I made the mistake of seeing the new “Star Wars” movie this weekend. Oops. TLDR version for my readers: don’t watch it.
****Spoilers**** [Minor ones, not that it really matters much]
****Spoilers****
So what made the movie awful? Lets see:
It wasn’t Star Wars. It didn’t feel like Star Wars, and the characters basically didn’t act as if they were in Star Wars. Even the Force Awakens felt more like Star Wars than this. What they did to Luke Skywalker was a sick joke.
It was yet another hackneyed repeat plot from the original trilogy. Force Awakens stole from A New Hope, and this stole from Empire Strikes Back. Only badly.
The only half-way competent male in the entire movie was the chief villain. And I emphasize half-way competent. That is all he got. Every other male was an abject failure, save perhaps one who was maybe a quarter competent at the very end. They basically accomplished nothing at best, and in many instances made things worse.
The female characters, on the other hand, were awesome. They were the only clever or successful characters besides the villain. Basically, what they set out to do, they accomplished.
The protagonist slash heroine was super-awesome. She basically exhibited one flaw in the entire movie- being too trusting of the good of others. And of course it all worked out fine in the end.
Speaking of her, she is the perfect glaring example of how the creators of this movie don’t know Star Wars at all. She basically upends all notions of how the Force, Light Side and everything works. She is a woman, and so cannot do wrong.
I could go on and talk about the huge plot holes which filled the movie like swiss cheese, but that would force this page to run on and on. I will spare my readers the half-hour + it would take to cover them.
In truth, what Star Wars has become is sadly easy to see now: yet another damned Disney Princess movie. That is what it is. The heroine is a Disney Princess, and everyone else exists to show how awesome she is (and by extension empowered women). Frankly, the movie screams that it was written by what Vox Day would call a “Gamma Male”; in other words a male feminist with daddy issues and a fear of “toxic masculinity.”
So in recap, don’t watch this garbage film.
*Yes, I know the name and probably the content is unoriginal. But I felt this post deserved as much originality as the film displayed.
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.
*WARNING: Spoilers will abound in this post, especially concerning DC and Marvel movies. You have been warned.*
Dalrock’s recent post “The real problem with the Ghostbuster’s Reboot” covered a wide array of feminism related topics. Among the areas covered were movies and comics, including the recent Suicide Squad movie. I had touched on that movie briefly in my post You Don’t Own Me. That particular post featured this class Cane Caldo gem:
It looks like a film about the government hiring a porn starlet and her prison groupies to kill a rapper.
Sadly, that was not what the film was about. Speaking of what films are “about”, that brings me to this post. I want to examine the role and impact on feminism in recent comic movies.
Now, I haven’t seen the new Ghostbusters movie (and hope to keep it that way). But from what others have indicated, it seems to be a Wave 2 Feminist work. This is quite different from the Wave 3 feminism I have seen in most comic movies. So lets cover them.
Suicide Squad
There are several characters to cover here: Harley Quin, Katana, Enchantress and Amanda Waller. Lets start with the crazy woman.
Harley Quin
Harley, as portrayed in the film, was the epitome of what Wave 3 Sex Positive Feminism is all about: Sexy, Strong, Smart. She uses her sex appeal as a weapon to get what she wants, and uses it to manipulate the men around her. She can hold her own in a fight. Oh, and did I mention funny too?
But here is the thing- that is a major shift from what her character was originally. In the beginning she was the poster child of DV- the Joker’s girlfriend whom he liked to abuse and hurt. Heck, the cartoon would show (sometimes off screen) her get struck by the Joker, and he once threw her out a window to her (intended) death.
If anything, she was a Wave 2 feminist icon at first- a sign of how evil and depraved men are. How women cannot trust them and need to be in charge. But as people have pointed out, Wave 2 feminism doesn’t sell nearly as well as Wave 3. After all, Wave 3 women are empowered and hot, and who doesn’t like that?
So over time Harley Quin has changed as a character. Originally the battered GF of the Joker, she has becoming something else. Over time she became smarter (in the cunning variety). She was always smart (she was a shrink), but was easily manipulated. Now she is the one doing the manipulating.
Her sex appeal was upped, and she became more physically capable. In the movie the Joker couldn’t resist her, and it is implied that Batman could be swayed by her. Instead of becoming a punchline (hehe), she became an actual villain. Heck, she rose to be the “Queen of Crime.” Major promotion there.
Of course, that wasn’t quite right- she shouldn’t be a pure villain. No, just misunderstood . So now she is an anti-villian as much as anything, at least as portrayed in the comics. And the movie moved her along those lines too.
Also, in the movie she was said to be crazier than the Joker, and more fearless. Talk about “Girl Power” there. And of course, since she is hot, she can totally get away with crazy. There is a message there- women can be crazy if they want to. It is their female prerogative- especially if they are hot. And Margot Robbie really sold the role, too. Expect to see her in a solo film, or maybe DC Girl Power film, in the future.
Katana
Again, we have an attractive female who is quite physically proficient. Also, kind of sort of crazy in that she talks to the soul of her dead husband trapped in a sword. But it is all ok, because after all she is a kick-ass hot female.
Enchantress
This character has two kinds of hot going on- the crazed, kinky, fetish kind, and the sweet girl-next-door kind. Also, she is absurdly powerful. In fact, her power plays a significant part in the film’s plot.
Amanda Waller
Finally we come to the @&%#* herself. Now Waller is not exactly what one might call a “hot” character. Her character is known for being large and in-charge. And I mean that literally- she is normally portrayed as quite overweight. Naturally enough, she was not portrayed that way in the movie. Instead they had Viola Davis play her, and quite ably too. But again we see feminism slipping in. Since she isn’t really supposed to be hot, they didn’t or couldn’t pull that off. But they did manage to at least ensure she wasn’t ugly. Because for Wave 3 feminism, ugly is damned near a sin if it is assigned to a woman.
The Joker
I cannot leave this movie without covering the Joker. His character was quite different from The Dark Knight version. Frankly, I wasn’t impressed. Although from what I have heard they left much of his stuff on the cutting room floor. So perhaps the character would have been better with superior editing.
All the same, this Joker was very different from the normal way Joker is portrayed. How so? Simple- he actually loves Harley. Traditionally the Joker never loved Harley. She was a just a tool to him- one that he would use and abuse at whim. He never tried to rescue her unless there was something in it for him. However, the new Joker actually goes into an active hostile zone to rescue her. He risks his own life for her. Even more, there is nothing in it for him.
Not really a fan of that. Frankly, it weakens the Joker as a character. Now he has a redeeming quality, when his character is not supposed to have any redeeming qualities. A “soft” Joker just doesn’t have quite the right edge.
And that ends that movie.
Man of Steel
This movie was all about Lois Lane. And oh boy, where to begin. Lois Lane begins as a confident, powerful and respected/feared reporter who is herself fearless. No real character flaws that I could find anywhere. She, more than anyone, drives the plot in the movie. Now, I like Amy Adams as an actress, but she was a poor fit for Lois. Too old, wrong hair and wrong… flair.
Here is the thing- for the most part she was perfectly capable of taking care of herself. Only when Superman screws up does he have to rescue her. The thing is, I would argue that Lois, as originally envisioned, might have been a subtle swipe at earlier editions of feminism. If you look at the earlier works, she constantly got herself in trouble. And it was Superman who always got her out of trouble. The confident, fearless and competent reporter Lois Lane only existed because Superman allowed her to exist as such. Without him she would have been dead many times over.
Here is a link to some of the old cartoons:
Watching through them it is pretty clear to me that Superman/Clarke Kent the force behind reporter Lois Lane. To me, that seems to be a subtle attack on Feminism. Namely, that women can only be strong and empowered if men enable that. Of course, I encourage my readers to offer their thoughts.
Batman v Superman
The same general pattern with Lois in this movie. But in addition we get Wonder Woman. If anyone is the stereotype of the strong, empowered and sexy woman, it is her. She basically runs circles around Batman/Bruce Wayne using her smarts. Then she does the same with her martial prowess. Basically, she leaves him in the dust.
Despite having only a small part in the movie, she played a significant role in the advertising- both before and after release. Why? Because what she represents – Smart, Strong, Sexy- sells.
Marvel
Finally, we come to the Marvel movies. There have actually been a fair number of complaints against Marvel for their lack of strong female characters. Certainly, for the most part, they haven’t let women steal the show like DC has. Of course, that will change over time. Captain Marvel will provide their counterpart to Wonder Woman. And expect other female characters to start to provide that same, much desired mojo.
Mind you, they do have some that fit the profile.
Black Widow certainly does. Very capable, quite smart, and of course lots and lots of sex appeal. I mean black leather, right? All the same, she doesn’t have her own movie, and probably won’t. But they did get her into a number of other movies instead.
Ironman 3 saw the rise of a strong Pepper Potts. She basically got superpowers towards the end of the film and in a way that pushed hot in an almost literal fashion. Her character was already smart, and she ended up running roughshod over the male antagonist. All the same, she hasn’t shown up lately.
Conclusion
This post has run on long enough. Time to wrap things up.
Marvel has done much better than DC for a number of reasons. One of them, I believe, is because they for the most part haven’t let female characters push male characters out of the limelight. I suspect they will take a hit at the box office if this starts to change. Not necessarily immediately, but over time the audience will react. While Wave 3 feminism sells better than Wave 2, that doesn’t mean that audiences want to be overloaded with it. Certainly not at the expense of emasculating male comic heroes. [Which I suppose I will cover in my next comic related post.]
Studios are in something of a tough spot. On the one hand, they need to stick to the narrative or face a backlash. On the other hand, they risk losing money if they cater to feminist demands too much. It will be interesting to see how they handle these conflicting demands. My money is that Marvel will pull it off, while DC won’t.
The modern church is a Beta farm and only exists to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today.
I want to touch on that issue of “Beta Farming” today.
To start with, I agree with Rollo’s first contention- that the “modern” church is a “Beta farm.” What is taught and enforced in most churches these days is a theology which wrings the masculinity out of men. Most of the time this leaves the young men growing up in church as hapless, servile “Beta” males who exist to do whatever women want.
However, I disagree with the second part. I don’t think that most churches exist to produce these kinds of men. They have other purposes, and not necessarily good ones at that. For example, they often preach a theology which provides moral cover to women and places moral blame on men. All the same, some might have good intentions. Some of those within might genuinely intend to serve the Lord. All the same, the modern church’s purpose has been hijacked. While these churches don’t exist to create “beta males”, that is their functional end purpose at this point (or one of them, anyways).
This all leads to the interesting question of how this all came to be. Reader Lost Patrol left this speculation:
I wouldn’t say the modern church “only exists” to produce hapless men – I see it more as an unintended consequence of having ceded so much ground to secular feminism.
My view is somewhat different- I would argue that this has come about because we have ceded so much ground to women. As I explained:
The more power women were given, the more natural this outcome was. Once you understand female nature, it is easy to see how this outcome was inevitable once women were given the power and control they were in our present system.
Lost Patrol responded by reaffirming that women were given this power. They could never have taken it from men. The why of men gave women that power I will discuss in another post. But before I close this one I want to cover why this ceding of power to women lead to our present troubles.
My theory is that the present “Beta farms” inside modern churches is a natural result of women influencing matters to reassure their native insecurity. This insecurity is something that I believe most men have no idea about, and even those who have some inkling of its existence usually fail to grasp its extent. I have covered this before, but to briefly sum it up:
Women are far and away more insecure in their lives than men.
Much of this insecurity comes from the gap in physical prowess between men and women. We men are much more capable of defending ourselves and imposing our will on our environment than women are- at least at the individual level. But whatever its source, it has a profound effect on female behavior. Women are constantly, and often at an unconscious or subconscious level, trying to alter their environment to make it feel more secure.
I believe that this behavior is responsible for the “Beta farms” in modern churches. As women were given more power inside the church and its environs, they began to exert their influence. This influence was used to shape how men were raised, and what they were supposed to be as Christians. The goal, whether realized or not, was to create the hapless Beta nice guys who populate most churches these days.
Why? Simple- “Betas” are far less threatening to women. They are safer and do things on women’s behalf. So women reinforce this system to create more and more of these “safe” men. As long as they have any degree of power in a church, they will keep it this way. [Of course, this has the effect of leaving those men as unattractive, but female nature is known for wanting two opposites at once.] If we want to shut down the “Beta farms,” we need to reassert masculine control over the church. Otherwise this wicked cultivation will continue, and likely only get worse.
[This post will almost certainly need some after-the-fact clarification. If anything needs some clearing up, let me know in the comments.]
I. Introduction
Today’s post relies on my recent Background post, found here.
I’m not sure if he was the first one to say it or not, but Rollo Tomassi of The Rational Male was the first person I ever saw who made the claim that “the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit in Churchianity.” Others have made similar statements, including Dalrock, but Rollo is the first I recall saying something to that effect. I never gave it much thought, even as I saw some truth behind it. So I never stopped to grasp what was really happening with that phenomenon. Or what it actually meant on a theological level. But in the past few months I have been studying Eastern Spirituality and broadening my grasp of Christian theology. During that time I came across the model which was highlighted in that recent background post of mine. Once I became familiar with it, I came to a deeper appreciation of the insidiousness of what is really happening with the whole “replacing the Holy Spirit” with the “FI.” This post will examine what is going on, and why it is so dangerous.
II. Replacing the Irreplaceable
I’m going to break up this next section into smaller pieces, in the hopes that it makes it easier to understand. Several different ideas have to come together for this to make any sense.
A. Trust Your Feelings
The “feminized church” plays a major role in this deviancy. Others have covered in depth, and likely to a degree far better than I could achieve, the extent of the “Feminizing” of Christian teaching and doctrine in recent years (and decades and centuries, etc.). I will leave that to them and others posts. My focus is on the particular results here. However, I will say that much of this is owed to ignorance or misinformation about human nature, in particular female nature. More on that a little later. Without going too far into it, I suspect that the lead off point for this particular false doctrine finds its origins in the whole “Woman Good/Man Bad” line of thought. At its core this false teaching advances the idea that there is some inherent kind of unique “goodness” in Woman that is just waiting to manifest itself. At least, it would if Men would just get out of the way- or even better, affirmatively enable it. I am going to quote from the Dalrock link above, to provide just one example of this [there are plenty others to be found]:
God has equipped every woman with a marriage manual in her heart, designed to instruct her husband in how to meet her unique needs.
…
What she does have is that unique marriage manual in her heart for your marriage which is given to her from God. The way that a man becomes the man that God has called him to be is to become the husband his wife needs him to be. The only way to become the husband our wife needs us to be is to read our personal marriage manual. How do we read that marriage manual? We listen to her heart.
There are several things going on here:
First, on the face of it we see an argument that a Woman’s “heart” is to be trusted- we are to listen to it. Specifically, we are to trust a woman’s feelings, because that is what is meant by “heart” here. By we I mean both men and women. After all, if the man can trust the woman’s feeling she should be able to trust her own, right?
On a deeper level, this line of thinking essentially argues that a woman’s feelings act as a direct manifestation of God’s Will. He created them in order to “teach” others. In other words, a woman’s feelings are almost a radio to God, not unlike the Ark in Raiders of the Lost Ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTWh9tm1IX4
Again, this kind of thinking relies on this belief that there is something inherently good in Woman that isn’t present in Man, or that there is something inherently bad in Man that isn’t present in Woman. It basically turns a blind eye to the Fall and its consequences. Both men and women suffer from the effects of Original Sin- neither sex is inherently “good”, or “bad.” We are both fallen- all have fallen short.
This line of thought shows real ignorance of female nature. Part of the problem is that female sin manifests itself differently than male sin. Oftentimes male sin is more obvious, while female sin and sinful inclinations are more subtle and more circumspect (think Potiphar’s wife). So it can be easier to miss female specific, or female favored sins. At least, it can be easy for men to miss them. And this line of thought can only get real traction with male support.
When you combine all of this together you have a recipe for disaster- the Feminine is elevated, and the Masculine is denigrated. This is a disaster because in elevating the Feminine in toto, you are also elevating female sins (or at least feminine centered ones). They are granted cover by virtue of being linked to the feminine.
B. The Deceitful Heart
This brings me to what I discussed in the Background post. In that post, I explained that human beings have a Body, Soul and Spirit, each of which possesses a corresponding Heart component (and love associated with it). When we speak of Heart in connection to the Body, we are referring to emotions, to feelings. The prophet Jeremiah had this to say about that particular aspect of the human Heart:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?
(Jeremiah 17:9)
We know that the Holy Prophet Jeremiah was referring to the Heart “component” of the human Body here because he refers to it as corrupt. Neither our Soul nor Spirit is “desperately corrupt”- but our Body is, because of Original Sin.
One consequence of Original sin is that the human Body has what St. Thomas Aquinas called the Law of the Fomes of Sin- what St. Paul called the Law of/in the Flesh. Our bodies have been corrupted or weakened, and thus prone to temptation. Now, this weakness or corruption is not absolute, but it is potent. A result of it is that our Appetites have become disordered, and no longer serve the Soul and Spirit. Instead they extinguish the life of the Spirit, and attempt to subvert the Soul so that it serves them (aka, Overbear the Will).
Feelings and emotions are tied to both our Sense function, as as well as our Appetites. They may well (and almost certainly do) have a connection to our Soul in addition, but they definitely are connected to our Body. This means that our emotions and feelings are susceptible to the weakness in our Flesh. Thus, our Feelings are not to be trusted. They may reveal some truth, but their very nature is deceptive. They work towards satisfying the desires of our Appetites, even when, perhaps especially when, those Appetites are no longer aligned with Reason.
C. Led Astray
Ultimately, we cannot trust the flesh- it will lead us astray, and keep us from living a Spiritual Life. The Flesh (our Body) and the Spirit, because of Original Sin, are opposed to one another. They no longer are in harmony, as they were in the Garden of Eden.
16 Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.
(Galatians 5:16-17)
Yet gratifying the desires of the flesh is exactly what Churchians would have us do when they tell us to trust the heart of Women- to trust in female feelings. In so doing, we are basically being told to trust in the desires of the flesh- so long as that flesh is Female. Further, they expect us to act on the desires of the flesh, in other words, to gratify it. As St. Paul clearly states, this is incompatible with a Spiritual Life. By doing that, we cater to, and focus on, worldly matters. Not Spiritual ones.
When you think about it, this whole doctrine is utterly absurd. Consider the reverse scenario- would a call for women to trust in the desires of the flesh of men gain any support at all? Much less anywhere near the support that “Woman Good/Man Bad” gets? Of course not. Nor should it. But again, this absurdity doesn’t stop plenty of people from believing it, or something like it.
What all of this leads to is a de facto replacement of the Holy Spirit by female desires of the flesh. Now, on the face of it, the Holy Spirit is technically still there in Churchian teaching. But as a practical matter living a Spiritual Life is impossible, effectively pushing the Holy Spirit out of a Christian’s life. As St. Paul explained, we can live a Spirit-led life or gratify the desires of the flesh. But when most Christians are taught to trust and follow female feelings, and to realign their interests to serve unshackled female Appetites, they are gratifying the flesh. This focuses them on the world, and not God, thus a Spirit-led life is not possible.
III. The Mammon Trap
This ultimately all concludes with what I call the Mammon Trap. To quote from our Lord and Savior:
No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
This is just another way of saying what St. Paul did in his Letter to the Galatians: We can serve God and live a Spirit-led life, or we can serve Mammon and gratify the desires of the flesh. We have to choose between one or the other. There is no “third way.”
A significant part of living a Christian life is based on two things: 1) to know what is Good (aka, how to serve God and live a Spiritual Life) and 2) to desire that Good. In the context of God and Mammon, this means that we must 1) understand how to serve God, and not Mammon, and 2) desire to serve God, and not Mammon.
[To make a historical aside, the Western Church gave priority to the first part- knowledge. The Eastern Church, on the other hand, focused on the latter- desire. ]
The tragedy going on is this: Churchianity has pulled a bait and switch- the Mammon Trap. The choice Jesus gave us was to serve God, or serve Mammon. But Churchianity has instead given its adherents a choice between Mammon on one hand, and Mammon on the other.
How so? Simple. The obvious Mammon- love of money and other uncontested evil, is still present. But what the other option should be, serving God, has been replaced by serving the whims of female feelings (and other feminine centered concerns). So the end result is this:
Serve female feelings (disguised as serving God) or serve Mammon
As explained earlier, to orient ourselves to serve female feelings (whether that of others for men, or their own feelings for women) means that we cannot live a Spiritual life. Serving God requires living a Spirit-centered life. Which, to follow that path, is not possible. Therefore the end result is that the choice presented by Churchians is no choice at all. They are pointing us towards Mammon either way. The whole thing is a trap for souls, as people who find themselves caught up in it aren’t able to live a Spirit-led life and be reborn from above, as Jesus explained in John 3.
IV. Conclusion
That brings this post to an end. To recap, Churchianity teaches that men and women alike should trust in female feelings and emotions as they represent God’s Will. This has the effect of precluding one from living a Spiritual life. As a result, Churchianity has created a trap for its adherents, as they are forced to choose to serve Mammon on the one hand, and Mammon on the other.
My readers are invited to offer their thoughts on what I’ve said in this post. Like it or hate it, feel free to voice your thoughts below. I will try and clarify anything I’ve said within as needed, and as time permits.
Long time readers might be familiar with the book A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century, which I plugged last year. The author of the book, Don Riefstahl, has edited and updated his book and just released a second edition. Even better, he is offering a free PDF copy to anyone interested. If you want to check it out, or would like to send a quick and easy gift to a man in need, you can download it here. The book is published under a creative commons license and can be freely shared and copied.
The book itself is short (about a hundred pages) and provides a very brief encapsulation of much of what is discussed here and on other Christian monsopherian blogs. Don has cleaned up a lot since his first edition, and the book reads better and gets the point across much more smoothly. One thing that Don deserves a lot of credit for is sourcing – he has lots of footnotes providing all the sources for his quotes and statistics. They definitely raise the credibility of the book significantly.
The book is aimed at the dating crowd, however, even if a Christian man isn’t interested in marriage (or is too young), this book still has a lot of value. Don explores a great deal of male and female nature which every man should know. Truthfully, there is a lot in there for pretty much any Christian man to find something educational and edifying.
As Don explained it to me:
I have yet to find a book this size (or any other size for that matter) that shows how gender relations work in the framework of a contract between the sexes, and how that contract was built upon how God designed men and women. This book also tackles the wage gap myth, MGTOW, and “manning up” – all key topics that men today need to be aware of, whether they are looking to get married or not.The church today largely doesn’t understand these issues, so they are blaming men (and single men especially) for the breakdown in the system. We need to get this message to the men of the church so that change can come from informed believers within.
While this book is not an exhaustive treatise on everything a Christian man should do or know, it does serve as an effective primer and “wake-up call” for the average Christian man. It provides a good, basic explanation of socio-sexual behavior that will be helpful to nearly anyone. So I strongly recommend it to those who are new to this part of the web or who haven’t ever heard this kind of message before.
For those interested in a paper copy as a gift, it is sold via Amazon.
It is another one of those posts filled with links and random (and not-so-random) thoughts on my part. Given time restraints, I won’t be able to respond much to comments for the next day or so, but feel free to chime in despite that. I will try and keep things orderly at least.
I’m going to begin by address something that Deti said in my post Meager Options:
In the past, around 60 or so years ago, [what earlier comments said0 describes how it went down. Typically it was the man requesting (P in V) sex after a few months of dating or courtship, and the woman saying “Ok, but marriage first.” And typically he was giving up more and more resources (time, money, etc.) in exchange for more and more “sex” (kissing, making out, petting, oral, but reserving P in V for marriage). (Let’s not kid ourselves – lots of women were doing “everything but” P in V before marriage, for men they were “seriously dating”.)
What Deti is describing is an attitude held by most everyone in the MMP (yes, that’s right, the Marriage Market Place), including most “Christians.” That attitude is one of bending the rules as much as possible to favor one’s interests. The rules are simple: a woman exchanges lifetime sexual access and exclusivity with a man who in turn gives her resources, protection and status (which we might call “commitment”) for life. And the exchange is supposed to be at the same time. But neither men nor women really want that. Men want sexual access (and even better, exclusivity) without having to provide commitment, while women want to receive commitment without having to provide sexual access or in some instance, sexual exclusivity.
This ties in the whole concept of boyfriend/girlfriend. As Dalrock has explained, the terms were invented in order facilitate this bending of the rules. The whole notion of the celibate boyfriend is a means for Christian women who don’t want to provide sexual access to receives the commitment they want from Christian men. Likewise, many Christian men will use their status as boyfriend as a means for sexual gain for themselves. All of which goes to show why devout Christians should reject those ideas and the mindset behind them.
For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, Deep Strength and Ballista have been involved in a spirited debate about headship and authority in marriage. It starts with this post by Ballista and was followed by this post, which Deep Strength responds to here. I don’t exactly agree with either, but I think many of my readers will find them interesting. Here are both sets of posts:
Free Northerner hosts a guest post about how men can avoid sex starvation in marriage. He also exposes some of the hypocrisy and ignorance of those decrying the “campus rape epidemic.”
Martel, who is busy writing his book, asks for some help increasing his knowledge of children’s literature and other media directed at them by the popular culture.
I also want to address this comment left at her blog by someone named Ashley:
I’m in this situation with my significant other. Both of us are in professional school and in our twenties and the way our lives are scheduled, we couldn’t even get married until one of us graduates or after one of us takes our board exams for medical/dental school. But that’s like another 2-8 yrs and we would both be ~30 yrs old. And I want to have children so we’d have very limited time to enjoy each other sexually as a married couple. What is our solution? We don’t really have one. Either we push to get married early on or “foreplay” to relieve sexually tension. I know we aren’t suppose to “foreplay” but its very very unlikely going to lead to sex because besides the whole Christian ideal, an unwanted pregnancy is 100X feared with our schooling.
First off, “foreplay” is probably not acceptable Christian behavior based on what she is hinting at. The way I look at it, if you aren’t comfortable explaining in graphic detail everything involved to all your friends and family… God probably doesn’t approve (at least, until marriage). This approach is a surefire way to come to sin, and in fact the mindset hints at a sinful attitude already (finding ways to “cheat the system”).
Second, delaying children is not a wise plan. It really isn’t. Mrs. ktc explains why you should Have Children.
Also, she has responded to my post Proposing A Question with her own post, Proposals. This brings me to the topic of marriage proposals on bended knee. I have yet to hear a good reason why men should do them. Mere expectations or custom at this point are not enough. This alone is reason enough for a man not to do it. But even more than that, bending the knee is a sign of supplication and (as those familiar with Game of Thrones will recognize) surrender. For all the talk about how essential it is for a man to start off strong by proposing to a woman, this runs entirely counter to that. Who the woman in question is doesn’t matter- as a custom it just has no merit. I invite my readers who disagree to explain otherwise, of course. But at this point proposing on bent knee is not something I’m ever going to do. And I will tell any woman I court as much. If she cannot accept that, then in my view it demonstrates she wasn’t a good candidate to begin with.
At Peaceful Single Girl this post demonstrates the damage caused to children by divorce.
Apparently Sigyn is having some real trouble with depression and could use your prayers.
Stingray explains yet another reason to homeschool.
At the same time, homeschooling isn’t easy, as Elspeth will tell you. Much of the problem is that we aren’t aligned as a community towards supporting homsechooling and mothers who stay at the household. The old support networks are gone, and were an essential part of the process.
Elspeth also discusses the difference between being unmarried and being single. I describe myself as unmarried, not single, and my reasons match up with those expressed at her blog.
Eviscerating the faith through decrying “Paulinity.” I’ve seen some of that applied here in the ‘sphere before. Mostly by men who want to engage in fornication. But I’ve seen a few women argue it as well, often to escape any requirements or duties placed upon them (especially in marriage).
I’ve argued before about the risk associated with women with tattoos, and here is yet more support for my concern.
Update: Red Pill Set Me Free talks about how a woman, any woman, however high-value, can become Ruined.
If this article is to be believed, at the University of Michigan a man can be a perpetrator of sexual violence whether he sleeps with a woman, or not:
Examples of abuse listed on the University of Michigan’s domestic violence awareness website say “sexual violence” includes “withholding sex and affection” and “discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex” – definitions that have come under fire by some men’s rights activists.
The terms, found under the heading “definitions,” also suggest verbal or psychological abuse include: “insulting the partner; ignoring the partner’s feelings; withholding approval as a form of punishment; yelling at the partner; labeling the partner with terms like crazy [and] stupid.”
Oh wait, there is no need to believe them, they link to the University’s website directly in that article (and in the first sentence, no less).
This madness keeps on getting worse and worse. And there seems to be no end in sight. Of course, rules like this make for excellent Black Knight fodder.
Just think about it. The word partner isn’t defined in that document, meaning that it is open to interpretation. So there is all kinds of room for abuse present. So what is to stop a man from claiming to be a partner with a woman, and then accusing her of sexual violence if she refuses to sleep with him? Or even show affection, such as with hugs or kisses. The possibilities to twist this system against itself are endless. At least, they would be if they were ever intended to be fairly applied. But I think that most of us know that that was never the intention. Despite the inclusive language, women are supposed to be the survivors, and men the abusers. Still, I’m sure an enterprising, would-be Black Knight could find plentiful ways to amuse himself at this absurd system’s expense. In fact, this would be the perfect opportunity for a Beta-Orbiter to achieve some measure of revenge. And he might have the close contact with a woman to pull off the “partner” bit too.
Leane, who runs the most excellent blog Finer Femininity (a recent addition to my blogroll), wrote a post a few days back titled Girls: Faults and Ideals. Within she quoted from a book of the same name by J.R. Miller. He was a Christian writer who lived from 1840 to 1912. So a man from a very different era.
Yet despite the great span of time between now and when he wrote the book “Girls: Faults and Ideals,” much of what he wrote then still rings true today. In the section that Leane quotes from, J.R. Miller provides answers from two questions that he asked of young (presumably) Christian men at the time. Here are the questions:
1. “What are some of the most common faults in young women of your acquaintance?”
2. “What are some of the essential elements of character in your ideal of true young womanhood?”
There are two responses in particular that I want to address with this post, although I encourage those who follow this blog to read the whole thing. The first response that I want to address, which covers faults, is this:
“Frivolity, arising from want of purpose in life,” one names, “even the most sacred duties and relations being marred by this frivolousness. The best years of life are wasted in small talk and still smaller reading, tears and sighs being wasted over a novelist’s creations, while God’s creatures die for want of a word of sympathy.”
My first thought when reading this was Wow. If you were to add “pursuing an education and a career” into the second sentence, it would be a perfect descriptor of much of what passes for modern Christian Churchian womanhood. What this tells us is that the problems we see in women in church these days are not new at all. They existed well over a century ago, and probably for far longer.
One line in particular that really struck me was how “[t]he best years of life are wasted” by women. Something I have pointed out on this blog before, and will continue to point out, is that the general desire that most women exhibit to avoid commitment to a man is nothing new. Most women want to delay (true) commitment for as long as they possibly can. I cannot find the source at the moment, but I do remember reading a book written in the 1800s which talked of how older female relatives would often have to push young women to marry. Without that push many would continue to wait and wait, and in the process rebuff the courtship efforts of many would-be suitors, and before long would get to be an age where the stream of suitors would dry up.
Women’s natural sexual strategy is serial monogamy, not “hard monogamy” (lifetime marriage). When this strategy is retrained by a moral order, such as Christian teaching and doctrine, it doesn’t make women suddenly switch over to prefer “hard monogamy.” If anything it intensifies their natural hypergamy and causes them to be extremely “picky” in their choice of commitment. Hence it is very important for a young Christian woman’s family raise her to recognize this instinct and help her overcome it. [The finer details of this are for another post, if not other blogs, to examine.]
Also worth mentioning is that last line about “God’s creatures die for want of a word of sympathy.” Clearly many women back then were no kinder to most men in church than they are today. This is another thing which needs to be taught to young women, and is among the traits that older women are to teach younger women listed in Titus 2:4-5.
Then we move to the second response:
Another puts it down as “A want of firm decision in character and action,” and says that too often, in times “when they ought to stand like a rock, they yield and fall;” and adds: “The young ladies of our land have power to mold the lives of the young men for good or for evil.”
The last sentence is what interests me most. Women have a lot of “soft power” available to them, and can use this power to exert a great deal of influence over men. In my view, this power is perhaps greatest when it comes to young women acting as an incentive for young men. Men are willing to do an awful lot in order to win the affections of a woman, including task both dangerous and tedious. But if men know that such tasks will lead them on a path towards marriage to a desirable young women, nearly all will leap at that chance.
But of course, all of that hinges on three different factors. The first is that desirable young women are available for young men to marry. The second is young that men don’t have plentiful and convenient options for female affection without marriage. The third is that marriage isn’t a legal trap for men. While the third is determined by law and civil society with only indirect influence by young women (not enough are installed in elected or bureaucratic office as of yet, and overall they represent a small part of the electorate), young women directly control the first two factors.
If young women are not taking the steps to get ready to marry, or if they decide to not marry young, then the first factor will fall in its face. Likewise if women do things which render them unfit for marriage, or even questionable as marriage material. If they pursue a path which takes them out of the marriage market (either temporarily or permanently), then men won’t see an incentive to be found in marriage and will adapt. At the same time, if men have access to loose women and won’t suffer serious sanctions for consorting with them, their desire for marriage will drop dramatically. Here women must exercise restraint and act in a chaste manner- the supply of unchaste women has a direct relationship with the desire men have for marriage. When women are willing to sleep with men without marriage, only the most righteous of men will seek marriage (or at least, approach marriage with the proper attitude)- and there are few such men out there. Restraints on female sexuality are as much for modifying male behavior, as they are for female behavior. Both are inextricably linked together.
Which links back up to how “[t]he young ladies of our land have power to mold the lives of the young men for good or for evil.” Women, by their actions, can influence men to act one way or another. All of this used to be understood. Women were pushed to marry young, and to be chaste, because it not only benefited them, but young men as well, and through them, all of society. This soft power is easy to overlook, but is more potent that many a law.
So when we look at the problems among young women in the Church, and that of the young men, and ponder what went wrong, let us not deceive ourselves into thinking this is a new travail that we face. For Scripture reminds us thus:
Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already, in the ages before us.
Donal Graeme 