Women Rely on a Man’s Frame for Redemptive Introspection

A woman needs a man like the church needs Christ.

Readership: All
Reader’s Note: This is part 7 of a series on masculinity.
Length: 2,700 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes

Introduction

A previous post, The Greatest Archetype (2021 May 21) described a comparison of Christ and the church with a man and his wife, using the story of St. Peter.  The main driving points of this post are summarized as follows.

• The church/Peter/woman is in a natural state of rebellion against God/man.
• Only when broken and inevitably failing in human weakness, does the church/woman submit to the authority of Christ/husband as head.
• The “born again” experience described in John 3 is not a conscious act of the will. Instead, it has more to do with the breaking of the will (similar to breaking a horse). This “breaking” aspect of the “born again” experience is not something that can be entered into willingly. For most people, it is unexpected, uncontrollable, and it is strongly resisted. (However, it does help if one willingly avoids indulging in idolatry (i.e. spiritual/carnal adultery), which postpones or subverts the “breaking” process.)
• As such, the wife, much like Peter in the example, needs to come to her end as the strong, independent woman that tries to usurp the husband’s headship before she will take her role as the helpmate.
• When the church/Peter/woman does get to the point of submission to Christ’s/her husband’s headship, they/she will start to see the real blessing of peace in their lives/her life.
• When the church/Peter/woman submits to Christ’s/husband’s headship, it leads to a life of peace for the soul, the blessings associated with a life of peace (not merely or necessarily material blessings) and ultimately the saving grace of Christ.
• God did not make the church/women to be able to bear the responsibility of headship, He made the church/women to fall in line and support Christ’s/a man’s headship.
• Marital headship is God’s model for the family that mirrors that of Christ and the church, albeit without the perfect headship of Christ.
• The marital relationship, with the fullness of intimately knowing another person emotionally, intellectually and physically, is richer and experiences the blessings of peace when it aligns with God’s design.

Cornerstone posted a summary of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development (2021 June 12). He states that Kohlberg concluded that women did not advance beyond the third stage of conventional morality, in which good intentions are determined by social consensus, and the morality of an action is judged by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person’s relationships: “It is OK if everyone else is doing it.”  Cornerstone further notes that Stages 4-7 of Kohlberg’s model are specifically Masculine Stages, and that they are based on Systems Thinking*. Cornerstone correctly identifies this Systems Thinking to be equivalent to Frame, and I will add that this Frame is both individual and societal-wide. It is the building of civilization, the organization of systems, law, and order. Women, apparently, cannot do it. Moreover, this line of reasoning supports the argument that women lack moral agency.

This post will take a look at how a woman is dependent on a man’s Frame to rearrange or “break her will”, bring structure and meaning to her emotionally disheveled life, and increase her overall value and status as well.  Here, I’ve collected several snippets of quotes from around the Manosphere that highlight a man’s artistry in drawing a woman closer to the heart of God.

Under the post, Parental divorce ruins daughters’ future marital commitment and confidence (2021 February 24), Kentucky Headhunter wrote,

“Studying the impact of women’s commitment to marriage is like studying the impact of unicorn farts on global warming.

Women don’t have confidence in “the marriage”. They have (or don’t have) confidence in the man.”

This is an interesting perspective which assumes women lack agency and are malleable.

Mike Davis responded with a story that backs this up.

“[Mike’s wife’s] parents divorced when she was five, the youngest of four kids. The divorce and the years until she was 18 were contentious. Nothing evil, just a lot of hate and resentment on both sides. Because of this, she saw divorce as an easy option to a marriage not working. She did say I changed her views on this fairly quickly by way of my actions and displaying what a man should be. She had not been exposed to a masculine male role model and did not know what it was supposed to look like. She said I showed her how a marriage could and should be.”

Marriage, Sex and More: Is marriage supposed to be forever? Maybe… (2021 February 24)

This implies that the connection between parental divorce and a daughter’s loss of confidence in marriage is more nuanced than Whitton, et al. had considered in the paper cited in the post about the effects of parental divorce.

My revised theory is that parental divorce causes daughters to lose confidence or faith in “something” that is intrinsic to her relationships to men (i.e. her father and husband) and this is outwardly observed in (i.e. “represented by” in the study) her confidence and commitment in marriage. I am guessing that this “something” is her hope or her faith in God.

I can also see how this would cause her to be more attracted to a different type of man, probably men who are less marriage minded and more caddish, and choose such a man for marriage, which would also contribute to marital dissolution.

Under Cane Caldo’s post, There’s No Way Around No (December 14, 2017), Caspar Reyes wrote this gem,

“While the daughter of Eve is capable of logic and reason, especially in the service of her own illogical and unreasonable ends, she is nonetheless not a man that she will be ruled by logic and reason or rule herself by them. The daughter of Eve was made to be ruled by a man, and this is the crux of the matter. She both desires this and resents it, and will deny it even whilst knowing deep down that it’s true.”

---

Quoted from Chateau Heartiste’s The Great Men on Loosed Women (2017 September 26) [emphasis mine].

“…in the Chateau Heartiste definition of modern feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Corollary: Radical female equalists seek the destruction of the feminine in women and of the masculine in men.

Constraints on female sexuality enable the full flowering of femininity. Absolute license corrupts femininity. It’s a more complicated relationship between sexual restriction and license for men. Constraints on male sexuality channel machismo to beneficial ends in a patriarchal culture, but demoralize men and corrupt their masculinity in a gynarchy such as we live in today in the West.”

Also,

“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall”

Proverbs 16:18

---

Under the post, Exposing the Truth to Others (January 1, 2018), Cill said,

“Regarding introspection, I know women who are in long-lasting relationships. They will give their man shit tests, and if he holds his frame, she will use his responses as a substitute for introspection. I suspect that if he stopped holding his frame, the relationship would not last.”

Here, Cill says that a woman uses the man’s frame, which would include his estimations of her, as a proxy for introspection. That’s deep, and I believe that’s right. That would emphasize the feminine need for a spiritual shepherd. It also reveals why the relationship is more solid when the man is the dominant figure in the conflict structure.

earlthomas786 was on to something interesting when he responded to Cill with this gem.

“While men sometimes have women’s response as a part of their introspection… it’s often not the biggest or most important. I’ve probably learned more about myself from spending more time in Eucharistic adoration and prayer and then also from failures… taking on challenges, and learning new skills.

In regard to women, however, if it wasn’t for men’s responses to [their idiosyncrasies], most of their introspection would be comprised of cat videos, traveling on expensive trips, and whatever is on TV, especially if they are childless. I think once they become mothers their children become their biggest source of introspection… and that’s a good thing.”

“Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”

1^st Timothy 2:15 (NKJV)

Of course, a woman first needs a man before she can have children.

J. T. Anderson wrote a guest post a while back, The Satanic Persuasion Formula (2018 January 20), in which he presented a model of how women fall into temptation and sin. The serpent’s original persuasion sequence (via. Genesis 3) was outlined in the following steps:

1. Exaggerate the restriction of righteousness
2. Suggest that he’s not giving her what she deserves
3. Highlight short-term pleasure, discount long-term pain

The inverse:

1. Dramatize or satirize the burden of folly
2. Discredit the source (suggest a conspiracy)
3. Acknowledge the ego
4. Discount short-term pain against long-term gain

J. T. used the following example as an illustration of what a man could say using the inverse approach.

“I think it’s a shame that so many young women are slaving away the best years of their lives to line the pockets of greedy corporation owners. Who do you think the “women’s lib” movement is really helping? We all want our talents to be acknowledged, and those who are greedy like to feed a dream to those who feel unappreciated in exchange for years of what amounts to slave labor. Sure you can have a career. But at what cost? In the end, you find out you were just another cog in someone else’s machine. Replaced as quickly as you were let in. Perhaps the initial pains of motherhood aren’t nearly as bad as the price of decades of fruitless toil. At least with children, you’re investing your effort into something that lasts.”

J. T. adds,

“Granted, if a woman has hardened her heart, she will never be receptive. But if she is merely deceived and pumped up on rhetoric, I believe it can be countered.”

J.T.’s idea is worthy of experimental investigation.

Chateau Heartiste’s post, Technology And Female Hypergamy, And The Inegalitarian Consequences (2018 January 4), mentions the necessity of men enforcing a degree of discipline over the feminine imperative (which Feminists prefer to label as “oppressive patriarchy”).

“…there was a gut instinct understanding that it was a bad arrangement to alienate 80% of men in an asexual purgatory and break the bonds of nuclear family formation by permitting women to waste years chasing the 20% of men they desire most. These traditional barricades against free-wheeling hypergamy loosened the link between raw female desire and domesticated female behavior. Women may not have liked it (though there is evidence in happiness surveys over time suggesting otherwise — aka the “tyranny of choice” paradox), but tamping down on their unfiltered and unobstructed hypergamous drive certainly was good for society as a whole.”

Further on, Roissy describes how the indulgence of the feminine imperative leads to a stronghold of societal suicide.

“It’s kind of a victorious vagina queefback loop: the greater hypergamous freedom women enjoy, the more that institutions have to bend to cater to women’s prerogatives, and the more those institutions feminize (by essentially locking out beta males from economic and sexual opportunity) the more hypergamous women become in response.”

“Female preference cascades in openly hypergamous societies are accelerating the lockout of beta males from the primest cuts of poon, while also locking out women from motherhood and happiness.”

---

Under Chateau Heartiste’s post, Is Male Hypergamy Real? NO (2018 January 5), a commenter going by the pseudonym, Abraham Lincoln, offered a cringeworthy metaphor for female behaviors from the male perspective.

“Women cannot be held to account because women are unaccountable. Like, if your dog shits in your house, yes, some discipline and probably some anger are in order, but stop and take a breath… who really is at fault here?”

In his post, When The Red Pill Meets the Crimson Pill, Heartiste offers this insight.

“Women trust the jerk because they know the jerk won’t tell them whatever he thinks will win their approval. And THAT’S how the jerk, ironically, wins their approval. By not trying for it.”

“A big reason women are attracted to jerkboys is the aversion jerkboys have for acquiescing to anyone’s demands, let alone women’s demands. That delightfully novel and romantically exhilarating jerkboy self-regard leaves a potent impression on women, who see refracted in the trait a forthrightness and strength of character and purpose that is lacking in niceguys.”

From a general reading of the Manosphere, we know that the proverbial ‘jerkboy’ is different from the supplicating betaboy in that he ‘doesn’t care’ about the outcome of the interaction. I make the assertion here, that the reason that the jerkboy doesn’t (seem to) care, could result from two states of mind.

1. He has no vested interest in the outcome (i.e. the pagan jerkboy).
2. He trusts God with the outcome (i.e. the man of faith).

In the first case, the lack of vested interest could arise from a number of reasons. One reason is because he feels no visceral attraction to the woman in question. Another reason could be that he is spinning a few other plates, and isn’t putting all his sperm in one basket. A third possibility is that he might be a Dark Triad sort of personality, who is incapable of any real empathy. All these reasons allow him an added degree of emotional freedom, which in practice, gives him the ability to remain psychologically independent, and thus retain his Frame quite easily

In the second case, the man may or may not have any vested interest in the outcome, as described above, but regardless of this, he believes in the power of his honesty, displays faith in allowing God to work the magic of redemption in the woman’s heart, and gives her the freedom to choose accordingly.

In both of these cases, we see that it is crucial for the man to retain Frame.

Commenter King adds the following gem, which explains the spiritual reason why unregenerated women are attracted to unrefined men.

“Both men and women are drawn to the truth. The truth is painful, especially to the deluded who have only ever known the intoxication of “pretty lies.” Virtuous men are not deterred by pain because it is the sign of proximity to truth.”

“Women trust the jerk because, especially today, truth telling itself is defined as “jerkiness.” How dare you upset our fraudulent tranquility! But once she submits to the truth, the utility of being a ‘jerk’ vanishes.”

Yes, women are attracted to the ‘jerkboy’, but only during the early stages of programming.

Conclusions

The state of being unregenerated, viz. feral, is the factory default setting for humans, and especially for females of the species. I am sure there are a few regenerated women out there, but good luck finding them.

As evidenced in these quotations and comments, a woman needs a man to set her straight so that she does not destroy herself, the family, and society at large. Within Christian doctrine, this form of shelter and security for the woman is called a “spiritual covering”. A man needs to be disciplined and do a considerable amount of work in order to provide a proper spiritual covering to a woman.

A righteous man will have to start from scratch, choose an undefiled woman wisely, and mold her into a regenerated state. Believing in Christ introduces a parallel universe in which it is possible to escape the feral nature of the self, and the traps and machinations of others.

Men need regeneration as well. Unfortunately, it is rather common for women to be unable to discern the underlying state of mind within a man who remains emotionally and psychologically independent from her, which leads many (initially) innocent women down the ravaging path of revilement, heartbreak, and eventually the exhilarating but d@mning carousel.

Women need strong, faithful male influences, as well as other, wiser women, to help them tell the difference, choose wisely, and resist temptation.

Related

* Systems Thinking is an overall dynamic evaluation that simplifies complex dynamic systems into a collection of positive and negative causal feedback loops covering a time delay. It considers the causality of events as a whole, so it can integrate seemingly independent events and divergent data to understand the overall interaction. Thus, when faced with complex interrelated events, a Systems Thinking approach can analyze problems in general through the exploration of causal relationships and information feedback, and can overcome the erroneous cognitions caused by intuitive thinking and subjective judgments, and thus, can solve the problem thoroughly. A scientific coverage of Systems Thinking was introduced by P.M. Senge in his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, 2006.

• Chateau Heartiest: Chicks Dig Jerks In Every Way: The Science (May 18, 2012)
• Σ Frame: Discipline in Marriage