The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet

Conveying messages, negotiating misadventures, fully responsible, but powerless to act.

Readership: Men
Theme: Faux-Masculine Archetypes
Length: 1,700 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes + a humorous 4:11 minute video

Husbands are Heads with no Headship Authority

Bnonn Tennant, Michael Foster, and Doug Wilson have touted a model of Christian Masculinity that we’ll look at in this post. They have assiduously avoided nailing it down in concise words, preferring instead to describe it in terms of what it is not. But by reading their walls of text in blog posts and newsletters, it appears to be one in which a husband accepts full responsibility for his wife and family, but care is taken to exercise as little authority as possible, other than what can be done through kind verbal teaching and prayer, so as to not antagonize the Curse of Eve in the wife. Tennant and Foster call this headship, but when we comb through the details, we find that the husband is not actually the head, but merely a figurehead. This is because a husband having “full authority” is toxic, or so they say. The intricacies of Tennant and Foster’s model have previously been critiqued by Cane Caldo, Dalrock, and Full Metal Patriarchy. Dalrock and Full Metal Patriarchy have addressed the nuances of Wilson’s version in many posts.

As a case study of this model, take a look at this newsletter written by Bnonn Tennant and Michael Foster entitled Toxic Sexuality (2021-12-20). About half way down we find this.

“One form of genuinely toxic masculinity is hyper-patriarchy.

This is a theological error, where a father makes himself the sole mediator between his church or state, and his wife or children.

Essentially, this type of man sees his authority over his family as absolute, so the church and state must go through him to gain access to his family in any and every way.”

So if I’m getting this right, Tennant and Foster’s idea of Christian Masculinity is that a man should never assume that he should have absolute authority over his home and family, because that would be toxic hyper-patriarchy. (Oh no!) Instead, the church and state should have direct intervention, as if the man should not be trusted to handle his own affairs within the home.

Cuckolded by the State!

This is clearly a sin against the integrity of the family.

So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9 (NKJV)

If someone were to ask why the church or state would want to bypass the man of the family to access the wife and children, it would be apparent that the motivation is not for the best interests of the family.

No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

Matthew 12:29; Mark 3:27 (NKJV)

In order to rebuild Tennant and Foster’s argument, we’ll need to cherry pick an anecdotal example of an already broken family that needs to be protected from an abusive husband/father, and use this as a justification for binding the man of the house. But it would be wrong to assume that all the other decent men who are not abusers should be thrown into this mix of miscreants. Well, the fact of the matter is that they already are! Married men are already bound by the Duluth model, No Fault divorce, and the Bradley Amendment. How much more binding do we need? But Tennant and Foster are making the case that it would be theologically incorrect for a man to have significant authority over his family and they did not mention any exceptions for respectable men! It seems that letting a man glorify God by handling his own affairs in his own home is an atrocity in their eyes!

But Husbands should be Responsible Figureheads

And as if that were not bad enough, the next line in the newsletter is…

“Now, as head of his household, he is its chief representative, and a mediator between it and the outside world.”

If I’m interpreting this correctly so far, a husband is like a sock puppet ambassador. Like an ambassador, he is a mediator, but not the sole mediator. Like an ambassador, he should represent and remediate any messy situations that might accrue between his family members and the church and/or the state. Like an ambassador, he doesn’t get to express his own views, or do what he wants, or make the larger decisions. But unlike an ambassador, he shouldn’t have the authority to make any necessary adjustments, because that’s “toxic hyper-patriarchy.” So he’s a sock puppet ambassador for his family, namely the wife — and she can always call the police if she doesn’t like either the message or the messenger.

To me, this sounds like responsibility without authority. Okay, we see this all the time, and this is why husbands everwhere are throwing up their hands. But the kicker is that Tennant and Foster make this out to be the correct doctrinal stance, as they asserted earlier that if a man were to have such authority (as “sole mediator”), then that would be “toxic masculinity” and “hyper-patriarchy.”

IMHO, saying that husbands are not to be trusted with authority over their own homes is misanthropy!

Case Study — Husband stands by when Wife breaks the law

To exemplify their point, Tennant and Foster offer the hypothetical example of a wife who breaks the law, saying that she must answer to the law for her crime, not to her husband, and that it is the responsibility of the law to hold her accountable, not her husband.

Yes, that’s how civil authorities work, but they’re using this to argue that the husband is irrelevant — not that he has no authority (which is basically true for the majority of men these days), but that he shouldn’t have any authority! (Again, because that’s “toxic hyper-patriarchy.”)

Well, well… This stance coincides quite nicely with the goal of misandric Feminism to transfer all civil authority from husbands and men over to the state. Tennant and Foster add the condemnation of false guilt to this agenda by rationalizing the theological application.

Husbands should only have enough Authority to fulfill their Responsibilities

Further down in the same section, Tennant and Foster attempt to shore up their earlier misgivings towards husbands with another contradiction, by arguing that a man’s authority should be on par with his responsibility.

“Authority and responsibility should always be at a relative parity. This is because authority is given specifically to fulfill particular responsibilities with regard to ordering the world in accordance with God’s will. Responsibilities cannot be fulfilled unless they’re accompanied by the authority to do so. But trying to take authority without responsibility is at best larping—and at worst to make yourself a tyrant.”

According to their view, if a man is expected to have full responsibility, then he should also have full authority. But he shouldn’t have full authority over his wife and family because that’s either larping or tyrannical. Apparently only the law and big government should be allowed to exercise hyper-patriarchy. Or maybe a more logical explanation would be that since husbands should not have full authority, then they should not have full responsibility either, but I doubt they would agree with that conclusion. Somehow, I’m getting the sense that their underlying views are not that far removed from the feminist view that women should have full authority, and men should have full responsibility. Thus, the mountains of text are obviously necessary to fully expound on the logical backflips needed to square it with the scriptures and make a convincing case.

Epilogue

The newsletter is titled “Toxic Sexuality” but the content is actually about “Toxic Patriarchal Authority.” Instead, this confusing newsletter should have been named, “How to dupe Christian men into complying with misandry by painting yourself into a corner and calling it theologically correct”, thereby encapsulating modern Christian Masculinity quite well.

Nevertheless, we can thank Tennant and Foster (and Wilson too) for giving us an illustration of Christian Masculinity as a sock puppet ambassador.

As I said in the beginning, it’s hard to identify exactly what this model of masculinity is all about. But we can be sure that this model specifically stresses the following.

  • Tis better to err on the side of extreme caution, regarding the dictates of others (e.g. the church, the state, and the wife), lest ye be seen as “toxic”.
  • Avoid being a toxic gremlin by not exercising too much masculine authority.
  • Take care that one’s responsibility is adequate, but not disproportional to one’s authority.
  • Allow the church and state direct access to his family in any and every way.
  • Represent the family, i.e. the wife.
  • Mediate any mishaps or misfortunes that might occur.

It sounds like a Feminine Imperative recipe for keeping the husband busy fighting fires on a daily basis. If a man’s home is his castle, then a husband with limited authority is like a castle without walls nor moat. He and his family are left defenseless and disenfranchised, subject to the demands and whims of others. All his assets, yea even his own life, are open for the taking.

Oh, but he is supposed to lay down his life, right? (Ephesians 5:25)

Not if he doesn’t have a Life of his own to lay down. A responsible figurehead with no headship authority is not a hero who sacrifices himself for the welfare of others. He is little more than a breadwinner that must be tacitly tolerated and carefully excluded from matters of import. At worst, he is fodder for the cannons of misandry.

In fact, this is the same model of masculinity that we often see in popular culture — the workhorse who is held fully responsible for anything that might happen, but who is cluelessly naive and too powerless to take any action that might have any effect.

Masculinity Rating

Strength: 0-3
Honor: 0-2
Authority: < 5 by definition; 0 in reality
Respect: 0
Purpose: 0

Average Score: 0.5

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Archetypes, Churchianity, Counterfeit/False Paradigms, Discerning Lies and Deception, Faux-Masculinity, Fundamental Frame, Holding Frame, Identity, Leadership, Male Power, Models of Failure, Personal Domain, Power, Purpose, Respect, Self-Concept, Sphere of Influence. Bookmark the permalink.

157 Responses to The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet

  1. Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  2. Scott says:

    …but, but, but….

    What if he orders me to become a prostitute and rob banks all day long???!!!

    Liked by 4 people

    • locustsplease says:

      The bank robbery! I hear that one all the time. Yep! That’s why men are looking for a nice submissive woman — so she can hold a gun and watch the door. But the reality is, since they lie about everything, I know they really crave this excitement. It’s why they keep bringing it up.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        As you may know, there is an epidemic of Christian husbands/bank robbery masterminds/pimps out there.

        It’s hell for the wives.

        Liked by 8 people

      • Scott says:

        It’s the REAL reason tens of thousands of men organized groups like Promise Keepers. The implicit question was, “How can we get our wives to behave like sexual automatons bringing us stacks of stolen cash?”

        Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        No, there’s no Christian bank robbers or pimps out there.

        But there IS an epidemic of Christian men and husbands who want to have sex.

        So, you see, the real question is um, but, um, what if he wants me to, like, you know, have sex and stuff? What if he wants me to do positions other than missionary in the dark? What if he wants me to like, um, put, um,,,, (eww gross) his thing in my mouth? Cuz, um, like, I used to do that, but I’m a Christian woman now and I’m a wife now, and Christian wives don’t do those things! I don’t wanna do that stuff anymore. I’m a NICE girl now. Nice girls don’t do…. THAT.

        THAT is what this is all really about. This is about Christian women who don’t want to have sex with their husbands because they…. wait for it….. aren’t sexually attracted to the men they had to ‘settle for’ to get married.

        You all know I’m right. And so do you, former Manosphere Ladies Auxiliary commenters.

        Liked by 5 people

      • info says:

        “Promise Keepers” was a set up all along by Wolves. We must ask God to destroy utterly those subverters and wipe them out from under Heaven like Amalek and Sodom.

        God’s Judgment must come especially on those his enemies who push this stuff.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “What if he orders me to become a prostitute and rob banks all day long???!!!”

      Pimps and bank robbers … two bad boy, dangerous, criminal types that know how to exercise authority and make life exciting. They are both panty droppers and we all know a woman or two who left her boring husband for this type of man/excitement.

      I know a law enforcement office that worked doing drug/prostitution busts. He told me about a pimp called Iceberg Slim who wrote a book about his life titled, Pimp: The Story of My Life. It was the gold standard textbook of how to be a pimp for decades after it was written in the 1960s. He was not a good man but he was charismatic and authoritative and his women did what he told them to do.

      With bank robbers you have Bonnie swooning for Clyde. She was married to another man who was in jail for robbery when she met Clyde.

      Women swooning for dangerous, criminal men is so well documented that the DSM-V has term for it, hybristophilia. The issue isn’t Bob the plumber using his authority to tell his wife to rob banks or be a prostitute for vacation cash. The issue is Bob the plumber’s authority isn’t supported by society/church, and is actually undermined to the point where he can’t stop his daughter or wife from abandoning him for the pimp and bank robber. That’s the real problem.

      Liked by 8 people

      • info says:

        This is why executions for murderers must happen. I think in Jesus’ day what they did was this:

        “Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [263-4] and the Synoptics [406-7] that what Jesus underwent in the Passion was a “status degradation ritual” designed to humiliate in every way: The mockery, the buffeting, the spitting; the crucifixion with its symbolic pinioning of hands and legs signifying a loss of power, and loss of ability to control the body in various ways, including befouling one’s self with excrement.”

        https://tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.php

        If this happened to criminals. And criminals are made to look like losers. Will women swoon for them then?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, that would certainly make them less attractive. And God says that deterrents work, despite what the Left says. Deuteronomy 19:20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “And criminals are made to look like losers. Will women swoon for them then?”

        Unfortunately, I firmly believe that the the answer is that women will still swoon for criminals. They were willing to risk death to break society’s laws. That’s still bad boy status. The execution just eliminated them from being an option and doing further damage.

        Have a family member who was a commodities trader after playing college football. The wife left him for a guy who was a low level criminal type dealing drugs and committing crimes to make a few dollars on the side. He’d done some jail time. Old Carl the commodities trader just wasn’t the exciting jock he used to be and she bolted.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Hey, all those “Christian romance novels” that nice married Christian women love are just like Hallmark Channel movies at Christmas time. I’ll break it down.

        — The female lead is always an uppity city girl who moves back to her small hometown to: take care of her sick parent(s) / help her best friend get over a broken heart / some bad, bad man in the city made her lose her job and she returns home because she “did what was right in her heart”.

        — The girl can afford a nice home, a newer Volvo or Saab type of car by working part time at: the local ski resort / the local church / the small local bakery.

        — The girl always has a gazillion skills, like: making very detailed, beautiful Christmas decorations for her tree / making homemade bread everyday / churning her own butter.

        — The male lead is always: a firefighter / a recently discharged military type who decided out of the blue to come to this small nowheresville town to start his post military life / a champion swimmer but had that injury and now is the physical education teacher at the local small, Christian school.

        — The villian is: the girl’s former big-city-boyfriend who runs a corporation and who wants to dig up the town because a gazillion tons of coal are under it / a local developer who wants ruin the town by building shopping mall, or more housing which the town (of course) doesn’t need / the girl’s former boyfriend from the town who is now mayor and holds a grudge and doesn’t-want-her-to-be-happy.

        — There is always a comic relief: a cousin who never left the hometown / the old busybody neighbor who actually is so-very-wise about men / the old boyfriend from her high school days who is now the town dog catcher / the local pastor at the church who just smiles a lot.

        — There’s always an animal (usually a dog) that is smarter than EVERYONE in the movie.

        — Male lead and girl meet at: an engagement party / at her work and he behaves like a buffoon, but he is sooooo hot / on the local main street when she drops all the toys and baby clothing she bought and was going to donate to The Salvation Army for Christmas.

        — Their first kiss is always on Christmas Eve.

        — It ALWAYS snows on Christmas day.

        Liked by 4 people

    • When they have to resort to silly exceptions to justify their broader agenda, I view it as a concession speech.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        The silly exceptions fall into the category of the opposite being true. For any accusation/exception that comes from a position that is in opposition to God’s principles you can be assured that the opposite it true.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      It’s more, “What if he orders me to have an abortion?”

      Well, dearie… this is why you get your fathers, uncles, granddads, older brothers, and cousins to help you. This is why you select for character, not tingles. The men YOU pick for yourself are the kinds of men who pimp you out, turn you into Bonnie to their Clyde, and tell you to murder your children.

      Liked by 5 people

      • feeriker says:

        “The men YOU pick for yourself are the kinds of men who pimp you out, turn you into Bonnie to their Clyde, and tell you to murder your children.”

        And they’ll love every millisecond of it.

        Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      I begin to believe that any wife who poses this nonsensical worst-case scenario is actually fantasizing that her husband will make her do such a thing. She simply can’t stand the thought of the beta schlub she’s married to being the one to make her do it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “I begin to believe that any wife who poses this nonsensical worst-case scenario is actually fantasizing that her husband will make her do such a thing.”

        There’s an easy way to find out whether this is the case. Agree and amplify.

        1) Bring up husband’s authority and wifely submission.
        2) When she objects with the “What if he makes me do X?” then…
        3) You reply, “Whoah!!! That would be an awesome exciting life! You can X this and X that! You can X all the way to the moon and back, and then X some more just for the hell of it, and best of all, you can enjoy all the fun of it without any sense of responsibility!!! Then at the judgment seat, you can totally get off the hook by saying you were being submissive to your husband in faith — and God will commend you for it!
        4) Watch her reaction.

        If her dumbfounded reaction slowly turns into amazement, then it’s true.

        If her dumbfounded reaction slowly turns into shock, horror, and disgust, it’s not.

        Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      About the worst real life one I’ve seen among Christian couples is “He ordered me to stop breast feeding.” — This seem to be related to the husband wanting sexual access to his wife.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        “About the worst real life one I’ve seen among Christian couples is “He ordered me to stop breast feeding.” — This seem to be related to the husband wanting sexual access to his wife.”

        Yeah, I can see how a woman would use the baby as an excuse to evade other marital duties, like giving due affection to the husband. Most of the women I’ve talked with about this don’t like breastfeeding. To me, it seems like the joy of a lifetime, but they don’t see it that way. They say it’s a lot of trouble, embarassing, uncomfortable, messy, and sometimes painful. But apparently, it’s better than lovemaking with hubby.

        I had to monitor my ex to make sure she would breast feed the children at least once a day, otherwise, she would always give them milk formula.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. thedeti says:

    The positions and arguments of Bnonn, Foster, and Wilson can all be summed up as:

    We need to keep women from getting mad at us so they won’t refuse us sex and won’t leave our churches. See, we need women to have sex with us and do all the churchy volunteer stuff. So we need to keep them happy. But we can’t talk about actual, real Biblical authority. So we need to phrase headship and authority to be more than feminists want, but less than is actually Biblical.

    Please, women, don’t get mad at us! Don’t go away! Keep having sex with us! Keep serving coffee and teaching Sunday School to the kids! We will pretend to be dominant and have authority. You pretend to be submissive, feminine, traditional women.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      @thedeti,
      So your assessment of the Sock Puppet model is that it’s basically the same as the old “Happy wife, happy life” outlook on marriage. But they can’t describe it like this, because (1) it’s too cliche, and (2) it’s already been debunked. The thing that bothers me is that they whitewash it with a truckload of words and Bible verses like it’s the esoteric gospel of marriage.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Maybe. It could also be “hey, we are not feminists! We are antifeminist! We are traditional (but not THAT traditional)! We are conservative, but we’re not evil patriarchs! Feminism’s bad, mmmkay, but so’s patriarchy. We’re not feminists; but we’re not patriarchs either!”

        Liked by 4 people

    • feeriker says:

      The TL;DR version is “Women don’t do real, biblical Christianity, only churchianity that gives them the feel-goods and tells them what they want to hear.”

      Real Christianity was imposed upon women back in the bad ol’ days of Patriarchy (which, not coincidentally were also the days when families and communities were functional entities). Churchianity didn’t metastasize into the destructive cancer it has become today until Patriarchy was dismantled and Eve’s feral nature was allowed free reign.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        “The TL;DR version is “Women don’t do real, biblical Christianity, only churchianity that gives them the feel-goods and tells them what they want to hear.”

        Do you mean “Women don’t do…” or “Women won’t do…”? I think the assumption is the latter, and that’s why they have to cajole and rationalize the complex work-around.

        Like

  4. whiteguy1 says:

    No deti, ya got it backwards… “What if he orders me NOT to have a abortion?”

    That’s where it begins and ends…

    “I’ve got my hooks into him with my 2.5 kids. I’ll be damned if I will ever host his terrible/horrible genes in my body again!”

    Liked by 2 people

  5. info says:

    It seems skinsuit wearers are hard at work in preaching another Jesus and a false Gospel.

    May God annihilate them for their war against his people and his Kingdom. We must all pray for said Justice to be done.

    Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      When you look at the last 2,000 years of history, you’ll notice that skinsuit wearers of one flavor or another have been more or less ceaselessly working to undermine and usurp the True Faith, being very often overt in their heretical intentions. Comparing “the church” as it has existed for all but the first century of the Faith’s existence to what Christ Himself and Paul presented us with as a model in the New Testament reveals this more starkly than anything else.

      Very simply put, mankind in general really doesn’t want to follow Jesus at all, and women, in particular, REALLY don’t like the “real deal.” Thus the ceaseless effort by skinsuits (growing numbers of whom today are women) to create and maintain simulacra that vaguely look and feel like the real Faith, but without all that yucky self-sacrifice, obedience, and submission stuff.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Oscar says:

    Jack,

    I don’t understand your point about the wife who breaks the law. What do you think is the theologically correct way to handle that?

    Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Oscar,

      You ask a good question. In T&Fs example, as Jack relayed it in the post, we aren’t given the exact nature of the law the wife broke. My initial thought was that the wife committed a crime worthy of jail time, which muddies the waters of the point some since while the husband does still have authority, she’s going to be subject to incarceration to pay her debt.

      But what if the example of the wife breaking the law was in the form of a simple traffic violation? Say she’s caught speeding a few times, or better yet, violating “texting and driving” laws because those minivan selfies with all the car seats in the back elicit all sorts of “what a great mom” comments that women love on social media. Now the civil penalty is monetary and it’s up to her husband to reign in her behavior to prevent her from further violations. He gets to do this any way he sees fit without violating the guidelines God gives husbands in the bible.

      Basically, T&F have either not thought scripture well, which is bad enough, or have thought through scripture, know what it says and are intentionally misguiding people, which is evil. Either way, they shouldn’t be teaching on the topic of marriage.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      Oscar,
      Tennant and Foster gave this example in the newsletter. (Click on the link to read the original text.) They said a wife who breaks the law must answer to the law for her crime, not to her husband, and that it is the responsibility of the law to hold her accountable, not her husband. Tennant and Foster assume that this is Biblical, or “theologically correct”, or whatever, and that this is how things should work. Their implied conclusion is that the husband shouldn’t try to interfere in this, and if he does, then it’s “toxic patriarchy”.

      I think the theologically correct way to handle this is to simply state that, yes, this is how it is in the current day, but it’s not necessarily Biblical.

      Based on accounts in the OT, the partriarch of the offending party should meet with the patriarch of the offended party and hash out some way to handle the situation together, whether that be tribute, or an indemnity, or punishment, or whatever.

      In a modern context, this would mean the husband should handle the situation and work out the solution. But this has problems in the modern day application.
      — This assumes that the wife and family are more or less obedient to the husband’s decisions.
      — The nuclear family doesn’t have this kind of social and financial power.

      The NT recognizes the authority of governments (Romans 13:1), but Jesus said it is better to work out your problems with others so that you don’t have to turn to those authorities (Matthew 5:24-26), which is a hat tip to how things were done in the OT. Again, this goes back to the authority of the husband, as the wife would not be in a position or a state of mind to successfully negotiate her own transgression.

      Of course, Tennant and Foster won’t say any of this, because not only would they offend wives by asking them to submit, they would also offend husbands by asking them to assume the authority necessary to clean up the wife’s messes. Their ethics won’t allow them to offend anyone’s postmodern sensibilities. So instead, they’re urging husbands to open the door to let the churchianized church and state do whatever they like (per Romans 13:1), and then mediate the mess with limited authority, and calling this Headship. And, they’re saying this is theologically correct!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “This assumes that the wife and family are more or less obedient to the husband’s decisions.”

        That would also assume that if the husband continues to fail to restrain his irresponsible wife, then the government should punish him for his failure.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “That would also assume that if the husband continues to fail to restrain his irresponsible wife, then the government should punish him for his failure.”

        That’s one possible way to enforce punishment. It would certainly be an incentive to men to assume authority, but I’m not sure if it would be an incentive to women to submit — not as long as women are predominantly favored over men by the social and legal system.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        It would be an incentive for some wives to misbehave even more, just to see their husbands punished. Tennant and Foster aren’t the only ones who haven’t thought through the logical conclusions of their positions. Most men have no clue what they’re asking for when they demand equal authority and responsibility.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “Most men have no clue what they’re asking for when they demand equal authority and responsibility.”

        Yes, Western men have been without real patriarchal authority for so long, that most people don’t even know what it is or what it looks like. But whatever it is, most people are grandstanding that it’s baaad, simply because MGM, trend setters, and culture shapers say so. In reality, the feminists don’t know what patriarchy is anymore than the men do. The feminist concept of “The Patriarchy” is limited to a set of things they dislike about men, male authority, and traditional gender roles. Feminism is not a rebellion against patriarchy per se, but against authority (and ultimately against God). They need to affix blame on a scapegoat to gain social traction, and they can’t blame authority, because that would reveal their hand. So “The Patriarchy” has become the abstracted straw man.

        I am rather familiar with patriarchy in Chinese culture, also known as Filial Piety in the West. Most men are hardworking, successful, and respectable. The women are feminine, respectful, and content. Families are a source of security and financial stability. People know what’s wrong and what’s right. Society is well ordered. Social capital is high. Sure, there are some problems, but overall, it’s quite nice. This is partly why the Chinese stay within small enclave communities in the West — because the outside culture is a mess!

        Like

  7. Lastmod says:

    When the dust settles……we may indeed find out that this was never the case. The Democrats ALWAYS make EVERY election about ABORTION when they are down in the polls. Roe v Wade is not getting overturned. With women pretty much agreeing it needs to be there “just in case” and most guys are pro choice as well.

    Also. The Democrats again will take all focus off the e onomy, Ukraine, inflation, the border crisis, unfunded liabilities while we all debate over it on theInternet and pundits on the left and right will continue to polarize while the Democrats and a good many Republicans will pass bills, and other items to undermine us still.

    This is a smokescreen

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      Lastmod, you have a good point. But I learned in the “election” of 2020 that elections no longer matter. Votes and ballots don’t matter. If it looks like the Dems will lose, they’ll just manufacture votes, commit election fraud, and steal the election.

      If you’re a conservative or a republican, you can no longer elect people you want or vote people out you don’t want. Dems will just impose their will on you through theft and fraud.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        True. But this will ignite “debate” and take people’s minds off the topics at hand. In almost 200 years, there has never been a “leaked” document from the Supreme Court… and now suddenly there is one, and it just happens to be this topic!

        Is the Supreme Court hearing cases on abortion? There was no news that they were taking up cases brought to the Court on this. Makes me wonder.

        A few days before the 2020 election, it was “Russia! Russia! Russia!”

        The last month of the 2012 election the topic was “abortion”.

        In October 1992 it was, “If Bush is elected, you won’t be able to have the right to have an abortion! A woman’s rights won’t be protected!”

        Here in LA County for the Board of Supervisors debates for election this year, the topic JUST suddenly became in the last week “access to safe healthcare for women” and this leaked memo sounds a bit odd at this point. Not that it matters, all the people running for election on the LA County Board of Supervisor are all Progressives / Democrats.

        The right has fallen hook, line and sinker for this…… Instead of asking the right questions, “A leaked memo? Why? How? Our Courts need integrity and the question of WHY a leaked memo like this got out should be addressed, regardless of what issue or topic is being discussed.”

        It would not surprise me if we have another “Steele Dossier” — you know, a made up document treated as TRUTH. Yeah…..

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        On a related note, the LA county board of supervisors govern a population of 10 million people, in a land mass a little smaller than the entire state of Connecticut. (Which only has 5 million people).

        I live in a STATE that is just a little smaller than California and has a little over 1 million people. (The third least population density state of the 50).

        America is so weird.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Best case scenario: Abortion (1973-2022) will be just like Prohibition (1920-1933). Both were cultural fads pushed by feminists that remained popular for a time, and after time and experience revealed how foolish and impractical they were, they were repealed, never to be revisited.

      Worst case scenario: The Deep State has decided that they need to repeal Roe vs. Wade in order to pave the way for rolling out new, more sinister legislation.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        If by “pave the way for rolling out new more sinister legislation” you mean,

        “distract the people with upheaval and civil unrest and pitting brother against brother by doing something no one ever could possibly have predicted we’d do, so we can pass evil sinister laws in the dark of night while nobody’s watching”

        …you might be right.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. jorgen says:

    When I read Bnonn and Foster’s statement that the father who believes “the church and state must go through him to gain access to his family in any and every way” and “makes himself the sole mediator between his church or state, and his wife or children” is engaging in “toxic masculinity” I find it ironic that they wrote this in an article called “Toxic Sexuality” because I detect by this that they are groomers (the truly toxic sexuality!). Why do they (either as the state or church) desire access to his children unmediated by him? They want to get his kids alone and groom them into their sexual depravity. Are these guy’s on Disney’s payroll? They would rather deal with the woman because she is less likely to protect the children from them. Its as simple as this. They just outed themselves as homosexual pedofiles.

    Like

  9. anonymous_ng says:

    So, basically, they want men to be project managers.

    My first job out of the USAF was as a Y2K project manager. I hated that job almost worse than being a telemarketer. You have all the responsibility and no authority. All you can do is wheedle and cajole and narc them out to their managers.

    However, in their model, there is no authority who can compel action on the part of women. So, it’s actually worse than being a project manager.

    After that job as a project manager, I decided that if a boss ever tells me that they need me to manage a project, I will politely explain to them that they need to find someone else. They can find someone else and I can continue to do what I do, or I will quit and they can find someone else, but either way, they are going to find someone else.

    In a similar vein, after thirteen years of having this as my base source of income, I may get let go from my job. They have started suckling on the teat of DEI and in two weeks, I am supposed to attend a mandatory hair shirt struggle session with another of it’s ilk coming every quarter.

    Like the project management thing, I can continue doing what I do and not attending these, or I can be fired, and still not attending them. There is no situation where I am attending their workshop.

    It will be interesting to see what happens. I’ve been pushing for a while to leave and return as a vendor instead of as an employee.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. feeriker says:

    “Do you mean “Women don’t do…” or “Women won’t do[?]”

    The latter, but I’m tempted to say that it’s a distinction without a difference.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Sharkly says:

    I also have published a couple of posts dealing directly with Bnonn & Foster:

    Laughing at Feminism: Bnonnas Foster — A Delightful Treat (2019-10-7)
    Laughing at Feminism: Red Pill Religion (2019-10-24)

    Bnonn & Foster have the same foundational problem of all the goddess-worshipping churchians, in that they make their god/goddess into a hermaphrodite deity who also made women in her own image and after her likeness. They don’t get that God is a masculine patriarchy, a Father turning over power to His Son, united by their masculine patriarchal Spirit, who Himself impregnated Mary. There is no capricious feminine aspect to the Godhead. Some Churchians even try to say that God’s Holy Spirit is female, as if Jesus had two moms. What a satanic abomination, to try to effeminize God!

    Bnonn & Foster have also recently linked themselves with other purple-pill cowards who spin and swivel while sitting on the fence to avoid taking firm stands. They seem to like to position themselves on the middle ground and then declare that anyone to either side of them is off in the ditches. Where else would cowards try to position themselves, but right in the middle? After so boldly charging in to claim the common ground among churches, then the cowards whine about receiving criticism from both directions, while claiming it proves their Goldilocks positions are all just right. LOL!

    Liked by 3 people

    • jorgen says:

      Ah, the ole “God’s not REALLY male, not really a Father.” If they believe that they might as well also say “God’s not REALLY a Trinity.” Or maybe they should just admit that in their view “God’s not REALLY real.”

      Either God really is male, or if he (sib) isn’t male then he (sib) nonetheless chose to reveal himself (sib) using male pronouns, and he (sib) chose to call himself (sib) Father (sib) AND Son (sib), making it important for us to understand him (sib) both of him (sib) as such. Or the Bible isn’t true (which is what they obviously believe).

      (sib is sic, except “so in copy” its “so in bible.”)

      (As for the Holy Spirit, I’ve yet to see a good argument on the Holy Spirit being a person, and it seems to me the NT is Binitarian with the Spirit being the Spirit somehow of both the Father and Son but not a third person. James White wrote a book bashing the churches as not truly Trinitarian for not singing and praying to the Holy Spirit, but the biblical authors don’t either, and that’s why even die-hard Trinitarians don’t. At some level despite all their hooplah of arguing you must believe the Spirit is a person or burn for all eternity, they recognize that in the Bible the Spirit is never actually defined as a person. But that’s an aside.)

      “But you don’t believe God has a dick and balls, do you, you silly fundie?” Well, do you believe he (sib) has a vagina?

      And of course there is the problem with their “God has neither parts nor passions” view, after the incarnation (if not also before; i.e. both Testaments show him having passions, but the New Testament in particular has him become incarnate) as per the book of Hebrews Jesus still has his body in heaven. To deny that God has a penis is to deny that Jesus still has his body, or to deny that he is God, or to deny that he ever had a body.

      Now some ancient sects may have believed that Jesus let go of the elements of his body during the ascension and deposited the atoms of his body in the stars as he passed from the seventh heaven to the eighth in their cosmology, but modern Christians supposedly see that big ole heresy. And then they ask incredulously of the person who takes God’s chosen pronouns seriously, “You don’t actually think God has a penis do you?” Lol.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Right on cue…

        Christian Publishing House: CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS: Is God a Male? (2022-5-5)

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        The issue of God’s gender/sex is just a faith issue in my view.

        God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind in male, Triune form. One God, eternally existing and present in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three have the same character but different functions.

        God the Father: Maker and Creator of heaven and earth. Lawgiver.

        God the Son: Savior of mankind. King of kings, Lord of lords, granted all authority in heaven and earth. Was sent to minister, to create apostles who in turn created His church on earth. His present ministry is one of perpetual intercession for His Bride, for whom He will return someday to bring before the Father.

        God the Holy Spirit:

        (Yes, the Holy Spirit IS male. John 14:16-17, Jesus’ words to His disciples telling them why He must be crucified and go to the Father:

        16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

        Christ refers to the Holy Spirit in the masculine five separate times there, calling the Spirit “He” and “Him”. This makes sense – the Holy Spirit is fully God and has all of God’s attributes.

        Functions: presence at the Creation (brooding over the waters). Old Testament: To empower humans for specific purposes by indwelling them temporarily; enabling prophets to do signs and wonders. New Testament: Indwells all believers. Gives all believers at least one spiritual gift and instructs them on use of their gifts. Teaches, convicts, reminds, empowers, exhorts, leads believers into truth.

        The Holy Spirit is a person. A male Person.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Everything is internally consistent. Father, Son, and Spirit are all physically present at the same time at Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist. Christ is baptized; the voice of the Father says “this is My Son” and the Spirit descends on Christ “like a dove”.

        Humans today pray to the Father in the Son’s name as the Spirit enables them (“gives us utterance”).

        You accept the Son as Savior, you now come to the Father through the Son and receive the Spirit who indwells in you.

        (Christ is unlike the Father and the Spirit in one respect only – Christ took on human form. Thus, He was and is both fully God and fully human. The God-Man. The Father is not human. The Spirit is not human. But Jesus Christ is. Still consistent with deity, though, because Christ took on human form at the direction of His Father and introduced into the World through the Spirit. Cool, huh?)

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I don’t think we can say that God is male, because male is a biological term, and God is not biological. But, God is definitely masculine, and when He chose to take biological form, He chose male biology.

        Seems kind of unambiguous to me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Ezekiel 1:27 Mentions God’s “loins”.(our English Bibles are bowdlerized) The word “loins” refers to that which must be covered by a loin cloth, and the fruit of a man’s loins are his children. Jesus had a penis too, and it was circumcised on the eighth day in the Jerusalem temple. God created only two sexes, and God also created our languages, and God has always chosen to identify Himself exclusively as male, indicating that there is something clearly exclusive to the male sex that God designed to reflect His identity. God plainly tells us that men image Him and His glory.(1 Corinthians 11:7) Even the word “god” is exclusively masculine, the female counterpart word is “goddess”. Even just by calling Himself God, He is declaring that He is male.

        Like

  12. Devon70 says:

    Most of the married guys in my office are treated like annoying children by their wives. Last week a guy told me his wife was mad at him because he spent more than his weekly allowance. He laughed but I didn’t laugh because it isn’t funny. It’s pathetic and deep down they must know it’s pathetic, All they can do is laugh at their daily emasculation.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I vanpooled for years with two Vietnam veterans. One was a monster sized ex-Marine who could bench press a bus and looked like a human bulldog. He got a speeding ticket so to punish him his wife (she didn’t work) spent an amount equal to the speeding ticket on frivolous junk.

      The other Vietnam veteran – his wife poured a glass of icewater on his head because he was snoring too loud.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      Just about no one married in my office. Many have had a divorce, and now are having their “new” girlfriend living with them…or are dating / hooking up. All the guys who have the “live in” girlfriend are somehow convinced that if they break up…she leaves, thats it. We were not married. The men who never married, which is most….most have a girlfriend.

      Several court cases in California have already proven that “living together” to not work in a legal sense. Guy still pays alimony over a certain amount of time with a “live in girlfriend” and consider it marriage if they have a kid together.

      One man had a divorce and evidently a “bomb proof” pre-nup. Nope. Won’t hold up. He moved to an apartment with roommates half his age. She got the house that his parents left to them when they got married. A home in the Hollywood Hills that had been in his family since the 1920’s. Gone. He now pays alimony, child support, lost the home…still on the hook for court fees, lives with roommates….and yet……………has a girlfriend and he’s hoping “it gets serious”

      Boogles the mind.

      The women I work with are mostly single moms. My secreterey does not have children. She has the the attitude of “Daria” but is actually pretty. Im old enough to be her dad. She’s about 24. I come back from lunch, a fresh pack of smokes is usually there every few days and a coffee. She has some tats, but is smart enough to have them covered at work without me asking. She has a boyfriend…he’s very handsome. A pic of them on her desk palm trees…..clear skies….must be somewhere here in LA. I know little about the women in my office. I dont talk to them. Too easy to be accused of harassment. Worked in a corporate level office as a young man. I know how to behave around women. If I was a pretty boy, would be able to say and do what I wanted around women.

      Liked by 3 people

  13. feeriker says:

    “Most of the women I’ve talked with about this don’t like breastfeeding. To me, it seems like the joy of a lifetime, but they don’t see it that way. They say it’s a lot of trouble, embarassing, uncomfortable, messy, and sometimes painful. But apparently, it’s better than lovemaking with hubby.”

    This just leads me to believe that my assumption about most women’s attitude toward their children is correct: Women view their children as a necessary evil, the most useful tools available for the long-term extraction of resources from men. They don’t find any intrinsic value in them otherwise. Unfortunately, those tools for resource extraction take lots of unpleasant work to (1) produce (that unpleasantness includes having to have sex with a man she’s not really sexually attracted to) and (2) raise.

    Breastfeeding, which both medical doctors and psychologists will tell you is a natural way for women to bond with their babies, is in fact viewed by most women as an inconvenient discomfort, like having to have an enema or a mammogram. More ominously, their dislike of the process has overtones of viewing their child as some sort of parasite.

    Consider this, guys: If women can’t/won’t even physically bond with their own offspring, human lives that came from within them, is it any surprise that they find the idea of physically bonding with their husband repulsive?

    Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Good point. I probably married an unusual one. My wife has breastfed all 8 or as long as they wanted to continue. She is trying to wean our 3 1/2 year old daughter now. She has a friend (with 7 kids) who has breastfed multiple children (toddler/infant) at the same time.

      But these aren’t typical women – they actually want to have their husband’s babies and more than just 1.71 (or whatever) babies.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        My wife breastfed our five bio kids, and is currently breastfeeding our 8-month-old. It’s tough watching her when she has trouble with it, especially when it’s painful for her, because there’s nothing I can do to help.

        Only in fatherhood have I had so many experiences where I felt such a burden of responsibility, and also felt completely helpless.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Same thing for childbirth Oscar. When she’s pushing a watermelon out of a garden hose and tears and there’s nothing you can do but watch like a doofus.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        I was present for the birth of my children and I didn’t feel like a dufus.

        I was up by her head the whole time, because I think going down to the other end seems really weird.

        I just stroked her sweaty hair out of her eyes and I told her she was doing fine.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Actually you’re both right. I shouldn’t do the male self deprecating humor thing (“doofus”). Why participate in the don’t-respect-men culture? I probably should have hung out in the waiting room and gave out cigars like my dad did. Good catch gents!

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Not doofus… helpless. In both cases there was nothing I could do that would actually help.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      Breastfeeding was painful for me. Lactation consultants, the whole nine. I didn’t enjoy it, but I did it. I loved all five of my babies (even the colicky one!), but I wasn’t enthralled with any of them until they were around 6 months of age.

      Years ago, on the now defunct TC blog I wrote about marrying a man because you want to have his babies rather than just because you want to have children. A couple of women whose opinion I respected showed up and pilloried me for that. One said I sounded like an immature girl fantasizing over Justin Bieber, and that it is perfectly legitimate for a woman to desire children, and then set about finding a man who would make a suitable father to those children and a good husband for her.

      At the time, I had a laundry list of objections to her critique of me, but in retrospect, I can concede that she had a point. I still don’t fully agree with her, but I should have fleshed that out a lot more than I did at the time. There are hazards to fixating on a man you’re hot for without thinking through the ramifications of how that could end up if he’s not husband/father material.

      The problem with the “children first” mentality is that once they come, hubby gets back burnered and wifey gets to feel virtuous about it. More than that, being the Biblicist that I am, I can’t help but note that St. Paul offered sexual desire as a reason to marry rather than stay single and serve God, but never says, “If you just really want kids, then focus on finding a husband to get you the kids you desperately want”.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        This important comment seemed overlooked to me.

        “I wrote about marrying a man because you want to have HIS babies rather than just because you want to have children. A couple of women whose opinion I respected showed up and pilloried me for that. One said I sounded like an immature girl fantasizing over Justin Bieber, and that it is perfectly legitimate for a woman to desire children, and then set about finding a man who would make a suitable father to those children and a good husband for her.”

        “The problem with the “children first” mentality is that once they come, hubby gets back burnered and wifey gets to feel virtuous about it. More than that, being the Biblicist that I am, I can’t help but note that St. Paul offered sexual desire as a reason to marry rather than stay single and serve God, but never says, “If you just really want kids, then focus on finding a husband to get you the kids you desperately want.”

        Unless I’m misunderstanding, this sounds like an affirmation of like pretty much EVERY deti-comments’ basic point. Female visceral attraction can pretty much be summed up by wanting (instinctively) to get impregnated by the guy – to have HIS baby. Deti: “Unless she wants to f-ck your brains out.” Scott says this too pretty much. The women who showed up at the TC blog and described the process of rationally selecting a suitable father and good husband for her – that’s not wanting to have HIS babies. Ergo she’s not really attracted to him. Sounds like they couldn’t get their “Justin Bieber” (SAM-like man). Or you can’t get Justin that’s also a safe bet. That’s fine – just a warning to you men. If you’re not her Justin you’re likely to get way less than “Justin” does out of the marriage. She doesn’t want to have YOUR baby. She wants A baby and A husband. Perhaps she can pick rationally without tingles and through a combination of faith, grace and command of the will, she can be a good wife. What do you think the chances of this are in 2022? Be warned. And she can fake it and make you think you’re her Justin. You want to impregnate her a lot more than she wants to be impregnated by you.

        And if it’s a modern sterile marriage, then she’ll be even less bonded to you. At least when she has YOUR baby there’s a reason for you to grow in her eyes.

        Per St. Paul (presumably the instructions aren’t just to men) most Christian women shouldn’t get married because they’re not burning with desire for the men who will marry them. Most Christians should be celibate.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I don’t disagree Cameron, but this is a very modern problem to be sure.

        In a sane world where women understood their place and accepted their responsibilities, then finding a good husband and father as the primary goal was not a bad thing. It was likely the norm.

        But now that we live in a culture driven by “the psychologization of modern life” (Phillip Reiff, not my idea), womens feelings drive marriages. So yeah, the “find a good man to father your kids” can be a recipe for disaster if she isn’t rooted and grounded in the Truth.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Interesting. And what of 1 Corinthians? Should a woman marry a man she doesn’t burn for? You wonder what that would do to the Christian marriage rate. I wonder how many women wanted to have their husband’s babies. His specifically.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Since when did you become a Bible-ist over a traditionalist?

        There is an argument to be made (and I believe a valid one) that Paul’s admonition about burning was made to kale Christians, not women.

        It wasn’t as if women en masse (Christian or not) were in a position to live and eat without a man. It is simply not possible that 1st century women regularly married men because they burned for them.

        Again, this is a modern.problem. I stand by my original argument that today, in this climate, a woman should marry an she desires. But nah…that was not the norm nor necessary before the rise and triumph of the modern self.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Oh yeah – until VERY recently women couldn’t eat and sleep indoors without a husband. Not debating your position – just interested in what it is. Under modern conditions a woman shouldn’t marry unless she burns for the man?

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        My position is that, under modern conditions, most women shouldn’t marry unless she burns for the man.

        I do think there is a select group of women who could make excellent wives without a faux love and tingles right away experience.

        But those women need to be virgins, be attracted to the man, and be fairly libidinous. And I know from experience that a woman can be libidinous without having played the harlot.

        She would also have to be rooted in the Truth and exhibit a clear and undeniable understanding of her duties and position as a wife.

        Like I said…a very select few women. Far fewer than would have existed 70 years ago.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Excellent – very clear. Translating that into the male experience it seems like an endorsement of MGTOW for a fairly high fraction of men. My thought is that those who fit the conditions you describe should have a lot of kids.

        In the future, most people will be descended from women who burn/tingle for their man and libidinous virgins.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        “In the future, most people will be descended from women who burn/tingle for their man and libidinous virgins.”

        I don’t think that’s true at all, actually. I think that there will still be people who get married under the current conditions. Fewer and fewer with each passing decade, but absent a great cultural winnowing, most women will marry men they like just fine, and their husbands will adore them, and they will have kids, and many others will divorce or else transition to roommate status (the latter will be the Christian norm). I suspect it’s already the Christian norm for couples in middle age since people who are pretty close to us seem a little surprised that we go out on dates and take little romantic jaunts which imply we have regular sex.

        There is not a future like you describe. At best, it’ll be a return to the days when most women need a man to live indoors.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I get the same impression from wife’s description of her friends’ marriages. They marvel at how close we are, that we go out on dates, spend a lot of time together. Many of the women, often young wives, tell her they don’t like sex very much. She tries to encourage them, “You need to get yours girl!”, but I don’t imagine it has much effect.

        Well, we are the blessed ones I guess. I know some good marriages but a lot like you describe — roommates.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “Many of the women, often young wives, tell her they don’t like sex very much. She tries to encourage them, “You need to get yours girl!”, but I don’t imagine it has much effect.”

        I think many women, especially ultra conservative women, younger women, and women raised in the church, don’t really understand their own sexuality very well. They are ignorant of their hypergamic nature and they tend to remain in a state of disbelief about it. This is why they can deny it with such convincing sincerity. They don’t “wake up” and become “believers” until they experience it first hand — a chadwick comes along at some random point in their lives, and they suddenly feeel things they never felt before. Then there is a total lack of agency as all restraint is thrown to the wind, followed by “I don’t know why… It just happened!” In ages past, women married young, and didn’t “wake up” sexually until after marriage. But these days, going off to college is what despoils wimminz innocence.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        It’s quite a conundrum really. As noted at this blog, as a male you’re incentivized to fornicate to test her burning for you. I can’t endorse that in front of my sons but can’t help noticing the reality.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. locustsplease says:

    What is fascinating is these men set themselves up as patriarchal authority. Then use it to get other men to give up their patriarchal authority. Just send your wife out here! You and me aren’t their victims it’s the average uninformed Joe’s who think they are getting actual advise though luckily rp and other things are causing a rift the average can see.

    Years ago I saw women’s thirst for dangerous men. I’m a big guy but more athletic than I look and had boxed with friends many times but never got in fist fights. At 21 I was out with 2 girls I know a group of guys was jealous and one threw a beer on me when I had my back turned. So I got up asked him to apologize which he didn’t so I hit him harder than I ever punched anyone. The sound was so loud it silenced the bar, he crumpled flew backwards face was torn 4-5inches open blood flowing not dripping. I thought I had killed him. I put my fists up and got ready for the rest of his boys but they cowered so the bartender said cops are on their way we split.

    The scuffle before I hit him caught a lot of attention so most people saw the punch. One guy said he saw him throw a beer on me and was gonna tell the cops and it was awesome. As I walked out the door the beer cart girl looked at me strangely the most submissive look of sexual approval I’ve ever seen before or since and she was pretty. She handed me a beer and smiled. I was disturbed she was so turned on. She wanted me to go back and finish him, she would have handed me an axe, I’ve never seen a look like that on a woman.

    Liked by 5 people

  15. Oscar says:

    “Ten thousand women marched through the streets shouting, ‘We will not be dictated to,’ and went off and became stenographers.”

    ― G.K. Chesterton

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/661510-ten-thousand-women-marched-through-the-streets-shouting-we-will

    Liked by 7 people

    • Oscar says:

      That’s a much more clever, and pithy way of saying I usually say. The modern woman thinks serving her husband and children for love is tyranny, but serving her (probably male) boss for money is liberty.

      Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        As an experiment, men with contentious, frigid wives should start laying a stack of cash on the nightstand after their monthly starfish sex sessions – just to see how the wife reacts. If she pounces on it enthusiastically with nary a raised eyebrow or peep of indignant protest, he knows what kind of woman he is married to.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “…he knows what kind of woman he is married to.”

        Agreed. The same goes for “choreplay.” If a woman demands goods or services in exchange for sex she is admitting what she is at her core.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “The same goes for “choreplay.” If a woman demands goods or services in exchange for sex she is admitting what she is at her core.”

        At this point all that is left to determine is the price. FYI, ALL and I mean ALL women are tempted to barter using sex to some extent or another. It’s the easiest value they have to barter with, their tendency is to see what they can gain instead of the d@mning implications and there is the curse of Eve they battle. It’s the rare woman who recognizes both the implications of the barter along with God’s design for marriage and then fights the temptation.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        The same goes for “choreplay.” If a woman demands goods or services in exchange for sex she is admitting what she is at her core.

        All women demand something in return for sex. All women expect to get something in exchange for sex – even if that something is time, attention, and validation. But more often it’s money, nights out, meals, drinks, entertainment. When you marry, it’s clothes, food, furniture, cars, and houses.

        All men “pay” for sex. Good looking players “pay” for sex in the form of attention and validation. In some cases they have to pay with time and giving the “boyfriend experience” for a while. In extreme cases they have to pay with drama.

        All other men pay for sex with money and what can be purchased with money.

        You know where your attractiveness level is depending on how you ‘pay’. If all she wants from you is time and attention, she’s sexually attracted to you. She views you as a man. If she demands any form of monetary investment, she’s using you. She views you as a major appliance.

        At least, AT LEAST, 75% of the time, she will demand money from you, up front. That’s the “take me out on a date” command. That’s the “I don’t [insert sexual activity here] on the first date” (mis)representation. That’s the “no hookups” lie. When you see that, you know – $he $ee$ you a$ beta buck$, ripe for re$ource extraction. $ure. $he like$ you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        It used to be a pretty good arrangement.

        A man gave one woman access to all his resources in exchange for his exclusive access to a clean, fertile womb. We used to call such men “husbands”.

        A woman gave one man exclusive access to her body for sex in exchange for a home, access to resources, and provision/protection for herself and her children. We used to call such women “wives”.

        There were only a couple of “catches” – once you made your choice, you were stuck with each other for life so you had to make it work. If she’s not very good at sex, you need to work with her to get her good at sex, or, just deal. If he’s not very good at provision or protection, you need to provide too, or just deal. If your choice dies early, you’ll have to get another one.

        Despite the “catches”, this system worked pretty well, ackshually.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @RPA

        We’re all tempted to barter with whatever we have. Let’s not dump that only on women.

        And, by the way, that’s better than many other alternatives, like coercion, blackmail, force, etc.

        Better still is doing the right thing out of a sense of obligation. Best is doing it for love.

        So, first let’s have a little empathy and understand why they bargain. We do too, only with different valuables.

        Second, let’s acknowledge that it could be much worse.

        Finally, let’s exhort the women in our spheres of influence (wives and daughters, for most of us) to greater spiritual maturity and to do the right thing out of obligation, and eventually love.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        thedeti – There is always an exchange of value in the covenant. That’s a feature, not a bug. He’s agreeing to protect, provide, cherish and provide sex. She’s agreeing to love, honor, obey and provide sex. After that exchange of value, if the couple follows God’s rules for marriage somehow 2 sinful, selfish people become bonded to each other in spite of their sin.

        The problem comes, not in the God ordained exchange of value, but when the wife uses sex outside of God’s design for it in the covenant relationship He created. The vast majority of the time it’s when she tries to extract more value by using her sexuality as a means of usurping power. Whether it’s withholding or dolling out she has gone the route of the oldest profession and stooped to using sex as a bartering tool.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “We’re all tempted to barter with whatever we have. Let’s not dump that only on women.

        And, by the way, that’s better than many other alternatives, like coercion, blackmail, force, etc.”

        There are areas in life where we barter that are perfectly acceptable. But bartering with sex is a specific kind of sin that we know as prostitution. The reason that I mentioned only wives is because the overwhelming majority of spouses who sin this way are wives. This particular sin in marriage is insidious because it’s harder to see clearly and the damage it does is cumulative on the marriage acting like small doses of toxin that build up slowly over time until the results are catastrophic.

        You are an adamant proponent of unabashedly calling sin for what it is. Even though the message’s reality is harsh, we have to understand what it is in order to deal with it. We can be kind by not condemning the person for the sin as we identify it and by encouraging them to follow God’s design.

        Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “A man gave one woman access to all his resources in exchange for his exclusive access to a clean, fertile womb. We used to call such men “husbands”….A woman gave one man exclusive access to her body for sex in exchange for a home, access to resources, and provision/protection for herself and her children. We used to call such women “wives”.”

      And you’re right, this system of exchange worked fairly well during the era I grew up in 70s-80s, but it was beginning to show signs of transition to something different. It was what I experienced back in the late 80’s when I got married. I had no idea at the time that I was getting a really good deal because I was not fully aware what was transpiring in society around me with the pre-Internet version of the SMP. Looking back, it was what I’d call a transitional phase between the dating culture of the 60s-70s and the increasingly hook-up based culture with the advent of the Internet in the 1990s and beyond.

      I’ve mentioned in earlier posts I dated four women in the span seven months: 24, 28, 29 and 29 years old. With any of those women, I would NOT have fallen into the category of “A man giving one woman access to all his resources in exchange for his exclusive access to a clean, fertile womb.” I would have been giving access to all my resources, but I would have been getting a female with a significant N-count and all that goes with it. I would probably have not gotten a wife, maybe the semblance of one for a short period of time, but not in the long run. In the long run, at least with two of them, I’d have been taken to the cleaners. The other two, I’m not certain about, but the mere fact that they were still single at 28 and 29 makes me wonder to this day. I really doubt it knowing what I know now, doubt that I would have been getting a wife.

      Like

  16. Elspeth says:

    Dear Mr. Jack (or anyone else with the authority),

    My fingers outran my brain.

    Please forgive me and delete both my comments.

    Like

  17. Oscar says:

    Off topic: This is just funny.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      The memes just keep rolling.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      Hoes be mad… and telling on themselves.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I do have to admit, if Roe is overturned, the cultural upheaval will be delicious. It will be so much fun watching liberals rend themselves over it.

        I skimmed the 98 page draft. It’s well written. It’s a standalone opinion and looks pretty much ready for publication. I will be shocked, shocked I tell you, if that is a majority opinion. I think it will more likely be adapted into a dissent when it doesn’t garner the votes to become a majority opinion.

        Let’s say Roe is overturned. If the liberals are so confident that abortion/”reproductive rights” have the hearts and minds of the people, then let’s put it to a vote. Let’s have a political fight on it. Let’s have the state legislatures vote on it.

        Liberals, go ahead – propose legislation decriminalizing abortion or putting whatever regulations you’re willing to put on it.

        Go ahead – introduce bills allowing people to murder viable fetuses at 30, 34, 37 weeks. Let’s find out who will vote on that. Let’s find out what legislators are actually going to vote “yes” on allowing doctors or mothers to kill children who could live outside the womb if delivered.

        Let’s find out what doctors are really OK with that.

        Let’s find out what lawmakers really will go on record as voting for feticide.

        See, lawmakers like Roe and Casey because it means they don’t have to go on record as being in favor of murdering children. Roe and Casey mean they don’t actually have to vote for that legislation and then stand before constituents and defend those votes. It also means squishy moderates and conservatives don’t have to go on record as voting against abortion regulations and then risk losing their sweet, sweet sinecures.

        Lawmakers like Roe because it means they don’t have to take a position and then defend it.

        Let’s have the fight. Let’s let the people decide which states will outlaw abortion and which will allow it, and which will regulate it. Everybody will have to take a stand and decide which side they’re on.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        If you put it to a vote… nationwide, “majority rules”, keeping abortion “legal” would win hands down. Easily. Why? Because most “conservative” women would vote yes for it in the booth — “just in case”.

        It also wouldn’t decimate hook up culture. Most men are not “hooking up” and honestly, IF it was overturned…. it would fall to states.

        It was legal in New York State in 1965. Vermont in 1967, California in 1969 or 1970……. Women who use this as birth control or for whatever reason would go to states with less restrictive laws, and there would be nothing to stop them. All Roe vs. Wade did was mandate that abortion be allowed in every state.

        Also, like I mentioned in my most recent video… The point is moot. It depends “what” the narrative is at the moment. Its a tool and wedge. How many “christians” have I met that only have 2.5 children. Way too many. Many Christians say they are against abortion….. okay…. but then they say, “Poor people are breeding like rabbits. There should be no welfare for this!” So too many want every egg fertilized but have little or no care for their life or survival…….

        Liberals in California and WOMEN screamed during the Scott Peterson trial, “Justice for Laci and the Baby!!!”

        He got DOUBLE homicide. Not that he shouldn’t have, but back then I would smirk, “Oh, I thought it wasnt a baby until it was born…. It’s just a clump of cells…. Why did he get a double homicide? The first one. Sure. The second one? He got murder for killing a clump of cells?”

        I was told of course that I “hated women” kind of thing….

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        If you put it to a vote… nationwide, “majority rules”, keeping abortion “legal” would win hands down. Easily.

        If that was true, the Left wouldn’t be freaking out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Its all staged, hysteria….fanning the flames. Getting them amped up to make it “look” like Roe v Wade is in danger. It isnt. Even IF overturned, very little would change. Even on the “The Five” (Fox News) they were all talking about “sane abortion laws……like Europe, so even the “conservative” network is pro choice……even THEY would “vote yes” for abortion to be legal if put to a majority vote, majority wins.

        And

        For all the talk about how women, feminism, churchianity….the culture in the USA today, right now. No way. The “culture war” has been lost, and was lost probably since the time the end of Reagan’s second term if not before….

        Remember the left “freaking out” over Trumps win in 2016??????? “Hes going to take away social security! He will have his finger on the nuclear button……an unstable man in charge of that! RUSSIA!!!!!!!” They freaked out then.

        And Trump didn’t make America great agian. The debt increased, “SpENdiNg bIlLs” (totally un-Constitutional). The Federal workforce still grew. No swamp was drained. Apple wasn’t making their iphones in the USA “I promise you, they’ll be making them here” (I laughed so hard at that and his psychophants bought it). He has NO PROBLEM with the nno-fault divorce. He appointed a Supreme Court justice who has voted MORE with the left side of the court (remember, according to the pundits “he was a decent, upstading, pro-family Conservative”)

        The left in their classic Marxist playbook: Make everything a hysteria. Make everything a dire problem immediately. Control what WILL be talked about. Threaten and ACT with violence. Then distance yourself from the “useful idiots”

        The left freaking out is expected. They are not scared at all in the end. Its done to make it LOOK like the end of the world is here and ALL must MUST re-elect them inNoovember to “protect women”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        On this one, I am pretty sure Jason is right. If abortion were put to a simple nationwide majority vote it would be legal. At least some form of it. Maybe not the gruesome 8 months and 29 days partial-birth freakshow stuff we hear about, but basically legal.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “Even IF overturned, very little would change.”

        False.

        New York Post: 26 states where abortion will be banned or restricted if Roe v. Wade is overturned (2022-5-3)

        “Remember the left “freaking out” over Trumps win in 2016???????”

        If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it’ll be because Trump won in 2016.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        Oscar,

        “If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it’ll be because Trump won in 2016.”

        Could you explain why you think so?

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Jack,

        “If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it’ll be because Trump won in 2016.”

        “Could you explain why you think so?”

        Judges. Trump, with the help of McConnell, quietly did more damage to the left’s ironclad hold on the judiciary than the left ever thought possible. The pinnacle of this was replacing the leftist members of the Supreme Court with more constitutional minded justices. Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy and the one that made the left howl was replacing Ginsburg with Barrett. The court went from leaning left, due to Chief Justice Robert’s inexplicable takes on some matters, to having 5 pretty solid constitutionalist justices with Roberts as a head scratching swing at times.

        The left threw everything it could at Kavanaugh, bringing all the pressure they could from media and government in the form of slander, libel, and criminally worthy charges, and Trump stood by his pick. If Roe is overturned, as it should be, it’s because Trump was a way better president than he will be given credit for.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Trump was a great president?

        Then we all woke up. This country hasnt had a president that actually got legislation passed since since Reagan. And I didnt think he was that great. Then or now.

        The left threw everything at Kavanaugh? Yeah they did. AND the next appointee by the republican side will get the same treatment. The right and christyians view every dated, election, battle, war, incident as some solitary event focusing on the issue at hand.

        The left, radical Islam, progressives,,,,,they view it as one step in the LONG MARCH to ttal domination. Kaavanaugh has voted with the left side of the court since being appointed. SOm much for a “pro family” guy and no, he wasnt as the left painted him…..

        But he was the typical guy I knew in college. An a-hole. Then in middle age puts his nose up at people like me. He was aterrible nominee.

        Trump didnt follow the “constitution” and all he did was piut out Tweets every week insulting people. EVeryone be like “Oh hes so funny, he’s so cool….he put that guy / gal in line” while the country still went into the sh*tter

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        RPA Covered it. Frankly, Trump is the only president I regret not voting for.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        Judges. Trump, with the help of McConnell, quietly did more damage to the left’s ironclad hold on the judiciary than the left ever thought possible.

        Oscar’s right about this. Trump appointed 3 SCOTUS justices in 4 years. Absolutely unheard of – no other one termer has ever had this kind of influence on the court. Bush the Elder appointed 2 (Thomas and Souter). Carter got no SCOTUS appointees. From the looks of things, Trump’s 3 appointees (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett) are solid conservatives – so far. I remember Souter being sold as a conservative and he quickly squished out and went liberal.

        I think Jason and Scott are right that abortion will basically be legal, but it will be Roe – style abortion. It will be “legal first trimester; regulated or outlawed after that”. It will be

        “you go ahead and murder that baby as long as the mom isn’t showing and the “products of conception” don’t actually, you know, look human. Because, you know, we don’t want to be all grossed out and stuff. Just go to your gyne like it’s a routine visit, gyne takes care of ‘it’, and you go home and rest for a day or two. No big. But get it done soon, OK, so it’s just a ‘clump of cells’ and we don’t have to think about, you know, moral questions and emotional attachment and stuff.”

        The actual legal holding in Roe was essentially this: there is a zone of privacy previously identified in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). A woman’s decision whether or not to have an abortion within the first trimester is within that zone of privacy. Therefore, the state may not, consistent with the Constitution, regulate or prohibit a first trimester abortion. The decision whether to abort is an intensely private one and belongs solely to the woman and her physician. On these facts, and during the first trimester, the state’s interests in moral issues, preserving life, protecting unborn lives, etc., must yield to the woman’s privacy interests.

        Everybody was just fine with Roe’s limited holding in 1973 because it balanced the moral issues (before week 12 it’s a clump of cells, not really murder because “quickening” hasn’t happened yet, not really a human yet, the fetus would never survive delivery and cannot live outside the womb) with the legal, medical, practical, and privacy issues (unwanted pregnancy, family planning, birth control failure, medical privacy/confidentiality).

        Where things got sticky was the states saying “OK, well, after week 12 we can regulate abortion or outlaw it completely” and states did do that and are STILL trying to do it. That’s why there have been so many abortion cases and it’s such a hot button issue/litmus test. So in one sense, Oscar’s also correct that this is an important moral issue for people – if it were not, state legislatures wouldn’t legislate on this. They’re legislating on this because they have rightly sensed that abortion allowance or restriction is important to the overall health, safety, welfare, and morals of the people of their states and local communities.

        There are all kinds of things that people haven’t thought of. Or, actually, that people DID think of, and that have been thoroughly litigated (guys, there have been literally HUNDREDS of abortion cases in the federal courts and at least 10 important ones at the SCOTUS level):

        –parental notification for minors

        –husband notification for married women

        –putative father notification for unmarried women (and identification of putative fathers)

        –at what gestational point are we going to start regulating?

        –at what point does it stop being a ‘medical procedure’ and start being homicide?

        –insurance coverage

        –who pays (my state has statutes allowing insurance carriers, employers, parents and husbands to legally refuse to pay for abortions, whether or not notified)

        –who provides abortion services

        In the unlikely event Roe is overturned, here’s what will most likely happen: A few reddest red states will outlaw abortion entirely. A few bluest blue states will allow most abortions up to about 24 weeks in and then start regulating it after that. Most states in the red to blue spectrum will allow Roe-style abortion – freely up to week 8 or 10; then tightly regulated after that but allowing it for the usual “rape, incest, or life of the mother”. Pre-Roe, most states allowed medical abortions IF AND ONLY IF a physician certified that a continued pregnancy would present imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm to the mother.

        That’s what this humble lawyer thinks a post-Roe United States would look like abortion policy wise (assuming there is a United States in the next few years).

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        If Roe is overturned, as it should be, it’s because Trump was a way better president than he will be given credit for.

        Absolutely right. Trump also did something even Obama didn’t have the stones for – he was up for reelection in 2020 and nominated Barrett, and ramrodded her through senate confirmation while he was running a “losing” reelection campaign. Trump did his job and he’s to be commended for it. He said “I am the president. There is a vacancy on SCOTUS. It is my job to fill that seat and nominate someone. Senate, it is your job to advise and consent, and confirm or reject my nominee. I did my job. You do yours.” And to McConnell’s credit, they put Barrett through committee and to a floor vote.

        You guys don’t know how much political gumption that took. Obama couldn’t do that with Merrick Garland in 2015-16 (but then he didn’t have a Dem Senate – if he had, you bet we’d be dealing with a Justice Garland right now).

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        And Trump didn’t make America great agian. The debt increased, “SpENdiNg bIlLs” (totally un-Constitutional). The Federal workforce still grew. No swamp was drained.

        It is too late to ‘make America great again’. It was too late decades ago. No one will ever again be able to ‘make America great’. The West is doomed and is circling the drain. Oscar’s right that the Remnant will continue, in pockets here and there, in redoubts of like minded people.

        We all best start getting to know our neighbors well, or start forming plans to bug out to more favorable redoubts.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “If Roe is overturned, as it should be, it’s because Trump was a way better president than he will be given credit for.

        Liked by 3 people

        Lastmod says:
        2022-05-06 at 8:56 pm
        Trump was a great president?”

        Does anyone else see the irony in my last sentence being followed by Lastmod’s first sentence in the very next post? 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jason

        Trump was a great president?

        Who cares if he was, or not? What matters is that, if Roe v Wade is overturned, it’ll be because of Trump.

        And, who cares whether you like Kavanagh, or not? What matters is that, if Roe v Wade is overturned, it’ll be because Kavanagh, Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas overturned it.

        Like

  18. feeriker says:

    It is too late to ‘make America great again’. It was too late decades ago. No one will ever again be able to ‘make America great’. The West is doomed and is circling the drain. Oscar’s right that the Remnant will continue, in pockets here and there, in redoubts of like minded people. We all best start getting to know our neighbors well, or start forming plans to bug out to.

    This is a message that I’ve been preaching until my tongue and fingers have gone numb. Unfortunately, too many otherwise-intelligent people are desperately clinging to the fantasy of an “America Reborn,” despite the obvious evidence that the patient is terminal. I think this is due to the fact that they realize that the collapse will require them to do some very unpleasant things if they want to both survive and maintain even a remnant of the “Old America.” They’re simply not psychologically ready to accept reality. Unfortunately, it will probably be too late for them by the time they adapt.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. farmlegend says:

    thedeti – “Most states in the red to blue spectrum will allow Roe-style abortion – freely up to week 8 or 10; then tightly regulated after that but allowing it for the usual “rape, incest, or life of the mother”.”

    Key phrasing here – the left constantly pushes for language that makes allowances for “the life OR HEALTH of the mother”. Of course, health includes “mental health”, which, in the real world, translates into permitting an abortion anytime she damn well pleases.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Since abortion rights are so worshipped on the left, I wonder if there would be a sorting effect on the population if the law was ever returned to the states. We’re already experiencing a balkanization between red and blue states and restrictive abortion laws could very well deepen the divide.

      I have some elite university educated friends up north that became leftist over the years and think the South is populated by unwashed uneducated racist hicks. As such, they have expressed disdain at the idea of living here and I can envision them seeing restrictive abortion laws furthering their resolve to stay away.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        RPA,

        That’s already happening.

        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/13/tech-company-will-pay-for-employees-to-move-out-of-texas-over-abortion-law/

        Red states will become redder, blue states will become bluer, and the USA will likely split up.

        I have some elite university educated friends up north that became leftist over the years and think the South is populated by unwashed uneducated racist hicks.

        We must do everything possible to reinforce that belief.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Already in Idaho, Texas, Nevada in congressional districts, local city councils, county planning boards, boards of supervisors…..people from blue states move there because the “taxes and crime are low” and then immediately start turning it into the place they ruined. Austin is “solid blue now” and Idaho is going to be “purple” by the congressional races of 2026. North Carolina was a solid red state until very recently. Oregon was a red stalwart until the 1990’s as was Vermont.

        They usually are upper middle class whites. College educated. Professional professions who sell their WAY over priced home in California, New York, New Jersey and buy a brand new home that is even bigger at the quarter of the value of theirs in the state they left. They honestly believe its not their policies or the people they elect. It the local racists and dumb people who caused the problem.

        They push hard for high property values to continue their equity. They then “restrict” apartment construction, low income housing construction to help inflate their property…then blame all the locals for “being racist”. Its textbook Marxist type of actions. The Democrats for the most part until somewhere in the 1990’s “did” have actually some accountability in policy. Today, none. Its race. Its patriarchy. Its class. They pushed and hinged it open and cornered the conversation or debate.

        Be called a racist is a smear like “communist” was in the early 1950’s. Its very hard to wash off.

        They also have created a massive subsidized underclass. They throw crumbs at them of welfare, and other “social programs” and create massive bureacratic departments and agencies that create more of a “professional class” with good benefits and retirement plans.

        In my hometown of northern New York State. Essex County. My parents built a brand new home and bought a hundred acres of forested land in 1969 for 26K. My father sold it in 2014 for 496K. Massive return on investment. How does a young family STARTING out afford a home? They don’t. Not in most states now.

        Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      The farmlegend. My man.

      Like

  20. thedeti says:

    The Left is threatening the assassination of conservative SCOTUS justices.

    The Biden “administration” stands by and not only does nothing; but is refusing to condemn it.

    https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=399014

    Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      This tells us all we need to know about those who rule over us (not that most of us hadn’t already long ago figured them out).

      Any government that not only tolerates, advocates violation of the laws it is sworn to uphold is by definition an illegitimate government and can –SHOULD– be resisted.

      Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “SImon Gwynn” looks like a smirky gamma. You know the implicit psychology going on here deti. Gives you a shot at mediocre poon and female affection. Simon: any affection for this will come from pro-abort total witches. Your dignity and independence as a man is not worth it.

      SIMPs gonna SIMP.

      Liked by 3 people

  21. feeriker says:

    “Per St. Paul (presumably the instructions aren’t just to men) most Christian women shouldn’t get married because they’re not burning with desire for the men who will marry them. Most Christians should be celibate.”

    Excellent post, Cameron!

    Most men have attraction floors (and therefore standards) that are SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than those of most women. Ergo, a man will marry a woman who might not be very attractive physically and might also not even have much of a personality, either. Still, he will definitely want to create babies with her and have regular sex with her, for whatever reason he feels attracted to her. This is also due to the fact that men’s biological hardwiring is set for different motivations than women’s.

    Paul would be correct in asserting that most Christian women today should not marry because they are neither attracted to nor capable of pair-bonding with most men. Of course that would be a direct assault on hypergamy that would be treated as a declaration of war against women. After all, they’re entitled to the resources and provisioning of any man they can manage to take advantage of, right? Right?

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Random A says:

    On one hand, Trump was the best president we had in a very long time. On the other, I can never vote for him again. Why? He left the January 6 protesters to fend for themselves after they risked all for him. He let Fauci bamboozle him from the beginning and he continued to push the jabs in the face of mounting evidence that they weren’t all that. Even now he is still pushing them. No way, no how and no thanks.

    Those large woke companies showing their willingness to send their female employees to other states to get abortions? Why would they spend that money? Isn’t there a catch? Glad you asked: there is a catch: it is really about not having to pay maternity/paternity care benefits which are a heck of a lot more expensive than a simple plane flight, a night or two in a hotel, the procedure and the accompanying sick leave.

    Back on topic: I wouldn’t mind being married again. Even at my age. But it will be my way as much as possible or there is the door. Want to be my wife? Gotta act like it. Too many women have missed that memo about words and actions.

    Finally: stoopid whyte lieberals. I visited a friend some months ago who lives in a rather rural area. In a nearly all-white small town. Neighbor has a black lives matter placard in their front window. In a neighborhood where many persons (all white) often leave their front doors unlocked. Lookie that virtue signaling. I didn’t want to kill my friend’s relationship with his neighbor so I shut up about it. But still smdh. I have zero respect for stoopid whyte lieberals who don’t understand the cause and effect from their votes, effectively starting the some crap again elsewhere.

    Maybe the new abortion atmosphere will further separate the red from the blue states and keep the blue people away from the red states. One can only dream.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lastmod says:

      5 billion in weapons was sold or given to Saudi Arabia by Trump, who claimed they were “our best friend in the region” despite the following:

      — Countless abductions of Americans working for the oil industry in Saudi Arabia over the decades since the 1960’s. At least 200 Americans have gone missing and were “never accounted for”. That’s more than the number of POWs in the Iraq War.
      — The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 /1974, which plunged the USA into a huge recession which we never really recovered from. 1974 was the last year real wages grew in the USA.
      — Saudi Arabia has been promising a “peace treaty” for and with Israel since the late 1970’s.
      — The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was funded by them.
      — The 1996 bombing of that apartment complex in Riyad killing all those Americans. It was in Saudi Arabia and the investigation they promised never happened.
      — The USS Cole attack (2000) was funded by the Saudis.
      — Sept. 11, 2001, which accomplished what could not be accomplished in 1993 — all the hijackers were Saudis.
      — The USA supported the genocide in Yemen (2020) by giving money and weapons to Saudi Arabia.

      “Our best friend in the region”… Yeah… Trump is better than Reagan, Washington, and Lincoln. He’ll tell you himself. (He did at a rally in 2020, and all the thousands there cheered him on with this statement. In another era, even fans of him would have said, “Hold up!”)

      Like

    • Joe2 says:

      “On one hand, Trump was the best president we had in a very long time. On the other, I can never vote for him again.”

      Trump would get my vote, but I could never vote for Mike Pence again after he betrayed Trump.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        True. If trump is nominated again, Pence won’t be his running mate. I don’t think even Trump would accept him again.

        Here’s the thing – Trump will have to make it about the country and not about him.

        This is all a moot point now – there will never again ever be any free or fair elections in the US as currently constituted.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. feeriker says:

    “I get the same impression from wife’s description of her friend’s marriages. They marvel at how close we are, that we go out on dates, spend a lot of time together.”

    I would be curious to know how many of these women react with admiration and envy and how many react with disgust and revulsion. The specific reaction will serve as a clue as to which spouse is responsible for the “dead bedroom/roommate” situation.

    “Many of the women, often young wives, tell her they don’t like sex very much.”

    I’m sure they like sex (or at least the idea of sex) a lot — just not with their own husbands.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Pingback: The blind side: what works for the pastor usually does not work for you | Christianity and masculinity

  25. thedeti says:

    “I don’t think that’s true at all, actually. I think that there will still be people who get married under the current conditions. Fewer and fewer with each passing decade, but absent a great cultural winnowing, most women will marry men they like just fine, and their husbands will adore them, and they will have kids, and many others will divorce or else transition to roommate status (the latter will be the Christian norm). I suspect it’s already the Christian norm for couples in middle age since people who are pretty close to us seem a little surprised that we go out on dates and take little romantic jaunts which imply we have regular sex.”

    “There is not a future like you describe. At best, it’ll be a return to the days when most women need a man to live indoors.”

    I don’t know about anyone else, but being married to a woman who “likes me just fine” ain’t anywhere close to good enough for me. No man should ever, EVER marry a woman who “likes him just fine.” “Likes him just fine” is a recipe for divorce and crushing that man.

    No man should accept anything like this from any woman.

    Sure, E. As usual, advocating for things that work great for women, but will destroy the men involved. Good thing none of that will ever happen to you, because you don’t “like SAM just fine.”

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Deti, I read the whole exchange differently. She’s saying in the future fewer and fewer couples will marry. Of those that do, there will be an asymmetry in attraction between the wife and husband. The wife will be lukewarm. Many will divorce and others will just be room mates (unhappy marriage). Sounded pretty redpill.

      In the discussion E. seemed to be endorsing WGTOW for most women, excepting relationships where the woman is highly attracted to the man and the unusual case of a sincerely religious virgin with a high sex drive. I almost joked back at her: hey guys! E’s got the answer! Get yourself a nympho virgin!!!”

      I don’t think she was arguing for something that serves women at the expense of men – but maybe I misunderstood.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        No. That’s now what I saw at all. I saw Elspeth holding forth on how women will marry. Most women will marry, like they do now. They’ll marry men they “like just fine”. meaning “eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess he’ll do.” And then they’ll divorce or just not have sex anymore once she’s extracted everything she can from him and used and abused him.

        See, Cam, that’s pretty much what’s happening now, and I’ve never said anything different. Most women do marry men they like. Women don’t marry men they hate or feel revulsion for. But, most women don’t marry men they feel superduper lust for. I am going to scream this until you people get it: Most women do not have Elspeth/SAM, Liz/Mike, or Mychael/Scott marriages. They just don’t. Never have, never will. My parents didn’t. I have never, ever seen a marriage in my family that was like that.

        Most women who don’t want to have sex with their husbands don’t hate those men. These women really do like their husbands. I am sure that some of them even love those men (like brothers, like they love a best male friend). It’s just that they don’t burn with passion for those men. They don’t really want to have sex with their husbands all that much. Oh, they’re willing to have sex with their husbands. And that works for a while. It can work for several years, while she’s distracted. But when she starts thinking about it, she starts realizing that this man she married just doesn’t do it for her. He just does not rev her up. He just can’t get her motor running. And it’s not his fault. It’s not really her fault (except for her lying to him to extract commitment from him, and her lying to herself to quiet the hamster).

        Most women in their marriages never get past “willing” to have sex. Most women do not WANT to have sex with their husbands. And it’s always been that way. It’s just that now, we’ve brought women on par with men in every significant way. Women say “why should I stay with a guy who I just “like OK”? I want it all! I want what Elspeth has! I want to LUST for my husband! Why can’t I have that? Why can’t I get what Elspeth got? Why do I have to settle for “eh, OK, yeah, sure, I guess”?”

        Women are selecting not so much for their men as they are for status points and a lifestyle. They aren’t picking men for marriage that they are sexually attracted to. They pick men who they think can give them the lifestyle and/or the social approval they want. That’s also part of the problem. ANd these women think that they don’t have to give their men anything in exchange for all their men are required to give them.

        It’s just a mess, it really is.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes I agree with that. I think E. agrees too. That’s what she’s predicting will happen (with fewer cases each decade as marriage declines).

        Where we differ. I don’t think E. is endorsing this or shilling for women (my words). I think she’s saying most of these women who are settling shouldn’t marry.

        “Women are selecting not so much for their men as they are for status points and a lifestyle. They aren’t picking men for marriage that they are sexually attracted to. They pick men who they think can give them the lifestyle and/or the social approval they want.”

        Yes. See her original comment about the women who showed up on the TC blog. They want to have A husband and A baby. They don’t want to have HIS baby (the ones they can get that they’re not afraid will bail for another woman).

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Here’s the other problem:

        “…most women will marry men they like just fine, and their husbands will adore them, and they will have kids, and many others will divorce or else transition to roommate status (the latter will be the Christian norm).”

        See that affection disparity there? Women are “eh, yeah, sure, he’s OK” and their men are “I love her very very much.” That’s a recipe for absolute disaster for men. (Ask me how I know.) Women (including E) are A-OK with that, too. Women are just fine with men loving their wives way, way, WAY more than their wives respect them.

        The Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary is just fine with this problem existing because they — and their husbands — will never, ever have to deal with it.

        Liked by 2 people

  26. cameron232 says:

    Yes sir! The asymmetry in attraction between husbands and wives. I agree. I don’t think E. is just fine with it. She’s saying most women shouldn’t marry. The exception: women with the E./SAM dynamic and a select group of religious virgins who have high sex drive and some attraction to their husbands.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      I know that I know that I know that I am absolutely 100% correct about this – most women are marrying men they aren’t sexually attracted to and don’t really want to have sex with. They’re willing to have sex with those men for a while, until they get what they want. Then, after they get what they want, the hideous truth comes out, and marriages – and the men in them, are destroyed.

      Most of the people who post here (including men) do not want to admit or face up to this. Most people here lack the courage to face the truth. Most people here lack the stones to face the facts on this.

      Most people here lack the courage to do what it will take to fix it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Of course. They are made different. Their sexual attraction is more discriminating than ours. Novaseeker said that most women marry a man they have some attraction to but it’s low. They don’t experience the same level of desire for most men – you and I – as we do for them. It’s so hard for them to get what they want: he’s hers and only hers, he’s hot, he’s loyal/providing, he’s emotionally supportive/validates her emotions.

        We’re simple. We’re attracted to them (if they’re not gross) and we are attracted to the softer personality qualities (which are increasingly rare in them).

        You’re right about most everything. They want to have sex with only a few men. Elspeth suggested this. She wants to have SAMs baby. The women protested that because they can’t or didn’t get a SAM. This is what they say when they talk to each other. She’s giving you and I a glimpse. They submit more readily to a man they’re sexually attracted to (a hurtful slap in the face to men – you’re not good enough – doesn’t matter how hard you studied to give her a great life). Sucks doesn’t it?

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “You’re right about most everything.”

        I know.

        “They want to have sex with only a few men. Elspeth suggested this. She wants to have SAMs baby. The women protested that because they can’t or didn’t get a SAM. This is what they say when they talk to each other. She’s giving you and I a glimpse. They submit more readily to a man they’re sexually attracted to.”

        What brought us to this point and all the problems we have are:

        1) bringing women on par with men in every way.

        2) Women thinking they can all be Elspeth/Liz/Mychael and all women can have a SAM/Mike/Scott.

        Which brings us to what we have to do to fix this. But no one wants to do what it will take to fix it.

        Here’s what it will take: Basically resetting society to laws and norms existing about 100 to 150 years ago.

        — A global cataclysmic “reset” of one kind or another. I don’t know what that will look like.

        — A massive, massive Christian revival on a worldwide scale.

        — The wholesale rollback of most “constitutional rights” based on sex/gender. Women lose the vote, the “right” to abortion, the “right” to birth control. Sex discrimination laws are repealed, permitting “discrimination” based on sex in education, employment, etc. The right to vote is limited to male owners of real property.

        — Tight social and criminal sanctions on premarital sexual conduct for men and women. Adultery is criminalized. Premarital sex is severely sanctioned. If you’re a man and you knock a girl up, you break her you bought her – she’s yours. You either marry her, or you have no rights to the child. If you’re a woman and you get knocked up, you find a way to make it work with your baby daddy, or we’ll “send you to your auntie’s up north” for a while, and you come back with a renewed outlook on life.

        — Wholesale and nationwide rollback of divorce and family law reform. In a divorce, custody of children defaults to father. No-fault divorce is subject to a nonwaivable one year separation period where “irreconcilable differences” and “irretrievable breakdown” must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Fault divorce must be proven. The “at fault” party receives a severe penalty in the property division. Alimony is limited to 3 years in all cases, regardless of the facts. Alimony is need based and entitlement must be proven, and not based on a percentage of the payee’s income. Prenuptial agreements are strictly construed to effectuate the plain language contained in them and are enforced as written, regardless of the parties’ positions at the time of divorce and regardless of income disparity. Child support is based on what it actually costs to support this child based on the lifestyle he’s actually enjoyed, and not based on a percentage of the payee’s income or anything else. Joint custody becomes exactly that — joint. It means the child lives half the time with one parent and half the time with the other.

        Or… people can just stay together and make it work.

        But, no one wants to do any of this. Because that means women would have to change and actually, you know, work at their relationships and for what they get. That means women would have to, you know, give a little to get more. That means women would have to, um, humble themselves and turn their faces to their God and their lords (husbands and fathers).

        None of this will happen. Even most of the people who comment here don’t want this and wouldn’t do it. The women certainly wouldn’t.

        Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      “The asymmetry in attraction between husbands and wives. I agree. I don’t think E. is just fine with it. She’s saying most women shouldn’t marry.”

      OK. Maybe so. Doesn’t change the fact that most women are going to go ahead and do it anyway, because it’s the only way they can get the lifestyle and social status they want. Doesn’t change the fact that E holds herself out as an ideal that most women will never, ever EVER be able to even come close to getting into the same ballpark as.

      Can we please establish, once and for all, that the E/SAM marriage is an extreme outlier and that most women can never, ever have anything close to approximating it? Same with Mychael/Scott and Liz/Mike. Extreme, extreme outlier, easily in the top 5% of all marriages, and completely unattainable for most people? Can we just all agree on that, please?

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes. SAM cranks E.’s engine 99% of the time (her words). Liz has sex with Mike every day (he’s home). They both submit. Very few men can get away with saying the things SAM says to E. That’s extreme outliers. 100% agree.

        Both men are very high value men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I recently got nosey and checked out the FB page of a female friend from work (she’s an attractive, recently married 30 year old). Not a lot of content so I spent like 5 minutes browsing. Before her current hubby there’s a picture of her standing with a guy I’m guessing is a college athlete, his arm around her. She’s going back in forth in the comments with her friend about how “gorgeous” he is – friend saying she couldn’t have helped grabbing and kissing him. Pics with hubby of course are more recent on her FB.

        1.This should have been deleted by her – it took me like 3 minutes to find it.
        2. She doesn’t go on and on about how her husband is “gorgeous.” He’s a young, aspiring program manager. Betabux.
        3. Hubby pursued her not vice versa.

        They don’t want you. At least not in the way you wish they did. Now that they’ve been liberated from shame they have no reason hide this.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        As I said earlier I consider E’s statement to be an indirect endorsement of MGTOW (by implication) for many, probably most men. And realize she can fake visceral attraction so you put a ring on it.

        Liked by 2 people

  27. Elspeth says:

    Thanks, Cameron for your well expressed interpretation of what I actually said vs what my old friend deti somehow misinterpreted me as saying. A lot of ink has been spilled so I can’t catch up with it all. It’s a breezy 81 so I picked up some friends of my kiddos and we spent a couple of hours at a lovel spot getting some vitamin D.

    I did not endorse women marrying men they are not deeply attracted to. I do believe that unless a drastic change occurs (first among Believers), and women are held accountable to fulfill all of their marriage duties with enthusiasm and gratitude as unto the Lord, then marriage will continue to be what it is now, just in smaller numbers.

    Cameron thinks my “libidinous virgin” quip is funny, but I’m serious. Of course, that sends us off into all kinds of off topic territory concerning nutrition and health that I don’t want to get into. Oh, and birth control pills too. Never been on ’em, and I believe it helped trememdously.

    Sidebar: A doctor tried to convince my friend to put her 15 year old daughter on them to ease the pain and discomfort of her periods. I told her before they went to the doctor that would happen, and so she was well armed and ready to forcefully decline. The child got the relief she needed through accupuncture. I shudder to think about how many girls (many of them young and virginal) are prescribed those things for difficult periods.

    Off topic, but a major player in women’s screwed up sex drives that cause husbands to suffer. I suspect without the thormonal tinkering a lot more women would find themselves a lot more attracted to the men they marry.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Eh. If you’re saying most women shouldn’t marry, then tell THEM that. Tell them not to get married. Tell them the destruction that they’ll cause if they do.

      And tell them they can’t ever have what you have. I dare you. Tell them that. Tell them that outright.

      If you won’t, I will. I have been. But they won’t believe me. Maybe they’ll believe you.

      Tell them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I have been saying for the last couple of years (in real life, not online), that Christians who pretend that the church is full of godly gals of wife material while lamenting that the men are subpar are delusional, and that many of not most of the young women are no better marriage prospects than the men are.

        But no, I have not been telling women not to get married. I have been telling them how to be married, and I’ve been telling them that to have what my husband and I have costs something. It ain’t free.

        More than that, it’s not for me to tell someone else’s daughter not to get married. No one is going to listen. We live in a world of the Truth with pronouns attached. People want you to agree with them in their choices for the most part.

        SAM and I are met with three general sets of reactions. The first is, “You two are so sweet but I am not letting my husband dictate what I wear, and as a grown man he can make his own breakfast”, or “I wish my wife treated me like yours treats you”, or most recently, “There’s no way your relationship is as ‘perfect’ as it seems. Every marriage has problems.”

        That last one is a head scratcher because people married more than 15 years should have more than gotten all the kinks out and be having a rip roaring good time during seasons of health and peace.

        You let me know how many people take your advice not to marry. Particularly among the women.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “I have not been telling women not to get married. I have been telling them how to be married, and I’ve been telling them that to have what my husband and I have costs something. It ain’t free.”

        You and SAM have what you have because you, unlike most women, married a man you are so incredibly sexually attracted to that you cannot see straight. That is the ONLY reason you have what you have. That is pure happenstance and luck. Most women CANNOT marry men they are that sexually attracted to.

        “…people married more than 15 years should have more than gotten all the kinks out and be having a rip roaring good time during seasons of health and peace.”

        HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

        The only way you work the kinks out is to never have those kinks in the first place… because of the level of sexual attraction the wife has for the husband.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        thedeti – From personal experience, a woman can be viscerally attracted to a man and lose that attraction. That the attraction was there in the first place is essential for correcting the issues later on.

        Like

  28. feeriker says:

    “I have been saying for the last couple of years (in real life, not online), that Christians who pretend that the church is full of godly gals of wife material while lamenting that the men are subpar are delusional, and that many of not most of the young women are no better marriage prospects than non-Christian/non-believing women are.”

    FIFY.

    “You let me know how many people take your advice not to marry. Particularly among the women.”

    I don’t think that Deti is under any illusions that women will ever heed such advice. Hypergamy is a hardwired trait among XX that isn’t going anywhere. Where Deti will probably have infinitely more success — and preclude the misery he describes from ever happening — is in convincing young MEN never to marry, particularly as his points about attraction mismatch become more obvious (and as intersexual relationships in the western world continue to circle the drain, even among ostensible “Christians”).

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Women are going to marry because

      1) Being married is the only way they can get the babies, the resources, and the status women crave.

      2) They want the lifestyle and the access to resources being married gives them.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      The attraction mismatches have become so obvious that no one can even try to lie about them anymore.

      Liked by 1 person

  29. Pingback: A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes | 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 )

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