Of Fighting And The West

This post is a response to Vox Day’s post here, at Alpha Game. In his relatively brief post Vox criticizes both the MGTOW and PUA movements. A small snippet that conveys the principal themes of his post:

What MGTOW and PUAs have in common is that both paths are surrenders to the dyscivilizationists. Both paths are the result of literal demoralization, the MGTOW in the emotional sense, the PUA in the spiritual sense.

While the Red Pill is necessary for any Man of the West, there is only one effective way to fight for civilization, and that is to marry a white woman, have children with her, and raise those children to value and defend the West.

Summarized, Vox is making the following arguments:

• The MGTOW and PUA movements are incompatible with a drive to save civilization
• The West must be defended to save Civilization
• The only way to fight for the West/Civilization is to marry (a white woman), have children and raise them properly

I have no fundamental objection to his first point, and so won’t address it. However, I will discuss the latter two arguments.

Give Upon on What, Exactly?

The title of Vox’s post is “They want you to give up.” Well, I get who “they” is from Vox’s post. But what exactly is it that they are giving up on? When Vox speaks of “The West”,  or “Western Civilization,” what exactly does he mean? Western Civilization as it stands now? As it did in 1950? Or 1850? How about 1350?
The truth is that you will likely find as many interpretations of “Western Civilization” as you will of the Bible. How does anyone agree on what it means? What happens if we disagree?

It is easy to call for a fight to save Western Civilization. But if there is no agreement as to what it means, than it will not be one fight but many. Because those who disagree about what Western Civ means will, sooner or later (and I predict sooner), start fighting one another. There is only one “West”, and we all cannot have our own version of it for it to remain the West for very long.

Married to the Fight

This brings me to Vox’s proposed solution to “fight” for the West: marry a white woman, have children, and raise them to value the West. Now, I happen to believe that history is won by those who show up, and so see some value in what he says. All the same, further examination is warranted.

Let’s start with his advocacy that the women be white. What exactly does he even mean by that? Before 1900 the Irish weren’t considered white. Neither were the Polish. Or many other Caucasian groups, for that matter. So which nationalities count? And how pure must such a woman be? 100%? To 3 generations, or 4?

In case it isn’t clear, I think Vox is being quite the fool here. While I am not one to argue that genetics and ethnicity plays no role in human affairs, at the same time I won’t give it the almost religious credence that some do. Genes ultimately are just markers of potential. If a man were to find a woman with a ton of good, positive traits, and her ancestors also had/have them, then that should be enough. Unless there are some other reasons why ethnicity would prohibit a good marriage (some exist, but are not universal).

In addition, there is also the problem that there aren’t enough good marriageable women out there. Simple fact. Marrying a poor choice of a woman is a fool’s move. Which means that some men out there are not going to be able to marry. Again, just a simple fact.

Does that mean that they are opposing “the West?” Or that they cannot help fight for it? I would respond with an emphatic No.

I believe that even if a man doesn’t marry he can be of great assistance to this struggle. For one, there are religious vocations (the priesthood, becoming a monk). Non-married men can also contribute to keeping “Pro-Western” communities going. Financial assistance is one way to do this- easing the burden on those who are married will help them have more children- which will benefit the community in the long run. They can teach and educate the youth (I believe it has been a significant mistake to have let this field be dominated by women). And so on and so forth.

In short, there are a lot of ways that they can help- if you approach it from a community level. I think it is a mistake to look at this only at the individual level. No man is truly an island. So long as the non-married men support their community and help build it up then they can still be a force for good.

And there you have it- my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to use the comments to voice your support, or shred my ideas.

 

Marital Competency

{Bit of a stream of consciousness post tonight.]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend recently about the difficulty of living a Christian marriage. Our faith, our God, demands a lot from us. I don’t think I am alone in thinking this either…

His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

(Matthew 19:10)

After discussing the difficulty of living up to marriage, we briefly talked about how few are up to that these days. Which leads me to this post.After giving it thought, it occurs to me that what is going on is as simple as most people these days not being competent enough to marry.

Marriage, successful marriage, that is, requires a lot of life-skills and disciplines. Traits such as patience, strong self-control, charity and kindness all go a long way towards making a marriage succeed. An absence of those traits, and more, makes it more and more likely a marriage will fail (divorce), or will end up miserable for one or both spouses.

It seems to me that, assuming they were quantifiable, one could make a score of each of these core traits. Then you could create an Index of them, to get a rough value for how well someone scores overall. This would lead to a Marital Competency Index, or MCI score, that you could use to measure someone’s marriageability.

Of course, I recognize that a really precise way of measuring the MCI is impossible- quantifying different traits is either impossible or arbitrary. All the same, as an abstract concept I think that it has some worth.

For example, one could use a theoretical MCI score to explain whether or not someone was “marriageable.” By marriageable I mean a score which was high enough to represent that they possessed enough of those essential traits for them to be likely to live a successful marriage. Certain traits, being so essential, would be so heavily weighted that they naturally fall in line with the overall score. Others would have much lesser values, and so might not be “make or break” in terms of meeting the threshold.

Another advantage to this concept is that it helps to understand the role of culture and the surrounding society. This is because the MCI score which represents the threshold for “marriageable” would not be fixed. Rather, it would fluctuate with the culture. A healthy culture that respects and promotes marriage would have a lower threshold. People would be able to marry with less traits and yet still have successful marriages. On the other hand, in a sick culture that actively works to undermine marriage/marriages, such as ours today, the threshold increases. People need to bring more to the table in order to make marriage work these days.

Also, the MCI concept would help explain why someone “turning to Jesus” doesn’t simply make them marriageable. After all, these traits take time to build and develop. Many require years of development. A sudden conversion would not instantaneously cause someone to grow skills that have been stunted for years or decades. To provide a metaphor- a fruit tree that has been sick for a while will not instantly produce good fruit the moment a cure is applied.

[In addition, this highlights how important it is to raise daughters right. They have far less time to correct deficiencies than men, given that their fertility window is far more limited.]

I could probably continue, but at this point I think I’ve covered enough for a single post. Now, I know that I’ve covered this topic in different ways before. But having thought on it, I don’t think I have had a post which is as (hopefully) clear and specific as this one.

The Escape Plan

I.

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)

II.

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, ² “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” ³ He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ⁴ For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ ⁵ 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] 6} 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.

III.

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.

IV.

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.

Think Of The Children

Reader and occasional commenter A Visitor recently alerted me to this post over at Vox Day’s blog: N Matters, a lot.  The key point of the post is this graph:

The study, and graph, reaffirm similar findings in the past about how a woman’s N (her sexual partner count) affects the odds of divorce. Studies and charts like this have been discussed before, both on this blog and plenty of others, so I won’t go into depth on it. I do like this one part from Vox’s post, though:

The interesting thing about this study is the way that it shows how the second-greatest risk is marrying a woman with only 2 partners; the researcher’s theory is that this might be the result of over-emphasized comparisons; the woman has just enough experience to realize that there is something else out there, but not enough to realize that most of it isn’t an improvement.

While not sold on it, it is a pretty solid theory. But I digress.

The reason for this post, and the reason for this post’s title, is to emphasis the importance of visual cues. This chart is a powerful visual aid to explain to others the perils of marrying non-virgin women. It is bright, simple to understand and gets the point across without the reader needing to have any skill with statistics.

So for the time being, I will probably use this graph as my primary visual explanation for why I insist on marrying a woman with an N of 0. Setting aside all other concerns (of which I have plenty), the divorce angle cannot be ignored.

Most especially, I cannot ignore the impact divorce might have on any children that arise from the marriage before hand. If I am stupid and marry poorly, knowing that I should do better, than that is on me now. I will deserve it. But my kids don’t deserve to be put through the wringer. They deserve to have a stable and loving home- not one that is ripped apart. In addition, I would never want them exposed to a myriad of “boyfriends” and “step-dads” that their mother (whom I should have never married) will bring into her, and their, life.

Men, there are many ways to respond to someone who tries to shame you into marrying a non-virgin. But few will have quite the punch as pointing out that it greatly increases the chances of divorce, and the impact that will have on your children. Flip their shaming right back at them, and ask them why they want to make it more likely that your children will be put through the horrors of divorce. Ask them how they could be so callous. And remind them to think of the children.

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #107

Given the recent discussion in this post about marriage and the responsibilities of setting it up, I think a post which covers some scripture on the topic would be appropriate. Without further ado:

House and wealth are inherited from parents,
    but a prudent wife is from the Lord.

(Proverbs 19:14)

A capable wife who can find?
    She is far more precious than jewels.

(Proverbs 31:10)

²⁴ Do you have daughters? Be concerned for their chastity,
    and do not show yourself too indulgent with them.
²⁵ Give a daughter in marriage, and you complete a great task;
    but give her to a sensible man.

(Sirach 7:24-25)

[I should note that the verse before these, 7:23, has a different reading in the Hebrew text which states something along the lines of this:

“Do you have sons? Choose wives for them while they are young.”

 A sensible daughter obtains her husband,
    but one who acts shamefully brings grief to her father.

(Sirach 22:4)

³ For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; ⁴ that each one of you know how to control your own body^[b] in holiness and honor, ⁵ not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God;

(Thessalonians 4:3-5)

The footnote reads: Or how to take a wife for himself.

These are just a few quotes from scripture. I believe there are a few others to be found as well. I mention these because there is a lot of misunderstanding about marriage right now.

It is not merely a man’s responsibility to find his wife and get married. But all the same he does need to know how to take a wife for himself.

Nor is it entirely up to a woman either. Yet she who is sensible or wise knows how to obtain a husband of her own as well.

Further, it is a parents duty to help their children find spouses as well. I quoted from Sirach before, and here are a few parts of St. John Chrysostom’s 9th homily on First Timothy:

Youth is wild, and requires many governors, teachers, directors, attendants, and tutors; and after all these, it is a happiness if it be restrained. For as a horse not broken in, or a wild beast untamed, such is youth. But if from the beginning, from the earliest age, we fix it in good rules, much pains will not be required afterwards; for good habits formed will be to them as a law. Let us not suffer them to do anything which is agreeable, but injurious; nor let us indulge them, as forsooth but children. Especially let us train them in chastity, for there is the very bane of youth. For this many struggles, much attention will be necessary. Let us take wives for them early, so that their brides may receive their bodies pure and unpolluted, so their loves will be more ardent. He that is chaste before marriage, much more will he be chaste after it; and he that practiced fornication before, will practice it after marriage. All bread, it is said, is sweet to the fornicator. Sirach 23:17 Garlands are wont to be worn on the heads of bridegrooms, as a symbol of victory, betokening that they approach the marriage bed unconquered by pleasure. But if captivated by pleasure he has given himself up to harlots, why does he wear the garland, since he has been subdued?

…

Mothers, be specially careful to regulate your daughters well; for the management of them is easy. Be watchful over them, that they may be keepers at home. Above all, instruct them to be pious, modest, despisers of wealth, indifferent to ornament. In this way dispose of them in marriage. For if you form them in this way, you will save not only them, but the husband who is destined to marry them, and not the husband only, but the children, not the children only, but the grandchildren. For the root being made good, good branches will shoot forth, and still become better, and for all these you will receive a reward. Let us do all things therefore, as benefiting not only one soul, but many through that one. For they ought to go from their father’s house to marriage, as combatants from the school of exercise, furnished with all necessary knowledge, and to be as leaven able to transform the whole lump to its own virtue.

The point I want to make is this:

Marriage is something that everyone has a responsibility in helping set up- parents, son, and daughter. Our atomized and individualist age wants to try and push this job away to someone, anyone else. But the truth is that everyone has a part to play. Everyone needs to be proactive.

Young men need to actively seek out marriageable young women and they need to know how to woo them.

Young women also need to actively seek out marriageable young men and they need to know how to properly indicate their interest.

Parents need to help their children find potential spouse candidates. One man or woman by himself will have difficulty in this task. It takes a concerted effort.

 

Reference: Women, Not Men, Are Driving The Delay In Christian Marriage

[This is a reference post, made to be linked to in the future by myself, or anyone else who finds it helpful and convenient. It may be updated over time to include both past and future conduct.]

There is a significant delay right now in the age of first marriage in the US. We are well outside the historical norm, with women now at marrying at roughly 27 and men at 29. As many have pointed out, including myself, this is a disaster with many repercussions. Among them are a huge increase in sexual immorality, an increase in divorce and a drop in the birthrate.

Possible solutions for this problem are outside the context of this post. Instead, the focus is on why this problem developed. Some have accused men of driving the delay in marriage. An example of this can be found in one of Dalrock’s posts, Clearing the Christian marriage-market.  Dalrock correctly points out to one “Pastor Wilson” that it is not men (or at least, not primarily men) who are responsible for this. Rather, it is women who are driving the delay in marriage in the US right now. To quote from that post:

He overlooks the fact that women are very open about their desire to ride the carousel for as long as possible before marriage.  He also clearly doesn’t understand the realities of the sexual marketplace (SMP) and marriage marketplace (MMP).  Young women are the rockstars of the SMP, while young men are near the bottom.  Since young women have the power, they set the terms.  And what women want* is years, if not a decade or more, of sex with a small subset of the most attractive men before settling for a boring loyal dude.  It makes no sense that men would prefer to marry just when their SMP stock is on the rise, and just when the SMP stock of their soon to be bride is rapidly declining.

Now, women need not desire to participate in the carousel, or at least not participate (although they may want to) to delay marriage. They might simply use their twenties for other endeavors. For example, there is the phenomenon of “Good Christian Girls” going on extended mission trips or ministries or the like. Adding up, they can do these for years, and in the process, delay marriage.

If it were men delaying marriage, and not women, then we would see a greater divergence between the median age of men and first marriage, and the median age of women at first marriage. But there is no such divergence. The gap between the two has remained relatively constant over the course of decades. Given that men prefer young women over older women, all else being equal, and given that women prefer men a few years older than themselves, we can determine that this delay is largely attributable to women.

Update 1:

As a matter of clarification, I am speaking about the micro level here. It is individual women choosing to delay marriage, en masse, which is driving this delay. This is not to say that men are not involved in this process. A fair number of men are delaying marriage too- some because they are told to, and others because they don’t need marriage to get their share of female companionship. In addition, fathers play a huge role in this delay of marriage. Many of them are essentially teaching their daughters to act like sons, and encouraging them towards a life path that necessitates marriage. So men are not blameless here.

At the same time, if one wants to fix this problem, and it is a problem, the primary focus needs to be on changing female behavior. Of course, that necessitates that fathers stop giving bad advice to their daughters. But the focus is on female behavior all the same, although covering the penumbra of factors which influence it.

Furthermore, I am not interested in a blame game. Rather, the goal is to identify a problem, and its source.

[ My readers are of course encouraged to offer their own thoughts as well, and any data they have to support it.]

A Fixer-Upper

My previous post discussed why men weren’t obligated to “buy damaged goods.” This post extends that discussion a bit, towards something related yet different. [I should also mention that this post is open to both men and women.] My general argument can be stated as this:

Don’t marry someone with the intention of making them a better person so that they end marriageable.

Otherwise stated:

Neither men nor women should ever marry someone who isn’t marriageable at the time of the wedding, in the hopes that the spouse can be “fixed” and turned into a good spouse.

In other words, don’t marry a “fixer-upper.”

Now, that doesn’t mean that people don’t have flaws that can’t be fixed. Far from it- we are all damaged to some degree or another. But there is damaged, and there is damaged. Some people, for whatever reason, are simply not fit for marriage at a given time. Perhaps they can be in the future. But that is the future, not now.

Whether you are a man or a woman, you shouldn’t marry a fixer-upper- someone who needs some serious work before they are fit for marriage. Especially don’t marry them with the goal of making them fit for marriage. That is not your job (and frankly, it shouldn’t be). To tie in with my last post, it isn’t your obligation to make an honest man or woman out of someone. That is between them and God.

The way I see it, and I might have borrowed this from some commenter in the past, but when you marry someone you should assume you are marrying them at their best, and they won’t get better from there. So if you wouldn’t want to be married to someone as they are when they marry you, don’t marry that person. [Confusing, I know.]

I invite my readers/commenters to leave their own thoughts on the subject.

Masculine Monday- #7

*Men Only*

If you are a young man in the West right now, I don’t envy you. The culture is at best apathetic to your existence, and at worst downright hostile. And if you are a young man who wants to marry in this day and age, well then… you are truly up #$^ creek without a paddle. Lets cut to the chase here. Young women these days are, for the most part, awful.

Their attitudes? Unbearable.

Their behavior? Often unmentionable.

Their desire for marriage? Low.

Their capacity to honor their word? Most non-existent.

And on and on.

Good women who want to marry are few and far between, and their aren’t nearly enough of them to go around. This means that many young men who want to marry will have to choose one of these two options:

1. Refuse to marry because no worthy women are available
2. Lower their standards in order to marry

This is a difficult choice to make, and nothing I can say will make it any less difficult. I sympathize with those going through this. How could I not, as I am going through it myself? As a matter of recommendation I would suggest the first course of action, but I won’t belittle a man who chooses the second.

At the same time, a man who makes that decision shouldn’t ever feel pressured into doing it. Which brings me to the point of this post:

Men, you are never obligated to buy damaged goods.

No matter what someone tells you, no matter how much they encourage or pressure or cajole you, you do not have a duty to make a woman “honest” by marrying her.

It is not now, and it never will be, your job to rescue a woman from her past mistakes.

When you marry someone you are basically intertwining them with pretty much every thread of your life. The consequences can’t be overstated. So you owe it to yourself, not to mention the people who rely on you, to marry well.

If you choose to lower your standards on your own, that’s fine. But don’t let anyone tell you that you have to do it. Or that you are a wicked person if you don’t. This goes especially for Christian men.

Don’t let Churchian leaders try and guilt you into marrying a low value. They don’t have your best interests at heart. They either are beholden to women and serve them, not God, or they merely see you as a janitor whose job is to clean up the trash. If they make you feel unwelcome if you resist, then find a new church.

Don’t let people use words like charity or forgiveness to try and trip you up. Remember, marriage is about building a relationship with another person and God, about bringing children into the world and raising them right, and it is about you and your wife getting to heaven. Marrying poorly will help you in none of these.

So refuse to be steamrolled into marrying poorly. Marriage affects everything about you, including your soul. Marry wisely, and marry under your own direction, not that of others.

¹⁹ My child, keep sound the bloom of your youth,
    and do not give your strength to strangers.
²⁰ Seek a fertile field within the whole plain,
    and sow it with your own seed, trusting in your fine stock.
²¹ So your offspring will prosper,
    and, having confidence in their good descent, will grow great.
²² A prostitute is regarded as spittle,
    and a married woman as a tower of death to her lovers.
²³ A godless wife is given as a portion to a lawless man,
    but a pious wife is given to the man who fears the Lord.
²⁴ A shameless woman constantly acts disgracefully,
    but a modest daughter will even be embarrassed before her husband.
²⁵ A headstrong wife is regarded as a dog,
    but one who has a sense of shame will fear the Lord.
²⁶ A wife honoring her husband will seem wise to all,
    but if she dishonors him in her pride she will be known to all as ungodly.
    Happy is the husband of a good wife;
    for the number of his years will be doubled.
²⁷ A loud-voiced and garrulous wife is like a trumpet sounding the charge,
    and every person like this lives in the anarchy of war.

(Sirach 26:19-27)

The Problem Before Us And The Problem Ahead Of Us

Today’s post features two related but different subjects. Both relate to the Church, but one is focused on the present and the second on the future. The latter gets most of my attention today.

No Place for Men

Rollo, of the Rational Male, left quite a comment recently in Dalrock’s latest post. It is too long to post in its entirety here, so I will instead post just the beginning:

I think it’s high time men acknowledge that modern Christian culture simply does not have men’s best interests as part of its doctrine anymore. Christianity in particular is for women.

Church culture is openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable gender-loathing Betas.

I recently read a study that our current generation is the least religious in history and I think as far as men are concerned much of that disdain for religion is attributable to church culture’s constant and open ridicule and debasement of men’s endeavors or anything characteristically masculine.

That’s not an indictment of faith, but rather a fairly measured observation of the way feminine-primary church culture has shaped that faith. In the future, any man with a marginal capacity for critical thought will avoid the church and religion for the obvious misandry it espouses; the only religious men you will find will be those raised into a life of religiously motivated Beta servitude.

While Rollo and I disagree about a lot, I agree with him that most churches are hostile to men. Even further, I agree that women have, to a large degree, captured  most churches and re-purposed them to serve women. Most understand this, to one degree or another, and this is partially responsible for the disdain that most men hold for Christianity.

At the same time, I disagree with Rollo that “any man with a marginal capacity for critical thought will avoid the church and religion.” While most churches are like that, not all are. I happen to attend a Church that is anything but anti-male. Masculinity is not only accepted, but celebrated. Women serve the Church, not the other way around.

Mine is not the only Church like that, either. As a Catholic, I can say that most Traditional Latin Mass Churches and Eastern Catholic churches will be a very different experience from what Rollo describes here. The same can be sound for most Eastern Orthodox Churches. The reason why is such churches are, by their nature, counter-cultural. They are deliberately set apart, and this has helped preserve them, to a degree. If a man is looking to sate his thirst for righteousness, I would encourage him to look there.

But in the meantime, I definitely think that most Protestant Churches will be a hostile environment for men. Nor do I see that changing anytime soon. Mainstream, i.e., liberal Catholic parishes might not have that hostility, at least not yet, but they are getting there. Further, they are already geared up towards serving women.  So avoid them guys. Really, just stay away. As Jesus said, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead.”

The New Catacombs

This brings me to my next subject, the future.

I will be honest with you, I think the near future is going to be very dismal indeed for devout Christians. Persecution is coming. The Church is going to contract greatly as people flee it for the comforts of the secular world. In fact, I suspect that the worst persecutors of the True Faith will be our “fellow Christians”, who will use their zeal to bring us down as proof that they aren’t like us.

Now, the Church has survived persecution before. More than survived, it has flourished there. So I don’t really fear it, both in an abstract sense and in a visceral literal sense of what I might experience.

All the same, I am worried. You see, it is more than just persecution that threatens the Church. It is also a dangerous rot within. This rot has many forms, but what concerns me most is the danger to marriage and the family. Those two, which are really just one and the same, are under attack by the general culture. And that attack has been largely successful, even within the Church.

I have seen for myself, and have heard it from plenty of others (through this blog and off-line) the damage that has resulted. Very few young Christians take marriage seriously. Many express little desire to marry. This is especially prominent, from what I have seen, among Christian women. And this isn’t merely limited to “mainstream” churches, but even more traditional ones too.

The Church had to adapt to survive before. For many Christians, that meant huddling in the Catacombs. Well, that option isn’t really available to us this time. Hiding from the secular world won’t help us when we bring their ideals with us. Before the Church had to adapt to a society that wanted to crush it. Now it has to adapt to deal with a society that has struck at its foundation- the family.

How does the Church manage when many of its youth don’t want to, or can’t marry? For the confessional faiths, Catholics and Orthodox, where will the next generation of clergy come from? Conversion might bring new people in, but rarely are they young couples with a growing family. No, what conversion might do is slow the Church’s shrinking. But until this marriage crisis is resolved, I don’t see it stopping, much less growing again.

I was talking with a priest recently, and he remarked that what the Church needs to turn it around is more good men to marry a good woman and raise a large family of devout and orthodox Christian children. He mentioned that men need to take charge of their families and demonstrate how the faith is meant to be lived out. I agreed with him on this. But then I asked how can we expect things to turn around if good men *can’t* marry good women. I pointed out how few women were actually interested in marrying. He acknowledged this, and really didn’t have an answer for me.

And that really is the crux of it- there is no answer for this. Not now, anyways. We are off the map now, in uncharted territory. The Church needs to find that answer, and soon.

Reference: Improving The Sexual Attractiveness Of Christian Men Won’t Cure The Christian Marriage Crisis

[This is a reference post, made to be linked to in the future by myself, or anyone else who finds it helpful and convenient. It may be updated over time to include both past and future conduct.]

It is widely recognized in the ‘sphere that Christian men, as a whole, tend to be unattractive and unappealing to women (Christian and secular alike). Under the PSALM/LAMPS model they fair poorly. They are for the most part raised that way, with everyone from their parents to the Church to society in general contributing to this deficiency.  Many posters and commenters, myself included, have dedicated themselves to helping Christian men overcome this.

At the same time it is recognized that there is a serious crisis in the Church when it comes to marriage. Divorce, while lagging behind the general culture, is still increasingly prevalent. Furthermore, the number of those who do marry every year diminishes. The median age of marriage has continued to climb, even among Christians.

This problem has been tied to the fact that most Christian men aren’t sexually attractive to women. While it is certainly a factor, the unfortunate truth is that even if Christian men were to become sexually attractive for the most part, the crisis wouldn’t end. Here are several reasons for this:

1. Christian women don’t want to marry, or at least, don’t want to marry young. They are following along with the culture embraced by secular women, and delay or avoid marriage. Christian men becoming more sexually attractive doesn’t mean that the hearts of Christian women will be changed and they will turn towards marriage.
2. Marriage is an increasingly dangerous legal landmine for men. It offers less than ever in terms of incentives, and the costs are higher than ever before. Even if Christian men became more attractive and knew they could gain a wife, they might view the risk as worthwhile.
3. Tied to the previous point, even if Christian men are more sexually attractive, that does them little good if the Christian women around them are not marriage material. The quality of Christian women has dropped precipitously in the last century (alongside that of men), and this impacts the marriage market. Even if a man could attract a woman, or more than one, the ones he attracts might not be ones he finds worthy to marry.
4. Parents and friends, Christian or secular, often discourage their children from marrying young. This has the net effect of discouraging marriage in general, and I would argue, also increases divorce in the aggregate.
5. Poor teaching about marriage also is a factor in this crisis. When young people are misguided when marriage is concerned, it is only natural that things won’t go well.

This list is not exhaustive, and likely will be added to over time. Those who feel that they have additions to make to it may do so in the comments.