Random Musings and Links- #9

Its been a while since I’ve done one of these, so here goes…

A random thought I had recently: Are most “social niceties” something that women created just so that men could break them?

Scott over at American Dad wrote a post over at American Dad titled Christian MGTOW as Pauline Celibacy.  He asks:

As “game” supposedly has a Christian application, (within the context of honorable courtship leading to marriage) does also MGTOW?

I don’t know. I’m just asking. I just know that I have obligations as a husband and father that make a certain level of risk for the Kingdom unacceptable. I try, I really do. This very site is risky in light of what it could cost me if taken the wrong way. But are the MGTOWs the true warriors of the faith?

My own take is that it probably isn’t, at least when you look how how MGTOW is usually defined. As commenters over there pointed out, MGTOW means Men Going Their Own Way… and we as Christians are supposed to be going God’s way. MGTOW is a secular response to widespread problems with the marriage market. A Christian response is necessarily different. As others have pointed out before, Christian men are called to be patriarchs or monks (which is not the same thing as a hermit, despite moderns tending to think as much). We are called to actively serve God- whether by raising a family, ministering to those in need or devoting our lives to prayer (which is ultimately about praying for the sake of others).

Ace over at 80 Proof Oinomancy has an interesting new post about friendship and social media.  If I read him correctly, he is suggesting that people are using social media to try and keep friendships alive which rightly should be allowed to die. I suspect he is trying to point out that friendship always has a utilitarian component to it. By that I mean that when we have friend at some point in our life, they are our friends for (presumably) good reasons. And when those reasons are long gone, why exactly should we try to keep them our friends? Indeed, with those reasons gone, are they even friends any more? Food for thought.

Deep Strength wrote a post a few days back about the Questionable Strategy that woman employed. If you read through his post you will realize that she is on the wrong track, and so are a lot of other women.  Now there is the thing- I will defend such women… to a point. They have almost certainly been mislead their whole life about how to increase their changes of snagging a good man. Including and especially from those they trusted to help them. Where I won’t defend them is when they refuse to listen to reason. When they will refuse to change their approach and ignore the advice of those who are genuinely trying to help them (in an effective way). And a whole lot of people fall in that category, unfortunately.

Mrs. ktc linked to an interesting poll. Loyalty and obedience (but I repeat myself) go a long way in the eyes of men.

[If I can think of others to add, I will update this post and mention them here. My readers are of course encouraged to offer suggestions of their own if they read any good posts lately.]

Update 1: Another rather random idea that popped in my head:

A woman either looks up to the men in her life, or looks down upon them. There really isn’t any room for a middle ground.


Filed under Red Pill

16 responses to “Random Musings and Links- #9

  1. PeterW.


    I must question your assertion that there are only two alternative callings for the Christian man – to be a patriarch or a monk.

    I do not see my calling – as a single man – to be in a monastic order. I do not understand my talents as being fitted for ministry within a hierarchical structure.

    God seems to have seen fit to place me in a community as a farmer, a volunteer firefighter (35 years served and elected by my peers to senior rank) and as a hunter, amongst people who rarely engage with Christians.

    I see my place as “in the world, but not of it”, not withdrawing from it – as the religious orders did, for fear of contamination.

  2. Novaseeker

    My own take is that it probably isn’t, at least when you look how how MGTOW is usually defined.

    I agree with this. The typical image that comes to mind is a guy doing whatever he likes because he isn’t tied to a woman. That isn’t Christian. Being married isn’t required, but if you are not married, that “extra freedom” you have is supposed to be devoted to serving God more effectively. I don’t think that means you have to be a monk, but I think it does mean that the extra time and freedom and so on is supposed to go to God — Paul pretty much says as much. Not hanging out with your motorcycle collection and so on.

    I’m of two minds on social media. It’s true that it perpetuates friendships that would have died on the vine otherwise — but I’m not fully convinced that this is always a bad thing. I have kept in touch with people who otherwise would have fallen off the map, and it hasn’t always been bad. I think the issue with social media is being wise about the amount of time and energy you spend with it (less is more), really.

    The strategy article is fairly normal, I think, and not just for Christian women. Yes, they have been sold a bill of goods in terms of what men find attractive, but it’s still silly when you’re trying the same thing again and again and getting the same bad result. I think a part of the trouble is the large shadow that the upper middle class (UMC) casts over the dating market: women see that men in *that* social group *do* select women, in part, based on their career, drive, intellect and so on in order to “find a match”, so then they assume that this behavior applies in other social groups — which it generally does not. The very small UMC has its own peculiarities (including the desire to have “Super Friends” type of marriages) which don’t really apply elsewhere, which means using their strategies is often a mistake unless you are in that social group. However, they have a virtual stranglehold on media, and so their ideas about this are broadly disseminated and cause a lot of damage in other social groups in terms of behavior that ought not be replicated (doesn’t work well in other contexts). There are many facets to that, but the “SIW” meme is one of them for sure.

  3. I’ve been thinking about that in terms of being a contributor to Christendom. Marriage can easily be mistaken as something worth doing for its own sake, same as MGTOW, like it’s HAWGTOW (husband and wife going their own way). But everybody serves civilization. It’s not just about making a marriage for yourself. I’ve discovered recently that I care about Christendom quite a bit.

  4. I used the word monk because it has been used by others before, Deep Strength and Free Northerner before me. However, as you point out, it doesn’t necessarily mean a life in a monastic order. It does, however, mean a life dedicated to God. Not “single” in the sense of the word as used by moderns today. Rather, we should act like Paul and the other early apostles/disciples who were out in the world serving the Lord.

  5. MK

    Great set of links. My comments:

    1) Mate selection may “just happen”, but one always increases their odds if they work at it (for both sexes). Women need to advertise availability to the desired men (other girls sure are), and men need to achieve and network. Failing to do this doesn’t prevent relationships, it just lowers the quality of what you get. The girls in the post? They are gonna get the dregs. Just like the men and women who don’t stay fit. I’m just amazed people don’t get that dating is a competition. For all the marbles. Why not maximize one’s options with a little work? The arrogance of these women is too much for me.

    2) I’m a big fan of MGTOW for men who think dating is just not worth it due to the poor quality of women today. I think it’s an honorable approach. One can’t pick plums in a desert. This doesn’t mean one needs to be immoral about it. Why not live a life of great productivity and class and virtue? There are other vocations than marriage. A single man can do a lot of good in the world, often more than a married man (esp if he has a lousy wife which is fairly normative today).

    3) DG, you should run msktc poll here, as I broke it down (my %): Attractive/sexual: (45%), Submissive: (30%), Loyal: (15%), Cook: (5%), Homemaker: (5%), Income: (0%). The real discussion begins regarding “submissive” vs “loyal”. It’s subtle and worth a blog post, right up your alley.

  6. “the large shadow that the upper middle class (UMC) casts over the dating market: women see that men in *that* social group *do* select women, in part, based on their career, drive, intellect and so on in order to “find a match”, so then they assume that this behavior applies in other social groups — which it generally does not.”

    Men in the UMC on up select women based on career, drive, intellect, etc. when seeking wives. Men in the UMC on up (so long as they themselves are sexually attractive) select hot women, good looking women, and promiscuous women for sex, before it comes time to pick a wife. Just like all men do.

    The bigger problem, bigger even than women assuming middle class on down women can lead with their careers to “attract” men for marriage, is women using their sex appeal to have sex with attractive men for whatever reasons they wish – fun, validation, affirmation, manipulation, competition with their friends, or for the sheer hell of it – and then thinking they can switch gears on a dime and attract men for marriage. Women of any class or station can have promiscuous sex, so long as they are attractive enough. Women can use their sex appeal to gain entry into stations above their own, but only for a while and only fleetingly, most of the time. Too many women see the “Pretty Woman” story (hooker tames hot rich guy) and think they can do it too.

  7. PeterW.


    I suggest that you need to define “a life dedicated to God”.

    If working to support yourself and pay your own bills is not “dedicated to God”, then Paul was not dedicated, because he worked as a tentmaker.

    Paul made his recommendation in the CONTEXT that they believed themselves to be in the Last Days. The Last Days were expected to be times of extreme violence, oppression and danger. The pressures on a married man were not that his family time would take away from his time evangelising or teaching….. but that the very real threat to those he loved would make it harder for him to risk martyrdom.

    The belief that time was short meant long term planning – like wanting children to support you in your old age in the absence of social security – was irrelevant.

    So I’m asking why – in our CURRENT context – there seems to be some assumption that single men who are serving God in normal, everyday life, aren’t serving God.

  8. @ Peter

    I am not making that assumption. There are many gifts/charisms. Some can prophesy, some can teach, etc. Financially supporting those who entirely devote themselves to the faith is another way to serve God. The point is one of focus, not so much methodology.

  9. “Monk” as termed = fruitful Christian. One that is a disciple of Jesus by following the example of the disciples in Scripture, exercising their spiritual gifts, do good works, help the poor, and so on.

  10. Peter Webb

    Misuse of language, then. Because Monasticism IS a methodology.
    To repeat, neither Jesus, nor Paul were monks.

    Also none of the works of the disciples that DS cites are limited to single people……. which means that they are useless for the purposes of this discussion.

    As a single man, I am hearing claims that I should not live as I am. I am challenging anyone making those claims, to back them up with sound scriptural interpretation. At this point, I see no sin, rebellion or contradiction of faith in my continuing to farm, fight fires and hunt (in my spare time). I see no scriptural imperative to change that, but if there is one, I need to know that, too.

  11. DJ

    By niceties do you mean etiquette and rules of civility?
    Game is a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or ill.
    Women are going to think and strategizes about how to get a man in the way that they want. Same as men. It’s not productive but give ppl something in common to talk about.

  12. Peter, you might be hearing it, but I’m not sure anyone here is saying that. Especially after the misuse of language was clarified.

  13. Or do you mean out there in the general world? If so, yes, I can believe you’ve heard that before. So have I.

  14. “Celibate Christian” then.

    There’s no difference after the term was defined, but the connotations of certain terms seem to be contentious.

  15. Post updated with another random theory.

  16. @ DJ

    By niceties do you mean etiquette and rules of civility?

    Yes. My question was pretty out there in theory- I was just exploring the “why” of etiquette and such.

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