The Bungling Dimwitted Lazy Husband

…is not humble or hardworking enough, or so they say.

Readership: All
Theme: Faux-Masculine Archetypes
Length: 1,100 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes

She’s the Boss around the house!

In Running all the big decisions by the missus first. (2020-10-30), Full Metal Patriarchy revisited a phenomenon typical of Complementarian marriages — the idea that the wife is the head of the house. This marital structure is hardly limited to Complementarians. Most men quickly buy into this scheme, because in their minds, they don’t want the headaches of continually having to make trivial decisions every day over things like choosing menus for meals, which type of dish detergent is best to buy, and whether the children should wear jeans or shorts each day; nor do they care for the hassles of washing, cooking, and cleaning. They would rather leave these mundane tasks and smaller decisions to the wife.

But complementarianish wives don’t see it this way. For them, “head of the house” means exactly that — they’re the boss! If the husband voices a concern, it is often dismissed as irrelevant or out of touch. If he states a preference, it is often disregarded, or if not, she carries the arrogant notion that she is being sooo kindhearted, loving, and sacrificial for tolerating his requests and accommodating his whims.

As Doug Wilson put it, he is a guest in his own home.

Unfortunately, these bungling dimwitted lazy husbands are slow to pick up on this kind of attitude in their wives, at least as long as the home is humming smoothly. But when something goes awry, the man is often taken to task, and summarily blamed for not “getting involved”, not “helping out”, and not “doing more” around the house. But of course, his skill level in cooking lasagna, folding laundry, vaccuuming the drapes, and wiping small butts will forever be substandard to her expert dexterity and keen eye for detail.

We as a culture have more or less accepted this image of the distant bumbling husband/father, a guest whose boorish jokes and off-color quips are patiently endured simply because he carries all the financial responsibilities of the family. For more than 50 years, we’ve seen this archetype depicted in films and on TV sitcoms — and we’ve laughed. Meanwhile, women have coopted this archetype as a convincing justification for disrespecting their men.

What is the Bungling Lazy Husband doing wrong?

Citing Ephesians 5:25, Tim Challies tells us that a husband should lead by loving her more, and the way to do this is (1) to increase his commitment to her service, and (2) to make himself as uncomfortable as possible in doing so.

“Your wife, aware as she is of your sin, should never have reason to doubt that you love her, that you love your children, that you are committed to serving your bride in this unique role. You must be willing to forsake your own desires, your own comfort, your own rights in order to express love for your wife.”

“The godly husband leads his wife with meekness and gentleness. You need to be aware of your own sin and your own failings.”

Challies keeps reminding us that the husband should be aware of his sin. I wonder which sin he is referring to. Is it having a lackadaisicial attitude toward, and a lack of diligence in performing the housework? Or is it the sin of appearing too comfortable* and content in his own home? Or maybe it is the sin of not making her feeel lurrved?

Later in the same article he contradicts** the above passages when he writes [emphasis mine],

“The godly husband does not mock or belittle his wife. You must not lead her through scorn or sarcasm or anger or punishment. Lead your wife with special delight and dignity, leading her differently than you would lead a child or an employee. Lead her with an awareness that you are a servant first, a leader second. Do nothing to puff yourself up with pride but everything to show your wife that you esteem her higher than yourself.

Surely the man’s thorough ego abasement will heat things up in the bedroom!

Challies also tells us that the husband should do all of the above with confidence!

“…the godly husband listens to Scripture above the world and leads his wife, confident that God calls him to do just this. Lead your wife with a humble confidence, even when you are called upon to make difficult or unpopular decisions.”

So to sum it all up, the bungling lazy husband needs to do the following:

  1. Humbly dwell on his sin. Use this guilt trip as a motivation to work harder.
  2. Be more diligent in serving the Boss Lord in his unique role of housemeet.
  3. Make her feel loved by debasing himself at the most inconvenient times and by displaying authentic discomfort.*
  4. He must not ever use any Game techniques, because that would be unChristian!
  5. Because true Headship is rather unpopular right now, he must be willing to face persecution and ridicule for being obedient to the Boss Lord.
  6. Be confident and bold about doing all of the above!

No chilly challying; no dilly dallying; let’s get to work on it now!

Challies is deluded enough to call this Headship! Certainly, readers must recognize the nonsensical efforts of the flesh in all of this. Yes, a man can glorify God and show love to his wife by doing housework, but Challies methodology doesn’t quite cut the grease. It’s not so much about the man’s being a servant or contributing service as it is about sharing the joy of having a mutual enterprise (such as cleaning the house).

Clinical Evidence Indicates Otherwise

* It should be noted that Dr. John Gottman has identified the husband’s level of comfort in the home (viz. “physiological soothing”) as an indicator of marital contentment and stability. IOW, wives who make efforts to make their husbands comfortable have better marriages. (PDF of research paper.)

** This is a contradiction of the earlier passages because we know these habits will not make wives feeel loved, but instead, it will only make her even more frustrated than she already is. Appeasement is not the way to win a woman’s heart.

CH Maxim #54: A woman’s happiness is inversely proportional to efforts to accommodate her demands.
Corollary to Maxim #54: The more a woman’s demands are catered, the more irrational will her future demands become.

Masculinity Rating

Strength: 4-7
Honor: 0-1
Authority: 0-5
Respect: 0-2
Purpose: 4-7

Average Score: 3

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 Agency, Archetypes, Attitude, Attraction, Churchianity, Collective Strength, Complementarianism, Counterfeit/False Paradigms, Courtship and Marriage, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discipline, Faux-Masculinity, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Game, Holding Frame, Identity, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Leadership, Love, Male Power, Personal Domain, Purpose, Relationships, Respect, Self-Concept, Solipsism, Sphere of Influence, Stewardship, The Hamster, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to The Bungling Dimwitted Lazy Husband

  1. Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  2. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    Replace “wife” with “God” in the following passage, and it becomes clear as mud:

    “Your God, aware as He is of your sin, should never have reason to doubt that you love Him, that you love your children, that you are committed to serving Him in this unique role. You must be willing to forsake your own desires, your own comfort, your own rights in order to express love for your God.”

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Red Pill Apostle says:

    — Humbly dwell on his sin. Use this guilt trip as a motivation to work harder.
    — Be more diligent in serving the Boss Lord in his unique role of housemeet.
    — Make her feel loved by debasing himself at the most inconvenient times and by displaying authentic discomfort.*
    — He must not ever use any Game techniques, because that would be unChristian!
    — Because true Headship is rather unpopular right now, he must be willing to face persecution and ridicule for being obedient to the Boss Lord.
    — Be confident and bold about doing all of the above!”

    This is a decent outline of the steps to make your marriage miserable.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. thedeti says:

    Re the Maids A la Mode article, Motivating your Husband to Clean:

    Why do I need to be motivated to clean?

    Mrs. deti and I have divvied up a lot of household tasks. She does most of the traditional “wife” things: food preparation, cleaning, laundry, dishes, vacuuming, child care.

    I already do a lot around the house. Herewith a list of what I do, in addition to my full time career which pays for 95% of all household expenses:

    — Household budgeting and monetary expenditurer planning
    — Billpaying
    — Car maintenance
    — Appliance maintenance, repair, replacement
    — Light bulb changing
    — Electrical/mechanical/plumbing maintenance/repair/replacement
    — Care for anything attached to or inside the house that requires any kind of hand or power tool to operate, repair, or replace
    — Purchasing, splitting, cutting, and stacking firewood
    — Yard work, mowing, trimming, cutting, seeding, fertilizing
    — Anything weighing over 40 pounds that needs moved, lifted, or shifted
    — Heavy housework
    — Selecting, hiring, dealing with, supervising, and paying, any outside vendors that do any kind of work at my house
    — Representing my household and children to the public
    — Dealing with school officials

    All of this is in addition to my full time career, which earns the money to pay for all of the above.

    So, Doug Wilson, don’t come in here telling me husbands don’t “do enough”. Don’t come in here telling me I need to “do more chores around the house”. I already do more than I can handle. Most husbands do the same things.

    Liked by 6 people

    • feeriker says:

      “So, Doug Wilson, don’t come in here telling me husbands don’t “do enough”. Don’t come in here telling me I need to “do more chores around the house”. I already do more than I can handle. Most husbands do the same things.”

      In days gone by, when men weren’t afraid to be men, guys like Doug Wilson who offered such unsolicited toxic nonsense to another man that would stand a good chance of doing serious damage to that man’s marriage would risk getting a literal, physical “@ss whupping” from that other man. Sadly, that doesn’t happen anymore, thus the proliferation of the complimentarian nonsense from guys like Wilson, Bnonn and Foster, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, and so many, many others who, in times past, would have known better than to actually ever voice such nonsense, knowing that there would be consequences from doing so.

      Liked by 4 people

    • We have a similar division of labor. Exception: I don’t mind washing the dishes after dinner (though she always unloads). I don’t like to brag, but I used to wash dishes professionally as a youth. And I eat faster than her, so I’d rather be doing something than just sitting there.

      Liked by 4 people

    • rontomlinson2 says:

      Dishes and vacuuming–best left to robots.

      I think the husband specifically is responsible for his children’s education. So, yes, dealing with school officials, but hopefully progressing to not having to deal with them ever again.

      Regarding yard work: anything which is routine and low-risk is her responsibility (e.g. mowing grass), but the rest is mine, e.g. fencing, building.

      Like

    • lastholdout says:

      I understood (or maybe misunderstood) what deti describes in his division of duties to be “complementary.” It is what I had with my late wife and it worked in that regard. com·ple·ment Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection I see patriarchy and this concept of complementarianism as compatible. The problem is how Wilson, et al, have redefined or misused the term.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        lastholdout – As my 7 year-old would put it, complementarianism is “weak sauce”. From it’s origins the term was a means of softening the truth to women who did not like that God told them they had to obey their husbands and be under their husband’s authority. The weakness is evident in the very notion of the name change.

        Patriarchy is offensive to our modern female sensibilities, even though it is the term that most adequately describes the relationship between Christ and his bride the church and husbands with their brides, so the term was scrapped for a seemingly more tolerable term, complementarianism. The appeasement aspect of creating the term is what affirms its “weak sauce”-ness.

        The deviousness of the term is due to husbands and wives being complementary. The husband has a purpose in life and she is the helper suitable to him, effectively one in authority and one under authority. If he wants kids, she is his biological complement to make that happen (I know, I know, assuming 2 biological genders is modern hate speech, but I’m a knuckle dragging caveman so I need a little grace). He sets the standards for his family and she manages to those standards. If the husband and wife follow God’s ways, then they are going to work together in very complementary ways, but we should not confuse this with the term coined by modern theologians.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. thedeti says:

    Not too many commenters today. All the men are so busy recovering from all the work they had to do on Mother’s Day (aka the Holiest of Holy Days on the Left Progressive Calendar). Set up to honor “Birthing People”.

    Liked by 1 person

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

  7. cameron232 says:

    LoL I can relate to some of this. The requests I have are mostly about not spoiling the children and in the process blowing the budget. She accepts headship in principle and never talks back (e.g. saying “I don’t have to listen to you!”) but passively (often) does what she wants (low impulse control).

    It’s the same with mom’s marriage except mom was vocal about doing what she wanted while dad brought in 100% of the income. It’s an interesting phenomena of housewives wanting the best of both worlds. The old style marriage (v 1.0) where hubby makes 100% sure you eat and sleep indoors but also the benefits of v2.0, of not having to listen, thereby effectively ruling the marriage (with 2 people, either one or the other gets their way).

    I spoke to my oldest son about this (in general — not with reference to mamma) and he called it “Boomer marriage.” Basically the best parts of marriage 1.0 and 2.0. Well they gotta pick 1.0 or 2.0 — you can’t have both darlin’s.

    So this is my last week of (online) work with my soon to be former company. Thinking of telling her she has to pick v.1.0 or 2.0. If it’s 2.0 then I’m retiring, e.g. never going back to work. I’m going to stay home and watch kids and homeschool the younger ones. I have worked a job I don’t like for 22+ years (many of my best years) while she stayed home. The next 22 years are hers (or until she earns the equivalent inflation adjusted income). I’ll be 69 in 22 years so retirement age (pension I earned, etc.).

    I think I’m done with going to work. Marriage 2.0 — fair share.

    Liked by 3 people

    • elspeth says:

      I’m sure that was cathartic Cameron, 😆.

      I have often wondered if Hollywood followed the cultural trend with their switch from Ward Cleaver to Ray Barone, or if women internalized these things because of entertainment.

      Mike Heck (The Middle) was a good, sane strong husband dad portrayal. That show ended in 2018 but I don’t think it was nearly as popular as the bumbling husband trope.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      “…(with 2 people, either one or the other gets their way).”

      I tried to have this discussion with my dad yesterday. He thought it was a partnership where each “consults” the other.

      No. Whenever you have two people in relationship with each other, one is the dominant, the other is the submissive. The dom and sub may shift from person to person depending on time and circumstance, but there is always a dom and there is always a sub. This is true regardless of the sex of the persons involved and regardless of the context. Doesn’t matter if it’s social, acquaintances, professional, dating, or sexual — whenever two people are relating to each other, one person always occupies the dom role, and the other submits.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        If two people disagree on a decision, on a pattern of actions, etc. one gets their way. In practice, it’s not like they take turns on decisions and it’s not like that would work anyway.

        Not that it matters but I’m a choose your battles type not a petty dictator type. It’s things I think make a difference not petty things – and not every single occurrence of things I disagree with rather repeated patterns. The difference in behavior between our older 4 (who are extremely calm, controlled, obedient, etc.) and number 5 and to a lesser extent 6 is striking. Because we did things my way not the fun give-them-what-they-want way. I saw the same pattern in my grandmother’s youngest. Sometimes feminine, good-hearted women have a real problem with this – cannot seem to help giving in to children. I can’t be here to dictate everything when I have to go to work for 12 hour days (including commute).

        Well beyond the scope of the post – sorry.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron – Women are, by their nature, are not as apt to enforce standards as men are. It’s their tendency to be more emotionally driven in decision making, which as we know means that they usually have work harder at holding to standards.

        In my marriage, Mrs. A is more prone to asking for exceptions in matters of dealing with our boys because it is hard to hold the standard. It just doesn’t feel good at times. Holding standards is part of what makes fathers so important in families. To borrow a term from Doug Wilson (he appears to have moved his stance a little since he wrote the OP referenced book), husbands are to be “servant lords”, in that they serve God and rule their family, which is to be concerned with administering justice.

        Rulers/lords are in the business of upholding standards and making sure their people are well cared for. This is one way husbands use the authority God has given them (headship) to serve their families along with protection and provision.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Not that it matters but I’m a choose your battles type not a petty dictator type. It’s things I think make a difference not petty things – and not every single occurrence of things I disagree with rather repeated patterns.

        Dude, that matters a lot, because that describes most men.

        I’d say about 60% of men focus on their highest 3-to-5 priorities, and give their wives the freedom to exercise their authority within those limits. That’s good leadership.

        Another 35% of men let their wives lead.

        Only about 5% of men are petty tyrants.

        You wouldn’t know that from the current narrative.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        @ RPA:

        “To borrow a term from Doug Wilson (he appears to have moved his stance a little since he wrote the OP referenced book), husbands are to be “servant lords”, in that they serve God and rule their family, which is to be concerned with administering justice.”

        I’ve not mentioned it, but I too have noticed how 20 year old statements from Doug Wilson are used to lump him in with folks like Tim Keller. Doug Wilson is the tolerated but naughty boy of evangelicalism. He’s branded a bully and a misogynist generally across the evangelical sphere. My female Christian friends can. not. stand. Doug Wilson, for the most part. I have one who tends to appreciate his stance on husbands as “lords” and “rulers”. It is a running joke when I am asked, “Have you listened to anything good lately?” And I tell them, “I could tell you, but you won’t like it…” To which I hear, “Oh, Doug Wilson again…” LOL.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        There’s nothing wrong with consulting your wife, like a wise commander consults his staff. In the end, though, the staff advises, and the commander decides.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Agree Oscar. My only reason for writing that is I’m bulletproof as far as accusations of the petty tyrant thing. I’m not controlling by nature.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Really good comment RPA.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “He’s branded a bully and a misogynist generally across the evangelical sphere. My female Christian friends can.not. stand. Doug Wilson, for the most part.”

        Lord have mercy. We’re doomed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Almost ALL men are bulletproof on the petty tyrant thing, Cameron. I think Oscar is right that may be 5%. Unfortunately any man who has a standard and expects his wife to live up to the standard he has set for his home is branded a petty tyrant. True story:

        One of my daughters (13 years old) joked one time that in our house, the reality is that “If Daddy ain’t happy…yada yada” and my stepsister clutched her metaphorical pearls as if to say, ” I would never put up with that!”

        What she fails to recognize is that SAM is happy 80% or more of the time, and when he does express displeasure about something, it is real and concrete, not just “I’m in a bad mood so I’m going to make everyone around me suffer”. There is always a clear path of action to making the thing right. And frankly, I’m way more spoiled than most wives who would never put up with that

        I loathe this whole “petty tyrant” term because men who are not pushovers and who are unapologetic rulers, are branded “petty tyrants” using the standard of postmodern pop psychology and complementarian feminist theology. Even men who ostensibly subscribe to patriarchal values tend to do this.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        The ability of a woman to truly submit to a man is directly related to how sexually attracted she is to him.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Elspeth,

        “I’ve not mentioned it, but I too have noticed how 20 year old statements from Doug Wilson are used to lump him in with folks like Tim Keller.”

        Keller’s take on marriage is one of the bigger disappointments when it comes to theologians. I went to college with one of his kids and got to hear Keller speak in a small setting RUF meeting. He was exquisitely good on faith, the depth of God’s grace, legalism, and unpacking scripture around those topics. That was in the late 90s.

        It’s almost as if over the decades since, the leftward lurch of NYC and its feminist cultural norms influenced him. That he is of the “happy wife, happy life” mentality, based on his book with his wife, is telling of someone who is able to be influenced by culture in this particular area. The scripture is so plain on the topic that it’s hard to imagine a man with his intellect getting it wrong.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Whenever you have two people in relationship with each other, one is the dominant, the other is the submissive. The dom and sub may shift from person to person depending on time and circumstance, but there is always a dom and there is always a sub.”

        Agree. There are varying degrees of dom and submissive; and I’m sure it can be situational to some degree; however, one or the other is going to be the dominant partner. I’d also add, you should be able to tell in fairly short order with just a bit of observation of the husband and wife interacting with one another in front of others.

        By varying degrees, I was referring to how dominant the dominant partner appears to be. In my church Life Group, I’d say in three of the couples, the husband is clearly dominant and the wife is submissive. I’d add here, it’s a loving, voluntary submission; and understanding, if you will, of the husband’s headship and a voluntary submission by the wife to his headship. I’d even go as far to say the wife LIKES it, i.e. seems to prefer it and operates freely inside of it.

        In the other two couples, I’d say the husband is dominant, but just barely. Might even go as far as to say one of the couples it’s egalitarian, a 50-50 relationship; and the other couple, the wife may even been slightly the dominant. The slightly dominant wife has dialed it back a bit over time, but I still sense it’s there.

        Here’s the kicker, in the three years we’ve been a group together, guess which couples have had the most problems? You guessed it! It’s the two egalitarian or near egalitarian couples. The one with the slightly dominant wife ended up in a Christian program for couples to work through their relational issues. The other one is headed that way as the wife is beginning to buck his slight headship, creating a relational tug of war over headship of the household. She’s digging her heels in and resisting, to include creating a dead bedroom situation the last time I talked with the husband.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPA,

        You mean Tim “Twinkle Toes” Keller, who broadcast an effeminate representation of the Holy Trinity?

        Pulpit and Pen: Tim Keller’s Redeemer Church Puts on Effeminate Worship Service (2017-7-10)

        Yeah, that dude has been a lost cause for years.

        Like

  8. feeriker says:

    “I think I’m done with going to work. Marriage 2.0 – fair share.”

    Imagine the anguished, blood-curdling screams from all around the Western world if all husbands did this.

    “Ain’t equality a bee-yotch, Sweetheart?”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Oscar says:

    CH Maxim #54: A woman’s happiness is inversely proportional to efforts to accommodate her demands.
    Corollary to Maxim #54: The more a woman’s demands are catered, the more irrational will her future demands become.

    Who here – besides me – figured this out the hard way?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Hand raised.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Right here!

      Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I sympathize with your gents but can’t say I can relate. My wife has never been demanding. At most, she demands my attention, time with me, etc. But I do like being around her so it’s not like I can’t accomodate her.

      Our biggest issue BY FAR is how she raises the children. If we had been infertile I think we’d have ZERO conflict.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        Well, bless your heart! (Meant to be read in a Southern accent)

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        NAWALT. But they’re all a pain in the ass.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I don’t really belong here. Almost all guys have really difficult marriages or were flat out screwed over and divorced. Even Scott – you can tell he has a lot of scars from his experience with wife 1. I have it pretty good but that wasn’t intended as a humble brag or whatever you guys call it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Dude, I’m happy for you, and I’m sure all the others are too. Good marriages are white pills, and therefore very useful sources of hope.

        Liked by 4 people

      • I can relate to you. My wife is 80-90% unicorn, but still had been slightly poisoned by the “I want tradwife when it benefits me but also feminism when it benefits me” philosophy of the 80s. She’s more traditional now. I definitely had some blue pill moments over the years, but overall my accidental red-pilling paid off splendidly.

        I still wish I had known these things earlier. So glad you all share the lessons with others. Lots of young guys will dodge many bullets because of it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Cameron,

        I should add that your marriage is even more encouraging because you’re a regular guy, like most of us.

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        While your wife is not demanding its still good that you acknowledge it. Some guys at church have very obedient wives and think all wives are like that because women are nice and agreeable in public. I know a guy who’s wife has told him no never! He’s complaining about her to me I said what did you tell your wife she didn’t do? And he’s like nothing she does everything I ever ask her. It’s hard for me as a celibate guy who has never had gf who wasn’t cheating on him to hear.

        Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      Guilty as charged.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      Yup. And letting them fail and fall on their @ss does not teach them anything. You are expected to be there to clean up the mess, so the reasoning faculty is never developed. They would truly rather rule in Hell than submit in Heaven.

      Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      The lesson every blue pill, beta husband must learn the hard way!

      Liked by 2 people

  10. feeriker says:

    “I loathe this whole “petty tyrant” term because men who are not pushovers and who are unapologetic rulers, are branded “petty tyrants…”

    […]

    “Even men who ostensibly subscribe to patriarchal values tend to do this.”

    The fact that even patriarchy-oriented men do this is a subconscious acknowledgment of the fact that most women, even “Christian” ones, are in open and unapologetic rebellion against God’s established order and that there is effectively nothing that men can do about it in temporal terms.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      feeriker – We are all in open rebellion against God’s established order. Women have the natural tendency to want to control when they are told to obey and men tend to want peace and often sacrifice their God given role of ruling to get it. The wife’s issue is obvious to us here and the men’s issue shows up as supplication to his wife, which he stupidly thinks will keep the peace he desires.

      Men’s best chance of gaining submission from wives is to fight the desire to make peace into an idol. Rather than peace as the goal, the goal should be holding God’s standards and any standards he sets for his own family fully knowing that this will cause conflict, but a good conflict that is sanctifying. When a man does this there is absolutely conflict, but more often than not, with enough time, fortitude and patience*, he will end up with both a submissive wife and the peace he desires.

      *Her parents should have done most of the foundational work here, but it is quite rare to find a woman whose father taught her the bible.

      Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “The wife’s issue is obvious to us here and the men’s issue shows up as supplication to his wife, which he stupidly thinks will keep the peace he desires.”

      We talk about the “Curse of Eve,” this IMO is the “Curse of Adam.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        rpboomer- The “curse of Adam” is what officially got us in the fine mess were in now. Because of headship, Adam, in theory, could have taken the penalty for Eve and prevented the fall. Because Jesus was sinless Paul refers to him as the better Adam and why Christ’s headship is essential. It’s how Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us and we can be considered blameless.

        Like

  11. Oscar says:

    Off topic: even this dude (looks like a lady) discovered the reality of the slippery slope.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Thanks. I now have “Dude (Looks Like A Lady)” by Aerosmith playing in my head.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        My work is done here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        Aerosmith Lyrics
        “Dude (Looks Like A Lady)”

        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady

        Cruise into a bar on the shore
        Her picture graced the grime on the door
        She a long lost love at first bite
        Baby maybe you’re wrong but you know it’s alright
        That’s right

        That, that
        That, that

        Backstage we’re havin’ the time
        Of our lives until somebody say
        Forgive me if I seem out of line
        Then she whipped out her gun and tried to blow me away!

        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady

        So, never judge a book by its cover
        Or who you’re gonna love by your lover
        Sayin’ love put me wise to her love in disguise
        She had the body of a Venus, Lord imagine my surprise.

        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady

        So baby let me follow you down (let me take a peek dear)
        Baby let me follow you down (do me, do me, do me all night)
        Baby let me follow you down (turn the other cheek dear)
        Baby let me follow you down (do me, do me, do me, do me)

        Ooh, what a funky lady
        Ooh, she like it, like it, like it, like that.
        Ooh, he was a lady!

        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady

        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady
        That, that dude looks like a lady

        Dude, dude, dude, dude looks like a lady
        Dude, dude, dude, dude looks like a lady
        Dude, dude, dude, dude looks like a lady
        Dude, dude, dude, dude looks like a lady

        Couldn’t resist! 😉

        Liked by 2 people

  12. catacombresident says:

    For once, I’ll reveal something about myself: I’ve been a benevolent tyrant from the start and still have the one and only wife. I don’t have any marriage scars. My beloved has always been pretty close to the Old Testament model. It’s her house (because I wouldn’t want or need one alone) and I do only those chores that entertain me. My faith mission has always been first, and she never doubted that for a second. But I don’t know anyone else who has that experience. It makes me feel like an alien being.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Elspeth says:

    @ RPA:

    I think Doug Wilson, in years past, was his own worst enemy because he tried to cover every base and there is really no way to do that without making a mess of things.

    Like

  14. Jack says:

    deti wrote,

    “Whenever you have two people in relationship with each other, one is the dominant, the other is the submissive. The dom and sub may shift from person to person depending on time and circumstance, but there is always a dom and there is always a sub. This is true regardless of the sex of the persons involved and regardless of the context. Doesn’t matter if it’s social, acquaintances, professional, dating, or sexual — whenever two people are relating to each other, one person always occupies the dom role, and the other submits.”

    In Asia, this is widely recognized as a basic matter of social intercourse. Whenever two or more people gather together, the first order of the meeting is to establish hierarchies. Age and social position are the larger determinants, so most of the time the hierarchy is self evident and does not need to be established.

    For example, in my position as a professor, the hierarchy is determined by the contributions of each professor to the University, to the country, and to the field of science (e.g. publications, amount of grant $$$ received, number of research projects, number of students mentored, etc.) Whenever there is a department meeting, it is the staff’s duty to write up a brief of the issues to be discussed at the meeting. It is also the staff’s duty to check up on the accomplishments of all the professors and to include in the brief a hierarchical list of professors from the top to the bottom. This list is updated and passed out at the beginning of every meeting so that every professor knows who is their senior. Professors who are older but are not as accomplished as younger professors are honored by giving them a better seat and deferential treatment. In the past, I have been asked not to wear a tie to department meetings because it suggested that I had more authority than I actually did, compared to other senior professors.

    Another example. Once I was waiting for the bus, and there was an elderly lady in the line in front of me. When the bus arrived and we started boarding, the first step onto the bus was too high for her. All she had to do is raise her hand in the air, and two young guys stepped out of the crowd, lifted her up into the bus, and walked away. No words were spoken. To this day, I am still amazed by this, because I have never seen this kind of social capital and respect for the elderly in the west. When I lived in Tennessee, I saw a lot of strangers helping each other in small ways, but there was nothing like this. Here I see people signaling a need for help that random strangers automatically respond to.

    I sincerely believe that Westerners could better themselves and the whole society if they once again recognized and respected those with authority, and helped and honored those older than themselves.

    Liked by 4 people

    • feeriker says:

      “Once I was waiting for the bus, and there was an elderly lady in the line in front of me. When the bus arrived and we started boarding, the first step onto the bus was too high for her. All she had to do is raise her hand in the air, and two young guys stepped out of the crowd, lifted her up into the bus, and walked away. No words were spoken. To this day, I am still amazed by this, because I have never seen this kind of social capital and respect for the elderly in the west.”

      The saddest aspect of this example where Western society is concerned is that up until VERY recently, most Western (specifically American) men, of any age, would have responded to this situation in the same way the Asian men in your example did. A general respect for elderly women, especially rendering them assistance when needed, was still part of the traditional cultural fabric.

      No more. Not only is almost all respect for the elderly gone from American society, but today’s generation of “elderly women” are the same women who were the Second Wave Feminists (2WF) of half a century ago. They probably not only do not merit any respect or deference, but would be very publicly offended if you were to show it to them.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        See my reply to Jack. As I look back on it, that’s what started happening – that, and women started attending to, respecting, and showing gratitude to, the “bad boys” and @$$holes they claimed not to like.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Weren’t they the generation screaming “don’t trust anyone over 30” decades ago? You reap what you sow.

        The problem is that I have an elderly mother who most definitely was not in that group. As I’ve said before, I want to live in a culture where my wife, mother, and daughters can reasonably expect random men to come to their rescue when they get a flat tire, or whatever. I’ve done that for women – especially elderly women – before.

        Sadly, we don’t live in that culture anymore, and it wasn’t men who changed it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Joe2 says:

        The days of a Boy Scout helping an “elderly woman” cross the street are long gone. Now if you approached an “elderly woman” you could very likely find yourself accused of harassment, inappropriate touching and possibly being arrested. Times have changed.

        Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      I have never seen this kind of social capital and respect for the elderly in the west.

      I have, as a much younger man.

      The difference is that the women who received that social capital and respect were grateful for it and never abused it. The difference is that older women taught younger women to be grateful for men, to at least not be disrespectful to men, to not expect anything of a man unless she was willing to spend time with him, and to never, ever abuse the good treatment men gave them.

      What happened was that women stopped being grateful for men. What happened was that women started expecting deferential “goddess” “princess” treatment as a matter of right. What happened was that women started openly disrespecting men, using men, and abusing men’s good faith.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        The woman who got the help onto the bus was grateful for the help she received. She didn’t stomp around her life demanding princess treatment everywhere.

        Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        “What happened was that women stopped being grateful for men. What happened was that women started expecting deferential “goddess” “princess” treatment as a matter of right. What happened was that women started openly disrespecting men, using men, and abusing men’s good faith.”

        All of that started in earnest back in the late 1960s when 2WF hit its serious stride. Most of its torchbearers were in their 20s and 30s then, which would make them the current generation of “elderly women.” As most not only never abandoned their feminist ideology, but let it mutate into successively more toxic strains as time progressed, these women deserve no consideration by or deference from younger men. Indeed, as progenitors, influencers, and mentors of the current generations of insufferable Western women, they deserve nothing but male contempt. Weep not for the crone in whose face the restaurant door is slammed (for failure of a “kind young man” to hold it open for her) or whose weak knees cause her to collapse on the bus from standing when no man offers her his seat (but to which she still feels entitled).

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        My mother is a extreme feminist and expects special treatment from everyone but men especially. I’ve heard all her laments about patriarchy, but she has no understanding. Blue collar men are not Fortune 500 CEO’s. I told her it’s not my job to make sure feminism works out, and those women would be safer as housewives instead of corporate slaves. She has said she’s going to move in with me and my sisters when she’s too old. And my sisters can’t say no, so they never bought houses. I just flat out told her, “No. I am not going to hear your complaining, ungratefulness, and demands.”

        Like

  15. cameron232 says:

    For Oscar.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. locustsplease says:

    My ex wife would tell me her love language was paying the bills not sex. It’s how she shows she cares. When she left me it wasn’t on her dating profile? Even if it was these simps want a scrap of anything. I was supposed to b a tall 6 pack ripped multi millionaire in exchange she would have the bills set on auto pay. Seems fair.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Love language is supposed to be what makes the other person feel loved not what you want to give. Whatever you think of the concept (it sounds like effeminate self help crap) she doesn’t seem to have understood it.

      Scott has counseled many men and will tell you most men’s primary “love language” is sex.

      Liked by 4 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Scott has counseled many men and will tell you most men’s primary “love language” is sex.”

        Good one! LoL

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        We have a copy of The Five Love Languages book on our shelf. Mrs. A got it from someone as a pre-wedding gift 20 years ago. On the inside cover I wrote the following executive summary to help women better understand men.

        Words of affirmation: Sexual suggestions
        Quality time: Sex
        Receiving gifts: Sex
        Acts of service: Sex
        Physical touch: Sex

        It’s self explanatory, but the summary wouldn’t have sold nearly as many books in Christian circles.

        Liked by 5 people

      • elspeth says:

        The point of love languages is to listen to and study the person you love so as to better express live to then.

        Anyone who is focused on her own love language is doing it 100% wrong.

        My experience is that even with copious amounts of sex, there are yet other things that a wife can do to make her husband feel less -or more- loved.

        For me, willingness to get dirty and work together. Cooking his favorite dish for dinner even if it’s a food I don’t like (and we have very different palates). Watching some crazy sci-fi thing.

        If all it took was sex, sex, sex, I wouldn’t have to do nearly as much as I do. That part comes easily.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I read some of the book. My reaction was that people probably don’t have 1 love language, rather they are probably in some rank order for most people. For example, I place the least value in receiving gifts. My wife’s first and foremost language is definitely time together.

        I don’t think men’s experience of love through physical touch is exclusively about sex. I just think it’s inevitable that it will include that — that sex is more or less the culmination of how they experience love through physical touch.

        Acts of service are nice, e.g. she insists on always cutting my hair; she used to insist on taking care of my dad’s diabetic feet; etc.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        For example, when we had problems in 2013, one thing I missed was holding hands — and that’s not sexual.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        I just saw this, Cameron. That is really sweet!

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Careful they’ll take my man card away!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth:

        OK. So maybe women need to focus on men’s love language.

        Fortunately, it’s much, MUCH easier for women to focus on men’s love language than it is for men to focus on women’s. It’s easier for women because ALL men’s love language is “physical touch”. It’s easier for women because there’s one, and only one, choice: Sex. You cannot go wrong with your husband by having more sex with him. You cannot go wrong with a man by touching him more.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Why did y’all have to take something funny I wrote and get all serious with it?

        “My experience is that even with copious amounts of sex, there are yet other things that a wife can do to make her husband feel less -or more- loved.”

        Elspeth, if you remove sex for a long enough period of time, Sam won’t give a flying flip about the other things you do with and for him whether they fit his “love language” priorities or not.

        The issue with Chapman’s book is that he expounds on the finishes of the structure while ignoring the parts that make up the foundation and framing. Can the finishes be quite nice and make a house better, absolutely. But if the foundation is made of sand and the framing of cardboard, the finishes are a waste of time and resources. He should have dealt with foundational issues first and then sold his 5 languages as the finishes to make it even better.

        Once the following are established, the love language stuff is more applicable. If the following is not established the love language stuff is a colossal waste of time.

        Men’s foundation:

        Words of affirmation: Sexual suggestions
        Quality time: Sex
        Receiving gifts: Sex
        Acts of service: Sex
        Physical touch: Sex

        Women’s foundation (based on what women do, not what they say):

        Words of affirmation: Time, attention and upholding standards with kindness
        Quality time: Time, attention and upholding standards with kindness
        Receiving gifts: Time, attention and upholding standards with kindness
        Acts of service: Time, attention and upholding standards with kindness
        Physical touch: Time, attention and upholding standards with kindness

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        @RPA

        “Elspeth, if you remove sex for a long enough period of time, Sam won’t give a flying flip about the other things you do with and for him whether they fit his “love language” priorities or not.”

        I realize that and agree. I’m warning against the tendency I see here of reducing the complexities of the human male down to his sex organs. (“Love language is sex! Just sex. Always sex!”)

        A wife who is doing all the things to meet her husband’s sexual needs would be very confused about the source of his dissatisfaction by reading that sex cures all.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Elspeth wrote,

        “A wife who is doing all the things to meet her husband’s sexual needs would be very confused about the source of his dissatisfaction by reading that sex cures all.”

        This statement is an oxymoron. A man with a wife who does everything to meet her husband’s sexual needs would not be terribly dissatisfied. 🙂

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        As Suzanne Venker tells the ladies, men are simple, and easy to please.

        Seriously, it’s not complicated.

        Women, on the other hand…

        Liked by 2 people

      • locustsplease says:

        What’s funny until I read one of these comments I hadn’t thought that a woman would read the love languages book to find a way to please me but the other way around. Like hey read this book and maybe, maybe you will please me after. Shows how long I’ve been in bad relationships or single. Only been in 1 good relationship she was in town for the summer so 3 months in my early 20,s but that’s my high water mark whoever is with her now is a lucky dude.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        @ locusts:

        If I were to hand my husband a book and say, “Read this so you can learn how to please me”, he would laugh, hand the book back to me, and suggest that maybe I should tell him what I need and he’ll decide if it’s really what I need or if it’s just going to reproduce more of the madness that motivated me to hand him that book in the first place. He expects me to say what I need, period.

        He’s not going to read my mind and he’s not going to accept punishment based on the ridiculous expectation that he is supposed to read my mind. We worked those kinks out in year 2. 🙂

        I learned a lot watching my dad deal not only with my stepmother, but women in general. Been thinking about that a lot lately.

        I was given a big head start in the wife dept. compared to most of my friends (MC/UMC educated women) who universally say their moms pretty much ran the family while their dads worked and brought home the bacon. Those are the ones whose mom’s didn’t divorce their dad during the 80s divorce craze.

        I was blessed.

        Liked by 3 people

  17. thedeti says:

    @Elspeth:

    “…feminist cultural norms influenced him. That he is of the “happy wife, happy life” mentality, based on his book with his wife, is telling of someone who is able to be influenced by culture in this particular area. The scripture is so plain on the topic that it’s hard to imagine a man with his intellect getting it wrong.”

    It’s very easy to understand why Tim Keller’s “theology” on intersexual relationships and husband-wife relationships has changed.

    https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2016/02/22/in-accounts-of-violence-context-is-everything-for-example-when-kathy-keller-smashed-plates-with-a-hammer/

    Kathy Keller had tried telling Tim he was “working too hard” and it was hurting their marriage. To get his attention, she started smashing china plates with a hammer.

    She used violence and threats to get him to change. Kathy Keller threatened her husband with violence and physical abuse.

    In other words, she was abusive to him.

    Most women send the clear message: “Do what I want, or I will not have sex with you.”

    Kathy Keller told her pastor husband: “Do what I want, or the next things I smash with this hammer will be your body parts.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/unhinged/

      The Dalrock piece above is actually a better, more illustrative account of Kathy Keller’s insanity and abuse toward her husband.

      Tim Keller is a battered spouse. He is an abused man, married to a violent, abusive woman.

      Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        My pastor is friends with him. I don’t know how close, but he has told me this, so I would imagine pretty close because he doesn’t brag. I didn’t go further having found the proper contrary complimentarian info and Keller criticisms on the Manosphere.

        Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Tim and Kathy prove that all of us have blind spots.

      I remember the Dalrock post on the plate incident. For younger men reading this who may find themselves on the wrong end of crazy with their woman, the following are all better responses than Tim’s self reported emotional supplication to his wife.

      1) Humor: Since when are we Greek and who got married?
      2) Agree and amplify: Good work. I never liked that pattern much.
      3) The unemotional response: Make sure you clean up when you’re done. I don’t want the kids to get hurt on a shard. I’ll be in my study working. Let me know when dinner is ready.
      4) Advanced move (1 + 3 combo): Since when are we Greek and who got married? Make sure you clean up when you’re done I don’t want the kids to get hurt on a shard. I’ll be in my study working. Let me know when dinner is ready. I hope we’re having gyros!

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Genuine reaction. “I’m a guy. You women value stuff like that more than we do. I’ll eat off a paper plate. If you’re going to buy more china to replace it, you’ll have to earn the money for that. I’m not paying for your temper tantrum.” Dude — grow a set.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. thedeti says:

    “I’ve not mentioned it, but I too have noticed how 20 year old statements from Doug Wilson are used to lump him in with folks like Tim Keller. Doug Wilson is the tolerated but naughty boy of evangelicalism. He’s branded a bully and a misogynist generally across the evangelical sphere. My female Christian friends can. not. stand. Doug Wilson, for the most part. I have one who tends to appreciate his stance on husbands as “lords” and “rulers”.”

    Wilson’s theology sucks. “Women are the ‘despots’ of the house; and husbands are to consider themselves ‘honored guests’ in their own homes”?

    No. That is not God’s theology or economy. That is not how God set it up. That is not of God at all. That is false theology, 100% false. And you of all people should know that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      I’d also respectfully point out that Wilson has never walked back or retracted any of his “20 year old statements”, or at least any of his qualifications or retractions has not been made public. Unless he has fully and expressly qualified or retracted the statements at issue, one can presume he still holds them. Therefore, the age of his statements and pronouncements is of no moment. What is relevant is that he made the statements and has not changed, qualified, walked back, or retracted them, and therefore, he still believes them and holds them to be true.

      At least Josh Harris publicly and expressly repudiated his own book IKDG and apologized for the damage he had done. Wilson has never made any such statement, to my knowledge.

      Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I’ve been reading and watching some of Wilson’s more recent stuff. Many of his current statements would seem at odds with his “women are despots of the house” mindset. To my knowledge, he is who coined “servant lord” as in the man rules by holding his family accountable to standards. That does not seem like a pastor who is telling men to kowtow to their wives and in fact he’s on video telling young men to be the man who holds her to standards, because that is what she truly wants, not a weak man who caves to her.

        Could he still stand by what he wrote? Sure. Is there mounting evidence that he is applying biblically masculine principles to marriages and relationships that are in line with God’s intent. Yes.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Red Pill Apostle,
        These guys like Doug Wilson who are stealing men’s headship do it with their spin and wordplay. They always leave the woman an out, and they always make sure that a man’s task is never possible to fully complete. The implication is always that perhaps he could have served her more, and that she’s a goddess so even if he goes to bed exhausted from serving her, the goddess still deserves even more and better service than he actually performed. The whole fact that they even put the word “serve” into the title of how the husband relates to the wife, is an inversion of who was primarily created to serve the other. While the man might serve his wife by voluntarily doing certain tasks at certain times, he was commanded to exercise dominion over this world, including to rule over her. Serving women is not part of men’s original purpose, obviously, because he was fully designed and created before she even existed. Whereas women were created for men to serve them.

        If these false teachers want to give out appropriate Biblical titles the husband should be the “commander-hero” or “ruler-savior” and the wife should be the “servant-adorer” or “underling-reverencer”. As long as those false teachers still insist on putting the word “servant” into men’s purpose statement, it is clear they are doing the work of Satan who wants to see all men enslaved, while God wanted husbands to have dominion and to be reverenced. As long as those false teachers leave servant out of women’s purpose statement, while somehow putting it into men’s, they demonstrate their clear intent to invert God’s original design.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “These guys like Doug Wilson who are stealing men’s headship do it with their spin and wordplay.”

        The spin is the careful padding and pandering of what “authority” means, and a large chunk of the wordplay surrounds the word “serve”, “service”, servant”, etc.

        “The implication is always that perhaps he could have served her more… […] The whole fact that they even put the word “serve” into the title of how the husband relates to the wife, is an inversion of who was primarily created to serve the other. While the man might serve his wife by voluntarily doing certain tasks at certain times, he was commanded to exercise dominion over this world, including to rule over her.”

        The Bible is clear that men should serve others, just as Jesus did, but the service is to God’s prerogatives, not to the whims and pleasures of those being served. More confusion arises from the nature of what it means to serve. For example, at times, it may serve God’s prerogatives to pleasure the wife, but other times, it may go against her whims. But Wilson et al. never make any distinction between the two contexts and tend to avoid the latter.

        “Serving women is not part of men’s original purpose, obviously, because he was fully designed and created before she even existed. Whereas women were created for men to serve them.”

        The key to understanding the proper expression of service is in recognizing that the locus of authority is in Jesus or the man respectively, not in the one being served. In some recent statements, Wilson has alluded to this (serving the wife is one expression of serving God), but it is not clear that he thought this way in the past. (In the past, it seemed like he was saying husbands should serve their wives out of obedience to God, without contextualizing such statements with Headship authority as opposed to wifely authority.) Even if this is what they are/were thinking, they are not expressing it in a way that would make these concepts, contexts, and distinctions clear to their male audiences. So the audience walks away thinking they need to serve the wife more diligently, like I described in the OP. (There is no confusion about Challies’ stance. He makes it quite clear that husbands should obeisantly serve the boss wife.)

        “As long as those false teachers still insist on putting the word “servant” into men’s purpose statement…”

        Yes, to recap, Wilson et al’s error is in neglecting or obscuring the locus of authority and then reading “serve the wife’s whims” into the man’s mission/purpose.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Wilson is, or claims to be, a trained theologian. He has spent his entire public life as a theologian making public written pronouncements about theology, intersexual relationships, and marriage. He specifically claims to exposit what God says about men, women, intersexual relationships and marriage, and their relationships to God. Wilson has written entire books on these subjects. He specifically claims superior knowledge about these subjects and purports to speak and write on them with great authority. He demands to be the EF Hutton of theology: “When Wilson talks, people listen.”

      Wilson invites, nay, demands, that people listen to him and give his pronouncements on these matters great weight and significance. He demands that you accept them as accurate expositions on proper interrelationships between and among God, men, women, and marriage.

      So he, and his defenders, don’t get to complain that he’s being taken to task on his “20 year old statements” when they are statements he has never publicly qualified or retracted; and he still apparently holds them to be true. Wilson doesn’t get to complain that Dalrock, and I, and others, go all Berean on him and search the scriptures (and our own experience) to see if what Wilson says is really true.

      Wilson doesn’t get to complain that as a pastor his feet get held to the fire in life because in death God will hold his whole body to the fire if what he said wasn’t true. As a pastor, he’s responsible for what he says because lives hang in the balance. He will be held to a higher standard. He’s a pastor — lives and souls are entrusted to his care. He’s a theologian. He claims to know what he’s talking about. He does not get to complain when someone like Dalrock says, “Oh really? Let’s see if you really do know what you’re talking about.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • princeasbel says:

        Absolutely. This is 10,000% true. Wilson demonstrated this very fact when I superchatted him when he was interviewed on the YouTube channel called The Gospel Truth. I asked about him calling wives “despots” who can order their husbands around. That’s one of if not the most “out there” claims Wilson has ever made. Did he retract it? No. Did he defend it? Yes, therefore, he still holds it to be true. All the so-called red-pill adjustments he appears to be making is a farce. There is no evolution going on here other than the particular manner in which he obfuscates what his position really is. He’s a Christian Feminist, plain and simple.

        If you would allow, Jack, this is where I laid out what happened during that interview in greater detail: Doug Wilson Plays the Motte and Bailey (2021-3-24).

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        You can tell a lot about how close someone is to the truth -however imperfect they may be- by who hates them. It is pretty much a universal truth that evangelical Christian women can.not. stand Doug Wilson. I have found this to be true with nearly 90% consistency for at least the last 10 years.

        There is no way a man who consistently places wives at the top of the marital hierarchy would be so roundly despised by Christian women. It would be just the opposite. Even among the homeschool crowd, I have heard it said more than once (rough paraphrase), “I appreciate the contribution that Canon Press has made to classical education, but there is no way I would ever send my daughter to a college where she will be taught that she is subservient to a man.” His statements in the Exasperate Your Wife are clearly unfortunate and misguided, even though I think I know what he was trying to express.

        Prior to this current era wherein we have redefined marriage almost purely in hedonic and romantic terms, it was understood that man and woman had separate spheres in the greater society, and in the home. Unless there was a clear and present issue to be addressed, men could mostly care less about how the wife structured the day to day happenings of the home. He had bigger fish to fry. That was her domain. That’s probably still mostly true today.

        So, if the wife determined that the influx of dirt into the house that came with coming in from outdoors was be better served if everyone took their shoes off at the door (to borrow Wilson’s example), then everyone would simply follow her declaration and take their shoes off at the door. Not because she has authority over her husband, but as an acknowledgement of the fact that as the primary housekeeper, her decision is what’s best.

        The word oikodespotés literally means, according to the Strong’s definition, to rule a household. So if that’s the word Paul used, I think he was referring to the actual structure of the house. Not to rule the family, as that position is already filled by the husband. If there is a contradiction (I say this as a devil’s advocate since we know that scripture cannot contradict itself), then it was in the translation of Paul’s writings.

        I have my issues with Wilson, but the idea that he is an enemy of men or an under-miner of men’s authority in marriage based on a few mistakes in the way he expressed himself when weighed against the totality of what he teaches on marriage and headship. It is not possible for a pastor to preach and write as a masculinist.

        I do agree that Wilson made a miscalculation when he wrote what he wrote. He failed to read the metaphorical room, and discern the times in which we live. Paul wrote what he wrote, but he needed to tread very lightly and be much more conservative in his approach. Very few men are married to a Mrs. Wilson, where the headship/submission hierarchy is firmly in place and where there are few disagreements. Many if not most men are married to Mrs. Tim Keller, and they don’t need any encouragement to be any bossier than women are often tempted to be.

        Like

      • princeasbel says:

        “His statements in the Exasperate Your Wife are clearly unfortunate and misguided, even though I think I know what he was trying to express. […] So, if the wife determined that the influx of dirt into the house that came with coming in from outdoors was be better served if everyone took their shoes off at the door (to borrow Wilson’s example), then everyone would simply follow her declaration and take their shoes off at the door. Not because she has authority over her husband, but as an acknowledgement of the fact that as the primary housekeeper, her decision is what’s best.”

        This is why Dalrock wrote “If you only knew Wilson like they know Wilson, you would know he does not mean what he writes.” What he actually wrote is… (from How To Exasperate Your Wife, page 11):

        “As the apostle Paul is urging young women to marry, he lets a very interesting comment fall in passing. “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14). The word translated here as “guide the house” is oikodespotein. The wife is to be the ruler or despot of the home. This means that when she tells you to take your shoes off at the door, you will take your shoes off—and cheerfully.”

        Doug Wilson did not write what you say he meant. Did you notice that the word “will” is italicized? That’s Wilson’s emphasis. He’s the one who italicized that word in his book, and his point is clear. Husbands must obey their wives. You say, “Not because she has authority over her husband,” but that’s the polar opposite of what Wilson wrote.

        “The word oikodespotés literally means, according to the Strong’s definition, to rule a household. So if that’s the word Paul used, I think he was referring to the actual structure of the house. Not to rule the family, as that position is already filled by the husband.”

        This all sounds good and rational, but again, it’s not what Wilson wrote. And when confronted on it during a live interview, he did not take that opportunity to make the careful qualifications you insist he must have meant. Nor did he say, “Hey, ignore what I wrote in the past. I wasn’t as biblically-based as I am now, and wives clearly do not have authority over their husbands.” It would have been the perfect opportunity to do so, and he didn’t do it. There are reasons why people like myself call him a Christian feminist.

        Like

  19. feeriker says:

    “He demands to be the EF Hutton of theology: “When Wilson talks, people listen.”

    Yeah, and look what happened to E.F. Hutton. Just sayin’.

    Like

  20. feeriker says:

    “She has said she’s going to move in with me and my sisters when she’s too old. And my sisters can’t say no so they never bought houses. I just flat out told her no I am not going to hear your complaining ungratefulness and demands.”

    GOOD. Stand your ground and tell her NO, that she can find her own place to live. Too many women, mothers included, think that they can spit in men’s faces (their own sons’ included) and disrespect them to the ends of the earth and that all will in the end be magically “forgiven and forgotten” even if she’s unrepentant.

    No. These women, especially those of the militant feminist variety, need to learn that their actions carry consequences. Since as a feminist your mother thinks men are superfluous, or even harmful, let her prove that she doesn’t need them by taking care of herself until the end of her days.

    Liked by 1 person

    • locustsplease says:

      The two beta bux husband’s she had all of their networth went to her vanity. Then she ran them into the ground in exchange. The husband she has now is very respected good looking and high income-status. I went to his work one day recently and was amazed I get a lot of attention from young attractive women he works in a hot bed and every corner we turned there was a 8-9 21-29yo swooning when he said hi I was invisible. In exchange for her luck she challenges his loyalty by telling him to leave her over nothing. She is the most abusive person in my family.

      They couldn’t b good examples so they are terrible warnings. My dad she left for no reason has enough bux to travel the world endlessly. It was all his fault for being boring working and stuff. The reality is she doesn’t have a loyal bone in her body. I listen to all of her advice and do the opposite! She hates Christianity which was my first clue. God started calling me a decade ago and I thought she’s wrong about everything so maybe this is worth exploring.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. 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