Handling The Truth

In his most recent post, Deep Strength discusses the differences between Kindness and Niceness. I find no disagreement with his explanation of both:

Kindness, of course, is a fruit of the Spirit, whereas niceness is concerned meeting a need while placating feelings.

Where I disagree is his view on how Truth and Kindness interact, as least so far as where women are concerned. As he explains it:

Women, however, tend to need more flavoring with their food. Food is Truth. Is the essence and meat of the subject. However, Truth (or meat) by itself tends to be very unpalatable to women. Thus, they need flavoring with food to make it more palatable. This is where grace comes in.

An example he uses of this in practice is this:

If a woman/wife asks if something makes her look fat and she is then…

• the Nice answer is no, but that is a lie.

• the Truthful answer is yes, but it is generally not graceful.

• a Kind answer may be to decline to answer or a sarcastic answer, as a Truthful answer may not be palatable to the ears.

To begin with, I don’t see how there is really any flavoring here. To flavor something is to add something extra to make it more palatable, right? Except there is none of that going on here. Instead, the Kind answer contains no Truth, and instead dances around it. Perhaps this is simply a bad analogy, or perhaps I am missing the point. But I don’t see where this supports the argument advanced by DS.

But setting that example aside, I question whether anything but the Truth is kind. One of the major analogies used in the ‘sphere is the Hamster- that invisible rodent ever spinning on a wheel of rationalization inside the brain. The Hamster churns out rationalization after rationalization to do just what DS is talking about here- making things more palatable.

It seems to me that what he proposes is dangerous. Mixing up the Truth with something else just feeds the female Hamster. It gives women more of an opportunity to rationalize things.  This makes it more likely for the Truth to be lost in whatever mental machinations are necessary to make the woman feel better about the situation.

Now, I can agree that how one tells the Truth to women should be different to men. Perhaps different words, perhaps a different tone is needed. But the Truth stands on its own, and should so stand. Mixing it up with anything else… well, let us keep in mind these words of Saint Paul:

⁵ For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. ⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. ⁷ You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? ⁸ This persuasion is not from him who called you. ⁹ A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

(Galatians 5:5-9)

The danger is that adding something to the Truth is like leaven- it causes the whole lump to rise. In this context, it means that a little leaven changes something that was True into something else entirely.

Also, part of me questions the entire premise that women can’t handle the unvarnished Truth. I am curious if there is any Scriptural support for this notion. Perhaps 1 Peter 3 and the “weaker vessel” analogy, but that seems like quite a stretch. Frankly, I think Deep Strength is giving women less credit than they deserve. I am curious what my readers, male and female alike, have to say on the matter….

Money Matters

In his most recent post, Blue Pill Alphas, Rollo asks the following question:

But does that make a capacity for provisioning inherently a Beta trait?

Before I try and answer that, here is the surrounding text for context:

While I do concur with the assessment about women’s exaggerated sense of entitlement, I would also argue that this difficulty is a result of women’s prioritizing long-term security (emotional and provisional) as part of their sexual strategy reprioritizations that come in the wake of their Epiphany Phase. Ergo, this would explain the ease in gaming women pre and post Epiphany Phase. Provisioning and long term security are low sexual priorities for these demographics of women.

But does that make a capacity for provisioning inherently a Beta trait? I think it’s easy to misconstrue that capacity as Beta, because provisioning is a high-value attribute that is expected from Beta men according to their own sexual strategy. Provisioning is associated with Betas because it is integral to their sexual strategy, and also part of the Blue Pill plan for which women are hoping to fulfill at a point in their maturity when they are subjectively at their most necessitous.

What do you think?

It is easy to presume that provisioning, or a man’s access to resource/Money is something that is purely “Beta.” After all, a steady job hardly moves the needle when it comes to sexual attraction from a woman. However, this does not mean that Money/resources mean nothing.

In my page “What do Women Find Attractive in Men?” I lay out what attributes women look out for when it comes to male sexual attractiveness. Some snippets:

While visual features do play a part, and other physical features have their role as well, there are other things which can make him attractive to women. It is well established throughout history that money is something which women find attractive in men, along with that undefinable characteristic known as charisma, and women have long been known to be drawn to men of high station. When all of this is analyzed in the context of female behavior like hypergamy, it is possible to discern the triggers for male attractiveness to women, and categorize them based on their nature. There are three principal categories under which male attractiveness is analyzed: Appearance, Personality, and Externalities, or APE for short. Under these three categories are five more specific subcategories which contain the sets of attributes which determine male attractiveness: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status, or LAMPS for short.

Incidentally, you will see this model sometimes called the LAMPS or PSALM model (the reason for which I explain next).

There is no universal female measure of what makes a man attractive. Some women are more attracted to one attribute over the other, just as men are attracted to different women in varying degrees. Each woman has her own set of preferences, so there is no single standard. As a mental exercise, one can view these as a point system, where a man has a certain value from 1 through 10 in each LAMPS subcategory. Then they are added together some sort of weighted average is applied. Theoretically, as long as you have enough in certain areas, it can make up for deficiencies in others. However, based on personal observations, anecdotes and the vast amount of empirical research provided by the PUA community, it is clear that certain attributes/subcategories tend to be more important than others for most women. In general the (not universal) order of importance:

1) Power- Clearly the most important set of attributes, well above the others. Charisma is king.

2) Status- Also extremely important, plays a significant role in interacting with female hypergamy.

3) Athleticism- Of middling importance, perhaps because resources are plentiful, but still something which women like in men.

4) Looks- With the exception of height, this set of attributes provides little bang for your buck; it might get you initial attention but won’t keep it for you.

5) Money- Great wealth is required for this attribute to be meaningful, likely a product of a resource-rich culture where women can easily provide for themselves.

Money comes last in importance, and let me repeat again what I just said: Great wealth is required for this attribute to be meaningful, likely a product of a resource-rich culture where women can easily provide for themselves.

We live in an age where material comfort is the norm. The overwhelming majority of Western women have no concept of what it is to “do without.” They can support themselves, or they can rely on the state (i.e., other anonymous men) to support them. Thus, it takes a lot of Money/resources for this particular attribute to move the needle re: sexual attraction. I would argue that 6 figures isn’t enough, not any more. Now it takes millions, at least.

With that in mind, we should also remember that Money/resources plays into those Desirable traits that women want as well. Since “desire” and sexual attraction are not the same, the fact that Money is also a desirable trait only really matters when women are looking for desirable traits in the first place. And as Rollo and others (myself included) have explained elsewhere, most women in the West care about them the most while in their Epiphany phase.

Hence, it just seems like Money or provisioning is a “Beta” trait. Rather, it is a low priority PSALM/LAMPS trait that rarely affects a man’s sexual attractiveness. After all, most men aren’t millionaires. And those who are usually have other traits going for them, blurring the lines somewhat.

 

Something Else

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

An Unsettling Evaluation

In the past couple of days I have been carrying on a discussion with a reader of mine about my “The Way We Met” series. The principal topic has been the question of “settling.” It was prompted by his observation that a number of the more traditional minded Catholic unmarried Catholic women are in their late 20s and early 30s. [The how and why of that is not the topic of this post.] From his perspective they at least seemed outwardly chaste.

What he was curious about was the effect of their settling versus a woman with a long and/or troubled “history.” Here are some questions he asked:

• As a man, should you care if a woman is settling for you, assuming that she has been chaste?
• Does it even make a difference that she has been chaste?
• How do you find out or realize this is happening?
• What should you consider if you find yourself in this scenario?

Those are his questions, slightly rephrased. And good questions they are, too. I invite my readers to try and answer them to the best of their abilities. At the same time, I would like to keep the conversation focused on this particular topic.

[Note: In a couple of days I intend to create a post in reverse of this- advice for women about men settling. Mayhaps it might be useful for some of my female readers, or women they know.]

None The Wiser

One of the important points which I raised in The Way We Met that I think bears repeating is that the woman gained no wisdom in the process. She didn’t come to any great realization that she needed to accept George. As I explained:

You see, reading the piece and looking at those photos tells me that the woman here wasn’t having issues accepting that she was supposed to be with George. Rather, the problem from the beginning was that George just wasn’t sexually attractive. He was too “Beta”, if you will. Since he wasn’t sexually attractive to her, his other great traits meant jack. However, as the years passed by George grew in confidence, and it shows in that second photo. Eventually his attractiveness grew to the point where she no longer dismissed him as a sexual partner. At that point his other great traits were able to come to the forefront[…]

It is a not infrequent refrain these days that women “wise up” when they get older. This is why they ignored “nice guys” and “good men” for so long, only to start paying them attention once they get older. Beforehand they were young and foolish. After some worldly wisdom sets in, they realize the error of their ways and shift their attention and affection (and impliedly their attraction) towards such men.

Nothing could be further from the truth in nearly all cases.

What is really happening is that women are adapting to changes in the sexual markeplace as they get older. At least, changes as it relates to their change in position vis-a-vis age. For ease of reference, Rollo’s chart again:

As women age their value in the SMP declines.  Depending on the woman, this can be a gradual shift, or a disturbingly rapid one. Meanwhile, as a general rule men increase in value over time. Due to a variety of factors their LAMPS/PSALM attributes will increase as they age, making them overall more and more attractive to women. So when young, very few men have a high SMV, at least in relation to women.

Now, at the same time remember that women are far, far picker than men when it comes to sexual partners. They find far less men attractive out of the general population than men find women attractive in the general population. In addition, the woman’s own SMV will affect how she views the attractiveness of a man. The higher her SMV relative to that of the men she meets, the fewer and fewer she will find acceptable/sexually attractive.

Taken together, this means that when women are young and are at their peak, they tend to pick find only a handful of men to be attractive. [Again, there are always exceptions, but we are talking about the general population here.] Those men are almost never “nice guys” or “good men.” In other words, guys like how the woman described George. It is these men who women tend to favor with their affections.

However, as they age, and men increase in their SMV value, and women decrease in SMV value, this all shifts. All of a sudden a bunch of men who otherwise weren’t attractive in the eyes of a woman suddenly start to be more and more attractive. Many will actually reach the threshold where she actually rates them as attractive. At this point the man becomes a viable option, and all his other traits “click in to place.” Think George.

All of which brings us back to the point of this post- women are none the wiser at the end. They change, sure. But that change comes about from their decrease in relative SMV, and their understanding of their change in SMV. Otherwise, the real change takes place in the men she considers her peers. They are the ones changing… by becoming more attractive to her.

Wisdom requires a certain amount of reflection and self-examination. And that is simply not happening here. Instead, women are just adapting reflexively to changes in the SMP around them. They are not developing a newfound understanding about “Beta” traits. They are not suddenly finding them sexually appealing. Don’t let anyone fool you with notions that women naturally get wiser when they age- especially when romance is concerned. Keep a level head, and hopefully you will avoid a potential pitfall which others will try and lead you towards.

Avoiding Sacrifice

Deep Strength has a new post up wherein he argues that Women hate suffering:

I was trying to think of ways to make the this post into something elaborate, but the title really just explains itself. Women hate suffering, and by extension women don’t handle suffering well.

Examples:

• Divorce rate is 70% women initiated. Because women are unhappy.

• Husbands persist through contentious and shrewish wives in marriage taking on more responsibilities (e.g. choreplay, childcare), while women can’t handle being unhappy.

• Pastors and wives with unbelieving husbands will go out of their way to make up stuff like “intelligent submission” so they don’t have to submit. Then the sad part is when “intelligent submission” is defended instead of admitting it is being used to rebel against husbands and against the Scriptures.

• Christian men and husbands would rather cave to women when they are unhappy rather than to tell them it is a normal part of the Christian walk. “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” 2:Timothy 3:12. Suffering is normal for Christians. We do a lot of things in this life that we don’t want to because they should be done.

• Women are coddled by society, praised and pushed for college and credentialism. Men are put down and no on cares about them. When women fail they are helped as much as possible, especially by white knights. When men fail no one really cares that they are suffering except perhaps their parents.

I agree with a lot of what Deep Strength has to say in his post. Women are indeed coddled- more than men, anyways. There are plenty of women who aren’t coddled out there, of course. Men cave all-the-time (hence “mancaves”). And so on and so forth.

At the same time, I think he is a bit off when he says that women hate suffering. In fact I have written a post on this subject before. A few snippets from that post:

You see, healthy women “like” suffering.

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

…

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

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

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

I think a better word, one that fits what Deep Strength is driving towards, is sacrifice. Women hate sacrifice. They don’t want to have to sacrifice anything to get what they want. A few examples:

• They say they want a family, but they don’t want to sacrifice their youth, and an education and/or career, to get one.
• They don’t want to sacrifice their comfort and easy lifestyle for the pain and burden of children, so they opt for birth control and abortion.
• They don’t want to have to sacrifice their happiness (and time, etc.) for a man whom they find unattractive, and so they opt for divorce.

And so on and so forth.

Later in his post Deep Strength says this:

Christian wives hate suffering and putting their own will aside to display Christ-like behavior. They would rather manipulate the situation around them to be better by their own volition than try it God’s way.

Again, putting aside their own will is a sacrifice. And one they don’t want to have to make. Further, it is one they all too often refuse to make.

Of course, that isn’t really any different from men. Men don’t want to have to sacrifice either. That is just general human nature. The thing is, this is where Deep Strength’s statements about coddling are important.

Women are, on average, far more coddled than men in today’s society. It is far more common for men to be taught and told that they will have to sacrifice to achieve what they want in life, than it is for women. And even then, for women, the scale of the sacrifice they are told to expect is likely to be less.

What does this means? It means that women are less inclined to sacrifice in general. When they must sacrifice, they are inclined to sacrifice less. And of course, they try and shift as much of that burden of sacrifice onto men as they can get away with.

The solution requires confronting this problem head on. Women, of all ages, need to be reminded that we all must sacrifice. Especially as Christians. Our faith is one of self-sacrifice. Without a willingness to sacrifice, well, our Lord and Savior explained what would happen:

¹⁸ “Hear then the parable of the sower. ¹⁹ When any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path. ²⁰ As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; ²¹ yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. ²² As for what was sown among thorns, this is he who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the delight in riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. ²³ As for what was sown on good soil, this is he who hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit, and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”

(Matthew 13:18-23)

Starting With The Right Question

I want to begin this post with a little bit of scripture:

²⁵ And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” ²⁶ He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” ²⁷ And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” ²⁸ And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”

²⁹ But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” ³⁰ Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. ³¹ Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. ³² So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. ³³ But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, ³⁴ and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. ³⁵ And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ ³⁶ Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” ³⁷ He said, “The one who showed mercy on him.” And Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

(Luke 10:25-37)

Here we have the classic parable of the good Samaritan. I’m sure most of my readers are quite familiar with it. My purpose in mentioning this parable is to examine the lawyer.

You see, the lawyer asks two questions. The first one is good, and I think, honest. The second question is an entirely different matter, however.

When the lawyer asked Jesus “who is my neighbor?”, what do we think his purpose was?

Was the lawyer trying to ensure that he lived out God’s law to the fullest? Did he ask the question ensure he didn’t miss anyone?

Of course not. Scripture tells us that he was looking to justify himself. The lawyer wasn’t asking Jesus that question in order to get what I suppose you could call an “expansive” answer. Rather, the lawyer was trying to use whatever criteria that Jesus mentioned in order to limit those whom he would treat as a neighbor. He didn’t want lots of neighbors, he wanted as few of them as possible. Hence the question.

His goal was to restrict the amount of love he had to show his fellow man. In other words, the lawyer wanted to be miserly with love. And he was counting on Jesus to help him out with this (boy was he in for a surprise).

In short, the lawyer’s heart wasn’t in the right place from the very beginning. And so his question was wrong from the very beginning. A better question, rather than “And who is my neighbor?”, would have been “How can I live out the law to the fullest?” Such a question comes from a heart that is aligned to God.

Whenever we ask a question which concerns living out our faith, we always need to ask it when our heart is in the right place. If God is not first and foremost there- if serving and loving him totally is not our aim and purpose- then our endeavor is corrupt from the start. Whatever comes of it will invariably be twisted in some way.

I mention all of this because Deep Strength has a couple of recent posts concerning submission in marriage: The problems with intelligent submission being the first, and Wifely submission is easy being the second. Both of these posts draw as their origin a simple enough question: “When should I obey my husband?”

It is my belief that this particular question, just like the question of the lawyer, comes from the wrong place in the heart (perhaps intentionally, perhaps unintentionally) . Its purpose is not “How can I live out the law to the fullest?” Rather, the purpose is to limit obedience, to limit that which must be rendered to another. Much in the same way that the lawyer wanted to limit how much love he had to render to his fellow man.

A better question, one arising from a heart aligned with God, would be more along these lines: “Which action now available to me would be most pleasing to God?” Otherwise stated, “What action would be most loving?”

 

Groundless Fears Of Men About Their Daughters

[DG Note: Today’s post is a guest post by reader/commenter Tigersault (formerly A Visitor)]

 

Men today, regarding their daughters, act and think like women.  Sure, being foolish is a surefire way to end up with your genetic lineage being annihilated but I’m not talking about that here.  What I’m talking about is how men when confronted with the painfully obvious fact that most women (I’m talking a majority well over 50%) do not and, more importantly, SHOULD NOT attend a university/college, they immediately start thinking and acting like women regarding a range of possible scenarios that more often than not DO NOT COME TO PASS.

 

This post will examine three points: 1) the obvious dangers of sending your daughter(s) to a university/college 2) the various scenarios that men come up with to rationalize sending their daughters to university/college and 3) what happens in the rare scenario that something does happen.  All three of these will be backed up with personal anecdotes when possible.  Yes, exceptions do not break the rule but bear with me here.

 

Before delving into these three points, an aside about myself:  I come from a very well-to-do upper class background and, in the current occupation I am in, I deal with death on a semi-regular basis as part of my job duties.  Beyond that, I am prepared to say nothing more due to wishing to keep my anonymity.

 

First, the obvious dangers of sending your daughter(s) to university/college.  They bear repeating.  One of two things (or possibly both) will happen:  1)  your daughter will come out a flaming liberal and/or feminist and/or 2) she will lose her virginity, potentially becoming an alpha widow, and/or have so many sexual partners that she will become unmarriable except to the most beta schlub.

 

In my family’s case, one sibling came out a raging feminist.  Even in a certain situation where she disliked someone who was a woman, when hearing that a certain requirement had to be met of all individuals, regardless of gender, she was quick to ascertain the woman was not being asked to fulfill said requirement only due to gender.  Furthermore, she buys the campus rape myth.  My girlfriend asked the following question, “Was [your sibling] like this before she went to college?”  My response, “Not that I recall.”  My sibling’s feminism is complimented by acceptance of homosexuality and transsexualism.  In another sibling’s case, she wears the pants in the relationship with my in-law.  She may not admit it but she’d be happier submitting to his headship.  And yes, this sibling views anti-homosexuality as being bigoted.

 

Finally, on the obvious dangers point, although a woman’s promiscuity may precede her time at a college/university, being in that environment certainly will not do wonders in terms of maintaining her chastity.  Whether it be the greeters of a southern university or two (Google it if you don’t believe me) being recruited as de-facto geishas to entice high school senior football players to attend their university for obvious benefits or just your run of the mill attractive girl, the environment in college/universities is generally not conducive to maintaining one of her most prized assets, namely being chaste.  In one instance, I was at a tailgate with an individual that I had met the previous night.  We were talking when suddenly he recognized one of my classmates and decided to leave.  The reason?  He had had a one night stand with her.

 

Second, when you bring up to men that their daughters would be better off not going to college/university a stream of woman rationalizations comes forth.

 

1) “What if she can’t find a man to marry?”

 

2) “What if her husband turns out to be horrid and she has to separate due to physical security concerns?”

 

3) “What if she needs to hold herself over with work for a bit before she marries?”

 

4) “What if her husband dies and she has to go back to work?”

 

“What if….”

 

The above questions can be perceived as legitimate concerns but upon further examination are debunked easily.  However, as one can see, this line of questioning can go on indefinitely.  Before moving on to point 3 of the post (the rare case the worst comes to pass), ask yourself this question: is it really, assuming she’ll be attending a four year in state public university, worth shelling out roughly $80,000 for a piece of paper that in many cases is worth as much as a high school degree due to market over saturation or, in the case of worthless majors like ethnic studies or women’s studies, worth less than a normal degree AND a huge red flag to future employers?  Keep in mind too that beyond all the time and effort they spend on said degree, they will have a lot of down time around alcohol and late teens/early 20’s men with the same amount of raging hormones they do.

 

So, what if the worst comes to pass?  We’ll hit this in the order of the questions numbered in the paragraph on point two of this post.  1) What if she can’t find a man to marry?  Well, it may certainly not be too late.  However, ask yourself this?  What can a man bring to the table nowadays if women are told, from an extremely young age, that they can be anything they want AND do anything as well, if not better, than a man?  If she can’t find a man, don’t despair.  If she’s young enough, keep an eye on quality boys that she interacts with regularly.  If she is post college, put her in situations where she is around eligible men, especially parish life.  Make a point to strike up conversations with parents of men who are looking to marry.  Make sure she dresses modestly and that she acts like a woman.  These two things alone separate from the vast majority of bottom feeders in women’s bodies nowadays.  If she cannot in fact, despite your and her best efforts, find a man to marry, through no fault of her own, see to it that she’s well taken care of: have her work for a family member or friend in a secure line of work.  Support her as needed, emotionally, spiritually, monetarily.

 

2)  “What if her husband turns out to be horrid and she has to separate due to physical security concerns?”  Those vows she took in the Sacrament of Marriage are binding until death due them part.  So, what now?  Do what is needed to make sure he won’t harm her: i.e. restraining order, firearms training for her, followed by making sure she is in a safe place to live, whether it be your house, a trusted family friend, etc.

 

3) “What if she needs to hold herself over with work for a bit before she marries?” Pretty much see point 1.  Introduce her to God-fearing righteous men, looking to marry.  Let her live in your house until marriage.  So far it’s worked out fine for my parents.  From personal experience, one sibling is married and the other is in the house until she marries.  It is working fine thus far.

 

4) “What if her husband dies and she has to go back to work?”

 

I have two experiences with this.  First, a friend of mine who is advanced in years had a daughter he supports due to her husband no longer being in the picture.  My friend is not very well off and yet manages to do it.  I cannot recall for certain if her husband is deceased but I believe he is.

 

Second, in my course of work, someone I knew professionally was murdered along with several others in a random killing several months back.  Besides my professional obligations in aiding his widow, others in the state, as well as her parish have banded together to help the family of the deceased.  This is not a one time thing either, regarding the parishioners.  This is a continued process of supporting her as she works to support her family.

 

As horrible and tragic as the situation is for her and her children, we are committed to continuing to help her.  Everyone, regardless of how desolate their situation seems, knows at least one other person that would help them in their time of need.  And yes, to my knowledge, his widow did not attend college.  I say that due to knowing them enough professionally that it is obvious and will say nothing further on it.

 

To conclude, men today, especially regarding their daughters, will delve into irrational thinking and acting like women when it comes to the subject of their daughters not attending college/university.  Is it worth them a) turning their backs on what you’ve taught them re: the Faith, b) becoming flaming liberals c) losing their virginity/being so unchaste as to be unmarriable due to N count, STD(s), being an alpha widow and/or d) spending a great deal of your money on an investment that most likely will not be worth it?  There are several “what ifs” addressed above with personal experiences where appropriate and likely scenarios when no personal anecdote was available.

 

In closing, as my girlfriend and I have discussed before if we get married, we are looking to marry off our daughters as soon as possible.  Raising chaste, Catholic, feminine princesses to be queens, imbued with truly traditional values, who have God first, their husbands and families close behind, rather than a career, is worth dividends in the end, as well as a way to continue our way of life.

In Defense Of Marriage

Today marks the martyrdom of St. John the Baptist and Forerunner. From the Gospel according to St. Mark:

¹⁴ King Herod heard of it; for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him.” ¹⁵ But others said, “It is Eli′jah.” And others said, “It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” ¹⁶ But when Herod heard of it he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.” ¹⁷ For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Hero′di-as, his brother Philip’s wife; because he had married her. ¹⁸ For John said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” ¹⁹ And Hero′di-as had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, ²⁰ for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly. ²¹ But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee. ²² For when Hero′di-as’ daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it.” ²³ And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom.” ²⁴ And she went out, and said to her mother, “What shall I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the baptizer.” ²⁵ And she came in immediately with haste to the king, and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” ²⁶ And the king was exceedingly sorry; but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. ²⁷ And immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard and gave orders to bring his head. He went and beheaded him in the prison, ²⁸ and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother. ²⁹ When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb.

(Mark 6:14-29)

There is much that the life, and death, of St. John the Baptist can teach us.

First, marriage is a sacred thing. To defend God’s intentions and laws regarding marriage is something that is worth dying for.

Second, Mark’s Gospel tells us that John was having a positive influence on Herod. Despite what John was saying about Herod’s illicit union, Herod was glad to hear the Baptist speak. Clearly there was some part of him that was responding to God’s message. Unfortunately, his choice of “associates” meant that he never had the chance to continue to hear and to repent.

Third, we can see the danger of wine and women to a man’s senses. Herod never wanted John dead, despite what the Baptist said. But those two constant haunts of man led him to make a rash vow he felt compelled to honor. Important lesson for my male readers: wine + women = folly.

Fourth, we can see here that women are just as capable of wickedness as men. It was Herodias, not Herod, who wanted John dead. She was the instigator of this evil. And her daughter went right along with it.

Beta Farming

In my post Of Fighting And The West, blogger Rollo Tomassi left a comment which included the following gem:

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.