Gotta ask the boss.

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

–Isaiah 3:12, KJV

Michael Moore is proposing that the US repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with a new amendment.  Moore’s proposed amendment would include a provision to make a man get permission from his wife or girlfriend before buying a gun:

As over 90% of gun violence is committed by men, in order for a man to purchase a gun, he must first get a waiver from his current wife, plus his most recent ex-wife, or any woman with whom he is currently in a relationship (if he’s gay, he must get the waiver from his male spouse/partner). This law has greatly reduced most spousal/domestic gun murders in Canada.

CNS News points out that Moore is not entirely accurate in his description of Canada’s law:

An information sheet and firearm license application form posted online by the Canadian Royal Mounted Police suggests that conjugal partners don’t have to sign off on the license; they just must be notified of their partner’s intent to obtain one

CNS News also notes that under Moore’s proposed amendment MGTOW’s would be treated like adults and not need a woman’s permission to buy a gun.

Moore’s plan does not require waivers for single men who are loners and shun relationships who want to buy guns.

As absurd as Moore’s proposal is, it is being presented as a serious solution from the left. The Hill closes Michael Moore proposes ’28th Amendment’ to regulate gun ownership with:

Democratic lawmakers are facing pressure from the left to introduce new anti-gun violence measures after Sunday’s shooting, which was the most deadly in modern U.S. history.

Republicans have rejected the idea that such violence has a legislative solution.

Related: Setting the record straight on Duluth.

Advertisements
Posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Domestic Violence, Duluth Model, Guns | 123 Comments

They’re back in your 20s where you left them.

Margaret Wente at the Globe and Mail* asks where all the good men have gone.  Wente comes to the conclusion that women need a sex cartel:

…it’s up to us to make the rules. “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” my father used to say. It drove me crazy when he said that. Now, it’s dawned on me that he was right.

Since the women’s cartel collapsed, women’s bargaining power has seriously eroded. That’s why so many single women hate Tinder, which has further commodified sex for the benefit of men. Women are just another consumer good in the shop window.

The apex fallacy aside, Wente is partially right.  Women (as a group) have signaled to men that what they really want are exciting sexy badboys, not boring loyal dudes. It isn’t that women no longer want to marry beta providers, they just don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husband than absolutely necessary.

As a result, some up and coming boring loyal dudes aren’t knocking themselves out in their twenties while they wait for their future wife to tire of having sex with other men.  Wente (partially) understands this too:

It may take a village to raise a child. But it takes a village to raise a husband, too. And modern society has largely abdicated from the job. “Good husband material doesn’t occur naturally, but is instead the product (in part) of socialization, development, and social control,” Mr. Regnerus writes. “[I]n the domain of sex and relationships men will act as nobly as women collectively demand.”

Time to get our act together, ladies. If we don’t, they won’t either.

What Wente doesn’t understand is that timing is everything.  From an economic point of view, women are dividing up sexual access that traditionally would have been reserved only for their husband into two blocks.  The first block contains their most attractive and fertile years, and it is dedicated to no strings sex with exciting badboys.  Then, once women reach what Rollo calls the epiphany phase, they want to bargain sexual access in their remaining (older and less fertile) years for maximum beta bucks.

The problem with this strategy is (generally speaking) not that the previously overlooked beta men will refuse to marry the suddenly reformed party girls.  The problem is that young men now look at the men 3-5 (and even 5-10) years older than them and don’t see an indication that signaling provider status will make them attractive to women.  They also see a society that holds married fathers in contempt**.  Most of these men are still working hard in their late teens and twenties to prepare to signal provider status in their 30s.  But a growing minority of young men are no longer doing so.  These men are instead working like women.  Once the reformed party girls are ready to find Mr. Beta Bucks, there is a shortage of 30 something men who fit the bill.  Even worse, no amount of complaining or shaming will cause the missing beta providers to go back in time and spend the prior decade preparing for this moment.

To add insult to injury, because we have abandoned any meaningful concept of sexual morality there is no moral force to hold Wente’s proposed cartel together.  It is doomed to fail.

*HT Nick MGTOW

**With Christians leading the way.

Posted in Aging Feminists, Death of courtship, Disrespecting Respectability, Economics, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up | 532 Comments

Helping victims stand against their abuser.

We’ve all seen the telltale signs:  The cowed look.  The downtrodden posture.  The never ending series of excuses:

He isn’t usually like that.

You don’t know the real man.

He is getting so much better.

And of course:

Pleeease don’t say anything!  You’ll only set him off and make things worse!

His theology,..

it bites back…

Blog abuse leaves its victims too crushed, too terrified to speak up.  We need to stand with victims of blog abuse against their blogger, so they can bring the issue to a head.

Posted in Satire | 58 Comments

Abigail’s daughters.

3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

— 1 Pet 3:1-6,  NIV

As he promised in August, Pastor Doug Wilson has revisited the subject of submission in his recent post Miserable Wives*. Much of the post is good, and Wilson does say that (some) wives should submit to their husbands.  Yet there is a common pattern with Wilson where he seems to think that in order to teach something good, he must simultaneously teach something false so he doesn’t seem extreme in his adherence to Scripture.  Sadly, Wilson follows this same pattern in this recent post.  He awkwardly breaks from the subject at hand and assures us that if the husband a jerk, a wife’s godly responsibility is to oppose him and “bring things to a head” (emphasis mine):

Now before getting into what we see, I wanted qualify something first. I want you to know and understand that nothing said here would apply to a woman who was married to a genuine tyrant. I have often wished that more women would be willing to be Abigails in dealing with their Nabals, and those situations are scarcely rare. I know that there are marriages where the husbands are thugs and bullies, and that their wives need to learn how to bring things to a head. I know of such situations at first hand. When that happens, and it happens too often, I am firmly in the corner of the wife who is the victim. Many women need to learn to be an Abigail.

Wilson is teaching the opposite of what the Apostle Peter taught in 1 Peter 3:1-6.  In the process he has substituted Abigail for Peter’s example of Sarah.  Sarah as you will recall submitted to Abraham even when Abraham foolishly instructed her to say he was her brother and not her husband.  Sarah complied, and but for the intervention of God this would have caused Sarah to have been raped!  Sarah is the example Peter gave for Christian women to follow, to submit to their own husband even if he does not believe/obey the word**.  If they do this, they will please God and be Sarah’s daughters.

Peter’s instruction to wives with sinning husbands is a hard teaching for us to accept.  However, note that modern Christians are quite enthusiastic about this teaching once they apply it to the husband instead of the wife.  Modern Christians love the passage if they can do some cross-dressing;  it is only in the original form that they can’t stomach it.

Not only is Sarah (and not Abigail) the woman Scripture tells us Christian wives should emulate, Wilson is badly misrepresenting Abigail.  In 1 Sam 25 Abigail does not take action to “bring things to a head”.  In fact, her aim is to do the opposite.  Abigail intercepts David on his way to kill her husband Nabal and pleads with David not to do so.  Things were about to “come to a head”, and Abigail interceded just in time to prevent this from happening.  Moreover, when Abigail returns home and her husband is drunk, she delays telling him what she has done to avoid provoking him in his drunken state.

It is true that Abigail tells David that her husband is a worthless fellow and a fool, but Abigail knows that David is God’s anointed and that Nabal had deeply offended this man in whom God has favor.  Abigail is saying this in an effort to stop David from killing him:

23 When Abigail saw David, she hurried and got down from the donkey and fell before David on her face and bowed to the ground. 24 She fell at his feet and said, “On me alone, my lord, be the guilt. Please let your servant speak in your ears, and hear the words of your servant. 25 Let not my lord regard this worthless fellow, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he. Nabal[c] is his name, and folly is with him. But I your servant did not see the young men of my lord, whom you sent. 26 Now then, my lord, as the Lord lives, and as your soul lives, because the Lord has restrained you from bloodguilt and from saving with your own hand, now then let your enemies and those who seek to do evil to my lord be as Nabal. 27 And now let this present that your servant has brought to my lord be given to the young men who follow my lord. 28 Please forgive the trespass of your servant. For the Lord will certainly make my lord a sure house, because my lord is fighting the battles of the Lord, and evil shall not be found in you so long as you live. 29 If men rise up to pursue you and to seek your life, the life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living in the care of the Lord your God. And the lives of your enemies he shall sling out as from the hollow of a sling. 30 And when the Lord has done to my lord according to all the good that he has spoken concerning you and has appointed you prince[d] over Israel, 31 my lord shall have no cause of grief or pangs of conscience for having shed blood without cause or for my lord working salvation himself. And when the Lord has dealt well with my lord, then remember your servant.”

 

*HT Hmm

**See Cane Caldo’s You Bowed Up When You Should Have Bowed Down for a discussion of the application of this when a husband instructs his wife to do evil.

Posted in Pastor Doug Wilson, Servant Leader, Submission | 211 Comments

She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you.

As I wrote in A very long season, feminists don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary. As if to prove this very point, 30 year old Mona Chalabi writes in the NY Times* I Want My 2.3 Bonus Years:

If I could prolong my time as a young adult by, say, 2.3 years, here is a list of things I would like to do:

• Go to more parties. Preferably wild parties that I can think about, years later, at mild parties.

• Get fit (i.e., get at least one ab before I die). This, I’m told, is easier to achieve when you’re young.

• Have more romantic partners. Preferably ones with abs.

• Get a bit higher up the career ladder a bit earlier on. That would probably boost my earnings, giving me more financial security. I could use that money to go to more parties, get a membership to a fancy gym and maybe even meet a romantic partner on the ab machines.

To drive the message home, the image at the top of the article is a cartoon of a resentful Chalabi giving her future husband the side eye for her lost years of sampling penises!

On the bright side men, Chalabi appears to still be available, and she is frantically making a lifetime’s worth of happy memories with other men as you read this.  Give her say 2.3 more years (give or take a penis or three), and you could be the lucky man paying the bills and getting the side eye!

On a related note, I did a Google search trying to find the previous post where I wrote about women not wanting waste their youth and fertility on their husbands.  Google not only helped me find my own post, it suggested a number of related searches by Chalabi’s peers:

wasteyouth

See Also:

*HT Just Sharing.

Posted in Cracks in the narrative, Miserliness, New York Times, Satire, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 92 Comments