Back in a few weeks.

I’ll be turning on moderation later in the day, and probably won’t be back until around Nov 13th.

Edit 10-26 6:30 PM:  Moderation is now on.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Back in a few weeks.

  1. Pingback: Back in a few weeks. | Reaction Times

  2. Warthog says:

    Enjoy your vacation, Dalrock. When you get back, here is a self-righteous hysterical Christian feminist website that needs some red pill love.

    [D: Thanks!]

  3. @Warthog

    I barely made it past the first few sentences of that article before I wanted to gag.
    I’m utterly convinced now that women are in a state of full blown rebellion against God and male authority. Nothing we can say to them will convince them they’re wrong. They are hell bent in defying God and making themselves leaders/pastors/elders of churches.

    To all of them I say aloud with John: go home!

  4. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    If it’s not too late, here’s an interesting article:

    I do not think we can understand the steep decline of academia without considering the rise and role of women, who are very influential in university administrations, especially when it comes to identity politics.

    It is certainly not difficult to imagine an all-male or male-dominated context being insensitive, harsh, or cruel. Yet it is surely impossible that the tyranny of precious feelings that we now see in academia would occur in any all-male or male-dominated context.

    In these endless stories about hurt feelings on college campuses, women students, women professors, and women administrators are massively overrepresented, like the neurotic student who, failing to separate her personal “issues” from academic performance, believed that she got a D because she’s a lesbian. (Of course, other groups — blacks, Jews, gays, trans persons — are also overrepresented in such stories, but of all these groups, women are by far the most numerous, and hence the most influential.) …

    Preserving and transmitting “traditional sources of morality and authority” has always required men who think it is their duty to guide and lead others. Social order is eminently a male affair — it is largely men, after all, who produce vast systems of rational social organization, whether these go by the name of government and law or philosophy and religion.

    Men are still needed as authority figures — in fact, they have never been so needed — but it remains to be seen whether enough of them, in a hostile culture, are willing and able to do the vital work.

  5. Spike says:

    Take a good break with your family Dalrock. God bless you and them

  6. Warthog says:

    Reflecting on Dalrock’s chivalry theory, he has pointed out that marriage, not love, is what sanctifies sex. I’d like to suggest this is because eros is just the emotional component of sex, and sex cannot sanctify itself.

    When a man is jealous and hears his wife was alone with another man, his first question is “Did she sleep with him?”

    A woman on hearing her husband slept with another woman asks a different question – did you love her?

    Biologically, welfare wired to ask these different questions for good reason. The man is concerned about who his offspring are. The woman is concerned whether the man will continue to provide for her and her baby. The man fears being cuckolded, while the woman fears being ignored and abandoned.

    Love, properly called eros in this context, and sex are two sides of one coin. Erotic love cannot sanctify fornication or adultery any more than sex can sanctify a woman loving a different man than her husband. Eros has no sanctifying power at all.

    This gets at the root of the modern failure of courtship. Women expect to fall in love on the path to marriage. Whether they have sex or not doesn’t seem as important to them.

    Expecting to fall in love before marriage is really no different than expecting to have sex before marriage.

    This is why women think the carousel leads to marriage. The carousel instead destroys their chances of a happy marriage. Unfortunately, a century of romantic films and two centuries of romantic novels have thoroughly indoctrinated modern women into this lie.

  7. Spike says:

    Greetings from Australia Dalrock. Here , the proverbial stuff has hit the fan because a Professor of Medicine has looked at the logistics of women doctors and said what is obvious and well-known:

  8. Nick M says:

    Will they make it a lesbian, like Batwoman?

  9. Abiding Dude says:

    Have a nice break, Dalrock. The latest episode of Ask Pastor John pretty much sealed the deal for me that he is absolutely not to be seen as an authority with anything regarding sexuality. It’s called “I Feel No Sexual Attraction- Should I Still Pursue Marriage?” It’s terrible. Basically says women aren’t sexual beings. You can still get married if you aren’t sexually attracted. Acts like the questioner (girl) is a princess who deserves the best man ever. Doesn’t give a word for how much it would suck for the husband. Doesn’t even begin to deal with the obvious passages at hand in 1 Corinthians 7.
    Yeah it’s bad. He’s just as much as a white knight/blue pilled shill as Chandler or any of the girl pastors out there. I know this undermines their credibility as a whole to a degree, but I still think both Piper and Chandler (and Keller and the others) are still godly men who do a lot for the good of the kingdom. They do majorly miss the mark sometimes tho.

  10. Frank says:

    I would be interested to hear your take on the below linked recent blog post by Bayly. I think it is specifically about your critique of him. Especially the part about “My lord Katie”, or in Bayly’s case, “My lord Mary”.

  11. Trying to find out why my comment didn’t show up here?
    When moderation is on, does no comments get through or something? Am new to how all this works, any help would be appreciated

Comments are closed.