The Demise of the Christian Life Script

There no longer exists a social structure that supports the Christian Life Trajectory.

Readership: Christians
Author’s Note: This essay was authored by NovaSeeker, with input from Jack.
Length: 3,100 words
Reading Time: 11 minutes

Introduction

Previously, Deti summarized The Feminist Life Script (2020 December 17). This pattern of life formation — which impacts young women most directly, but impacts young men’s development as well — has been a topic of conversation and debate in the sphere for several years. But there has been very little discussion of the Christian Life Script, which seems to have been swept under the collective social rug since at least the 1990s, if not before.

Scott wrote,

“If I could wave a magic wand over the whole [male vs. female] thing, and offer something actually doable and reasonable…

Instead of trying to build a time machine and go back and undo suffrage, or Lancelot, I would ask women with daughters to make these kinds of statements to them:

“Men are capable of incredible depths of feeling, devotion, commitment and sacrifice. All the way unto the death of themselves to protect and provide for those they love. Why not work on making yourself a woman that one of these men might want to feel that way about?  Because once you find one, you will never be loved like that again until you meet Christ.”

That statement is absolutely beyond the pale of polite conversation today because sitcom dads are retards or something.”

Christian Life Script, 2020

The reason this sound advice has become trite is because the whole conversation is based on the old regime, commonly referenced as the “1950’s era”, which is now denounced as “the Patriarchy”. Note that this obsession with “the 1950s!?!” has now become a meme, not because the related life script was created by the culture of the 1950s, but because the 1950s is the most recent cultural era in which the model was socially permitted to openly predominate in a way that was socially celebrated rather than pathologized. While it is true, therefore, as critics sometimes point out, that the average age of both sexes at first marriage reached a recent historical low during the late 1950s era, as compared with the earlier 20th and later 19th Centuries, the prior periods nevertheless still featured the same life script as the 1950s did, in terms of the most common life priorities of people. The common denominator of all such life priorities prior to marriage was the culmination and preservation of social and financial securities leading to marriage, sex, and raising a family. This stands in stark contrast to the current “feminist life script” which is entirely focused on everything other than steps leading to marriage. So comprehensively, the old regime highlighted in the 1950s era represented a “continuity of life” script — albeit with earlier marital ages due to unprecedent levels of prosperity enjoyed in the United States during that period. Not only did this system encourage continuity within the lifespan of the individual, it was also a lifestyle that was continuous with prior periods and generations, rather than one that posed a fundamental break with that prior life script, as was seen in the cultural developments after 1967.

Conservative Christians and other tradition-oriented people revere the old social regime because it included widespread social support for, and approval of, what we might call a Christian Life Script. According to the idealized version of this life script as it most recently existed in the 1950s era, the husband had a successful career and was able to earn enough money to support a large family comfortably. The wife doted on her husband and tended to the home and children meticulously and joyfully. Children grew up with an intact family, and more often than not, experienced the glorious presence of God in the home and community interactions. Old TV shows from this era, like Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, and Andy Griffith, and (relatively) more recent TV shows such as The Cosby Show and Seventh Heaven showcased this dynamic which was put forth as an ideal to be emulated. Granted, this system was rife with various misgivings and errors of attribution, including the bumbling father archetype, Chivalry, and low levels of progressivism (as an appeal to cultural relevancy), but for the most part, it worked for the majority of those who chose this path, to a greater or a lesser degree, and the absolute failure rate was low. It is important to note as well that the actual interior “conversion” of the individuals engaged in the Christian Life Script cannot be judged from our time period and perspective — what can be judged is that the external arrangements of life were more or less conducive to the development of such conversion in individuals who were minded to do so.

Beginning in the first quarter of the 20th Century, there emerged a series of marginal subcultures which, over time, grew in popularity and influence at the expense of the Christian Life Script. These subcultures included the culture of the Flappers (1920s), the Beat Culture (1940s), Greaser Culture (1950s), the Sexual Revolution (1960s), Women’s Liberation (1970s), Divorce Culture (1980s), Political Correctness Progressivism (1990s), Post-Modernism (2000s), Gay liberation and Intersectionality (2010s), and the current wave of CRT/Wokism. These cultural movements each first appeared on the margins of normative social life, but over time, their larger effect has been to erode the old social order and mores and gradually shift the Overton window of morality and accepted (and expected) behaviors over time.

This marginal effect was made possible and greatly amplified by (at least) two massive game-changing social/technological shifts which I covered in The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market (2021 February 17). I’ll touch upon these briefly in the next section before continuing on.

Flapper, Canada, 1920s

Modern Values and “Conveniences” have undermined the former Christian Life Script

The first shift concerns reproduction. Safe, cheap, legal abortion and safe, cheap, reliable contraception both worked, together, to remove the “natural check” on female sexuality. While it’s true that both of these existed historically, and it’s also true that pornography has existed since the time of cave drawings — suffice to say, the contemporary versions of each are more socially impactful in obvious ways in our technology-driven context.

The second shift is the continued change in the focus of economic activity away from occupations that depended on male strength and towards the kinds of activities that obviate physical strength, favor brain power, and, at the same time, provide for a good deal of free social and leisure time. This general move towards convenience, comfort, and leisure is commonly lauded as the summit of technological process, however, it carried some d@mning consequences.

A core element of the second set of changes is that they made economic independence from specific men (i.e., fathers and husbands), in a true sense, viable for most women in a way that it never was historically. The fact that this happened roughly around the same time as the changes in reproductive technology (and their related legal regime) combined to create the incredibly dislocating social revolution we saw in the final third of the 20th century — a time where the entirety of the relationship between men and women was changed or, rather, began to be changed in a way that shifted things away from where things had been for most of human history until then, and into … something different, the contours of which have, even today, not yet settled. By my reckoning, if the sexual revolution were a baseball game, we’re probably somewhere around the bottom of the 4th inning.

Critically, these changes acted to sideline the existing life script fairly quickly. The reason this happened is that the old Christian Life Script didn’t include financially independent, career-minded women in it — the old script divided roles and tasks between the sexes, and was focused on marriage. The new script threw men and women together as “equal” participants in all areas of life, and focused on personal development and what gradually came to be known as “self-actualization”, into which marriage could be squeezed but for which it was not essential. The core of the new life script was personal development and advancement, not marriage and family life — again, the latter could be a part of the former if one wished it to be, still, but it was not the core of the system any longer. Now, the individual and his or her prerogatives, desires, goals and wants, all became paramount, each of which was to be determined and developed by the individual, acting as independently as possible in order to ensure the greatest level of “authenticity” to one’s “true self”.

These two changes were therefore neither minor nor incremental — together they constituted a sea change!  Wrapped together they formed the core of an epochal social change that flipped over the board game of sexual relations, and one that caused the new Feminist Life Script to emerge virtually overnight, in the space of a mere decade or two following the “main quake”.

The Dragon is Unleashed

It is often stated, both around the Manosphere and in the broader discourse as well, that the true nature of women is now being revealed, now that the “restrictions” and “rules” of the old regime have been removed.

However, contemporary women are NOT acting according to their true nature, either according to God’s covenant order or according to their simple biological natures. Instead, today’s women are acting according to their artificially elevated sexual expression, because the natural biological checks on that have been taken away by technologically, quite deliberately.

In the natural state (and in much of the United States prior to around 1960), women having sexual relations ran a significant risk of pregnancy. If this risk came to fruition, and a woman was not married, it led to various levels of considerably unpleasant social and life outcomes for the woman in question, which led to the related sexual behaviors (i.e., the ones that led to one becoming pregnant without being married) being socially punished in various ways.

And even aside from the social penalties they were made to pay for unwed pregnancies, few women relished becoming single mothers in that regime — in a way that is virtually unthinkable today. Such women in that era (and prior ones) led a socially challenging and financially hard-scrabble life for decades as a result of that single decision. Suffice it to say that these morbid outcomes discouraged most women from indulging, at least extensively, in extra-marital sexual relations.

While it is true that some women did so and placed the children up for adoption, or had “back alley” abortions, or even left the child on someone’s steps, these situations were all outside the norm, and most women succeeded in avoiding these eventualities by the straightforward step of avoiding what was previously (now rather quaintly) termed “going all the way”.

It may also be tempting for some to think of this shift as a technological development which allows women’s sinful nature to go unfettered and uncorrected.  In other words, so as to say something like, “Biological realities without technological advancements naturally tempered those underlying urges for a while”. While this may be technically true, it is nevertheless distorting because the phrase “for a while” is doing an awful lot of work. In reality, “for a while” means “the entire history of the human species except for the last 50-70 years”.

It seems far truer to state outright that women have been unnaturally liberated from precisely the naturally designed context of God-ordained sexuality, and that what we are seeing is not the true nature of women’s sexuality, but rather the expression of women’s sexuality when the natural “checks and balances” are artificially transcended.  It is critical to understand this aspect of what has happened, because in fact, this is all part of a broader intellectual and cultural trend which involves the shedding not just of moral boundaries, but also of natural ones. Separating sex from procreation was the first step in that direction.  Then equal opportunity, then divorce, and so on, as I’ve described earlier. Transgenderism is the current iteration.  The basic idea that unites all these changes is that naturally imposed limits on the human person should not be respected, but that instead, we should use science and law to transcend those limits as we may choose to do so for our own ends. The term “transhumanism” is often used for this dragon, and I may be addressing this in a future essay.

The New Life Script Emerges

The impact of this unleashing of women’s unchecked sexuality on the general life script is clear. It has shifted the focus for young women away from marriage and children and towards what can only be euphemistically called “self-actualization”, which invariably involves higher education (and debt), dating around (expressed hypergamy), and profligate sex for fun and exploration (riding the CC). This is, in fact, regarded to be the “dividend” of these developments by generations of women, and as the true fruit of the process of women’s liberation. Entire older cohorts of women, women who were too old to reap most of the benefits of the emergent regime when it came into force, play the role of enthusiastic elder cheerleaders, vicariously living, through their daughters and grand-daughters, lives they would have themselves preferred to live, had they had the “good fortune” to have been born a bit later in history. For all of these cohorts of women, going back to the old life script is fully out of the question, and the mere suggestion of doing so is treated with scornful disdain.

And, it is also out of the question for the overwhelming majority of fathers who have raised daughters who were born after 1965, and this stance has gained increasing intensity over time. These fathers have proved to be some of the strongest supporters of the elimination of the old life script and its transformation into the new one, which is built around the priority of securing young women’s economic independence, career trajectory, sexual satisfaction and excitement, and self-actualization, all before “settling down” at some “appointed time” (which keeps increasing in age) and actually marrying.

Simply put, the changes to the economy and the rise of the “opt in” nature of a durable pregnancy as a consequence of sex made the old life script moot in the eyes of most people, and ushered in, over the course of a mere generation, an utterly new life script which has a completely different focus, and therefore leads to very different outcomes for everyone involved.

What will the New Christian Life Script look like?

The final form of the emergent life script in the broader culture is still very much a work in progress, because things are still changing — technology is still working massive changes in this area, whether people want to deny or minimize them or not.

But in any case, we should expect that the entire attitudes towards everything concerning sex, marriage, family life, relationships between men and women, sex and gender roles and the like, will, when the final model eventually emerges, be utterly transformed and changed.

That strongly suggests adaptation is required. It is certainly true that hoping for rollbacks of any of these developments is foolish. That generally doesn’t happen very often in history, and bromides like “what can’t last won’t last” are comforting to hear when your perspective is losing a cultural war in a rout, but in reality, things we don’t like can last well beyond our lifetime, and even that of our children. So hoping they will be reversed in the context of any actionable, relevant timeframe is not productive, in my opinion.

At the same time, however, waving one’s hands and saying, “Why can’t we just…?” when the rest that follows is something like, “…because we need to get people to understand that they are better off doing X rather than Y”, is also not productive, because unless you provide incentives for people to do X instead of Y, you’re going to get Y and not X. That’s just how people roll in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Women have no incentive to listen to that message, or any other kind of message, other than a few outliers here and there, because following the path of Y is what is incented, and so that is where they will go, especially when there are a number of vectors pointing them towards choice Y, such as,

  • Y matches their unnaturally freed biological desires (unchecked now by social/biological constraints).
  • Y matches the common human desire to pursue one’s own desires and pleasures.
  • Y opens the door to one’s self-determined course of action.
  • Y matches the strong cultural messaging.
  • Y is pushed and supported by parents, including in particular fathers.

Taken together, all of this supports the essence of the sin in Genesis 3, which started humanity down this entire road. It won’t be overturned by wishing people thought differently, or that they didn’t respond to incentives. The underlying cause is much stronger than that, and isn’t susceptible to being waved away like that.

To be effective, a new Christian Life Script needs to take these five aspects into account.  That is to say,

  • The Life Script must channel one’s common human social and biological desires towards the enterprises of community, marriage, and family.
  • The Life Script must offer opportunities for sanctification, allowing one to pursue one’s own desires and pleasures in a longitudinally fulfilling manner.
  • The Life Script allows one to choose a self-determined course of action.
  • The Life Script is explained through education and endorsed by strong cultural messaging.
  • The Life Script is solidly portrayed as an effective model by parents.

The challenge remains of how this can be established. And while it should be clear to all Christians that this kind of transformation in the life script and the expectations about the life path of Christians requires the work of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless it will also require the work and effort of many individual Christians to articulate, incarnate, and disseminate approaches and practices, on a practical level, with other like-minded people so as to cultivate the emergence of a new consensus within Christian culture regarding this. This is a process, and it will take time to work through, unfortunately, given the power of the social and other forces involved.

Related

This entry was posted in Child Development, Collective Strength, Contraceptives, Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Education, Faith Community, Feminism, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Hypergamy, Leadership, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Society, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to The Demise of the Christian Life Script

  1. cameron232 says:

    WRT women’s liberated “true” nature I guess I’m undecided if that’s what we’re seeing. Yes, you could consider the traditional constraints to be “natural” and female liberation “unnatural.”

    Two counter arguments.

    The constraints of civilization aren’t very old compared to the age of our species. A lot more years of women practicing hypergamy compared to being stuck in traditional marriages. How primordial are these instincts?
    Cuckholdry. As is typical, the genetic studies seem to show mixed results, but there’s at least some circumstantial evidence that a lot more women reproduced than men – way too many to be accounted for by skewed sex ratios, war and institutional polygyny. Concealed (human) estrus has been interpreted two ways: 1.to keep a man committed and around (if he isn’t there another man might hit it and get her pregnant). 2. To cuckhold men – indeterminate but plausible paternity – she gives it up to betaBob at infertile times rewarding him for contributing to the betabux side of her equation. Female attraction to alphas increases at estrus.

    This is anecdotal but in our grandparents generation there’s cuckoldry on both my wife’s side and my side. My grandfather cuckholded another man (who was away at war). My wife’s grandmother cuckholded my wife’s grandfather (my wife’s aunt not her mother was the product).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Ah.

      Cuckolding was always an issue, but as you note cuckolding was going on long before the sexual revolution. It has always been present, and yet it did not destroy the socio-sexual system, because cuckolding, as unpleasant as it is, is a part of the natural order of things (unfortunately for men). “Women’s liberation”, however, is not cuckolding. Women’s liberation is the more general removal of the unwanted biological consequences of sex for women, so that women are “liberated” to “have sex like men do” (i.e., without themselves getting pregnant, unless they choose to on an “opt-in” basis).

      As I see it, the social liberation came with the technological. That is, when I speak of the removal of constraints, I am mostly referring to the biological consequences. Nature imposes natural constraints on women sleeping around — pregnancy risk. That isn’t a social matter, but a natural one. Technology overthrew that naturally-imposed constraint and made the consequences of sex for women “opt in” in a way that was never previously available in the same way in terms of it being safe, cheap, reliable, not involving abandoning babies on hillsides and doorsteps, not having to go through a pregnancy and so on … all of that was a technical matter that removed biological constraints. Therefore the behavior we see once these biological constraints were removed is not, in itself, “natural”. Because “natural” behavior takes place in the context of these “natural” constraints — the biological ones. If you remove the biological consequences of sex — which are the constraints nature placed on women acting like sluts — women will behave in ways that they otherwise would not do, if nature applied in its fullness. Therefore the behavior is unnatural.

      I am not saying that hypergamy is unnatural — of course not. What is unnatural, however, is women exercising their hypergamy in a virtually unlimited way because of undesired pregnancy risk being effectively removed technologically.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        If (big “if”) cuckoldry was more common than most people (who imagine the 50’s as ancient history) currently believe, then technology (biotechnology, jobs, welfare) just means women can be sluts in the open – there’s just less need to conceal their behavior. If women seek the best genes (because pregnancy is expensive and opportunities limited in the short life seen throughout human history) then there’s a big upside, biologically, to concealed sluttery. Some current estimates place male:female reproduction ratio, globally, historically, at about 1:4/5, roughly the infamous Pareto ratio.

        So yeah your last paragraph, I guess it’s unlimited now in that they can be both discretely and openly slutty as the situation requires. So the open sluttiness probably isn’t “natural” female sexuality.

        And we’re a much older species than civilization so there are primordial instincts there.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        They aren’t trying to hide their sluttiness at all. The tail end of the millennial generation is chock full of women with kids from different dads, etc. of course, baby daddy doesn’t stay, nor do they pay child support for the most part.

        What % of people are involved in this? Idk. It’s enough people to where I can point to numerous people in my “social circle” who have a relative with a screwed up story.

        And that doesn’t include the large number of wealthy colleagues who go out of their way to get into LTRs with women who have kids from other men. Those guys have no legal obligation, and they also don’t want their own kids, so getting a woman who already had a child sort of prevents them from going to baby jail for 18 years

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Nova

        It has always been present, and yet it did not destroy the socio-sexual system, because cuckolding, as unpleasant as it is, is a part of the natural order of things (unfortunately for men).

        But, that’s not true. Cuckolding was one of the factors that destroyed the socio-sexual system of ancient Israel, according to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. That’s one reason why adultery made God’s top 10 list of things to not do.

        As I see it, the social liberation came with the technological. That is, when I speak of the removal of constraints, I am mostly referring to the biological consequences. Nature imposes natural constraints on women sleeping around — pregnancy risk. That isn’t a social matter, but a natural one. Technology overthrew that naturally-imposed constraint and made the consequences of sex for women “opt in” in a way that was never previously available in the same way in terms of it being safe, cheap, reliable, not involving abandoning babies on hillsides and doorsteps, not having to go through a pregnancy and so on

        Again, not true. Abortion was common in ancient Greece and Rome.

        https://earlychurchhistory.org/medicine/ancient-roman-abortions-christians/

        Abortifacient herbs have been known since prehistory. Obviously, all of that is far more advanced today than it was in antiquity, but it’s not new. It’s relatively new in the Christian West, but it’s not new in the world.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    NOVA
    That art above reminded myself of something else!Heres part of the reason I’ve been redpilled since the 80’s!Klaus meine in 2010(from metalexiles.com) of the scorpions”It is odd some of these (album)covers were a problem in america,because in the ’80’s when we would tour here(America),we always had boobs flashed at us at the front of the stage.Nowhere else in the world,just here (america).Anybody still wondering, why I never thought I or anyone else needed to learn the 3Rs of Roissy,Roosh&Rollo now?Eyes to see&ears to hear everybody,unlike most so-called christians of the 55+years, like jesus said!

    Like

  3. rontomlinson2 says:

    I predict the emerging life script will include home education for children.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I thought Covid (combined with SJW culture) would end up being a promoter of this, but the republicans took the position that not only should we stop virtual learning, but we need kids back in public schools.

      Ie, the only ones who receive the home schooling vote came out against promoting it. Re Republican efforts to silence the 1619 propaganda, it’s a movement failing in states with solid republican legislatures.

      Liked by 4 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        LEX
        Would you still love to do a bibicalMANOWARtm or true legal mahood radio show?I hear that bo golden(he thinks theres a huge market for it!) is looking to produce this type of show with 2 christian guys (one a anti-R attorney &another a mostly self-taught attorney in the mold of patrick henry meets frankensteins shakspearen monster) that think the repuplican party can rot for all we care right lex?

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I don’t think there is a market for that sort of podcast. The market would be: male, red-pill, with religious/Christian tendencies.

        The most similar types of podcasts (Christian, right wing) have a small reach, and exist because they are funded by a ministry already.

        Of the few that have tried to appeal to the manosphere in general, they literally rely on a female audience to sustain them.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. cameron232 says:

    So, I’m going to apologize for the distracting comments above – I seem to want to go off on tangents – I will attempt a useful comment.

    The basic point of the post seems to be:

    There was a Christian life script supported by economics and natural consequences for unrestricted female sexuality as well as having the philosophical support of the elite and the commoners.

    The ubiquity, safety and lack of social stigma associated with pregnancy ending/preventing technologies plus the new economy don’t support the previous Christian life script. It’s safe to assume these aren’t going anywhere anytime soon (maybe never).

    In addition to reproductive-technological and economic support for the new model, basic human nature and the currently accepted philosophy (left liberalism) also support the new model. The regime pushes the philosophy underpinning the new model relentlessly.

    Conclusion: going back is improbable. We have to move forward but with a new-new-Christian life script that takes into account these realities.
    Correct?

    I tend to disagree with the conclusion. Maybe I lack imagination, but I think the only way is to be regressive. I can’t see a path forward working with the system any more than we have to in order to eat and sleep indoors. I think the way forward is for traditional Christians and allies to memetically/culturally and genetically transfer traditional values to their large families. Hopefully, they will leave us alone enough to do that. You have to say f_ck the world. Keep kids out of the public schools. Laugh at their ridiculousness. Protect daughters in particular. Protect boys too, but boys know they’re hated, know there’s no good place for them in this. It’s not hard with boys. You sound like you’ve done well with your boy Nova despite having limited control. Love your children. I mean really love your children. This makes a lot of difference – them knowing that your sacrifices are for their best and not to control their life script. The evidence all around them for the failure of the new life script -it’s damning – never fail to point this out to them. GenX parents didn’t do this – our parents had no clue – they had one foot in the old world, one in the new.

    They’re imploding. They think a hairy humanoid with a penis can transubstantiate into a woman by wearing a sundress. Regular liberals on Facebook think this – not just the ruling “elite.” It couldn’t be any other way – liberalism lacks self-limiting principles, limitations on liberalism itself. The “unprincipled exception” won’t work for many generations.

    It won’t happen overnight. But from a historical perspective, it won’t’ be long. So I’m gonna be whitepill on this one.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      They’re not going to leave us alone.

      Many of us have no extended family or community to rely on. We’re on our own and the Christian Life Script is not an option for us.

      I believe that something is so WRONG with the sociosexual fabric that we are now in something akin to a Sexual Kali Yuga. The Crisis.

      How do you live through a dark age? You surf the wave. You ride the tiger. You play with the hand you are dealt. The dealer gives out no mulligans.

      I guess you can call that blackpilled. What makes all the difference is what you decide to do after. Trying to follow the Christian Life Script when it is no longer possible is little better than choosing to lay down and rot. At least you’ll end up in the same place at the end of the day.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        You can’t create family but you can at least try to find community.

        I understand your conclusion – but support us if you can or at least don’t get in our way. If we could make things work out for you we would.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Trying to follow the Christian Life Script when it is no longer possible is little better than choosing to lay down and rot.

        If no one is threatening to crucify you, burn you alive, skin you alive, or sow you into a leather bag and feed you to beasts, then you don’t know what’s possible while being opposed by the world.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      If anyone can build communities that aren’t either corroded within or broken up by force then I commend them.

      Liked by 7 people

    • feeriker says:

      Conclusion: going back is improbable. We have to move forward but with a new-new-Christian life script that takes into account these realities.
      Correct?

      I tend to disagree with the conclusion. Maybe I lack imagination, but I think the only way is to be regressive.

      I think you’ve summarized Nova’s position accurately (he’ll correct me if I’m in error). I agree with your conclusion; there is no way that anything “progressive” or “forward thinking” based on the current situation is going to accord with Scripture. However, I also am not optimistic about any significant portion of society regaining its sanity and returning to its Christian roots, the only thing that has any chance, IMO, of reviving the “Christian Life Script” that we’re discussing here.

      I think one of the ugliest and most uncomfortable facts we must face is that the vast majority of people who still brand themselves as “Christians” actually LIKE the current dysfunctional and destructive order that has replaced the traditional “Christian Life Script.” They know, at least on some visceral level, that it’s not only ungodly, but Satanic and destructive, but they can’t help themselves. It’s a spiritual drug, much like pornography is said to be. Once hooked it becomes horrifically difficult to find even the will to ask God to help extricate you from it, because the high of pleasure and sense of empowerment that it gives you is something that you sense will never be replaced by anything else if you give it up, not even the love and grace of Jesus. Thus the ferocious resistance within franchised churchianity to the idea of turning away from the world’s ways back to the ways of God. Churchian energy is focused intensely on justifying the ungodly (as Rollo [I believe it was] put it “slapping a fish symbol on the wordly and calling it godly”) because, at heart, churchians are not born again in Christ and still have one foot, their best foot, planted firmly in the world. They do not truly seek Jesus’ s redemptive salvation, nor do they trust God the Father to nuture them in their decision to lead their lives according to HIS script.

      So no, there will probably not be a mass movement “back to the future,” no matter how ultimately intolerable, bitter, and poisonous the fruit of the current cultural situation becomes. Yes, even many secular couples are discovering the blessings of “back to the future” (i.e., career women chucking it all to stay home and becoming wives and mothers), but they are still the minority. Also, their faith in and dedication to their new lifestyle is extremely fragile because most are not grounded in a biblical justification for it. As soon as the world “turns the screws” and makes it difficult or even borderline untenable, back to the ways of the culture they go. Most Christians have no stronger a faith, ergo the adherence to the culture’s norms and a general revulsion to doing things God’s way.

      So what does this mean? It means that outside the boundaries of small, deeply committed, feudal communities of believers (see Ed Hurst’s extensive writings on what this will generally look like), the battle to find a mate who shares your values and who seeks the “Christian Life Script” like you do is going to be arduous and uphill – indeed, soul-rending if your faith in the Lord and His ways isn’t rock solid. One hopes that a silver lining of the ever-increasing persecution of believers (TRUE believers of the non-churchian variety) is that more and more of them will finally band together and form a community and rely on each other’s strengths to keep the Word and the Life alive.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Elspeth says:

    Eric Francis Silk is right. They are not going to leave us alone. They cannot abide the thought of people living independent happy lives based on values that they have deemed morally reprehensible. We all have to be crazy, confused, and miserable together, darn it!

    On the notion of the way forward being homeschool based (from Ron Tomlinson). I have some thoughts that I offer as a homeschool mother. However, as one whose kids go to a classical school structured explicitly for the support of homeschooling families. It’s not for everybody. They go twice a week, I homeschool the other three days based on the stuff they are learning, and being assigned at school.

    By the time I’d homeschooled on my own for 5 years, I was scrambling for some support. Our support school isn’t cheap, but it has made all the difference, and it has nothing to do with the intelligence or know-how of the mother.

    What I have come to believe is that there must be a script that offers quality, and affordable private school education alternatives for families so they opt out of the current system. People primarily want to return to in-person school because in our current climate, the level of education required to be successful actually demands in-person instruction.

    It doesn’t have to be government school. Indeed it shouldn’t be. That system is a horror show in every way. But it has never been the case that any and every mother can keep house, pump out 5 or more kids, and homeschool them successfully. I don’t care WHAT someone says about Michelle Duggar or some other person with a blog whose life we know nothing about in reality.

    If we want to encourage the adoption of a more Christian centered life script and family formation, we will have to support the kinds of institutions that actually build community rather than encourage the kind of isolation and atomization that under girds the current dysfunctional system.

    Again, this presupposes that conservative reactionary types will be left alone to live our lives in peace, which is not a great bet to make. At all.

    Liked by 6 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Homeschooling stressed us out big time. I would come home from a 10 hour day and help complete lessons – I did math – I was grouchy at the kids when they didn’t “get it.” It stressed my wife out a lot- I would get on her case for falling behind with their lessons – it didn’t work out well – not everyone is Jim Bob and Michelle.

      That said the public schools really suck. If you bought say Abeka, and did a half-arsed job with it your kid would still probably be better off than in most public schools.

      We found a few very low cost and even a free Christian private schools searching on the internet years ago. The problem is they were usually in middle-of-nowhere areas – I think this is because the public schools in these areas were decent or at least safe so there weren’t going to be a bunch of fakers taking advantage of a free or low cost private school.

      We had our kids in a private Episcopal school for a while. What a mistake.

      Liked by 3 people

      • lastholdout says:

        To add another layer of perspective, the Christian Life Script began changing in America 200 years ago.

        The 1950s and 1960s Leave It to Beaver family was an anomaly in history. Prior to the industrial era, only the rich could afford for a married woman to stay at home without producing income or goods to help the family. On the other hand, whether it was the woman on the farm or the couple who owned a business, the average pre-industrial era wife was productive in terms of bringing money or goods into the family. She was not unlike the Proverbs 31 woman.

        In America, there was a seismic shift in the character of the marriage relationship. This shift originated with the industrial era and was solidified in the postwar years, where the family unit was idealized as a stay-at-home wife and a working husband.

        Undetected by church leaders and others in the postwar era was the absence of Proverbs 31 character in many stay-at-home wives. Generally, women became accustomed to viewing their role as maintaining the home instead of managing the household. There is an important distinction between maintaining the home and running a household as described by Proverbs 31.

        The Proverbs 31 woman is an industrious individual who is not apathetic toward her responsibility in the marriage. She owns her own person and acts accordingly. She accepts her biblical role and the accountability that accompanies it to bring value to the household. In this sense, she is an example to her children and a true biblical “help meet” to her husband. Her self-perceived value is based in part on her contributions to supporting the family; she doesn’t need to depend on her husband or children as her only sources of purpose and self-worth.

        In general, the lines of demarcation in the postwar marriage fell short of the biblical standard. The husband was the sole provider, producing goods and bringing home income, while the wife tended the home—cleaning, cooking, and, for a minimal part of the day (because for most of a twenty-four-hour period, they were at school or sleeping) tending to their children. As consumer goods became more available because of increased production and lower prices, consumerism increased. On one hand, these consumer goods helped her efficiency (washing machines and dryers, vacuums, kitchen appliances, soaps and cleaners, etc.), freeing up her time. On the other hand, some goods required more of her attention (increase in home size and furnishings and things that did not increase her efficiency). She became settled and comfortable with the arrangement. But simple maintenance of the home doesn’t measure up to Proverbs 31 in a couple major ways.

        First, it didn’t produce. Women no longer upheld an industrious role. It is not that cleanliness and order are not of value. However, these activities don’t produce. Second, unless she made the effort on her own to be industrious, it underutilized her abilities and gifts, which caused a certain level of frustration for many, and for others it instilled an entitlement mindset. The 1950’s laid groundwork for feminism.

        Some Christians today believe that the postwar model is what God intended. Sadly, this errant belief is what helped usher in militant feminism. This is not to criticize a couple who decides one will stay at home to nurture and care for their children. That choice should be defended as valid much as any other. There are many shades of gray on this topic, but Proverbs 31 seems to indicate that however she does it, a wife should be industrious.

        Liked by 1 person

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      ELSPETH
      When you say we all have to be crazy are you thinking either of this”You know they think were crazy,they think were all insane,they like to touch that freedom,have you at their feet,WERE NEVER GONNA DIE”! by the choirboys or MAMA WEER ALL CRAZEE NOW by first slade in ’72 then in ’84 quiet riot?I’ m thinking of the former by the choirboys because were never gonna die with this much knowledge,How could we?

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      What I have come to believe is that there must be a script that offers quality, and affordable private school education alternatives for families so they opt out of the current system. People primarily want to return to in-person school because in our current climate, the level of education required to be successful actually demands in-person instruction.

      We used to homeschool, but as our family grew, my wife got overwhelmed, and couldn’t keep up anymore. We’ve been sending our kids to private Christian schools since 2015. We’ve been able to afford it, but just barely. We really don’t have much saved up for retirement.

      One solution could be for churches to start home school co-ops. There are multiple options now for home schooling programs that are essentially remote schools. The kids could get together at church, while the moms take turns monitoring the classrooms. That way, not one mom has to do all the work. Abeka, BJU, and others have options where the kids can send their homework in to be graded, so the moms wouldn’t even have to grade homework.

      Solutions do exist. The hard part, as always, is getting others onboard.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Oscar, same here. It caused stress and fighting with my wife. She didn’t like school and there’s no way she was going to sit down with my teenagers and plow through physics and pre-calculus with a baby attached to her breast, a semi-supervised toddler destroying the house.

        We do a combination of a Montessori school, homeschool for some younger children, and remote learning for some kids.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Yes, Oscar. A big part of training the next generation of young women to embrace the Christian ideal as a viable way of life (and young men as well since let’s face it, Adam’s curse is upon men as much as Eve’s is upon women), is how we educate them.

        What we are doing is similar Cameron’s description, a mish mash of things. The kids are in school twice a week, at a homeschool support school that has excellent teachers (most of whom were homeschool parents -or homeschool students- at some point, but have been studied in their respective subjects, which they are passionate about. They take logic, history, Latin, literature, music, Bible, and writing. They take their science classes in another program (also Christian, in person but only one morning per week mainly for labs with the reading and other stuff done here with me). We do math at home -for now- but we pay a young college graduate math major (Christian, devout, classically educated) to come in once a week and tutor supplementally. I can DO algebra, but I can’t effectively teach it.

        The best thing is that we have built a close knit, supportive group of like-minded Christian families, despite not all going to the same church. This is extremely important and was the whole point of my comment. These kind of communities can exist, and can be organic as much as organized. Organic is probably better, frankly.

        But this fantasy of the wife who can do all of it and do all of it well, is why so many people eventually just say “Screw it”, and put the kids in government school. We are fortunate enough that we have the income to pay for what our kids need, even if it’s tight (and it is tight sometimes for us). but there are a lot of families who are not so fortunate.

        Additionally, women actually need to be in community with other women in order to do well at these things. Contrary to postmodern opinion, isolation and family atomization is not a building block for a successful community or society, regardless if there are some people who seem to thrive that way. We’re supposed to be the kind of people who care about the world we’re leaving for our kids.

        We can learn something from the left too, and it’s this. They decided a long, long time ago (probably in the 50s) that the key to their eventual success was to go where the kids are. Where is that? Education and entertainment. That’s what we have to do; take away all opportunity for them to educate our kids, and monitor entertainment strictly.

        The truth is that the generation aged 22 through about 35, are for the purposes of this type discussion, a lost generation. Some of our young adult kids will still find themselves happily married with solid families, but the mistakes of Christian boomers and Christian Gen-xers are coming home to roost. And I include me and my husband in that generation of bumbling parents who realized almost too late the full effect of the sea change. We found each other after all, but being in many ways outliers, it really kept us behind the curve.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Agree on starting co-ops. The sad thing is that the current trend is to get rid of them.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Elspeth

        We can learn something from the left too, and it’s this. They decided a long, long time ago (probably in the 50s) that the key to their eventual success was to go where the kids are. Where is that? Education and entertainment.

        That’s been going on in the States since at least the mid-1800s. Horace Mann and John Dewey were the biggest proponents, but there were others. They also duped a lot of Christians into going along, but their aim was always to replace Christianity with secular humanism. Mann, in particular, had a vendetta against Christianity, because his family’s pastor preached a sermon in which he claimed that Mann’s brother, who drowned, went to hell.

        Not the wisest preacher.

        Anyway, Leftists have always been good at figuring out where they make biggest impact.

        Give me four years to teach a child, and the seed I plant will never be uprooted. Give me eight years, and the child will be a Bolshevik for life. Give me a generation of children, and I will change the world. ~ Vladimir Lenin

        American Christians have given the Commies multiple generations of their children.

        That’s what we have to do; take away all opportunity for them to educate our kids, and monitor entertainment strictly.

        Amen. As Brother Voddie says, “we can’t keep sending our children Caesar to be discipled, then be shocked when they return as Romans.” However, we have to be alert with Christian schools, too. My wife and I had to weed out some BLM crap from our school before it took root, and the only reason we knew about it is because we have black kids.

        Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      Eric Francis Silk is right. They are not going to leave us alone. They cannot abide the thought of people living independent happy lives based on values that they have deemed morally reprehensible. We all have to be crazy, confused, and miserable together, darn it!

      This article, published just today, is fully relevant:

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/03/no_author/why-the-state-wont-tolerate-christianitys-moral-code/

      Liked by 2 people

  6. redpillboomer says:

    “However, contemporary women are NOT acting according to their true nature, either according to God’s covenant order or according to their simple biological natures. Instead, today’s women are acting according to their artificially elevated sexual expression, because the natural biological checks on that have been taken away by technologically, quite deliberately.”

    True enough. And one thing they can’t seem to get away from is the CONSEQUENCES of ignoring either God’s covenant (as it relates to sexuality) or their simple biological natures, no matter how much society attempts to mitigate the effects of it with all it’s social engineering and PC BS. A scripture comes to mind, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man (or woman) sows that is what they’ll reap.” Or put another way for the more secular minded, “What goes around comes around.” As I progress through this Red Pill growth and development journey that I’ve been on for three plus years now, I’m increasingly seeing the EFFECTS of all this stuff that we talk about here on this blog going on out in the real world. In other words, not just conceptually, not just ‘RP ivory tower.’ but in real-time. Stunning! I also see it when today’s younger people align with God’s ways about sexuality and marriage, knowingly or unknowingly, whether they are Christians, Churchians or Secular in nature, the results are pretty much the same, relational and family workability, at least at some level. Do I know the answer as to how to turn all this around, heck no! I do know, that the closer the sexes get to doing it God’s way, the more relational workability enters into the equation. So, in the meantime, I keep learning and learning, questioning and questioning, refining and refining my knowledge and understanding of intersexual dynamics, to see what kind of influence I can have. It’s not a whole lot, but every once and awhile someone, usually a younger someone, will listen and maybe, just maybe, take an action or two or three that moves them in God’s direction concerning all of this. We’ve got a job to do, and not just pull away smug in our knowledge and understanding. Not saying we can save the world, but we can have some effect if we use all this RP knowledge for good. Jumping off my soap box now! lol

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Lexet Blog says:

    Possible “solutions” – just brain storming

    promote “at home” or remote learning education in general. Don’t market it as a religious solution- the religious community should benefit as a secondary effect. Promote this type of learning under the guise of 1- school choice; 2- specialized or tailored curriculum, 3- equalizes education for urban and rural poor.
    promote economic downsizing and more responsible spending habits. Promote DIY economy and using local trades, as well as teaching friends and neighbors certain skills. The effect of this is promoting more tight knit communities. Also- may show youth ingenuity and inspire them to be business owners in the trades.

    Highlight the monetary benefits of marriage, and of having kids (tax write offs and credits, etc.).

    Addressing churchian culture.

    within the church community, Maybe instead of promoting the stay at home lifestyle off the bat (which puts you into a box where you are no longer able to influence anyone since you are a kook), you promote women working while staying at home, either supporting their family and/or saving up for their future family, and then working part time after that. Tell them that they can get the career going after the first 2 kids and that it will be super easy or something.
    as per churches, people need to start being vocal about qualifications of teachers. Axe your young pastors and seminarians. Put your older members on the spot and demand they step up to the plate.
    get rid of the corporate “non profit” church model. Sell your church and rent space for meeting once or twice a week. Since the standard deduction went up astronomically, you aren’t able to write off your offerings to the church anymore anyways. May as well take advantage of that to eliminate all unnecessary costs. The benefit of this is you will no longer be beholden to the government, your congregation won’t be enslaved to the mortgage and upkeep of the property, and hopefully the pastor won’t be beholden to appeasing the congregation for money.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I have had bad experiences with home style churches, but if used correctly, they can be beneficial.

      For one (and related to my church property comment), churches are paranoid over legal liability when it comes to gay marriage, membership, etc. if you are a private association that is not incorporated, you can pretty much do whatever you want and control who comes in and out of your assembly.

      If you really wanted to keep your church “incorporated,” rather than being a non profit, you can actually organize as a tax exempt LLC with the IRS.

      Liked by 1 person

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      LEXET
      You know I agree with most of your brainstorming?But heres the problem on wives working ,this is what a male physical therapist said about my main female physical therapist who was married &was like my kid sister for over a month!See if theres any problem in this:”I would’nt mind finding out about her bedside manner” and you know the married with 2 kids physical therapist who was like my sister, cringed right?I think she could’nt beleave he would be so blatant like that,just as much as I was!Did I mention this was in a packed physical therapist gym at the time he said this, around 10am?

      Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        One of my clients is a rather large organization. Sexual harassment – reported and unreported, is a regular event. People are fired on a somewhat regular basis for being too aggressive with coworkers, customers, or being caught having affairs with them.

        As per general workplace health, any business where women are 40% or more of the workforce are toxic hellholes rife with back stabbing and drama.

        It used to be the case that this behavior existed only in certain fields, but due to our hyper specialized culture, it’s everywhere. Including your large church.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        @ ProfessorGBFM:

        I’m all for women at home. Been at home for 26 years now. But the anecdote you offer isn’t really a good reason for women not to work. Unless your wife is never going to go out to buy groceries, take the kids to soccer practice, put gas in the car, or even take the vehicle in for service (since most service departments keep hours that the average husband can’t do it), there’s zero way to avoid that kind of thing happening.

        The other thing is that so many men now want their wives to work. So many that even when the kids come, they won’t entertain the notion of her coming home to raise them.

        Just my .02.

        Gonna reply to your Boethius question at my place then I’m out. Looking forward to seeing tomorrow how this evolves. If you guys figure out how to save the world, LOL.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Perhaps we just need to man up and destroy the power grid.

        Without dishwasher, microwaves, and washers/dryers there will be a peak demand for necessary services that keep people too busy to flirt with Kevin from sales or the youth pastor.

        The Amish were right all along.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Ame says:

        Perhaps we just need to man up and destroy the power grid.

        Without dishwasher, microwaves, and washers/dryers there will be a peak demand for necessary services that keep people too busy to flirt with Kevin from sales or the youth pastor.

        i keep thinking we don’t have anything to live for anymore, and if we had to actually physically work to eat and live, we might be happier people.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        Perhaps we just need to man up and destroy the power grid. ~ Lexet

        Give Commies enough time in governance, and they’ll do it for you. See California. The only reason California’s grid semi-functions part of the time is that they get 30% of their power from neighboring states.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ Lexet

      promote economic downsizing and more responsible spending habits. Promote DIY economy and using local trades, as well as teaching friends and neighbors certain skills.

      We’re going to have to do that, whether we want to or not. Those of us who work for large corporations are in danger of getting the ax at any moment just for being Christians, and it’s going to get worse.

      My wife and I are working on starting a side business for that reason, but I have zero experience with entrepreneurship (having spent most of my life in the Army), so it’s been difficult.

      Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        I have zero experience with entrepreneurship (having spent most of my life in the Army), so it’s been difficult.

        I feel every ounce of your pain. I’ve just launched my own consulting business after being out of regular work for almost a year and with nothing definite on the immediate horizon. It ain’t gonna get any better out there under current conditions. I see almost ALL of us becoming entrepreneurs in the near future out of pure necessity. I suppose that the sooner we start getting ourselves used to it, the less traumatic it will be over time.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ feeriker

        I see almost ALL of us becoming entrepreneurs in the near future out of pure necessity.

        Yep. And that’ll be another “back to the future”. Imagine being a guild-certified smith in 1st Century Corinth, for example. Your guild meetings begin with prayer and sacrifice to your guild’s patron god, Hephaestus, and as a good, pagan smith, you dutifully participate.

        Then, you become a Christian. You’re no longer willing to participate in the guild’s religious ceremony, so, in order to avoid offending their patron Hephaestus, the guild de-certifies you.

        From then on, the only people who’ll hire you are your fellow Christians.

        I suppose that the sooner we start getting ourselves used to it, the less traumatic it will be over time.

        I agree. And, I think we should support other Christians’ businesses.

        Liked by 5 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL I have a post about starting my 1st buiness being way more scary then firefights and what not

        I also feel a side hustle is in some ways rougher to launch

        Do your best to mind a local mentor

        Or become so specialized they can’t really screw with you

        Liked by 6 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Anyone working for a mid size or large corporation should do several things: get off social media, or close your profile to the world, use a different name, never invite coworkers or customers onto your profile.

        Then don’t discuss your opinions in the workplace and stay silent.

        Most of the people who get fired for their beliefs aren’t model employees who were doing a great job before being sacked. They tend to be the drama creators who cause problems and antagonize others.

        As per faith,

        Joseph wasn’t known for going around Egypt with a megaphone reminding everyone of his beliefs. Neither did Daniel, or the early Church.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Absolutely. I recommend no social media of any type in terms of having any sort of account that is active or contains anything that can be in any way traced to you. Some people think it’s suspicious to have no social media accounts, and if you think that way, then have pro forma “normie” social media accounts that are very generic, don’t like or follow anything that is on one or the other side, and play it low key that way.

        It goes without saying that any participation in venues like this has to be anonymized in a “hard” way, with both user credentials and email backing and so on untraceable to you in any way. Some people also prefer to use VPNs for places like this, and that isn’t a bad idea but VPNs are also not foolproof in any way unless you do the proper ones that go through multiple loops in various countries and flip them around so as to avoid patterns.

        In the workplace, lay low in terms of opinions. Go with the consensus, but don’t express yourself — don’t be silent (you will be assumed to be a dissenter), but don’t be outspoken either. Just go with the flow and otherwise remain low-profiled, but not aloof (remain a normal level of friendliness with coworkers rather than being aloof, which also raises suspicion).

        Of course that is not easy for everyone to do at first, depending on personality types, but it can be done with effort by everyone I think.

        “Being yourself” at the office is just as dumb as it is anywhere else, really.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        A good rule of thumb is to avoid discussing anything related to religion and politics.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Ame says:

      get rid of the corporate “non profit” church model. Sell your church and rent space for meeting once or twice a week.

      this is an interesting concept, Lexet.

      not long ago a pastor died unexpectedly – my first husband and i went to his church many years ago. the reason we left was that he wanted to build this huge structure using debt and would not even consider a debt-free model, in a community that was mostly blue collar. i watched his funeral service online, and the man really did love Jesus, and he loved his family – his adult sons all spoke at his funeral commenting how their dad was their best friend and all the things they did together and how he mentored them. to me, that is THE most priceless part of his whole life. BUT … he was still pushing his monster building into the next phase for the church and they talked about continuing the pastor’s vision – not God’s vision, the pastor’s vision. sigh.

      i kept pondering . . . now that he’s on the other side of that thin veil, what does he think of that monster building? i’m guessing not much.

      along the same lines . . . i’ve been pondering all these ‘ministries’ that churches have. i think some are good – feeding and clothing people, visiting the sick, etc. but i think ‘ministries’ have sanitized the church – kept people at an arm’s length from each other … now we don’t have to really get involved in people’s lives, we just send them to the ‘ministry’ at the church for their ‘need’ that meets every tuesday night at 7:00, oh, and childcare is available. oh, but your kids need to be in bed before you’d get out so they can go to school in the morning? too bad, that ‘ministry’ is the only way we can ‘care’ about … oops, ‘for’ you.

      Liked by 5 people

      • feeriker says:

        i think ‘ministries’ have sanitized the church – kept people at an arm’s length from each other … now we don’t have to really get involved in people’s lives, we just send them to the ‘ministry’ at the church for their ‘need’ that meets every tuesday night at 7:00, oh, and childcare is available. oh, but your kids need to be in bed before you’d get out so they can go to school in the morning? too bad, that ‘ministry’ is the only way we can ‘care’ about … oops, ‘for’ you.

        When you adopt a corporate (i.e., worldly) model for your church, you cannot reasonably be surprised when your “church” starts to look and act more like a business than a body of fellowshiping believers.

        Liked by 5 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        I really dislike agreeing with a woman

        Even you

        Liked by 5 people

      • Ame says:

        LOL! 😂

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I’ve been to too many churches where if you weren’t there on Sunday and Wednesday, you didn’t exist and no one cared.

        Too many superficial relationships in the church. When I left a church a few years ago, I had a friend who had numerous reasons to leave as well. He stayed because the “edification of the teaching,” but rejected the idea of fellowship with others. As if you can have sound teaching without a sense of community and fellowship.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        I’ve been to too many churches where if you weren’t there on Sunday and Wednesday, you didn’t exist and no one cared.

        i was a single mom from an unfaithful husband who left us, with a special needs 24/77/365 little girl who was 5, her sister 7 … and a woman at church said to my face that IF i ever wanted anyone to help/care for us in any way, then i needed to commit to volunteer every week. this woman knew what happened, more than most, and she new my sped kid and understood that more than most that i could not volunteer or commit to anything outside of my daughters b/c her behavior and needs were unpredictable … and still she basically told me that i had to “earn” help from the church. i wasn’t even asking for money or clothes or food. actually, the only thing i remember asking for was for somewhere to go for christmas day so we wouldn’t be alone.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        That’s sad but all too common.

        The belief that you need to serve the church to be served is not only unbiblical, but creates a scenario where only a few benefit, while everyone else serves those people. I’ve heard it time and time again from elders, and this is how it worked out: they did jack, newcomers did everything, most newcomers eventually leave because they don’t have needs met or realize how abusive it is

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        As soon as the coin in the coffer rings
        Another soul from purgatory springs!

        The implication was that the purchase of indulgences from the Pope held as much power for forgiving sin, as did Jesus dying on the cross.
        This church-business model has been tried before. It’s called apostasy, or whoring after the things of this world. No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

        “You cannot serve both God and money.” ~ Jesus Christ

        But is it really Christ’s church if you demote Christ from being your Creator?

        “And we’re a much older species than civilization so there are primordial instincts there.”

        I have the faith to believe that God created Adam from the dust of the earth when He said He did and that Adam knew right from wrong, and was thus “civilized’, being enlightened, culturally exemplar, God-fearing, modest, and morally developed, even before he was cast out of the holy sanctuary of Eden. Men have fallen, not evolved! Don’t you forget it.

        Psalm 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:(also Hebrews 2:7)
        Don’t believe some evolutionary lie that we have evolved from God’s holy patriarchy towards today’s depravity. That thinking is inverted. There is not a prehistory contrary to His-story, nor any future contrary to that foretold. Knowledge has increased, as God said it would in the last days, and men now deny their Creator and abdicate their dominion over women and many other things on earth. Men are still fallen, and given over to worshipping the creature(women) rather than their Creator.

        Martin Luther rightly recognized that the slippery slope began in his day when the kings left off their God appointed duty of executing all adulterers, and instead they became secularized preventing God’s justice from being faithfully carried out, and thereby put us on the road to ever growing depravity.

        We should repent, return to God, and restore God’s justice system of killing all abortionists, kidnappers, adulterers, and those fornicators as required by law, then “civilization” will fix itself far faster than fornication-friendly Feminists fathom. Or we can imagine ourselves to be more merciful than God and leave future generations to suffer the ravages of unjust depravity and rebellion against God and men whom God created, in His own image and glory, to exercise holy dominion over this world. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

        But step one is we’ve got to honor God as our omniscient Creator. If we are too debased to even do that, we might as well just enjoy our fleeting days before our certain damnation to the eternal fire and the everlasting contempt reserved for those who do not acknowledge their Creator. Acknowledge your Creator and live! Don’t contradict His account. Will you make a liar of God? Or will God make a gazingstock of the smoke of your torment rising up to heaven for ever and ever? I don’t think some of you believe God’s account. Some of you are darkened in your thinking.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        As soon as the coin in the coffer rings
        Another soul from purgatory springs!

        The implication was that the purchase of indulgences from the Pope held as much power for forgiving sin, as did Jesus dying on the cross.
        This church-business model has been tried before. It’s called apostasy, or whoring after the things of this world. No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

        “You cannot serve both God and money.” ~ Jesus Christ

        But is it really Christ’s church if you demote Christ from being your Creator?

        “And we’re a much older species than civilization so there are primordial instincts there.”

        I have the faith to believe that God created Adam from the dust of the earth when HeGod said He did and that Adam knew right from wrong, and was thus “civilized’, being enlightened, culturally exemplar, God-fearing, modest, and morally developed, even before he was cast out of the holy sanctuary of Eden. Men have fallen, not evolved! Don’t you forget it.

        Psalm 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:(also Hebrews 2:7)
        Don’t believe some evolutionary lie that we have evolved from God’s holy patriarchy towards today’s depravity. That thinking is inverted. There is not a prehistory contrary to His-story, nor any future contrary to that foretold. Knowledge has increased, as God said it would in the last days, and men now deny their Creator and abdicate their dominion over women and many other things on earth. Men are still fallen, and given over to worshipping the creature(women) rather than their Creator.

        Martin Luther rightly recognized that the slippery slope began in his day when the kings left off their God appointed duty of executing all adulterers, and instead they became secularized preventing God’s justice from being faithfully carried out, and thereby put us on the road to ever growing depravity.

        We should repent, return to God, and restore God’s justice system of killing all abortionists, kidnappers, adulterers, and those fornicators as required by law, then “civilization” will fix itself far faster than fornication-friendly Feminists fathom. Or we can imagine ourselves to be more merciful than God and leave future generations to suffer the ravages of unjust depravity and rebellion against God and men whom God created, in His own image and glory, to exercise holy dominion over this world. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

        But step one is we’ve got to honor God as our omniscient Creator. If we are too debased to even do that, we might as well just enjoy our fleeting days before our certain damnation to the eternal fire and the everlasting contempt reserved for those who do not acknowledge their Creator. Acknowledge your Creator and live! Don’t contradict His account. Will you make a liar of God? Or will God make a gazingstock of the smoke of your torment rising up to heaven for ever and ever? I don’t think some of you believe God’s account. Many are still darkened in their thinking.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    LEXET
    My point is guys at work&even at church can flirt/GAME on women longer than somebody at a grocery store or gas station.Neighbors could’nt easily do this in extended families living together on ancestrila land back in the day, before the nuclear family of the ’50’s&60’s!Why does people think shechem had to kidnap dinah to ”rape” her as is alluded to in genesis34?Because he could’nt game/flirt her easily thats what most not seem to get about that whole episode!`1P.S.People not know that parents&children use to sleep in the same room together as per LUKE11:7?The nuclear family was made to spread more cash around which helped lead to all this modern mess of the last 40 years especialy!

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      It’s true, but the predecessor culture (aka “1950s”) wasn’t that much better, in that men who had jobs that placed them in residential areas that were full of women in empty houses (kids at school) and devoid of men (all at work) had a field day with the willing, quite literally. Location, location, location, as the pick-up artists would say. Once society moved away from the family working together in the family business all day to the industrial era when the father left the house to “go to work” in the factory, the shenanigans began.

      Liked by 3 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        NOVA
        You know we have to say it right?JOHN LENNON perhaps the most famous latch- key kid before genx with his parents julia &alfred!But seriously whats your thoughts on him,no.9 dream&”god” songs&him clearly searching still for god in the 70s,&even that stuff about the 20 year deal with the devil he made in ’60 that became due on monday 11/08(09 in england ties in with the song!)1980P.S.You know even though I’am clearly more like GBFMtm,I always identified with your obvious desire to figure out the metamechanics of all this stuff too, when dal’ was running hard between ’12&’18, especialy hence my facination with john lennon&not say kirk cobain who was more of a typical case of latch key kid,certainily more than lennon born in ’40 right?

        Like

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        NOVA
        I just noticed it’s suppose to be 12/08/1980 as usual, I had MANOWARtm at vol.11!You should know how it is being a MANOWARtm man yourself right?

        Like

      • “Your kid looks like the milkman.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        NOVA
        You ever see that green acres episode ”ralphs nuptials” from ’69?They just showed it on metv at 930pm tonight, this episode not show how fast america had accepted that marriage is nothing,even saying the marriage vows without a valid ”justice of the peace”(You know that peace part makes me laugh right?) license,wheres that in that book that 95% of churchians have never read?

        Like

  9. lastholdout says:

    Hang in there Elspeth. Homeschooling was a stress for my wife too. Did our (4) children get the best education by society’s standards? No. Did they go on to get 4-year degrees? No. What they have are well-grounded Christian values that allow them to see what is happening in this world. That’s all I care about. The rest will take care of itself.

    Liked by 4 people

    • rontomlinson2 says:

      Yes. And getting well-grounded doesn’t necessarily require a great deal of formal teaching. A great deal of important learning is incidental and unplanned, even in schools, which provide far less opportunity on this score. Home educating families are naturally closer to one another since they spend more time together and thus more such opportunity is provided.

      The family is more stable and the older children can help to look after the younger ones. The bond between father and child is strong so the transmission of Christianity is stronger. The bond between mother and child is strong thus enhancing socialisation, including notably with other such families. These may turn out to be a future source of marriage material (side-stepping the conventional mating market?)

      Besides which, it isn’t necessary to follow a school curriculum, with the same content pursued in the same order.

      Anyone who really knows something (e.g. if they earn a living by it) knows that the subject is generally taught badly and inefficiently, with many common errors. It follows that parents would do well to teach their children the things that they themselves know. With short daily lessons this is accomplished surprisingly quickly.

      There’s plenty of time left over for reading, video games, movies, and so on, which are all themselves highly educational and require minimal supervision.

      It’s normal, or used to be, for children to want to follow in their parents’ footsteps. Plus to develop their own interests on top of that.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        There’s an enormous amount of time wasted in public schools – well not really wasted from the perspective of the parents and schools since it also functions as free childcare.

        You can do 2 – 3 hours in the morning and 2-3 hours in the afternoon (separated by lunch/playtime) and they’ll probably get a better education than they would at 95+ % of public schools. No need for “homework” either.

        Liked by 5 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        CAMERON
        Your right about school mainly being a time waster!You know about that book by john taylor gatto(who died in ’18).”the underground history of american education”?That was the best thing ”arseniotoadhall” ever told us about except maybe his, 3 ninja lesbian wives that is!Read the first chapter ”the way it use to be!”P.S.I don’t have to tell you I was first ,driving a car in a feild at age 6(I was about the size of a ten year old boy at the time though!) do I?See all these geny&z kids who still have never driven a car yet?How weird you think they seem to me?NOVAP.S.You still thinking about ”latch key lennon”?

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Oscar says:

    On Topic: speaking of Christians losing their livelihood because of their faith…

    It’s an outstanding documentary. I highly recommend you watch, or at least listen to it, if you have the time.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      From the video description:

      Juan Riesco grew Nini’s Deli from its humble origins to #1 in Chicago on Yelp before the Black Lives Matter movement cancelled it in early June 2020.
      …..
      After the death of George Floyd, the Black Lives Matter movement promoted posting a black square on social media to show solidarity with the cause. When Juan failed to take this step, hundreds of people went online to accuse him of racism. Juan gently responded to each individual by explaining that he was a Christian and could not endorse the anti-Christian beliefs of the Black Lives Matter organization
      …..
      Even as he lost his business and experienced betrayal by friends, Juan’s faith in Christ and resolve grew. Juan considers the story of Nini’s to be a victory story as many have come to Christ and been inspired by his courage.

      Liked by 5 people

  11. thedeti says:

    However, contemporary women are NOT acting according to their true nature, either according to God’s covenant order or according to their simple biological natures. Instead, today’s women are acting according to their artificially elevated sexual expression, because the natural biological checks on that have been taken away by technologically, quite deliberately.

    I don’t agree with this.

    Women’s true nature is unrestricted sexual conduct for seeking out the most attractive men to have sex with. To get the best genes she can get for reproduction; and then get the most resources she can get from whomever she can get them. All that is absolutely necessary is to get alpha genes for strong healthy babies. She can get resources from the alpha sperm provider (strongly preferred), but that’s not necessary. She can get resources from a beta man, other men, women, Daddy government, church, charity, or from whomever else will give them to her.

    Women’s preferences (unrestricted sexual expression, ready availability for sex with attractive sexy men) are their true sexual nature. The pregnancy risk restraints on women’s sexual conduct are not a “state of nature” insofar as it pertains to women, or humans in general. The “state of nature” is to have sex, and whatever happens happens, and in the natural order of things, many times it means pregnancy and babies. Women’s nature is to seek out and make themselves available for sex with attractive sexy men. The attractive sexy men pursue and chase those women, and have sex with them, and nature takes its course. Humans do what they do, and nature does what it (she?) does.

    With respect to nature, the only thing that has been done is controlling when pregnancy happens. Yes, this is almost always a human artifice and by definition is unnatural because it thwarts Mother Nature’s strong desire to unite sperm and egg. But women’s nature, how they are, what they are, how they behave naturally without artifice, is sex – availability for sex with men they’re attracted to.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Biologically speaking, we’re a confused, “in-between” species. That is, in between pure tournament species and pure pair-bonded species. You can see this in a wide variety of our characteristics e.g. our moderate sexual dimorphism.

      I think there is a fair amount of variation in how far women are between one extreme and the other. Both cultural variation, individual variation, etc. Where on the biological r/K spectrum a woman or group of women is/are. Oh yeah, time of the month influences that too.

      If there’s a word that describes human survival and reproductive strategy best, it’s probably “opportunist.” So, women are opportunists and will move between tournament and pair-bonded characteristics. Some natural variation, some environmental influence (e.g. women from unstable households more likely to be “tournament”) and some cultural influence.

      Alphafux/betabux but alphabux preferred.

      Not really disagreeing with you just noting women have potential to be located towards the monogamous/pair-bonded side of the spectrum. Genes, upbrining and culture probably have influence.

      Liked by 1 person

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      DETI,I’m out on the loose again!
      You know I agree with you mostly right?I think most of the young nurses were a bit surprised a guy that looks like me, was’nt even hinting about sex with them,especialy once I was walking again!But remember I’m not typical obviously,so what they thought was weird is just my natural self!One nurse in paticular in late’19(when I had fluid build-up from my heart) I think was surprised, I did’nt make any moves or suggestions to her,how I know that?She gave me extra attention,but she normaly was a caring nurse,but she gave myself more attention than I think she did others,but also I barely ask them to do anything period!So why would they not want to spend as much time with me as possible?I have to tell you, I was cooking my own food&doing my own laundry at age 16?

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Slightly OT,

      It seems women can be alpha widows to fictional dudes they read about in romance novels – they come back looking for the book years after reading it. A dude that spanks them or “forces” them or who is a mean jerk or cruel, or a Sultan who purchases them. You can’t make this stuff up.

      https://neurotoxinweb.wordpress.com/2021/01/04/red-pill-in-fiction-librarythings-name-that-book/

      Liked by 1 person

  12. feeriker says:

    Anyone working for a mid size or large corporation should do several things: get off social media, or close your profile to the world, use a different name, never invite coworkers or customers onto your profile.

    Then don’t discuss your opinions in the workplace and stay silent.

    THIS.

    The only social media account I have under my own real name is a LinkedIn account, and that solely for professional networking. I make ABSOLUTELY sure that I NEVER participate in any discussions or threads that lead to expressing “unorthodox” personal opinions. On LinkedIn, like the rest of mainstream social media, “unorthodox” means anything not Marxist-Left SJW dogma. This is why I almost never participate in any discussions at all, as even “professional” ones can’t seem to keep ideology and politics out of them. I keep the account solely to advertise my skills and services (and to its credit, it landed me my last two long-term jobs). As for LinkedIn specifically, I see its utility in fulfilling its primary original purpose (i.e., connecting professionals for professional goals such as work opportunities) greatly diminishing over time. It’s already degenerated largely to the level of an on-line nightclub/gossip forum for Millennials and Z’ers. Sadly, having an account is also becoming a de facto requirement in order to get noticed or hired in many professions.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Oscar says:

    So, you think that keeping quiet will appease the Marxist Revolution?

    We’re not dealing with reasonable people here.

    Remember when North Koreans went to the gulag for failing to mourn emotionally enough for Kim Jong-Il’s death? It’s like that.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Excellent article!
        …men tend to act as warriors, who emphasize winning and proving points; women tend to be empathetic, and place far greater value on people’s feelings. But feelings have no business in academia. Intellectuals should be primarily interested in the acquisition of truth, and truth is usually offensive. …
        If masculine values were still dominant in academia, the personal views of eccentric professors would be irrelevant, only the quality of their research would matter. For example, hunting down and exposing some professor for holding wrong views, or engaging in controversial research, or simply making a student “feel” uncomfortable or “triggering them” during a lecture, would not be done in the masculine academic culture of the past, as it is done routinely in the feminine academic culture of today. …
        A society that maligns masculinity can never value truth. Truth is neutral to how people feel, and is therefore an offensive concept in today’s culture.
        Truth disturbs our moral sensibilities and is indifferent to our sufferings. As such, maturity eludes a society that puts itself in conflict with the truth. Anyone desiring to live an adult lifestyle must grapple with the harshness of unpleasant truths. Failing to do so relegates us to a state of permanent infancy.

        I would have just “liked” your comment instead of posting this excerpt, if I could “like” comments here, but you see, I’m still languishing in moderation because my ideas hurt other people’s feelings. Even the WordPress platform is feminized. There is no option provided to “dislike” a comment. Can’t be hurting any feelings. LOL

        Liked by 3 people

  14. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    FERRIKER&OSCAR
    I see both of your veiwpoints!I also know a young(32?) legal aid woman on linkedin that was trying to help me with a legal issue a while back after talking to her in e-mail I found her, linkedin account!But oscar,every time I think of the future one film pops up in my head!Dawn of the dead the ’78 in italy/’79 in us version of course, not the sexed up remake in ’04!That dos’nt seem where were headed especialy now!?

    Like

  15. Elspeth says:

    Remember I mentioned that there are increasing numbers of men under 40 who have ZERO interest in what we refer to as “the traditional model”? I put that in quotes because lastholdout is absolutely right about the truly traditional family provision model. What refer to as traditional is fallout from the industrial revolution. But I digress.

    Anyway, here’s a guy who can afford for his wife to stay home with their new baby, but views her sudden maternal shift as potentially a mental illness or something:

    https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/03/sudden-sahm-concerns-care-and-feeding.html

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      It makes sense, because it isn’t what he signed up for. His wife is changing the game on him. I didn’t see him saying anywhere he was interested in a traditional marriage, or that they had ever discussed that as being in the works.

      I think the most telling thing from that link is how the advice columnist responded — all support for whatever the woman wants, man needs to bend to her wishes. Switch the sexes on that one, lol. The whole thing plays according to the same script, really, always — whatever the woman wants, you support, period.

      Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        I don’t mean “you” as in you, Elspeth, but “you” as in us in general.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        I agree that the advice columnist’s response was telling. no argument from me on that score. All on the wife’s side.

        But here’s what stood out to me, as we know two young-ish couples where the husband is resisting kids because he doesn’t want their life to change, And several husbands who are resistant to the idea of their wives devoting themselves to caring for their children full time.

        It is a fairly typical occurrence that some men want the marriage and family without losing out on many of the perks they enjoyed as DINKs.

        The notion that a woman can push out a kid (or, two, or three, or even five as in our case) and then suddenly be okay with handing her nursing infant off to a stranger for the sake of money is something that should be considered before kids. As much as I feel for the two young wives we know whose husbands are suddenly anti-kids, at least they have a clear understanding that having kids means their lives are never going to go back to the way it was, at least not for at least two decades.

        I thought I was going to be a working wife and mother, and while the notion didn’t thrill me, I knew SAM and I had never discussed my being at home full time. I never mentioned it, either. He declared out of the blue one day, “You need to quit that job. You can finish school later, too (I did finish later). We’ll figure it out, because you need to be at home.”

        I didn’t realize at the time how unusual that was.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        At Elspeth,

        I know of two young women at work who are very attractive and nice. More attractive than their husbands. In both cases, the women want to have a baby and the man wanted to get a puppy instead and focus on their hobby cars. I don’t understand a man who has an attractive young wife who wants to have your baby and he won’t get her pregnant but instead wants a dog and hobbies. This is crude but I’d knock her up a thousand times – I guess I am just instinctively a natural dad – babies make me happy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah I guess what I saw in the article was that they had discussed prior to marriage what the arrangement would be, and then she wanted to change it. That’s a no-no. I mean you can try, but it’s a recipe for an instant marital problem, if either party wants to renegotiate something that was decided and agreed prior to getting married. We may have scorn for that guy who doesn’t want a SAHM, but it’s his life, and he specifically vetted for a non-SAHM. If women are not capable of sticking to that commitment they make prior to marrying, then they should choose a guy who is more of the “we will figure it out and do what works” category, of which there are many.

        I do not doubt that there are many men who do not want SAHMs. I have seen both the SAHM model (where the H is high income enough — that usually means a lot higher than W — for the loss of W’s income to not make a big difference), and marriages where there is not a SAHM (tend to be more egalitarian, where the H and W earn around the same) in that high education/career set. I have seen both types “work” in terms of lasting, not divorcing, and raising kids successfully. I think issues arise where people are not on the same page, or change the page that they are on in medias res, so to speak.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        Point taken, Nova. I didn’t get that they had an agreement. I got that it was strongly implied that she would go back to work, and I agree with you. He absolutely vetted for a high-powered career woman, and she switched it on him.

        You make good points. I think I have grown, over the years, so exasperated with couples who seem ill-prepared for the reality that having children is a major game changer., that I saw what I wanted to see.

        And yes, my bias towards the idea of mothers raising their own children rather than using daycare played a big role in how I perceived the story.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Elspeth says:

    @ Nova:

    So we had a lively discussion about the Slate column in our house this morning. The general consensus was that it is completely immature to get married and expect that things should work as is there is a contractual agreement. Marriage has some transactional aspects, yes. But a true marriage is not transactional, and even it is it becomes less so over time. The law of love should overtake all of that.

    In other words (because I read them your comment), marriage is absolutely one of those relationships where an asterisk should be understood if not outright stated. Conditions in marriage are always subject to change because circumstances are subject to change even if the people don’t grow and mature.

    We agreed that for the sake of the marriage, that the wife should honor her husband if her working is a deal breaker (mainly because the child would fare better coming from an intact home). But the husband is displaying a high level of immaturity by expecting that major life changes are not going to result in a change of perspectives as they go through life together.

    We also think that this marriage may be in trouble and they need to communicate now. Whether she goes back to work, or not, there’s now an elephant in the room that isn’t going to go away. Resentment has already been introduced (hers if she has to leave her baby or his if he ends up as sole provider) .

    SAM’s take: “So he wants her to leave their child to go work for another man to make money to pay another woman to raise her child, so that he can continue enjoy the extras in life. Okay, and if that’s what he vetted for, more power to him. She’s just immature as he is for not recognizing that there exists such a thing as maternal instinct, and not at least positing a scenario in which handing her baby over to a stranger would be emotionally devastating, and what they might do in that case. Not everyone is meant to be parents. Who doesn’t anticipate that having children turns your life upside down in unexpected ways?”

    Our oldest daughter is more than certain that an ambitious, tenacious woman would in short order find herself engaged in entrepreneurial pursuits or work from home opportunities. And she’s probably going to be successful at it. If she is who he thinks she is, his lack of imagination might be holding their family back from something that would benefit their family and their daughter in ways he can’t see right now.

    That’s the conclusion at Casa Agent Man.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Pingback: The Spiritual Confusion of Clinging to the “Rules” | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: The Kardashian Fantasy | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: The Roman Life Script | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: How to Change a Hostile Culture | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s