Never forget the eager role of the conservative anvil.

I originally left this as a comment in response to Larry Kummer’s recent post: Marriage: soon the Surgeon General will warn about it.  Larry wrote:

Summary: The Left has worked for two generations to destroy marriage as an institution by making it a bad bet for men. See these examples showing how they no longer even hide their intent. What happens if young men see this?

This is where conservatives come in.  The conservative anvil is every bit the willing tool of the feminist blacksmith as her man-smashing hammer.  Conservatives have responded to the sexual revolution and the destruction of marriage by adopting a highly selective sense of moral outrage.  When women delayed marriage to focus on sexual freedom and career, conservatives cheered them on (while ignoring/denying the whoring).  Thus the 700 Club touts a book by a 50 something never married career woman advising young Christian women to follow her lead and never settle.  Likewise pastors regularly lecture young Christian men that they have a duty to marry single mothers, because:

Single Christian moms are as pure as the sinless Son of God, which is more than you deserve in a wife.

But make no mistake, if a man is foolish enough to follow conservative Christian moralizing, he will find the modern Christian taste for moralizing ends the instant the rube has taken the bait and said “I do”.  If the man naively expects his pastor to continue to exert strong moral pressure after the wedding he is in for a massive shock.  Suddenly the Christian taste for moralizing evaporates, and the man being obedient to conservative instruction is proof that he deserves a rebellious wife.  After all, he is the one who was foolish enough to marry her in the first place! (emphasis mine):

Sadly, the sort of husband who demands his pastor or elders reduce his wife to submission to him is the sort of man who is generally pathetic. Often he can’t face his own failures in leadership, so he drops his wife on the pastors and elders demanding they do what he couldn’t or wouldn’t.

Don’t let him manipulate you into feeling responsible for his dilemma. You can pity him. You can sympathize with him. You can help him. But don’t let him place the responsibility for his wife’s conduct in his home on you. He married her. His sins have added to the problem. He bought the farm and now he is responsible to run it.

Don’t go to the elders and tell them it’s their responsibility to discipline your wife into submission.

It isn’t.

Related:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Disrespecting Respectability, Divorce, Doublethink, Fabius Maximus, Finding a Spouse, Larry Kummer, Pastor Tim Bayly, Submission, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

390 Responses to Never forget the eager role of the conservative anvil.

  1. Apologies for a male brain hard-wired to look for solutions… Three questions:

    1) Shouldn’t men pointly question their pastors/priests about their views of feminism (and either stay or vote with their feet accordingly)?

    2) Should men completely abandon state marriage licenses (but still marry in Church)?

    3) Couldn’t a man’s explanation of number 2, above, be a basis for exploring proper sex roles and even getting consent for a prenuptial agreement?

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    Possible duplicate comment.

    @MagnusStout
    Have you looked at Deep Strength’s book yet? You should.

    @Dalrock:
    “Conservative anvil” – perfect.

  3. Nothing, (and I mean NOTHING) changes with divorce law and conservatives covering for it until the majority of tall, educated, handsome, great-looking, and good earning professional men, collective decide to STOP marrying. The single greatest ally the MGTOW movement has is an atheist, pro-abortion, liberal named Bill Maher. He is the single greatest example of what women want to marry but can’t if men (with sooooooo much to lose) are smart enough to opt-out before feminist cunts can extract lifelong resources. And you know why I can say that? Because a feminist STILL wanted to extract resources from Bill even when they weren’t married.

    https://www.foxnews.com/story/judge-dismisses-9m-lawsuit-against-bill-maher

    I guarantee you, Coco gets paid her $9 million if Bill had ever said “I do.” He never did.

    Here’s the thing, the majority of the men who go MGTOW have nothing to lose. They are MGTOW not because they are Bill Maher but because no feminist (really no woman) would have them. They are some combination of short, fat, low-IQ, ugly, uneducated, unemployed/unemployable with zero confidence or social skills. These are the most marginal of marginal men. Feminists do not want to fuck them anyway so what difference does it make if they go MGTOW? If feminists had it all their way these MGTOW men should be rounded-up and executed (so that feminists would not have to part with their tax dollars to pay these marginal men disability) as long as each man successfully saved $300 cash to pay for his own damn burial.

    If ONLY ALL the most successful of men did EXACTLY what Bill Maher has done in protecting himself from threatpoint, then and ONLY THEN would the system change. It would have to change because, well, MATH. But that is not happening. As it is, our marriage rate continuously drops like a rock (we set a record new LOW for percentage of adults lawfully married in this country, each and every year) and no gives a damn so long as all the truly successful males with so much to lose continue to marry. As of right now, they are largely the ONLY males that are marrying.

  4. Frank K says:

    A growing number of young men don’t care what cuckservatives say.The undesirable majority of men already understand that no woman will have them so why bother? And the desirable ones know that they can play the field and don’t have to make any commitments to have sexual access to women. Even old and ugly (but wealthy) Bill Maher can play the field.

  5. The undesirable majority of men already understand that no woman will have them so why bother?

    That is the whole point. The men who AREN’T wanted, no one (least of all feminists) give a damn if they live or die. They have no collective power to change the status-quo. The only way DivorceCorp and threatpoint changes (and when I say change, I mean GOES AWAY) is if successful and attractive men (with so much to lose) decide to do what Bill Maher did. Bill was the outlier. If Bill was the “norm” for promising men, then threatpoint would be NO MORE and feminism would be long gone.

  6. NotaBene says:

    @MagnusStout

    2) Should men completely abandon state marriage licenses (but still marry in Church)?

    My wife and I, happily married for 18 years, have actually toyed with “divorcing” under the state, and remaining married before God, which to us is the only sense that really matters anyway. The state really has no business regulating or licensing marriage “under God”.

    My only reservation is the legal ramifications – power of attorney and all that. Does anyone know of any resources that could help me in this endeavor? Next of kin, all that… what does a state marriage license actually do for you legally? We have one child.

    But to answer your question, yes, I think other than certain legal conveniences a state marriage license is pointless to get, puts a man at risk, is a raw deal.

    One problem is that the process is so intertwined – we got married “in church” in 2001, and even then our pastor had some line like “by the power vested in me by the state of…” The power vested in him has nothing to do with the state at all, and should not be confused with the really important sense in which we were married.

  7. Innocent Bystander said: “Nothing, (and I mean NOTHING) changes with divorce law and conservatives covering for it until the majority of tall, educated, handsome, great-looking, and good earning professional men, collective decide to STOP marrying.”

    That nails it! All the books and articles mean nothing until men stop playing the game. It’s not exaggeration to say that this could be a hinge of history. There are as yet few signs of it happening. Watch the young men of Generation Z!

    Here is a three point series with more about this.:

    Will young men break America’s family structure?
    Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
    Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends on the answer.

  8. Jonathan Castle says:

    Feminism to the social engineers is really just:
    1) transference of women from homes to cubicles
    2) control of men through subservience to wife, corporation and state

    But the plan isn’t working great at the moment.
    1) less men are marrying, so men are uncontrolled and socially volatile
    2) women are becoming a burden in corporations and to the state with all the welfare

    Dalrock is so smart in seeing that the role of the ‘conservatives’ is to get men back into the system

  9. Jonathan Castle says:

    InnocentBystander, Frank K answered your question.

    Desirable/rich men ARE avoiding commitment. They don’t call themselves mgtow and maybe don’t see themselves as PUA’s either. But they are just playing the field – at their leisure – and avoiding legal entanglements.

    Still I would say it change nothing unless the social engineers blink and offer men a better marriage deal to get them back in the system. The slow movement towards joint custody may be intended as a sweetener, but I don’t think it’s enough to cause a male stampede back into married life.

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    It’s curious. The idea of a “marriage strike” by men has been discussed here in multiple essays by Dalrock since 2010 or so. Yet the same people keep re-discovering that idea as if no one else ever thought of it or chewed on the idea. Then some sort of “let’s get a mass movement going” blather follows; another idea that’s been chewed to bits here and other places in the manosphere over the last decade.

    I guess for some commenters, every day is Groundhog Day. Kind of sad to see.

  11. Frank K says:

    A ‘strike’ implies making demands and having those demands met before returning to ‘duty’.

    I don’t think that’s what’s happening. Men aren’t on strike, if anything some men are just walking away with no intention of returning.

  12. American says:

    So much wrong here. The hypergamy starts young. Will she grow up to become a sexually immoral single so-called “mother” like the womb she was conceived in?

  13. American says:

    Sorry about that. Somehow I copied the wrong link and there’s no way to edit the post. So, here’s the correct link: https://youtu.be/JIXeed2GE48

  14. white says:

    There is another way – one that I guess our host has hinted on numerous occasions in the past – and that is church leaders could actually start preaching the Biblical truth, hold women responsible for feminism and call them to repentance. And of course, condemn chivalry/courtly love as a terrible heresy that has gripped the church for many centuries. That way a genuine anti-feminist/chivalry movement could start from within the church, and Christ will be glorified.

    No doubt a prospect that terrifies conservative christians more than mgtow

  15. Pingback: Never forget the eager role of the conservative anvil. | Reaction Times

  16. Couple of comments:

    – In response to Anonymous, yes, I just purchased Deep Strength’s book. Thank you.

    – To marry or not marry… Still believe Christians should only have sex within marriage (state license is optional/irrelevant). This is a fertile area for men to start pushing back & reframing the issue (Godly marriage vs FemGod marriage of the state).

    – Marriage strike of sexy bachelors to “bring down the system.” Doubtful: “Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes because there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.” Additionally, feminists and divorce lawyers can/will begin to impose divorce law upon unmarried couples. So, not sure how to avoid an inevitable discussion of proper sex roles.

    This leads to a few conclusions:

    1. Men need to rebuild male-only spaces and clubs to sharpen each other as society becomes increasingly feminized (ultimately, men determine what is a “man” and this will counterbalance the propaganda).

    2. Men need to stay true to their faith in an increasingly hostile culture (the “good” is not found by utilitarianism or “amoral paxis”).

    3. Men will have to directly discuss proper sex roles with the women they date since they can no longer assume headship (this can be a good tool to filter the crazy blue-hairs from your life who will cause more problems).

    Many in Churchianity will be aghast… But, with the Truth on our side (compared to the perversion of Chivalry), Men being Men (led by God) will attract enough good and virtuous women to build a small, but sustainable community. This is part of our ministry to be the salt and light of the world.

  17. DeNihilist says:

    I’m just gonna leave this here. Delete if need be Dal.

    To see the future of the USAF, just look north gentlemen.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-canadian-forces-jobs-where-only-women-need-apply?fbclid=IwAR38JjbLNxnYvTnK1D5YAfQf8360WvwMRCIbIhqPPjDOGfDLjHpKXEUJu80

  18. Anon says:

    This is why cuckservatism is truly the ultimate loser ideology.

    Despite their cartoonish whiteknighting, cuckservatives are not hated by Democrats any less than the androsphere is.

    The entire goal of cuckservatives is to clutch pearls and make a pathetic show of contrived resistance, with the full intent of going with the left’s latest advance eventually anyway.

    As someone who had to sever ties with old friends who used to pressure me to donate money to cuckservative politicians (gag!), I know of what I speak.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    @MagnusStout

    Deep Strength needs positive reviews @Amazon. It would a good thing to get them in early, before the flying monkies of churchy feminism show up.

    Point 1: Le voila, the manosphere.
    Point 2: Eccolo, the Christian manosphere.
    Point 3: No Fear.

    Many in Churchianity will be aghast

    Good news! We’re there now! That interview/setup Warhorn ran on Dalrock is just one example. Bnonn’s early hit pieces are another example.

    5 years ago church leaders ignored the androsphere and anything red pill – now they are actively trying to keep men in their churches away from places such as Rollo’s and this one. Because “bitter red pill men”, and other reasons….no idea what those could be…Couldn’t be fear, right?

    PS: Agree with everything you wrote. Stick around right here, participate at Deep Strength’s blog, build your own if you want – it is all good.

  20. Anon says:

    MagnusScout,

    1) Shouldn’t men pointly question their pastors/priests about their views of feminism (and either stay or vote with their feet accordingly)?

    2) Should men completely abandon state marriage licenses (but still marry in Church)?

    Answers :

    i) Through a combination of their own blue-pill cowardice, and need to keep donation money flowing (which is entirely due to women hectoring their whipped husbands), no Pastorbator will change. Hence, you must vote with your feet. That is, unless you are a single guy with PUA inclinations, in which case there is an excellent solution via which you bring pleasure to yourself while accelerating the demise of the church and transferring the costs onto the cuckservatives : Sunday Morning Nightclub.

    ii) The Child Support regime (invented mostly by Republicans from the reddest of red states) is designed to thwart this strategy. The laws around CS are stricter, crueler, more air-tight, and more police-state-like than those around marriage, so your strategy will do nothing if you have children.

    The CS laws and enforcement apparatus is the closest thing to slavery as one can get without it formally being slavery, and undoubtedly are the most unjust laws the US has had over the last 150 years. Since bluehaired feminists are not familiar enough with families and fatherhood, they were not the ones who could have invented such a precise and pernicious legal apparatus; rather, cuckservatives from deep-red states were the architects of this tyranny (the likes of which does not even exist in Scandinavia).

  21. Anon says:

    A ‘marriage strike’ as an organized movement will never, ever happen. Nor is it necessary to accelerate the process of the snake eating its own tail.

    Rather, individual men just have to make their own decisions, and if that means that they don’t marry at all, that should be what they stick to. If 5 million men do the same, the aggregate effect of that can certainly pressure the existing system, but it is not an organized ‘strike’, and should not be called that.

  22. Rather, individual men just have to make their own decisions, and if that means that they don’t marry at all, that should be what they stick to. If 5 million men do the same, the aggregate effect of that can certainly pressure the existing system, but it is not an organized ‘strike’, and should not be called that.

    This is correct. Its not a strike. You can “bargain” with the union leaders calling for a strike. There is no bargaining (none what-so-ever) with millions of men each making individual decisions to opt-out and not marry. But that is not what I am seeing with MGTOW. What I see (unfortunately) is this crap.

    Look at how disgusting this MGTOW guy is? He’s bogus. What a ruin of a man. They are ALL ike that on youtube, all of them. No woman wants to fuck him or any of them. They don’t care if guys like this go MGTOW. Feminists do not even dignify this guy as a man and (really) they wish he would just hurry up, overdose on meth, and end himself. Seriously, are you really going MGTOW if no woman wants you?

    Nothing changes unless millions, tens of millions of great looking men with promising careers, promising futures, with so much to lose decide to go MGTOW. And really, if you asked these Bill Maher types what they were doing (being a bachelor for so long) they would never say they are MGTOW. They probably wouldn’t even know what MGTOW is They are too busy working hard and being successful to worry about the Red Pill. They would be kind, smile, and say some bullshit kind of like this….

    Well, I just haven’t met miss right yet.

    That would be charming. It would be a lie, but an unassailably charming lie. No pastorbator could ever attack that kind of magnificent bullshit. No feminist (who very much wants a man of means to sign up for threatpoint) could attack that logic either.

    Bill Maher did not need a Red Pill to avoid threatpoint. He knew from day one and took the necessary precautions to shield his life and his career from unintended ruin. And its a good thing (for him) because the women he cavorts with, they are gold-digging, feminist, cunts. They would take him for everything he’s got. But he knows the law and there are certain lines he will never cross. Until his situation is common for the uncommon man, nothing changes. And even if it DID change (and millions of quality men follow in Maher’s footsteps, maybe generation-Z?) it still would not be a strike.

  23. Anon says:

    This is where conservatives come in. The conservative anvil is every bit the willing tool of the feminist blacksmith as her man-smashing hammer.

    This is where androsphere men should not get fooled into thinking that a blue pill tradcon like RS McCain is red pill or even purple pill.

    Sure, he makes fun of fat, shaved-head feminists pretty often. But as soon as any red-pill truth emerges, he retreats and has a meltdown that blames all of ‘feminism’ on Democrats. He will never stop insisting that women who vote Republican are actively fighting ‘feminism’ by being Republican, nor will he ever say that anything is wrong with current laws around divorce and child custody.

    Don’t be fooled by this type of tradcon. He amps up his attacks on the weirdest trigglypuff-type ‘feminists’ as an avoidance mechanism since he is extremely committed to the narrative that the Republican party (and particularly Republican women) are actively fighting all the negative effects of feminism.

  24. Anon says:

    IBB said,

    And its a good thing (for him) because the women he cavorts with, they are gold-digging, feminist, cunts.

    Hey, we finally got IBB to admit that Ann Coulter is a feminist (albeit a milder one than most, at least to the extent that she shames single mothers). Ann Coulter and Bill Maher once dated and still socialize with each other frequently.

  25. Jonathan Castle says:

    InnocentBystander, what’s your point in bashing MGTOW guys?

    There is more to the story than whether they are all desired by women. When guys ‘go mgtow’ they also tend to re-prioritize their lives away from corporate America. No family means no need for 50 years of drudgery in the salt mines.

    THIS is actually more likely to get a reaction from the engineers behind feminism. It’s all about the Benjamins to them… feminists are just their foot-soldiers.

  26. Anon says:

    IBB,

    I see what you are saying, but Bill Maher is nowhere near the role model you make him out to be. His a lockstep Democrat in the Trump era, and routinely spouts tired old feminist talking points such as whining about the ‘pay gap’, or how Hillary never had extramarital affairs like Trump did.

    A better example for your purpose is Al Pacino, who never married. He did have children, but was above the wealth level where the worst aspects of the CS laws (imputation and imprisonment for non-payment) could apply to him.

    But no, it is not necessary for just the top guys to disengage. Even if working-class men disengage, it matters. If fewer and fewer men join the military, or work in trash collection or asphalt pouring, women will suffer as well.

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Jonathan Castle

    Consider that some of the most virulent haters of MGTOW are parents of 20-something girls – who are unmarried.

    Just an observation.

  28. Anon,

    I see what you are saying,

    Thank you.

    but Bill Maher is nowhere near the role model you make him out to be. His a lockstep Democrat in the Trump era, and routinely spouts tired old feminist talking points such as whining about the ‘pay gap’, or how Hillary never had extramarital affairs like Trump did.

    MGTOW is not (as far as I’m concerned) a “political movement.” There are no real “politics” for an individual man in deciding that marriage (in the United States) offers far too many financial risks with such strong divorce laws. So yeah, he pretty much is the near role model MGTOW needs. Of course someone like Bill Maher would never-ever sign up for that. As the Emperor (In “Gladiator”) said to his Spanish General who felt he was unqualified in ruling Rome:

    That is why it MUST be you

    The best MGTOW guys we’ve got, are the ones who don’t make a big deal out of it BUT so many women want them. That is the only way things change. And that is what I want, to change the game. The laws are evil, wickedness. I want them gone. Only MATH can make them gone. There is no threatpoint if too few men of means bother signing up for threatpoint. Then all of a sudden, everything collapses because no one is confiscating any more money.

    Jonathan,

    InnocentBystander, what’s your point in bashing MGTOW guys?

    I want the ugly, fat, short, low-IQ, unemployable guys on youtube (who really only want to monetize their words because that is the only way they know how to make money) to shut the hell up about MGTOW. What is my point? These losers are ruining a wonderful, game altering concept, by embarrassing themselves and the noble and entirely logical cause MGTOW offers men of means. Just shut up. You want to go MGTOW? No problem. But please, until you clean yourself up and learn how to speak properly, shut up about it.

  29. Anon says:

    IBB,

    What is my point? These losers are ruining a wonderful, game altering concept, by embarrassing themselves and the noble and entirely logical cause MGTOW offers men of means.

    Rest assured that no man decides to be an MGTOW, or not, based on the caliber of other men who call themselves MGTOW. By its very definition of being personal and decentralized, that cannot happen. I agree that incel MGTOW is not really MGTOW, as there wasn’t a choice in the first place.

    For example, that OmegaVirginRevolt/Real Peterman guy is a permavirgin + misanthrope who hates *everyone*, and has blogged for a decade, but he has not managed to taint MGTOW.

  30. 7817 says:

    You want to go MGTOW? No problem. But please, until you clean yourself up and learn how to speak properly, shut up about it.

    Beautifully stated. MGTOW’s aren’t the problem. MGTOW’s who have no social skills but are attention whores make everyone sick of hearing about MGTOW.

  31. Scott says:

    IBB-

    That was a weird video. WIthout context it made no sense to me.

    You’re right though. I am sure all the women on earth are super bummed out that he decided to wave off women.

  32. Anon says:

    Beautifully stated. MGTOW’s aren’t the problem. MGTOW’s who have no social skills but are attention whores make everyone sick of hearing about MGTOW.

    Well, the exact same is true of White Nationalism vs. the persons who personify it (White Trashionalists).

  33. Scott says:

    Hey, totally off topic. speaking of military experiences (from a previous thread) I watched this netfilx movie called “Triple Frontier” and here’s what I thought.

  34. illuvitus says:

    My wife and I, happily married for 18 years, have actually toyed with “divorcing” under the state, and remaining married before God, which to us is the only sense that really matters anyway. The state really has no business regulating or licensing marriage “under God”.

    It’s a trivial thing for a libertarian to say the government has no business being involved in marriage, but I think libertarianism has as many problems as liberalism and in practice is untenable.

    The state *must* care about marriages because marriages (through most of human history) are what produces children, and the state, if it is to be a just state, needs to make sure that (1) child-bearing and child-rearing are encouraged, (2) that marriages are maintained for the well-being of children, and (3) that children who are vulnerable due to dead or missing parents have provision. There’s also the problem of contracts and ownership. And, if the state ever even has a hope of dealing with households instead of individuals (which would be vastly preferable to our radically individualist system), there has to be some sort of state acknowledgement of marriage.

    Now, I know all of this makes less sense today with a state actively opposing all of those things, harming children and breaking down marriages with machine-like precision, but that doesn’t mean the idea itself is bad. A good government should and must be interested in marriages. We have a bad government that abuses this power, but that doesn’t mean they ought not to have the power in the first place any more than governments can abuse the power of military force even though such a force is necessary.

  35. Scott says:

    illuvitus-

    Yep. Dimensions of homogeneity are key for a “nation” to exist. The cultureal phenomenon of marriage is one way in which this would be espressed in a rational, Christian society. 300 million individual atomized economic cosumption units is not a “nation.” The defunct marriage system is a symptom, not the cause.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    MGTOW’s who have no social skills but are attention whores make everyone sick of hearing about MGTOW.

    Don’t you have to actively go look for them? I read a number of sites and don’t run across many MGTOW at all. On the other hand, I do not spend time on YouTubers or podcasts. If you have to go find them, then … don’t do that.

    Some people are mighty sensitive about MGTOW for no obvious reason.

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    @illufutus

    You’re fighting what “is” with what “ought to be”. I “ought” to be able to ride a unicorn up the rainbow…

  38. cshort says:

    @illuvitus –

    The problem with your argument is that state licensing of marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Federal government didn’t recognize marriage until 1913 and it wasn’t until 1929 that all states even had marriage licenses.

    The problem is the active interference by the state with the structure of families and the perverse incentives that current law provides for its destruction, not the recognition of some specific form of relationship’s existence by the state.

  39. illuvitus says:

    “The problem with your argument is that state licensing of marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Federal government didn’t recognize marriage until 1913 and it wasn’t until 1929 that all states even had marriage licenses.”

    Don’t confuse licensing with recognition. States have recognized marriages since the beginning of recorded history and probably earlier.

    Keep in mind too that until the United States and our relatively recent concept of religious liberty, a state church was just taken for granted (every state had one), and state churches absolutely did maintain marriage records and enforce them. So the United States may have been one of the first secular governments to do so and our licensing system may be recent, but that’s an artefact from the peculiar lack of a state church here and our federal/state system.

  40. illuvitus says:

    @cshort:

    The problem is the active interference by the state with the structure of families and the perverse incentives that current law provides for its destruction, not the recognition of some specific form of relationship’s existence by the state.

    As I said in my previous comment, there has been a hierarchy overseeing marriage in every state for thousands of years. That’s not a 20th century invention. What’s new, among other things, is that the state is trying to abolish fatherhood by trying to play the role. State acknowledgement of marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient for this, and I don’t think the two are related.

  41. Anonymous Reader says:

    Keep in mind too that until the United States and our relatively recent concept of religious liberty, a state church was just taken for granted (every state had one),

    Treaty of Westphalia have any significance to you?

    and state churches absolutely did maintain marriage records and enforce them.

    You’re not ready for this discussion. There’s 2,000 years of history just for a start, and “marriage records” didn’t exist for a bunch of those years. The first 300 years when Rome was persecuting Christians just for a start. Some rural Roman in Gaul under the Emperor Constantine would have a different “marriage record” than some peasant in the same area under any of several King Louis’s.
    None of this matters. The state is a 3rd party to every marriage in the Western world now, including the lesbian and gay “marriages”, and probably in a few years the polymarriages. So what?

    Look, you’re all wrapped up in some kind of “ought”. That will blind you to what “is”. Specifically, the US has a “child support” model, not a “marriage model” and it’s been that way for over 20 years.

    Geeze. Whatever ideal “ought” you have in mind is not going to happen in the US.

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    As I said in my previous comment, there has been a hierarchy overseeing marriage in every state for thousands of years.

    Citation needed. Start with the Aztecs before Cortez…

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    @illuvitus
    Le’s be more specific. Prior to the Council of Verona in 1184, what sort of oversight existed vis a vis the church and marriage? How about the various secular authorities?

    Thanks for the rabbit trail, I did learn something. However, you’re wrapped around your “ought” way too tightly.

  44. illuvitus says:

    Nah, I’m out. Disagreement is all good, but I don’t deal well with aggressive argumentativeness. You can have the last word.

  45. Hank Flanders says:

    I wonder if Tim Bayly would be so cavalier about women who go to their pastors and elders for help regarding husbands who aren’t being loving toward them. Also, maybe I’m not understanding, but I can’t see anything but complete contradictions in Bayly’s essay like below:

    Certainly the elders’ authority extends to admonishing and rebuking for sins in the home and family. The Apostles do this regularly in the New Testament, but never are the pastors and elders of Scripture said to be responsible for the order in other men’s homes.

    Which is it? Do sins in the home and family fall within an elder’s jurisdiction or not? Are the “home and family” Bayly describes references to the home church and the congregation within the church only? Would a husband or wife’s infidelity or a teen’s substance abuse problem fall within the elders’ jurisdiction, or would those just be sins within other men’s homes that don’t fall within the authority and jurisdiction of the elders? I can’t tell.

  46. Asaph says:

    Wut? You refuted your own arguments.
    So, when are you going to stop living in Disneyland?
    Marriage worked perfectly well before the state got involved.
    You assume that the state is the only way to enforce morality. This will inevitably result in the removal of personal responsibility from individuals within communities. Which results in broken communities and broken families.
    Maybe you should focus on building communities rather than justifying the planting of the seeds of their destruction.

  47. Asaph says:

    Good one

  48. Asaph says:

    Pock pock pock pock

  49. Eric says:

    I don’t even know what the point of arguing about state authority in marriage is.

    According to Romans 13, every soul is to be subject to the governing powers. They are appointed by God.

    According to our government, every man is to be subject to the woman in any relationship, married or not. Any man who asserts Biblical prerogatives, is, at the least, an emotional abuser.

    According to the Bible, men are to lead, and wives are to be subject. Also according to the Bible, we are to be sexually chaste, and to observe every commandment of the government that does not contradict God.

    I don”t see how one can have a lawful and righteous relationship and still be obedient at the same time. There is no way to fully obey in the west without celibacy. Either we justify disobeying one or the other, or we die single and childless and obedient. I guess.

    Does anyone ever get the feeling that one’s existence is for the sake of satiating the amusement of others?

  50. JRob says:

    @Eric
    An observation to follow your point. In evangelical churches in flyover country, they’re running out of elders/deacons who can meet the standards in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-9. The churches that give this concept lip service ay leasy. Their women go feral and help their daughters do the same. Thus the “real” church leadership in many cases are the scowling Threatpointers sitting with arms folded keeping their doormat husband “leaders” in line.

    These same dudes are the ones who are supposed to guide relationships. We know where that ends up.

  51. JRob says:

    Should read “at least”

  52. illuvitus says:

    Marriage worked perfectly well before the state got involved.

    The state has -always- been involved in marriage. State laws against incest are ancient, and laws against polygamy became increasingly common in the first few centuries AD. In the classical Greek world, each city had its own laws governing marriage to some degree.

    I would very much like to see a return to households instead of individuals as the smallest unit of society, but that is impossible if the government doesn’t acknowledge the binding contract between a husband and wife – if it ignores this, there’s no such thing as a “household”, only a group of people living together.

    The state has adopted feminism just like large swathes of the American church. That doesn’t mean the state is wrong in principle to be involved in marriage any more than the church would be wrong in principle to be involved in marriage. Again, I don’t know how you get around it.

    You assume that the state is the only way to enforce morality. This will inevitably result in the removal of personal responsibility from individuals within communities. Which results in broken communities and broken families.

    I don’t assume the state is the only way to enforce morality. But it certainly is -a- way, and is one of the primary ways. All laws, even traffic laws, are expressions and impositions of morality. That’s the nature of law.

    Maybe you should focus on building communities rather than justifying the planting of the seeds of their destruction.

    The right way to phrase this is a sentiment I see expressed everywhere: “focus on your own personal interactions instead of using the state to achieve your ends”. But I disagree with that completely. It’s not an either/or question. Why should we cede the state to people who have demonstrated a total inability to govern in these matters?

  53. feministhater says:

    Some guys are mighty pissed off at MGTOW on this comment section. It matters not.

    Go worry about yourselves, gents. If MGTOW are losers, it doesn’t matter. Your argument falls flat.

  54. feministhater says:

    Beautifully stated. MGTOW’s aren’t the problem. MGTOW’s who have no social skills but are attention whores make everyone sick of hearing about MGTOW.

    Then don’t go looking for it. If you look for it, you are to blame. You’re the problem here, not these MGTOW men.

  55. feministhater says:

    If you type MGTOW into a search engine. You are to blame.

  56. Emperor Constantine says:

    Michael Foster had a subtle dig at Rollo and Andrew Tate this morning on Twitter, basically saying that if you want to talk about wives and mothers listen to him, if you want to go after thots, listen to Rollo and Andrew.

    Sigh. We have this epidemic of poorly formed Christian women whose feral behavior is encouraged by the culture, law, and Church, who are openly hypergamous, who think promiscuity is fun and not sinful.

    And yet his reaction is: ignore the men who tell you how to actually navigate these very dangerous waters in heavy seas, who have the charts, GPS systems, strength, experience and savvy to avoid running aground or sinking in such conditions, and instead just GO FOR IT. Run your ship at full speed through shoals and if you ride the waves just right you’ll make it. Maybe.

    The Red Pill message and especially Rollo (I think Rollo has 3 active YouTube channels, the 21Convention, Pat Campbell’s radio show, etc.) are clearly being heard now by Christian men, and the pastors are getting worried.

    The “Man up and marry those sluts” message is taking on water. Let’s turn off the pumps and blow a few more holes in that ship so she sinks more rapidly.

  57. Otto says:

    …the majority of the men who go MGTOW have nothing to lose. They are MGTOW not because they are Bill Maher but because no feminist (really no woman) would have them. They are some combination of short, fat, low-IQ, ugly, uneducated, unemployed/unemployable with zero confidence or social skills.

    People with low IQs do not engage in the type of philosophical discussions that produced the MGTOW movement. It’s unlikely that any men who have gone MGTOW for philosophical reasons are below average in IQ.

    Now, if you are describing men who are “MGTOW” because no woman will have them, that’s not really MGTOW, it’s more like being incel (involuntarily celibate).

  58. MK Riker says:

    FYI Bayly’s marriage series started the day after he and I had a twitter back-and-forth regarding the second warhorn manosphere podcast:

    My thread about the podcast starts here: https://twitter.com/MKRiker2/status/1103322524782288897

    And I was writing about the age-old “Pastors give husbands all the responsibility but none of the authority” and talking about a commenter at Sound of Sanity who said the only tools husbands have is ‘patience and willingness to suffer,’ and how that flips the role of husbands/wives as husbands are basically being told to win over their wives without a word…”

    Anyways Bayly chimes in and you can follow that side-thread here:

    And I go after him because according to his own words pastors/elders actually have more authority/power (public censure / bar from sacraments / excommunicate) over wives than their own husbands do!

    He started his marriage series the day after, which still, a month and a half and (5) blog posts later, hasn’t actually discussed any authority/power Christian husbands have over their wives as sanctioned by the church/scripture.

    These pastors are the enemies of husbands. Thanks for all of your work, Dalrock. You’ve inspired me to spread the truth further and further.

  59. Otto says:

    Look at how disgusting this MGTOW guy is? He’s bogus. What a ruin of a man. They are ALL ike that on youtube, all of them. No woman wants to fuck him or any of them. They don’t care if guys like this go MGTOW. Feminists do not even dignify this guy as a man and (really) they wish he would just hurry up, overdose on meth, and end himself. Seriously, are you really going MGTOW if no woman wants you?

    Oh, some woman wants him, but no woman worth having wants him.

    But being in that situation, is swearing off women rather than accepting one that would make his life miserable an irrational decision.

    I agree though, that his attitude is odious. It is no different than a woman who is a 5 (at best) complaining about the quality of men she is attracting and that she expects a Brad Pitt type.

  60. Bee says:

    Jonadab-the-R had this same experience when he talked to the Pastor of his church about his wife sex refusing them. He wrote about it as a long comment over at BiblicalGenderRoles.com. I forget which post it was a comment on.

  61. feministhater says:

    I agree though, that his attitude is odious. It is no different than a woman who is a 5 (at best) complaining about the quality of men she is attracting and that she expects a Brad Pitt type.

    Does it matter? Does it harm you? He is well within his right to speak his mind. What IBB and others are asking for is for him to ‘shut up’ when they have no right to ask such. What they are demanding is self censorship.

  62. Christopher Conrad Nystrom says:

    If we followed the Bible and stopped marrying divorced women (Luke 16:18) there would be no need for a marriage strike.

  63. feministhater says:

    I want the ugly, fat, short, low-IQ, unemployable guys on youtube (who really only want to monetize their words because that is the only way they know how to make money) to shut the hell up about MGTOW. What is my point? These losers are ruining a wonderful, game altering concept, by embarrassing themselves and the noble and entirely logical cause MGTOW offers men of means. Just shut up. You want to go MGTOW? No problem. But please, until you clean yourself up and learn how to speak properly, shut up about it.

    They sure got your panties in a bunch though… Haha! Why are you so pissed off by a bunch of loser men who can’t get laid? They don’t answer to you. You do get that, right? They don’t have to shut up, they don’t have to listen to you. The whole point is for them to go do their own thing, free of your expectations. They’re doing just that and you’re having a pissing fit over it. Get over yourself. You’re nothing to these men. Less than nothing. What do you offer them? Nothing.

    So… shut up.

  64. This is not a little bit hilarious.
    Christians keep circling the drain arguing the wrong points with each other over and over again.

    Rights, power and authority must be commensurate with responsibility and accountability.

    Without this, men and women only succeed to create a rod for their own backs.
    Your reward for insistence on zero authority with ALL encompassing legal, financial and social responsibility and accountability will be human pain, suffering, withdrawal, indifference, sexual deviance, social dysfunction, familial breakdown and pervasive injustice.
    Just listen to them. Women have already arrived at desolation station.

    The Christian church – which one could easily argue does not even exist anymore – and its ignorant adherents turned this functional equation upside down entirely, and then somehow still expect human behavior to continue as it had once before. All Christians are doing now is arguing, complaining and denying their own ignorance as to what went wrong and how to fix it.

    There is a solution, however.
    It’s remarkably simple.
    But men in the Christian Church, and within society as a whole, obviously lack the testicular fortitude to implement it.
    The solution is to rescind women’s rights (right to vote, right to exclusive and preferential set asides, quotas, preferential treatment), and to reinstate patriarchal control.

    It’s not too late.
    Thing is, this is going to happen regardless. It’s inevitable.
    Whether Christian men find their testicles in time, or whether our Muslim friends (conquerors) simply wield theirs, matters not anymore.
    But do not doubt for one moment that this isn’t the destination where this is all headed.
    And the great thing is – either way – they will say it is “ordained by God!”.
    For gynocentrism is unsustainable long term.
    This harem-centric sexual marketplace will not last. It will end in revolt, lawlessness, violence and then a restoration of a more despotic model.

  65. Also, Happy Easter everyone!

  66. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    the majority of the men who go MGTOW have nothing to lose.

    I’m not so sure. Certainly, the Alphas aren’t going MGTOW. But many Beta Providers are. Some of us just aren’t thirsty enough to take a risk on the sloppy seconds.

    I’m no Alpha. I struggled to get dates in my 20s and 30s. But it was getting easier in my late 30s. By my 40s it was much easier. By then I was financially very well off. By my 50s I no longer had to work unless I wanted to.

    However, I’ve long since given up on women, because I can’t attract any that I want. Not at my age. Plus, I’m not tall, I’m boring and, while not obese, I’m soft-bodied. All I can attract are middle-aged single moms and bitter divorcees, fat and tatted, seeking a Provider. No, thanks.

    The MGTOW movement isn’t taking Alphas out of the SMP. Women in their 20s remain unaffected. But MGTOW is removing Beta Providers from the MMP. Older women, who are ready to settle, are indeed hurt by MGTOW.

  67. JRob says:

    @EC
    Did Foster let us know who will school us on thots who sit in church?

    AR’s “ought” applies here.

  68. Wagner Tench says:

    I think it really is fascinating to watch my generation (twenty-something young men) adopting more and more red pill ideas and terminology. The funniest thing to watch is the reactions of women to men who advocate parts of redpill philosophy. The most eye-opening moments for me at college and in my high school church were watching what an attractive, charismatic man can get away with saying or doing if he did it with a ZFG attitude and a charming smile.
    On the other hand, a beta who says something unacceptable immediately elicits a “corrective” reaction from women.

    The truth, I think, is that as more and more attractive men take a stand for their personal sovereignty and interests in relationships and family, women will naturally fall in line not because they are collectively afraid, but because women as a group are very happy to submit to a strong, attractive man in order to marry him. And since men are able to clearly observe the sheer devotion and love women display toward alphas and attractive men who hold their frame, contrasted with the bitchiness, restrictions, and demands foisted on betas, they are remodeling their approaches to getting women in order to become more successful.

    Of course, then the question becomes whether they will successfully betaize him or use the state’s authority as a bargaining chip, but if attractive men are savvy enough to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable positions, the women WILL follow.

    Most pastors I’ve met have been blue pilled betas, with very few being actual alphas, and the result is that they are entirely unequipped to minister to the young men in their midst who need practical advice for attracting women and being strong, good men. Pasyors have tremendous potential to improve the men in their congregations if they took the time to tend to their interests now and then.

  69. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I agree that MGTOW is not a political movement. It’s a social phenomenon. It has no philosophy, no leaders, no goals. It’s simply the aggregate result of millions of individual choices.

    Some men analyze MGTOW. Some advocate it. Some criticize it. But irrespective of all the chatter, MGTOW is happening, following its own course.

    Some men are born MGTOW. Some men achieve MGTOW. And some men have MGTOW thrust upon them.

  70. Novaseeker says:

    First, Happy Easter to all the Western Christians here! We in the East have one more week to go this year.

    There are MGTOWs and there are incels. There is an overlap between these two groups, in that there are some incels who say that they are MGTOW when in fact they are incels (the difference is that MGTOWs actually choose to avoid long term relations/marriages with women, whereas incels have no choice in the matter), and so that has the impact of “muddying the water” when it is the incel crowd that is “speaking for” MGTOWs, when in fact the actual MGTOWs are not incels.

    @IBB —

    Nothing changes unless millions, tens of millions of great looking men with promising careers, promising futures, with so much to lose decide to go MGTOW.

    That will never happen, so you’re basically waiting for something to happen that isn’t going to happen. Why? Because a large portion of those men (these are the actual top men — guys who are tall (less than 16% is taller than 6 feet in USA), in great shape, great looking, great career, promising futures. good social skills … that’s not tens of millions of guys under 35, by the way, it may be be 1-2 million or less, once you apply of those filters … have quite good odds of finding one of the better women to marry — women who are also very good looking, well educated, feminine and family-oriented (not necessarily SAHM). I know because I personally know a disproportionate number of these guys. They get married and they generally stay married, and their wives, while typically not HB8+, are at least high 6s and mostly 7s. And they have 2-3 kids and don’t get divorced (some do, but the rate is quite low). The system more or less works for these guys, so they’re going to continue to follow the system. The only way this behavior would significantly change would be if marriage really started to crash in this social class — the higher part of the middle and upper middle classes of good looking, educated, prosperous professionals … and that hasn’t happened, and doesn’t appear particularly close to happening. They’re aware that there are problems with marriage overall in the culture, but since it impacts “other people”, they don’t really care that much about them.

    I do agree with your point that women couldn’t care less about the vocal MGTOWs, because many of them are of the incel variety and women couldn’t care less about incels, for good reason. The only way women would care about MGTOW at all is if it were quite a bit larger than it is, and if it had the top 20% in it, which it doesn’t and won’t (see prior paragraph).

    There will always be a small percentage of people who are incel, in both sexes but more on the male side (trait distributions are more male at both tails). The issue now is that the internet permits them to aggregate and commiserate in a way that wasn’t possible before, as has been the case with other marginal groups (trans, “genderqueer” and so on). Best to note them and move along, because no-one, male or female, cares about what they have to say, and for good reason — there will always be a small number of incels. Just genetics – nothing you can do about that.

    @RedPillLatecomer

    But MGTOW is removing Beta Providers from the MMP. Older women, who are ready to settle, are indeed hurt by MGTOW.

    I agree that there is some impact there. However, I don’t think most women care about that because they view those women as kind of damaged to begin with. Women as a group will only start to really care when attractive, educated, successful women in their 20s and 30s are mostly having a lot of trouble finding suitable husbands (not on the margins, which is happening now, but in the main, which isn’t happening).

  71. Otto says:

    But MGTOW is removing Beta Providers from the MMP. Older women, who are ready to settle, are indeed hurt by MGTOW.

    This is an area where MGTOW thinking may be having an impact.

    I’m an older guy who would probably be in some demand if my marriage ended (tall, not terribly overweight, not unattractive, make good money, look younger than my age). Would I ever remarry? Oh hell no. I might date or have a relationship with a woman, but marry again–not a chance.

    I’m sure there are plenty of divorced guys in the 50’s, 40’s & even 30’s who feel the same way. They’ve done the marriage thing, had the kids, and see no advantage to marrying again (and lots of disadvantages).

    To never-married women in their 30’s (and older) and divorced women, these men are their prime candidates for finding a husband, and those candidates are withdrawing themselves. Over the next decade, I expect a lot more “why won’t he commit” stories about older women and older men.

  72. Opus says:

    The linked video is on topic. I always liked Chuck Berry – I purchased one of his singles when a teenager – and much like his teenage-wedding song rendered in the video. Springsteen, I have never sat down to listen to but have had to endure his dreary U.S.A. song. Being neither American nor Blue Collar I am not going to judge the merits of the video but I think it interesting. The BBC banned Berry’s (failed to play in their terminology) Ding-a-Ling song – recorded live in England – which going to Number 1 and on both sides of the Atlantic is a further instance of Streisand effect by drawing attention to what otherwise might be missed. It is also a case as with Brexit of the elite being entirely out of touch with popular opinion with their as Hamlet put it ‘flattering unction’ as to themselves or as we would say feigned moral superiority. Most of the time I observe that most people are married which is why MgTOW is unlikely to have much effect. Most men when not married are Incel as are so many who are.

    I was just looking through my record collection – vinyl I mean – and noted that – I am talking serious music here – that I have just four discs by Americans – though that is four more than say by the Dutch, Spanish or the Swedes; three being film scores and one being Ballet music and by three composers all of whom were Jewish (two from Bernstein (west), and one each from Copland and Korngold, the Korngold being the last vinyl album I bought new – back in 1986). What does that say! – No Gottschalk, Paine, Ives, Chadwick, Hanson or Piston. Oh dear.

  73. Ex Philo says:

    Happy Easter.

  74. white says:

    @contrainedlocus

    “The solution is to rescind women’s rights (right to vote, right to exclusive and preferential set asides, quotas, preferential treatment), and to reinstate patriarchal control.”

    Typical Complementarian: “But WHO has the RESPONSIBILITY to do this????”

    And the entire conversation starts all over again… everything you told him up to that point is instantly wiped away. As Dalrock puts it:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/

  75. 7817 says:

    The MGTOWS that may be having an impact, you won’t hear from. They are the guys that really are going their own way.

  76. Opus says:

    It is a beautiful day here and at 6pm I went along to the nearest Anglican Church for their service. I was keen to see the church which I had never previously visited as the organist was once the composer Cuthbert H.Cronk an alumnae of the RAM who still gets a few performances and who was in the last years of the Nineteenth Century my Grandmother’s teacher of Pianoforte. I have inherited through her a printed copy of one of his pieces.

    This was my experience this evening: the church would have been built sometime after 1850 with wooden ceilings but is light and airy with pillars and naves to each side of the central aisle. It has a large organ. The pews have however been removed and seats have been placed in the semi-round. Television screens on the pillars ensure that those sitting at the very rear (me) have a perfect view of the celebrant. There were about sixty attendees all of whom were white and I would presume British – most of whom were young and there seemed to be a fair number of unattached young females – so this I thought must be the famed Sunday Morning night-club. To add to that view there was on the altar was a rock band but the amplification was awful as was the song they performed – it is true that the Devil has the best tunes but even Satan would have rejected that one. A woman came and told us something or other about Jesus then another woman came and read from St Mark – the tomb being empty. She referred to Father God. this was new to me and usually a name change implies something wrong with the product much as Coloured People are now People of Colour, God the Father is now Father God – at least God had not had a sex change and I suppose I should have been thankful for that. Then came another song, the sort of song that was new when Abba that most blue pilled of groups were flourishing. Indeed it sounded like Abba but the sort of song their record label would have told them have to proceed with. Then a man came on stage and was introduced as ‘Dick’ .He was wearing a short sleeved shirt and slacks. He, I realised, had to be the Vicar. He began to talk about the important news this week – Notre Dame, or the Meuller report or even Brexit you might think – not so – apparently there had been a pink-themed protest in London as to ‘climate change’ – another concept which has morphed – from Global warming – although as my friend has often pointed out, in the 1970s the fear was of a new ice age. These people cannot keep their story straight. The Vicar described this as the crisis of our age at which I started laughing and feeling it was time to go stood up and exited. The Vicar must have observed my behaviour because in the most sheepish of voices he asked the remaining congregation whether they agreed with his assessment of the situation.

    It was great to be once again out in the sunshine and so I rewarded myself with the purchase of an ice cream. Next I will try a church a little further away. I have heard great things about the Rev Ronnie who is African and black and speaks with a terrible French accent but I am feeling confident that he will be the real deal.

  77. Bee says:

    MKT,

    “He started his marriage series the day after, which still, a month and a half and (5) blog posts later, hasn’t actually discussed any authority/power Christian husbands have over their wives as sanctioned by the church/scripture.”

    Several months ago, on Twitter, Prince Asbel asked Tim Bayly what tools a husband could use to correct a wayward wife. Tim blocked him so fast my head spun.

  78. Frank K says:

    The Vicar described this as the crisis of our age at which I started laughing and feeling it was time to go stood up and exited.

    It is my understanding that our local Episcopalian congregation has the same issues, and that a majority of the flock left and joined the local Orthodox parish.

  79. Frank K says:

    Then a man came on stage and was introduced as ‘Dick’ .He was wearing a short sleeved shirt and slacks. He, I realised, had to be the Vicar.

    From the description I think that this wasn’t even a proper Communion service, or are Anglican Vicars no longer required to wear vestments or follow the Book of Common Prayer for services?

  80. Frank K says:

    First, Happy Easter to all the Western Christians here! We in the East have one more week to go this year.

    And a Happy Orthodox Palm Sunday to you 🙂

  81. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Pregnant stand-up comedy is the hot new thing: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/arts/pregnant-comedians-amy-schumer-ali-wong.html

    Amy Schumer has had a rough pregnancy. But that didn’t stop her from getting on stage in high-heeled boots and taping a stand-up special for Netflix.

    “I throw up an ‘Exorcist’ amount every day,” said Schumer, who has an extreme form of nausea and vomiting called hyperemesis.

    Ha, ha. Such wit. It’s like Oscar Wilde reincarnated.

    “If you had a good pregnancy, like if you’re someone who enjoyed being pregnant,” she said, putting her hand over her heart, “I just hope your car flips over.”

    Ho, ho. My belly is aching.

    Men have dominated stand-up comedy since before the days of Jack Benny. But as women have elbowed their way onto the stage more often, one kind of performance has been hard not to notice: pregnant comedians popping up on high-profile comedy specials, late-night shows, and in clubs.

    No longer seen as something vaguely unhip that gets in the way of the act and the microphone stand, a baby on the way is now a rich source of stand-up material: stretch marks, placentas and all.

  82. Opus says:

    @Frank K

    The problem is me. I much want to feel at ease in the Anglican Communion – these are after all my people and everyone here is default CofE – but as has often been observed Anglicans are the British political establishment at prayer and that is both trendily left-wing and very middle-of-the-road. I am sure the congregation found the rock music, the mufti – yes it was a communion service – the left wing causes and the females reading the scriptures all perfectly normal. I don’t, and yet watching some footage of last weeks Palm Sunday service in Notre Dame (all smells and bells) that just did not put me at ease, either. I like the Quakers in their simplicity but that can turn very much into new-agey feelz. I might like the Orthodox but that would feel almost as alien I fear as if I were to attend a Synagogue or Mosque.

    This is the second time this month I have rushed away from an Anglican Church. I can’t keep doing that.

  83. feeriker says:

    Striving with excellence after your mission within your own frame, without being distracted by thots, is precisely what Christian men should do

    Unfortunately the world isn’t full of women like @PineWoodsRunner @westerninfidel @laalex2 & yr wife

    Michael and the rest of the Churchian Chiefs Club couldn’t care less about the fact that what they see in their own wives is characteristic of fewer than one percent of the total female population even in the church today. They’ve got theirs (or so they think; Chuck Stanley could set them straight on that score). Every other man is a loser who is just SOL.

    Several months ago, on Twitter, Prince Asbel asked Tim Bayly what tools a husband could use to correct a wayward wife. Tim blocked him so fast my head spun.

    Imagine if he had asked Bayly for advice on how to correct a pastor who was perverting, obfuscating, or omitting Scriptural truth.

  84. Frank K says:

    @Opus

    The “smells and bells” isn’t a weekly occurrence in your typical RCC parish, except during special times like Palm Sunday or Easter. During “ordinary time” they won’t burn incense or ring bells while the Gloria is sung, though to be honest I like it when they do that.

    I suppose you could contact your Diocese and ask if there is a “high church” parish you could attend, though that still might not be what you want. If the celebrant is a butch lesbian it won’t matter if she wears vestments and strictly follows the Book of Common Prayer. It is my understanding that there is a “Traditional Anglican” church in the USA that is not in communion with Canterbury, but I learned that despite their claim of being “traditional” they have Priestesses.

  85. Jake says:

    Going galt is not somethingyou spend a lot of time talking about to the people you profess not to care about. It doesn’t make an impact ifyou spend a lot of time signaling to the people you pretend not to care about. Yes the guy in the video is pathetic. Its not true that no woman would want him. No such thing as an incel. Just becausethe top sixty percent of women would reject him out of hand doesn’t make him an incel. Attractive women wanting to sleep with you is not a necessarily positive trait.

    Please remember he was lied to. His whole life. He was told nice! He was told feminist! He was told to care abouther opinions and to treat her good. He is not mad because the quiet submissive woman who reserves herself forher husband won’t sleep with him. He rightly regards a woman who sleeps around as trash. A woman who has never guarded her chastity as a precious gift. He is willing to overlook all the garbage and baggage. He knows what he is offering, but regards it as more valuable than a pump and dump from chad. He was told that’s what women want and he rightly regards the woman who debases herself with AF and gets mistreated as recieving the short end ofthe stick. He knows he’s unattractive but it’s a better deal than she’s currently getting.

    I get the rage. He offered her a good deal that was in line with what he was told women care about and now he is regarded as not a pariah, but dangerous. Something to be rounded up and put in a camp before he hurts someone. Because loose women find him unattractive and don’t want to bed him. And this mgtow thing is his next step in seeking status and it’s pathetic because he still doesn’t get it. Going your own way has nothing to do with status. He feels the need to talk about it and it just puts the lie to the whole shebang.

    Ibb’s irrational hatred is odd. “Shut up you dumpy loser you are making me look bad” is the best rationalization i can come up with. Mgtow isn’t “cool” you can’t get the right influencer to come forward and make it cool. The best way to game it would be “I’m only into chicks who love fat guys who know way too much about legos and have big titties”. “I like to bang women to the Imperial March. I realize not everyone’s into that”

    Actually not caring

  86. The Age demanded that we dance /
    Then jammed us into iron pants /
    And in the end the Age was handed /
    The sort of shit that it demanded.

  87. Re: Marriage Strike

    Every woman will always get a bid of some sort from some man, the question is about the quality of the bid she gets, never about whether or not she gets a bid at all. Any woman will always get a bid, even a prison psycho or a 600lb warthog. When she’s young and pretty, the bids are of much higher quality than when she’s not so young and pretty. You can hear it in the lament “Where have all the good men gone”, what she’s really saying is “The quality of the bids I’m getting are no good anymore.”

    A “marriage strike” will never show up as a strike, it’ll show up as the only men who are willing to bid on women for marriage keeps degrading in quality. Either they’ll be desperate betas with no clue how the current world works in the current year or they’ll be perpetually broke dudeweedlmao-types who have no real earning power and nothing to lose from the inevitable divorce. I think a marriage strike would show up as an increasingly loud chorus of “Where have all the good men gone” or “These manbabies need to grow up”, which is what we’ve been seeing in the 21st century.

    I think the most you can do in the current year is educate young men what a minefield it is out there and how to see and avoid the big hazards. Betabux is a losing strategy in this era, if you do make money, you make it for yourself, to use and enjoy by yourself. Otherwise you don’t need it, at least not to the extent the rest of society needs you to anyway.

  88. Red Pill Latecomer says:

  89. feministhater says:

    I think the most you can do in the current year is educate young men what a minefield it is out there and how to see and avoid the big hazards. Betabux is a losing strategy in this era, if you do make money, you make it for yourself, to use and enjoy by yourself. Otherwise you don’t need it, at least not to the extent the rest of society needs you to anyway.

    Sound advise.

  90. greyghost531 says:

    Still posting up those MGTOW christian articles huh Dalrock? Looks like the church is all in on the racket.

  91. Jake,

    Ibb’s irrational hatred is odd. “Shut up you dumpy loser you are making me look bad” is the best rationalization i can come up with.

    Oh I don’t have them. I feel sorry for them. Its not hatred. I just want them to stop embarrassing themselves.

    MGTOW is a perfectly rational decision. And MGTOW (if enough of the quality men decide to “opt out”) changes the game. And that is what I want, CHANGE. I want things to change and I want change now. But MGTOW is ONLY going to force change if just barely enough of the Bill Mahers all individually decide to do exactly what Bill Maher has done. These current yahoos on youtube with their MGTOW rants, they are not going to change anything. They are just making fools of themselves and making people believe that all MGTOWs are nothing more than incels.

  92. greyghost531 says:

    MGTOW or not marriage is gone. And ironically with the state of marriage including in the church as posted only a desperate or ignorant fool would pursue a relationship let alone marriage with a woman. the irony is no woman can respect nor is at any level of society even required to respect a man that wants or needs more than sex from a woman.

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    Illuvitus
    The state has -always- been involved in marriage.

    Repeating this falsehood does not make it true. If you wish to assert a big claim, bring big evidence.
    Otherwise you are just handwaving.

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    JRob
    @EC
    Did Foster let us know who will school us on thots who sit in church?

    Foster probably has a little bit of the Madonna/whore mindset going. on. It’s a form of denial.

    One of the features of The Glasses is the ability to see Indicators of Interest in real time or close to real time. This can lead to some interesting interactions in churches. Chatting up a college girl casually asking about her weekend and watching the sudden tensing of muscles around her eyes, for example. Followed by a bit of visible relief when the topic turns away to picnics.

  95. info says:

    @constrained locus

    That image fits better with the risen jesus. Not his crucifixion.

  96. info says:

    @AR
    The real madonna is a whore with her husband. That thought process is a false dichotomy

  97. info says:

    @Novaseeker
    ”I do agree with your point that women couldn’t care less about the vocal MGTOWs, because many of them are of the incel variety and women couldn’t care less about incels, for good reason. The only way women would care about MGTOW at all is if it were quite a bit larger than it is, and if it had the top 20% in it, which it doesn’t and won’t (see prior paragraph).

    There will always be a small percentage of people who are incel, in both sexes but more on the male side (trait distributions are more male at both tails). The issue now is that the internet permits them to aggregate and commiserate in a way that wasn’t possible before, as has been the case with other marginal groups (trans, “genderqueer” and so on). Best to note them and move along, because no-one, male or female, cares about what they have to say, and for good reason — there will always be a small number of incels. Just genetics – nothing you can do about that.”

    Those groups need the Gospel and the Salvation that comes through Jesus. For they will find true joy in him even as they are single.

    For when those “incels” or “MGTOW” are saved they will be as the monks of Old and of the modern times. Joyfully serving the LORD and seeking his Kingdom.

    Because in the end women aren’t the be all and end all. The sexual revolution is why such men have such trouble. For this banquet of the flesh is not what we are made for.

  98. CSI says:

    @Opus, I always thought that Bruce Springsteen song “The River” was pretty silly. The protagonist gets a wife he loves, a child, a union job and a home in a nice small town. And this is supposed to be a miserable, downer ending? This shows what an elitist Springsteen actually is.

    And very few MGTOW channels are run by incels. Actually, most MGTOWs are not incels. The actual number of incels in society is quite small. Perhaps the use of the term as a trendy insult has lead to people overestimating their number.

  99. Charles B says:

    @Emperor Constantine, that bit from Foster is amusing, because he seems to be making the classic mistake tradcons fall for. The idea that what separates thots from wives is a difference in nature. It’s so willfully wrong it’s amazing.

    A gamma doesn’t have a harem of plates not because he doesn’t want to, but because he’s *unable* to. His fallen nature is the exact same (fundamentally) as the alpha. So too it goes with women. Tradcons think that women who end up as wives are somehow different (NAWALT/unicorn) and that you need different wisdom. And so they doom us all to a world of more thots.

  100. Charles B says:

    @Gunty & RPL,

    You put the bug in my head, and I looked up Bonnie Tyler’s age when she released “Holding Out for a Hero.”

    And man was the RP borne out yet again. It came out in 1984, and she was born in 1951. Post wall lament, literally. I had a hearty chuckle.

  101. Charles B says:

    @CSI, well yeah, he’s a Jewish urbanite, that is probably his idea of hell. The Jews haven’t had a labor class since the time of the Savior, and it shows in their culture and values.

  102. ron tomlinson says:

    @Charles B — the story linked below *may* contradict the idea that the Jews have had no working class since the time of Christ:

  103. Dalrock says:

    @Bee

    Several months ago, on Twitter, Prince Asbel asked Tim Bayly what tools a husband could use to correct a wayward wife. Tim blocked him so fast my head spun.

    The details of that exchange were very telling. After blustering on about “flexing headship muscles”, Bayly ultimately explained that all a husband could do to flex said muscles was plead. He also advised asking the elders to help, something Bayly has since circled back on and expressed great hostility toward in long series of posts. In Bayly’s world pleading equals “flexing headship muscles”.

  104. Solutions offered so far:
    1) Marriage Strike;
    2) MGTOW; and
    3) Taking away women’s right to vote.

    Well, #1 is unlikely (laws can/will be imposed soon anyway; also any children are already caught up in the laws anyway), #2 will have an effect (but unlikely to effectively defeat feminism), and #3 is a pipe-dream absolutely impossible to implement in any advanced country absent war or catastrophe.

    OK, something else came to mind: “The Amish have virtually a 0 percent divorce rate… By comparison, according to a recent study by the Barna Group, the divorce figure among all born-again Christians (including evangelicals) is 32 percent, which is statistically identical to the 33 percent figure among non-born-again adults.” http://blogs.christianpost.com/amish-principles-for-families/plain-talk-about-the-amish-how-to-make-a-marriage-last-7116/

    I think this points to a deeper problem I believe Dalrock and others have tried to highlight: that is, the extent to which Churchianity has adopted toxic ideologies from the “world.” Our Biblical command is to be “set apart” from the world. But, various data (divorce, drinking, drug use, etc..) indicates that the land of Churchianity is not too different from the World. Could this be the root of the problem?

    The more we consider ourselves “modern,” the more we will be engaging the world on its terms (using both its technology & ideologies). There is a cost to families and communities in fully embracing the World. This is really the logic of the Amish way (however harsh and silly it appears to modern people).

    This new “trans” movement is just another example of “wedge” issues to temp/punish Biblical Christians (just think: now evolutionary biologists and Christians are *allied* in proclaiming a simple truth: “there are only two genders!”). This agenda will (among other things) continue to metastasize to push out Christians from psychology, law, medicine and teaching. A great purge is coming….

    Feminism is, of course, a pervesion of the natural order. Like all things Luciferian—the cost of “freedom” is just unhappiness and your soul.

    Lots of good men are rightfully concerned about how to arrest the decline. But, history doesn’t seem to provide any examples where the decline/collapse was averted (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15707651-sex-and-culture ). So, seems like Christians need to be put efforts into *proven* options to weather the storm…

    So, like Noah, can’t we start provisioning for the future collapse, and planning to rebuilding our own communities along the lines God intended? Could it be that the “solution” was there the whole time?

  105. Emperor Constantine says:

    Note to Michael Foster (I know you read this blog).

    You need to seriously up your game if you want to run with the big dogs.

    My advice is: don’t try to engage with the Red Pill community until you’ve done the work.

    You look and sound foolish.

    You don’t understand game. If you call Tim Bayly a mentor then you are seriously, seriously confused about what Christianity says about men and women, and you like nearly all Tradcon pastors, are in the thrall of chivalry to m’lady and AMOG’ing to Christian husbands you regard as disposable trash.

  106. Anonymous Reader says:

    Magnus Stout
    OK, something else came to mind: “The Amish have virtually a 0 percent divorce rate…

    Cultural norms strongly enforced on a genetically similar population.
    Plus Rumspringa is likely a factor.
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Rumspringa

    It would take at least 2 if not more generations to create something similar. However, a key issue is shunning; when the elders of an Amish community decide that someone is so far out of order that they can no longer be considered part of the community, that’s it. Everyone else in the community cuts off all contact.

    Anglosphere churches can’t even get their younger thots to dress modestly on Sunday morning, how likely is it they’d be able to tell a babymomma “Don’t come around here no more until you get your actions right”? [1]

    One of the requirements for reclaiming churches: men who can stand up to other men, and say “NO” to women & make it stick. A married man can get practice saying “NO” in the privacy of his own home, first just practicing with the bathroom mirror…

  107. vfm7916 says:

    “One of the requirements for reclaiming churches: men who can stand up to other men, and say “NO” to women & make it stick.”

    Always start with NO. One of the best negotiating tools ever. Nothing else defines the terms of an agreement like NO.

    This one word would also reclaim western civilization.

    @Dalrock: Conservative is pretty much a null word. I would suggest Cuckservative. It’s far better rhetoric and emphasizes the two faced mindset of the Complimentarians.

  108. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Solutions offered so far:
    1) Marriage Strike;
    2) MGTOW; and
    3) Taking away women’s right to vote.

    MGTOW isn’t a solution to anything. It’s not a battle plan, or a tactic, or revenge upon women. It’s pointless to try and weaponize MGTOW against women.

    MGTOW is merely a lifestyle. It’s how some men live, sometimes by choice, sometimes by forced circumstances. I’m not a happy MGTOW. But it’s how I ended up. For me, MGTOW is better than marrying what’s available to me.

  109. Stryker7200 says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    I think your view of MGTOW men is highly distorted. I know many of them. While I decided to marry I was very close to being MGTOW and only went with marriage when God plopped a woman in my lap that met my multiple pages of requirements.

    I am now in my mid 30s, well travelled, received a bachelors of science from a private university, work in finance, have two boys, and many ex girlfriends, one of which was linked to Clay Matthews of the Green Bay Packers some time after I dated her. IE she is attractive enough to get an NFL players attention.

    Many in the MGTOW movement I consider to be peers of mine on all levels. Are there basement dwellers? Yes. But I would say the incels in that community are rare and a very minor part of the movement. The MGTOW = Incel is just propaganda spread by women to make themselves feel better about the movement.

  110. Anonymous Reader says:

    On April 20, Michael Foster’s tweet included these words:

    I can’t school you on thots. That’s the world of rationale males and cobras. If that what you’re interested in, I’m the wrong follow.

    Obvious slam on RationalMale.com author Rollo Tomassi is obvious.

    On April 22, Michael Foster’s tweet included these words:

    When did I tell anyone to ignore Tomassi? I listed him on a list of recommended book just a few weeks ago. That’s just a lie.

    Perhaps Foster’s Twitter account has been accessed by person or persons unknown?
    Or perhaps his little passive-aggressive backstab of 20 April had just slipped his mind in 2 days?

    Either way it puts Foster in a bad light; writing like a girl is not a good thing for a man who claims to lead other men.

  111. feeriker says:

    Emperor Constantine says:
    April 22, 2019 at 11:04 am

    ALL of these tradcuck pastors –heck, most t pastors, PERIOD– ignore the truth, ignore biblical prescriptions for how men and women/husbands and wives are to behave, and ignore the very real and very destructive problems that inevitably arise whenever the truth and these prescriptions are ignored – because THEY HAVE TO.

    Why do they have to? Because they fear women (and Caesar, who empowers them) infinitely more than they love, trust, or fear God.

    They know that most people’s faith (probably even their own) is just a thin facade and even though they can’t dare consciously admit it to themselves, they know that women’s faith is the most shallow and artificial of all, and that includes their own women, too. They could easily test this by demanding that their women do something that the Bible clearly commands them to do, but that runs counter to the FI and demands a level of uncomfortable self-sacrifice. But they won’t do this, because they know damned well what the results would be and what an ugly hell the wives will create for them. They know the score, and they know that they’re just as cucked. humiliated, and captive as every man in their congregations.

    They know full well that women are in open rebellion against both man and God.

    They know full well, but do not dare admit, that WOMAN is the source of original sin and rebellion against God and His commandments.

    They know full well that the minute they try to enforce true biblical headship over their own NAWALT wives that those wives will drop the born-again facade, go full-on Jezebel, and invoke the wrath of Caesar down upon them. In the last 30 years of associating with various churchian franchises (well over two dozen of them, I’ve only met ONE pastor’s wife who wasn’t a loud, mouthy, contentious, prideful, disrespectful, ball-busting harpy constantly attempting to usurp her husband’s position and authority and who actually wore the Titus 2 and 1st Peter 3 mantle proudly, knowing that her proper role was to set the example for the women of her husband’s congregation. That such a pastor’s wife has become the rare exception rather than the rule tells us all we need to know about the state of the church and who REALLY rules it.

    ALL of these cuckservative pastors know this, know that we here in the Christian androsphere know it, and know that we know that they know it. However, as with progressives of all stripes and feminist progs in particular, the narrative MUST be sustained at all costs, no matter how obviously at odds with observable reality and no matter how absurd they make themselves look by parroting it. Also, a pathological solipsism brought on by fear-rooted denial leads them to sincerely believe that they are both the exception and immune to the problems we speak of here.

    Deep down, however, they all know that the same Sword of Damocles hangs over their own heads and that the only way to remove it involves drastic, radical action requiring ABSOLUTE AND UNWAVERING FAITH IN GOD, HIS OMNIPOTENCE, AND HIS TRUTH.

    The problem? That type of actions risks losing everything worldly, including one’s wife and family, and NONE of these guys are about to risk that. (If Jesus had been like these “born again” pastors, His ministry would never have even been launched, never mind any death on the cross to save humanity’s soul. Too risky.)

    So no, EC, it’s extremely unlikely that Michael Foster will ever allow himself to fully see the light and admit to the truth, as long as wants to hold a position that demands winning a popularity contest (which is exactly what being a “pastor” requires in today’s corporate churchianity). I do give him credit for coming here and at least being willing to expose himself to the truth, but short of him experiencing a life-altering catastrophe of the type that led most of us here, it’s highly unlikely that he’ll vomit up the koolaid, put on the glasses, and see how badly defrauded and misled he has been, that his “mentor” is an instrument, witting or otherwise, of destruction. Still, my prayers for him are the same as those for every other lost man, that he does eventually see the light.

  112. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Still hoping for romance at 76: https://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/linda-evans-is-living-out-her-days-alone/

    Faded Hollywood actress Linda Evans has been living like a recluse, according to sources — and heartbroken at the thought of spending the rest of her life alone.

    The 76-year-old former “Dynasty” diva has been holed up in tiny Rainier, Washington, since splitting from New Age musician Yanni in 1998. …

    “Yanni was touring all the time and Linda felt they had grown apart,” a pal said. “She also believed somebody wonderful would walk through her door — but it still hasn’t happened!”

    … according to pals, Linda’s been “consumed by loneliness” in recent years …insiders said she has little hope of new romance while living on her isolated 
70-acre ranch.

    “Linda says it’s hard to go home to an empty house at night — with all the great relationships she’s had,” the source spilled.

    “Friends tell her to go back to Hollywood where she’d be the toast of the town and have suitors lining up for her. But she says that’s a life she’s left behind forever, and she’s resigned to being alone.”

  113. JRob says:

    but short of him experiencing a life-altering catastrophe of the type that led most of us here, it’s highly unlikely that he’ll vomit up the koolaid

    This. I made a similar while less eloquent comment in one of the Harworn threads. How would any of these guys react if wifey went full retard feral?
    Marry an EAP then a decade later watch her dick hop, frivorce, and raze the earth around her, caring for nothing and nobody but herself.
    Then get back to us with some new ground breaking platitudes and wisdom. They cannot see their enabling role in this until it happens to them.
    Great comment feeriker.

  114. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Conservative newspaper Human Events has a new “Global Editor-in-Chief”, Raheem Kassam: https://humanevents.com/

    Wikipedia writes of Kassam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raheem_Kassam

    Kassam was born in Hammersmith Hospital, London. His parents were Tanzanian immigrants of Gujarati origin … He was raised an Ismaili Muslim, but wrote in 2016 that he had not been a practising Muslim for over a decade. Kassam is an atheist, stating that Christopher Hitchens’ rejection of religious faith (“religions are versions of the same untruth”) inspired him.

  115. Vektor says:

    MGTOW don’t care if they are making an “impact” or not. MGTOW is not a movement with goals. There is no care or consideration about if women are feeling grief at a lack of available high-status men. There is an understood concession that the system is beyond democratic reform.

    Other groups of men, like Fathers Rights groups, would care very much about the bias family courts, crippling child support, false accusations, etc. They have powerful motivation to hate the system and want to change it. However, the point of the original post is that the men have no allies on either the Right or Left of the political spectrum, including the religious parts of the Right.

    The Left is currently being remade in the image of the progressive fanatics. The Right must also be remade into something more useful. No, this will not be accomplished by Trump. If I were to guess, I would expect the true catalyst for change to be a lot more violent.

  116. thedeti says:

    If the man naively expects his pastor to continue to exert strong moral pressure after the wedding he is in for a massive shock.

    And of course the pastor will not exert any moral pressure on the wife. Only on the husband.

    This is nothing new, of course. This is something Dalrock has chronicled here. According to our new Churchian overlords, women don’t need to be morally pressured. Women don’t need moral pressure to “do the right thing”. If a woman wants it, it is the “right thing” because women are innately moral. Glenn Stanton says women left to their own devices just naturally grow into good, upstanding, morally upright adults with good priorities and ready made for marriage and motherhood.

    Christian women’s sexual attraction is a moral barometer. Christian women are always sexually attracted to Godly men, and never to ungodly men. If a Christian woman is not sexually attracted to you , that means you are probably not a Christian and thus not a “good” man. So if you’re married to a Christian woman and she won’t have sex with you, it is because you are in sin.

    If a woman is causing marital problems, it is because she is committing the sins of not liking herself enough and not being true to herself. Women never ever commit any other sins, ever.

    And on and on. Women are never responsible for problems in their marriages. Men are always 100% responsible for marital problems.

  117. Frank K says:

    “Linda says it’s hard to go home to an empty house at night — with all the great relationships she’s had,” the source spilled.

    “Friends tell her to go back to Hollywood where she’d be the toast of the town and have suitors lining up for her. But she says that’s a life she’s left behind forever, and she’s resigned to being alone.”

    If she’s had so many “great relationships”, why is she alone? Sounds more like she had a bunch of weak and superficial relationships. She’s been married twice, plus the unmarried “partnership” she had with musician Yanni.

    And no one will line up for her should she move back to LA, and she knows it. It’s probably why she left in the first place. She hit the wall and hard. Sure, had she had a proper long term loving marriage her husband would be able to look past her very aged face and figure. But no suitor, at least none she would have, would give her a second look:

  118. OKRickety says:

    Frank K said: ‘If she’s had so many “great relationships”, why is she alone?’

    It appears to me that hypergamy reared its ugly head:

    “Yanni was touring all the time and Linda felt they had grown apart,” a pal said. “She also believed somebody wonderful would walk through her door — but it still hasn’t happened!”

  119. thedeti says:

    IBB: Nothing changes unless millions, tens of millions of great looking men with promising careers, promising futures, with so much to lose decide to go MGTOW.

    Nova: That will never happen, so you’re basically waiting for something to happen that isn’t going to happen.

    What could happen, though, is that average guys, who are average looking, with average jobs and OK futures, start not marrying. Or start swearing off marriage. But I just don’t think they will start swearing off marriage in large numbers. Maybe 3, 4 or 5 percentage points would.

    The issue here is deeply held instincts on both sides of the gender divide. As Nova pointed out, the top guys have a good shot at getting physically attractive, educated, intelligent, feminine and family oriented women. So they’ll continue getting married.

    In the next tiers, the average guys, average looking, average jobs and OK futures, are still marrying. They’re marrying the top guys’ castoffs. There are a lot of reasons for this. These average guys are marrying these castoffs because it’s the only way most of them can get sex on a regular basis. Sure, they can get some sex here and there. But they don’t have the skills to get sex when they want to, without offering some commitment.

    And the average women, the women who were having sex with top men but who couldn’t get a top man for marriage, will still marry. Women crave marriage the way men crave sex. Marriage for women is security and social status. Even having been once married and divorced elevates a woman’s status. In general a divorced woman is higher status than a never married woman, particularly once you get past the late 30s. Women absolutely MUST get married at least once to elevate their status and security – even if the marriage is to a good but average man, and even if the marriage fails (as most of them do).

    And women marry because most of them want to become mothers, even if for no reason other than to cross “have kid” off the bucket list and get the “mom” merit badge. Women absolutely crave motherhood as well. All but the wealthiest of them cannot have and support children on their own. They need men to help them. Having a man means he’ll work, and he’ll make the money to support her and her kids. Even the most hard-bitten feminist women want this. At the end of the day when it’s all said and done, they want men to “take care of” them and support them and earn the money so they don’t have to.

    So what you have are average men marrying average women, as we would expect. Fifty to 60 years ago, most of those marriages would have been OK. Now, the average woman comes to her marriage with an average N of 6 or 7 and most of those prior men are quite a bit more attractive than her husband. The average man has reduced status simply because he’s not a top man and because the “average” woman has so much higher social status than he does. So these marriages fail at even higher rates.

    But those people are still marrying, even when you get out to the mid to late 30s which is where many first marriages are. And they still marry because of social and sexual pressures. Men so they can get sex, women so they can get status. And because “it’s what they’re supposed to do” and “my parents want grandchildren” and “I don’t want to be alone in my old age”.

    This is changing, though, albeit slowly. But for right now, the only way it’s registering is that age at first marriage is getting pushed out further and further. It looks like never marrieds are increasing only by a few points.

  120. thedeti says:

    Linda Evans has had some work done, you can tell that. She looks a hell of a lot better than most women do at 76. Then again, she’s Linda Evans – world famous television actress and genetic lottery winner who took excellent care of herself well into her 50s as a working actress and who was able to spend hours every day on her physical appearance.

    But she’s no knockout, contrary to what one of Dalrock’s commenters said once about an alleged “79-year-old knockout”.

  121. 7817 says:

    Rollo has them running scared. They’re not mentioning him by name, but this tweet is a passive aggressive jab:

    Warhorn Media 📯
    @warhornmedia
    Apr 19
    “The medium is the message” is a thing said by a lot of people who understand neither media nor messages.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/warhornmedia/status/1119285028549271552?p=v

    I’m really looking forward to his book on religion. I think it’s going to be quite interesting, and if it’s good enough, copies will mysteriously appear in the possession of various church friends.

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    @OK rickety, Frank

    Hypergamy plus choice addiction. She was that “all you want” man-buffet for too many years. Now in her 70’s she should be entertaining grandchildren…and she knows it. At some level, she knows.

    It is sad to see, and should be an instructive case to young women. Or the parents of young women.

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    @7817
    Man, that’s a blog of smugness, even on the wide world of smugitude that is Twitter it stands out.

    “If, if and if” it would be some entertainment to arrange for a copy of Rollo’s book to…materialize…on the shelf of a church library. Even more so for Deep Strength’s book. In fact, that would make for an interesting test of a church leadership: here is a book written by a Christian man advising other Christian men on the art of marrying a Christian woman, let’s put it in the library…oh, you have objections? Let’s discuss that.

    This reminds me, one thing that men can do is get copies of good books into second hand / used bookstores. They are less picky than libraries, and sometimes a man in a crisis will go to such places, although for men under 40 the Internet is more likely. Still, it can’t hurt to make sure.

    If it saves one man it is worth it.

  124. 7817 says:

    This reminds me, one thing that men can do is get copies of good books into second hand / used bookstores.

    Huh. Good call.

  125. feeriker says:

    If she’s had so many “great relationships”, why is she alone?

    What is it that the Despar, Inc. poster says?

    “The only consistent feature of all of your dissatisfying relationships is YOU.”

  126. JRob says:

    Maybe Mark Gastineau will take Linda back, after she “grew apart” from him in spectacular fashion.

  127. Emperor Constantine says:

    Excellent comment @feeriker. Thank you.

    Isn’t a big part of the problem here that, in their chivalrous rush to deify women, these Tradcons miss the bigger picture?

    @Oscar pointed out Samson fornicated and ran with loose women. That was sin. But if you read carefully where he actually fell from grace with God, it wasn’t when he fornicated with Delilah, it was when he gave away his secret (strength) to her. And similarly, when he told his Philistine wife the secret of the riddle.

    So which is the bigger sin, fornicating, or surrendering your life to a woman? You shouldn’t do either, but for me it puts things in perspective when we communicate with our non-Christian Red Pill brethren.

    Of course when I brought this up with Foster he dodged the question, and said we shouldn’t fornicate. True, but he and Bayly are leading men into a greater sin, the sin of Adam, Ahab, Holofernes, and Herod: worshiping women.

    And the correlation is clear: Samson’s is hated husband and father, the Philistines are Samson’s in-laws, willing to turn against the marriage covenant and support their daughter in treachery, just like our culture, laws, and people. The Jews of Samson’s time, like Foster and Bayly, are willing to sell their brother out to avoid the heat from the Philistines of our day, feminists.

    “Then she said to him, “How can you say ‘I love you’ when your heart is not mine? Three times already you have mocked me, and not told me where you get your great strength!”
    16
    She pressed him continually and pestered him till he was deathly weary of it.
    17
    So he told her all that was in his heart and said, “No razor has touched my head, for I have been a nazirite for God from my mother’s womb. If I am shaved, my strength will leave me, and I shall grow weaker and be like anyone else.”
    18
    When Delilah realized that he had told her all that was in his heart, she summoned the lords of the Philistines, saying, “Come up this time, for he has told me all that is in his heart.” So the lords of the Philistines came to her and brought the money with them.”

    The instant Samson showed weakness Delilah ruthlessly exploited it.

    To his and his people’s great cost.

    Don’t fornicate, but much more importantly, DO NOT WORSHIP WOMEN. Worship God.

  128. 7817 says:

    The thing I hate about complementarians is that I don’t think they want men to have understanding.

    Take this tweet:

    Michael Foster@thisisfoster

    “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor 6:9-10 Both fornicators and effeminate men will got to hell. It’s not one or the other. Choose neither.

    12:13 PM – 22 Apr 2019

    https://mobile.twitter.com/thisisfoster/status/1120405374736195584?p=v

    On its own, this is absolutely true. However, with this tweet he had muddied the waters:

    Michael Foster@thisisfoster

    Fornication is unmanly. A virile sex-drive is manly. It’s the product of hi levels of T presence in men by God’s design. But God-given desires have God-given purposes. Sex is for marriage & children. Lacking self-control, fornicators separate desire-purpose. That’s unmanly.

    9:38 AM – 22 Apr 2019

    https://mobile.twitter.com/thisisfoster/status/1120366180546621442?p=v

    Prior to discovering Dalrock and the manosphere, I would have agreed with Foster’s Bible verse, but would not have understood the importance of discerning the difference between the sins of effeminancy and fornication. Foster is pretty consistent at framing behaviour he doesn’t like as unmanly, whether or not it actually is. Sinful behavior can be masculine, and it can be unmasculine. If you are a seeker of truth, this lie of Fosters is rather important to overcome.

    Vox Day helped me immensely (though indirectly) in discerning the differences in these things. The Old Testament is so important to read for this purpose, and while doing so, try to withhold judgment on the men. Don’t think of them in terms of what your church says. Take the Old Testament for what IT says, not what our modern culture says about it. If you do, moral behaviour begins to look different. Masculine behaviour begins to look more normal, whether or not it is moral. David wasn’t a sinner for taking multiple wives, for one thing (not saying we should do this). Abraham was not taken to task by God (that we know of) for calling his wife his sister. David almost lost his kingdom because he loved his son so much who was trying to kill him, and the only person that held it together for him was a brutal murderer who David later had killed, after David’s death.

    The Christian life is about much more than just avoiding sin. God prunes, but He also blesses. Pruning (taking away) by itself will kill a plant if done excessively. Growth is also important, and pruning =/= growth. It’s the difference between understanding 1. that fornication and effeminancy are both sins to be avoided, while conflating the two, and understanding 2. that manliness is strength, and strong men possess the ability to fornicate, while the effeminate do not. This is not an endorsement of fornication, but if you are effeminate, manliness should be what you are working towards. How is it a virtue to avoid a sin that is impossible for you to commit, and take pride in this? That’s self delusion.

    Daniel was a eunuch, but was he effeminate? By no means! But he did not have to worry about the sin of fornication, as it was no longer possible for him.

  129. Emperor Constantine says:

  130. 7817 says:

    Don’t fornicate, but much more importantly, DO NOT WORSHIP WOMEN. Worship God.

    RIGHT ON brother. And don’t follow men who worship women, or minimize this sin.

  131. Ray6777 says:

    As has been discussed here a substantial number of young men are not working long hours in their twenties and won’t bring much if anything financially to a marriage. Will women want to marry a Beta that doesn’t have much money? A lot of women will have to answer that question and that will determine if the unmarrried rate will really go up.

  132. Anonymous Reader says:

    Foster is pretty consistent at framing behaviour he doesn’t like as unmanly, whether or not it actually is.

    Eh, boringly standard AMOGing. Have you ever viewed the old Mark Driscoll “How Dare You” sermon from when he was running Mars Hill church? It’s a classic example. I think it is still up on YouTube.

  133. Bee says:

    7817, AR,

    “Rollo has them running scared.”

    Rollo preached a better Easter Sermon than the female theologian featured in the NYT.

    This is where women go when they’re allowed to “teach” in the church. Reject articles of faith and push for the unitarian cult of inclusivity based on “love”. This is the “faith” of the Goddess. It is the religion of The Sisterhood Über Alles. https://t.co/DXasciKvup— Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale) April 22, 2019

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  134. Nothing changes unless millions, tens of millions of great looking men with promising careers, promising futures, with so much to lose decide to go MGTOW.

    Nova: That will never happen, so you’re basically waiting for something to happen that isn’t going to happen.

    What could happen, though, is that average guys, who are average looking, with average jobs and OK futures, start not marrying. Or start swearing off marriage. But I just don’t think they will start swearing off marriage in large numbers. Maybe 3, 4 or 5 percentage points would.

    3, 4, or 5% will not do it. If it hit 50%, then feminism is doomed. But I think we are already at, 3, 4, or even 5% of average men going MGTOW.

    As it is right now, there is an ever steadily increasing percentage of women who are ABSENT all financial resources that they were counting on by way of beta-bux. This “absence” is creating another narrative that I never thought I’d see, the narrative of Elizabeth Warren. And what is that?

    “The time for half-measures is over,” Warren wrote in a Medium post Monday. “My broad cancellation plan is a real solution to our student debt crisis. It helps millions of families and removes a weight that’s holding back our economy.”

    You have no husband but you have a worthless feminist studies education. Who makes you “whole” on all your debt if you can’t catch a man? Government. And how? You elect someone like Elizabeth Warren.

    We are already seeing this on the margins. As the margins increase for the next marginal case, expect more and more of this behavior where women (who vote) will vote to re-create a husband in the aggregate from government subsidy.

  135. JRob says:

    Our daily dose of Jim Daly’s usual goddess worship:

    Jim: Jeannie, there’s that saying – and I don’t know who to attribute it to – but you can only give what you’ve received. So speak to that with that mom that’s constantly in the shame mode, and, “I’m not good enough and I’m terrible.” There are a lot of different inputs. Your husband could be doing that. And it may have been your upbringing. Your own mother and father may have given you that sense that you don’t – you’re not adequate. Speak to that turmoil in the mom’s mind. How can she break that cycle of, “I’m okay, God loves me?”

    From today’s BROADcast

  136. Jack Russell says:

    5% is more than we think. Look what happens to your body when the temperature goes up or down 5%. Gas prices when oil is cut back 5%. Though that is questionable. 5% is a few hundred thousand + men off the market, which means that many women without husbands, divorce lawyers with less assets, etc.

  137. American says:

    I see that increasing too innocentbystanderboston. The modern woman will do anything to avoid repenting for her sin.

  138. Opus says:

    Perhaps someone can help me out here a bit.

    Up above I retold my strange Easter Church experience. Perhaps I was a bit hasty. I was just reading (I found it in my coat pocket) the literature I had picked up at the church. I was intrigued by the fact that they were advertising that the Vicar of yet another Anglican Church in the town had recently been inducted into The Free Anglican Church. I had never heard of this offshoot but understand that it is derived from the Countess of Huntingdon’s connection and thus evangelical. I am pretty sure that my paternal Grandparents had originally been Countess of Huntingdon’s. I had a look at the Church’s blog, they use the Book of Common Prayer and adhere to the thirty-nine Articles and I could not trace any female Vicars and further they clearly have no truck with either Homosexuality or Transgenderism. Their taste in music is for me the only drawback, however nothing is perfect and who am I to complain for I had no objection to the amazing Gospel Music I heard at the Rev Jesse Jackson’s place in Chicago. These people look to me to be the real deal. They seem to have links to Evangelicals in America.

  139. Opus says:

    It being 23rd April and thus Shakespeare’s birthday it is also St Goerge’s Day and I attach a clip showing how the British Army (all white, all male but with three very different accents) are now confident in its ability finally to defeat its oldest enemy ‘The Dragon’. Just be grateful that Dragon cannot swim.

  140. >Women absolutely MUST get married at least once to elevate their status and security – even if the marriage is to a good but average man, and even if the marriage fails (as most of them do)

    Up and down like a roller coaster ride. And there will be a pool of men who will take that deal, but they’re going to be the kind of men who have little to lose to begin with. And if you notice, most married men are up to their eyeballs in debt. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. And the system loves it, it needs debt slaves and tax donkeys.

    I can’t help but think of that Billy Joel song – “Is that all you get for your money? / And it seems such a waste of time / If that’s what it’s all about”.

  141. Höllenhund says:

    guys who are tall (less than 16% is taller than 6 feet in USA), in great shape, great looking, great career, promising futures. good social skills … that’s not tens of millions of guys under 35, by the way, it may be be 1-2 million or less, once you apply of those filters … have quite good odds of finding one of the better women to marry — women who are also very good looking, well educated, feminine and family-oriented (not necessarily SAHM). I know because I personally know a disproportionate number of these guys. They get married and they generally stay married, and their wives, while typically not HB8+, are at least high 6s and mostly 7s. And they have 2-3 kids and don’t get divorced (some do, but the rate is quite low). The system more or less works for these guys, so they’re going to continue to follow the system.

    The main issue here is that these men have every conceivable incentive to delay marriage (whereas lots of their lower-status male peers are incentivized to not prepare for marriage in the first place). And when they get around to looking for potential wives, they tend to be rather picky, which is something their social circle encourages (because they have a lot to lose from a failed marriage), and women love to complain about.

    It’s sort of a vicious circle. When women’s perception is that men either fail to prepare for marriage or delay it indefinitely, it erodes their incentive to present themselves as potential wives, which erodes men’s interest in marriage even further etc.

  142. Dalrock says:

    @Jack Russell

    5% is more than we think. Look what happens to your body when the temperature goes up or down 5%. Gas prices when oil is cut back 5%. Though that is questionable. 5% is a few hundred thousand + men off the market, which means that many women without husbands, divorce lawyers with less assets, etc.

    From this data I would say we are at 5% now (Gen X men). I don’t think 5% is enough to change the next generation of women’s choices, but it is enough to provoke a cacophony of bitching by panicked marriage delayers since even a small shortage impacts the whole pool, not just the ones who can’t marry. 10% or 15% is where I think it would get interesting.

    With this said, I think what we will see first at least in part is a worsening of the trend for women trying to remarry, since younger never married women can in a pinch reach into the pool of older divorced men.

  143. Höllenhund says:

    @Novaseeker

    Women as a group will only start to really care when attractive, educated, successful women in their 20s and 30s are mostly having a lot of trouble finding suitable husbands (not on the margins, which is happening now, but in the main, which isn’t happening).

    The increasingly lopsided sex ratio in higher education makes it inevitable though.

  144. 7817 says:

    Wouldn’t an unpleasant economic crisis do more to reset relations between the sexes than men abandoning marriage?

    If women suddenly needed beta providers long term, it would give beta men a substantial boost in desirability.

  145. Frank K says:

    @Opus

    Is this who you are talking about?

    http://www.anglicanfreecommunion.org.uk/WhoWeAre.htm

    The Anglican Free Communion – The Episcopal Free Church (Old name: Free Protestant Episcopal Church) is a large group of Anglicans of all varieties of churchmanship from Anglo-Catholic (High Church), Evangelical (Low Church), Latitudinarian (Broad Church), Charismatic and Liberal. All of the Provinces of the Communion are autonomous, comprising self-governing churches and families of churches around the world

    They claim to have valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession (which they claim to have gained from the Armenian and Syrian churches). However, they do appear to ordain women, which contradicts their claim to Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments:

    http://www.anglicanfreecommunion.org.uk/ApplyingForMinistry.htm

    The Ordained and Lay Ministries are open to both men and women. Each province will have their own respective admission criteria based on the Constitution, and individual bishops will advise on selection and formation.

  146. innocentbystanderboston says:

    We will never EVER hear/see the following:

    Elizabeth Warren waiving at an applauding crowd at her fundraiser:

    Thank you, thank you! Thank you so much! Yes we have so much to do but buying that $25,000 dinner plate entitled you to a Q&A period. So the time is now yours. Who has the first question?

    50 hands go up. Warren picks the hand from the woman that her campaign staff told her to pick to read a question that gave her to read. But this woman (in anger at Warren) betrays the Senator and the charade of a Q&A process that was never meant to challenge Warren.

    Senator, thank you for calling on me. I do have a question. Your student loan proposal means an additional spending of $1,000,000,000,000 annually to make higher education free and to make students whole on their loans. I had the same student loans, the same worthless education most of these kids have but I actually caught a man to pay off my debt. I never intended to pay off the debt myself, I always believed that I would simply marry a chump and he would make me whole. Your proposal would reach into my husband’s pocket and take more money away from him and my family. Why do you feel you have the right to do that? He’s mine. His earning power is mine, not anyone else’s. Why should my husband pay for some other broad’s education? Let her catch her own lottery ticket, she can’t have mine.

    I can dream, can’t I?

  147. Opus says:

    @Frank K

    Yes that seems to be them. The opposite of Anglo-Catholics. In the leaflet I took away I was intrigued by the fact that the Vicar of the largest of our local Anglican churches had left and been inducted into the Free Anglicans and is now Vicar of what is just a glorified Nissen Hut on the Council Estate (the poor side of town). We also have an Anglo-Catholic Anglican Church which like Notre dame is missing its spire – but for different reasons. I suppose I am going to have to continue my search.

  148. vfm7916 says:

    @7817

    The depth and breadth of such a crisis large enough to shake women from daddy .Gov would necessarily place the idea of contractual or covenental marriage so far down the priority list for men that it would not emerge for a generation. It’s not an avenue to restore marriage I’d like to go down.

    Such a crisis would see the fracturing of the US, succession, WROL, etc. so there’s far more to worry about. A crisis of that size is unlikely to be abrupt, but a 20 year slide into it has a much better possibility of occurring. The prospect of balkanization of the US into ethnic states has a great deal of precedent.

    Given the sentiment in this thread, many white people will either never breed or will miscegeninate, and it will be too late for most in 20 years. You will not enjoy the decline, and the death at the end will probably not be fun.

    Men leave nothing to the future unless they take on the role of soldier, monk, or father. Many men are being lead away from those roles. Does God benefit? Does Christendom?

  149. 7817 says:

    VFM, what if it’s inevitable though, regardless of what we want? I know of no one that wants to go through such a crisis. A gentle decline is much preferable to a sudden crash though.

    God is not unaware of what’s going on. It is not even necessarily our job to fix the problems of American society, all we can do is be faithful in our own lives and tell the truth. I just have a suspicion that God has a fix in the works even if it it’s one we don’t like.

  150. Dalrock says:

    @7817

    Wouldn’t an unpleasant economic crisis do more to reset relations between the sexes than men abandoning marriage?

    If women suddenly needed beta providers long term, it would give beta men a substantial boost in desirability.

    According to Heartiste, yes.

    Government Shutdown A Boon For Beta Males
    Tough Times Are A Bounty For Betas

  151. Swanny River says:

    IBB,
    Yours was an entertaining dream. If Warren turned to her marriage advisors, Piper, Bayly, and Wilson, then what would they say?

  152. Swanny River says:

    For clarity, Warren doesn’t have any marriage advisors on her campaign, let alone Christian ones.
    I think it would be hard for them to have to choose between white-knighting for carousel riders with loans on one hand, and their desire to uphold a man’s chivalrous stepping up to provide for a superior, but ungrateful, wife, OTOH.

  153. Swanny River says:

    Here’s the thing, they are my Christian brothers but I only would expect superficial non-answers from them, to IBB’s hypothetical question. I don’t like that. Frustrating to realize that none of them would speak with clarity and courage. Maybe John Piper would, he does in other topics.

  154. feeriker says:

    Wouldn’t an unpleasant economic crisis do more to reset relations between the sexes than men abandoning marriage?

    If women suddenly needed beta providers long term, it would give beta men a substantial boost in desirability.

    By that point, most men who would qualify as “beta providers” would be:

    1. struggling mightily just to survive and take care of themselves. Taking on the added burden (and that’s ALL she would be) of some whiny, greedy, conniving, contentious twat would be the LAST thing they would be interested in. AND

    2. so fed up, repulsed, and turned off by the available pool of now-desperate-and-suddenly-marriage-eager women after a generation of near pogromatic hatred and persecution of men that most would sooner kill a woman than look at her, to say nothing of marrying her.

    To think that what we think of as “beta bux” men will suddenly, in a dystopian collapse situation, become interested in marriage. especially to the insufferable harpies largely responsible for CAUSING the misery is absurd on its face.

  155. 7817 says:

    I had forgotten about those articles Dalrock, thanks. That must be where I got the idea.

  156. 7817 says:

    To think that what we think of as “beta bux” men will suddenly, in a dystopian collapse situation, become interested in marriage. especially to the insufferable harpies largely responsible for CAUSING the misery is absurd on its face.

    I don’t know man. A healthy nation has men and women that marry not only for love, not only for sex, but also to build their nation, their people. We lose sight of this here in clownworld, but there are a lot of sacrificial behaviours that healthy people do because they love their people, their nation. It’s not all wheat field virgins, even in the “good” times.

    I’m not saying be a beta white knight, at all. I’m saying clownworld has funhouse mirrors, and everything we see is stretched all out of proportion. Only alpha’s get love. Only beta’s provide. Only beautiful girls in their prime are worth anything. See the funhouse mirror?

  157. innocentbystanderboston says:

    7817,

    You will not enjoy the decline, and the death at the end will probably not be fun.

    With the complete end of the Republic or Rome/Empire of Rome and the beginning of Islam (about 630 AD), the civilized world entered a great dark age. With the exception of Algebra, there were ZERO advancements in science and technology for 1000 years. No more road building, aqueducts, or central planning. Instead we had chivalry (which corrupted the message of Christ), feudalism, and a complete inefficient dependence on land for survival (in the absence of monetary system.) Slavery expanded (as slaves were wealth) either by men selling themselves into bondage because of the debt or by the outright conquest of Africa. And with Islam’s Silk Roads they brought something else to Europe from the Far East, something that almost meant the end of man: the Black Death of the Bubonic Plague.

    Yeah I don’t want that.

    For those of us who have kids, we do not want the decline. I have no twisted desire to live among the Walking Dead. I fear the feminist world my children will inherit from me. I fear it NOT because I have done anything to create (or expand) feminism, BUT because I saw what was happening and didn’t do much to stop it. So lately my MO here at Dalrock’s was trying to find ways to CHANGE what is happening. There are far too many forces aligned against us at the top for a Top-Down approach the rid the world of this cancer. Even a Trump Presidency can’t seem to overcome it. The approach must be the only one for us that is possible, one that is from the bottom, up. We have to start at the foundational levels of society where the rot has spread the most and work our way back up to the top. And those first few bricks touching the bedrock are marriage.

    Every action that government (and the “church”) takes to try and stabilize our broken society filled with this cancerous rot, is an action that would have been corrected by patriarchal marriage. Look at every serious problem we face with our new found cancer and almost all of it would be eradicated immediately with a traditional marriage where the wife submits to the authority of her husband. That is obviously a non-starter for feminism, which is why our goal must be achieved incrementally. And the first increment in this CHANGE begins with the mere ABSENCE of men willing to partake in feminist marriage. This has already begun (on the margins) and the response (on the part of government) is more spending for women. And really what that is, is men who have already “manned-up” taking more money out of their pocket (money that was intended for their own wives) and handing it over to women who could not catch a man for themselves. I eagerly await the moment where wives achieve self realization that this is not in their best interest.

  158. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    I’m saying clownworld has funhouse mirrors, and everything we see is stretched all out of proportion.

    Very good analogy. We can’t talk easily about things that we do not have words for [1] and when existing words are melted and reshaped into something else we can’t talk easily about those things either.

    “Equality” – what did it mean in 1789 France vs. what did it mean in 1870’s America vs. what did it mean in 1965 America? Doesn’t matter because the clownworld mirror now warps a man wearing a frock into a “woman” because equality of some sort.

    Thanks for this.

    Sapir-Worf or https://infogalactic.com/info/Linguistic_relativity is a rabbit trail that leads far into the woods, but there’s some verifiable truth to it. If nothing else, Orwell’s Newspeak in 1984 infamously was designed to make certain thoughts impossible to have; linguistic relativity collapsed to a top-down-imposed certainty.

  159. Otto says:

    “Wouldn’t an unpleasant economic crisis do more to reset relations between the sexes than men abandoning marriage?”

    If men had an advantage in earning money, then sure, but they don’t. In the 2008 downturn men were hit harder than women, because:

    1) women are educationally advantaged over men

    2) men were the first to be laid off, and women the first to be hired

    3) single women have access to government/charity support that men don’t

    There was a marriage strike after the 2008 downturn, but it was women refusing to marry, because few women will marry a guy without a job or who makes less money than they do.

  160. feeriker says:

    I eagerly await the moment where wives achieve self realization that this is not in their best interest.

    Given women’s 1) innate solipsism and lack of self-awareness, 2) obvious inability to connect cause with effect, and 3) even more limited ability than that of most men to adopt high time preferences and “grok the big picture,” I’d say that such self-realization is about as likely to occur with a majority of women/wives as is a sudden reversal of the Earth’s rotational direction.

  161. innocentbystanderboston says:

    feeriker, I believe you are right. But we only need “one” woman to stand up and ask that question. That would be on youtube in under 20 minutes and it would have 20,000,000 views in less than a week. We only need one woman to ask the question and start the discussion. That would dominate discourse on The View for a week. And really, this discussion is one where you and I need to step aside.

    But I agree. Its highly unlikely we will ever hear from even one. 😦

  162. Anon says:

    I eagerly await the moment where wives achieve self realization that this is not in their best interest

    There is virtually no chance of this ever happening.

    Why does IBB so often write as though he just discovered the androsphere two weeks ago? There are comments of his from five years ago that probably answer/correct all of his comments here now.

  163. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Anon,

    Why does IBB so often write as though he just discovered the androsphere two weeks ago? There are comments of his from five years ago that probably answer/correct all of his comments here now.

    Why? Because I know what is real and what is not real. The red pill has opened my eyes. And the truth has set me free.

    Alas, (much like Andy Dufresne) I still have “hope.” “Hope” and “Reality” quite often run into direct conflict with one another.

    Please don’t try to take that hope from me. There are far too many people that I love who’s lives have been (or could be in the future) ruined.

  164. thedeti says:

    IBB, AMerican:

    I think the number of average guys not getting married will increase as well. I just don’t think it’s going to happen very quickly, and I don’t think it will happen for the reasons we all think.

    Change in this area is happening relatively quickly, but still slowly in the terms of the long arc of my life and the lives of most people. Yes, there have been a number of sea changes in the area of sex and marriage. Most notably:

    1) technological advances shifting us to a service/information economy, and cheap, safe, reliable and effective birth control allowing people (mostly women) to control when they get pregnant

    2) Women going into the workforce in record numbers, mostly for their own “independence” and to avoid marriage to unattractive men

    3) “Romantic love” and “chivalry” as the basis for legitimacy and moral goodness of all sexual relationships, leading to acceptance of divorce, gay marriage and transgender rights

    4) Maximum individual freedom and autonomy, which furnishes the basis for removing and delegitimizing concepts of lifetime commitment, divorce not allowed under any circumstances, marital obligations existing independently of individual will, and the function of marriage as the only legitimate venue for sex and the best way to raise children

    Women have responded very quickly to these changes, mostly because all of these changes favor them and sandbag men. Men are still responding very slowly. They’re still marrying. It’s just that they are marrying a lot later than they have in years past. The reasons are that women are delaying marriage. The men they would have married at age 25 are the men they end up marrying at 35. Most of these men are not very attractive, so they find it very hard to find women willing to marry them until they’re washed up ex carouselers. These women just don’t need these men, until it comes time to “start a family”.

    And these men wait, because no one else wants them, they’re not attractive enough to get women on the open market, and ultimately, because they want a regular source of sex and a family. Most of these men are still marrying in their mid to late 30s because marriage holds out the promise of regular sex, and maybe a family. Everyone harangues them that if they want sex, they have to marry. Everyone tells them they’re awful human beings for not wifing up the town bike who just started attending their church last month or the “prodigal daughter” divorced mom with two kids.
    They’re not told that the promise of sex is totally illusory, but that’s beside the point – the point is these men are marrying because they’re so thirsty they can barely see straight, and because everyone is telling them marriage will slake that thirst.

    It’s changing, but it will change quite slowly and will just continue like it is for at least the rest of my lifetime.

  165. thedeti says:

    It will change not so much because men are forswearing marriage. It will change more because more and more men just won’t be able to marry at all. There’s an increasing number of men whom no women at all want. They won’t marry because they can’t, and because no women will want them.

  166. Damn Crackers says:

    “Marriage sanctifies all.”

    So, marry up those sluts so they may be saved. It’s like a second baptism!

    Who knew that marriage would cure opiate addictions and STDs too!

  167. feeriker says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    April 23, 2019 at 1:26 pm

    I completely sympathize. What makes it all the more agonizing and what brings despair so much closer than it should be is that the one institution on this mortal orb that SHOULD be an alternative to the all chaos all around us, a light amidst the darkness –that would of course be the church– is just as lost, compromised, rotten, and damned as the evil to which it is supposed to be an antidote.

  168. 7817 says:

    the church– is just as lost, compromised, rotten, and damned as the evil to which it is supposed to be an antidote.

    That’s how it looks to me too. The degree to which feminism has taken over the church, even the parts that think they are standing strong, still surprises me.

  169. innocentbystanderboston says:

    the one institution on this mortal orb that SHOULD be an alternative to the all chaos all around us, a light amidst the darkness –that would of course be the church– is just as lost, compromised, rotten, and damned as the evil to which it is supposed to be an antidote.

    If I opened a “church” in my home on Sunday, I would do so for no pay. I would invite you in to join my congregation and I would preach pure KJB. There would be no feminist imperative there. I fear that the wrong person would enter my “church” on Sunday and he/she would find a way to (coldly, calculatingly, and secretly) get a hold of my employer and (out of pure HR political correctness) I would be out of job based solely on what I said in church. My employer would never tell me that was the reason though, They would come up with something else, my red pill awareness has me clear on that one point.

    Everything is ruined. I have hope only because I still have so much to lose and I am not yet willing to set fire to the place and let it all burn to the ground. But ruin is everywhere. Look at this youtube.

    What Jamie Diamond should have said to frosh Congresswoman Katie Porter of Irvine (who ONLY took that seat from GOP’s Mimi because of voter fraud and the $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction) is that Katie’s hypothetical never-married-mom who lives in a 1 bedroom apartment in Irvine needs to get MARRIED and stop grunting out illegitimate thug spawn. Of course, Jamie said that in a congressional hearing and tomorrow, the Board of Trusties as JP Morgan Chase let him know that he just lost his $31,000,000 a job for preaching “truth.” Jamie Diamond has too much to lose.

    It must start from the ground up and (furthermore) it must start with men who have nothing to lose. If the man with nothing to lose takes a stand on what is right, I would give him a job. I would give him a leg up. I would do all that I could. But it must start with those who see the world for what it is and make the choices needed to start changing things.

  170. c matt says:

    The state really has no business regulating or licensing marriage “under God”

    Well, not under God, but the state definitely has an interest in marriage on purely secular grounds. A stable family is the building block of any successful civilization, because without a proper regeneration of productive and loyal citizens, the state is kaput. Hence, why the state has every right to outlaw (or just not recognize) same sex marriage – it contributes nothing to the generation of the next generation.

  171. feeriker says:

    …the state definitely has an interest in marriage on purely secular grounds. A stable family is the building block of any successful civilization, because without a proper regeneration of productive and loyal citizens, the state is kaput. Hence, why the state has every right to outlaw (or just not recognize) same sex marriage – it contributes nothing to the generation of the next generation.

    Highly peculiar, then, that the State that “has [such] an interest” in sustaining stable civilization based on the essential institution of marriage is doing so much to undermine and destroy said institution.

  172. innocentbystanderboston says:

    …the State that “has [such] an interest” in sustaining stable civilization based on the essential institution of marriage is doing so much to undermine and destroy said institution.

    In mid 1960s California, 2nd wave feminists made sure that California state law makers were aware that a steadily increasing percentage of married women were (for some strange reason) committing suicide. Why? Why was that happening? We have a suicide epidemic going on right now (2019) but feminists don’t give a fuck because its just men and these men are losers/produce no wealth. Very few people in DC gives a damn if these marginal men live or die. But women committing suicide in 1966 California (particularly married women), that is a non-starter. So feminists determined why.

    It appeared that the reason for the suicides was that these women were unhappy in their marriages. They were either no longer in love with their husbands, they loved another man, they were just bored, or what-have-you. But they committed suicide because the absence of happiness is not legal grounds for a divorce in 1966. They couldn’t get alimony. They could leave their husbands in 1966 but with no income and no house and no children. The thought of living a life in the absence of their husband’s earning power (when they had no skills to develop any earning power of their own) OR continuing to live a life with a man they no longer wanted to remain married, well, they killed themselves. So a very empathetic (because he too was divorced) Governor Ronald Reagan signed the bill allowing women to unilaterally exit any marriage and collect cash and prizes for NO reason. Thus we had the first of our no-fault-divorce laws that took place effective January 1st, 1970.

    Ask anyone (who didn’t understand marriage for what it was) in 1966, and they would say that we weren’t living in civilization with so many married women willing to commit suicide. So in an effort to be civilized, they changed divorce law. Making divorce law all-powerful destroyed all marriage law. That was the inevitable result. Marriage in the United States effectively ended on January 1st 1970. Because (eventually) every single state in the Union would adopt the law that California adapted, we could say that was the date marriage came to an end and left us where we are today. And it was with the best intensions, to prevent the unhappily married woman from committing suicide. Sometimes, the path of best intensions is paved with another man’s testicles.

  173. Anonymous Reader says:

    There are large trends at work. Like ocean currents, they are not going to be turned or fought by any man, not even by “men standing shoulder to shoulder”. A man in a rip current or undertow at the beach needs to swim out of it rather than fight it.

    In the comments over at Rollo Tomassi’s blog one can see links from all over the world; men elsewhere who find value in something he wrote, and link to it. Just now what appears to be a Turkish ‘red pill’ blog linked to his article on the desire dynamic. Turkey is a nominally Islamic country that is rather secular in the cities and quite devout in the countryside.

    There is no top-down solution. There are powerful currents, and some powerful interests in the Anglosphere that are not going to be fought any time soon. That doesn’t mean men are powerless to improve their own situation, nor does it mean that every single church is pozzed beyond hope.

    It does suggest that pinning hope on some politician or other making a speech & turning the world around is quite naive, and a guaranteed waste of time / energy.

    A man should improve himself and whatever is around him, leading those who will follow, and expecting no assistance from society or social institutions in general. There are exceptions.

    Enter the manosphere…

  174. I think of all the different rotten parts to clean up, probably the easiest ones are those cucked religious figures. The feminists will never come to their support ever, no matter how much these cucks toe the line. And really, they are traitors who used to be looking out for the good of their community and are now part of bringing it all down.

    And if Christianity is beyond fixing, beyond redemption, then a new religion, something stronger and more masculine needs to take its place. I’d do it before someone gets the bright idea of making that Islam.

  175. 7817 says:

    The answer is not a new religion.

    If anything, it is Christianity far older than most current churches are comfortable with.

  176. innocentbystanderboston says:

    And if Christianity is beyond fixing, beyond redemption, then a new religion, something stronger and more masculine needs to take its place. I’d do it before someone gets the bright idea of making that Islam.

    Christianity is not beyond fixing. Its just that Christianity is mutually exclusive from a feminist-centric-secular-society still centered on free market capitalism. Capitalism offers the easiest and surest way for the most people (living within it) to earn income to the maximum of their ability. But feminism puts that earning power into direct jeopardy if the person earning it put Christ and common sense ahead of political correctness.

    A pastor preaches pure churchianity (not Christianity) not because he believes it but because he needs to feed his kids. He knows it is horseshit but he has a conflict of interest, a conflict that Christ never had. When Christ was done earning a living as a carpenter, he had no wife and no children to support. Its a lot easier to roam around Judea and preach the truth to people who most certainly need to hear it when you don’t have to worry about a job. Unfortunately, His preaching the truth meant losing His own life.

    To walk with Christ means to risk that which none of his apostles was willing to risk. Easier said than done when you have a mortgage payment, 2 kids in private school, an Acura payment, and you are putting your wife through law school.

  177. feeriker says:

    A pastor preaches pure churchianity (not Christianity) not because he believes it but because he needs to feed his kids and keep his feral, contentious, feminist harpy wife from blowing up their marriage, tearing their family apart, and ruining his ecclesial career.

    FIFY.

  178. Frank K says:

    To walk with Christ means to risk that which none of his apostles was willing to risk. Easier said than done when you have a mortgage payment, 2 kids in private school, an Acura payment, and you are putting your wife through law school.

    I didn’t realize that run of the mill Churchian pastors were paid that handsomely.

  179. American says:

    @innocentbystanderboston: About a quarter of the marriages I see here in SoCal today are “pit stops.” In other words, just a way for a female to mitigate her debt (student loan, credit card debt, etc…) off a male’s utility for three to five years and then cash out with some prizes and maybe a piece of property as she divorces him on her way back to carousal riding.

    Now occasionally I see a male “pit stop” a female in this manner; however, it’s almost always some newly released personality disordered convict (raised by a sexually immoral single female) that bad-boy charms an ugly female while promising her the world, in order to have a place to live and enjoy her utility. Those breakup much faster, of course, as he goes back to jail/prison for whatever reason(s) that sometimes include him putting hands on her (e.g. physical abuse).

  180. info says:

    @feeriker
    Id say that a feminist harpy wife would autodisqualify a henpecked man from being bishop. For such is contrary to a well ordered household prerequisite.

    Unless he rules the roost with all other listed biblical requirements. Those men have no business being pastor.

  181. info says:

    @feeriker
    1 timothy 3:5 kjv makes that point clear.

  182. feeriker says:

    info says:
    April 23, 2019 at 7:21 pm and 7:26 pm

    You are correct. However, one need not spend very much time at all in any given churchian franchise nowadays before one notices that the vast majority (very often, even all) of said organization’s “leadership” is completely unqualified and unfit to hold their positions of authority based on biblical requirements.

    Churchians only care about and adhere to what Scripture says as long as it’s convenient, doesn’t cost them anything, doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable, and doesn’t make them look bad in the World’s eyes. Once any of those four things happen, out the window and down the memory hole Scripture goes.

  183. Novaseeker says:

    And it was with the best intensions, to prevent the unhappily married woman from committing suicide. Sometimes, the path of best intensions is paved with another man’s testicles.

    Well, but it has to be admitted that the old regime really sucked for a lot of women.

    Men tend to look at the old regime from a man’s point of view and see it as “fair”. Women look at things from a hypergamous point of view, such that being “paired with a peer SMV man” (fair in a man’s eyes) is torture for a woman because it violates hypergamy. It makes her very unhappy. Her unhappiness increases when she sees other women, not married, having fun with the men who are sexually attractive (this is what was happening in the 60s), but overall before that happened women were more or less resigned in their marriages, and very few of them were actually “happy”, in the way we define that today (deeply and passionately in love emotionally and sexually). The old system was okay for men because men are not hypergamous, but for most women it sucked. This is why they rebelled once the economy shifted hard enough such that most of them had the ability to self-support.

    Time’s arrow points one way. The idea that we can “go back” to what life was before the economy shifted to services and soft skills is a fool’s errand (the stupid wish that “we gonna have a reset, gotta happen y’all”). Not likely.

    Enter game, enter TRP, enter ways of dealing with the current situation as it is, instead of stepping aside and waiting for a “reset” that likely will never happen (and if it does would likely be horrific for everyone, including most men).

  184. 7817 says:

    Enter game, enter TRP, enter ways of dealing with the current situation as it is

    Right on

    the stupid wish that “we gonna have a reset, gotta happen y’all”

    I certainly don’t wish for a reset. Historical trends indicate we are due for hard times. Time will tell, and I’d dearly love to be proven wrong.

  185. feeriker says:

    Novaseeker says:
    April 23, 2019 at 9:00 pm

    I don’t doubt for a millisecond that your points about women’s “feelings” of hypergamy and misery under the ancien regime are completely valid. That does not, however, change the fact that accommodating them has been disastrous for society and will ultimately be the complete undoing of western civilization.

    Our “benighted” and “ignorant” forebears knew better than to let this happen and where well aware of where it would lead. It was only when we as a civilization were just so certain that we had “progressed” socially and technologically to the point where we no longer needed the “old” order that had sustained order and societal stability for millennia that we grew arrogant and complacent enough to think that we could ignore obvious human nature in general and obvious female human nature in particular . We haven’t even begun to reap the poisonous fruits of it, but your other point is also spot-on; so far fallen and BTPONR are we that we wouldn’t reverse course even if we could see that doing so was the only way out of the agony and destruction.

  186. “One of the requirements for reclaiming churches: men who can stand up to other men, and say “NO” to women & make it stick. A married man can get practice saying “NO” in the privacy of his own home, first just practicing with the bathroom mirror…” AND THEN practice prior to appearing before a judge.

  187. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    Well, but it has to be admitted that the old regime really sucked for a lot of women.

    I disagree that men had it better.

    In World War 2, American casualties :
    Men : 300,000
    Women : 16

    In VietNam, American casualties :
    Men : 58,000
    Women : 8

    On the Titanic :
    Percentage of men who lived : 20%
    Percentage of children who lived : 51%
    Percentage of women who lived : 74%

    So women survived to a greater degree than children, AND to a greater degree than even the wealthiest men on board, John Jacob Astor and Benjamin Guggenheim.

    Just about every mythological compilation from any culture (Western or Eastern) has numerous instances of 50 men dying to rescue ONE woman.

    Sorry, but male expendability in the face of the FI exists in all centuries and all cultures.

  188. Info says:

    @anon

    Agreed. Historically in functional societies responsibility is always paired with authority.

  189. Charles B says:

    @Scott, that suicide has already happened, but since he was a Very Bad(tm) man it made no impact on anyone but his friends, family, and fellow Very Bad(tm) men.

    Good points all around though.

  190. Charles B says:

    @Nova, I’m not sure I agree. I agree that you’ve diagnosed why women think it did, but for the vast majority of men it was worse for concrete reasons than it ever was for women.

    The problem as others have said is that we pretend for women’s sake that their feelings of woe were as valid as the actual trials that men had to face.

  191. Höllenhund says:

    IBB whines about the coming social decline, yet he doesn’t even believe that American STEM graduate single men should be hired by IT firms instead of Asians with H-1Bs, and thinks that 30-year-old men looking to marry 18-year-old women are “infernal sexual perverts”*, even though the coming decline would be mitigated if these things were, you know, actually happening.

    *He has made such statements multiple times in the comment section before, can’t be bothered right now to look them up.

  192. Opus says:

    I am somewhat surprised that Novaseeker should see fit to engage the entire Violin section (molto vibrato) on behalf of the female sex. That in an age before effective mod-cons and The Pill women were treated any worse than they might be seems to me highly unlikely, indeed the history of the west is surely the history of the efforts of men to make life as cushy as possible for women consistent with the resources then available. The trouble is that whatever men do, sooner or later women are going to complain. By way of example, the idea in the Nineteenth century was to remove women from the workplace (which then was almost entirely manual and somewhat dangerous) and keep them secure and safe in their homes. Sounds pretty much like paradise to me but we know how that panned out and by reason of female Hypergamy – women I have noticed seem incapable of amusing themselves. One day perhaps women will eventually figure out that the push to fill cubicles in encorpora with women is merely a devious ploy by men to acquire a harem on the cheap – harem-lite – albeit with the male execs as de facto eunuchs.

  193. Novaseeker says:

    Folks, my point wasn’t that “life was easier for men than for women”. Wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about the setup under the old relationship/marriage system. That system, regardless of male deaths and disposability and so on in life in general, sucked generally for many women because it forced women to be married to, and have sex with, and bear the children of, men to whom they were not attracted. Given the choice between that and starving or dying, yes, women would choose that — you’re right, and at least they are alive and not dead. But as soon as other options became available, women leapt at them because it sucks to have to have sex with someone you’re not attracted to for years on end. That’s why they rebelled. The entirety of 20th century feminism is about women being freed from having to marry and fuck (and stay married to) men to whom they have no great sexual attraction — that’s it, soup to nuts.

    Yes women are never satisfied, I agree. But they rebelled against a system that sucked for many of them. Trying to bring that system back is a non-starter. The current system is of course broken because it is trying to preserve elements of the old one (male responsibilities mostly) with elements of the new one (female freedom mostly) — that’s a dysfunctional mess, clearly. But the old system isn’t coming back. And it’s unlikely that the dysfunctional “hybrid” old/new system we have is going to be reformed or revised anytime soon, either, so the key is figuring out how to best live taking it as a given. But know this: you’re never going to convince a majority of women that a system that forces many of them to marry and fuck men that they aren’t attracted to is a good system or one that they are willing to accept.

  194. Opus says:

    The notion that women were having sex with men de facto against their will is may I suggest contra Novaseeker pure Feminist boilerplate and surely not supported by any historical record. Before the Industrial Revolution and indeed even within living memory when most women lived in the countryside and were likely to marry the boy from the nearest farm there is I think no reason to suppose that they were not entirely happy with their choice. Certainly from my own youth – which is not really that long ago – all of my then girlfriend (who was fifteen)’s girlfriends were over-the-moon about their then boyfriend whom they then married some whilst still at school. The notion then that marriage being the norm women were being oppressed does not stand up to proper scrutiny and certainly before the Reformation – at least – any woman so opposed to matrimony might have recourse to a Nunnery. Novaseeker appears to me to be confusing the historical record with the present state of things in D.C. (of which I am more than happy to take his word) where women far from marrying whilst still at school are sampling the various Baskin Robbins flavours of cock and then finding the one left – the one they failed to try – the vanilla flavour less than exciting – if I may put it that way.

    Happiness is a relative thing and there is not to my knowledge any evidence to suggest that the average woman in the past was any the less happy than her counterpart today, indeed I seem to recall studies suggesting that in the past women were more happy then than now. It is desire that creates unhappiness and if one is unaware that there are men who look like Cary Grant one cannot pine for such.

  195. Novaseeker says:

    Opus —

    No doubt when horizons were small, the limits on hypergamy were also imposed by the limited horizons — I do not disagree with that. However, hypergamy still existed, it was still wired into women, and the women in any locality all wanted to marry the best men, and not the boy from th farm next door. Almost all women, however, had to marry for economic reasons, and because of that reality many of them were married to men they really were not very attracted to, given that women are very attracted to very few men in general. They put up with this because it was better than starving and, yes, they weren’t disposible like men were, so there’s that.

    The current era is different in that hypergamy is on steroids now with all of the choice (virtual and real) available to women everywhere, but that doesn’t change the fact that women rebelled because they generally didn’t want to have to marry men to whom they were not very attracted. They wanted to be able to choose to marry a man to whom they were very attracted, rather than the best one available at the time given her need to marry for financial reasons. Again, this rebellion hasn’t worked out very well, even for women themselves (hypergamy is inherently problematic as basis for a social order, taken alone, despite its usefulness genetically), but it was nevertheless the core reason for women’s rebellion in the 20th century, and the core reason why you’ll be hard pressed to ever convince more than a handful of women that returning to a system like the old one is desirable for women.

  196. craig says:

    IBB says: “With the complete end of the Republic or Rome/Empire of Rome and the beginning of Islam (about 630 AD), the civilized world entered a great dark age. With the exception of Algebra, there were ZERO advancements in science and technology for 1000 years. No more road building, aqueducts, or central planning.”

    In no particular order: Windmills and water mills. Clocks. Crossbows. Gothic architecture (flying buttresses for external structural support etc.). Universities. And so on; yes, there were certain technologies known to the Romans that were lost, but it is simply untrue that men simply quit innovating for a thousand years, and any engineer’s careful look at the tourist “meccas” of Europe (mysteriously catching fire of late) is sufficient to disprove it.

    Sixteenth-century Black Legends were the Fake News of their time, as astonishingly durable as they were false.

  197. The real problem though isn’t divorce or carouseling. Sure they cause problems and reduce economic productivity but life goes on, even if it’s at a slower stumbling pace. What really brings it all down is when you have a majority of young men who have figured out that no woman wants them or will ever want them, no matter what they do. Permanently locked out. Women won’t really do the dirty dangerous work of keeping the lights on and bringing food to market and to the table. They’re great at telling others to do it but not so good at doing it themselves. They’re great at saying they can do it, not so great at doing it. When’s the last time you saw a woman hauling garbage or climbing up an electrical pole in 0F weather to make repairs? Or remove an exhaust manifold that has half-rusted away? Or hammer out a wheel bearing that has seized? Will you ever?

    Every civilization has had this challenge of locking down its young men and channeling their energy into something that’s not completely chaotic and destructive. That’s what old school marriage was really about, it wasn’t about making anyone particularly haaaaappy, it was about keeping young men away from pursuing their own interests ahead of what the rest of the system needed from them. I guarantee you someone will come along to lead these young men who have no stake in the status quo, who have little to lose and you will see that history isn’t linear, it can go “backward” just as much and as fast as it can go “forward”.

    What we’re relearning the hard way, is given total freedom to choose, both men and women collectively do very destructive things that end society. I think at this point it’s irreversible, I’m firmly in the camp of educating young men about their prospects and to make decisions to benefit themselves, because let’s face it, nobody else is looking out for them.

  198. Damn Crackers says:

    If we really are a “priesthood of believers,” then we have certain instructions on who we should marry-

    Leviticus 21:13-15 “ ‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. 14He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, 15so that he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’ ”

  199. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    I think you’re mostly correct.

    Something you’ve not discussed for whatever reason is that women have an inexplicable drive to get married at some point. Whether it’s status within the feminine social matrix, to have a kid, to legitimize their sexual relationships, to get some guy (any guy) to pay their bills, to shut their parents up, or for whatever other reason, women crave marriage. They’ll marry at 37 to a man they rejected 15 years before. They’ll marry men they’re not attracted to merely to cross “got married” off the bucket list, because “divorced woman” is higher status than “never married woman”.

    And what’s going on there is two things, in my opinion. First, everything about marriage has changed fundamentally. You can easily get out of a marriage, and most of these women do. “Marriage” in 2019 is not at all the same thing as “marriage” in 1949. Marriage is of different character, serves different purposes, and does different things to and for its participants now than it did then.

    Second, despite all those changes, both men and women still have more or less traditional views on what they expect marriage to be, what they expect it to do for them, and what marriage says about them to others and to the world. Men still expect to be providers and protectors, to have families, and most important, a regular sex partner where they don’t have to work all that hard to get sex. Men expect some basic modicum of respect from their wives and kids, and bristle hard when they don’t get it. Men are starting to accept, though, that being a married father no longer garners respect from anyone, least of all their wives.

    And women very, very much expect men to support them and protect and provide for them. And women really do not like or respect men who cannot do that.

    Women still expect to be provided for and protected. The minute they can quit their jobs because their husbands can or do support them, they quit or at least go part time. Women will work and be main breadwinners, but they don’t like it and it strains marriages. Women still expect to have at least one child, if for no other reason, to cross “became a mother” off the bucket list. When asked, women uniformly say that despite it all, despite all the hard work, education, training, job hunting, employment, and feminist merit badge seeking, “all I really wanted was to be a wife and a mother”. It’s like they’re lifting it verbatim from The Woman Handbook or something. They all say it, and they all say it exactly the same way, in those quotes, exactly like that: “All I really wanted was to be a wife and a mother.” Every woman I have ever talked to about these issues says that. For most I think it’s genuine, for some it’s part genuine and part virtue signalling. But they all say it.

    It’s still the same with women marrying for the first time in their 30s. They still expect all the things they would have been getting had they married much, much better in their 20s. They still expect this man to do all the things a “traditional” husband would do, despite the fact that he’s not prepared for it, there’s a 1 in 2 chance she’ll divorce rape him, she’s not sexually attracted in any way to him, and she’s marrying him only because she needs to cross “got married” off the bucket list.

    So that’s a major piece of the puzzle that hasn’t yet been discussed.

  200. 7817 says:

    I’m firmly in the camp of educating young men about their prospects and to make decisions to benefit themselves, because let’s face it, nobody else is looking out for them.

    What purpose does it serve to lie to men? The church has lost alot of credibility because of its lies about female nature. And you’re right, I don’t see many looking out for these young men.

  201. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    Well, but it has to be admitted that the old regime really sucked for a lot of women.

    Only to the extent that they didn’t want to fuck their husbands. Or at least they were willing to fuck their husbands after a few glasses of wine, or as much as it would take to get pregnant. And yes, they were deemed to have given standing consent to sex, and marital rape was not a thing.

    Otherwise, marriage then was not too bad for women. Men had obligations to their wives, and they were held to those obligations pretty hard, legally and culturally. Of course, men still are held hard to those duties; but at least at that time, men also had authority, privileges and benefits more or less commensurate with their responsibilities. If a woman married a not very attractive, but fundamentally decent stand up guy, she could count on him to take care of her and the kids in a decent, kind of comfortable way (if not extravagant way). She could count on him to not kick her around, not beat her or the kids, not overtly cheat on her, not drink or gamble away his paycheck, and to come home most nights.

    There also weren’t the usual sexual requirements for married women. Married women were pretty much done having sex with their husbands after the last kid was born and into school, and most married men just had to suck it up and deal with it. Most married men and women also didn’t have the sexual expectations for each other they now have. Men by and large didn’t get blowjobs or anal or even reverse cowgirl, because most women would never do those things for their husbands. Most men sucked it up. Some men went to hookers. Some men cheated. Most women knew their husbands went to hookers or cheated, but were OK with it as long as he came back to her, did it strictly on the downlow, didn’t rub her nose in it, didn’t shame her publicly, and didn’t give her any diseases. So back then, being “done with sex” with a husband you’re not all that attracted to, but still getting to keep the benefits of being married to him, was a pretty good deal.

  202. Novaseeker says:

    Deti —

    I agree that in the US marriage has status and box-checking and other benefits to women — and that’s *any* marriage, including a former marriage when compared to having never been married at all. This is why almost all women want to marry at some stage, barring ideological outliers. But that’s quite different from wanting to be economically dependent on one man in such a way that she is required to have sex with him if she isn’t attracted to him (or isn’t attracted to him any more). That’s unappealing to women, almost all of them. Did women suck that up for a long time? Sure they did, and they did get benefits from it, as you point out. But they still were having sex with men who were often not attractive to them, period, for sex.

    Women’s dissatisfaction (to put it mildly) with that prior situation is why they bolted, en masse, as soon as social/economic/biological conditions changed so as to allow them to (1) support themselves financially and (2) have sex with men they wanted to with consequences on an “opt in” basis as determined by themselves. Those changes were, and are, immensely popular with women for a reason, and that reason is obvious: if they have options, they prefer not having to, or being expected to, fuck men they don’t really want to fuck. Pretty primal stuff, almost universal among women, and easy to understand why. This is also why the changes won’t be rolled back unless there is a massive social catastrophe (again, as we know, the typical manosphere fantasy of a “reset” or a “rollback of history”, etc.)

    You’re right, though, that women do continue to value marriage-qua-marriage for various reasons, but especially for status reasons, especially in the US. In Europe many people simply don’t get married, or if they do it’s only years after a relationship has been well established and there are combined finances and kids already in place and everything works … that shift hasn’t happened here yet because marriage has very high status in the US, which is also why the push here was for gay *marriage* rather than gay *unions* (which is what is available in many European countries), because of that singular high social status accorded marriage in the US. I suspect that this is ultimately why we didn’t eliminate marriage as an institution, and still haven’t largely personally abandoned it either, but have instead simply changed it to allow for women to get out while maintaining resource extraction aspects of the marriage. That is, the key aspect of marriage that was changed was that women were allowed to get out of it and stop being expected to have sex with a man they didn’t want to have sex with, while still getting his money — the core was changed to accommodate female sexual freedom and sexual choice. That is, of course, the dysfunctional “hybrid” system we have today — a blend of the old (male financial responsibility) with the new (female sexual freedom). It’s a model that isn’t likely stable over the long term, but also seems unlikely to be replaced with anything else, institutionally, anytime particularly soon. What I expect will instead change are people’s behaviors, and perhaps we are already seeing the beginning of that.

  203. Opus says:

    The greatest beneficiaries of marriage are and were women, children, and men and in that order. It is easiest to see this at the extremes and so I give you that strong empowered feminist The Duchess of Sussex. Were Prince Harry merely (as he probably is) Harry Hewitt, a tart like Markle would never have given him the time of day, and like Harry’s hypergamous Mother even marrying an heir to the throne of England will not be enough to satisfy her hypergamic cravings as she (Diana) hob-nobbed with the likes of Pavarotti, Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela – the secular Saints of their day. I hear they are going to make Harry a colonial Governor and pack the pair of them off to Wakanda for three years. Funny the way every time an American divorcee marries a British Royal she always ends up in some godforsaken part of the Empire never to be hear of again – though that I suppose is less awful than a fatal meeting with a Fiat Uno.

    I can never quite decide whether Novaseeker is a Pessimist or a Realist.

  204. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker, you’re saying that in the 20th century Western civilization became more and more based on providing women with good feelze, no matter what it costs. That’s the Land of the Average Frustrated Chump on an industrial scale, just for a start. Yes, you are describing, not proscribing, I get that. It’s still got a major whiff of It’s A Good Life

    Should turn out well. What could go wrong?

  205. vfm7916 says:

    @thedeti

    My wife believes that beatings, sexual abuse, rampant drinking, men abandoning their wives, etc. was the norm 100+ years ago. I object, usually noting that that’s the original propaganda used by the beginnings of the feminist and suffrage movements in the 1870’s, usually holding up the behavior of Irish immigrants as the reason for the end goals of suffrage and prohibition. What I’d like to read are some unvarnished actual accounts of common life to see how the perceptions have been warped over time.

  206. 7817 says:

    Whig history man. Never going back to that way of thinking.

  207. feeriker says:

    Otherwise, marriage then was not too bad for women. Men had obligations to their wives, and they were held to those obligations pretty hard, legally and culturally. Of course, men still are held hard to those duties; but at least at that time, men also had authority, privileges and benefits more or less commensurate with their responsibilities.

    THAT (the bolded part) is what women found so intolerable about “the bad old dark days” – that men had “authority, privileges, and benefits” commensurate with, and as reward for, the responsibilities they were compelled by society to shoulder. And why did women find that so intolerable?

    Because it meant that they, therefore, also had reciprocal obligations to men, their husbands. If there is one thing women cannot abide, EVER, it is being held responsible and accountable for something or to someone. Thus the view that “traditional marriage” was a form of chattel slavery. Any condition under which they are compelled to be accountable or responsible to someone else, for anything whatsoever, and that requires putting themselves and their wants second is, in their minds, “abuse,” “degradation,” or “slavery.”

    The church has lost alot of credibility because of its lies about female nature.

    Wanna learn about female nature and be entertained in the process, in the comfort of your own home, without spending an extra penny and without getting burned by #metoo?

    Go to YouTube and pick out, download, and watch any random two or three classic American films noir from the 1940s and 50s. Even the minor female characters meant to be sympathetic still show true female nature in spades. The female leads? Let’s just say that the script writers of these films, and the novelists who wrote the stories upon which the scripts were based, probably saw that clergy in their own day were doing just as miserable and neglectful a job of explaining the true fallen nature of “Eve” and her posterity (Job’s wife, Delilah, Jezebel, et al, ad infinitum) as those today and knew for sure that the only way most men would ever get their eyes opened, if not by the hard knocks of the real world, was through their favorite entertainment media of literature and film. Good thing they weren’t handicapped by PC in those days. Watching their output today, three quarters of a century later, is very instructive to the current generation. (Also, as an added bonus, in nearly all of these old classic films, the conniving woman gets her comeuppance in the end. Quaint, the moral outlook of days passed…)

    I wonder how long before YouTube, converged a platform that it is, bans these films?

  208. Anonymous Reader says:

    Go to YouTube and pick out, download, and watch any random two or three classic American films noir from the 1940s and 50s.

    Yep. Like this, for example: Private detective Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon talking with …what was her name, again?

  209. American says:

    @Craig: The “Dark Ages” narrative is a complete fraud invented by the first modernists to deceive so they could accomplish their own sociopolitical objectives. That period was building things the Romans couldn’t have imagined. They were healthier, better-fed. And science was leaping forward in the 10, 11, 1200s. The university was present, progressing, and very sophisticated.
    http://www.rodneystark.com/books/

  210. thedeti says:

    VFM:

    You and your wife heard about the beatings, sexual abuse, drinking, alcoholism, abandonment, etc. because those were the horror stories and the drama that made for good novels, short stories, and films.

    It’s just like the fabled 1950s (see the 1997 movie Pleasantville or Leave it to Beaver for reference) are a fantasy/stereotype that is based almost entirely on popular TV culture of the time. The picture of suburban bliss, dad as professional office worker, mom as thin Happy Hotpoint housewife in pressed print dress and apron, smiling older son and younger daughter, dog named Spot or Patches, living in a detached house with one car, lily white, white bread, homogeneous, antiseptic and sanitized for mass consumption – life was like that for maybe 1/4 of people of the time.

    Mostly, life was more like this: Dad and mom were high school sweethearts, or met through their families, friends, or at church. Or, if they were a bit older, they met at work. Both were married to each other by age 26, and most likely earlier. Their ages were within 3 years of each other, he was usually a little older. They were both high school graduates. Maybe they have some college. If he’s older, maybe he was in the military.

    Dad worked in a factory, a foundry, or on a farm. Or if he had some college he worked in some kind of office setting. He was the main breadwinner and he earned most of the money. He could support the family on his income alone. She worked until she started having kids. When she had her first child, she did not work and usually stayed at home until her last child was in school. If she could possibly do it, she had at least 2 kids, and perhaps 5 or 6. Most families averaged between 3 and 5 children. So she was at home at least 10 years, probably longer. She might go back to working after the last kid was in school, or maybe earlier if the family needed it.

    This idea that women didn’t work and could not work outside the home, were legally prohibited from working outside the home, is sheer unadulterated BS. Women worked for pay and always have. Women worked as secretaries, teachers, nurses, assistants of all kinds, and doing factory and farm work. Women took in laundry and did seamstress work. Women also worked in textile mills and doing fine motor assembly work. Working class women also worked in hotels as “chambermaids” and in private homes as paid housekeepers/cleaning ladies.

    If a woman wanted to work, she could. Women didn’t work because by and large they didn’t want to work. And they certainly didn’t like working long hours, doing dangerous work like construction or heavy industrial work, or doing strenuous, time consuming, or mentally taxing work such as medicine, law, investment banking, commodities trading, and the like. This is still the case today – if a woman can get a man to support her and she doesn’t have to work, she will usually quit her job or at least cut her hours way back.

    The married life and standard of living of the average 1950s man and woman was decent but not extravagant. It was “OK”. They lived in small house around 1300 square feet with 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. Mom and Dad had one bedroom, the boys shared a bedroom, and the girls shared a bedroom.

    He married a woman who was decent to him. She was not a bitch most of the time, and when she was, he reined her in or she reined herself in. She respected him for his status as a man. He took care of things so she wouldn’t have to. She took care of his house as best she could, sometimes better than other times. She cooked and cleaned and did laundry and watched the kids and talked to Betty and Marge over the backyard fence. She had sex with him, and it was OK. He wasn’t Chad or Tyrone, he was a Billy Beta, but he was OK to live with and have sex with. She wasn’t Stacy, and many times she wasn’t even Becky. Many times she was a Jane. It wasn’t exciting or fun all the time, but it was OK. Contrary to popular belief, she didnt usually dead bedroom him, at least not until her mid 40s or so.

    She married a man who was decent to her. Contrary to popular belief, he was not an ogre in a white tank top “wifebeater” shirt, screaming “fetch me a turkey pot pie, woman” and stubbing his cigarettes out on his children’s backs. He was not beating the shit out of his wife every other night, nor was he raping her or coming home drunk at 3 am after blowing his paycheck on a whore. He was a fundamentally decent, good guy who worked a job, came home in the evenings after work or after a beer or three at the local watering hole. He made a living and was responsible with it most of the time. He took care of the bills. He represented his family to the world. He did OK for himself and he mostly did right by his wife. He wasn’t perfect, he wasn’t rich, and he wasn’t good looking, but he was good enough to get a Jane or even in some cases a Becky to marry him.

    So that was life for the average 1950s family. Not Leave it to Beaver. Not Pleasantville. Very ordinary, average, everyday.

  211. Anonymous Reader says:

    Raymond Chandler’s The Big Sleep circa 1949 even with Screen Code rules of the day… is still red pill.

  212. vfm7916 says:

    @thedeti

    I’m looking for objective views of the 1850’s through 1880’s, especially the change after the civil war with the mass migration of lower class irish, german, italians, etc. and the perceptual origins of the suffrage movements in the 1870’s and 1880’s.

    Also, the 1950’s lifestyle was a one time hothouse, and I’m not sure its a model for emulation as the product was the boomers, God curse most of them.

    Perhaps European translations of would be more useful, as the American continent has had one long chaotic history with little cultural stability.

  213. thedeti says:

    @Feeriker:

    Because it meant that they, therefore, also had reciprocal obligations to men, their husbands

    And one of those obligations was sex at reasonable times and intervals. And that’s what Nova is saying, correctly, that women didn’t want and don’t want. Women don’ t want to marry men they’re not attracted to simply because they need a man’s financial support. And they don’t want to stay married to men they’re not attracted to anymore, or whom they simply have no use for any longer now that the last kid is in school and she has her own job. (But, she wants the kids so she can get child support, which she needs because she can’t make it on just her income.)

    Which is one major reason why marriage has been changed to accommodate what women want, to the point where marriage now bears almost no resemblance to what it looked like pre-sex rev.

  214. Novaseeker says:

    Novaseeker, you’re saying that in the 20th century Western civilization became more and more based on providing women with good feelze, no matter what it costs. That’s the Land of the Average Frustrated Chump on an industrial scale, just for a start. Yes, you are describing, not proscribing, I get that. It’s still got a major whiff of It’s A Good Life…

    Should turn out well. What could go wrong?

    Sure, but that’s the problem. Under one system you have incentives for men to produce excess value and contribute socially, and women pay with their bodies and sexuality as the currency. Under the other system you have women having fundamental sexual freedom, and AFCs pay the price with their lessened access to sex, children and society pay the price of fatherlessness. It’s easy to say “see, one order is better than the other one because it’s better socially”, and indeed as I said above, hypergamy unlimited isn’t the basis for a good social order long term, but “going backward” isn’t an option, either … whig history or no, anyone have any plans for turning the clock back that are realistic, actionable and real in a relevant timeframe?

    My sense is that a new order, a new equilibrium will have to be found somehow … again unless anyone has a realistic, actionable plan for how to unwind the 20th Century that isn’t “muh reset is inevitable, bruh”.

  215. Anonymous Reade says:

    Here’s a movie feminists have hated for 40 + years. Not exaggerating.

    McClintock circa 1964. This work and The Quiet Man would make good vetting material. I’m not just saying that because I’m fond of redheads, either, it’s the red pill story that counts.

    “Daddy, if you love me, you will shoot him!”

  216. thedeti says:

    I’m looking for objective views of the 1850’s through 1880’s, especially the change after the civil war with the mass migration of lower class irish, german, italians, etc. and the perceptual origins of the suffrage movements in the 1870’s and 1880’s.

    That was a time of industrialization and westward expansion. It wasn’t all that much different except for lower life expectancies on both sides. Men and women marrying in their early 20s and most dead by age 55. Lots of women dying in childbirth. Lots of men getting maimed or killed by all kinds of things. Standards of living were much lower. Sex roles were extremely traditional. The church was actually a real Christian church then, with real cultural power and influence in the daily lives of most people.

    Lower class Irish and Italians brought fierce Catholicism with them. Sure, they were Irish and Italian, but they were Catholics first, and they lived it every day and enforced it pretty hard on themselves and each other. Was there sex out of wedlock? Yes, all the time. But if you got caught, you “did the right thing” and got married, and stayed married. Did that suck for a lot of people? Yes, but then people probably had a better grasp on cause and effect.

    There was absolutely no safety net at all outside your family and the church. If you couldn’t do for yourself, you prevailed on extended family. If you had no extended family, you threw yourself on a local church’s mercy and charity. There were no government programs. If you were estranged from your family or a church wasn’t there or turned you out, you were pretty much on your own and out of decent options.

    Men were not kicking the shit out of their wives then either. Sure, maybe some were, but most weren’t. Men were probably using hookers more often, though, and cheating on their wives if they could. Men have been cheating on their wives since time immemorial. Women have cheated on husbands too, but to lesser extents, in large part because the cultural and legal consequences for adultery were so severe. In many jurisdictions, adultery and fornication were crimes. They were rarely prosecuted, but they were still criminal offenses.

  217. thedeti says:

    My sense is that a new order, a new equilibrium will have to be found somehow …

    I think we’re seeing what it will look like for probably the next 100 years or so. Marriage rates steadily declining among all but the upper middle class on up. More and more stratification between the 5% “haves” and the 95% “have nots”. The “Haves” will get legally married and stay married for the purposes of keeping their one or two designer kids in the “haves” category.

    The rest of the population will look increasingly like it does now. For the middle to lower middle class: Marry at least once. If you marry, the odds are better than even that you’ll be unhappily married and that one of your major needs will go unmet. The odds are very good that you’ll get divorced. You’ll be a child support payor or payee. You will probably not remarry. You’ll work a job that requires more and more of you while paying you less and less.

    For the lower classes: If you marry you have a greater than 60% chance of divorce. You probably will not marry. You’re either a baby mama or a baby daddy. You grew up in a single parent household, usually living with your mother. You make just enough to support yourself, and the occasional child support payment. You’re constantly behind on your bills. If you’re a woman, you date guys occasionally and scratch the sexual itch when you need to. If you’re a man, you get sex rarely and go months or years without anyone even so much as touching or hugging you. And if you’re a man, your odds of suicide are roughly 3 to 5 times that of everyone else.

  218. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I just discovered this site called — ChicksOnTheRight.com — written by allegedly conservative women. From a quick perusal, I found this one post of theirs, lamenting the lack of chivalry among modern men: https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2019/04/23/chivalry-is-so-dead-ashleys-airplane-incident/

    This “chick on the right” complains about how she was struggling to load some carryon luggage into an airplane’s compartment, and two guys were just watching her, not offering to help.

    This “chick on the right” then asks, Is Chivalry dead? She goes on about how her father, if he ever saw a woman requiring any help, would be the first to leap to his feet and help her.

  219. American says:

    Yes, chivalry is dead. Now drive through, you’re holding up the line.

  220. Novaseeker says:

    This “chick on the right” then asks, Is Chivalry dead? She goes on about how her father, if he ever saw a woman requiring any help, would be the first to leap to his feet and help her.

    Again, this is the hybrid social model: responsibility for men, freedom for women.

  221. vfm7916 says:

    @thedeti

    Any source would help, if you know of some.

  222. 7817 says:

    Nova:

    My sense is that a new order, a new equilibrium will have to be found somehow

    Do you think the church, as generally comprised today, is capable of helping people live godly lives in this new order, new equilibrium as you call it? And if not, what does the church need to do? Does it look like the It’s Good To Be A Man project? Is it the average megachurch? Is it home churches? Where should we be looking?

  223. Novaseeker says:

    Do you think the church, as generally comprised today, is capable of helping people live godly lives in this new order, new equilibrium as you call it? And if not, what does the church need to do? Does it look like the It’s Good To Be A Man project? Is it the average megachurch? Is it home churches? Where should we be looking?

    A good question. I think we won’t really know that until the new equilibrium emerges — right now I think we’re still in an unstable situation with no new equilibrium. (It’s possible also that instability is the new equilibrium itself … but I don’t think we can conclude that yet.) I don’t think that the church will be very helpful here, because it hasn’t been helpful at all as the old order collapsed and ew entered this unstable situation. Most likely regardless of one’s church home — whether that’s an institutional church like the Catholics or Orthodox or the average non-denominational megachurch, it will really come down to individual believers navigating their way through the new order, at least in the early going. It’s almost certain that the church itself won’t be helpful, based on how utterly unhelpful the church has been in this unstable period.

  224. Iowa Slim says:

    The extinction trend of marriage will play out over a few more decades. By the time it’s sharply felt as a social crisis, the result will not be a “reset” to the old model. The majority of young people now have had no meaningful exposure to marriage 1.0, thus it’s not something they can go back to. The old model is as arcane to most of them as Civil War re-enactment societies or stories about life before indoor plumbing and electricity.

    I guess I qualify as a MGTOW, but the guys who go on about how MGTOW is going to make women come crawling back on their knees I can’t take seriously. I assume they’re just needing to process their red-pill rage by talking it through.

  225. Anon says:

    This “chick on the right” complains about how she was struggling to load some carryon luggage into an airplane’s compartment, and two guys were just watching her, not offering to help.

    This is a good example of proof that destroys what Mrs. IBB was trying to push a few days ago – that women who don’t identify as ‘feminists’ are strongly in favor of advancing civilization, and fully reject ‘feminism’.

  226. vfm7916 says:

    I took my own advice and popped over to the library of congress’s rare book section; ran across this item:

    https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2017gen02750/?sp=74

    The book is basically a woman’s attempt to reason her way into equality with men, but there are some good spots where reality shines through.

    The LOC site is not so hot, lots of 500 errors, but reloading kept it going. I think I’ll see if I can find some mass market publications as they’ll offer a more ground level view than many of the high christian virtue signaling books of the time. (virtue signaling turns out to be a rather old phenomenon…)

  227. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    Well, but it has to be admitted that the old regime really sucked for a lot of women.

    I hope you were being sarcastic here. It is true many women got the mindset that it was horrible, but that was not the reality, at least when compared against the alternatives. The modern system is really not much better, though many foolishly think it is.

    Thinking about things ahead of time and then living up to your word may require some pain, but it is far better for everyone than what we have now.

    Though sin will always claim to please far more than it delivers.

  228. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    If you read the comments on that “chicks on the right” video, lots of men are lining up to blame feminism for the lack of chivalry. They say that men are afraid to help women, because if she’s a feminist, she’ll berate the man for thinking she needs help.

    The women commenters — and the author — also blame feminists for the lack of chivalry.

    The consensus among all these conservative men and women is …

    1. Chivalry is Good, and every true conservative man and woman wants chivalry.

    2. Feminism is Bad, and isn’t it a shame that feminism destroys chivalry.

  229. Iowa Slim says:

    Chivalry won’t be dead until we run out of chumps. Any predictions on when that will happen?

  230. Charles B says:

    @RPL, thanks for the link to CotR, another target rich environment of blue pill conservatives to troll.

  231. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    The entirety of 20th century feminism is about women being freed from having to marry and fuck (and stay married to) men to whom they have no great sexual attraction — that’s it, soup to nuts.

    That is the message feminists put forth, but that does not make it true.

    Opus correctly noted:

    Happiness is a relative thing and there is not to my knowledge any evidence to suggest that the average woman in the past was any the less happy than her counterpart today, indeed I seem to recall studies suggesting that in the past women were more happy then than now. It is desire that creates unhappiness and if one is unaware that there are men who look like Cary Grant one cannot pine for such.

    ====

    Craig,

    You are correct. The “Dark Ages” is largely a myth formed because people haven’t looked into it. Some things were certainly lost (Roman road strength for example), but advances still happened.

    This is part of the problem with modern culture viewing everything through its own eyes. Novaseeker faces this as well. This is a human problem. We have a hard time thinking outside our own little box. Yet people have lived in very different situations.

    Note that the original curse on women was that they would want to rule their husbands. That core principal has been around since then, but it has manifested in different ways. Modern unhappiness with marriage from almost all women is just an expression of it.

    Happiness is a choice. Many go through very hard times and remain happy/content. Others flinch when even thinking of hardship.

    Novaseeker and Deti,

    You are projecting the modern situation on all history. People do sin outside the bounds when they can many times, but that does not require that all are just waiting to do that. God put some restraints inside of each one of us and it takes some effort to push those completely aside and go for debauchery. We may revel in it today, but that does not mean it was always that way.

  232. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Anon, ordinary women (even feminist harpies) are in favor of advancing civilization. Its just that the majority of women (and the entirety of feminists) are functionally incapable (on a grand scale) to contribute in any meaningful way towards its advancement. Women’s best role in advancing civilization is on a very small scale, a very local level. That is of course, being a wife and a mother in a family. And there is quite a bit that is good about that its just that feminists refuse to revere and honor that level of contribution.

    Hollenhund,

    IBB whines about the coming social decline, yet he doesn’t even believe that American STEM graduate single men should be hired by IT firms instead of Asians with H-1Bs

    I have never-EVER said this. You must have me confused with someone else.

    Our H-1B program was created by K-Street lobbyists throwing re-election campaign money at house democrats and republicans convincing them that we must import India in order to fill IT jobs. That is all rubbish of course. These lobbyist dollars are being contributed from companies like Alphabet (Google), Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc, simply because they don’t want to pay market wages for technical help. Importing in more technical help does two things for these companies: #1) it drives down wages for US citizens competing for these professional jobs and (worst of all) #2) it prevents corporations from having to pay to “train” US citizens to learn any newer technologies that they want to monetize. I don’t know how many times I have heard in interviews, we don’t just want you to hit the football field running, we need you to haul in a Hail Mary pass in the end zone for a touchdown on your first week or we don’t to hire you. All of this needs to change.

    and thinks that 30-year-old men looking to marry 18-year-old women are “infernal sexual perverts”*, even though the coming decline would be mitigated if these things were, you know, actually happening.

    In my office, one of our younger consultants (he was 31) married an 18 year old girl. He started pursuing her the old Alabama Judge Roy Moore style; heading to the mall and talking up the high school girls. That is where he met his future wife (at the old food court.)

    This young man was my counselee. I was his counselor. He was also H-1B (I didn’t hire him, I just had to counsel the progress of his professional career.) He told me that what he was doing (if it wasn’t an “arranged marriage”) was not all that uncommon in his country. He wanted a young girl because the thought of that girl knowing another man’s cock would have made him sad. He wanted to be the one to “break the hymen” or else its not marriage. At least that is what he said and I feel special that he confided this to me. After all, he was a virgin so she had to be. If he had to wait, so must she. I didn’t know how to break it to him that it was unlikely that she would actually be a virgin (no matter what she was telling him) but he had to find out the hard way on their wedding night when she didn’t bleed. He told me afterwards, all she did was cry the night of their honeymoon the whole time he was interrogating her. And when he said interrogate I assume that means (to us) YELL! Yes, he found out that she had been with other “boys” and their marriage ended about a month after it had began. And no, she didn’t get any cash or prizes because he didn’t actually own anything yet. You get half in my community property state with divorce but half of nothing is nothing, they had no children, and one month of marriage does not warrant a penny of alimony.

    Its not that I believe this is sexual perversion. I’ve been thinking a lot about this since the Judge Roy Moore fiasco. And I can certainly sympathize with men wanting to get married and marry a woman who has NOT had 100,000 cocks in her vagina (yet) NOR has she accumulated $100,000 in student loans (yet.) There may even be something spiritual there, grabbing an N-0. A young man wants to marry the N-0 even if he himself is NOT an N-0. That way she will “pair bond” because she will never know “any other cock than his” thereby reducing any likelihood of frivorce (on her part) to zero. In that sense, a wife’s sexual ignorance is truly her husband’s bliss. There has been essay’s written about this phenomenon of human sociology, I’ve read a few of them. They “bond” with the hymen breaker.

    The problem that I have with it is that the young man who focuses on this (if I am a virgin on the wedding night, then she must be too!) and as such, wants to marry an 18 year old specifically for that reason (as there aren’t many other reasons for pursuing the 18 year old other than avoiding the anti-dowry of student loans) is trying to control something he can not control. I read the Bible. There is no verse in there stipulating from God that says a man is “entitled” to a virgin. Maybe she’ll be a virgin and maybe she wont be. Maybe she will LIE the whole time (like my poor counselee’s nubile wife did to him) because she wanted you to marry her and what are you going to do when there is no blood on the sheets, divorce her like he did? Is that what you want? If you are in your 30s, and you are pursuing that 18 year old, you can’t be doing that for ANY OTHER REASON than her physical purity. There is nothing the two of you can’t about, nothing. There is nothing she’s going to know about life that you probably didn’t already know. The two of you will have almost nothing in common, no common interests (with the exception being religion.) And even then, she will not have the spiritual understanding that you have. The two of you will NOT be at the same level in life. And worst of all, she’s 18 which means her thoughts on life are going to CHANGE. She will NOT be the same girl you bed on your wedding night even 5 years later, everything will change. I’ve been married almost 18 years, believe me, things are still changing.

    I mean, do whatever you want. Knock yourself out. If that makes you feel like a pervert, then maybe you are. If not, then I don’t care. I really don’t.

    American

    @Craig: The “Dark Ages” narrative is a complete fraud invented by the first modernists to deceive so they could accomplish their own sociopolitical objectives. That period was building things the Romans couldn’t have imagined. They were healthier, better-fed. And science was leaping forward in the 10, 11, 1200s. The university was present, progressing, and very sophisticated.

    I said that there was no technological progress made in 1000 years absent Islam giving us Algebra. I may have jumped the gun a bit there (obviously.) There were some scientific achievements during the Dark Ages I am sure, particularly in agriculture. I think we can all agree that some things were achieved. But that is not really my point.

    The point of defining the Dark Ages as Dark is that prior to its beginning (and after its ending) scientific and technological achievement dramatically accelerated. Things were speeding up (knowledge wise) the whole of the Republic of Rome. Did you know that using nothing but weights and pulleys, the Roman achieved “automatic door openers?” Yes they had that. Incredible. I seriously doubt if many commoners in 1000 AD could “imagine that.” Of course, we found all this out about automatic door openers AFTER the end of the Dark Ages (during the Renaissance) when inquisitive minded men started carefully examining the ruin and knowledge and invention started to speed up (once again.) But those 1000 Dark years while Islam started to crawl across Europe, the speed at which we were learning and advancing dramatically “decreased.” We were slowed.

    Chivalry and Feudalism (both created during the Dark Ages) were created specifically in the ABSENCE of technical achievement, in response to Islam, to halt Islam’s cancerous spread over the unwitting. Ordinary people were NOT literate during the Dark Ages, but they knew what the “stirrup” was, what a Knight was, and what the Priest told them was in the Bible. They understood ONLY what they understood (or only what they were told) until they could read something else which brings me to my next point that you and Craig made: universities.

    For the person who could read, the university is a wonderful thing. It enabled the literate commoner to read and learn all that there was that was recorded (all that Jewish and Islamic scholars were able to record by hand because we didn’t get the printing press until the 15th century.) You could learn and understand how others did things and take that knowledge, run with it, and build the next thing. That helped. But it only helped the very few who could attend OR those who took there new-found-knowledge and built something (of it) that the commoners could use. We don’t have a whole lot of evidence of this happening during the Dark Ages.

    Its not that NOTHING was learned or achieved during the Dark Ages. Its just that life in Europe in (say?) 600 AD might not have been all that different than life in Europe in 1350 AD. But after the Renaissance, everything changed in the world and changed very quickly.

  233. BillyS says:

    While the core of humans is extremely sinful, that does not mean the entire society walked that out.

    Sex has become a chore to modern women because they have made it such. They could do that even when they enjoyed the sex for reasons far outside any attraction. Assuming all/most women just hated the sex is just as naive as thinking all wanted it with joy.

    Many were quite content since that was the way things were. The limits that limited that situation went away and many began carrying out the desire to rule over their husbands, just as The Curse proclaimed. That doesn’t mean it was horrid before.

    Stop erring in only considering the desire to rule over men and nothing else. We would not have had civilization for so many years if that was the case. Prostitution has also been far more limited in many cases than Deti claims. It was not a “common thing” for most men. (Put up proof otherwise.) Venereal diseases would be far more widespread if so. It would either require a lot more women than men or a lot of men going without a wife. Men did die more in war in the past, but not sufficiently to make prostitution safe for many.

  234. BillyS says:

    A man doesn’t “deserve” a virgin? Nope, he deserves a higher likelihood of being railroaded in the future! Great logic there!

  235. Joe@ says:

    @IBB

    Things were speeding up (knowledge wise) the whole of the Republic of Rome. Did you know that using nothing but weights and pulleys, the Roman achieved “automatic door openers?” Yes they had that. Incredible.

    Yes, there was great technological achievement in those times. I was surprised to learn that Caesarea (the most famous of Herod’s new building projects) which was begun in 22 BC and took 12 years to complete had an elaborate sewage system. The sewers were designed so they were cleansed by the Mediterranean Sea when the wind blew from the west. The most amazing discovery was made in 1982 when a number of wooden frames were found that were used to set concrete under water for the construction of the deep water port – a modern technique. Source: The Jews in the time of Jesus – A History by Peter Connolly, Oxford University Press.

  236. American says:

    Scientific advancement was largely static in the ancient Roman empire in comparison to the medieval period. Earlier technical innovations did not constitute science, being atheoretical and nonempirical. It wasn’t until the medieval period when they began to be linked to testable theories that they became science.

    Aristotle, for example, taught that the speed at which objects fall to earth is proportionate to their weight-that a stone twice as heavy as another will fall twice as fast. A simple trip to any of the nearby cliffs would have allowed him to falsify his own proposition but he never thought to do that. It was Christians like Albertus Magnus (1205-1280) who subjected Aristotle and others to observational testing, frequently finding them to be in error, implementing research leading directly to breakthroughs in biology and physics. That’s how science was birthed and progressed starting in even the early medieval period or so-called “Dark Ages.”

    “The Dark Ages” is really a fabrication of a few atheistic Enlightenment writers (e.g. Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon), echoed by modernists, invented as a disingenuous marketing ploy to push a competing sociopolitical ideology (secularism-humanism-individualism) they taught would usher in a modern human utopia without God and separate from the church. And it failed so badly to accomplish that objective, that postmodernism spawned and erroring into relativism while wrongly asserting that objective truth and reality is itself subjective to ego-centrism.

    In fact, “The Dark Ages” was an era of profound and rapid technological progress by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world with the so-called Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century the normal result of developments begun by Scholastic scholars even before the eleventh century.

    Read: https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=19240

  237. Joe2 says:

    My comment about Caesarea should be by Joe2 and not Joe.

  238. 7817 says:

    IBB:

    The problem that I have with it is that the young man who focuses on this… is trying to control something he can not control. I read the Bible. There is no verse in there stipulating from God that says a man is “entitled” to a virgin.

    This whole thing you wrote is off base. There’s all sorts of things you can’t control. You can’t control if your wife has an affair. Would you want that? No. Nothing wrong with a man wanting good things and trying to get them in a righteous way. Bad things are going to happen, sure, but don’t piss in the cereal and say it’s added flavor. Sure it might be all there is, but let’s not lie about the situation.

  239. American says:

    The first empire arose in Mesopotamia followed by the Egyptian, Chinese, Persian, and Indian empires. But except for immense public works projects, technological change was slow. It wasn’t until the formation of Western Civilization in the hundreds of small independent Greek city-states, that this began to change; however, that was extinguished by the rise of new empires.

    The antiquity model consisted of some powerful rulers living in opulent wealth while their many hard working subjects live in poverty. Progress was so slow within ancient empires because of their metaphysical worldviews but also due to value (land, crops, livestock, [even children]) being heavily taxed and often simply appropriated. And little of the wealth extracted was invested to increase production. It was mostly consumed and displayed (pyramids, hanging gardens, architectural projects, etc…). Some slow advancement (especially in engineering) occurred for certain but stagnation was the rule.

    And then Jew’s rational creator of the cosmos took hold across the Greco-Roman world…

  240. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Well, but it has to be admitted that the old regime really sucked for a lot of women.

    I don’t have to admit it, because “a lot” is such a fuzzy term as to have little meaning. One the arguments from 1960’s era feminists had to do with “women taking tranquilizers – “Mother’s Little Helpers” – because of their Problem with No Name. I have not yet found any actual numbers or percentages, though.

    The new standard model: high school then college / trade school plus cock carousel, followed by internship / graduate school plus more cock carousel, leading to a marriage hunt beginnning around age 27 or so, followed by settling for a man who wasn’t good enough just 4 years earlier, then a child or maybe two, then a few years later a frivorce because of unhaaaaapiness…this doesn’t seem to be working for a lot of women.

    Because how many women are on anti-depressants? 20%? 25%? More? How many are on a steady ration of box wine and GNO”s? Women were unhaaaapy staying home, but from what I can tell more than a few are not all that haaaaapy in Encorpora cube farms. Why, it’s almost as though women aren’t men with boobs, they are different creatures and one of their bugs features is near-perpetual discontent…

    What if more women are on mind-numb drugs (SSRI’s, opiates, alcohol, THC, meth, etc.) now than back when Germaine Greer was a hot topic?

    Would that suggest that the new regime really sucks for a lot of women?

  241. Novaseeker says:

    Why, it’s almost as though women aren’t men with boobs, they are different creatures and one of their bugs features is near-perpetual discontent…

    I agree — women will always be discontent no matter what.

    My point, however, is that there is a particularly nasty kind of discontent that arises from having to have sex with someone you are not attracted to sexually, having no choice in the matter, and having no way out. Yep, women are depressed and face problems today. No question. However, almost none of them want to go back to a system that forces them, due to financial dependence, to have sex with guys they are not attracted to. That’s what I have been saying in this discussion — the old system sucked hard for women for that reason alone. It isn’t that they are happy under the new system (I don’t think any system would make them happy because the discontent is built in), but there is a particularly nasty kind of unhappiness associated with repeated unwanted sex that nearly all women would resist going back towards.

  242. 7817 says:

    there is a particularly nasty kind of unhappiness associated with repeated unwanted sex that nearly all women would resist going back towards.

    As usual the church made this far worse by promoting behaviour to men which makes them as undesirable as possible to women.

    That being said, I think you are painting everything darker than it was. Women, filling the shape of what container they are in, probably got along then at minimum at least as well as they do now as far as happiness is concerned. The big leaders of the temperance movement and suffragettes were not known as desirable women. These were the women driving this sort of thing, the types unhappy with the deal they were able to get in marriage. One wonders if they could have got men to marry them that would have shown some amused mastery with them if we would be in a better place now.

    You describe how it looks from this end pretty well, but at the time, these things weren’t obvious, and men are the ones that gave women the vote. Women didn’t, they couldn’t.

  243. BillyS says:

    almost none of them want to go back to a system that forces them, due to financial dependence, to have sex with guys they are not attracted to

    The “fact” that this was the most common way has not been proven.

    Modern women certainly wouldn’t want to “go back” to that, but that doesn’t mean it ever existed. I would posit that many relationships were much better, even in the sex area, when sex was not continuously thrown in everyone’s face, as it is now.

    Women didn’t know all of what they were missing before mass media, as one example. It is also clear that women can be attracted to quite ugly men, even those without money, so pure beauty is not the only factor.

    Women’s attraction varies greatly. A society that made them keep their commitments would do a lot to help them regain attraction. They could be attracted if they wanted to be in most cases, they just have no desire nor incentive to develop that in modern society.

  244. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    My point, however, is that there is a particularly nasty kind of discontent that arises from having to have sex with someone you are not attracted to sexually, having no choice in the matter, and having no way out.

    Would you include “being raped by immigrants from 3rd world countries” in that category?

  245. American says:

    There are many reasons why most women, to a large measure, were content in Western Civilization before the “sexual revolution.” What a caricature to assert almost all females were miserable, except for a small percentage who only found true happiness because they had sex with a male they were strongly sexually attracted to.

  246. blu says:

    Nova-

    I’ve been thinking about this all day long. I believe that your point about women being unhappy in the old marriage system is mostly incorrect. Or at least, incorrect in the aggregate.

    The overriding factor for me is that the status of men in the days of the old marriage contract was head and shoulders above what it is now. This is a general statement of course, but if we take the average man circa the days of the old marriage contract-

    He could afford to support his wife and family easily.
    He had social cache.
    He had greater political capital than he has now.
    He had the support of the church, family, neighbors, job, children’s schools, et al.

    These are just the obvious. On top of that, he lived before the days of subtle social engineering programing in commercials, in your face Gillette commercials, rabid HR departments, #metoo, etc etc….

    Nowadays an average man is viewed as an impotent chump.

    Let’s not kid ourselves, this stuff matters in attraction.

  247. American,

    There are many reasons why most women, to a large measure, were content in Western Civilization before the “sexual revolution.”

    This was Ann Coulter’s position. And I quote:

    Just as every new generation thinks it discovered sex, refusing to wonder how they came kicking and screaming into the world, apparently the new thing is for every generation to think it discovered sexual harassment.

    Historical note for my younger readers: George Washington didn’t grab women’s breasts or force them to watch him masturbate.

    There have been tectonic shifts in Americans’ attitudes about sex, but the idea of thanking someone by sending him a prostitute with a note in her vagina is of relatively recent vintage. (Hat tip: Hollywood’s Robert Evans!) (For Larry David fans, Evans’ birth name was Robert Shapera.)

    These are the major epochs in American sexual history:

    1607-1968: Women in America were treated better than any place else on Earth, at any time in history.

    1968-1991: Manson Family values swept the nation, with the rise of the Worst Generation. Left-wing men, from senators to hippies, treated women as subjugated beings and sexual playthings.

    The Weathermen forced girls into group sex. The Supreme Court granted constitutional protection to the most vile forms of pornography. Hollywood dumped the Hays Code, and promptly went pedal-to-the-metal on movies showing the bright side of the sexual exploitation of women.

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-11-22.html

    How right she was. Prior to 1968, women were treated better and I’d add, they were probably happier prior to the sexual revolution that feminism insisted upon.

  248. American says:

    I’m not sure Anne’s a great messenger for that message but she’s right. Prior to the “sexual revolution,” most women were treated better. Also, on average, they (including the unmarried in their ranks) drew a great deal more contentment and security from those large tight-knit families. And, overall they were far more spiritual than today with local Christian or Catholic assembly membership providing both community and a worldview which was ultimately (eternally) meaningful to them. Etc…

  249. Jonathan Castle says:

    “almost none of them want to go back to a system that forces them, due to financial dependence, to have sex with guys they are not attracted to. ”

    I would submit that their very financial dependence on – and submission to – their husbands generated it’s own attraction. Women generally had to look up to their men.

    Another patriarchy dividend.

  250. Paul says:

    As other have noted, the “Dark ages” were an invention by the “Enlightenment” atheistic proponents to paint themselves in a good light, while making the Christianity dominated medieval age look bad. It’s a myth that’s still being propagated.

    Similarly were the myths that the Church believed in a flat earth, or that the rise of the Golden Age of Islam that gave birth to miraculous inventions, created to further paint Christianity black.

    As for the Roman Empire, it lasted till 1453 when it was destroyed by the Islamic Ottoman Empire. The schism between east and west caused such a division that I’m suspicious the story has been told that the Roman Empire definitely fell with the sack of Rome in 410 by “the barbarians”.

    However, if you look at for example the Hagia Sophia, built in 537 by the Roman Emperor Justinian I, it was the epitome of Roman Engineering, being the largest cathedral in the world for a thousand years, having a spectacular dome considered to be an engineering marvel. After the Mohammedans came, the church was after a 1000 years converted into a mosque.

    And Justinian erected many buildings around the Mediterranean, as Procopius testifies, including aquaducts (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Procopius/Buildings/home.html).

    Rodney Stark’s “How the West won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity ” gives a very nice overview of the inventions of the Middle Ages, and how these led to the superiority of Western Culture.

  251. Opus says:

    Novaseeker seems determined in his view and who can say he is wrong when his argument – as I read it – syllogises as follows: women like to have sex with attractive men; few men are attractive; ergo women were always unhappy with their husbands.

    I don’t believe it. Here is an anecdote told to me by my once fifteen year old girlfriend. At her school was a cleaner and she was married and probably in her seventies. She explained that when she married, her husband was so shy that on the night of their wedding her husband turned away to get undressed unaware that his posterior was visible in the wardrobe mirror. She now found this most amusing. They were of course still married and very much Darby and Joan that is to say poor but contented and I may add very kind people. Women may prefer attractive men but when it has never occurred to them that there are such men they will not feel as if they are missing something. That school cleaner after all married long before even Cary Grant was strutting his stuff on the silver screen. I thus still think that Novaseeker is reading present middle-class late-marrying professionals of D.C. back into an historical past which was so different that his analogy fails.

    In support of my view let me observe that it is only in the last few decades that the notion of conjugal rights has become a matter for mockery form the Feminists and their white-knight supporters. My syllogism thus goes as follows: women married young and enjoyed sex with their husbands; they produced children and it never occurred to them that they should not do so; ergo marital happiness was not something that was even conceptually available to them. Happiness I may remind everyone is one of the more regrettable notions to be pursued in your Declaration of Independence – which reminds me (because it is funny) of a Tort lecture I attended as a first year law student. These days the lecturer would not dare surely do this but he addressed one of the few females in the class and asked her what she understood by a ‘thing in action’ [it is a legal term]. She without batting an eyelid replied that she always looked at the ceiling. These days she would be on her cell-phone to H.R. crying Raaaayyype.

  252. Höllenhund says:

    @IBB

    I decided to do a bunch of digging and found the comment I was referring to. It seems indeed that my memory partially failed me:

    If you are technically qualified, and you want a job, you have one. We need 10 people here in IT, can’t find them because we can’t afford them. So the work never gets done, just going from bad to worse to impossible.

    What we have instead (the numbers you are looking at) are people who need a job that are not technically qualified to work in STEM but want to do so (and nothing else) and don’t have a job so we count them as a STEM unemployment statistic. I’m sorry, I’m not hiring a 22 year old college kid to be a software developer, not even entry level. He is not qualified no matter how many programs he wrote. I can’t use you because you have no business knowledge and I would have to teach you everything for years. I don’t have that kind of time. Get thee to thy help desk and suffer answering phones for a few years.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/denying-the-existence-of-feminism/#comment-114369

    You’re certainly doing your part to contribute to the ongoing social decline and the deterioration of the mating market, so I think my main point stands. I’ll take back what I said about H-1B holders.

  253. I’ll take back what I said about H-1B holders.

    Thank you.

    You want a job on our help desk?

  254. thedeti says:

    @Anon Reader:

    Would you include “being raped by immigrants from 3rd world countries” in that category?

    Rollo’s explored this a little bit in War Brides. If immigrants from 3d world countries are more masculine and attractive than the men they used to fuck, then, no, women won’t be complaining about being “raped” by Third World immigrants and women won’t be “discontent” about it.

    Because, as seems to be happening, Third World immigrants are overrunning western Europe, and women aren’t doing much of anything to stop it. Because most of said Third World immigrants are masculine men, or at least they’re more masculine than the western Eurocucks presently being overrun. And women like fucking masculine men, regardless of the race, location, background, religious persuasion, and/or heritage of said masculine men. Women will cheat on a less masculine husband with a more masculine man, no question about it.

  255. Höllenhund says:

    In your HR department, rather.

  256. Daniel says:

    There’s nothing that we can do to turn around society at large. But we can work in our own families and congregations to reestablish a Biblical model. It won;t have the backing of the state. But at least our men and women can have camaraderie and accountability.

    Tim Bayly has a list of things that the Church should be doing in his article, “MARRIAGE (5): WHEN YOUR DEAR WIFE SAYS “NO” (B)”

    – The call to obedience should be in premarital counselling.
    – The vow to “obey” should be in every bride’s vows by requirement of her beloved session’s marriage policies.
    – The wedding homily should always command the bride to submit to her groom as it commands the groom to love his bride.
    – The post-marital counselling should probe both matters for growth in godliness.
    – The week-by-week and year-by-year sermons should apply the truth of the Order of Creation every time it comes up, and good pastors will see it in the text all the time, and not bypass it because it’s awkward and some rebellious households will leave angry.
    – The central curriculum of the women’s ministry Bible studies and bridal showers and interpersonal counselling should be those things under intense attack today communicated to Pastor Titus by the Apostle Paul in his program for older women teaching younger women: wives are to be “workers at home” and “being subject to their own husbands” (Titus 2:3-5).
    – Home fellowship groups should provide occasions for older women to observe wifely rebellion; and observing it, they should find a time to exhort this wife.
    – Home fellowship groups should provide occasions for the elders and pastors and deacons, at least, to observe callous, rude, indifferent, and passive husbands; and observing this lovelessness, they should find a time to exhort this husband.

    And on the list should go…

    Honestly, this sounds pretty great. Is there a church on the face of the earth that is doing this?

  257. Charles B says:

    @Opus, I think Novaseeker’s argument rings false because we know women are so much more susceptible to social proofing and programming as far as what they want and what they are attracted to.

    So a woman who has no idea she should want anything else, and is raised by a community that tells her from day 1 that a polite, hardworking, regular guy is high status and sexy will be far more likely to find happiness with him than a man would in the reverse situation.

    And on top of that, she’d have no access to other options (that were greatly different) that would tell her hypergamous nature that there was something better she’s missing.

  258. Charles B says:

    @ Daniel, those are a first step, and no, not that I know of.

    But notice that they are all for left of bang: before something goes wrong. I give NCOs and J.O.s authority and tools so that even if we prepare perfectly, *when something inevitably goes wrong* they can do something about it.

    There is not one tool or power vested in the husband for after things go wrong in the list you showed. That’s the problem.

  259. Anon says:

    Good article :

    Is there anything creepier than a ‘male feminist’?

    It is good that the weakest pillar of the current status quo – male feminists – is getting rightly pilloried.

  260. Anon says:

    Charles B,

    So a woman who has no idea she should want anything else, and is raised by a community that tells her from day 1 that a polite, hardworking, regular guy is high status and sexy will be far more likely to find happiness with him than a man would in the reverse situation.

    And on top of that, she’d have no access to other options (that were greatly different) that would tell her hypergamous nature that there was something better she’s missing.

    Of course. In truly traditional societies, where most people married as virgins and there is no real layer of male-female pre-marital fornication, women are just programmed to think that is normal.

    Since they marry as virgins, they don’t use up their ‘bonding glue’. i.e. if you use a sticker more than three or four times, all of its bonding glue is gone.

    Now, everything about Marriage 1.0 is not great, of course. But it worked because it knew that forcing all women to marry as virgins was the only way to make it work. Dowry was another system that shielded against female irresponsibility, since it was effectively a security bond of the wife’s father’s money. If she runs off, she forfeits it. While occasional dowry abuses happened, it surely prevented more problems than it created.

  261. OKRickety says:

    Daniel said: “Honestly, this sounds pretty great. Is there a church on the face of the earth that is doing this?”

    I’d be greatly surprised if Tim Bayly didn’t claim that his church does these things.

    From the list:
    – Home fellowship groups should provide occasions for older women to observe wifely rebellion; and observing it, they should find a time to exhort this wife.
    – Home fellowship groups should provide occasions for the elders and pastors and deacons, at least, to observe callous, rude, indifferent, and passive husbands; and observing this lovelessness, they should find a time to exhort this husband.

    I find the usage of “exhortation” peculiar as the New Testament epistle writers did not seem to have any problem with direct rebuke of sinful behavior. Perhaps exhortation is considered more loving. Although a recent exchange with Sanityville subscribers leads me to suppose they may have some special definition of exhortation that includes rebuke.

    Notice that rebellious wives are to be “exhorted” by older women, and husbands by elders, pastors, and deacons. This is disconcerting. There is no reason that the church spiritual leaders should not “exhort” rebellious wives if and, likely, when it is needed. I would be okay with the older women having first shot at doing it, but, having my doubts there are many who would recognize wifely rebellion, I sure wouldn’t restrict the “exhortation” to them.

    I also think the specific mention of “home fellowship groups” shows great naiveté. Is he ignorant enough to suppose that a rebelling wife would not know to be careful with her behavior in such meetings?

  262. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Daniel,

    There is not one tool or power vested in the husband for after things go wrong in the list you showed. That’s the problem.

    Exactly. There is not one tool, no power or any authority vested in the husband. Nothing. And for a bachelor who (right at the beginning) has so much to lose, he needs to be made aware of that before he says “I do.” And for the very clever Christian bachelor, the lucky one who took the red pill BEFORE getting married, he is in a position of great strength and advantage. Time for some fan fiction!

    The setting: some random financially endowed Mega-Church with a fitness center, a counseling center, a robust church school program, and a myriad of social clubs meant to offer social interaction with like members

    The protagonist: Bob, the late twenty-something young professional Christian, with 4 different church callings

    The antagonist: Bob’s pastor Phil

    The plot: pure dialogue

    (Pastor Phil) “Oh Bob! How are you doing? I was wondering if I was going to run into you tonight.”

    (Bob) “Hi pastor, yes as you know, I run the young single’s club on Wednesday. We were actually discussing all the details on our camping trip next weekend. I promise, I’ll get them all up at 6AM Sunday morning, we’ll break camp, eat donuts for breakfast, get on the interstate by 7:30 AM, and I’ll have them all in the pews (albeit with their camping clothes on) for your 10:00 AM service.”

    (Phil) “Yes, I am sure you will Bob. You are incredibly responsible. In fact, I’ve never known such a young man to be able to handle so many callings.”

    (Bob) “Well I have the time in the evenings. And because I am unencumbered, I have the ability to contribute a bit more than some of the other members. Christ would expect this of me.”

    (Phil) “Christ expects you to run the young single’s club, manage the athletic center, transport all our food donations to the 4 inner city churches each month for missions, AND be the Assistant Scout Master?”

    (Bob) “We all do our part.”

    (Phil) “Not quite all of us Bob. You do far more than most people, far more than I or any church members could have asked of you.”

    (Bob) “Christ asks this of me pastor.”

    (Phil) “I’m sure he does.” Phil smiles and pauses. “Bob, I’ve known you know for almost 20 years.”

    (Bob) “Wow, its been that long, gosh time does fly.”

    (Phil) “Yes it does. When I started as a junior clergy member here a Acme Mega-Church, you were 8 years old. You were one of my first students in the church school. In all that time, I think I’ve gotten to know you quite well.”

    (Bob) “I would agree. I would say you are one of the few people who know me as well as my folks.”

    (Phil) “I have to ask you think Bob, are you happy? Are you happy with your life volunteering so much of your time to our church? Do you feel like you are getting back what you need?”

    (Bob) “My needs are very small. My Monday through Friday job more than covers the tiny mortgage payment on my 1 bedroom condo and that car I got in high school, still runs like a top. I have a lot of time in the evenings and the weekends where I am free to help out in anyway I can. So this is what I give.”

    (Phil) “But what are you getting back?”

    (Bob) “The Holy Spirit. I feel His presence. I know I am doing right and He appreciates everything I am doing.”

    (Phil) “Are you lonely Bob? The Holy Spirit is life giving, but there are far too many things He can’t give you that a flesh and blood wife can.”

    (Bob, smiling) “Ah, now I see where this is going.” pause “I am alone, but I am not lonely.”

    (Phil, still prodding, being a nosey Parker) “Are you even looking?”

    (Bob) “Yes of course I am looking. I just haven’t found miss right yet.”

    (Phil) “Bob I can safely say that you are catnip to a cat for the young ladies of this church. They will never ever approach you themselves but they are all interested in you. Word gets around, and everything gets back to me, the older ladies in the church have been approaching you about setting you up with our more marriage minded single ladies.”

    (Bob) “Yeah, they have been trying to do that.” pause “I guess I am just not that interested.”

    (Phil) “May I ask why, they are all lovely.”

    (Bob) “Well, as I said. I am looking for miss right. I only want miss right. And although the single women in the church are all wonderful and I have a great time with them managing the single’s group, they are not for me. None of them are my miss right.”

    (Phil) “Okay, I can appreciate that. And thank you for your honesty. Bob can I ask you one more question though?”

    (Bob, now getting uncomfortable) sighs “Sure.”

    (Phil) “What qualities do you need from your miss right that none of the young single women of this church possess?”

    (Bob) “Well… I take the Bible very seriously. There is not one single woman in this church body that would submit to my authority as her husband who is to rule over her in our marriage, not one.”

    (Phil, now very quiet and also starting to get upset) “There are lots of ways to interpret that scripture Bob.”

    (Bob) “I suppose you could say that. But for me, here’s the thing. I have total authority over every single action in my life. I don’t have to check with anyone when I make a purchase. I don’t have to check with anyone when I make a commitment. I don’t have to check-in with anyone if I decide to go somewhere or somewhere else. I have a boss but I punch in and punch out at 5PM. After that, my time is mine and I only answer to Christ. And knowing Him and knowing myself as well as I do, I am simply not willing to ever surrender control of any part of my life to the authority of a wife.”

    (Phil) “Bob I’ve known you for over twenty years. I have always been able to talk to you. And I just do not know what to say to that.”

    (Bob) “You don’t have to say anything. Just reading my Bible, I know that I need to be the head of my household. At the moment I am. If I got married, I would not be.”

    (Phil, still grasping) “It doesn’t have to be that way?”

    (Bob) “If I got married to a woman who is not entirely submissive to my authority…” Bob continued “…and I come home and I find that she secretly took out a Visa card in our names jointly, and has a $5000 balance for things my wife purchased in secret and now I must answer for that, what authority do I have to correct her behavior?”

    (Phil) “Why would you say something like that?”

    (Bob) “I asked a serious question. What action could I do to prevent my wife from doing that in the future?”

    (Phil) “I don’t know what you want me to say Bob.”

    (Bob) “I want you to say Bob, you are really smart and a good Christian man. You are responsible. You plan ahead. And you know yourself. And you know your scriptures. And part of being responsible means making responsible choices. I’ll get married someday when I meet miss right. But pastor, I have not met her yet.”

    (Phil) “Do you think maybe you are being too selfish, asking too much of miss right?”

    (Bob) “Tell me pastor, do you think you asking me not to spend $5000 frivolously is asking too much of me?”

    (Phil, smiling, both hands presented before him in surrender) “You have got me there Bob. You have got me there. Okay, lets just pretend this conversation hasn’t happened.”

    (Bob, not exactly understanding why this conversation should be so taboo) “okay”

    (Phil) “I will get with the older ladies in the church and casually inform them, perhaps indirectly, that you just aren’t looking to get married right now, even though you might be. That is a lot nicer than telling them that you have determined the young single women of this church do not measure up.”

    (Bob) “Tell them whatever you want pastor.”

  263. Anonymous Reader says:

    OKRickety
    Although a recent exchange with Sanityville subscribers leads me to suppose they may have some special definition of exhortation that includes rebuke.

    This is typical. Convenient redefinition of words is human nature, but the modern churches engage it it almost continuously, just as the larger culture does. Search back through this site to Dalrock’s earlier comments on the CBMW and notice how they habitually engaged in their own definitions from the founding onwards.

    There’s also a certain “in group” or “club member” aspect to the way Bayly’s followers and Wilson’s followers use certain terms – not so much for communication but rather as ingroup/outgroup signaling.

    I also think the specific mention of “home fellowship groups” shows great naiveté. Is he ignorant enough to suppose that a rebelling wife would not know to be careful with her behavior in such meetings?

    Flip that over; are they so ignorant of women as to not realize that a rebelling wife might have an ally or two in such a small group?

    Finally, talk is cheap. When will someone come forward from Bloomington and say “I’m in Tm Bayly’s church and they do exactly that!”, I wonder? a

  264. Swanny River says:

    IBB,
    That’s your second hypothetical in the past week, and I love it. Keep them coming, or better, we should print this and take it to our pastor and ask their opinion of the scenario. It’s a sin that I think so little of our pastors, but I think your devastating take is all too accurate.

  265. feministhater says:

    IBB. You and I both know it would never end in that ‘amicable’ way. If a man told a pastor what Bob just said, it would get around very quickly and Bob would be answering all sorts of questions as to his suitability as a leader of the ‘singles group’ and whether he is actually a good ‘fit’ for that Church.

    I’ve had a few conversations like that back when I still went to my local Church. Never been directly told that there are many single women interested in me though, but have been asked why I’m not married, nor seem to be keen on looking or asking out the single ladies. When I have given the same sort of answer Bob just gave, the amount of animosity increased. It was noticeable.. to the point I changed Churches and no longer attend that one.

    Now I am more adept at handling this scenario. Yes, saying you have not found ‘miss Right’ is the correct way to go, but your reasoning has to be different. Tell him you have no chemistry with the local single ladies, that there is no connection, no spark. That you couldn’t control your appetite in a marriage to one of them. Yes, this might sound like you are afraid of sinning if you’re married but it is far better for them to think of you as a sinner than to think of you as the kind of man who truly wants to lead a family. The first one makes them comfortable with your reasoning, the later makes them think you are unChristian and begins the countdown on when you have to find a new Church.

  266. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Swanny, thank you.

    fh,

    You and I both know it would never end in that ‘amicable’ way. If a man told a pastor what Bob just said, it would get around very quickly and Bob would be answering all sorts of questions as to his suitability as a leader of the ‘singles group’ and whether he is actually a good ‘fit’ for that Church.

    I am guessing that would be the case. I believe you are right. That is what I believe would happen but I have no proof of that as I have said (on numerous occasions) that in all the years I was a young single in church, I was the ONLY young single there! I have never once had conversations like these. I have no personal experience of being a member of a church that wasn’t made up (entirely) of old people. So everything I am saying on this, I just pulling all of this out of my ass.

    I have said (and continue to say) if you want to remain a member of that church, just say you haven’t met miss right. I can’t imagine any circumstance (other than the fictitious one that I just wrote) where a pastor wouldn’t simply accept that as a possible viable answer. I was just trying to be intentionally provocative in my hypothetical that I can’t even imagine ever occurring. But if such a thing did occur AND the solution would be that you would asked to leave the church, do you really want to be a member of that church? I sure wouldn’t. I wouldn’t because by virtue of their response, they have proven (by their OWN authority) that there is nothing Christian about their congregation.

  267. It’s not so much that the church cares about your marital status, as they care more about you not being gay. Or even worse – weeeeeeeiiiird. Only normies round here, bud. Because although they’re supposed to be welcoming and inclusive, being gay would be bad and if you’re married it looks better for everyone. I mean, if you’re going to be gay, at least have a beard, right? Who cares if it gets you divorced 5 years later and you’re hopelessly broke the rest of your life. They don’t care, it’s not their life. But it is their reputation if a prominent member of the church is unmarried and unlikely to get married (at least in the protestant world anyway).

    Yeah, you people are bringing back bad memories of what church was like when I was younger. How does that BNL song go? “Yeah never is enough / I never want to do that stuff”. I will say this. The christian fundies turned out to be 100x less annoying than the SJW fundies that replaced them. Almost miss those bible thumpers and their beliefs about the earth only being 6000 years old. Those were the days.

  268. 7817 says:

    There’s also a certain “in group” or “club member” aspect to the way Bayly’s followers and Wilson’s followers use certain terms – not so much for communication but rather as ingroup/outgroup signaling.

    Right. It’s not a good thing, but when you are part of the group, it’s hard to see.

  269. Frank K says:

    You want a job on our help desk?

    Wouldn’t that require relocating to Costa Rica?

  270. Josh the Aspie says:

    With all of these people talking about having to leave pastors, churches, etc… I have to ask.

    Why not just find a group of Christian friends, and discuss your biblical concerns with them? Does that somehow no longer count toward the exhortation to “not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” – (Hebrews 10:25)?

    If “the modern church” is no longer holding itself apart from the world, and is of the world… why are you not holding yourself apart from “the modern church”?

  271. Marquess of *Honk Honk* says:

    You want a job on our help desk?

    Peak boomer.

    Soon their miserliness is going to bite them right in the ass, en mass.

    African teledoc says: *click gtock un-gluck click chick tock*
    [translation: “Sorry, you have generational AIDS.”]

    https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/03/08/kaiser-patient-told-dying-robot-doctor-video-call/

    Bill Maher is one of the last people a young Christian man, or anyone, should emulate.

    https://nypost.com/2017/02/01/inside-las-most-exclusive-sex-party/

    Dominus members sign a “blood oath,” involving blood and a paper document, to join — but Lawner won’t go into details.

    “That’s all I can tell you,” he says. “It’s an initiation into the society.”

    Read between the lines.

  272. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Gunterson,

    They don’t care, it’s not their life. But it is their reputation if a prominent member of the church is unmarried and unlikely to get married (at least in the protestant world anyway).

    In the 1980’s, Sherman Hemsley, starred in a tv-sitcom titled “Amen.” In that, he was a Deacon of his church. Now, having been a member of the Diaconate of my church(es) several times, I know what is and what is not expected of them. It is a calling that is not all too demanding in Protestantism.

    What I found most interesting about this tv church, was that the pastor was a bachelor. And Sherman Hemsley’s young adult daughter was in love with the pastor. And that fantasy (on her part) was one of the many plot-lines. I have only very infrequently known of pastors who weren’t married. One was a woman (and she was a lesbian) leading our church to damnation (but I was blue pill and unaware at that time.) The other, he was divorced and was hired to replace the lesbian we had to fire because (in a bi-polar fit of rage) she assaulted one of the parishioners. Guess she needed to stay on the lithium. But I have never known a male pastor that was never married. I suppose they exist (somewhere) but I always just assumed it was in the fantasy of tv-land like with shows like “Amen.”

    I have to agree, I would think that it would be very uncomfortable in a Protestant congregation for members OF that congregation to accept singles. 23 and single male, no problem. You can do all the heavy lifting young man. 33 and single male, errrr, that might be a bit creepy. Again, dealing from my own (very limited) experience here, all the people I knew were older than dirt. But they were all married or widowed/widowers. Yeah I don’t see them being all that accepting.

  273. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Josh,

    Why not just find a group of Christian friends, and discuss your biblical concerns with them? Does that somehow no longer count toward the exhortation to “not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” – (Hebrews 10:25)?

    That is what I am doing here. I assume that is what most of us are doing.

  274. c matt says:

    Women look at things from a hypergamous point of view, such that being “paired with a peer SMV man” (fair in a man’s eyes) is torture for a woman because it violates hypergamy.

    So the problem is not unfairness, but hypergamy. And who stoked the hypergamy? The 60s/70s culture was a huge injection of feminist sponsored hypergamy. What needs to change, whether by game or disaster, is hypergamy.

  275. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Matt,

    We have always had hypergamy. The only woman who was NOT hypergamous was Eve but that was simply because she never had any real choices. Believing that there is anyway to convince women NOT to be hypergamous is akin to telling women not to be women. You can teach them that but it is their most base, fundamental, instinct, even more fundamental than breeding. God gave that to them. Good luck removing those instincts.

    The problem is not hypergamy. The problem is the loss of God. Nova is right that a man with a peer SMV (or much worse, a lower SMV), for the woman to have sex with him it is torturous. It’s like humiliating work for them, demeaning almost, a VIOLATION. But women got along with this tortuous ritual so long as they loved and feared an all-powerful and judgmental God. He gave them the rules and they loved and feared Him.

    No longer. Because of feminism, those rules that God gave no longer apply. What feminism is really saying is that there is no God. So there simply is no real repercussions from detonating a marriage the moment they are unhappy and feel they have another option. With only hypergamy as a social guard rail for a woman to predicate her happiness for the 80 or 90 years she is on this planet, why spend even one day of it in misery and torture if it isn’t even necessary?

  276. PokeSalad says:

    Wouldn’t that require relocating to Costa Rica?

    If only…more like Bangalore or Mumbai.

  277. Ray6777 says:

    There was a study that found the profile of the unhappiest workers in the US. It’s a 42 year old unmarried professional woman that doesn’t have kids. The women living the feminist dream are the unhappiest people in the US.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/high-octane-women/201109/meet-the-least-happy-people-in-america

  278. Locusts please says:

    Unfortunately as i listen at church and to christians in socialising. They all basically agree with the flawed national christain and conservative message (what did you do to make her so angry)? I was basically sold into slavery to my ex wife she makes about double of what i do. Christian responses i get are maybe I should go over and work on her house for her. I dont work on peoples houses who try to get restraining orders on me based on lies:( its self preservation they just cannot believe.
    Had i not discovered this site through the larger androsphere i would b living my daily life totally alone. None of these people get it they see no problems. They talk about single moms as if they are the pinnacle of humanity. Im already divorced but the way they gloat about them the pastors are promoting divorce to happy couples with tons of children and it is disgusting.

  279. Vektor says:

    I don’t see a “new equilibrium”. I see continued animosity between the genders. Women didn’t like the old deal. Well, men don’t like the new deal. Women’s expectations have never been higher and fewer and fewer men can measure up every day. Plus what women offer in exchange has never been so bad. The mouse utopia end game approaches.

  280. ikr says:

    @ibb

    [i]We have always had hypergamy. The only woman who was NOT hypergamous was Eve but that was simply because she never had any real choices.[/i]

    These sentences are contradictory. All women are ‘daughters of Eve’, inheriting all of her characteristics. Eve was indeed hypergamous in that she made a selection she was not authorized to make outside of her marriage to/with Adam. Original sin is sexual in nature.

    The rest of your statement about Feminism being a perversion of God’s order and thus, an effort to erase God from existence is correct. Woman or man: it is impossible to be both a Christian and a Feminist.

    Something both you and Nova have been asserting ad nauseum in this thread is that women have always been unhappy with the physical appearance of men and sex has always been a chore (boilerplate Feminist movement talking point). This is textbook presentism but you refuse to do anything but double down on this viewpoint.

  281. BillyS says:

    Gunty,

    Some of us still believe the 6000 year part and have grown even more skeptical of the “modern science” religion over time. We are not all weird fundies either. At least I would guess not many fundies watch anime, for example…. (I probably have the weird part down, but for other reasons, including the red pill.)

  282. BillyS says:

    A few exceptions get the press, but few women in the past married up throughout their lives. That is a more modern thing for most women.

  283. American says:

    As discussed, the “Dark Ages” of Western Civilization is a myth concocted by disingenuous people to interject a replacement ideology, which they themselves conceived, to push Western Civilization away from God and the church.

    But there actually was a “Dark Ages” in ancient history at the end of the Bronze age. Watch this video by Eric Cline, the Professor of Classics and Anthropology at George Washington University, for more information about it:

  284. info says:

    @ikr
    ”Eve was indeed hypergamous in that she made a selection she was not authorized to make outside of her marriage to/with Adam. Original sin is sexual in nature.”

    Its not hypergamy. Nor anything erotic. Its a category error.

  285. Swanny River says:

    Regarding IBB’s hypothetical from above. I was at a public school playground yesterday during after-care.
    There were 4 young girls tasked with being the overseers. All around 20, all blond with long hair. The kind Pastor Phil would expect Bob to marry. But, one was fat with a belly piercing. She kept lifting/adjusting her shirt so everyone was capable of seeing it. One girl looked like she had an n-count of 1 or less, but all 4 had painted on leggings .So these feminine-minded sweet looking women aren’t really good candidates, except to clueless pastors who will later use the anvil on Bob. The herd mentality is real, pastors know that, but they are blinded to the slutty and rebellious side. It’s such a strange blindness. They see cute young women where I see feminist harpies in training.

  286. Swanny River says:

    It’s a strange blindness of pastors because they are daily exercised in making distinctions of wise and unwise, good and evil, mature and immature. They should be the most red pilled of men because they see the destruction of divorce over and over in personal ways.

  287. feministhater says:

    I don’t see a “new equilibrium”. I see continued animosity between the genders. Women didn’t like the old deal. Well, men don’t like the new deal. Women’s expectations have never been higher and fewer and fewer men can measure up every day. Plus what women offer in exchange has never been so bad. The mouse utopia end game approaches.

    Yes. I saw this many years ago and decided that trying to save that which wishes not to be saved is a meaningless waste of my energy and time. It always amazes me. We have gents here saying that women were never attracted to, nor wanted their useless, ugly husbands, even centuries ago. That these wives were trapped. In misery. Hopeless. That the hapless beta husband has always been hated. That only a strict, no nonsense society would restrain women enough so that they would at least get along with their husbands rather than actively divorce them and destroy them. Wow, small mercies.

    So… with all that known, why would a man want to get married? It just seems nonconstructive to get into a relationship when you know the other person doesn’t like you and might even hate you and wish you dead.

    If marriage was and is misery to the average women, I cannot but wish them well in their new endeavours of the single life. You cannot make a better case for why marriage should die than the one Nova and IBB have made here. You’ve sealed the case, gents.

  288. JRob says:

    @Locusts please
    They talk about single moms as if they are the pinnacle of humanity
    The event horizon to the Wake-Up. You realize most pulpiteers are your enemy. They don’t care about married fathers, they prefer to keep the henhouse calm with nary a ruffled feather. Pays the bills.

  289. 7817 says:

    If marriage was and is misery to the average women, I cannot but wish them well in their new endeavours of the single life. You cannot make a better case for why marriage should die than the one Nova and IBB have made here. You’ve sealed the case, gents.

    Heh. You make a good point, though argument from despair is sad even when you “win.” Sometimes excessive focus on the fallen nature of the world can be counter productive, especially if it takes away all hope. I don’t know how people live without God.

  290. Paul says:

    As the apostle Paul already warned : “But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”

    Now when was that a popular church sermon recently?

  291. feministhater says:

    The point remains 7817, if that is what women truly think of the average man, he is better off not getting married. It’s not a ‘maybe’ but an ‘absolutely’. Nova and IBB have lost their own debate, trying to argue for saving the world by saving marriage, they have actively demonstrated why it needs to fail.

    If women are naturally this way and cannot help but be this way, humanity is better off becoming extinct.

    However, this has never been my argument, it has been theirs. Mine has always been that women should be expected by society and Church to completely, 100%, overcome their hypergamy and thus negate their instincts. Just like men have to and any society that doesn’t actively teach women to overcome this, is a society that deserves and must die.

    It’s not despair, it’s bewilderment. You cannot advocate for marriage whilst holding to the beliefs that Nova and IBB do. Sure, women have instincts but they can and should be expected to control them, completely, no excuses.

    If society is unwilling to do that, meh. Don’t care. Die. That is all.

  292. It’s an amusing experiment to do with random women sometimes when marriage comes up. Ask them if they’d be in favor or against abolishing the institution of marriage and why. The why answers will mostly be bullshit (spinning hamster) but I guarantee you over 90% will be against it, whether they present themselves as “tradcon” or “dangerhair”.

    But yes, I’d be for abolishing marriage, at least at the state level. Work it out at the religious and cultural level. I think really the only role the state had way back when was just recording the marriage for posterity, the authentication was all done at the church level. With current year tech, almost all that can be done without needing the state involved at all.

    I’m not holding my breath though. As much as it is a joke these days, they need to keep up the appearances to fool as many men as possible or society really goes into collapse at a rapid pace. It’s weird, the social engineers doing all this don’t seem to be averse to society collapsing, they just don’t want it to happen too fast.

    Again, if I had to pick one group of people that can be attacked without much cost or repercussion, those cucked pastors would be a very good first start. The people they are white knighting for will NEVER come to their defense, ever. They think the system has their back. They are wrong and they need to shown that.

  293. thedeti says:

    IBB’s Pastor Phil/Bob conversation is pretty close until you get to the end.

    If a Bob actually did exist (he doesn’t), the conversation would tilt more toward Phil openly berating Bob for his misogyny toward the Daughters of the King at the church. Pointing out the faults of the Daughters is something that, in Phil’s mind, Bob cannot do, because (1) the Daughters have no faults or flaws; (2) the Daughters are entitled to Bob and men like him, and their money, time, labor and provisioning; and (3) Bob should be thankful that any of the Daughters would give him the time of day.

    Also, Bob doesn’t exist. Guys like Bob don’t actually attend Phil’s church. The “men” who do attend Phil’s church are sunken chested skinnyfat nerds or lumpenprole Augustus Gloop lookalikes. They know all the stories about all the Bad Men of the Bible, but know only that women are Good, Unfailingly Good. All women are Abigail, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and Dorcas. And they know this because the Blue Hairs, the Slutty Soccer Moms, the Food Pantry Volunteers, and the Worship Team Girls say so.

    They are “attractive” men and they are “Catches”. They know this because their moms (some of whom are the Slutty Soccer Moms) and the Blue Hairs told them so as they pinched those men’s cheeks and said “you’re gonna make some lucky girl a GREAT plowhorse, er, husband, someday!” They haven’t been on a date in at least a year. Some of them have never been on dates. Their Slutty Soccer Moms are either unhappily married to their fathers, or more commonly, are divorced from their fathers.

    And they would never, ever talk to a Pastor like Bob talked to Phil. They 1) don’t know enough about what the Bible actually says to do so; and 2) they don’t have the stones to do so.

  294. imnobody00 says:

    @Novaseeker

    I don’t think it worked this way. I am in my late forties and from a country where the sexual revolution started in the 80s so I can see how the old system was.

    “My point, however, is that there is a particularly nasty kind of discontent that arises from having to have sex with someone you are not attracted to sexually, having no choice in the matter, and having no way out.”

    No such a thing. Most marriages stopped having sex or had it in very rare occasions. This was supposed to have a normal thing. I have inside information from my parents’ marriage, three of my uncles’ marriages and one of my older cousins’ marriage. It is not only that women were not enthusiastic to have sex with a beta. In addition, men were not enthusiastic to have sex with an aging, fat woman.

    But people were relatively content. Not happy as in “Hollywood happy”. From my father’s four siblings, one of my aunts married a natural alpha and they have been very much in love since then. A happy marriage, even now in their mid-eighties (However, sex was scarce because she is very old-fashioned Catholic). My mother was one of the first feminists (the first one to have a career in our area). Completely miserable to have married a beta (and because she has bad personality genes). But two of the other aunts were so-and-so. I know they loved their husbands but they were not in love with them, not even during the courtship period before marrying

    (I continue below)

  295. feeriker says:

    As the apostle Paul already warned : “But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”

    Now when was that a popular church sermon recently?

    Assuming that any pastor would put the collection plate contents at risk by delivering such a sermon, it might do something toward curing the “‘only’ 38 percent” divorce rate in the church – and that would only be the case because the marriage rate in the church would drop even more precipitously than it already has.

  296. imnobody00 says:

    @Novaseeker

    What was the difference, then? The difference is that, back then, people (men and women) had LOW EXPECTATIONS. Or, to be accurate, had REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.

    Women were satisfied if his husband was an average provider, treat them well and was a good father. Men were satisfied if his woman was an average homekeeper, treat them well and was a good mother.

    Husbands and wives were not meant to be “the best friends”, “twin souls”, had “fantastic sex” or be “passionately in love”. These ideas were not even thought. People was not frustrated because his life was not perfect. They were reasonably satisfied.

    For the people that were not satisfied and were completely miserable (which were a minority), they went to Catholic priests (no shrinks back then), who repeated once and again “resignaaaaation”, “paaaaaaatience”. Then they went back to their lives and life went on.

    Then, movies, TV and magazines started selling the idea that marriage should be a fairy tale. Divorce was legalized (it was illegal before that). This had no effect in the older generation, but my generation lived their lives differently and each generation is more crappy than the previous one (the way it is in America).

  297. deti,

    IBB’s Pastor Phil/Bob conversation is pretty close until you get to the end.

    I have never been a member of a mega-church with young adults in it. Ever. I have only ever been a member of a 150+ year old church, with nothing but blue-hairs in it waiting for death. The blue hairs once made me a deacon at age 19, probably wanted to do that to encourage me to show up on Sundays if for no other reason than to have one young adult in the pews. But I was the only one.

    I have attended a mega-church. My first fiancée, (or as Eric Stratton would say, we were engaged-to-be-engaged) she dragged me to Grace Chapel in Lexington Massachusetts one Sunday morning. That was the first (and probably the only) time I ever attended a mega-church with young adults in it. I had never seen that before (not personally.)

    So you guys will have to excuse my fan-fiction, I don’t have any actual “evidence” of what life is like for young single adults in a church with other young single adults. I have never seen it. It is not my history. My history is all old people just sitting there, farting in the pews, smelling up the place, waiting to die. I have no memory of a vibrant church. So I couldn’t even begin to speculate on what it is like for a pastor to give the young single ladies in the church “the lift” because I have no memory of any young single ladies in church.

  298. feministhater,

    If marriage was and is misery to the average women, I cannot but wish them well in their new endeavours of the single life. You cannot make a better case for why marriage should die than the one Nova and IBB have made here. You’ve sealed the case, gents.

    I don’t know about Novaseeker but I have children. I can’t just let the world burn because I have children. That is why I am working hard (even if it is just at small level) to properly identify what is broken and shitty and what needs to CHANGE. I want change and I want it now.

    I accept that hypergamy is the most fundamental building block upon which women make their choices in life. I further accept that Briffault’s Law is built on top of the bedrock that is hypergamy. I accept all of that. I accept it and can’t control it. But I REFUSE to accept that women can’t be contained and controlled. They can. Even a very miserable woman has brief moments of joy and happiness in a marriage to a man that she feels is well below her SMV. I have seen it. Its just that we need a society that PREVENTS her from doing any damage to him or herself by way frivorce and we don’t have that right now. So I want to change that. I want to change a broken divorce law where I know why it got broken the first place.

    I have hope. I have to have hope or I wouldn’t have a reason to get out of bed in the morning. My children are counting on their father being a rock, a symbol of hope, civility, and masculinity in what is a broken, wounded, shitty world. And I just take it one day at a time. Its all I can do.

    If I knew you in real life fh, I would try to help you in whatever way you would let me. I would do that because I care. I care about my brothers. Christ commands that of me so I must care. And I do care. But I don’t, so this medium is all I have to reach out to you and to let you know how I feel.

  299. thedeti says:

    IBB:

    Most young single adults who are churchgoers in my experience are of the IHOP/Bethel/Hillsong variety, if they’re Protestants. And the modern megachurch is modeled on the Bill Hybels/Willow Creek template. Intended to attract young adults with disposable income, DINKs (double income/no kids couples), young married families, and most especially, the “unchurched” and young feminized men. “Seeker sensitive”.

    This model attracts young professional women (single and married), and young feminized men raised to worship women. Of course, the women want nothing to do with the men, unless they’re desperate to get married. The men can quote you 25 verses from memory and can self flagellate with the best of them. The “men’s groups” in these churches are focused on four things: How crappy they are as men, how to improve as men by serving women, how to be “better husbands” by serving women, and “porn is bad, mmmmkay?”.

    So those men’s femininity (caused mostly by their being raised by single moms, or in the typical weak man/strong woman model) is being reinforced in these churches. Men are to be servile, subordinate creatures existing solely to facilitate and improve the lives of women. Men are to offer themselves up as “servant leaders” in the form of husbands and fathers. Their “missions” are to serve God by serving women, which ends up substituting women for God. Men are being taught and trained that worshiping women is a continuous act of worship to God.

  300. feministhater says:

    I don’t know about Novaseeker but I have children. I can’t just let the world burn because I have children. That is why I am working hard (even if it is just at small level) to properly identify what is broken and shitty and what needs to CHANGE. I want change and I want it now.

    You’re missing the point. If women feel about average men the way you and Nova have so graciously explained to us, it does not behoove average men to get married. This is just logic. It does not matter if you don’t want society to burn, it does not matter if you have children or not.

    If you want change. It starts once the fires have burned out.

  301. deti,

    Thanks for the information.

    The “men’s groups” in these churches are focused on four things: How crappy they are as men, how to improve as men by serving women, how to be “better husbands” by serving women, and “porn is bad, mmmmkay?”.

    That is rather depressing. Maybe I just go lucky being stuck in “old age home” churches? I never had to witness any of that madness. Why would a single man bother joining a men’s group like that?

    If I was a pastor at Acme mega-church, I think it would be better (for the single men) if the men’s groups just went on weekend camping trips, attended sporting events, or things that men actually liked to do in serving Christ. My wife and I regularly help out at “Feed My Starving Children.” I think a mega-church bringing their single men to an event like that would be more productive than flogging them over and over.

  302. feministhater says:

    If I knew you in real life fh, I would try to help you in whatever way you would let me. I would do that because I care. I care about my brothers. Christ commands that of me so I must care. And I do care. But I don’t, so this medium is all I have to reach out to you and to let you know how I feel.

    Thank you. That is good to know. I don’t have any animosity towards you. I have been through the feelings you are having for many years. The thoughts that I could change society, correct the mistakes, find a solution. The difference between you and me, besides age, is that I don’t have children, I don’t have a wife. This is why I have found a semblance of peace. There is no dread about my children’s future since they don’t exist.

    Don’t get me wrong. I still wish I could change things, I still wish I could find solutions to these problems but it is no longer the driving force of my life. Those are the grand assumptions of life, the delusions of grandeur we all have. That we really matter and can make life better for everyone around us. Whilst it sounds nice, I realised that the only real place I have an impact is by ordering my life and making my little place in the world, sane.

    I don’t want the world to burn but the realisation that it will burn is now ingrained. There is nothing I can do to stop it, I truly fear that only God can, and I don’t think he will. Perhaps his plan has always been to let it.

    As I have told Scot. You cannot change the world, what you can change is your immediate surroundings. Whilst it would be nice if you could help all the men on this forum find wives, jobs and become productive members of a sane society that worships God and not vagina, the chances of that happening are minute. Focus your attention on your wife and children, focus on finding them opportunities, for family formation and for work prospects, focus on bringing them to God, for better or worse, that is what you can do, all within the realm of reality and not fantasy.

    The world will burn, it does that from time to time. Your attention should be on how to get your family through to the other side to rebuild and thrive.

  303. Frank K says:

    The blue hairs once made me a deacon at age 19, probably wanted to do that to encourage me to show up on Sundays if for no other reason than to have one young adult in the pews.

    Just to make sure I’m not misunderstanding, the women chose the deacons?

  304. thedeti says:

    IBB:

    At today’s modern Prot church, all ministries directed at men are focused on who and what men are in relation to women. Men qua men have no purpose or function, and have no reason for existing, without reference to women. The reasons for this have been well documented at this blog, of course. The important point for today’s discussion is that the hypothetical discussion between Pastor Phil and Bob would never take place, because

    1) Phil’s response to Bob’s viewpoints would be not speechlessness, but incredulousness, hostility, confrontation,and excommunication; and

    2) Bob isn’t there to have that conversation with Phil. Bob doesn’t exist; or if he does exist, he left Phil’s church a long time ago.

  305. You know what Frank I have absolutely NO IDEA who picked me. I just answered the phone one day and it was one of the elders in the church and he told me that my name was offered for a calling to be deacon. I have NO IDEA if it was just women who “voted” or what they did to pick me. I was just chosen.

  306. imnobody00 says:

    Then, for some reason, this video appeared in my Youtube home page

    But I think romanticism only followed medieval chivalry.

  307. thedeti says:

    Emperor Constantine:

    Re Michael Foster’s letter to his wife:

    Most Christian men should not be writing any kind of letters like this to any Christian women, or any other kind of women. His letter has supplication and pedestalization written all over it.

  308. deti,

    At today’s modern Prot church, all ministries directed at men are focused on who and what men are in relation to women. Men qua men have no purpose or function, and have no reason for existing, without reference to women.

    I can’t imagine any young, Christian bachelor, with any self-esteem, joining any kind of church like that. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Of course I can say that now, I’m red pill.

    My girlfriend and I did do quite a bit of “church-hopping” in the 1990s. Being Protestant, you can pretty much go wherever you want, just take your KJB. And some of the parishes I attended were very weird. I just didn’t feel comfortable. The two of us would always be invited to stay for “coffee hour” after service and sometimes we would stay but most times we would bolt. Once again, we were surrounded by old people just getting older. I don’t know how I would have reacted in a church filled with young people if the pastor talked to me the way you are describing. I would have hoped I would have been man enough to tell the pastor he wasn’t preaching Christ’s message as I walked out the door. But its always easier to say that knowing now what you may not have known then.

  309. ZJay says:

    @info
    “@ikr
    ‘Eve was indeed hypergamous in that she made a selection she was not authorized to make outside of her marriage to/with Adam. Original sin is sexual in nature.’

    Its not hypergamy. Nor anything erotic. Its a category error.”

    my dudes…. Eve was tempted by “The Serpent”

    …. regardless of whether you considered yourself a strict biblical literalist or you have room for allegory and symbolism mixed within facts to create biblical truth….

    … lets not pretend that the Bible isn’t communicating a sexual dimention to Eve’s rebellion.

    ………… separate ramblings …….

    But does hypergamy begin with Eve?

    The problem if using the term “hypergamy”, in a
    biblical context, is that it is typically considered, in red pill theory, to be part of a women’s “evolved” mental firmware (a-la Rollo).
    But I guess thats only a problem for people bothered by the contradiction.

    We are told that evolution and Biblical truth don’t mix. Ironically its both aethists and aredent Biblical baleavers who are telling us this….. its the one thing they agree on.

    For some reason, I have no problem believing that both traditional Christianity and Evolution are both simultaneously both true and indeed both factual. I’ve been called a hipocritical by both sides…. it doesn’t bother me.

    For those who ARE bothered by the apparant contradiction, a friend of mine recently postulated that “The Fall” of man and his expulsion from Eden resulted in nit only the propagation of sin and death forward in time … but also backwards in time as well.

    I didn’t press my friend further on the subject, but that’s one way, I suppose, to simultaneously baleave in two radically different ages of the universe. Or you can just try to hold your frame and not be bothered by it.

    So…. does hypergamy begin with Eve?
    The answer is … it doesn’t matter.

    What matters is that in our history a single Woman was obedient to God and by her asent to his will, our savior entered the world. “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”

    …. this doesn’t help any of us find or keep good/obedient wives…. I don’t think God promises us that.

    What’s my point…. I have no point.
    If you’re ansere to this life is “go munk”, other MGTOW, PUA and enjoy the decline, or risk it all in moddern marriage…. I don’t judge you.

    Lets all keep supporting and respecting each other as men. I am very glad to have discussed this community.

  310. Opus says:

    I really enjoyed IBB’s Platonic dialogue between Bob and Phil.

    I imagine that a bit of more probable dialogue might have gone as follows:

    Phil: It’s Ok – no, you don’t need to tell me I quite understand – you’re Gay

    – or –

    Phil: It’s OK – no, what with all your youth activities and your being assistant Scout Master, you are attracted to underage people.

    – or-

    Phil: It’s Ok – no, your desire for submission in a wife shows me you have been thinking about converting to Islam.

  311. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Deti, @Constantine

    “Men are the true romantics” – Rollo Tomassi

    Deti, I can imagine writing a letter much like that back in my early 20’s. Especially the part about attraction “although you are beautiful” because in overthinking circles it was / is crass to be attracted to a woman’s looks. Crazy deep blue pill. Some men never get out of that mindset. It will be interesting to get a bit further in Deep Strength’s book and see if he deals with it or not.

    Anyway, Foster’s letter is is indeed crammed with pedestalization; using a girl’s picture as a bookmark at all is Romantic, putting into one’s Bible is borderline Arthur / Gawain. Dude, where’s my cart?

    It’s an obvious modern, churchgoing version of the cult of courtly love, like wearing her kerchief or scarf on the upper arm. Or having a necklace ornament made, solely to carry a lock of her hair…

  312. Swanny River says:

    Deti,
    Can you explain what you mean by saying Bob doesn’t exist? I can’t understand it because most pastors are like Phil, most megachurches are like that, and the cohort of unmarried men is growing. I was Bob throughout my 30s. I get the anvil now, but that’s a different story. The only difference is that pastors never cared or asked me about getting married. But I am from a large church (less than a thousand, so not mega, but over 600 attendees most Sundays). If anything, I’d say Phil doesn’t exist – a pastor of a large church paying attention to a single man’s prospects? Ha, ha, ha.

  313. feeriker says:

    I can’t imagine any young, Christian bachelor, with any self-esteem, joining any kind of church like that. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Of course I can say that now, I’m red pill.

    Most do it because, as you pointed out, they’ve been hopelessly conditioned in the blue pill. However, even among “red-pilled” young men, you’ll find them in such churches for two reasons:

    1. There simply aren’t any other alternatives. Pretty much ALL Protestant churches today are of this stripe, so finding one that isn’t is like trying to find half a broken needle in a an entire prairie full of haystacks. (Some day the lightbulb will click on, and men will realize that the ONLY way to disengage from this madness is to find other like-minded red pill men and start a home church). And,

    2. They share your attitude that they can do something to foment positive change for the better. Sadly, they are like a lone, tiny smelt attempting to fight a school of sharks.

    I really enjoyed IBB’s Platonic dialogue between Bob and Phil.

    I imagine that a bit of more probable dialogue might have gone as follows:

    Sadly, Opus, you’re not very far off. Most “born-again Christians” in today’s western world look at doing what Scripture clearly commands them to do as “extremist,” “kooky,” “fanatical,” “weird,” or, the most popular standby, “abusive.” That’s because, all their verbal flatulence and posturing aside, they are still completely captive to the World and live according to its standards. Again, “by their fruits ye shall know them.” It goes a long way toward explaining why there is not only NO true growth today in the church (membership in today’s churches, especially the megachurches, is almost entirely the result of “transference:” that is, “poaching” existing members from other churches), but membership is actually in steady decline.

  314. Can you explain what you mean by saying Bob doesn’t exist?

    I too am actually kind of curious to know where deti was going with that.

  315. feeriker,

    However, even among “red-pilled” young men, you’ll find them in such churches for two reasons:

    1. There simply aren’t any other alternatives. Pretty much ALL Protestant churches today are of this stripe, so finding one that isn’t is like trying to find half a broken needle in a an entire prairie full of haystacks.

    Okay this makes sense. Its also the main reason why I am not currently a member of any church. If there aren’t any alternatives, then I choose the choice I have made the last few years, none of the above. I will not settle for heresy if that is the only choice I am given for a Christian church.

    I guess that is why being Protestant is one of the many blessings I have. Protestantism requires a few things that may not necessarily be required in other religions. One such requirement is that it demands 100% literacy. In Protestantism, you can not be Christian if you can not read. As Ed Asner said back in the 1970s on Saturday mornings, Reading is Fundamental. Because if you can read your King James Bible from cover to cover, you have all of God’s rules. You don’t need a pastor to tell you what Christ demands of you. Read it. As Willy Wonka said to Charlie Bucket, it all there, black and white, clear as crystal.

    Did you guys know that Protestantism and the belief in saving the souls of children from eternal damnation was the sole reason why socialism and the first publically funded (yes, socialist) school was founded in the New World, 130 years before the United States even existed? Ye Olde Deluder Act:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_School_Laws

    It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with love and false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors.

    It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply, as the major part of those that order the prudentials of the town shall appoint; provided those that send their children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can have them taught for in other towns.

    And it is further ordered, that when any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or householders, they shall set up a grammar school, the master thereof being able to instruct youth so far as they may be fitted for the university, provided that if any town neglect the performance hereof above one year that every such town shall pay 5 pounds to the next school till they shall perform this order.

    Yes farmers of the New World, pay money to a school teacher so that he may teach your kids to read so that they may read the Gospels when they aren’t busy working in your fields. That is as RED PILL as there is!

  316. >Some day the lightbulb will click on, and men will realize that the ONLY way to disengage from this madness is to find other like-minded red pill men and start a home church

    Make Christianity Masculine Again?

  317. Swanny River says:

    Deti,
    I think I see what you are saying- Bob is red-pilled and therefore wouldn’t go to Phil’s church, and therefore, doesn’t exist? If so, then I wasn’t Bob because I was Blue Pill. I had the intuitive sense that the scene was crazy, but I didn’t know how to verbalize it. But I did see a Chinese believer that matched Bob.

  318. ikr says:

    @info

    Curious if you’ve done any focused study in Original Sin. That it was anything other than sexual (being the only sin against oneself- 1 Cor 6:18, and thus against the image of God, having been created in His image) I would find surprising. It is the only theory I have encountered that sticks. You’re welcome to demonstrate how it is mis-categorization.

    @feeriker

    You bring up solid points, but consider that corporate worship is synonymous with being a Christian (Ma 18:20). Those on these boards stating they forgo church (little ‘c’) attendance because of heretical messages.. I remain skeptical of these claims. There’s a difference between a pastorship that is lukewarm and one that is heretical. I strongly suspect a lot of ‘tough guy, small playground’ syndrome going on.

    Attend something near oneself that is making legitimate effort in seeking obedience to the Word. Pastors will not be perfect theologians (we are all human), execute humble admonishing after the service where you see blasphemy/heresey (Ma 18:15) and allow them opportunity to correct themselves. (If they double-down, sure, run from these heretics.) How many internet tough guys have gone this route? I venture to guess very few. Most will attend a church with defensive listening engaged to spot the smallest hiccup in theology and use it as an excuse to never come back, brand the congregation as lost sheep. An honest moment of introspection I think would silence many on this topic.

    Private Bible study is a given. Home churches may be an option depending on local demographics. But corporate worship is indeed a commandment, it falls on the believer to either obey or not, to the best of his abilities, not to the betterment of his pride. Checking out hoping it all just burns around oneself rings a little close to Jonah’s tactic.

    For the record, I get the pain. I’ve struggled to find anything near me that is on my level of theology and saltiness. But I have selected a congregation that does a ‘good enough’ job among the options in my area, I offer critique in theology where I can during small groups etc. (On quite a few occasions throughout the years, my voice has been the singular voice that has reached the ears of someone who was starving for salty, unabashed and unashamed interpretation of Scripture. Let the laughter and mocking of Churchians roll off your back: this is to be expected, apostasy we are told will come from within the Church). I augment this with radio ministry from the likes of RC Sproul and Carl Broggi. I read through each of the 66 on my own time. It ain’t perfect, but it’s doing the most with the talents I have been given and leaving the rest to Him to judge. I refuse to check out: we know the parable of the one given the singular talent (Ma 25:18) and how he just buried it.

    @ibb

    For those who are illiterate, Jesus Himself already gave the way on this in Ma 22:36. Specifically to combat those who would use Scripture to muddy the waters of what it would mean to be a ‘true’ disciple. There will be many who get no further than knowing Christ by name alone, and trying to demonstrate their humble devotion with inconsequentially serving others (Mark 12:42). And that’s ok.

  319. Damn Crackers says:

    OT: Woman schedules bachelorette party during NFL Draft weekend. Is pissed and will take revenge on future husband.

    https://www.yahoo.com/sports/woman-vows-retribution-on-husband-after-bachelorette-party-ruined-by-nfl-draft-145551477.html

  320. thedeti says:

    Here’s what I mean by “Bob doesn’t exist”:

    IBB’s fictional “Bob” is:

    –principled

    –a devout observant Christian

    –willing to avoid expedient but unwise and foolish sexual entanglements with women who are unfit for marriage

    –scripturally knowledgeable

    –knowledgeable about the true, actual meaning of scripture and is not beholden to today’s false theology surrounding marriage and sexual relationships

    –more knowledgeable than his pastor about what scripture means

    –brave enough to disagree with a pastor in authority over him

    –brave enough to call out the women at his church as unfit for marriage, and to say so directly to a pastor
    _________________

    By the same token, most men attending church now are unprincipled, not observant or devout, have little to no understanding of what it really means to be a Christian man, a blow job away from an entanglement with a thot, blindly accept what someone with “Rev.” in front of their name says that Ephesians 5 means, have spines made of linguine, and wouldn’t question what a pastor says if their lives depended on it.

  321. Damn Crackers says:

    @info
    Curious if you’ve done any focused study in Original Sin. That it was anything other than sexual (being the only sin against oneself- 1 Cor 6:18, and thus against the image of God, having been created in His image) I would find surprising. It is the only theory I have encountered that sticks.

    I would love to hear that explanation myself. I never understood to this day what St. Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 6:18, seeing as there are plenty of sins one can do against one’s body.

  322. Paul says:

    I call any theory that original sin was sexual in nature BS. It has no direct support at all, and contradicts a plain reading: Eve ate of a fruit of a tree to gain knowledge and be as god, she then offered it to her husband, who joined in, but should have not listened to this wife, but resist her.

    As for 1 Cor 6:18, sexual immorality is THE sin of the NT; in Acts 15 only FOUR things are asked of the Gentiles, three have to do with not eating some foods, and one is to FLEE sexual immorality. Of all the OT Laws, THAT was THE command the Gentiles should stick to. As for the reason why; sexual immorality has the potential to create a one-flesh union, potentially to multiple partners, and as such, has the power to destroy marital eligibility or existing marital relationships. I also see a clear connection to the warning in Romans 1:

    “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. ”

    IF you cross certain boundaries, you will handed over to sexual lusts that will consume you, make you unclean, and seriously hinder to draw closer to God, thus endangering your spiritual destiny.

    It is in stark contrast with current sexual promiscuous culture, and even Christians have seemingly abandoned the strong focus on maintaining sexual purity in marriage, despite the many warnings that people persisting in such sins will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

  323. Opus says:

    Sometimes I think the ball-busting women and their counterpart the blue-pilled Manginas of which I read on American blogs are some sort of exaggeration and thus not really representative of American manhood and their women and then I came across the following on the web-site of one of America’s most famous living composers, John Adams (who in case you don’t know hails from Boston Mass and is a boomer) his own write-up for his new piece for Violin and Orchestra. He calls the piece Scheherezade 2 and given the playfulness of so many of his titles we must surely understand it as Scheherezade Too.

    This is what he says: “The casual brutality towards women….women oppressed abused or violated…the woman in the blue bra dragged through the street severely beaten physically exposed by enraged violent men…shot to death whilst attending a peaceful protest… routinely attacked and executed by religious fanatics… including in our own country and even on college campuses”. He then explains about his idea for the piece of which he then says “a beautiful young woman with grit and personal power, a pursuit by true believers, a scene where she is tried in a court by religious zealots… rage and shout at her whilst she calmly replies… and a final escape flight and sanctuary” He then goes on to explain that he wrote the piece for his friend of fifteen years (((Leila Josefowicz))) whom he describes as a perfect embodiment of empowered strength and energy. A linked video begins with his friend droning on about what a great fiddle player she is scarcely allowing him and he looks much smaller than her to say anything much about his piece.

    To my ears Adams music increasingly sounds like musical wallpaper but I suppose it makes a change from listening to British Operas about beautiful young boys being beaten (Britten) or hot black guys (Tippett).

  324. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Google won’t answer questions about Jesus: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/01/christians-outraged-google-home-won-t-answer-questions-about-jesus.html

    Google Home devices will no longer answer questions about religious figures at all after Christians in the US noticed it refused to discuss Jesus Christ.

    In a video watched by more than 6 million people since it was posted to Facebook last week, Jillian Blackwell asks her Google Home device for information on a number of religious figures and concepts.

    It’s able to give detailed answers for Allah and Buddha, but stalls on the question “who is Jesus Christ?”

    “My apologies – I don’t understand,” it replies. “Sorry, I don’t know how to help with that yet.”

    In her post, Ms Blackwell asked if there was a new law mandating the “separation of church and technology”.

    I don’t know what a Google Home Device is. I’m guessing it’s like Amazon’s Alexa.

    Best not to get either. I’ve read that Alexa spies on you (records your conversations when you think it’s not listening), and I suppose the same is true of Google Home Device.

  325. Damn Crackers says:

    @Paul – “…and even Christians have seemingly abandoned the strong focus on maintaining sexual purity in marriage, despite the many warnings that people persisting in such sins will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

    How have Christians not maintained sexual purity in marriage? I’m just curious what you think is impure in marriage.

  326. info says:

    I second Paul’s statement about original sin.

  327. BillyS says:

    Paul,

    You missed the reason that God gave people over to sexual immorality. It is because they rejected Him as Creator. How many who claim to follow Him today have done the same, buying the BS that is the particles-to-people idea of evolution? (Which is completely inane, since nothing else in life makes itself better all by itself, but that is another argument.)

    Rejecting His creative role causes the mess, not the other way around.

    Feeriker,

    Finding other Christian men of a like mind is far harder than you seem to think. I have yet to meet one locally, at least one that I knew was of like mind.

    Opus,

    That is one reason I steer away from youth involvement. Too much risk today and why would an older man want to hang around teens anyway? Too bad we no longer have a society that respects what older people know, though many of them don’t know much anyway, so it is not as good from either end.

  328. BillyS says:

    DC,

    Life is all about her! The world should rotate around her!

  329. Opus says:

    One of the, to my mind, hilarious consequences of political correctness is that demonstrating ones liberal credentials by supporting one set of the pre-designated victims frequently implies dissing another set. The Telegraph has described John Adams as the most politically motivated of composers – which is really saying something – and has it not got him into trouble! He wrote The Death of (((Klinghoffer))) an Opera very sympathetic to Palestinians and the Terrorists who murdered the said Klinghoffer and that naturally greatly upset the special people and thus the piece is now unperformable – which is just as well as had Adams been a Soviet, Stalin would have banned it on the grounds that it is too boring and goes on too long (he excised the first thirty minutes anyway without any loss of sense to the piece). It is hardly surprising then that his MeToo piece should be Adams’ Shostakovich-style “reply of a true woke artist to justified criticism’ now dissing by implication the Muslims with whom he once empathised – although now with added jibes at American men generally and its Christians. Then there was his Nixon in China but does anyone even of the GOP really see Richard Nixon in truly heroic light? Either way no one outside America can be interested in these pieces. Don’t get me on the subject of his global warming propaganda piece El Nino, which in performance spews out copious CO2 if not into the atmosphere at least the auditorium.

    An obsession with righting wrongs later reveals usually the reformer up to his ears in the very activity he claims to despise – I am sure that that cannot however be true of Adams – Josefowicz is his friend, he said so himself. Composers would do far better to stick to composing.

  330. Frank K says:

    How have Christians not maintained sexual purity in marriage?

    His point was that even “Christians” now engage in fornication and adultery, and thus do not maintain sexual purity in marriage.

    That said, even the the married can veer away from sexual purity by engaging in sodomy and other unnatural acts with their spouses.

  331. Damn Crackers says:

    Do all Christian’s agree that blow jobs in marriage are sinful?

  332. feeriker says:

    Feeriker,

    Finding other Christian men of a like mind is far harder than you seem to think. I have yet to meet one locally, at least one that I knew was of like mind.

    I never even implies that it would be be easy. In fact, there’s a good chance that it might not happen for years, if at all.

    My point, whenever I suggest the idea of home churches or small groups independent of any incorporated congregation, is that it’s better to be alone in your true faith than to be surrounded and contaminated by heretical pretenders.

  333. Frank K says:

    Do all Christian’s agree that blow jobs in marriage are sinful?

    I suspect that many, if not most, younger churchian married couples engage in sinful acts of sodomy, though if pressed they will insist that since they are married that nothing is off limits for them. BJ’s? Anal? Hey. we’re married, it’s cool.

  334. Frank K says:

    Best not to get either. I’ve read that Alexa spies on you (records your conversations when you think it’s not listening), and I suppose the same is true of Google Home Device.

    Your smart phone also spies on you. It reports to google everywhere you’ve been. I’m sure Apple does the same.

  335. feministhater says:

    Okay. Another reason I cannot support the right just as much as I cannot support the left. Both believe without evidence.

    Please watch this video right through.

    Can any of you pinpoint out where the man stalks, follows or intimidates the woman?

  336. feministhater says:

    I don’t really care that everyone seems to believe that because he is a fat slob, leftist son of a cuck, that he deserves to be castrated and torn to shreds. All I care about is the actual accusation and the evidence that it happened. I don’t see it in that video.

  337. Paul says:

    Do all Christian’s agree that blow jobs in marriage are sinful?

    I think only the RCC has dogma declaring all sexual activity between spouses where semen is not deposited in the vagina is (mortal) sin. It goes back to Augustine’s gnostic views on sexuality. I’m not sure about Eastern Orthodoxy.

  338. Frank K says:

    I found this regarding what the Orthodox Church teaches:

    http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/frjosiah_sexualrelations.aspx

    Marriage itself does not make legitimate all forms of sexuality. The sexual intercourse of the married is to be modest, and within its proper limits. Moderation is determined both by regulation of time and method of sexual relations. Relations on fast days, on the eve prior to one’s reception of Holy Communion, and on days on which one receives the Holy Gifts are forbidden as an illegitimate indulgence to the flesh. Anal and oral intercourse, as well as the use of pornography and sexual toys, are sexual perversions and are always sinful, even for married Christians.

    If anything, the Orthodox seem to be even stricter than Rome, as one cannot partake on fasting days or the eve before and the day of receiving communion.

  339. Joe2 says:

    Can any of you pinpoint out where the man stalks, follows or intimidates the woman?

    Right in the beginning you see him with cameras slowly walking down the sidewalk towards her. She caught him by surprise and asked him a simple question – whether journalists usually follow one specific woman around on a public college campus? She didn’t make any accusation. It’s an honest question to a man who appears or pretends to be a journalist. He chose not to answer. Why? Obviously, if he engaged he would be opening a can of worms. A true journalist would have welcomed the question and answered it without hesitation.

  340. BillyS says:

    Do all Christian’s agree that blow jobs in marriage are sinful?

    Please demonstrate the chapter and verse that says this, with 2 or 3 witnesses being the Biblical standard.

  341. Joe2 says:

    If anything, the Orthodox seem to be even stricter than Rome, as one cannot partake on fasting days or the eve before and the day of receiving communion.

    Yes, it does seem stricter. But Colossians 2:23 warns about self made teachings and restrictive religious rules. I can’t help but see overtones of Gnosticism in their beliefs.

  342. Anonymous Reader says:

    Can any of you pinpoint out where the man stalks, follows or intimidates the woman?

    Sure, when he won’t tell her what he’s doing, but persists in following her anyway. At best that moment is almost autisticallly uncalibrated, frankly it looks likely he’s an SJW working on a full doxx job. It would have been interesting if she had a male companion who mounted a phone reversed on a selfie stick and followed the photog around, see how he reacts. Obviously all part of the ongoing cold conflict on US college campuses from Trigglypuff on down the line.

    I’m curious to know: why do you care?

  343. Frank K says:

    I can’t help but see overtones of Gnosticism in their beliefs.

    I’m not Orthodox, but I know they aren’t Gnostics.

  344. info says:

    God help us:

  345. info says:

    @Frank K
    Fighting against gnosticism doesn’t make one immune from its infection.

    One can accept certain aspects of gnosticism by osmosis even whilst fighting against it.

    Otherwise the destructive views on sexuality that has plagued the church via Augustine wouldn’t have existed.

  346. feministhater says:

    Sure, when he won’t tell her what he’s doing, but persists in following her anyway. At best that moment is almost autisticallly uncalibrated, frankly it looks likely he’s an SJW working on a full doxx job. It would have been interesting if she had a male companion who mounted a phone reversed on a selfie stick and followed the photog around, see how he reacts. Obviously all part of the ongoing cold conflict on US college campuses from Trigglypuff on down the line.

    I’m curious to know: why do you care?

    It shows a few seconds of video footage. No one is required to answer loaded questions. So all that is required to condemn him is a few seconds of video footage and his refusal to answer loaded questions. Am I getting that right?

    How do you know he was following her? It’s a public sidewalk.

  347. feministhater says:

    Why do I care?

    The video appearing in my recommend feed. I watched it. I tried to find the point where the accusation made some sense. It didn’t. I’m wondering why everyone is so quick to judge him without any real evidence shown.

  348. feministhater says:

    Right in the beginning you see him with cameras slowly walking down the sidewalk towards her.

    And this makes him a stalker because….

    What I’m getting at gents…. is that you need more than a few seconds of video footage, showing someone continuously following you, to build some sort of case against them for stalking. It’s madness to contend that he is stalking and intimidating her by what was shown.

    Take all the pretense out and your case falls apart. Hell gents, let’s count those seconds…

    28 seconds and I’m being kind there…… is that all it takes? She could have easily kept the camera on him actually following her after she spoke to him to prove her point… why didn’t she?

  349. Anonymous Reader says:

    It shows a few seconds of video footage. No one is required to answer loaded questions.

    Sure, no one is required to say anything in the US. Not even to the cops.
    You asked a question, I answered based on the vid you posted. Why does this upset you?

    So all that is required to condemn him is a few seconds of video footage and his refusal to answer loaded questions. Am I getting that right?

    I don’t see anyone “condemning” him, could you please refer to such text? Point to a comment up the thread, maybe?

    How do you know he was following her? It’s a public sidewalk.

    All I know is the vid you linked to, however this girl is obviously involved in the US 2nd Amendment / Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA), which would account for the campus “news” labeling her something something “hate”. Given those facts on the vid you linked to, it’s very likely that he’s following her and photoging, perhaps as part of doxxing. Maybe he freelances for the local cops, maybe he’s under contract to some national organization, maybe he’s just a man with an odd hobby, I dunno.

    But he’s not just Joe Photog strolling around Slippery Rock of an afternoon, not with cameras that expensive.

    Now….you are aware of the toxic SJW’s on US college campuses nowadays, right?

    The video appearing in my recommend feed. I watched it. I tried to find the point where the accusation made some sense. It didn’t. I’m wondering why everyone is so quick to judge him without any real evidence shown.

    Who is judging him, again?

    </What I’m getting at gents…. is that you need more than a few seconds of video footage, showing someone continuously following you, to build some sort of case against them for stalking. It’s madness to contend that he is stalking and intimidating her by what was shown

    Ok. We disagree. So?

    Take all the pretense out and your case falls apart. Hell gents, let’s count those seconds…

    No one is making a “case” here. You asked a question and presented a vid. The question was answered and for some reason that bothers you a lot.

    28 seconds and I’m being kind there…… is that all it takes?

    It depends on the context, obviously.

    She could have easily kept the camera on him actually following her after she spoke to him to prove her point… why didn’t she?

    No clue. I don’t even know who she is. I infer from the campus “hate” accusation and some of the talking that she’s opposed by the SJW’s. Therefore heavy-handed “tailing” in a manner intended to intimidate should be no surprise. I could also be wrong.

    Why does this upset you so much? What difference does it make to you personally?

  350. Joe2 says:

    I’m not Orthodox, but I know they aren’t Gnostics.

    The Orthodox have always rejected Gnosticism. I agree. However, their rules regarding sexual relations before and after Holy Communion seem to be some kind of temporary separation or liberation from the physical body which then permits the individual to partake in a higher spiritual level of existence present in Holy Communion because it is strictly understood as being the real presence of Christ, mystically present in the bread and wine. That’s why I see overtones of Gnosticism in their beliefs.

  351. CSI says:

    The Russian Orthodox rules on “marital fasting” if followed to the letter would take up a substantial portion of the year. Every Saturday night and Sunday morning before Communion, this is the strictest rule. Also every Wednesday and Friday. The six weeks of Lent. Two week Apostles fast. Two week Dormition fast. 9 day Nativity fast. And 3 other miscellaneous fast days.

  352. feministhater says:

    Why does this upset you so much? What difference does it make to you personally?

    Did you watch the video, did you read the comments? I am talking about the video comments. Go read them. Do you not see any similarity between those comments of the right and the ability of the left to condemn a person without evidence to do so.

    It depends on the context, obviously.

    That is what she showed. That is what all those commentators based their vitriol on. Which is why more evidence is needed, duh.

    It’s all circumstantial evidence with no direct evidence to back it up. Nothing at all in what is shown points to him being a stalker or intimidating her. Nothing.

    No clue. I don’t even know who she is. I infer from the campus “hate” accusation and some of the talking that she’s opposed by the SJW’s. Therefore heavy-handed “tailing” in a manner intended to intimidate should be no surprise. I could also be wrong.

    So you admit, you have zero clue but yet you still build an entirely circumstantial case where he might have been ‘heavy-handed’ and might have intimidated her. 28 seconds, most of those her walking up to him, placing a microphone in front of him and asking him loaded questions and deriding him, including him actually turning around and walking away from her. Quite clearly she is under no threat. No menacing, no aggressive behaviour, absolutely nothing but walking on a sidewalk and not engaging with her. Yet, if you read those comments, he is a danger, a stalker, she needed protection, he is guilty of a crime according to them. Do you not see why I would be bothered by that?

    It is a public space, he is 100% entitled to walk the same sidewalk she is. He is not required to answer her. Do you agree?

    No one is making a “case” here. You asked a question and presented a vid. The question was answered and for some reason that bothers you a lot.

    Joe did make a case. He inferred from 28 seconds of footage that he was indeed following her around on campus.

    My point in posting was to see if you gents were any different and could look at the situation objectively.

  353. feministhater says:

    Sure, when he won’t tell her what he’s doing, but persists in following her anyway.

    Ah, so you did make a case. Where did you gather that he ‘persisted’ in following her?

  354. Shepherd says:

    Dalrock, this blog is awesome. Gentlemen, I appreciate many of your comments.

    IMHO, taking sides over this last video, which is cutesy shock journalism, is about as wise as picking sides in a foodfight that began long before your arrived. It is a messy Rorschach blot. One might as well argue over the shapes we see in the clouds.

    Now since I’ve wasted the time to watch the video, you don’t have to, and can do something productive like read a book, memorize a Bible verse, or lift a barbell or go for a run. My thoughts:

    0. It’s a clickbait video. You are the Product.
    1. The ostensible content of the video (journalists making the news instead of reporting it) has been better presented in other contexts. I’m not sure about the value of this video, which seems to be aimed at an impressionable audience that needs to hear the message in a higher pitch. And with vocal fry. Ow … hurts my ears and brain. Volume control makes it possible for her to be seen and not heard, with no loss of enjoyment.
    2. This lady journalist is an example of the tragic resource misinvestment* we mourn here. Without much effort, if inclined, she could be a better wife and mother than she is a journalist, and make a far better contribution to the world that way.
    3. Someone’s** law of female writers/journalism: work tends to be centered on her own experience. As in this case.
    4. This video leaves her open to the criticism that she engages in the kind of behavior she criticizes. Did she harass the other photographer to make a headline? Was she nasty to the protester? Or is it all performance art for views?
    5. To the producers of this video, you are the Product, and you are worth a few pennies. Let’s not get suckered into fighting each other over interpretations of this nonsense.

    * I think there’s a better word but it escapes me at the moment. Suggestions?
    ** Please remind me if you remember.

    Fight the good fight!

  355. Joe2 says:

    Joe did make a case. He inferred from 28 seconds of footage that he was indeed following her around on campus.

    The first 28 seconds of footage is repeated later on beginning at 5:57 where she describes his previous behaviors. I think she provides the basis for having some reasonable doubts about this guy’s intentions and whether he is following her around.

  356. feministhater says:

    I think she provides the basis for having some reasonable doubts about this guy’s intentions and whether he is following her around.

    Therefore the proper response is to ask her to provide what?

    To provide more evidence. Is that not so? Is that not the rational response that the right would champion?

    I didn’t see that in the comments, did you?

    I get that there is a back story, that her visit to the campus was promoted and that he was probably told to go and take pictures by the varsity paper. However, if that is so, he is also well within his right to conduct this by walking on a sidewalk with cameras. I didn’t see him intimidate her, I didn’t see him pestering her, I didn’t see him mocking, deriding or threatening her. None of those things happened on the footage shown. He was probably told to keep his mouth shut if she spoke to him.

    Do you guys not see that he could be you or me or any man who a woman does not like? If the mob on the right or the mob on the left, depending on the political leanings of the damsel, both conduct themselves in the exact same manner, you are in danger for merely walking down a sidewalk..

    You are quick to defend her reasoning. It may well be 100% true but that video does not show it. There are no actions by him in that video to prove what she stated. There is not enough raw footage in that almost 13 minute long video to provide the evidence needed for the reaction that the video received. 28 seconds out of 12 something minutes…… not a good showing at all.

    All that doesn’t matter. If one is to provide evidence that someone is actually following you around what I imagine is a pretty big campus, you plainly need more than 28 seconds of footage showing them walking. Especially the last bit of footage which shows him walking away to the left of them and then when she asks him a question he looks towards then, then backs away and finally, walks away. Those last seconds show her walking towards him, thus according to your own first thoughts, she is following him around campus.

    In other words, there is simply not enough evidence at all and the only proper response would be to ask her to provide more evidence of actual wrong doing.

    Joe, the first section of footage was about 20 seconds long, the last little bit with him in it was about 7 seconds long, I didn’t include the repeat when I made my lazy calculation.

  357. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Feminsthater
    I did view the video, did not bother with comments. Not going to cancel my meetings…

  358. Liz says:

    I think FH is right about the video.

  359. John James R. says:

    @Novaseeker,

    “actual top men — guys who are tall (less than 16% is taller than 6 feet in USA), in great shape, great looking, great career, promising futures. good social skills …”

    “and their wives, while typically not HB8+, are at least high 6s and mostly 7s.”

    I liked your post, agreed with it, and I’m not taking it down in any way but I thought it interesting that
    elite American men, as you described, often end up with 6’s or 7’s who are really 4’s and 5’s on international terms. Not to mention their aging, three-baby bodies.

    So when do these great looking 6’2″ guys with great careers wake up to how meager the reward is, even when you’re an elite male?

    I’d say only 15 years ago in our culture, remaining a bachelor was synonymous with losing the game of life. Loser. We’re only 10 years along in terms of people having the social autonomy to stay single and avoid kids without it being an obvious shame point. Since we are a female-led culture, it was the females who did the wedge-breaking here. No men were good enough for them, naturally, and they went childless. Since they are female, we are required to honor them and laud their lives always. Well, now the second gender, males, are following in the footsteps of their leaders and also staying single, childless etc. Even our culture isn’t quite able to blast men for the same life course that women are lionized for.

    So now that opting out of family and kids is increasingly acceptable at least in a ‘mind your own business’ kind of way, I can see the a lot of the top 15% of males giving it a shot and instead just enjoying a 30 year run of indulging in a never ending series of the most attractive (young!) women.

  360. Joe2 says:

    Therefore the proper response is to ask her to provide what? To provide more evidence. Is that not so? Is that not the rational response that the right would champion? I didn’t see that in the comments, did you?

    She provided the evidence in the video beginning at 5:57 which I’ll summarize below,
    1) He was taking photos from a distance while she was at her car.
    2) She didn’t want her license plate out in any photos and expressed this concern to the president of College Republicans.
    3) He walked closely behind her when she began interviewing students. He didn’t introduce himself or tell her what he was doing.
    4) She spoke to him and he admitted at 6:29 he was going to follow her around all day.
    5) She told him he made here feel uncomfortable, but he continued to follow her around.

    Since he admitted he was going to continue following her around all day, I don’t think any more evidence is necessary. Following someone around may or may not be illegal, but his close proximity most certainly could interfere with the interviews by confusing the students into thinking they were together, by intimidating the students with the cameras and last, but not least, by making her feel uncomfortable.

  361. feministhater says:

    Joe. Did she show any evidence for any of the things she said?

    No. Case closed until such a time that she does.

    You are willing to go exactly according to the word of this woman. That is listen and believe.

  362. John James R. says:

    @anon,

    “This is where androsphere men should not get fooled into thinking that a blue pill tradcon like RS McCain is red pill or even purple pill.”

    I totally agree. Great read on R.S. “It’s not Women’s Fault” McCain and how he’s supposed to be ‘our guy’ just because he calls out the most insane blue-hairs. I can’t stand McCain and he’s basically a kind of controlled opposition figure without knowing it. He allows zero acknowledgement of male imperative and how it’s been eliminated by society. He’s the kind of guy who praises his ‘bride’ of decades and then pervs out on eye candy on his own website because he loves the ‘female form.’ I know enough of my dad’s friends who fit this archetype and they are probably the most effective and valuable faction in all of feminism. No matter how bad and unfair things are legally and socially; no matter how fat and screechy and masculine women get; no matter how pointless and disrespected fatherhood gets, it’s still all “Any wedding bells yet? (sotto voce) Loser.”

  363. feministhater says:

    She provided her testimony accompanied by nothing else other than him walking on a sidewalk. Where are these conversations she said took place? That is the evidence required.

    Her word is not good enough. Do you get that, Joe?

  364. Frank K says:

    So now that opting out of family and kids is increasingly acceptable at least in a ‘mind your own business’ kind of way, I can see the a lot of the top 15% of males giving it a shot

    I recall reading somewhere that a growing number of younger higher level corporate executives are choosing to remain single, most likely because they understand that their trophy wife can unilaterally nuke the marriage and get huge cash and prizes as a result,

  365. feministhater says:

    What the heck did you hear at 6:29 in that video? It sure isn’t him saying he’s going to continue following her around all day. I don’t hear him saying anything.

    Listen to it again. It is the women outside the shot speaking, not him. Rather sketchy to be making blanket statements based on hardly audible words.

  366. Frank K says:

    That’s why I see overtones of Gnosticism in their beliefs.

    I see it as a spiritual exercise. That said I’m not sure how effective it would be. To be celibate during Lent could backfire on a young husband and make him think even more about the sex he isn’t having and thus take his mind off of the meaning of Lent. Then again, our Lord Himself fasted for 40 days and I doubt anyone would accuse him of having Gnostic overtones.

  367. feministhater says:

    If he was walking behind her whilst she was conducting interviews with these other students… surely, surely she has more than 28 seconds of video proving it… right?

    Should we not ask for these and wait till they are provided before reacting?

  368. Liz says:

    …and expressed this concern to the president of College Republicans.
    So she expressed her concern to the president of a university club on campus.
    Wouldn’t she have been better served going to the campus police than a member of a student club? They have services to escort people for just this sort of potentiality.

  369. Anon says:

    John James R,

    I totally agree. Great read on R.S. “It’s not Women’s Fault” McCain and how he’s supposed to be ‘our guy’ just because he calls out the most insane blue-hairs.

    Yep. At one time, I thought he was purple pill and moving in the right direction, but now I know that is not the case. He has zero problems with current divorce law, custody laws, and the ‘deadbeat dads’ narrative, as that allows him to showboat, cuckservative style.

    But he never stops saying that Republican women are flawless fighters against feminism. His entire understanding of the issue is that ‘it is exclusively the creation of Democrats’.

    The fact that the morons at the 21 convention are featuring him as a leading light keynote speaker shows how clueless they are too.

  370. Joe2 says:

    “Wouldn’t she have been better served going to the campus police than a member of a student club? They have services to escort people for just this sort of potentiality.”

    Yes, most definitely she should have immediately reported her concerns to the campus police. It seems they would have conducted a thorough investigation because their web site states,

    Slippery Rock University strives to maintain a safe campus. SRU consistently ranks as one of the safest universities in the United States. Our University Police Department is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Blue Light Safety Stations are located throughout campus. Safety call boxes are located in all academic buildings. Both provide immediate access to University Police.

  371. Paul says:

    The gnostic overtones regarding sexuality are caused by a view where sexuality is seen as bodily/earthly/lustful, whereas Christian activities such as fasting or taking communion are seen as spiritual and are defined to be “better”.

    Postponing sex for “holy days” goes directly against Paul’s command: “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” No church involvement whatsoever is in view here.

    The RCC and Orthodox views on sexuality are troublesome indeed.

  372. craig says:

    Sexuality is bodily and earthly by definition. The first should be obvious, except for the fact that (per Dalrock) modernity has inverted the proper order of sexuality and romance. Modern sexuality derives its morality from romance, whereas Biblical expressions of romantic love derive their morality from the marriage bond (existing or prospective).

    As for the earthly aspect of sexuality, Jesus’ reply to the question about a widow of several husbands certainly appears to be confirmation that marriages do not persist in the heavenly realm. Paul also states that he desires all men to be as he is, and offers marriage as a suitable concession for those unable to devote themselves completely to the Kingdom. It doesn’t make sexuality bad, it just makes it a more earthly and less spiritual good. To deny that is to tread dangerously close to the gnostic/modern view that sex is one path to spiritual attainment.

    “Postponing sex for “holy days” goes directly against Paul’s command: “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” No church involvement whatsoever is in view here.”

    Do you even hear yourself? Fasting from sexuality on holy days is precisely “by mutual consent and for a time” devoted to prayer. To the best of my knowledge, in Orthodoxy anyway fasts are aspirational; breaking the fast may indicate that one is not properly disposed to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but breaking the fast is not therefore automatically a sin (esp. if it was one’s spouse who requested to break the fast). Others may be able to explain it better.

  373. On the question whether there is Gnosticism in the Catholic / Orthodox view of sexuality, let’s hear from St. Jerome himself, who when he writes “But neither following the teaching of Marcion and Manichaeus do we detract from marriage, nor deceived by the error of Tatian, leader of the Encratites, who condemns and rejects not only marriage but also foods which God created for use, do we consider all [sexual] intercourse to be impure….but we receive marriage in such a way that we prefer virginity, which is born from marriage,” (Against Jovinian 1.3) clearly and consciously puts distance between his view (which is the Catholic view) and the Gnosticism of Manichaeus, also known as Mani. The idea that marriage is morally pure but virginity is morally preferable has clear roots in passages of the Gospel and of St. Paul which are well known to this readership, but as a reminder here’s Our Lord in Matthew’s Gospel: “Not all receive this word [not marrying], but those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from the womb of their mother, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by human beings, and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens. Let the one able to receive receive.” (19.11-12).

  374. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: no man is allowed to do in public what she intends for him to do in private.

    https://au.sports.yahoo.com/brutal-moment-mma-fighter-attacks-man-exposed-213411115.html

    Joyce Vieira has been pictured attacking a man after he allegedly exposed himself while she was taking part in a photoshoot.

    Vieira was posing for photos in swimwear when she claims the man performed a sex act on himself.

    Unfortunately for the man, he probably didn’t realise Vieira is an amateur MMA fighter.

    She can sexualize herself all she wants, but don’t let her catch any ordinary man sexualizing her.

  375. John James R. says:

    That same scenario has happened twice in Brazil now. Hot MMA girls beating down quasi-homeless retards at their photoshoots. It makes international news because of the ass shot plus the girl power moxie. I wouldn’t doubt it was contrived for publicity, maybe not the first time but this second one seems dubious. If he just has to wank it every time he sees naked butt at the beach in Brazil, he would be on his fifth prosthetic elbow joint by now

  376. John James R. says:

    I just googled it. That is the third instance of an attractive MMA girl beating down a loser in public in Brazil, (that I found in seconds) so it must be a thing now. Two other instances were robberies. The press showed up somehow to get live footage even though street muggings are everyday occurrences there.

  377. feeriker says:

    She can sexualize herself all she wants, but don’t let her catch any ordinary man sexualizing her.

    Good God, just looking at that “thing,” even from a distance, it’s obvious that it’s not a real woman (recall: East German “female” athletes of the 1960s and 70s).

    I’m inclined to agree with JJR that all of this is contrived for YouGoGrrrrl propaganda purposes. What normal human male would be aroused to whack off in public over THAT? 🤮🤮🤮🤮

  378. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    You may enjoy the comments upthread about how RSMcCain is just another unoriginal blue-pill cuckservative. More men are figuring this out, which is necessary for preventing this unwitting controlled opposition from doing too much damage.

  379. Opus says:

    I have from personal experience observed that the very women who feel the need to demonstrate their fighting ability in defending themselves against those they choose to see as perverts and harassers are also the only women who are obsessed with and find the need to protect themselves from such allegedly threatening men. No one else has this problem – or the time to worry about it – and the fighting into which they enter is I deduce merely proxy to draw attention to themselves as being sexually desirable and hotter than they really are and hotter than other girls and thus is used to attract the men they want to make a move on them.

  380. Whoever that guy is, he shouldn’t have flashed her his junk. That was his fault.

    If you want to peacock your cock, lay out at nude beach. There are plenty.

  381. Damn Crackers says:

    I was told by my brother who went through Catholic marriage counseling that during his wife’s “ladies only” meeting, everything sexually is ok in marriage!

    This advice goes directly against Catholic and Orthodox teaching of sexuality. I find it interesting how much lay Catholic advice goes against doctrine.

  382. Paul says:

    @craig Do you even hear yourself? Fasting from sexuality on holy days is precisely “by mutual consent and for a time” devoted to prayer.

    Take a deep breath and read carefully again. “Mutual consent” is ONLY between husband and wife. The church cannot therefore demand abstinence.

  383. craig says:

    Paul, “demand” is your word, not the Church’s. Orthodox Christians are not ordered to abstain on holy days any more than Americans are ordered to honor the flag on national holidays. If you don’t approach to receive Holy Communion in an Orthodox church no-one will bother you about it. If you do approach, a priest will likely ask if you have observed the fasts; if you say no, he will not commune you — but not because he thinks you sinned. The fast is considered part of getting prepared to receive the Lord, and if you broke the fast (regardless of the reason) you are considered not properly prepared. Of course, if you make a big you-can’t-make-me show of refusing the traditions around holy days, it’s perfectly appropriate for the Church to question where you are on your “faith journey” (to use a Baptist expression).

    If you as a pilot take off without inspecting your instruments or running the pre-flight checklist, you’re not prepared to take off even if you manage to do so this time successfully without crashing. Skipping the checklist is a lack of discipline that puts you at overall high risk of peril. This should not be a difficult concept to understand in the context of faith; fasts, feasts, prayers, and other practices upheld by large-T Tradition are “the checklist”. (For the perils, cf. 2 Sam. 6 or 1 Cor. 11.)

  384. Paul says:

    @craig

    So what you’re saying is that the Orthodox Church is not “demanding” married couples to abstain from sex, but if they do, they have somehow “broken fast”, and are not allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper/Communion.

    That’s what most people would call demand, if not worse.

    You can point to traditions, but these are contradicting the direct command to only NOT have sex by mutual consent between husband and wife only.

    Consider this case: a believing wife of an unbelieving husband. If he never consents to NOT have sex (which is clearly allowed by St. Paul), the wife would never be able to participate in the Lord’s Supper/Communion by these traditions. Do you think the Head of the Church would think that’s a good idea?

  385. Swanny River says:

    At Craig,
    I’m having a hard time understanding the difference between a checklist enforced by priests and the adding of jots and tittles to the Bible. Why do you think the checklist isn’t that?

  386. craig says:

    Look, I’m not even Orthodox or Catholic. But I didn’t think it controversial to note that there is a time and a place for everything, including things that Scripture says you must/should/may do. The Bible does not explicitly say not to receive Communion after having just taken out your gum, nor after having just felt up your wife in the pews to prime her for some after-church action. The Bible does say to receive in all reverence, but (since this is the internet) there are self-identified Christians somewhere, no doubt, who will attest that since Scripture does not prohibit gum and positively extols marital sexuality, therefore any admonition against mingling these habits with Holy Communion is “traditions of men”, “jots and tittles”, etc. That extreme opposition to any norms erected by church authorities (priests, pastors, and/or elders as applicable) is unintentionally echoed by your comments.

    As for the hypothetical believing wife of an unbelieving husband: Churches that profess the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist don’t consider it an entitlement. It is always 100% gift. Being able to receive is a great grace, but God provides other spiritual graces to those who are unable from no fault of their own. Plenty of devout invalids, lepers, prisoners, etc. throughout history have had to endure a practical inability to receive the Eucharist. Japanese Christians went without priests at all for generations. The implication is clear: either you and I can profess that God can and does make allowances according to His own wisdom for people’s inability to meet the “demand”, or else you and I have to profess that God is cruel to these people and simply doesn’t love them. There is no third option.

    And, following the Venerable Gump of Bayou La Batre AL, that’s all I have to say about that.

  387. Paul says:

    @craig The implication is clear: either you and I can profess that God can and does make allowances according to His own wisdom for people’s inability to meet the “demand”, or else you and I have to profess that God is cruel to these people and simply doesn’t love them. There is no third option.

    There IS a third option; tradition has led to a wrong interpretation of Scripture.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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