A quick update here on this blog and future projects.
Blogroll Updates
I have updated my blogroll, adding two new blogs:
Wintery Knight, who runs a very intellectual Christian blog which addressed Red Pill issues, has been added to the Red Pill Blog section.
I have also added the lovely Naomi of Embrace Your Femininity to the Christian blogs section of my blogroll. As the title of her blog suggests, she writes to encourage women to embrace their feminine nature in order to live happy and fulfilling lives.
Looking for the One
I solicited some help from a few other bloggers to help with my Looking for The One series. I asked them for their thoughts on what someone should do to prepare for marriage, I hope to have them posted in the next few weeks. Also, I added the Looking for The One main-page to my Top Posts section. In the meantime, I intend to my own thoughts on that particular aspect of Looking for The One, as well as anything else that comes to mind.
Future Posts
I have a few ideas for future posts that should be showing up over the next week.
I’ve been thinking on what exactly is necessary in order to shut down the Carousel lifestyle here in the west, and will make a post suggesting some ideas, and soliciting for more. Given how devastating it has proven for women and men, I think this should be a priority of the manosphere.
Also, I am thinking of writing a long post or a series of shorter ones concerning the problems within the Church (irrespective of denomination) right now and how the New Testament stories on the formation of the early Church could prove invaluable for fixing those problems.
I wanted to expand a bit on a point that I made with my last post. After explaining that women have a ONE OF US mentality which is commonly known as “Team Woman”, I stated that:
Look at how quickly these Christian women were willing to set aside their ethics and their faith to help another woman. It should be obvious to everyone by now why Paul explained that women had no place in Church leadership. That command is necessary because women will set aside wisdom, reason and faith to help ONE OF US.
One thing I should clear up is that women are not excluded in participating in the Church and church ministries. Phoebe was a deacon(ess) in the early church, and was commended for her works by Paul. But a deacon in the early church was not a leader, but rather a servant or minister for the leaders or elders of the church. The first seven deacons, among them Stephen, the first Christian martyr, were called to minister food to the hungry in order that the leaders of the church could focus on prayer and worship. But that role of leading prayer and worship was not to be filled by women:
8 I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9 also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man;she is to keep silent.13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Here we see the Curse of Eve emerge once again. Paul explains that the reason women are not hold authority over men in the Church relates to deception, and that may well be true. But I think it goes deeper. It is my belief that women have a default setting to “Team Woman.” For an excellent example of this, see here. Something that has been emerging in this sphere of of the internet has been the idea of “Team Her Man.” This involves a woman altering her mindset so that instead of subconsciously favoring all woman, she instead subconsciously favors her man (ideally her husband). My suspicion is that “Team Her Man” is also a possible setting for a woman who is attracted to a man and respects him. But I think that those are the only settings for women. Which means that they are either “Team Woman” or “Team Her Man.”
It isn’t necessarily a bad thing that they have these “settings.” A woman who favors Team Her Man is an advocate for her man, and fulfilling her role as helpmate to her husband. Even women favoring Team Woman can be advocates for the cause of women, and make sure that male leadership doesn’t forget the women of the Church.
What is a problem in the setting of the Church is if a woman were to be given power and authority over men. If that were to happen she would either sub-consciously favor women (Team Woman) or she would favor her man (Team Her Man) when she exercised her authority. This will only serve to divide the Church, by either promoting women at the expense of men (which is happening now in Churchianity), or by favoring the husbands of women with power. Now, I think that this inclination by women is not borne of evil intent. As I indicated before, its sub-conscious. Women do it without thinking. They cannot maintain an attitude of favoring the whole community of believers for long before they start favoring one of those teams. My previous post highlighted an excellent example of Christian women sub-consciously favoring another woman, at the expense of unknown, nameless men. Once they were confronted with their wrongdoing, they apologized and repented. But only after they were confronted with their actions.
In the setting of the Church, it doesn’t make sense, nor is it efficient or wise, for women to be given authority over men when it would be necessary for men to constantly scrutinize their decision to ensure they don’t favor women at the expense of men, or favor her man. Women can serve the Church. But they can’t be trusted with power over men, as they will invariably begin to wield it for their team. It is this natural tendency of women which makes them unsuited to hold authority in the Church.
Free Northerner has alerted me to a column at the Red Pill Woman sub-reddit over at Reddit. The subject of the column? I think that the author’s words speak for themselves:
I hate lying, but I’ve had a few boyfriends, so at 26 I’ve now slept with 12 men. I’m thinking seriously about marriage now, and I know many men find women with a double-digit partner count not marriage-material, so I’ve been telling the last couple boyfriends that I’ve only slept with 3 people. I was wondering if RedPillWomen has an opinion on this. Will this help?
That in itself is not surprising. Women know deep down inside, whether they admit it or not, that men will judge them when it comes to commitment based on their partner count. Deception on their part is only to be expected. At least, to be expected if they aren’t Christians. You would expect Christian women to tell that woman to come clean, right? To advocate honesty? Superficially, you would be correct:
Exactly. A quality man may or may not care about partner count. He will most certainly care about honesty.
Honesty is the most important thing. Lies destroy relationships.
On the face of it, those statements seem to be in the right direction. They emphasize honesty and the danger of lies. But as the thread progressed, this semblance of honesty is shown to be as hollow as a reed. First is this statement by The Ringmistress:
Don’t lie. Reveal on a need to know basis, but don’t give a hard number unless it is the real number.
Here we have an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, we have “don’t lie.” But on the other hand we have “Reveal on a need to know basis.” The first sentence advocates honesty, the second does not. How so? Honesty defined according to Merriam-Webster:
“fairness and straightforwardness of conduct”
Can anyone square away “reveal on a need to know basis” with “straightforwardness of conduct?” I sure can’t. But that statement is mild compared to this one by Sis:
12 men is a lot for a guy to swallow, but honesty is important in a relationship. I would try to avoid the question. If he asks, look down bashfully like you are too modest to talk about sexual things. Realize that once you tell him, it is a burden he will have to work through, forgive you for, and repeatedly let go throughout your marriage. When you do have sex with him, let him lead, learn what he likes, and appreciate and enjoy what he does. Don’t try to impress him with your skills.
The part in bold says it all. Sis isn’t just advocating that the woman not bring up the subject here. Sure she says that, but then she goes a step further and encourages the woman to create the impression that she is too modest to have engaged in sex with other men. Is she telling the woman to lie? Not really. But she is telling the woman to deceive men. As I explained over at Free Northerner’s blog:
All lies are deception.
But not all deception is lies.
And what we have here is deception. Sis encouraged that woman to “give a false impression” to any man who asked her about her sexual past. We are talking about something as fundamental and important as marriage, and Christian women were encouraging deception by a woman they didn’t know. Some might argue that deception doesn’t matter, that what you don’t know can’t bother you. So lets examine it from a different light…
Suppose you are on the market to buy a house. You see an ad in a paper, and visit an open house. While there you manage to spend some time with the owner, and ask a variety of questions. You ask:
“Is the house in a safe area?”
The answer:
“It has been safe enough for me.”
“Well, have any houses in the neighborhood been burglarized in the last few years?”
“Burglarized? How horrible! I shudder at the thought of it.”
Not mentioned is that a dozen homes have been burglarized in the last five years. Did the home owner lie? No. He gave an answer which said that he shuddered at the thought of houses being burglarized. That is almost certainly the truth. But it is a truth arranged so that the listener would walk away with a false impression of the situation. That is deception. It is not honesty. How would you feel about being deceived here? I imagine most people wouldn’t take it well. And that kind of deception is nothing compared to what a woman lying about her N is to the man who marries her. There are many more metaphors or analogies where that one came from. All speak to the same thing.
Ask yourself this…
Now ladies, in your haste to rush to the aide of this [sinful woman], did you ever stop to consider the man she was hoping to snare? Did you ever consider the effect on him from this deception? Did you ever stop to consider his welfare and well-being? Did he simply not matter to you, because he would be some nameless man?
Did you ever stop to consider whether this man being duped could be a friend of yours?
Or a cousin?
Or a brother?
What if it was your son she was hoping to marry?
Would that have changed your mind any? Would you be perfectly alright with your son marrying a woman with an N of 12, thinking it was 3? Even knowing the risks that he would face? Or do you have no problem with your own blood ending up as a statistic? Somehow I think that if the man in question was related to our advice givers, that they wouldn’t be so quick to aid a harlot in ensnaring said man into being a Beta Provider.
So this begs the question, why would these Christian women go out of their way to advise a [sinful woman] to deceive some poor man into thinking she wasn’t a [sinful woman]?
Why? Because she was a woman in need of help, and they were women. To them, she was ONE OF US.
Why? Because “Us ladies need to look out for one another.” She was ONE OF US.
Why? Because she was one of The Herd. A member of Team Woman. ONE OF US. (skip ahead to the 40 second mark)
Look at how quickly these Christian women were willing to set aside their ethics and their faith to help another woman. It should be obvious to everyone by now why Paul explained that women had no place in Church leadership. That command is necessary because women will set aside wisdom, reason and faith to help ONE OF US.
This post, and the research and reading that lead to it, has left me with a cocktail of emotions. But one has emerged as dominant in that admixture: disappointment. I am disappointed that so many “Red Pill Women”, including several Christians, were willing and eager to aid a woman in deceiving men about something which would have a huge impact on a relationship. Not all failed the test, TempestTCup as near as I can tell never engaged in the encouragement of deceptive practices. In response to this story Deti left this comment over at Free Northerner’s site:
I didn’t want to believe it donal, but I think I’m going to now.
Even Christian women have a lesser sense of honor, justice, fairness and integrity than men do. These women’s status as Christians — even that does not overcome the female tendency toward emotions, fudging, gilding the lily, and doing what must be done to serve one’s self interests.
Even Christ’s commands and His Word are insufficient to overcome the feminine imperative which burns in the minds and hearts of every woman.
Astonishing. These women would jeopardize their eternal salvation to help a woman feel better about sexing up a few too many men.
Un. Be- freakin – lievable.
I have never been a supporter of the theory that women are “morally inferior” to men, a theory which often finds its home in the MGTOW side of the manosphere. But occasions like this make me sometimes wonder if there is some truth to that line of thought. However, I think that ultimately it all comes down to the ONE OF US mentality that is part and parcel of a woman’s mind. Women are, by default, part of Team Woman. Even if she is also a member of Team Her Man, that instinct is still present. Sis seems to have later apologized for her “slip up.” But the episode has me worried. I’ve always liked Sis, but if someone like her is able to fall into the trap of aiding and abetting a [sinful woman], then what does it say about women in general? She apologized, yes, but only after Free Northerner called her out on her behavior. Until he did that, I’m sure that it never entered her mind what she had actually done. Her instinct to aide ONE OF US proved the greater.
In Conclusion
I know that many of the Red Pill Women out there have daughters of varying ages. I assume that they would like for their daughters to get married some day. Elspeth over at Traditional Christianity has remarked that her young, chaste Christian daughter is having trouble finding a husband. I suggested that part of her daughter’s problem might be that many of the “good Christian men” out there have been so emasculated by Churchian culture that they now lack the confidence and will to approach a woman like her daughter. However, there is another possibility. Perhaps all of the “good Christian men” out there that her daughter would like to meet aren’t interested in marriage at all. Perhaps they have taken Paul’s advice to heart and decided not to marry, that the risks and costs aren’t worth the benefit. Perhaps they have become convinced that marriage in this day and age is a trap, a snare set so that men can support women living lives of sin at the expense of men. And with incidents like this, who can blame them?
Red Pill Women, do you want your daughter’s to marry? If you do, then you need to stop giving men a reason to think that marriage is a bum deal for them. Do you have any idea how much incidents like this cause Christian men to question the faith they have in Christian women? If you want your daughters to find men who are willing to marry them, then you need to demonstrate that women can be trusted. That they won’t discard their faith out of convenience, or to serve Team Woman. I can think of at least a half-dozen men in the manosophere off the top of my head who fit the bill of being devout and chaste [N=0] Christian men, including, but not limited to, myself, ar10308, Earl, Seriouslypleasedropit, and possibly even Free Northerner himself. I can’t speak for them, but I can speak for myself. And what I have to say is this: When I can’t trust Christian women to avoid helping unchaste women deceive unsuspecting men, marriage loses much of its appeal for me. I am not a MGTOW. I want to get married. But how can I avoid despair when this is what I can expect from my sisters of the faith?
[I had another section here which I edited out. It didn’t really contribute to the point of the post, and as Deep Strength has pointed out, was foolhardy in its suggestion.]
Update: Ringmistress created an apology thread over at the RPW reddit, found here. It is a good step towards calling women to think about whose team they are playing on. There were some good responses, and I encourage my readers to take a look. But I want to take the time to address a comment left by commentator Amissmiss:
Okay, I read the blog post, and I’d like to address two points:
I think he is right to call out the advice to deceive through omission.
I think he’s wrong to judge women unfit for church leadership or morally inferior simply because this advice was given, or, as he puts it, we have a ‘one of us’ mentality.
Let me explain.
Becoming a part of church leadership should be a process that requires a great deal of study and growth regardless of gender. You must learn and strive to be the best version of yourself. This is a process both men and women must go through.
For a woman, this may involve learning to resist the temptation to have a hive mentality and protect ‘one of us.’ For a man, it might be learning to judge not less ye be judged, which would mean stepping away from dubbing a woman a ‘harlot’ because that is St. Peter’s call Instead, he must learn to act more like Jesus and realize that the vulnerable, sick, and fallen are the one’s that need care and consideration the most.
We both have to learn to overcome our nature.
Before I address the heart of this, I want to say that I don’t “judge women as morally inferior.” If you read above you will see that I said I have never believed that. Also, my comments were directed at the Christian women who were dispensing advice.
Now that we have that bit out of the way, lets examine this section:
Becoming a part of church leadership should be a process that requires a great deal of study and growth regardless of gender. You must learn and strive to be the best version of yourself. This is a process both men and women must go through.
I would like to point out that Paul is clear that women aren’t to speak in Church, which means they cannot hold a position of leadership (outside of administrative functions). While I am not a sola scriptura supporter (Novaseeker has a good post on this), that doesn’t mean I think we should simply tear out and ignore sections of the Bible that we don’t like. While the advice given is solid, scripture makes it clear that it is a process for men. [What I have done is try and explain why that might be the case; that it wasn’t merely the product of some “oppressive patriarchal culture”]
For a woman, this may involve learning to resist the temptation to have a hive mentality and protect ‘one of us.’ For a man, it might be learning to judge not less ye be judged, which would mean stepping away from dubbing a woman a ‘harlot’ because that is St. Peter’s call Instead, he must learn to act more like Jesus and realize that the vulnerable, sick, and fallen are the one’s that need care and consideration the most.
And here we see the standard line of “Judge Not Less Ye be Judged” come up. It is a trope at this point that when the topic of female sexual immorality shows up, this line from Matthew 7 shows up. Of course, the whole section on sin and judgment doesn’t get brought up, because the actual meaning of what Jesus was teaching is quite different. Here is the full text on that subject:
“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.
Once we have the full scripture before us it is clear that Jesus was warning about hypocrisy, not about the act of calling out others on sin. He was telling us that whatever measure or set of rules we applied to others, would also be applied to ourselves. That if we accused others of sin, then if we committed the same sins we ourselves would also be accused. And you know what? I am fine with that. I am not without sin. I’ve disrespected my parents, I’ve taken the LORD’s name in vain, and at times coveted that which wasn’t mine. But I am not accusing that sinful woman of something I have done myself. We are all sinners, and I am not different. But fornication is not one of my sins. So let me be judged, because there is no log/plank/beam in my eye to interfere with my judgement. Does my judgment mean that the sinful woman who started this is going to hell? No. That is not within my power.
What I am doing is pointing out to Christian women who were advising that sinful woman, that the woman was unrepentant. She didn’t express guilt about her sins. Instead, she was worried that they might impair her ability to ensnare a man into being her meal ticket… er, husband. She was unrepentant, and she was being advised, by Christian women, on how to cover up her sins. And lest you think that I was not acting as Christ did, perhaps you have forgotten this episode:
7 A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” 8 (His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) 9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12 Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?” 13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!”19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet.
Jesus didn’t call the woman a slut, he didn’t need to. By reminding her of her sins, he accomplished the same thing. While calling the original author a harlot was inaccurate (see below), calling her a sinful woman is appropriate. Jesus called people out on their sins, He never pretended that they hadn’t happened. How can you act as a doctor to the soul if you refuse to recognize that there is illness? Unless you recognize sin for what it is, and call it out, repentance cannot happen.
When I wrote this post, I originally referred to the woman as a harlot. While writing this update I looked up the definition and its etymological origins. And what I found is that harlot is more accurately used for a prostitute or a whore, as compared to a promiscuous women. Since the original author of the reddit column wasn’t a whore (or at least didn’t confess to being one), it wasn’t appropriate for me to label her as such. So in that case I apologize for that mislabeling. As a result, I have removed the previous references to “harlot” and replaced them with [sinful woman], as that is more Biblical in nature.
Update 2: Free Northerner has a response to this post, addressing the question of how a repentant woman with an N>0 should react to being asked her N count. His post reminded me a sinful woman from the Bible who sought to repent for her past:
36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.” 40 Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Teacher,” he replied, “speak.” 41 “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” 48 Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
It is my belief that “Feminism” is nothing more than a massive, society-wide fitness test that has spiraled out of control and now threatens to bring civilization down around us.
What is a Fitness Test? It is when a woman pushes against a man to try and see if he will respond in a dominant or commanding manner. It involves a woman making unreasonable or unrealistic demands of a man and expecting that he will cave to her whims. She is testing his masculinity, trying to determine just how much Masculine Power he really has. What makes a Fitness Test truly maddening is that the woman unconsciously wants to fail. She wants the man to push back, or to swat aside her demand. She wants him to succeed, even though she doesn’t realize it. While it may bother her at first, when a man passes the test by refusing to cave into her demands, she will ultimately be happier as a result.
Unfortunately, this behavior has jumped from being something individual women do to something which is practiced on a massive scale. Women push and push and push. They push for more power over men everywhere.
Well, now people (men and women alike) are starting to push back. This threatens the imperative, naturally. And so the push becomes a shove. Expect to see more visceral responses in the future against anyone who tries to expose what is going on. Women will be loathe to give up their precious feminism, and White Knights will be eager as always to step in and fight on their behalf. Things are going to get ugly.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
This post is intended to be a sequel and response to my last major post, All Alone in the Dark. That proved to be a rather depressing and pessimistic post, far more so than I intended. The major reason why is because it conveyed the darkness that I was finally able to perceive when I took the Red Pill but did not include the silver linings in the cloud, which this post will address.
Of Pills and Game
There is no universal understanding of what “Game” is. Everyone seems to have their own definition. This is largely why I consider myself to be part of the “Red Pill Christian” side of the manosphere (which itself has many names but is much more easily defined). Instead of referring to Game, I prefer to use the phrases “Red Pill” and “Blue Pill.” But of course, there are disagreements about what exactly “Red Pill” and “Blue Pill” actually mean. Here is one example of defining Red Pill and Blue Pill:
Red Pill: Seeing people with their natural/sinful/feral personalities and instincts, their “true” motivations instead of “happy ever after lies” Blue Pill: Lies we’ve been told about how men and women should act to be kind towards each other, but it simply doesn’t work to create attraction or motivation from your partner to actively like you.
Now, this isn’t a half bad explanation. But unfortunately Sis conflates the Red Pill with the idea of there being a “Red Pill Philosophy.” But the Red Pill is not a philosophy. There is no single philosophy derived from the Red Pill. Instead, you see several different reactions:
1) The PUA’s
2) The MGTOW’s
3) “Red Pill Christians” (there are so many different possible names, from “Christian Revivalists” to “Biblical Restorationists”)
4) MRA’s
Now, each side vehemently disagrees with each other on how to act, on how to respond to the situation we all find ourselves in. What do they agree upon? The state of society, the true nature of men and women, and the general direction of culture and civilization. They agree about the Red Pill. So what is the Red Pill? Simple: The Red Pill is the truth about men and women. Nothing more, nothing less.
Red Pill: The truth, often suppressed, about male and female nature, especially their sexual nature. The full depths of the Red Pill would probably take a whole series of posts to lay out in detail.
Blue Pill: The information put out by the general culture about male and female nature, especially sexual nature. It is a product of both ignorance and deception. Like its opposite, it would take a long time to explain all of the lies and ignorance passed off as truth under the guise of the Blue Pill.
The Red Pill is truth, and the Blue Pill is lies and ignorance. Philosophy and Religion come in only in response to the truth. What is the Red Pill? Understanding that Men and Women are fallen, sinful creatures. How we choose to react to this is something else entirely. Rejecting the truth, spitting up the Red Pill and swallowing the Blue Pill, is not only foolish, but for Christians should be recognized as an action that will enslave us. For Christians, taking the Red Pill is merely a refresher course in The Fall, with the addition of some extra knowledge about how human’s behave when sexuality is involved. There is nothing holy about rejecting the Red Pill, because there is nothing holy about embracing ignorance.
Re-examining what Sis said about the Blue Pill, we can see where she went astray:
Blue Pill: Lies we’ve been told about how men and women should act to be kind towards each other, but it simply doesn’t work to create attraction or motivation from your partner to actively like you.
The newly bolded section is where Sis goes off track. The Blue Pill, the lies and ignorance promoted by society, isn’t about how we should act to be kind towards one another. Instead, the Blue Pill teaches that acting kind towards one another, or to be more accurate, Men acting nice and kind towards women generates attraction. It teaches that women are attracted to nice, kind, compassionate men. That is the message of “Churchians,” and they preach it long and loud. And it is simply untrue. A kind and compassionate man doesn’t attract women (nor vice versa). Those are comfort traits, desirable traits, “Retention Vectors.” [I still don’t know why I used vectors instead of attributes; really, it just doesn’t fit] The kinds of things that add value to a relationship. But they don’t attract women. And a man being “nice” to women is actually unattractive, because being nice is seen (sub-consciously) as weakness by women, and weakness is unattractive in a man.
As Christians, we are called to be compassionate. But society, in the form of the Blue Pill, teaches people that niceness and kindness and compassion are attractive. They aren’t. We should be kind and compassionate, but we should not embrace the notion that they will be attractive to the opposite sex. Christianity and the Red Pill are entirely compatible with one another, because Christianity has no fear of the Truth, and that is what the Red Pill represents. Indeed, discovering the Red Pill has actually invigorated my faith, because it has re-affirmed universal truths concerning the Fall, the roles of husband and wife in marriage, and the nature of men and women in general.
Of Hope
My second to last post was pretty grim. It was meant to be:
When I occasionally mention my frustrations with life to those close to me, I often hear that I have my whole life ahead of me. That is no measure of comfort; because I will be living that life alone and unloved. Some commentators in the manosphere argue that a man doesn’t need a woman, that he shouldn’t bother with them, that they aren’t worth the effort. Perhaps they are fortunate enough to not experience the ache. Maybe they are just lucky, or gifted perhaps. Or they maybe they are so filled with bitterness and anger that they can no longer feel it. But that isn’t me. I feel alone, I am alone. And it is not Good that man should be alone. But I need to accept that being alone might be my fate. I am not sure which I fear more: telling my parents that they will never have grand-children, or discovering that the ache isn’t numbed by the passage of time.
But for all the darkness inherent in that post, there are things to be hopeful about, and even thankful about, in my life.
1) I am not trapped in a nightmare marriage– For all of my woes (which in the grand scheme of things aren’t that bad) I still have a lot of freedom. If a path opens up for me, I have the ability to choose to take it or not. Considering how thoroughly I bought into the Blue Pill for years, if I had in the past somehow married, the odds are good it wouldn’t have ended well. I wouldn’t have known what to look for in a wife. Nor would I have known the right attitude to take when approaching matrimony; my unattractive behavior would have pretty much guaranteed that I would have married poorly.
2) I am not divorced– Considering how Blue Pill I was, it wouldn’t have been unthinkable for my marriage to have fallen apart. While I wouldn’t have been the one to file for divorce, my wife could have, and there is nothing I could have done to stop it. Setting aside the issue of whether re-marriage is allowed or not, the financial and emotional cost of divorce would likely have crippled me.
3) I know what women find attractive and unattractive– Now that I’ve taken the Red Pill, I understand that being nice is the last thing I want to do if I want to attract a woman. I have a theory about the different measures that a woman uses to decide whether she is attracted to a man or not.
5) I understand what women are looking for– All that soft music, and candlelight, and wonderful romance which women say they crave? Well, they do want it… from a man they are attracted to. But what they want even more than that is to be dominated. Because that domination by a man, who treats her as his woman, makes her feel safe. If I do get married in the future, I will know what I need to do to make her feel loved, not unloved.
6) I know what to look for in a good wife– Scripture provides a powerful example of a good woman and I know what to avoid. In addition, I have learned how to vet a future wife.
7) I know the pitfalls to avoid– Without the Red Pill I wouldn’t even know fitness tests exist. But I do know, and will be ready for them. I can take steps to avoid becoming a statistic.
There are more, and I will add them to this list as time passes. Even when I feel he jaws of crushing despair, I know that things could be much, much worse. Not everything is darkness in my life. Perhaps my life will not end up looking like I thought it would when I was younger. I might not have all that I wanted. But I didn’t end up as a statistic, and my future still belongs to me.
(Note: I’ve been sitting on this blog post because it ended up being more of a whinefest that I like. I’ve been trying to avoid pointless complaining here as there is plenty of that in the rest of the manosphere. Instead, I’ve been hoping to take a positive attitude, help young Christians marry, and overall avoid the doom and gloom which many in the MGTOW movement wrap themselves in. But I realized that denying what I was thinking doesn’t help anyone, as it is important for both newcomers to this part of the web as well as oldtimers to understand that others feel as they do. That, plus I spent a fair amount of time on this and didn’t want to waste it.)
Another Father’s Day has come and gone. At the end of the service, the priest had all of the fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers (of which there were a few) stand up to receive a blessing. A large percentage of the men in the church stood up. While they received their blessing, an awful lot went through my mind in a short period of time:
I noticed that many of them were older. Partially this was skewed by the grandfathers and great-grandfathers, but in truth there were very few young fathers in attendance. And the Mass is one which was aimed for younger members of the church.
I took note of the fact that there appeared to be more young, unmarried men in the church than there were young, unmarried women. A lot more. While it is often remarked upon that women make up the majority of the membership in most churches, that doesn’t seem to be the case for mine. While the split might be different for older members of the church, there seemed to be more young men. I have to wonder: was this simply the product of random chance; the result of more sons being born to adult members of the Church? It is possible, but unlikely. And if that birth distribution isn’t the case, then where were the young women?
Lastly, and most importantly, as I looked around the room at all of the fathers standing up, I realized that I would likely never join them. I am finally starting to come to grip with the fact that I probably will never marry and have children. When I was younger I always thought that I would have time. After all, men are not as impacted by age as women when it comes to fertility or attractiveness. Even in my Blue Pill days I knew this. And so I thought that time was on my side, that I would eventually find the right woman for me. I know better now.
Now that I have taken the Red Pill I understand just how few marriageable women are out there. In a post over at Unmasking Feminism, this question was asked:
[W]hat do you think the overall percentage is of SCRIPTURALLY-eligible young brides-to-be in the church nowadays?
CV, I was thinking about that…. I would say 2% and these women are probably in very rural areas.
Now, I thought the filters for the question were a bit too restrictive, but even with those reduced somewhat, the answer cannot be far from the 2% given. Another commentator summed up the situation in all of its grim glory:
Given the current state of affairs, the chances of a serious Christian young man finding a suitable wife is slim. His options are to be celibate, to hold out unless and until he finds a unicorn, or take the best thing on offer and roll the dice. In the latter case it is a fairly straight-forward risk assessment: celibacy can be extremely difficult, and about 3/5 of Christian marriages work out well enough to avoid divorce court – on the other hand the odds of disaster are still absurdly high, the penalties for choosing poorly are monumental, and not all marriages that survive are good marriages. It sucks, but there it is.
Option three is off the table for me. Unless an Angel of the LORD comes down from on high and informs me that God commands otherwise, I will never marry an unchaste woman. Never. Whatever else happens to me, that is one particular path I won’t walk, as the teaching of St. Paul resonates with me.
Option two is the long shot. There are still a few virtuous women out there. Nightskyradio found one of them. Plenty of men in the manosphere argue that it is folly to pursue this option, but I intend to do so as long as I can, even though I may never find a worthy, marriageable woman. Unfortunately, even if I do find such a woman, there is another barrier that may come between us. There is still the problem of age. When the subject of men having trouble finding a wife came up at Sunshinemary’s blog a week ago, she left this comment:
One quick note; a silent reader emailed me the other day lamenting the fact that he was probably too old to find a young virginal bride. He wanted to look in the 16-20 range because that’s where the virgins are (he’s a devout Christian and also chaste), but felt that he was just too old to do that and would come across as creepy. His age? 25! I was like, you are NOT old. Find yourself a nice 18-year-old. Too many men are measuring their SMV/MMV age by female standards. Stop that!
Sunshinemary means well, but unfortunately she confuses the Sexual Marketplace with the Marriage Marketplace. Age isn’t a problem for men in the SMP like it is for women, because men arrive at their peak later than women. If you are a participant in the SMP, age differences don’t mean a whole lot, only attractiveness. But in the MMP, matters are quite different. Because of the significance of marriage, pressure from family and friends has a considerable impact on behavior. A man in his late twenties/early thirties is not old. But how many parents would be comfortable with their daughter marrying a man ten to fifteen years older than their daughter? The answer: very few these days. Even Sunshinemary indicated that she would have problems with it.
This is an issue because the kind of woman I would want to marry would be the type of woman who actually listens to the wisdom of her family. And her family would be railing against the relationship. Being a Catholic, running off and eloping is not an option. Instead, I will have to somehow convince not only the young lady I am courting, but her family as well, that she would do well to marry an older man. Easier said than done. Even before getting to that point I will have to weather the accusations of being a creep or a pervert for focusing my attention on women much younger than myself. Finding a woman closer to my age who is still chaste and worth marrying is even more difficult. Loki grabbed one of the few who are out there. Perhaps I will run across another, but the odds of my getting struck by lightning are likely better than that.
That leaves option one. Where I must walk the hard road ahead by myself. I have lived that life to this point, and at times it hasn’t been easy. The desire for companionship is as much part of the difficulty of living a chaste life as restraining my sexuality. And yet I have succeeded so far. I know it can be done, if needs be. But it is not a path I choose to take, unless I am forced to choose between a life of celibacy or a life of sin.
When I occasionally mention my frustrations with life to those close to me, I often hear that I have my whole life ahead of me. That is no measure of comfort; because I will be living that life alone and unloved. Some commentators in the manosphere argue that a man doesn’t need a woman, that he shouldn’t bother with them, that they aren’t worth the effort. Perhaps they are fortunate enough to not experience the ache. Maybe they are just lucky, or gifted perhaps. Or maybe they are so filled with bitterness and anger that they can no longer feel it. But that isn’t me. I feel alone, I am alone. And it is not Good that man should be alone. But I need to accept that being alone might be my fate. I am not sure which I fear more: telling my parents that they will never have grand-children, or discovering that the ache isn’t numbed by the passage of time.
I have been trying to decide how to close this post. Of how to express all of my hopes and dreams, my fears and longings. Alas, I haven’t found fitting words. Since I find myself incapable of the task, I will trust it to The Who to convey my state of mind right now:
I’ve been working on a post lately concerning my reaction to Father’s Day, but I’m not sure if I’m going to post it or not. It turned out to be both far more depressing in nature than I thought it would, and more of a “woe is me” gripe than was my intention. While I debate over releasing that post, I thought I would post an update on how this blog has been doing so far. I started it on March 10 of this year, and since then have accumulated the following stats (as of the time this post was written):
10, 744 views- The best day for views was on Monday, June 17th, as a result of a link from Dalrock.
247 comments- After myself, the most prolific commentator has proven to be Deti. Somehow, I don’t think that will come as a surprise to anyone.
… it means “Man Up” sermons from “Churchian” pastors, who rather than use the day to thank fathers for their tireless, work instead use it to further bludgeon men with responsibilities that come without rights. Fortunately, not all churches practice this abhorrent behavior. This post is a place for commentators to tell us their horror stories from today. Or for them to talk about how their pastor or priest gave a positive message and didn’t actively undermine men and fathers on a day that is supposedly set aside for them.
Have at thee!
Update 1: While the fact that it was Father’s Day did merit some mention, it was not the focal point of today’s homily. In fact, besides mentioning it at the end and beginning of the service, Father’s Day was brought up only once, in the context of the love of a father being irreplaceable. Since the actual homily was a good one, I have to approve. The Church shouldn’t address the matter of being a mother or a father because the rest of society decided that “today is the day.” Instead, it should be scripture which drives when and how the message is delivered.
Dominant sex is every woman’s fantasy. Rape is every woman’s nightmare.
The above is a quote from Hannah over at Sunshinemary’s site in her latest post, which covers Ravishment fantasies. I highly recommend reading both the post itself and all the comments, as they are some of the best yet at SSM’s site.
Donal Graeme 