Did he take notes?

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

–Titus 2:3-5, NIV

One thing my wife has often noted is how intensely critical Christian wives are of their husbands whenever they gather, far more so than women in secular culture.  The difference is so stark that she can identify groups of Christian wives just by their intense disrespect for their husbands.  Recently we took the kids to a local festival.  While I supervised the kids at an activity my wife was in line behind a group of women who loudly complained about their husbands for over twenty minutes.  My wife finally asked:

You ladies must be with a church group.

The ladies were delighted.  Yes, indeed they were!  Had she noticed that they were all wearing crosses?  My wife explained that no, she couldn’t see their crosses because she was behind them, but that their extended discussion tearing down their husbands with a litany of petty grievances gave them away.   She urged them to repent of this pernicious habit and instead try to focus on how blessed they are to have their husbands.  They were as you can imagine dumbstruck.  However, they eventually recovered and after talking with my wife about the importance of respecting their husbands they seemed genuinely happier.

In partial defense of these ladies and the many millions of Christian wives doing the same thing, while they are indulging in a very common female temptation (as Titus 2 recognizes), they are also being taught contempt for their husbands by pretty much all modern Christian leaders.  This is deeply entrenched in modern Christian culture, which is why it doesn’t stand out.

The Kendrick Brothers Strike Again

Not long after the movie War Room was released my wife was at a social event for Christian mothers.  One of the wives explained at length how she had forced her husband to see the movie, and that all husbands needed to be forced to see it.  While my wife normally pushes back when other wives speak in this way, in this context she chose to bite her tongue*.  The bossy wife made her way around the group, asking each Christian wife if they had forced their husband to watch this movie.  Each of the other women indicated that they had already either forced their husbands to watch the movie or intended to do so soon.  When she made it to my wife, my wife explained that we have not seen the movie, and have no immediate plans to do so.  The woman was taken aback at first, but then tried a different approach:

Bossy Disrespectful Christian Wife:  Has your husband watched the movie Fireproof?

Mrs. D:  Yes.

Bossy Disrespectful Christian Wife: Did he take notes?

Mrs. D:  Yes.

Bossy Disrespectful Christian Wife: Did he refer to those notes later?

Mrs. D:  Yes.

Bossy Disrespectful Christian Wife: Good for you!

My wife in fact told the truth.  I did watch the movie and I did take notes.  I also referred to these notes when I wrote my posts on the topic.

Given how elated the bossy disrespectful Christian wife was with the movie, I wanted to see how good my guess was about War Room back in February after viewing only the trailer:

It is possible that the Kendrick brothers will make a U-turn and actually teach biblical roles in marriage.  However, based on the preview, their past presentations, and the strong preferences of modern Christians I’m not optimistic.  My guess instead is that the advice to the wife is a headfake towards submission while teaching her that her job is not to cultivate a quiet gentle spirit, but to become a warrior praying for her no good husband to get his act together.

For those who enjoyed seeing husbands and fathers put down in Fireproof, Courageous, and Mom’s Night Out, you will want to stop reading if you haven’t already seen War Room.  The following plot summary from Wikipedia naturally contains spoilers:

Tony (T.C. Stallings) and Elizabeth Jordan (Priscilla Shirer) have a big house, two nice cars, a beautiful daughter, and plenty of money. Despite their apparent success, they face a strained marriage. Tony, a pharmaceutical salesman, is almost never there for his daughter, Danielle (Alena Pitts). He has been abusive verbally with Elizabeth and doesn’t appreciate anything she does. He also looks lustfully at other women and has thought about cheating on her.

Elizabeth, a realtor, goes to work with the elderly Miss Clara (Karen Abercrombie) to sell her house. Miss Clara senses the stress Elizabeth is under, and suggests that Elizabeth fight for their marriage by praying for Tony. Miss Clara shows Elizabeth a special closet she has dedicated to praying, and calls it her “War Room” because as she puts it, “In order to stand on your feet and fight the enemy, you need to get on your knees and pray”. As Elizabeth starts to seriously pray for her husband, Tony is away on a business trip but is having dinner at a fine restaurant with a beautiful woman who invites him back to her apartment. Just as he is on the verge of going to the woman’s apartment and cheating on his wife with her, he suddenly gets an attack of nausea at the last moment and goes to a bathroom in the restaurant to throw up.

Shortly afterward, Tony is fired for inflating his sales figures. Realizing he has hit rock bottom, he rededicates his life to God. Unknown to Elizabeth and Danielle, he has been keeping several samples for himself. He now realizes that he has to return them, even though it could potentially send him to prison. However, Tony’s former boss is moved by his willingness to admit his wrongdoing and make amends, and decides not to press charges. Tony begins to show an interest in his daughter’s jump roping skills and offers to participate with her and her friends in the upcoming double dutch competition at the local community center. The competition goes great and Tony’s team takes second place. Elizabeth successfully sells Miss Clara’s house to a retired pastor who notices the knee indentations in the closet floor and realizes that someone was praying in the closet. Shortly afterwards, Tony is offered a job as the director of the community center. Although the pay isn’t nearly what he was making as a pharmaceutical salesman, he realizes that with the income from this new job combined with Elizabeth picking up extra work, the family can make a budget and survive.

The film ends with Tony giving Elizabeth her favorite dessert while he gives her a foot massage, something she loves, and Miss Clara, now living with her son, praying a powerful prayer in the still of the night.

See Also:  Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable.

*I won’t go into the details of why this was the right choice in that setting, but I agree with her that biting her tongue here was the right call.

Posted in Attacking headship, Christian Films, Fireproof, Kendrick Brothers, Rebellion, Submission, Ugly Feminists, War Room, You can't make this stuff up | 210 Comments


Instapundit linked today to an article in the Guardian about Danish women using sperm banks to become single mothers: ‘There’s no stigma’: why so many Danish women are opting to become single mothers. The article quotes one single mother who explained how she chose among the myriad of approved paths to single motherhood, ultimately deciding to use a sperm bank:

I saw lots of friends choose to become pregnant with boyfriends they knew wouldn’t last – purely because the desire to have a child took over. I also saw ‘traditional’ families breaking up all around me, so I thought, ‘Maybe I should just make this happen on my own.’” Fjord asked herself, “all the tough questions”: “Does the world need more people? Couldn’t I adopt?’ And I looked into it, but adoption is practically impossible in Denmark as a single woman, and it’s very expensive. Plus I had this primal urge to have my own child. I thought about having a baby with a friend, but realised this could get complicated. I considered a one-night stand – not a big deal in Denmark – but felt this would be somehow dishonest, stealing sperm from someone. This left donor conception.

Despite accurately defining the issue in the title, the Guardian investigates further and finds that it is actually men who are to blame for not getting with the program once a thirty something career woman decides to become pregnant:

“The majority say that becoming a solomor was Plan B,” says Lone Schmidt, associate professor at the University of Copenhagen Department of Public Health: “Two thirds had been in a relationship and wanted to become pregnant but their partners weren’t ready.” The average age of couples seeking help for fertility problems in Denmark is 33, and the average age of single women is 36. “In other words,” says Schmidt, “women are waiting it out, and when it becomes clear that there isn’t going to be a man in the picture, they’re taking action themselves.”

Like the Guardian, Instapundit commenter Amphipolis fears the idea of women facing stigma for choosing single motherhood.  Surely we can find a solution which focuses the responsibility on men and not women:

For every single mother there is a donor man who is willing to engender a fatherless child.

Men are also responsible for this, and their anonymity is just a bit of paperwork.

This is the standard refrain from Gilligans everywhere, who live in terror of the thought of unhappy sluts.  But our little buddy’s understanding of biology is flawed.  It only takes a handful of willing donors to create all of the bastards the single mothers wish to create.

Note also that Amphipolis’ fundamental objection is to the new family model being circumvented.  This new family model of course is not marriage, but child support.  He doesn’t propose shutting down sperm banks altogether, or only allowing married couples to use their services.  His focus is on identifying the donors so they can be forced to pay child support.

The sperm donors are exactly who I am talking about. They made this happen. They are partly responsible.

Posted in Aging Feminists, Child Support, New Morality, Stantons Heroes, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up | 101 Comments

He’s begging you; don’t forget the beta bucks!

Yesterday Instapundit linked to a piece by Mark Judge titled
How Feminism Created the Manic Pixie Dream Boy.  Refreshingly, Judge isn’t jumping in with the standard Traditional Conservative complaint that weak men are screwing feminism up:

You can thank political correctness and feminism for this; both seek to tame male passion and aggression by declaring it brute and dangerous. These cultural forces are abetted by writers like Breslaw who insist that men should be more passive and feminine but then turn around and mock them as manic pixies when they do just that.

Feminists have long argued that women should pursue careers just like men do.  Now that many women have successfully done so, however, they are beginning to resent the fact that while they are toiling away at the office, there are free-spirited dudes watching Bravo TV while eating artisanal snacks back at their apartments.

The lure to blame weak men for the failures of feminism is enormous, so seeing writers resist this temptation is a very positive sign.  However, even better than the post itself is the comment left by Eric Johnson, at least when it comes to comedic value (intentional or otherwise):

Women! Stop this delusion and marry the The Dork!
The Dork will actually put up with your mother!
The Dork will go to the PTA Meetings!
The Dork is willing to put up with your bullshit!

Don’t worry dorks of the world, sooner or later your future wife will tire of having sex with men like the Manic Pixie Dream Boy and will suddenly realize that you have a duty to marry her.  There is no point in trying to rush the process, as she needs to tire of sex with other men before she can recognize that you need to support her and put up with her bullshit.  Have patience dorks, assured in the knowledge that while she is giving herself sexually to every man who draws her fancy, she is saving something special for you.

Posted in Cracks in the narrative, Feminists, Instapundit, Manosphere Humor, Traditional Conservatives, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up, You can't make this stuff up | 181 Comments

We’re the real feminists.

The thing that struck me the most about Texas politics after moving to the state is that Democrats focus the bulk of their efforts on convincing Texas voters that they are the real conservative, and their Republican opponent is the fake.  For just one example of this, in our recent election for Governor Democrat Wendy Davis tried to get to the right of Republican Greg Abbott on the issue of gun rights by supporting open carry. It was of course a ruse, and she has since come out and stated that it was.

Republicans (not just in Texas but nationwide) use a similar strategy regarding feminism.  “We’re the real feminists” is the standard Republican claim.  You can see this with Jonah Goldberg celebrating Glorious Feminist Progress, and with Gavin McInnes here*.  In fact, this formula is so common that very few would even notice it.  Republicans claiming to be more feminist than feminists is SOP.  If you are a Republican, it is what you do.

There is however an important difference between Democrats in Texas claiming to be the real conservative, and Republicans everywhere claiming to be the real feminists;  the Democrats (and pretty much everyone else) know this is a ruse to get elected.  Republicans are serious when they claim to be the real feminists.

See Carly Fiorina’s recent campaign video (H/T Cane Caldo):

Ladies, look at this face! And look at all of your faces. The face of leadership. The face of leadership in our party, the party of women’s suffrage. The face of leadership in your communities, in your businesses, in your places of work and worship. Ladies, note to Democrat party:  We are not a special interest group, we are the majority of the nation. This is the face of a sixty one year old woman– I am proud of every year and every wrinkle.

*H/T anonymous_ng

Posted in Aging Feminists, Cane Caldo, The Real Feminists | 86 Comments

Is it robolove or robolust?

The topic of sexbots is making the rounds again, and once again the question is how they fit with our new sexual morality.  The last time this went around the argument by Dr Helen Driscoll was that using sexbots would become accepted as moral because their users would fall in love with them.  This sets up the angry feminist backlash by Dr Kathleen Richardson, who explained to the Daily Express that the problem with robosex is a lack of purifying emotion:

Dr Richardson believes humanoid sex robots reinforce traditional and damaging stereotypes of women.

It also perpetuates the view that a relationship does not need to be more than simply physical.

Drs. Richardson and Driscoll aren’t alone in their modern idea that sexual morality is determined by the amount of emotion involved.  Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, uses a very similar argument to explain why men viewing pornography is immoral.  Dr. Mohler warns that pornography weakens the power of denial of sex as a tool for wives to control their husbands.  As a result of this loss of power by wives, husbands will fail to mix in the purifying emotion which makes sex moral:

…Since the male sex drive is largely directed towards genital pleasure, men often assume that women are just the same…

The emotional aspect of sex cannot be divorced from the physical dimension of the sex act. Though men are often tempted to forget this, women possess more and less gentle means of making that need clear.

Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed…

…when I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Drs. Driscoll, Richardson, and Mohler are all using the same yardstick to determine sexual morality.  This is the modern way of thinking, and it is a direct consequence of our replacing traditional marriage with serial monogamy.  Under the new view, headship is inverted and sex is purified by romantic love.

All three are looking at this through the wrong lens, but in the narrow disagreement between Drs. Driscoll and Richardson I can only agree with Dr. Driscoll.  Dr. Richardson argues that robosex is immoral because it lacks purifying emotion.  However, to the extent that robosex is worse than other masturbation tools the problem is the opposite.   With vibrators and pornography the misuse is almost entirely physical.  With sexbots there will be a much higher risk that romantic love would be misused as well:

“The physical act of sex will only be a small part of the time you spend with a sex robot – the majority of time will be spent socialising and interacting,” Roxxxy’s creator believes.

The biggest problem we have is that having jettisoned real sexual morality, we aren’t able to process the dangers that sexbots will pose in any meaningful way.  If romantic love makes sex moral, the proponents of sexbots will always have a seemingly undefeatable argument in their favor.  To argue that emotions don’t purify sex would undermine our entire modern edifice of sexual morality.  This leaves us arguing over whether having sex with an artificial person involves emotion.  If this is the discussion, those in favor of sexbots have the far stronger position.

Aside from the purely moral question, there is another risk regarding sexbots.  Our economy is built on the expectation that men will be motivated by marriage to produce in excess of their own needs.  As we continue to degrade marriage, sexbots will be there to fill the gaps.

Sexbots don’t even need to become a direct replacement for marriage to have a profound effect on our economy.  Our current system relies on young men continuing to prepare to be providers while marriage continues to be further and further delayed.  Sexbots will in this context be yet another distraction tempting young men to coast instead of working diligently in anticipation of their future wives tiring of having sex with other men.  As each successive cohort of women tires of the carousel and starts looking for husbands, they will increasingly find that the cohort of men they hoped to marry are still willing to marry but fewer and fewer are in a position to play the role of provider.  Additionally, sexbots could also accelerate the decline in men’s willingness to remarry after being punished in divorce court.

Posted in Albert Mohler, Attacking headship, Economics, New Morality, Romantic Love, Serial Monogamy, Sexbots, Weak men screwing feminism up | 149 Comments