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.

Masculine Monday- #11

*Men Only*

I disagree with the PUA wing of the ‘sphere in a number of ways, nearly all of them significant. One area I want to touch on with this post is the way that most PUAs give women power over their lives. They will deny this, of course. Many will point out that they advocate taking women off the pedestal- if not smashing that pedestal outright. But pedestalizing women and giving them power over you is not the same thing.

This power transfer comes about when a man makes his notch count a metric to use in determining how much he “succeeds in life.” When a man does this, he gives women the ability to determine his level of success. It is women who hold the key to the treasure vault, as it were. He is reliant on them to become a success. This gives women power over you.

That a man can become astute at convincing women (or certain types of women, anyways) to sleep with him doesn’t change this. Sure they might be poor stewards of that power (nothing new, really). But they have that power all the same.

I would argue that an essential component of masculinity involves not being reliant on women to “succeed in life.” Boys are the ones who rely on women (mothers specifically) to tell them how great they are. Being a man means not needing a woman to tell you (whether in words or actions) just how great of a man you really are.

² What, my son? What, son of my womb?
    What, son of my vows?
³ Give not your strength to women,
    your ways to those who destroy kings.

(Proverbs 31:2-3)

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.

 

What Will She Think Of Me? -Masculine Monday- #9

*Men Only*

My last Masculine Monday post was aimed at helping men in their interactions with women. Specifically, it was all about saying “No” to women. This post continues that trend, and was inspired in part by Dalrock’s most recent post.

One of the most important flaws that a man needs to excise from his mind is the question we are inclined by both nature and culture to ask: What will she think of me?

We need to stop caring what women think of us. We need to stop worrying that the girl we like might get a bad impression about us. We need to let go of our anxiety about what impact our actions will have on the way that women view us.

Letting go of this bad habit will only make our life that much better; including with women. Seriously, I speak from personal experience here. Many of strongest reactions (read, IOIs) I have gotten in my life are from the women I have cared the least about (at least as far as their opinion of me is concerned). A lot of PUAs say pretty much the same thing, at least from my limited understanding of them.

This ties in a bit with what “Game” types call an abundance mentality. I will save the definition for others, but there is a solid connection here. Having an abundance mentality requires a mindset in a man where he can let a woman go without a second thought. That mindset requires in turn that a man not care about what women (specifically that woman) think of him.

So guys, stop asking yourself: “what will she think of me?” when you are trying to decide something. Instead, ask yourself what God will think of you. After all, His is the only opinion that matters.

As always with this series, my readers are encouraged to offer their own thoughts, suggestions and tips on the subject.

Masculine Monday- #8

*Men Only*

Short and simple post today, with a short and simple message to men:

Learn how to say “No” to women.

Seriously, if you have trouble with it now, learn to do it. Your life will become so much better for it.

And, dare I say, so will the lives of most of the women who are part of it.

I might be a bit presumptuous here, but I think most men spend a lot of time trying to get women to say “Yes” to various things. But learning to say “No” to when when necessary can get you just as much. In fact, I would warrant a guess that you saying “No” just might be a factor in her saying “Yes.”

This is easier said than done, of course. We men have an instinctive desire to please women. We don’t like it when when are upset. And of course, we are fearful of being tagged a misogynist or the like.  Couple that with a Western upbringing indoctrination, and most men in the West end up as the ones saying “Yes.”

So perhaps some of my male readers would be kind enough to offer their advice on how they learned to overcome all of that.  Guys, what happened you learn to say “No” to women?

[This post was inspired by Dalrock’s recent examination of how many Christian leaders are fearful of telling the women in their congregation “No” in any way, especially the important ones.]

Random Musings and Links- #8

Been preoccupied lately, and so blogging has slacked. Here are some links and thoughts in the interim.

Deep Strength has had several good posts lately. One is a story about a Real Life Ruth. The second discusses how to approach the topic of attraction with Christians. Principally how to explain the subject to Christian men who are “Blue Pill.”

Ace of Spades returns for two short but important posts. The first deals with when to speak and when not to speak on the internet. The second concerns how a man should act when he no longer trusts his woman.

Mrs. ktc talks about NFP gone horribly wrong.

Zippy talks about Whitewashing and “pastoral mercy.”

Dalrock points out, once again, that divorce is meant to provide Cash and Prizes to women.

Free Northerner discusses “Virtue Signalling.” Not sure I exactly agree with his view, but it is an interesting discussion all the same.

Cane Caldo continues to shred the “Pro-Life” movement.

Now for some random musing…

I was thinking recently about how I would react if someone tried to match me a
“reformed bad girl.” It’s been a while, and I don’t remember how I reacted last time. So I am curious how my readers in a position similar to mine would react. And by react, I mean what would you think/feel, and also what would you say or do in response? Would the person conducting the match-making make a difference in your response?

In addition, I was struck by how easily men will lap up the rather consistent lie that women are “taken advantage of” by unscrupulous men all the time. Why do we soak up this lie so easily? Is this some cultural thing? A genetic component of being a man? I’m curious, because it is so obviously ridiculous when you actually confront the lie. Yet we do it all the time. I am curious what my readers think.

 

 

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.

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.

Masculine Monday- #6

*Men Only*

No Pain, No Gain.

We have all heard that mantra at least once in our life. [And if you haven’t heard it before, what planet did you come from? Totally serious here.] Athletes hear it more often than others, naturally.

Of course, not all pain is good. Some pain is a warning that something is going wrong, or has gone wrong, with our body. Thinking on it, I believe it is not so much pain but suffering that is necessary for gain. Nothing that has ever been worth gaining was acquired without suffering. Even if we are given something, to keep it usually requires suffering of some form. So a more accurate, but far less catchy, slogan would be: No Suffering, No Gain.

To excel at academics requires a certain kind of suffering. The sacrifice of time, the building up of discipline, the forgoing of certain pleasures… all are necessary to achieve success.

To excel at anything athletic likewise requires suffering. Time, effort, ache and the careful management of diet are all different types of suffering required for success.

Likewise, suffering is necessary for our faith. Deep Strength has a post up about meditation and building discipline, something absolutely necessary for a sustainable and rock-solid faith. Whether it is fasting, cold showers, the spending of time or something else, suffering is part of living the faith.

Heck, even advocates of Game will tell you that it takes a lot of time and effort to get anywhere. That is suffering of a form. Certainly learning to handle and deal with rejection involves some suffering, at the very least at first.  While I don’t agree with the purpose, I can give a grudging measure of respect for the discipline required to get anywhere with it.

The point of all of this is to remind men that we are made to persevere. Suffering is part of our life. There is no escaping that. Future posts (hopefully later this week), will cover this further. But in the meantime remember that mantra: No Pain, No Gain.