Category Archives: Femininity

Market Watch

In my previous post, A Poor Example,  I mentioned a post that Scott and Elspeth wrote about how June Cleaver might be unmarriageable right now. What I want to do with this post is make a series of observations based on what they mentioned in their post, as well as in the comments. I will likely expand on it over time, as I have a chance to re-read the comments. This won’t be an in-depth post, but rather more of a list with perhaps a comment or two of my own.

So here are some of my observations:

  • The Market for devout Christians, men and women alike, is awful. I wrote previously on this topic in my Market Failure series of posts. You can read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 via the links. As for who has it worse, I think that is mostly an academic exercise. My gut says men more than women, but not by a huge amount.
  •  Geography play a huge role in the difficulties of the marriage market right now. Different geographic locations are more or less favorable to men or women. My suspicion is that where I live the ratio between marriageable men and women heavily tilts to men, and that of course makes the market tougher for men.
  • Demographics also plays a significant role. As various Christian groups have splintered, and there is even more separation in belief within groups, the overall pool of eligible mates has dropped precipitously. So while absolute numbers might be up, the actual pool is perhaps smaller than it has been for perhaps even centuries.
  • Most Christian parents are not raising devout Christian children. Much less marriageable ones.
  • Young men are much less interested in marriage than they were in the past. Having a few more years under my belt since I started blogging, I have seen this more and more. Younger men are just less interested in marriage. The why of this is worthy of a whole post of its own.
  • Too many people are doing too little to make marriage happen these days. Marriage needs to be a matter for the whole community.


Also, the answer to this:

Is it possible that parents of the last several generations, responding to the cultural cues from blue-pill pastors and other sources have raised both sex children to be pretty useless at “traditional” marriage, and therefore a different approach to finding matches for them may be required?

…is yes and yes.

More to come as I think on it.

Update: A few more observations-

  • The market is seriously hampered by the amount of deception going on. The worst lies, from what I have seen, tend to be those that people tell themselves. Self-deception makes hit harder to diagnose problems, among other ills.
  • Introverts and shy people are especially vulnerable in the market right now. Given how few effective venues there are for meeting eligible mates, each one has to count that much more. For introverts, that is much more difficult.
  • I am among the most the most “pro-marriage” of guys in the Christian manosphere. At least as it applies to my own life. Only a couple might be at the same level as me, such as Deep Strength. I don’t know if that was the case originally, but it seems to be the case now. And even despite my subjective “gun-ho” approach I am still very cautious.


Filed under Courtship, Femininity, Hypergamy, LAMPS, Marriage, Marriage Market Place, Masculinity, Men, Moral Agency, Parenting, Red Pill, The Church, Tradition, Women

Something Else

Today’s post is a Masculine Monday post. Male commenters only, please. Also, somewhat stream of consciousness as well.

Rollo has a new post up titled “The Something Else.”

If you want to sum up Rollo’s post, it would be in this simple phrase:

If it wasn’t X-Box it would be something else.

The reality of male/female relations these days is driving more and more men to seek out “something else” to occupy their life.

For some it is escapism- merely an attempt to drone out the overwhelming meaninglessness they feel marks their lives.Whether it is porn or video games or something else, they want to blur out reality. There is no drive for something more, something greater. Merely something to distract.

For others it is a genuine desire to find something of meaning and value. To obtain a purpose for life. Some Red Pill sites call this “your mission.” As a Catholic, I recognize that the word they are searching for is vocation. These men are looking for a calling that they can hold fast to and make their own.

Unfortunately, for many the vocation that most will be called to, marriage, seems mostly out of grasp. And for most probably will be (if they are smart, anyways). The problem, from the Church’s perspective, is that there is nothing in place to really help men who find themselves so frustrated. They will instinctively search of that “something” to replace their vocation, but how much is really there for them? Just among Catholics many will not be called to be priests, or monks (in the traditional sense).

It seems to me that the Church needs to adapt to the change in the Marriage Marketplace. There needs to be something for all the young men who will not be able to marry in the years ahead. And probably something as well for the men who find themselves divorced. I’m talking more than some support group. Rather, something more akin to a community, a brotherhood. Something that provides support and doesn’t leave all these men discrete individuals adrift in the modern world.

I suppose some sort of urban monastery might be in order. Not a place for contemplatives, but a communal home where everyone is a “roomie” and can uplift and support his fellow men. I invite my readers to offer their thoughts on the matter. All the same, I am sure that something is needed to help devout men find that something. Many men are drifting away from the faith, and given the cold shoulder the Church is basically giving them these days, it is hard to blame them. Furthermore, creating a place for men without a home might help secular men who are also adrift in the same ocean.

Men are looking for something else, and the Church needs to help them find it.



Filed under Christianity, Churchianity, Courtship, Femininity, Feminism, Fitness Test, Hypergamy, Marriage, Marriage Market Place, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Serial Monogamy, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, The Church, Women

The Escape Plan


I have read with interest Deep Strength’s latest posts on submission and marriage. In chronological order we have:

Intelligent submission is not required

Submission is a test of faith

Women’s sin nature in marriage and contentment

Unfortunately, time restraints kept me from responding in detail until now. Since DS has written several follow-ups to the first post, some of what I was going to say is now dated. Some now ideas developed, however, and so I will try and flesh out this post as best as I can.

I should note that I don’t agree with all that DS has to say- sometimes for theological reasons and sometimes practical reasons. But those disagreements can be worked out in other posts (and in some cases already have)


To begin with, I want to explore the notion of “intelligent submission.” As some alluded to in DS’s post, such a term is highly disingenuous. Not because there is anything wrong with either word. The problem is when they are combined together. The addition of “intelligent” is meant to apply a condition to submission- in other words, to limit its application.

Frankly, whenever anyone proposes limiting any expression of faith, be it submission, or charity, or compassion, etc., massive red flags need to be raised. Has anyone among my readers heard of “Intelligent Compassion” before? I can’t say that I have. And if I did, you better believe I would be looking for the con. I rather suspect I would not be alone in this.

Intelligence, or better put, Wisdom, is a trait that all Christian women should posses, or strive to build. Married women are no exception to this:

She opens her mouth with wisdom,
    and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

(Proverbs 31:26)

However, when people start talking about “Intelligent Submission” they aren’t referring to a woman exercising wisdom and submitting to her husband at the same time. No, they are saying a woman should intelligently decide when and where and how to submit to her husband. The gap between those two notions is as vast as that between Lazarus and the Rich Man. No bridging that gap.

All of this drives to my main point: beware of those who try and applies conditions to how they live out their faith. For most, if not all, their intentions are not benign. What they are trying to do is limit how much work they actually have to put into their faith. An example from our Lord:

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God,[a] he need not honor his father.’[b] So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word[c] of God.

[Footnote b: By dedicating his property to God, i.e., to the temple, a man could avoid having to help his parents, without actually giving up what he had. The scribes held such a vow to be valid without necessarily approving it.]

(Matthew 15:1-6)

They want to have their cake and it eat it- to appear righteous, without having to live a righteous life. Which leads to the next part.


This idea of appearing righteous without having to actually be righteous is what Deep Strength covers in his most recent post:

That’s ultimately what it comes down to: women want to let their husband lead instead of following his lead. I had thought that twisted rebellion like the complementarians espouse was the main sin nature of women. However, I believe I am now wrong about that. Covert rebellion which is “I let my husband lead” is probably the main sin nature of women because it’s under the guise of righteousness (e.g. the husband is leading) but it gives her all of the power (e.g authority) in the relationship.

This is the true essence of virtue signalling. Grabbing power while maintaining the moral high ground. It’s not enough to grab power. It must be done with the moral high ground.

In other words, a woman must look good while rebelling or sinning. As Looking Glass likes to call it: Vanity. Vanity rebellion. Women’s sin nature in marriage is Vanity Rebellion.

DS is very close here. He is spot on about the specific behavior that women are exhibiting here. Although I think the name “Vanity Rebellion” is a bit clunky, I can’t think of a better name myself, so VR it is.

This VR phenomenon is quite prevalent in Christian circles, and is something I think we can probably call endemic to human nature. Nor is it necessarily limited to women, although I think women are more prone to it.

As DS points out, can also see this virtue signalling when it comes to divorce- women always try to have the moral high ground when they initiate a divorce. It is never because the woman is just tired of marriage. That might be part of it, but there is always some major failing on the man’s part.

At the same time, however, I think that this specific behavior is just a particular manifestation of a much broad behavior that women are prone to engage in. I call it “The Escape Plan.”

It is as simple as it sounds- always have an escape plan in place in case something goes wrong. Whatever the situation is, always have an out for it. You can find this behavior everywhere:

Don’t like what your husband is telling you to do? Claim it wouldn’t be intelligent to submit to him, and that is what God expects of wives.

Don’t like being married to your husband? Divorce him and claim it is his fault, that the moral blame lies on him because he failed as a husband and God wants you to be free.

Don’t need an abortion but want to be free to get one if need be, and at the same time appear righteous? Say that you are personally against abortion but don’t feel the state should intervene in women’s lives/bodies.

Rollo’s Plan B is an example of this. Keep a “Plan B” man around… just in case.

Heck, you see this in domestic violence cases all the time. The woman calls the police, but then tells them she doesn’t want the man arrested. Why? Lots of reason, but a major one is she wants them there to cool the situation down, at least at first. But then she can decide whether to keep the relationship or not. If she decided to keep it, she says she doesn’t want to press charges. If she decides to ditch her man, say she wants charges. You can also see this with women who will stick with a man, but then tell their friends or family they are “in fear of their lives.” This gives them a great out- they can stay if they want, but once they want out they can call the police and point out they warned people in the past. [This is nothing, mind you. Having friends who are cops can provide all kinds of stories- but this isn’t the place for that. ]

Again, the goal is setting up a situation where the woman can bail at any time if she wants to. It is all having options.

This explains Vanity Rebellion- women want to appear to be a good, righteous woman. But they also worry about what the cost of that could be if they actually lived up to everything. So they gain power… just in case.

Now, men do this too. But women, who are more naturally covert than men as owing to their nature, are far and away more prone to this. So prone to it I would argue that it is a standard procedure for women- they will default to it unless they actively resist. For men I think it is much more likely to be an active choice, and thus less common.


And that wraps up my commentary for today. To recap:

  • People who add conditional modifiers to expression of faith, such as submission, are almost always (and should be presumed to be) acting in bad faith.
  • Vanity Rebellion is just one example of a larger phenomenon, The Escape Plan- whereby a woman tries to get some perceived good but at the same time leaves an option available to her to bail or escape if the cost should prove too high.

My readers are of course free to disagree and/or add their own thoughts.


Filed under Blue Pill, Christianity, Churchianity, Femininity, Marriage, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Sin, State of Nature, Temptation, The Church, Women

Must It Be A Man?

*Both Men and Women Permitted*

Today’s post is a follow up to my most recent Masculine Monday post, found here. Therein I stated the need a man has for a good and honest friend. As part of my argument I explained that this friend needed to be a man. My specific words:

No man can be right all the time. We all make mistakes, we all err (as an aside, they are not the same thing).  So it is essential to have someone in our life who will tell us what we need to hear, even and especially when we don’t want to hear it. Naturally enough, that friend also needs to be a man.

If a man has a wife, she cannot be that honest friend. If she is truly devoted to him and reveres him, then she cannot be unbiased when he is concerned. She won’t be capable of the brutal honesty required. And if she is not devoted to him, and reviles him, well then, her words cannot be trusted there either.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, a female reader objected to this argument. She felt that a wife could fulfill the role of objective imparter of the the truth. And unsurprisingly, I disagree with her. I felt a discussion on that particular subject was worth having, but the previous post was not a proper place for that discussion. Therefore I have created this post instead.

So tell me readers- must that friend be a man? Can it be a woman? A wife specifically, or a woman in general? Feel free to let loose in the comments.



Filed under Blue Pill, Femininity, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Women

The Misery Of Too Much Comfort

[This post is a continuation of my post here. Consider this the equivalent of a Sunday Scripture post.]

For over a month I have been mulling something that I read over at 80 Proof Oinomancy:

See, one of the hardest things for “Nice Guys” to understand is this:

Healthy women like pain.


It’s a feature; not a bug.

If they didn’t, humanity would’ve died out, long ago.

[Birthing, being what it is, and kids being pains while breast-feeding, and all.

Chalk yet another one up for the Book of Genesis.]

The source was Ace’s post, “That’s why I cut you just to heal you.”  The whole post, short as it is, is worth reading in full (as Ace’s pretty much always are).

Since I read it oh so many weeks ago, I have been trying to formulate my own thoughts on what Ace is trying to describe. I definitely feel he is on to something here. I disagree about his use of the word pain, however. A more fitting word exists, in my opinion. To borrow from myself, it is not so much pain as suffering that is at play here. All pain is suffering, certainly, but not all suffering is pain. Suffering conveys the proper breadth of what is involved.

You see, healthy women “like” suffering.

I put quotations around like because it is not a conscious desire, but an unconscious one. Something deep down inside them recognizes that a certain amount of suffering is to be expected, is natural even. As Ace alludes to, this draws from Genesis:

16 To the woman he said,

“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
    and he shall rule over you.”

(Genesis 3:16)

One consequence (among many) of Original Sin is that women will experience greater pain/suffering as a result of bearing and rearing children. I would argue that an expectation of this is “baked into” their genetics.

This leads us to the modern day, and the theory behind this post. The problem is that in the present age women are more coddled than they have ever been. They are, especially in the West and in families not at the bottom of the SES ladder, further removed from suffering than ever before. The level of comfort in the civilized world has never been higher. True suffering, true sacrifice, is alien to most women growing up. Most parents take care to keep their children from having to suffer, often by ensuring as much comfort as possible.

While I certainly understand this behavior on the part of parents, it is at the same time utter folly. Suffering can never really be escaped. It will always be present, and I will use a future post to go into that in further detail. What matters for this post is that this coddling approach is a disaster. Why?

Simple: Women expect suffering in their life- it is the natural thing. [Think about the vast majority of human history- filled with suffering for pretty much everyone.] When women are too comfortable, when suffering is absent from their life, then it sends a message to their unconscious mind that something is wrong, that what they are living is an unnatural life. That message of unnaturalness will only be repeated over the years as they grow up. They will know, somewhere deep down inside, that something is wrong. Unfortunately, because this is unconscious, they won’t know what it is, exactly, that is wrong.

This will, naturally enough, lead them to feel miserable. The misery is only made worse because they won’t understand it. It will gnaw on their mind incessantly, like an itch you can’t quite reach.

I suspect that part of the reason that women act so crazy in the west today is because of this. Using that itch analogy I just mentioned- women act crazy because they are trying to scratch that itch. Only they don’t quite know how- so they do so in extreme ways. Again, deep down inside they know they should be suffering, so they go out and make themselves suffer (without every truly understanding that is what they are doing).

Fixing our broken culture will take a lot (and perhaps cannot even be done at this point). But whether we fix it, or build a new one, I would argue that if we want it to be sustainable then we need that future to be far less comfortable.

[Feel free to have at me in the comments. Even with almost two months of thinking, this theory is still far rougher than I would like.]


Filed under Civilization, Femininity, Red Pill, State of Nature, Women

Too Much of A Good Thing #2

As a general rule, I tend to have no problem with women being fit. It doesn’t reduce their attractiveness, and for some body types, probably helps. But a little bit goes a long way. And there is definitely such a thing as “too much of a good thing.” Example A:

Too Fit Woman

This woman is far too built up in her upper body. She has mannish arms, which creates a stark and unappealing contrast to what is otherwise a fairly appealing package.

Let this be a lesson to any ladies who read my site: don’t get this muscular. It is not a good look. And to my male readers, pass this on as well. Parents, I trust you to also clue your daughters in on this.

There is fit, and then there is going overboard.

[Update: Forgot to credit Mrs ktc for this. Here is her post on it.]


Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Femininity, Red Pill, Women

Two Become One

I’ve been trying to write a proper reply to Cane Caldo’s post on how he was Wrong About the Trees, but have been thus far stymied. I really can’t think of much to add to what he has already said on the matter. The analogy that he uses, that of the Vine and Branch, is so apt that I am somewhat ashamed I didn’t think of it earlier. [I know, that is probably a bit of envy on my part.] My last post showed how agricultural analogies were used quite frequently in Scripture. Israel was often compared to a vineyard [The Lord’s Vineyard], and similar comparisons about fertile land were also applied to women as well. The Book of Sirach was especially straightforward about this. The Song of Songs compared the Woman to a garden. So it was all there all along.

But those analogies, while apt, don’t have quite the same oomph as does Cane’s. I think the reason why is because there is too much of a divide between the farmer and the field he works. They cannot be “One Flesh” in the same way that the Branch and Vine can become “One Flesh.” Furthermore, we can see how the Vine is dominant and supports the Branch, in a way that just doesn’t quite translate when talking about the Gardner and the Garden. Cane’s comparison really allows for us to see how “they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Which brings me to Scott’s post on the subject. Scott was interested in the concept of identity in light of Cane’s article, and mentioned my background post on the nature of man. I wanted to add to his thoughts the reminder about how Jesus explicitly said that two would become one in Marriage. Specifically, “one flesh.” Modern science has helped us understand that Jesus was speaking both literally and metaphysically- there really is a lasting physical union that results from the conjugal act. Given the exchange of DNA and other chemicals, it shouldn’t surprise us that our body chemistry can change as well. That can carry with it potential behavioral changes, which just might change our view of ourselves- our identity.

Something else occurs to me as well. There are numerous comparisons in Scripture between marriage and the relationship between God and Man. In that relationship God takes the masculine role and humanity takes the feminine role. Now, from what I understand, our goal as Christians is to become more and more like God. In other words, to become Holy just as He is Holy. This is manifested by living out and achieving a spiritual life. Since “God is Spirit,” we then are trying to become just like God. Is that not the same as taking on God’s identity? Is that not ultimately our objective, to become as much like God as possible? If so, then we should consider that in light of the comparison of marriage to the relationship of God and Man. If Woman (the feminine) is to take on the identity of God (the masculine), then does it not make sense that the Woman (the feminine) is to take on the identity of Man (the masculine)? At least, when it comes to marriage the woman will undertake more of the identity assumption than the man. That seems to me to be commiserate with the feminine role- to be swept up in and to identify with the masculine. Something of a perfect symmetry appears to be at play here.

Or at least, that is what my casual musings have lead me to. I’m curious what my readers think. Feel free to chime in folks.


Filed under Christianity, Femininity, Masculinity, Men, The Church, Women