Ordering Deception

A short post today.

In my most recent Musings post I made the assertion that women were more prone to being deceived than men. A brief debate ensued, and after some study and careful thought I came to reconsider my original position. Here is what I expressed later:

I think that what might account for susceptibility to deception might in fact be primarily a result of deception from the other sex. I suspect that it might be that women are susceptible to men deceiving them. And the reverse definitely seems to be true based on many accounts from these parts.

In other words, women seem prone to deception, at least to men, because women are more susceptible to being deceived by men. And the reverse is also true- that men are prone to being deceived by women. A possible implication of this is that men are less susceptible to being deceived by other men, and women are less susceptible to being deceived by other women.

I think that the principal reason this might be the case is that men tend to be less knowledgeable about women. They don’t know how they think, or what they think, or what they value, or why, to the degree that they do with men. And of course vice-verse. There are plenty of anecdotal stories from the manosphere which would back up that men can be deceived, easily even, by women. While the reverse has tended to be a predominate view, or at least was for a long time, that might be because most of the authors of such advice were men. Women might have, and probably did, have other ideas about how easy men were to deceive.

Seeing as I love to categorize, I see four different scenarios when individual deception is concerned (that is, individuals deceiving other individuals). They are:

  • A man deceiving a woman
  • A man deceiving another man
  • A woman deceiving a man
  • A woman deceiving another woman

What I wonder about is the order of susceptibility. By that I mean, which scenario is the most potent? Or are they the same between the opposites? That is, are men just as good at deceiving women as women are at deceiving men? I would invite my readers to contribute their thoughts on these questions, and the order of the specific scenarios from easiest to hardest.

87 Comments

Filed under Alpha, Beta, Blue Pill, Civilization, Fitness Test, Men, Red Pill, Sin, Women

87 responses to “Ordering Deception

  1. I noticed many years ago with some artist friends that men drew men better than women did, and women drew women better than men did. It’s what they grew up with, and what they see in the mirror every day. They know how that type of body moves, acts, and reacts without even thinking much about it.

    Similar principle at work.

    Seeing as I love to categorize

    Why do you want to turn a cat into a fluffy Al Gore?

  2. theshadowedknight

    I have an idea that I have been trying to turn into a post, that women are not moral agents–at least not fully. (This again, let the fun begin.) Instead, they act as moral executors of the strongest moral values in their lives. For most, this is the cultural zeitgeist, because men are so weak, but a strong enough man or subculture will override it, due to proximity.

    I remember a conversation on SSMatD where a woman said she found that her tastes changed to align with a boyfriend. Foods that she had disliked prior to their involvement became something she liked and her tastes in music changed.

    Women are more prone to being deceived, but sometimes what looks like deception is a woman finding herself in the presence of a powerful man and ingratiating herself to him.

    The Shadowed Knight

  3. I would say that women are more easily deceived than men, except in the area of romance. Note that women fall for more scams than men, except that men fall for more romance scams than women.

  4. mdavid

    …it might be that women are susceptible to men deceiving them.

    It seems obvious to me why women are more susceptible: they want to be seduced by a man clever enough to do it. He’s worth having children with. Just like any man will be fooled by a pretty girl. Is he really fooled? Or is she just worth it.

    No woman rationaly chooses the risk, pain, and hard work of children (this is why IQ and wealth correlate with lack of children). So Darwin finds a way to shut off the frontal lobe of women in the mating game and people see it’s like they lose moral agency. In this era, we have a massive extinction act occuring, with smart and savvy women going extinct. Acting irrationally and emotionally leads to fertility today, so that’s what’s being breed.

  5. In other words, women seem prone to deception, at least to men, because women are more susceptible to being deceived by men. And the reverse is also true- that men are prone to being deceived by women. A possible implication of this is that men are less susceptible to being deceived by other men, and women are less susceptible to being deceived by other women.

    Who has the power to deceive except spirits? Animals do not deceive. So what are you really saying here except that women are more easily deceived than men? You are in good company, as Paul writes this explicitly; rightly pointing to its precedent with Eve, and continuing ever since.

    Are not women exactly like men in that they have spirits? So it stands to reason that women are more easily able to deceive other women (than men) just as men are. And are not men also able to deceive other men? But as you have recognized that–in relation to men–, women fall for the deceptions more easily (“In other words, women seem prone to deception, at least to men, because women are more susceptible to being deceived by men.”)?

    Then what are we left with except for the truth (testified throughout the Bible) that women are more easily deceived than men? I know that you know this is true, so why have you been led astray?

    Men are not as prone to deception; not from women (That is a demonstrably false egalitarian idea that is sweet for haughty women to ponder, but demonstrates no faith in the Scriptures.) and not from other men in the way women are.

    What men are prone to is “capitulation” for pleasure and self-aggrandizement. The man (the Adam in us) when tempted by a bad idea says, What harm could there be in letting her have her ideas? Has it been so bad for her? Look how good she looks! So pretty, and sweet as she stands there making gestures to me. And if it hasn’t harmed her, and I can have peace and comfort from her, then how bad can it be for me? It’s true that this is not what I have been taught, but it’s also true that it’s a fine thing for me to allow her to do something for me. Even if it isn’t really right? Well…that’s on her, isn’t it? What harm in a little indulgence if it makes us both happy for her to serve me?

  6. @Shadowed Knight,

    You made an interesting comment:

    “I remember a conversation on SSMatD where a woman said she found that her tastes changed to align with a boyfriend. Foods that she had disliked prior to their involvement became something she liked and her tastes in music changed.”

    This is very interesting, as this is how I and several family members were raised — that we were to put our own interests, likes and dislikes aside for the sake of those who we were with. Now, I will give you that this appears she was doing this because she wanted to be with her boyfriend. But, actually, in some “traditional” circles, the girls are strongly encouraged to align their likes, dislikes, and interests with those of their husband/future husband. In fact, I’ve seen it alluded to — I can’t right now say where, because they’re not in front of me, but the notion literally was screaming from the page — among these blogs — that this is something a lot of traditional men seem to expect (their wives to align all their interests, likes and dislikes to theirs).

    This is a deception which states that as an individual we have no worth except that which is projected by another. I think traditionally raised women are prone to this because we are raised to become wives and mothers. We are trained to give, and some of us end up giving very dangerously. Case in point:

    I fell into this for a few years and the result was terrible — for me and for everyone around me, because I went into deep depression. Fortunately, I climbed out of it and realized that just because my husband wasn’t interested in something was no reason why I couldn’t be, and I started re-discovering talents I had that I had buried because he had shown no interest in them, yet had interest in things where I had far less talent (his mother was an excellent cook and I am an average cook. I finally stopped trying to be like her. His mother was not musical in any degree; whereas I was a mezzo-soprano before I got married. I started singing again.)

    I have a cousin who is, unfortunately, still in the depths of having tried to align herself completely with her husband’s interests. I tried to get her out with me and it didn’t work; she was too far gone. But with the help of several people, she’s just barely starting. A week of practically forcing her to pick up her violin again and try to play — and after years of not playing, her technique is nothing like it once was, and that got her upset again, but we finally learned that someone has to go over to her house and force her to play the violin each day. Her husband isn’t happy that she’s not baking bread anymore right now, but he isn’t too overly concerned with whether or not she is mentally or emotionally healthy. My husband occasionally reminds him that she isn’t a doormat, and if he catches him treating her like one anymore he will take him apart (especially since she is his cousin and they were practically like brother and sister growing up). When he said that, I was on Cloud Nine with how great my own husband is. He’ll stand up for her no matter what.

  7. @ Moose

    I would say that women are more easily deceived than men, except in the area of romance. Note that women fall for more scams than men, except that men fall for more romance scams than women.

    Eureka. In other words, we [all] are more prone to being deceived where we are tempted the most.

    A man’s sex drive is one of the strongest temptations that we have and thus we tend to be more prone to being deceived in that area.

    That solves everything for me.

  8. Pingback: An Example of the Difference Between Deception and Capitulation | Things that We have Heard and Known

  9. @ Deep Strength:

    A man’s sex drive is one of the strongest temptations that we have and thus we tend to be more prone to being deceived in that area.

    The curse of Balaam.

    I’ve seen it at work in the comments section of blogs in this ‘spere.

    Women who are very deceived, and men who run after them knowing full well they are wrong, but deceived as to the comparative value of a woman’s attention as opposed to following God.

  10. theshadowedknight

    In fact, I’ve seen it alluded to — I can’t right now say where, because they’re not in front of me, but the notion literally was screaming from the page — among these blogs — that this is something a lot of traditional men seem to expect (their wives to align all their interests, likes and dislikes to theirs).

    I am calling bullshit on this. Plenty of digital ink has been dedicated to pointing out that men should continue their own interests and that they should not rely on their wife to be their friend, too. Not to mention that a woman who only pretends to have the same interests as her man is likely to drop the pretense once she has locked him down.

    I highly doubt that her husband is not interested in her mental health. I also suspect that he is not treating her as a doormat. Your interference in her marriage, including sending your husband to threaten hers, is in no sense admirable. It is the most base and obnoxious form of traditional feminism that you should be ashamed to have written it. His response should have been an invitation to visit the pit, and a prompt severance of contact.

    Traditional feminism gets no more truck here than modern feminism. Your sort are as much the enemy as any women’s studies professor or professional divorcée.

    Plus you missed the point of my post in order to make your own feminist rant. Monomania and stupidity make for a poor combination. Remember that, the next time that you try to read my writing, so I do not have to spend my time correcting such egregious blather.

    The Shadowed Knight

  11. tz

    @Mom –

    I think your Cousin and her husband were happy BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS. You hate and resent her contented married life, so you have to destroy and vandalize that married life because it isn’t what YOU would want. Doesn’t measure up to YOUR standards. You must “liberate” her.

    She must eat the fruit of the tree and death will enter their marriage. She must rebel against God and her husband! You find it intolerable that a woman can be happy as a good wife, you can’t possibly think that she might like her role as helpmeet and she is doing these things voluntarily? That she is the proverbial 31 wife? Nowhere in that chapter does it say the wife is haaaaappy.

    Will your cousin be happier after the divorce? I don’t think she could be any less depressed, assuming she is now. Even if she is, the problem is not her baking bread. And you aren’t going to stop until you turn her into an image of yourself. An discontented interloper. Maybe her husband will put up with it, but maybe not, and at some point you are just going to tell her to divorce him. So why wait? He’s rotten and she doesn’t need him anyway! She can get a job (she’ll need it after the divorce) – hey maybe baking bread for Panera.

    Have you considered your need to despoil domestic tranquility might be YOUR emotional or mental problem? If she’s depressed maybe she just needs emotional support, not someone trying to start quarrels and trying to tear her life apart. To make her dissatisfied with herself and her husband.

    Maybe her husband isn’t getting fulfilled and should quit his job – I doubt he enjoys it more than her baking bread – and pursue poetry or some other task he enjoys – and leave it to you and your cousin to figure out how to pay for everything. He might have a boss where he has to do whatever his boss says – he has to be a “doormat”. He is probably often anxious, worried and depressed. Oh, but husbands HAVE to be doormats?

    Few people even achieve a measure of tranquility in this life. I doubt your cousin asked for your help, and am reasonably certain your and the other people’s “interventions” weren’t welcome even if she did. And if she asked for help, all you gave her is rebellion.

    The research done – and men and women are different – is that women often follow the interests of others, and particularly their boyfriends and husbands. They are wired to be helpmeets. To follow.

    Pleasing her husband by baking bread? Bad.
    Pleasing her cousin by playing the violin? Good.

    Aren’t you just trying to become the target of her submission. Trying to have her become a helpmeet to you? To force her to be interested in something – not because she wants it but because YOU want her to do it? Not for her self-esteem but for your esteem? Mom in the Shoe’s doormat.

    You are like Weston tempting Tenindril into original sin in Lewis’ “Perelandra”, with her husband as Ransom not quite knowing what to do. But Ransom figures it out and I hope and pray her husband does.

    You haven’t promised to provide and protect her – her husband has. And given the overt threat, he should get a restraining order against you and your husband. He shouldn’t – (Thanks Cane!) capitulate.

  12. TSK,
    I am sorry you feel that way. But I make no apologies. Your choice of vocabulary shows me clearly that you are more concerned with somebody, particularly a woman, questioning you or pointing any different aspects out to you. Those who cannot rise above vocabulary such as monomania, stupidity, blather, bullshit, rant and so forth give clear evidence that they cannot bear to be told that they may possibly be wrong or not have the clear picture.

    Prayers and blessings for the upcoming Easter Triduum.

  13. TSK:

    *Slow clap*

    There has been quite the influx of Christian feminists into these spaces. I find this development disturbing.

    While all bloggers must do what’s best for their sites, I am understanding much better Cane’s reasons for his latest editorial decisions at his place.

  14. MitS:

    You ought be ashamed of yourself for wrongly interfering in another woman’s marriage.

  15. tac,

    My cousin is not getting divorced. She was, however, very badly off. You are not here, so you know nothing about it. You have no information. Yes, we intervened, and we intervened quickly. Your vocabulary choices also clearly indicate that you are unable to tolerate any check and balance system that sometimes is necessary for the safety of many involved. Nobody said she was bad for baking bread.

    She was in bad shape. VERY bad shape. She had lost everything that brought her joy, even the smallest things, and had spiraled headfirst into a very sick state. And her husband’s response was appalling. We stayed out of it for a long time, until one day I finally went to her house when I could not raise anybody at home. I do not choose to tell you why I could not raise her. That is our own business. At that point, however, my husband took action. My cousin owes her life to his prompt action. Her husband knows he is on notice. We have taken all legal steps necessary to protect her and the kids.

    You already used highly inappropriate vocabulary in a previous comment that shows clearly that you have a great interest in hurling invective. From the previous comment, you indicated that you were a woman? But then later on, it appeared you were a man. If you are a woman, it would be a very good idea to refrain from your vocabulary choices until you have sufficient time to learn to write in a more ladylike fashion.

  16. Deti,
    Please see above. Given your writings of the past, I will disregard any contribution you make to any observations I put on my cousin.
    You are all far more concerned about your rights than about the possibility of a person being killed. You should be ashamed of yourself, rather.

  17. theshadowedknight

    I am sorry

    That was the only part of your post that was accurate. Yes, you are sorry.

    As to the rest of it, I seem to recall a specific injunction against women teaching men in a book I read once.

    The Shadowed Knight

  18. I would like to point out that “interference” in other’s marriages was the block used in the FLDS church to prevent anybody from dealing with the episodes of rape and incest, along with severe physical violence, that occurred there. Fortunately, justice prevailed and the man responsible for it is behind bars for life.

    Love must be tough sometimes. Not only the men must exercise tough love; sometimes women must as well.

    It is becoming abundantly clear exactly where the men in the manosphere are coming from. Very sad.

  19. MitS:

    I’ll say this and leave it. I’m concerned not with my “rights”. I, and others, stated our opinions on your inappropriate interference into a marriage to which you aren’t a party.

    It’s not your business.

  20. Very well. Then would someone please answer this question:
    Does a husband have a right to kill his wife?
    If she is in danger of death, does anybody have the right to save her or are we forbidden to do that due to the fact that we’re not married to her?

    As I will not sit by and watch someone systematically be taken down bit by bit, nor will I sit idly by while someone is severely harmed, I will observe your comments on that one.

  21. theshadowedknight

    Woman, has it not been clear from where the manosphere comes? Did the hundreds of blogs and thousands of posts and comments somehow obscure that? How exactly did you not see that before now?

    So sad, the tradcon version of wow, just wow.

    The Shadowed Knight

  22. I made the unfortunate assumption that the men involved were gentlemen, you see. This is where I made my mistake. I notice you’re avoiding the question that I asked.
    Many blessings for the Easter season.

  23. I realized I addressed “tz” as “tac”. Sorry about that. Please disregard the reference to “tac”s comment on a different blog. I misread the name.

  24. tz

    Women ARE moral agents. But the problem is they aren’t as steadfast. They don’t like to analyze and consider using cold reason and logic. Men learn to control their emotions. Women never (or rarely) become “Ms. Spock” from the old Star Trek. They have feelings that overwhelm them – lots of them. Multiple. Men usually just have one which they find out about at puberty, sometimes anger is a second, but they learn to control both. Men decide and act – sometimes they are wrong but they usually they consider if something is sinful. Women reconsider and reevaluate, giving more openings – after deciding something is sinful they start considering excuses. Tick, tick, drip, drip.

    Women hooked their agency to Jesus when he was preaching because they knew he was true and good. Today they need a good father, then a good husband. At the wedding in Cana, Mary told the servers “Do whatever he says”.

    In the above post I described the scene in Perelandra. Ransom realizes that Tinindril (corresponding to an unfallen Eve) is smart and innocent, but eventually if not stopped, one of Weston’s temptations will cause her to sin. His arguments are persuasive. And they are constant. Chipping away. “This must be stopped!” But once Weston is gone, there is no longer a threat.

    So Women’s agency is mainly in NOT trying to figure out everything for themselves but finding the right man to rely on. Men have to figure out and decide on what, women have to figure out and decide on who. Even hypergamy is blessed when they look for a strong moral character – a man who doesn’t waver about sin. And even the man, unless he decides to become a philosopher or theologian needs to rely on a good pastor, teacher, or Church. Yet the man is given responsibility for the woman with the woman obeying the man. Christ commands it. With that command, he gives the wife the authority to obey (except in cases of obvious sin, since that would be a command to “Disobey Christ”). She doesn’t have to carefully consider, pick apart, or analyze, just do.

    Finally, Mary is too often ignored. Jesus grew up with Mary and Joseph. The fallen Eve is referred to, but rarely the obedient Mary. I cannot imagine her quarreling or complaining. And remember they had to flee to Egypt because of Herod. It had to be tough. “I am the handmaid of the Lord” is not something feminists are likely to say, at least in the way Mary said it. That was moral agency. And is the model.

  25. “Does a husband have a right to kill his wife?”

    Of course not.

    “If she is in danger of death, does anybody have the right to save her or are we forbidden to do that due to the fact that we’re not married to her? ”

    With this writing, you are now apparently stating that you believed crimes were being committed against your cousin. That’s a law enforcement matter, not a family/help/goodwill matter.

    If she is in danger of death because someone has committed crimes against her, then call the police and let them handle it.

    If she is in danger of death by her own hand, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to save her.

    It was not your place to interfere into their marriage. If you truly believed that crimes were being committed at that house, then you should have notified appropriate law enforcement authorities. Instead, you apparently the matter into your own hands and persuaded your husband to act the role of enforcer/vigilante.

  26. theshadowedknight

    No, I am not a gentleman, I am a knight. Being gentle never won me a battle, nor the heart of a fair maiden, so I am a rough man, instead.

    Your mistake was interfering with another’s marriage, and bragging about it here looking for validation. It blew up on you, and now you are trying to shift the blame and bad feels on us. The problem with that is that we are more intelligent, numerous, and experienced than you are.

    As to your question, the weak must die that the strong might survive. The danger of breaking cultural laws is that as you weaken the smaller ones, so go the larger. Sacrifices have to be made, and in trying to save all, you will save none, and damn them, instead.

    The Shadowed Knight

  27. Very well. Then would someone please answer this question:
    Does a husband have a right to kill his wife?
    If she is in danger of death, does anybody have the right to save her or are we forbidden to do that due to the fact that we’re not married to her?

    This story from MitS

    We stayed out of it for a long time, until one day I finally went to her house when I could not raise anybody at home. I do not choose to tell you why I could not raise her. That is our own business.

    has all the hallmarks of a case where–whatever damage was done to the wife–it was self-inflicted; “cry for help” sort of stuff. If that is so, then the question of whether a man has a right to kill his wife is nothing more than a blog version of a prank call about a bomb. The question should be avoided not only because it isn’t real, but because it distracts from what is real.

    The question to my mind is: Upon how many blogs will MitS drop this story about her cousin?

  28. MitS,

    Our privilege of commenting around here is all but non existent. Please refrain from such disrespect for the sake of us who would have something useful to offer in the comment section or who have a legitimate question for the Christian men who write around here. I watched as you were defended in the most “gentlemanly” manner over on Cane’s site against pancakeloach, now it seems that every woman who comments anywhere is full of vile. I really appreciate that these gentlemen allow us ladies to comment but thanks to you and others, I foresee that I will no longer be able to do so soon enough. By the way, at other points in my marriage, your interjection would have fueled astronomical feuds between myself and my husband, so yes, you were wrong for stepping in, and that is from a woman’s point of view. Am I not a gentleman either? Submit to your husband in all things, that is not that difficult to understand. Your friend/cousin should be commended.

  29. theshadowedknight

    Deti, it is a motte and bailey.

    “I interfered with my cousin’s marriage,” is the bailey.

    “Women should be subject to their husbands, not the feelings of their cousins,” is the reply.

    “Should a husband be able to kill his wife,” is the motte.

    It is a dishonest rhetorical trick used to defend an indefensible idea, by defending something else in its stead. Anyone using it is likely a scoundrel, and a liar. The only reason to respond to it is to expose the deceit and the deceiver.

    The Shadowed Knight

  30. tz

    Q. Does a husband have a right to kill his wife?

    He has the duty to protect his family and children. If the wife has a knife to a child’s throat, a husband should have no problem shooting her in the head.

    If you are saying “under what circumstances”, the 10 commandments apply and it says “Thou Shall Not Kill”. It also says “Thou shall not covet”.

    I think you are asking “Does a husband have a right to leave his wife in an unhaaaappy condition”. Yes. But there is a simple solution. The wife is to obey the husband. The husband ought to command “Don’t worry, be happy”. I’m being flippant, but there is a real point. No husband wants a wife that is disabled emotionally. That doesn’t mean there is anything that he can do about it or that he doesn’t love or care for her. The problem is usually with the wife, and only she can decide to crawl out of the abyss herself – with God’s help.

    I’m so far unmarried, but a good parallel was a period with my Mother constantly complaining about how sick she felt. We would take her to a doctor, but as soon as something was getting close to being diagnosed, to actually doing something about her being sick, it was “I don’t like this Doctor anymore”. She would sometimes go for tests, sometimes refuse. It happened several times in that pattern. And the sickness was real. But she didn’t want to be cured. (It did get better, but that is a long story).

    The problem might have been HER problem. Not the husband’s. Sometimes it is the wife is trying to be perfect, and even if the Husband compliments or is satisfied, it won’t matter.

    There is a spiritual disease called scrupulosity. Worrying about things which aren’t sins – trying too hard for perfection and feeling depressed and guilty over them. I should have prayed for one more hour. I should have smiled at the clerk. They get it in their minds that God can’t love them – that they are damned and they need to try harder. But they don’t notice it is about themselves, not God. They are looking inward – they don’t have the arrogant pride of presumption, but the worrying pride of depression.

    We’re called to live imperfect lives, but confess and repent when we sin and move on. We are to look out and up, not in.

    Wives trying too hard to be a good wife can have a form of this. They are already cherished, but have forgotten that they merely need to please God and their husbands, not be perfect Supermoms. This domestic scrupulosity can’t be addressed by the husband, because she is really not trying to please him, she trying to please some abstract model of perfection. She will complain “Nothing I ever do is good enough!”, while at the same time the husband will say in no little confusion “But I’m happy and satisfied!”. That won’t last – the Husband will still be hurt and confused and will often react.

    It also goes to the deception topic. Burn your TV. One channel will have some “doctor” saying wives won’t be happy until they get a job, and probably need to divorce. But a few channels down there will be a cooking show with staged meals that look perfect and the actors all go “yum!”. And a bit more, cleaning tips. They all show a picture that would make “The Brady Bunch” look dysfunctional.

    But to return to the original matter:

    If (someone else’s) wife – or anyone for that matter – is danger of death, call the cops. If someone is suicidal they need treatment. If someone in the family is an immediate threat to the others, also call the cops. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s – and that means actual physical violence – and render unto God what is God’s.

    Maybe there is a Domestiholic variant of the Workoholic.

    MitS – You’ve chosen what to tell and what to withhold. I can only go based on the words in evidence. If you choose not to disclose extenuating circumstances (including why you didn’t call the cops), don’t expect me to take them into consideration. Your husband is apparently not a Cop (or was not acting under the color of law) – but at least Cops have the authority to barge into a home to investigate and point out what they can legally do.

    Normally with such things, the suggestion is to see a counselor or psychologist or something, not blame the husband. I’m skeptical of those professions, but even more so when amateurs attempt to do the same things without any training. Do you even know what you are doing (not the act, but why you think an action is helpful or harmful)? How?

    Also with such stories, usually if there is physical or even emotional abuse, those are listed as a bill of sins the husband committed. “How he reacted” is something new. And no external crisis – natural disaster, financial trouble, close relative dying or something. The house wasn’t collapsing for lack of repair, they weren’t starving, and I assume there wasn’t raw sewerage in the basement.

    I’m trying to figure out ANYTHING that would give me the impression the husband is a sadist.

    But now, I’m really curious. I would assume your cousin’s husband can get on the internet – feel free to direct him here as I’m interested in hearing his side. The trial doesn’t end when the prosecution rests. I remember a rather interesting discussion on the Catholic Answers forum when the Husband replied after finding the history.

    And there are only gentlemen here. But few white knights.

  31. tz

    To clarify, in the sense of the noble warrior, most if not all men here are “knights”. In the form of the manosphere term for a man that defends evil women and their evil acts, the term “White Knight”, no, none of those here.

  32. “And the reverse is also true- that men are prone to being deceived by women. ”

    One is deceived when desire to believe overtakes measured thought. In the case of men, they desire to believe NAWALT and that blinds them to the reality. We are deceived when we want something so badly to be true. Its not really a fault just a feature of our “bleeped up brain”.

    Deti,
    ” I, and others, stated our opinions on your inappropriate interference into a marriage to which you aren’t a party.

    It’s not your business.”

    Yet there are plenty of meddling women online who make other people’s marriages their business; always dispensing advice and thinking they know what is best based on limited information, their own experiences and hearsay from other women. They are held out to have grand ministries of saving marriages, so where is the line drawn between what is and isn’t appropriate? I’ve seen many a fine ladies “brag” about how they have helped troubled marriages and for some reason that is A-OK.

  33. “Please refrain from such disrespect for the sake of us who would have something useful to offer in the comment section or who have a legitimate question for the Christian men who write around here.”

    Just curious if you have something to ask Christian men why not your husband or men in your church? Why such a critical need to participate here? The world will not end.

  34. Feminine But Not Feminist

    Wow this thread got way off topic pretty quick. Going back to the original post…

    I do know that women are generally easy to deceive~ by men (especially men that we are interested in), by other women (just look at how easy it is for feminists to indoctrinate other women with their ideals), and even by ourselves (hamster). It seems that men are less likely to be deceived by other men than they would be by women, possibly (like I think someone already suggested) because the possibility of sex is involved with women but not so with men. Plus men are way more prone to think logically than women, so I think it’s probably harder to fool a man in general.

    Having said all that, I think that it might be equally easy for a woman to deceive another woman as it is for a man to deceive a woman. Then maybe slightly harder (but not by much) would be for a woman to deceive a man (but only if he is interested in her; if he’s not then it probably becomes much harder). Then I think it’s hardest for a man to deceive another man (and I think this one is a whole lot harder than the others).

  35. The Practical Conservative

    Under actual patriarchy, including the Christian kind, warranted interference in individual marriages by relatives or leaders of the community is going to happen from time to time.

    Men aren’t necessarily heading their households properly just because they stay married and hold down a job and make it home each night. Sometimes they aren’t being proper heads of household and, well, in a patriarchal social structure, those individual men have to submit to authority as needed.

    There is lots and lots and lots of Christian writing, Catholic and Protestant (probably Orthodox too, but not familiar with old church writings there) about the question of when a man is improperly leading his household and needs corrective administration. Short answer: no man is an island of sole authority over his wife and kids. He is always supposed to be ready to submit to proper, higher authorities (men).

    Mom in the Shoe is speaking of a traditional situation that has everything to do with properly ordered spheres of authority and hierarchy and nothing to do with the individualism being promoted as good household-headship. Individualism is bad, and real traditional living does mean a man isn’t the sole lord of his castle and must answer to other men within his community when he drops the ball.

    As for the main topic, men are easily deceived by men and women are easily deceived by women, but are more likely to question deceptions cross-sex. A man will at least sometimes wonder about a woman’s deception, likewise for a woman wondering at a man’s deception. But “my best friend Dave would never lie to me” (male) or “Susan’s a great gal, she has my best interests at heart” (female) is basically par for the course.

  36. theshadowedknight

    LGR, a woman might need to ask a question of the Christian men on here because if the Church was not so broken, none of us would be here. What makes you think hers is any better? Not to mention that we are unlikely to shy away from the truth to spare her feelings, something that friends and family often do.

    TPC, when the woman in question has a tendency to speak and act like a cryptofeminist, we know just what kind of interference is happening. It has nothing to do with Christian faith and principles. None of the men here are fooled as to what is going on with MitS, and none are likely to be swayed by your defense of her. If she talks like a feminist, acts like a feminist, she is a feminist.

    The Shadowed Knight

  37. “Individualism is bad, and real traditional living does mean a man isn’t the sole lord of his castle and must answer to other men within his community when he drops the ball.”

    Amen. There are plenty of us who were raised in such environment and know what horrors can happen when it is like that.

    And for those who keep asking, law enforcement was involved.

    It is a very interesting observation to see what happened as soon as somebody brought up the fact of domestic violence. It set off a firestorm of pure rage, along with the accompanying vitriol. And from whence does that come? They see something they do not like and immediately raise the cry of “feminist”.

  38. theshadowedknight

    Do you normally punch your doormat? I ask because your husband threatened your cousin’s husband for treating her like a doormat. Seems a strange term to use if physical violence was the problem.

    If you want to know why we react the way we do to domestic violence, read this. You brought that scourge down upon your cousin. Of course we are disgusted and repulsed by you.

    The Shadowed Knight

  39. lgrobins,

    “Just curious if you have something to ask Christian men why not your husband or men in your church? Why such a critical need to participate here? The world will not end.”

    Just as I considered your photograph question to gwtdft and changed my photo (I was called younggodlywomen), I would also want to change any wrong behaviour on my part that an aged woman might point out, like your presumed assertion that it may be innapropriate to ask a man, besides my husband or a church leader in my own church a question. So, please biblically back this assertion, and if you are right, I will be wrong and take the appropriate steps thereafter.

    (I Corinthians 14:26) If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

    This clearly indicates that a woman shouldn’t speak at church. I am not persuaded that it means a woman is wrong to ask a man a question.

    (Proverbs 15:12) A mocker resents correction; he will not consult the wise.

    and

    (Proverbs 19:20) Listen to advice and accept instruction and in the end you will be wise.

    My husband has entrusted his children with me and I will choose to be a wise woman who is always learning in order to teach them the best I can. In order to learn, you must ask questions or imitate. Paul admonishes us to be his copy cat when he explains that his actions were “to give you in ourselves an example to imitate”. (II Thes. 3:9) 

    My need is not to participate, if women are no longer allowed to comment in these spaces, I will still be able to learn here. Lastly, the world will end, but you already know that.

  40. Psalm, I didn’t know that was you and had i known I would have worded differently. Name changes are frustrating. I’m sorry.

  41. TSK,
    I read the link you offered and completely agree that it is the most outrageous and disgusting story I have read. And it is perfectly understandable why you responded the way you did.
    But these things still do happen. Law enforcement and child protection are notorious for cracking down on those who are innocent, and allowing the truly dangerous to go scot free. As a pretty involved member in our homeschooling community and in our church, I’ve seen justice fail over and over. The whole system is a farce. The police took a report, did one follow up and nothing happened again after that.
    Yet, child services comes in to one of our homeschool families and manages to get the police to arrest parents and remove the children because a therapist didn’t like how they were working with their autistic child (he’d pour things all over the floor, so they had locks on cupboard and fridge — which meant “he had no access to food and water”.)
    I’ve stated my case, you dismiss it, that’s fine. What we do know is when dear ol’ Betty unleashed her diatribe on the world, she not only created the modern wave feminists, but their counterparts in men. Now we have the lovely scenario of everybody thinking everybody is out to get them. Great way to try to rebuild Western civilization.

  42. mdavid

    PC, no man is an island of sole authority over his wife and kids. He is always supposed to be ready to submit to proper, higher authorities.

    Yes, this. I am amused at men demanding submisson of women to them while acting as an island themselves. This thread is a classic in this regard. Bible Alone = Individual Interpretation = Individualism = Feminism. When you buy it. own it. QED.

  43. @mdavid

    Yes, this. I am amused at men demanding submisson of women to them while acting as an island themselves. This thread is a classic in this regard. Bible Alone = Individual Interpretation = Individualism = Feminism. When you buy it. own it. QED.

    You have been suckered…long before these comments, of course, but suckered no less.

    Is it the case that what you have seen here is men claiming their own interpretation? No. In fact we have agreed on the interpretation. There goes your trail of logic. QED.

    Let me also direct your attention to the fact that no one has stated that husbands are not subject to other authorities. They are. It remains that cousins are not those authorities. If they had good reason to decide physical threats and interference was needed, they should have contacted those real. What we have actually heard reported is a story of a family described as strict, traditionalist, and Roman Catholic, and their disorder from top to bottom! This very much includes the decision for MitS husband to threaten violence against the cousin’s legitimate authority; as clearly stated and repeatedly reinforced in our shared Scripture, in our interpretations, and indeed throughout Church history.

    While I have you on the line: Your shot at Protestantism is so wide of the mark as to be 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Everywhere in the world where one finds a large and active practice of Roman Catholic liturgy, one finds the leading edge of institutionalized feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, etc. in fact these things came last to Britain, and last to America. The French Revolution was in France; hardcore, one-time Papal home, Roman Catholic France.

    Within the US, the edge of the rot is on the coasts; where Roman Catholics are in numbers. Those hillbillies in the Midwest–among whom actually conservative Roman Catholics find safe harbor–are Protestant in culture; except that they are being eroded by nonsense brewed in the Roman Catholic cultures of the Northeast, and invaded by the Roman Catholic cultures south of the US border.

    Who taught you to be so miserly with respect? Who taught this to the men in MitS family? Why is it found wherever one finds self-described adherents of “traditional Roman Catholicism”?

  44. MitS:

    “And for those who keep asking, law enforcement was involved. ”

    Then neither you nor your husband needed to be involved.

  45. @thedeti

    Then neither you nor your husband needed to be involved.

    Well, we want families to be involved, right? That’s a very different thing than a cousin ordering the husband about, threatening to “tear him apart” and all that nonsense.

    Who is encouraging him? Who is offering to help him with his responsibilities? Rather, it seems that the M.O. is to despise the husband. Imagine trying to sooth an animal by petting its back and punching its face. That’s what I see happening.

  46. Cane:

    Well, yes, we want families to be “involved”. You are correct in your implication that “involved” means families, church, etc. offering prayer, encouragement, help, accountability (short of threats and orders), etc. And as you said, cousins being “involved” does not mean barking orders at the husband, nor does it mean wives siccing their husbands on said wayward men.

    Thanks for refining it.

  47. Ahhh….

    Here we are. It’s coming out. We have some virulently anti-Catholic people involved here. All my questions are answered, all puzzlement solved. Makes total sense now.

    Fellow Catholics, you will recall with me that the main attacks at the beginning of the Protestant Revolt were roughly the following: the Papacy, priestly celibacy and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Hatred for a hierarchical tier of authority — namely, the priests and bishops — is the hatred of the Papacy. The preoccupation with sexual issues is the hatred of celibacy. The hatred of women is the hatred of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mrs. C is WAY better about getting her sources together for this than I am; she really has this researched well.

    What you have going on right here is a full-scale, all-out war on the Catholic Church.

    Well, we’re hated by the left and we’re hated by the right! We must be doing something right, then! 🙂 Rejoice!

  48. TSK:

    This thread is simply more evidence for the observation that traditionalism and conservatism have decided to become bedfellows with feminism. Look at what’s all around us:

    –the insistence that Matthew 5’s “mutual submission” charge supersedes and governs the latter verses commanding wifely respect of husbands and husbandly love for wives. IOW, husbands must also submit to wives

    –wifely submission is bad, because it leads to isolated instances of wifely dysfunction and husbandly despotic tinhorn dictators. Men cannot be trusted to lead families. Wives cannot sufficiently trust their husbands to submit to them.

    –women are forgiven for premarital sex; but only bad, irredeemable men have premarital sex

    –men must man up and marry sluts

    and the list goes on and on.

Leave a Reply

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