game, and MGTOW. | Dalrock

  174. Pingback: Warhorn interview: What does a man need to do to live a satisfying and productive life? | Dalrock

  175. Pingback: Scott’s conclusions on courtship and marriage incubation | Σ Frame

  176. Pingback: Never forget the eager role of the conservative anvil. | Dalrock

  177. Pingback: "An Apologetic Against Dating in High School" — how conservative Christians encourage the marriage crisis they bemoan - The Chi Files

Comments are closed.