A comprehensive assessment of Dalrock’s overall Frame of reference concerning the male-female ontology.
Readership: All; Dalrock’s followers;
Note: This post is offered to commemorate Dalrock’s service to Christians and their understanding of Christian doctrine over the past decade.
Length: 1,150 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes
Dalrock has contributed a large number of fundamental insights to Christianity, the Manosphere, and to society at large. A shortlist of just a few of these topics would include,
- How to deal with a troublesome mother-in-law
- The College Boyfriend and marriage lite.
- The glorification of single mothers
- Modern trends in marriage and divorce
- Marriage 2.0
- The threatpoint of divorce and the Duluth model.
- The demonic origin of Courtly Love and the modern morphology of Chivalry.
- The confluence of Chivalry, Feminism, and Christianity to produce modern Churchianity.
- Chivalry as male feminism, the religion of beta orbiters
- The errancy of complementarianism and the myth of mutual submission.
Not to mention his many buzzwords, including, “Sticking the Landing”, “Harley McBadBoy”, and “You can’t make this stuff up!”.
The real Dalrock Route – Route 66 (AKA Lakeview Parkway) facing east through Dalrock Rowlett Texas, U.S.A.
What is the Dalrock Route?
A little over a year ago, Pastor Douglas Wilson answered a letter from Keith which asked him to define what he means by “The Dalrock Route”. (Scroll waaay down this page, or do a page search for “Dalrock”.) In a long overdue response, Wilson wrote,
“Keith, from what I have seen, I would describe the Dalrock route as over-realized patriarchy. This is not the same thing as extreme patriarchy (the toxic kind), and it is not the same thing as my own version of (amazingly balanced) patriarchy. I speak as a man, as Paul might say, and that’s the problem, as RHE [sic] might say. Over-realized patriarchy has a tendency to assume that the complementarians who gave away the store (and I agree with Dalrock that many of them did give away the store), did so on purpose. In other words, what they tend to describe as conspiracy, I would describe as a mix of conspiracy from some and confused foolishness from others. This also has had an impact on how Dalrock has interacted with some of my stuff, looping me as one of the conspirators to feminize everything. Since I know that he is persistent in reading me incorrectly, eventually I quit reading him.”
Unfortunately, Wilson failed to define what he means by “over-realized patriarchy”.
I informed Dalrock in a note, and I don’t believe he ever gave a response to Wilson’s description of The Dalrock Route. [If any readers know of a response, please leave a link in the comments below.]
Gunner Q offered his take on Doug Wilson Multi-Cucks (December 22, 2018).
From my reading of Wilson’s response, the only difference between his viewpoint and Dalrock’s is that Wilson attributes foolishness to what Dalrock presumes as a conspiracy.
Actually, both viewpoints are correct. Let me explain.
While foolishness is commonly accepted as ignorance, naivety, or childish tomfoolery, the true nature of foolishness is a lack of spiritual discernment and the knowledge of God that are concomitant with spiritual immaturity. Foolishness is thus a form of latent evil. That is, Satan and his emissaries use foolish, immature minions, useful idiots if you will, to implement his will. Thus, foolishness is a part of the Satanic conspiracy.
I discussed this phenomenon in Why does Game work? (2019 December 9)
“Men and women conditioned by Feminism and its counterpart, Chivalry, don’t understand their own wants, needs, and desires. There is some sort of spiritual blindness prevalent in modern culture that prevents them from realizing that there is an aspect of themselves (i.e. Desire) that they are ignorant of, and which they haven’t taken ownership of. Instead, Desire is permitted to roam free and unexamined, and it seems unreasonable that they should be expected to accept responsibility for this unknown part of their own nature. Therefore, when a person with Charisma stimulates those desires, they find it easy to jump to the conclusion that they are being “manipulated” or in some cases, “raped”. As a point in case, if you were to ever ask a young woman how she ended up in bed with so and so, the default answer would be, “I don’t know… It just happened!” Only after many encounters does she understand the mechanics of how it happened, yet she still doesn’t understand her own Desire as a motivating factor.”
The Dalrock Route is a paradigm that accounts for this phenomenon. If you read between the lines in his writings, there is an unstated, running assumption that people (i.e. women) are aware, or should become aware of their own nature, and that they should take responsibility for it.
Those conditioned by Feminism and Chivalry (male feminism) want to believe that women are not able (nor willing) to take responsibility for their own nature.
Christianism has a complicated assessment of the issue, which was summarized very concisely by Novaseeker.
“[Complementarianists] … see women as having agency but that agency is contained within/conditioned by/constrained by (or enabled by) men’s agency such that while both have agency, men have responsibility for both. It’s a clever way of being able to preserve female moral agency in a technical sense while still holding men responsible for how women exercise their moral agency (creating moral agency without responsibility for women … or at least without the same degree of responsibility as men have for women’s agency). All stemming from a misreading of Genesis 3.”
Thus, these groups consider Dalrock’s approach to be absurd, immature, harsh, or even misogynistic. A lot of the backlash Dalrock received from his critics was mostly centered around the beliefs that (1) women are not responsible for themselves as moral agents, and (2) neither should they be expected of the same.
On the other hand, it could be validly argued that Dalrock grants dignity to women in assuming that they do have moral agency, or that they could if they would “grow up” and develop maturity and spiritual discernment. From this viewpoint, Dalrock’s detractors are the ones who are the true misogynists, as well as heretics for denying that women might experience the redemptive grace of God.
Note: In my own writings on Σ Frame, I presume that women are spiritually immature (lacking agency), but that they should be expected to mature, develop spiritual awareness, and a sense of social responsibility. Similar to Dalrock, I don’t believe the woman’s behavior and its consequences are entirely the man’s responsibility. But in contrast with Dalrock, I do believe there are a number of approaches that can facilitate the process of her spiritual growth.
A comparison of sources versus their underlying assumptions are given in the truth table below. The statement, “Women should be expected to develop moral agency”, expresses an unwavering faith in the power of redemption, which is missing in Feminism, Chivalry, and much of Christianism/Complementarianism.
- Σ Frame: Dalrock’s Frame (2018-3-8)
- Dalrock: Warhorn interview: Male responsibility and female agency. (2019-2-8)
- Dalrock: Transcript of the second podcast. (2019-3-9)