It’s too easy to blame everything on Feminism

Is the church feminized as a result of the Silence of Adam?  Or was Adam silenced by Feminism first?

Readership: Men; Christian Men;
Theme: Masculine Authority and Responsibility
Author’s Note: This post is based on a conversation between Jack and Deep Strength, author of Christianity and Masculinity.
Length: 1,600 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes

Introduction

A couple years ago, Deep Strength gave us an entertaining look at the double standards for bedroom performance that are usually imposed on married Christian men and women.

Christianity and Masculinity: Double standards around sex: the purest example of the feminization of Christianity (2020-6-9)

The double standard referred to here is that the same command to both husbands and wives to have sex with each other (given in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5) receives two drastically different responses from “Christian” men and women.  Hence, we often hear phrases like “evil patriarchy” and “oppressive/toxic masculinity” from women whenever this command is brought up, and we hear practically nothing from men.

Although DS did not explain how in the text of this post, the title itself states that the double standards between sexes (among other differences) are a manifestation of the feminization of Christianity.

Although I believe this to be true, I wasn’t content with this assumption, and I decided that this manifestation of Feminism within the church needed to be further examined.  So in response, I wrote a post Explaining the Double Standards around Sex (2020-06-10), and I reposted it on Reddit/RPChristians under the same title.

In this post, I argued that the double standard is not purely a result of the feminization of Christianity, but is instead a result of the differing viewpoints of men and women and how outspoken they are. It follows that…

  1. There is a selection bias based on the inherent differences between the sexes.
  2. The church prioritizes women’s arguments as the predominating view, and men have no resolve to counteract these arguments.

I’ll add a third reason here — the whole idea of a double standard is an assessment based on “fairness” AKA “equaluhty”, which buys into the societal-wide liberal consciousness. People who live in fear of the culture of Progressivism have a tendency to shy away from anything that doesn’t favor females in a vain effort to make them the same as men, and we see a whitewashed version of this within the church.

As a comparison, we have standards for pastors, standards for teachers, and standards for supervisors, but we don’t necessarily hold pastors, teachers, and supervisors to the exact same standards, even though their roles are more similar than those of husband and wife.  The reason that Liberals don’t attack and deconstruct these roles is because this doesn’t further their goal of erasing the distinctions between men and women and undermining the family, which also happens to be one of the primary goals of Satan.

Instead, the right way to think of this is that there are standards for women, and there are standards for men.  This is not a new idea, nor should it be sensational.

Anyway, the main point of my post was to elucidate how men and women respond differently to criticism, and that the prevailing viewpoint matches that of disobedient women rather than obedient men. This is neither good nor right.

Precision Control

Here’s a case in point.

Case Study – Denying Sex to One’s Spouse

Under Deep Strength’s post Sexual authority is only for sex and not against sex (2021-10-5), Jonadab-the-Rechabite wrote,

“There is confusion due to a lack of consensus on the meaning of “force”.  It plays into the feminist’s frame of “abuse”, “doormat”, and victimhood.  Is persuade, compel, or insistence force?  Is it the evil patriarchy at work when a refusal to acknowledge the withdrawal of consent as anything but covenant breaking sin?  Why does the knee-jerk reaction bring up rape and not defrauding?

This confusion is a direct result of admitting rebellious wimminz arguments. The words “abuse”, “consent”, “doormat”, “rape”, “victim”, etc. are all from discontented women’s attempt to gaslight everyone into believing that dominant men are brutish louts and that God’s ordained order is abusive, unfair, and evil. The words “defrauding” and “withholding” are from the suffering husband’s point of view.

Which of these two narratives is more truthful according to the Word of God?

In bizarro world, wives can defraud their husbands and husbands who point this out are called abusive.  Women are encouraged to be outspoken and men are supposed to remain silent so that the true abusers (rebellious wives) can blame the true victims (sex starved husbands) for being abusers. An eisegesis of God’s Word is then moulded around this model. No one is permitted to point this out without being branded a misogynist.  Women have all the power.

Jonadab’s question (in bold) gets to the core of the matter. As long as men allow this dynamic to continue, they will have a feminized church filled with confusion.

Facts Falling on Deaf Ears

Over at RPChristians, my post had a mixed reaction. It seemed that most of the moderators and commenters agreed with the post, but they didn’t know what to make of it because my reasoning and how it was phrased didn’t sit well with them. I didn’t understand what they didn’t agree with, so I asked DS about this in a private message.

DS told me the issue was my approach to the topic, which I would describe as part analytical, part praxeological, and part mystical.  He said most people would say points 1 and 2 are due to the feminization of Christianity, so parsing them out into different things (and not explicitly saying it’s due to feminization) is generally specious to most RPChristian readers. So instead of recognizing my post as a nuts and bolts description of how a church becomes feminized, they read this as me saying that Christianity is not feminized, or attempting to justify why or how it is feminized.

DS explained, for instance, that women’s views only have a predominating expression in arguments if feminism has crept into Churches and leadership.  Yes, but my question is, exactly how does this happen?  Is it when the mysterious zephyr of feminism has crept into the church, or is it when good men stay silent and let rebellious women do all the talking?

The good men at RPChristians stayed silent on this question.  It’s easier to blame everything on “Feminism”.

So apparently, any cause and effect analysis of real observations, even one that conveys transferrable knowledge, is useless and unsatisfying unless it includes a pat condemnation of Feminism — an abstraction that is already assumed and has no transferrable knowledge. 

I think the deeper reason why my approach was not received is because instead of taking the common Manospherian approach of catatonically blaming abstractions (i.e. Feminism, women, or churchianity), it put an onus on men to accept the situation as a challenge to stop tolerating the predominant fem-centric view, and to stop blaming the feminization of the church as a hopeless catharsis. That no one picked up on this gives me some concern for the men at RPChristians.

Conclusions

The Manosphere has long been in the habit of blaming every social ill on Feminism, and rightly so. Ten or so years ago, this was a prophetic revelation. But anymore, the Manosphere has formed a cathexis on Feminism which functions as a catharsis for the ills of Feminism.  Feminism is now, and has been for quite some time, a pat answer to every woe.  As such, it’s easy for us to pin the blame on “Feminism” as an abstract malady in order for us to get a satisfying sense of denouement without delving into the details and identifying the specific methods of the madness that Feminism has created. The question and task for men is to figure out what to do with themselves within this social structure.

All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and blame everything on “Feminism”.

Conservatives have a similar approach when they identify a problem but do nothing to resolve it.

As for the assumption posed by DS which I addressed in my post, admitting women’s arguments as the predominating view (i.e. an inversion of Headship) is the fundamental core of the feminization of Christianity. It’s not the other way around, viz. the feminization of Christianity allows women’s arguments to be the predominant norm, at least, not until the church has been entirely subsumed by Feminism. The interaction defines the structure. But apparently, the guys at RPChristians think that the structure defines the interaction.

Σ Frame Axiom 7 (Jack): The natural interaction defines the relationship structure according to which model it fits best, not what we think it is or hope for it to be.

I can see how it works both ways, but the thing I don’t like about their viewpoint is that it is a dead end approach. Guys won’t think that they can change their interactions with women as long as they regard Feminism as a monolithic power that holds immutable tyranny over their lives.

It’s important for men to establish and maintain Headship by dealing with their wives (who are women in the church) directly, especially when a top-down approach for tamping down feminism in the church is not a feasible approach (and it isn’t for men in most churches).

So instead of quarrelling about which came first, the chicken or the egg, eventually, we’re going to have to stop ascribing such overwhelming power to Feminism in the abstract, and start picking apart the tacks and threads that hold it all together. In practice, we should start engaging in some brinkmanship with those who are limited by their need of a rhetorical catharsis and those who presume Feminism will continue to be the overriding norm to which all others have to bow.

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 Calculated Risk Taking, Churchianity, Collective Strength, Communications, Complementarianism, Conflict Management, Consent, Convergence, Denying/Witholding Sex, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline, Discipline and Molding, Faith Community, Female Power, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Identity, Inner Game, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Leadership, Male Power, Manosphere, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Misogyny, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Personal Domain, Philosophy, Power, Purpose, Relationships, Reviews, Sex, Solipsism, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, The Hamster, White Wash. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to It’s too easy to blame everything on Feminism

  1. Derek Ramsey says:

    “All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and blame everything on “Feminism”. Conservatives have a similar approach when they identify a problem but do nothing to resolve it.”

    Evil flourishes wherever people do not make Jesus their Lord. Feminism is one prominent rejection of Jesus as Lord. Let me illustrate this by a simple rewording:

    “All that is required for feminism, a type of sinful evil, to flourish is for men to stand by and blame everything on “sin”. Politics can identify the problem, but do nothing to resolve it.”

    The first sentence is clearly problematic. Men blaming the flourishing of evil (including feminism) on sin is actually correct, but it isn’t necessarily because they are standing by doing nothing. We live in a time when the Words of God have little power in the minds of men. We no longer live in an era where the bulk of sinners can be easily corrected by merely sharing the Word of God. Their divine sense—their heart—is hardened.

    This is why Charlton (and others) are pushing Christian mysticism as an individual approach: the corporate approach is dead and gone. It is essentially correct to blame feminism (as a synecdoche for sin as a whole, the zeitgeist) and to acknowledge that it isn’t anyone’s personal fault except to the extent that we as individuals constantly fail to follow Christ’s individual call on our lives. Thus the change in approach towards Christian mysticism is so very important, as the key solution to the problem.

    The second sentence is correct. Legislation can’t fix this. It never will. Indeed no act of “good” men will. Only repentance can.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Jack says:

      Derek,
      I agree with what you wrote about the rise of Christian Mysticism.

      “It is essentially correct to blame feminism (as a synecdoche for sin as a whole, the zeitgeist)…”

      I like how you have identified “feminism” as a synechoche for “sin”. I recognize this is a widely adopted usage of the term, including in my own writings.

      “Men blaming the flourishing of evil (including feminism) on sin is actually correct, but it isn’t necessarily because they are standing by doing nothing.”

      How then, do you account for Adam’s silence in the Garden of Eden and then blaming Eve for her error?

      Like

      • info says:

        Adam should have told her what God actually said. Rather than let the situation play out.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “How then, do you account for Adam’s silence in the Garden of Eden and then blaming Eve for her error?”

        I think it is far to popular to blame Adam for not trying to stop Eve’s actions by speaking up. In particular, Info noted:

        “Adam should have told her what God actually said. Rather than let the situation play out.”

        But that’s not what God said:

        “Because you listened to your wife…”

        Adam should not have listened to her.

        An old school Anabaptist belief that is becoming more relevant (regarding Christian mysticism) is that it is okay to leave judgment of sin to God, not your personal responsibility to correct every wrong you see, including in your own wife or the church. Such inaction is not sin. You can’t force someone to do the right thing, but you can lead by example: leadership rather than coercion or punishment. This works personally even if it gets no results in others.

        It was (sort of) okay for Adam to be silent, but it wasn’t okay to blame Eve, so God refocused the blame on what Adam could have done personally instead. Do not obey an unlawful order from your wife. Do what’s right, even when it isn’t popular.

        I do think Adam could have, should have, and maybe even did speak up, but if ultimately Eve didn’t listen and kept pushing, it was Adam’s task to not obey and to do what he was commanded to do by God.

        This is akin to us developing the divine heart-sense and learning to base your behaviors not just on scripture (which can lead to legalism and error), but on the Spirit’s specific prompting and revelation. Most of us can’t change much in the world, but if we can learn to follow that prompting, we will maximize our effectiveness. What that looks like will differ from husband to husband and wife to wife.

        You can’t look at the zeitgeist and say “all men are standing by doing nothing”, because men can follow the call of the Spirit and you would still see the same marital and societal decay. You often don’t know from casual external observation alone. That isn’t the case for our churches, however, where the decay is quite obvious.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Derek Ramsey

        When the Pentecostals abandoned the Scripture and Church Fathers anchor.

        Heresy and false teaching came flooding in. Without scripture its harder to tell if something is demonically influenced or self-delusion.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @ info

        “When the Pentecostals abandoned the Scripture and Church Fathers anchor. Heresy and false teaching came flooding in. Without scripture its harder to tell if something is demonically influenced or self-delusion.”

        Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God? Do you believe that God alone is sufficient?

        “This is akin to us developing the divine heart-sense and learning to base your behaviors not just on scripture (which can lead to legalism and error), but on the Spirit’s specific prompting and revelation.”

        So I did say to use both scripture and Holy Spirit. However, I’ve found, regarding Christian mysticism, the utter fear from the rational folk (including myself) that (1) people might believe in heresy and (2) the Holy Spirit isn’t powerful enough alone. These two fears are the same.

        Being divinely heart-led (thinking divinely intuitively: direct revelation) is not the same as being led by feelings, but it also isn’t being led by the five senses, nor being led by one’s own reason. This makes people deeply uncomfortable. You want to believe that whatever doctrines you believe are correct because you (or your church tradition) have applied your (or their) reason to them. But that is in error.

        Correct doctrines and interpretations are revealed to us by working of the Holy Spirit. You cannot fully apprehend the truth of scripture as the Word of God unless God himself reveals it to you, as with the Father revealing it to Simon Peter for his confession of Jesus. Scripture alone is of limited value.

        The point is, if you are not being heart-led by the Holy Spirit, you will almost certainly be living in doctrinal error. This reflects the normal state of man. Rather than try to fix this rationally (it can’t be fixed that way), the goal is to develop that spiritual connection with God in order to reveal your error. This is what Jesus meant, I think, when he told us all to worry about the speck in our own eye.

        The primary way we fix this in others is the Great Commission.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Derek Ramsey

        The Holy Spirit is responsible for the Scriptures. I’d expect the Holy Spirit to make use of Scripture as “The Sword of the Spirit”. And teach doctrines in accord with the Scriptures.

        I see plenty of false teachers claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. Or people collapsing in convulsions of “being slain in the spirit”. Women called to be preachers and so on.

        You sure those are of the Holy Spirit?

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “I see plenty of false teachers claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. Or people collapsing in convulsions of “being slain in the spirit”. Women called to be preachers and so on. You sure those are of the Holy Spirit?”

        It seems plain—and others have pointed this out—that the nudging of the Holy Spirit is largely personal and individual. It is primarily meant only for the person who receives it. What I am called to do is not binding on you, who likely has a very different call.

        You can’t know what has been revealed to my heart-sense, nor can you know if it is valid unless you test it against the scripture. Moreover, if you know what I said is true (or false) based on your own heart-sense, then you never had need of me justifying it to you. You merely confirm it through multiple witnesses, as the Bible instructs with regards to the gift of prophecy. But even in that case, such revelations are not usually intended for all Christians anyway, just for the edification of the local body.

        So it does not matter what people claim. If someone, outside very limited circumstances within the church, justifies their actions by doing the will of the Spirit, unless you can validate it yourself, it has no binding on you or your conscience.

        The scriptures are meant to be widely shared. The revelations of the Holy Spirit are not, at least not directly.

        If we were all divinely heart-led by the Holy Spirit, I think you would start to see valid external manifestations of the Spirit, like an abundance of real miracles (not stage “healings”). But the reason we are even having this discussion is because the West is at the lowest point in history with regards to that.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Pingback: When Persecution Comes | okrahead

  3. AngloSaxon says:

    How about we start blaming leadership? — Political leaders and church leaders who have completely failed to fight feminism.

    Liked by 4 people

    • feeriker says:

      Worse than not fighting it, many (most?) of them actively endorse it, even if they don’t recognize it as feminism or call it that. Whether this is motivated by a fear of female backlash or misguided ignorance is an open question, but the fact is that many (most?) “leaders” in both the temporal and spiritual realms have served as accelerants to this sinful cancer.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “How about we start blaming leadership?”

      There are lots of things to blame, but an assignation of blame alone may not be sufficient. Another way to view this situation is that there are (at least) three kinds of blame.

      1– Name it, blame it, and shame it, to motivate others to change their behavior.
      2– Catatonically affixing blame as a catharsis, but no follow up action.
      3– Affixing blame as a judgment on an identified cause, and then taking action to address the cause.

      The observable difference between 2 and 3 is whether an action is identified as a potential remedy and acted upon. As you pointed out in another comment, it is possible that there is no perceived action that can be taken, or that the causes are diffuse, legion, and/or profound. I think this is the main reason why people resort to 2. This blog is a virtual think tank for coming up with actions and strategies, so I won’t be satisfied with 2.

      Like

    • info says:

      If only we can oust big Eva phony shepherds. And replace them with Men who fulfill the character requirements for Elders. Not excluding that those Men must be True Heads of their own Households.

      Like

    • Derek Ramsey says:

      AngloSaxon said:

      “How about we start blaming leadership? — Political leaders and church leaders who have completely failed to fight feminism.”

      …and Jack said:

      “How then, do you account for Adam’s silence in the Garden of Eden and then blaming Eve for her error?”

      Women got the right to vote in 1920. I’ve pointed out that if men and women’s opinions were equally weighted, there is never a statistical reason for woman to vote. No one believes this, so the existence of woman’s suffrage is implicit proof that that some of women’s opinions are sufficiently different (“better”) than men’s opinions. Because voting is based on majority and women make up a majority of voters, it is essentially impossible for men to lead on the political stage by improving their leadership, especially given the self-feeding nature of family decline.

      “Legislation can’t fix this. It never will. Indeed no act of “good” men will. Only repentance can.”

      Can the church be saved? Consider:

      “No real church would agree to its long term closure and cessation of core activities under any circumstances… If forced to cease, desist and close; any true church would dissent, protest, and disobey to the limit of its courage and spiritual expediency… Any institution that identifies as ‘a church’ agrees to its own closure and cessation without explicit resistance; it is not a real church: it is a fake church… Any fake church that goes beyond minimal compliance to add further restrictions on its own activities, and/or who embraces, advocates, celebrates its own limitation in core activities — has gone beyond being a fake church; and has become an Anti-church.”

      The hardest pill to swallow is to accept that the sectarian debates of the past are no longer valid. The debates over which denomination holds the correct doctrines is over. All of the major denominations have been bureaucratically captured. None are Christian. All are Anti-Church. Like politics, leadership cannot fix them. Christianity is now personal and individual.

      Liked by 3 people

      • AngloSaxon says:

        We need good Christian leaders. The pagans are done for with their democracy. If we have good Christian pastors/priests/husbands/fathers we can undermine democracy by showing how hierarchy is superior.

        Once girls get the vote it’s game over.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “We need good Christian leaders.”

        We do, yes, but if that isn’t possible, what will we do instead? Jack has been saying to do this…

        “3– Affixing blame as a judgment on an identified cause, and then taking action to address the cause.”

        …but if we don’t have anything actionable that we can actually do to fix our churches, then it logically reduces to this…

        “2– Catatonically affixing blame as a catharsis, but no follow up action.”

        …because there is no follow up action to address the cause. Trying to beat a dead horse will only lead to frustration.

        So I ask, what do we do about the men who cannot be — or are not called to be — church leaders? Or perhaps more to the point, how do you build good Christian leaders in an environment designed to suppress them?

        Liked by 2 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        “We need good Christian leaders.”

        “…what do we do about the men who cannot be—or are not called to be—church leaders?”

        Seems to me the answer is that every Christian man is called to be at least a leader of himself, and a leader of his own family if he has one (assuming he can manage to do so essentially swimming upstream alone). Leading may mean following a suitable group if one can be found that is a helpful augmentation of his own leadership, but it may also mean looking elsewhere or providing the leadership to his family by himself.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        “… if we don’t have anything actionable that we can actually do to fix our churches …”

        Our old apostate Mormon friend, Boxer, used to preach to us that our Feminist charlatan church leaders won’t ever listen to us men until we cut off all their funds. As long as they can preach Feminism and make their living doing it, nothing will change. You can’t give them a cent until they completely repent. Not one cent! That was Boxer’s exhortation, and the longer I’m Red Pilled, the wiser that point appears to be. Furthermore, why fund the mouth of Satan which tears down the image of God for a living. And, it will save you a bundle of money, that you can then have to directly help those you know who are truly in need, in the name of Jesus Christ.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “You can’t give them a cent until they completely repent. Not one cent!”

        It makes it hard to tithe when no churches are worthy of the name of Christ.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Tithe? I thought you were the one saying that we Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish Laws? LOL! The tithe was the Jewish theocracy’s tax system whereby they supported their governing priesthood who administered their country, including their Levitical courts and the temple guards who were their police. We pay more in taxes and some folks get more in services.

        The voluntary giving described in the New Testament church was an entirely separate and different thing from the required Jewish tithe.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “Tithe? I thought you were the one saying that we Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish Laws?”

        In the age of grace, the “tithe” takes on a different significance. It is no longer a strict 10% tax, but giving according to the leading of the Spirit, perhaps more, perhaps less. Calling it a “tithe” is mere semantic simplicity. Regardless, these days it is hard to effectively spend the Lord’s money in a way that honors Him. Spending it on apostate churches is not going to honor Him.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Sharkly says:

    When one ideology is in control, it is easiest to blame all of the ills a person experiences under the rule of that ideology, on that ideology. While not all the evils in a particular society will stem from the leading ideology and rulership, it is next to impossible to truly know how much influence the ideology and the “powers that be” have had on a particular person’s actions.

    For example, if I lived in communist China, and my neighbor, who lives in grinding poverty, and has had his money confiscated by the local communist party officials, then steals some rice from me, to what degree can I blame communism and the corrupt local party leaders, and to what degree should I blame my neighbor or fallen human nature? Because he has marinated in a communist society all his life, gone to communist schools, and suffered the depredations of that failed arrogant Humanist ideology, which fails to attribute an innate fallen nature to humankind, how much of what he does can you blame on ignorant atheistic communism, and how much is just due to his fallen human nature, and how much is due to his individual nature or his family of origin?

    It is really humanly impossible to judge that perfectly. People will look on the outward appearances, but they really lack the omniscience to know why many things happen, what were the factors, and what was the most primary cause. So is it fair to blame the many failings of a communist society on Communism and the corruption inherent in its human leadership. Is it fair to blame the many failings of a Feminist society on Feminism and its Feminist approved leaders? Do Feminists blame a non-existent patriarchy for all our nation’s crimes and the boogeymen they imagine hiding around every corner?

    Ultimately I think a society can and should blame a lot on their rulers and the ruling ideology. However, it is wrong to expect a perfect utopia here among fallen people. It is a challenge to find a proper equivalent society to compare ours to. No society in history has had all the benefits of our current technology. The oft cited Amish may have very low rates of crime, but their productivity could be limited by their slow acceptance of newer technologies. Furthermore they are an insular and inbred group that has mostly been spared from the purported “benefits of diversity” within their close-knit communities of likeminded folk. However many Native American tribes may have similarly arranged clans, and yet they seem to lack industry and stereotypically spend their government checks on firewater and dissipation.

    Where is that shining city on a hill, where fathers discipline their families rightly, where few opportunities are lost to sloth, corruption, or bureaucracy, where the people behave uprightly, where gluttony is rare, virtues abound, and people treat their neighbor as they would want to be treated? There is no current right community to compare ourselves to, against which we can fully measure the cost of our lost opportunities.

    At the end of the day, we won’t likely dissuade folks from blaming the presumed evils of their society on their ideological enemies. We can only adjust our own perspectives on what is truly caused by a particular ideology, and moderate our own expectations for how a society employing our own ideological beliefs would look when instituted. Until God reigns on earth, humankind will only continue to prove why we need Him. Our best efforts will fall short. But, it is right to hold our leaders and our leading ideologies accountable for the degeneracy of our time. We can surely do better. And we should make every effort to do better.

    Liked by 2 people

    • AngloSaxon says:

      We’re so far away from what the Bible outlines marriage/family/society to look like. In the Garden, Adam was to blame, because he should have dominated Eve instead of listening to her. But in current year, the husband can’t dominate his wife into submission because “dats abuseeee!!!” So when the family goes to hell, who is to blame? The husband can’t be blamed, he has so little power. The woman is just a woman and was never supposed to be in charge, so she’s not to blame because she’s unfit to be in charge. Children are just children. Politicians have to pander to women and feminist men to get elected… So who is to blame?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Husbands have more control in todays world than people think. The risk and cost of that control is much higher than it used to be, but we still have it. Thedeti and I are two examples of what it looks like when a man is at the end of his rope with his wife’s behavior and starts the “my way or the highway” campaign of boundary setting. The changes in both of our marriages are due to each of us behaving wildly differently than we used to as husbands. Lo and behold, our wives both became much more rational, even if only for image preservation, when faced with losing the “Mrs.” status and the humbling that comes with not being able to keep a man.

        Liked by 5 people

      • AngloSaxon says:

        That’s good! I’m glad your marriages were saved.

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        @Red Pill Apostle.

        It’s still a shame that she can still pick up the phone and get you arrested for DV. And drag you to family court however.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Sharkly,

      “Ultimately I think a society can and should blame a lot on their rulers and the ruling ideology. However, it is wrong to expect a perfect utopia here among fallen people.”

      Politics often follow culture in our representative republic, or at least what is left of it. It’s why politicians in the past 10-15 years have changed stances on big issues and did so late in life when they presumably had many years to think through their positions. Basically, we as a culture get the leaders we deserve.

      Once we understand that, the actions we need to take as men become much more clear.

      1– Rule your household.
      2– Raise sons to rule their households and daughters to be submissive to their husbands.
      3– Encourage men in your sphere of influence to do the same.
      4– Ridicule flaccid male feminist’s viewpoints and actions over a good bourbon or beer, because with all the work points 1-3 entail, a guy should be able to have a little fun in life.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. catacombresident says:

    Among just a very few men I’ve known, blaming something on feminism was a call to action. It meant that the source of the problem was known and the solution had already been hashed out, so now we act. That’s not what we see much these days. As noted above, the blame game is an excuse to avoid any call to action.

    Because trying to take corporate action blew up in my face too often, I stopped trying to help the churches I had attended. I’ve been acting on my own for a very long time, and rejoicing with a tiny few men at how well it worked out. I didn’t have to fight the feminist battle in my own marriage, except in the sense of a tiny residual habit of mind my wife already knew was wrong. All she needed was an occasional reminder of how this or that instinct was feminism showing it’s ugly face. That stuff stopped. My wife has always been supportive and obedient. She still is. (I know what a magnificent blessing this is.)

    By exploring these things in a rarefied discussion forum like this, maybe we can at least build an awareness of how it could be better. Getting any portion of our society to adopt it is probably out of our hands, but at least we can establish and organize the awareness just in case the Lord drives someone to come look for it.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Rowena says:

    The most powerful reason for feminisation in the church is not because men have abdicated their positions as leaders. It is because Christian men have a double standard. Christian men have one standard for their wives and a completely different one for their daughters.

    Christian men want wives that are sexually pure – a virgin is highly prized. But when it comes to his daughter – he will not bat an eyelid when she dresses immodestly. In fact, he will be the first to recommend that the pastor “up” the “shame the men for looking” speech), will encourage her to go on birth control (to control her acne of course), has no qualms in encouraging her to go out of the protection of his home and go off to college where she will be relentlessly pursued by Alpha Chads, and tell her to wait for marriage as long as possible. Hands up – number of Christian men who are willing to send their daughter to a local community college and help her in finding a suitable husband so she can really find herself sexually with him. My guess is – very few!

    Christian men want wives that are keepers of the home. But when it comes to his daughter, he will encourage her to pursue her dreams and get a career. Hands up number of Christian men who will send their daughters to cooking or interior design classes or teach her frugality – my guess is very few!

    Christian men want wives who will be mothers for their children, preferably stay-at-home moms. Even better if she home-schools. But daughter will be encouraged to follow a professional career. Hands up – number of Christian men who will require their daughters to serve perhaps in the Sunday school with the toddlers; go for classes on children’s psychology, or teach her to be patient, sweet, and kind — requirements of a good mother. My guess is very few.

    Christian men want wives who are meek, obedient and submissive. Yet the daughter will be told she is a prize princess and any man is blessed to have her. In fact, he will relentlessly talk about how NO man is suitable for his daughter. He will also be excessively proud that his daughter is bold, fierce, independent, opinionated, sassy and strong. Every action or word that endorses contentiousness and rebellion will be actively praised. Hands up – number of Christian men who will teach their daughters that there are leaders and supporters – in family, in church and society. God has called wives to be helpmates to their husbands and support functions in the church (to men called to be leaders) and that instead of aspiring to be a leader she should be thinking how best to serve God by supporting (just as men serve God by leading) – my guess – nope not a few! I have NEVER seen it happen.

    Christian men want bible following wives and yet will NOT raise their daughters to be the same. In my humble opinion, the greatest defrauding that happens is not what women do to men. It is what Christian fathers do to their future sons-in-law.

    I find it interesting that Red Pill Apostle and Sharkly are the most vocal against feminism. From what I understand – they only have sons and not daughters. Put a daughter in the picture. It changes things. I do not know why – only Christian men can answer that. Which begs my question – Why do Christian men have one standard for their wives and another for their daughters?

    Note: The above is not judgment but my personal observation about Christian men. I just wonder why the double standard exists
    Also note: I know this also pains a lot of Christian men who have been shunted out of the lives of their daughters due to frivolous divorce but unless you have absolutely no contact with your daughter, your influence and teaching matters.

    Apologies also for this long post!

    Liked by 4 people

    • info says:

      Why are those Christian Men. Acting with hate towards their future son in laws?

      Normally they should want their daughter to be of good character and unspoiled as a gift to their son in laws. It’s a form of love of neighbor to bless his son in law with a good wife.

      If a guy only has daughters then a son in law is a good way to fulfill his son preference. Aside from trying for a large family.

      And if he gets to choose a good son in law. All the better.

      Like

    • feeriker says:

      Regarding what Rowena said at 2022-08-11 at 1:45 pm:

      Leaving aside the fact that what you’re describing here is more typical of run-of-the-mill churchian men than RP Christian men, the fact is that the biggest reason why these men are so lenient and indulgent with their daughters is that their wives want their daughters to behave this way even more than they do. Dad may not be at all happy about his daughter dressing and acting like a porn star and spouting NOW-grade rhetoric, but the fact is that his precious little daughter is often a proxy for Mom’s attitudes and outlook, and if he voices any objection to the course little Suzy has set herself upon, Mom will rush to her defense in the most contentious and forceful way imaginable.

      Mom probably isn’t playing the role of submissive Christian wife either, no matter what face she shows on Sunday morning to the people who only see her once a week. In fact, the typical churchian wife deeply resents the idea of being a submissive helpmeet, and for this reason inculcates into her daughter the impulse to ramp up the rebellion multiple notches, something which she wishes she had done when younger and carried it into adulthood. In other words, Mom is determined that her daughter isn’t going to be the “Christian” wife and mother she “allowed herself to be trapped into becoming.” Whispers of FOMO and YOLO echo louder and louder in Mom’s head the older she gets, and she’s determined that her daughter isn’t going to even consider following a biblical life script. Dad knows that forcing the issue will only result in the probability of Mom throwing out the “ABUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE!” card before pulling the nuclear trigger and destroying her marriage and family (once the nest empties this becomes almost a certainty). Dad, therefore, plays it safe and at least pretends to wholeheartedly endorse daughter’s wayward behavioral choices by slapping a Christian fish on them, in the process placating Mom (at least for a while) and gaining the enthusiastic approval of his fellow churchians.

      That’s the state of things today. In the battle between the washing of his family in the Word or them being washed by the World, the World usually defeats Dad, in no small measure because both Mom and his church are fifth columnists for the World who undermine his parental authority (abusive Patriarchy, don’tcha know).

      Liked by 5 people

      • Rowena says:

        Thank you for your reply. I guess I should be observing the mothers in such situations more closely. Thank you for your insight. That being said, it still bodes well for dad to have a chat (or several) with daughter dearest and explain to her what God requires from wives (with suitable Bible verses) and how she should prepare for that. Also, there is a difference between throwing up your hands and letting the women have their way, and actively teaching her wrong things.

        Unlike wives, most daughters have a very strong desire to please their dads and thirst for his approval. (Yes, I know wives should have the same for her husband Biblically, but if she did, this forum would not exist.) He should use his daughter’s desire to please him to his advantage to teach her even if he has a rebellious wife at home. It’s also true for divorced dads with daughters.

        It is not so much men’s resignation but their ACTIVE participation to promote the feminist life script that makes me confused.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “It is not so much men’s resignation but their ACTIVE participation to promote the feminist life script that makes me confused.”

        Dalrock has talked about this at length. It’s especially true of DODOs (Dads of Daughters Only). There are two things going on there: The father trying to show how masculine and manly he is by out-masculining and out-manlying men showing interest in his daughter; and the man’s genuine fear that his daughter may end up alone (which he adopts from his wife, if he has one, or from his knowledge of society’s overall decay and decline and his knowledge of “how men are”).

        He wants femininity in women and in his daughter. But he wants her to be tough and resilient and strong enough to survive on her own and without counting on a man. In doing so he discourages trust in her own abilities and in the men she’s interested in and who show interest in her.

        The father’s role used to be to select appropriate men for his daughters and to serve as final approval for marriage. He helped her pick, he guarded her from unsuitable men, and ultimately he either selected someone for her or at the very least, approved of her selection. She could not and would not court or marry any man without father’s approval. What you’re seeing now is a weak approximation of fathers trying to step into that “approval” role — they really can’t anymore, so instead they say and do things to undermine their own daughters’ greatest strengths and the masculine authority of the men she dates and of the man she marries. Father thinks he’s helping, of course — he wants her to be “strong” and “stand on her own two feet” — but ultimately, he’s destroying her chances for happiness.

        Her greatest strength is her femininity, which, when properly channeled into submission and support for her husband, will propel and inspire him to step into his masculine role as head and fulfill his mission and purpose. And when he works toward his mission and purpose, he and all with him reap the benefits.

        Of course, there are women who don’t want any of this, or at least act as if they don’t. Those Sex And The City types can do their own thing and try to get Mr. Big (and fail, as they do 95%+ of the time).

        Final thing I’d tell you is that this is not going to change because more and more men are Red Pilling. All of society is actively hostile to masculine men who aren’t sexually attractive (which is most men). Our “woke” society has declared all out war on men, and that includes church. Masculine men are not welcome at church.

        Liked by 3 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        Great observations from both Rowena and Feeriker.

        I was recently over for dinner at a pastor’s house. He and his wife are middle-aged, with 3 sons and 1 daughter, ranging from about 30 to about 22 (daughter is the youngest). He had a pretty successful career in sales before becoming a pastor a few years ago. I believe his wife has been a homemaker more or less since they had kids and started a job a couple years back now that the kids are all grown. The three of us were discussing various things including the (lack of) dating dynamics in the relatively large group of young adults in our big-city congregation. I mentioned that one contributor to the dynamic is that several of the young ladies have high-performing successful careers (Ph.D. / Masters / management-level type jobs) and that this (1) doesn’t increase the young mens’ interest in these girls (and may, in fact, decrease it), and (2) effectively reduces the girls’ dating pool among our group because they will naturally want equally- or more-successful men, of which there are few to begin with. BOTH the pastor and his wife agreed with my observation. However, the wife then said that she still encouraged her daughter to get an education and start a career, which was something the wife didn’t really have the opportunity to do, and to give her a way to support herself until she gets married… someday. It was very surprising not only to hear the agreement with my observation but then the totally opposite encouragement to her daughter. It was like hearing cognitive dissonance out loud! “I see the problems and feel bad about the dating dilemma the young people are facing, but I’m NOT going to encourage MY daughter to do anything different…” My speculation is that they (pastor and his wife) are generally hypothetically concerned for the broader community of young adults, but aren’t willing to go against the grain to do anything about it.

        Some of these comments remind me of Jack’s Axiom 7: “The natural interaction defines the relationship structure according to which model it fits best, not what we think it is or hope for it to be.” There is what the husband wants his wife to be/do and what his wife actually is/does. I suppose it’s never really possible to predict her behavior 10 or 20 years down the road but surely there are indicators… I like the idea of talking about these things with a prospective wife. “Do you think you missed out on ‘life experiences’?” “If we had a daughter, what kind of life would you want to encourage her to lead?” Who knows if a young man could get an honest response from a girl… Shrug

        Liked by 6 people

    • elspeth says:

      @ Rowena:

      Despite having been faithful Christians for a very long time (decades), there are still those moments when (upon learning a particular tidbit about our before Christ life) when we can kind of see the “Oh, wow” look from Christian couples who have “done it right” from the very beginning. I’m not above feeling the sting of that, even now.

      Also the dynamic of our home is occasionally met with a kind of incredulity that my husband expects to be obeyed by both his wife and his daughters (including the adult ones).

      But then, I see how cowed so many of these truly nice men are by their wives, or how their daughters (often very YOUNG daughters) get over on their dads, etc. And I am immediately reminded of a few things.

      The first is that we have zero control over when and how God calls us to faith. It just so happened that my husband came to faith after having had a lot more worldly experiences than some people who were raised in the church. Praise God for his mercy and grace towards us sinners, all!

      The second is that his very masculine upbringing and lack of exposure to evangelicalism produced in him a strong appreciation for what’s real and true, particularly about men and women. Coupled with a natural temperament, the tendency to hold a different standard of holiness in mind for his girls has never been a temptation.

      Both our dads were “sexist pigs”, LOL. They weren’t right about everything, and they certainly weren’t perfect, but they were more right about a lot of things than the femcentric postmodern church is.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      Agree with what Feeriker said.

      Before I leave aside “NACMALT” (Not All Christian Men Are Like That), I’ll say that a lot of men want submissive wives AND submissive daughters but have neither. Most of those men might be Christian but aren’t in churches. Hence, the rise of Christian mysticism, which seeks true individual relationship with God because the church/corporate model simply isn’t working anymore.

      Churches have made clear they make no place for true masculine men and Red Pill men. Churches have made clear they think “Red Pill = misogyny and sexism”. Churches are quick to shout down and excommunicate men who dissent from the rah rah feminism party line. Anytime a man points out “wives are to submit in all things as unto the Lord”, he is shouted down, called names, and excommunicated.

      It isn’t just women who do this. It’s men. Feminized men, feminist men, and churchian blue pill men are quick to attack as well… mostly in hopes it will “score points” with the AMOG Mark Driscoll wannabe, or with single women. “See what a good, woke man I am? See how ‘down with the cause’ I am? Can I have some goodies now, girls? Aren’t you attracted to me now, girls? Girls? Hey, um, girls?” (As they leave with Harley McBadboy, F**kbuddy RockBandDrummer, and Frank Fratboy…)

      So, men do what they always do. They leave, and look for individual solutions.

      I know what kind of men you’re talking about. They’re not us, and you don’t find them here.

      Liked by 4 people

      • caterpillar345 says:

        “So, men do what they always do. They leave, and look for individual solutions.”

        This strikes me as exactly what the point of Christian Mysticism is… looking for an individual solution because no organized solutions are working. “I’ve tried 16 different ways to abide by the rules, they all seem rigged against me, and it appears I can’t win at this game so I’m leaving to play a different game. I’m not necessarily bitter against anyone and I’m not happy about having to leave, but I’ve got to do something different.”

        Liked by 6 people

  7. Rowena says:

    For those who wish to skip above long post – summary – Church culture – you are anti feminism when you have sons. Get ONE daughter and everything changes. Do not know why – it is what I have observed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Why can’t they NOT simp for their daughters? Is there something psychosexual going on that also have led to purity balls?

      Dalrock: Corrupted Purity (2014-8-17)
      Dalrock: Romance is Sexual (2017-2-2)

      Even God who has daughters commanded what He commanded in the Bible. Even the Men of Ancient Israel weren’t like this when they had daughters.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rowena says:

        From what I have observed, most of the advice given in churches is not so much TO men. It is not even so much as TO women. It is FOR their daughters. Do you think a man with a virgin daughter can honestly give a “Man up and marry the sluts” speech? Do you think a man who has raised a sweet, submissive daughter will be teaching servitude rather than headship to men? Those are not messages TO men. They are messages in defense of their daughters. As long as we have double standards for wives and daughters, the mess will continue. Maybe that is why one of the Biblical requirements for leadership in the church was that he should RULE his own household well. Before you take the advice of any man in the church or give him a leadership position check out how he has raised his sons and daughters. It is amazing how practical the Bible is if we only obey.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Rowena:

        for more on what I’ve written, see…

        Dalrock: Category / Cartoonish Chivalry
        Dalrock: Scaring away the competition (2017-2-1)

        And especially…

        Dalrock: Rules for Dating a Daughter of the King (2018-4-26)

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Derek Ramsey says:

    “3. Affixing blame as a judgment on an identified cause, and then taking action to address the cause.”

    Both tactical and strategic approaches to remove the cause of sin can only work if those sinning are already of a repentant nature. As in Matthew 18:15-35, the repentant Christian should be gently corrected, but where this fails, you must treat the problem as a secular one, to which the solution is indirect: the Great Commission.

    This isn’t to say that you should not work to fight against the structures of sin’s existence (e.g. working to ban abortion; resisting demands to close churches), but that such actions will not and cannot solve the core problem, which resides within the heart of man.

    The actions are bifurcated.

    1– To the non-Christian and the hardened non-repentant Christian, the first step is to seek their repentance as one of the lost.
    2– For the readily repentant Christian, using tactical and strategic actions is indeed a good idea.

    I suspect, however, that the vast majority of people will fall into the first category, thus making our actions (here) of limited worth on the wider scale.

    “Is it when the mysterious zephyr of feminism has crept into the church, or is it when good men stay silent and let rebellious women do all the talking?”

    Are they to be treated like the first category (as the case of Sharkly, his wife, and their church) or the second category?

    Is the solution for you and I (who do not run our churches) to go to the pastor, ask him (or the other men and women like him) to repent and call the unrepentant to task, and then leave the church when it doesn’t happen? Because that’s likely where most in the sphere have ended up: either sticking around in disobedient fake or anti-churches or no longer attending those same churches.

    Or put another way, are we trying to take back our churches or are we just admitting that they are lost, cutting our losses, and moving on?

    Like

    • Jack says:

      Derek, your insightful distinctions suggest that the guys at RPChristians have a credible viewpoint if their churches are totally subsumed by Feminism and they have given up on it and have moved on. I’m not familiar with them enough to be sure how much this is true, but I could certainly believe it’s a high probability. If it is mostly true, I would expect them to have a more mystical approach, but I’ve never gotten this vibe over there.

      Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “…a credible viewpoint if their churches are totally subsumed by Feminism and they have given up on it and have moved on.”

        Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting.

        I once tried to explain to my pastor why I needed to leave the church — a United Methodist Church. I had a problem with the preaching promoting sexual deviancy from the pulpit. Although I didn’t mention the corruption of Father’s Day there, I could have.

        His response was, “It must have been very intolerable for you.” No, that’s not the point. It’s not about my feelings. I actually liked the people in the church. The communion with fellow Christians was very positive. But when sin is pushed from the pulpit and your pastor treats your concerns as bad personal feelings, your choices are limited.

        I wonder how many people here have confronted their pastors, unsuccessfully. I have. I know Sharkly has. Is there anyone on this blog who has been successful at this?

        “I would expect them to have a more mystical approach, but I’ve never gotten this vibe over there.”

        I wouldn’t expect that.

        Recognizing the problem with all our denominations is hard enough. Although COVID lockdowns helped clarify it, as they revealed their true colors, I doubt most are even aware of the mystical approach. Even calling it “mystical” alienates.

        How do you deprogram thinking that “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Accept Jesus into your heart” is about your feelings, rather than the much more divinely significant “wellspring of life”? It is so foreign that we don’t even have the language to adequately explain why the direct communication with the Spirit is fundamentally different from ambiguous and subjective feelings.

        Centuries of doctrine programmed us into thinking that the Holy Spirit is “the least God of the Godhead”, subservient to the point where it isn’t trusted. But even Sola Scriptura points to scripture that itself testifies to the power and function of the Holy Spirit. You cannot believe the former without accepting the latter.

        Protestants are highly skeptical of anything that isn’t purely scriptural. Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions are highly skeptical of anything that isn’t top-down approved, of anything that is individual and non-traditional. Christian Mysticism is a distasteful approach for someone of almost any background, except perhaps some Anabaptists and Pentecostals.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Derek,
        In that case, I am still just as concerned about the men at RPChristians. If they don’t have a church home, and they’re not mystically attuned to the Holy Spirit to guide and support them, then the support to their faith is reduced to their own bible reading, prayer, and online discussions. (Read John 14.)

        Liked by 1 person

    • Derek Ramsey says:

      “I am still just as concerned about the men at RPChristians. If they don’t have a church home, and they’re not mystically attuned to the Holy Spirit to guide and support them, then the support to their faith is reduced to their own bible reading, prayer, and online discussions.”

      On one hand, yes. Any of us not rooted in a solid church home are going to struggle. It’s is going to be bumpy, even if we were to take a mystical ascetic monk route.

      On the other hand, no. I meant to write a post on this topic, but it is relevant here and now. One thing I’ve noticed over the years is this contrast between two kinds of baptized Christian (ones who have received the Holy Spirit).

      I am highly intelligent and rational. I can—perhaps like a Pharisee—read scripture and understand what it means with relative clarity. I more-or-less know what to do. Over the decades, I have found many low IQ individuals from church who—like the Ethiopian—often need someone to explain scripture to them. But what I’ve found is that these people—who are often heretics—have a spiritual attunement that I lack, perhaps due to lack of pride. The fruit of their walk with Christ is profound, apparently (though only God knows) exceeding my own.

      For some, perhaps especially those who are not fixed on rational explanations for everything, being heart-led comes naturally, or they’ve figured out how to read the Holy Spirit. These men are not necessarily great at doctrine, but they are obedient servants of Christ, and seem to always know what God wants and do it. What you describe re: RPChristians is closer to myself than it is to such men as this, I think.

      The Bible says that if you seek you will find. If they are seeking, they will find. You can trust that.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Rowena says:

    The father’s role used to be to select appropriate men for his daughters and to serve as final approval for marriage. He helped her pick, he guarded her from unsuitable men, and ultimately he either selected someone for her or at the very least, approved of her selection. She could not and would not court or marry any man without father’s approval.

    This EXACTLY describes MY father. Thank you for reminding me. I was incredibly blessed to have a dad like that. At the time, I felt very constricted — though in hindsight I do believe he spared me a lot of heartache. THANK YOU. Will call my dad and let him know. I do not think I ever thanked him for that.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. feeriker says:

    “Here in England the politicians have provided zero effective leadership. Some pastors are ok. Most are useless.”

    That’s the case pretty much everywhere in the western world today.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      And this can go on a long, long time.

      We here in the alternative right spheres, and the conservablogs, like to talk about how “things are gonna change”. Today the talk is “dismantle the FBI” because it’s currently being used as political muscle and as Biden/Harris/Pelosi/Schumer’s Praetorian Guard.

      But it won’t change. It will not change until cataclysm or “collapse”, whatever that means or looks like. The FBI is not going to be dismantled or changed or shaken up or anything else. Things will go on as before; the Hunter Bidens of the world will continue skating with “10% to The Big Guy”; and we will continue writing about it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        “But it won’t change. It will not change until cataclysm or “collapse”, whatever that means or looks like. The FBI is not going to be dismantled or changed or shaken up or anything else. Things will go on as before; the Hunter Bidens of the world will continue skating with “10% to The Big Guy”; and we will continue writing about it.”

        One of the unspoken reasons WHY nothing will change is that the “leadership” of (what masquerades as) “the opposition” wants to be able to abuse power with the same resources and impunity that the enemy is now using against THEM. They’re only upset right now because one of “their own” is on the receiving end of the lawlessness. If the shoe were on the other foot, they’d be using the FBI to persecute Democrats in the same manner it’s being used against Trump. Yes, most of the current Democratic leadership is guilty as sin of high crimes, but that wouldn’t prevent the Right from inventing crimes against convenient targets among its political enemies.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “…the opposition” wants to be able to abuse power with the same resources and impunity that the enemy is now using against THEM. They’re only upset right now because one of “their own” is on the receiving end of the lawlessness. If the shoe were on the other foot, they’d be using the FBI to persecute Democrats in the same manner it’s being used against Trump.”

        I doubt it. First, the Dems have been showing since 1960 and Kennedy v. Nixon they’re willing to play dirty. They’ve upped the ante ever since then.

        — Lots of dead people in Chicago voting in 1960.
        — Nixon played dirty in 1972 and got caught, and we’ve been suffixing political scandals with “-gate” ever since.
        — 1988: Robert Bork is, well, Borked.
        — 1992: BJ foists Hillary on the public and people have been Arkancided ever since.
        — 1997: Clinton has his affair, lies about it, impeached… “Well, we just have to win then.”
        — 2000: Hanging Chads; SCOTUS gives it to Bush, Dems say “never again”. Ever since, the Dems have refused to accept any election where a Republican wins.
        — 2008: “Let the Healing Begin with Our Lightworker President Of The World.”
        — 2016: “This Can Never Be Allowed To Happen Again.”
        — 2020: Floyd. Covid. Biden “Beats” Bernie Bigly. Then is “elected” pResident.
        — 2022: Gasflation as punishment for Trump.

        The Dems play dirty. The GOP has a distinct aversion to doing so. A lot of the GOP were NeverTrumpers, mostly because they didn’t want to be perceived as “not nice” and “unseemly”. Most of the GOP would rather lose honorably and be the loyal opposition and settle for pork table scraps for their states and districts, than do what it takes to win.

        So, no, I don’t think they’d be willing to.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Dems play dirty, and no one says anything about it. A week ago, FBI director Chris Wray told a senate hearing committee to go f**k themselves and that he was done at 1:30 pm, because he had a taxpayer funded jet to catch to his long weekend in the adirondacks. “Screw you guys, I got a vacation to get to.” And the senators did nothing about it.

        Hunter Biden (and his dad, The Big Guy) continue to live free, while a former president in our newly downgraded banana republic awaits a BS indictment on a BS charge, all for the express purpose of attempting to disqualify Trump from ever holding public office again.

        This is playing dirty of the lowest order. They’re not even hiding it or lying about it. They’re playing dirty, plain and simple.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. feeriker says:

    “I wonder how many people here have confronted their pastors, unsuccessfully. I have. I know Sharkly has. Is there anyone on this blog who has been successful at this?”

    Yes, I’ve confronted pastors before (three of them, in fact). No, like almost every other man here, I’ve had no success whatsoever in getting them to see the truth or change their minds or ways of doing things.

    It’s a fool’s errand, really. Pastors today are for all intents and purposes CEOs of non-profit corporations and everything they do is driven by the mindset essential for maintaining such a role. Scripture is only permitted to influence matters to the extent that it doesn’t rock the boat and alienate the principal customer base — which consists of churchiofeminist women and weak, emasculated men.

    Liked by 6 people

    • thedeti says:

      No, any time a man confronts a pastor, at best he’ll be given quiet “just between us boys” mild agreement, with a cautionary “well, you know how it is” statement and “best not to rock the boat”; and at worst made the subject of a cancellation/doxx campaign with “reports” to his employer, police, friends, and associates about what a horrible human being he is.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      Matthew 10:17-22 (NIV)
      Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. […] 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

      Christ sent His disciples out “as sheep in the midst of wolves”. We should witness to, and be witnesses against, these leaders of these synagogues of Satan, these covens of goddess worship. Yes, they will reflexively recoil at your message and defend their false teaching and idolatry. Expect to be hated by them and their flock as the blind guides lead the blind down the broad road to destruction.

      The fact that you’ve got the boldness and the indifference to their impending hurt feelings to confront them, to condemn their wickedness, and to withstand their petty and wrongheaded retribution, just demonstrates that you are masculine while they are “Beta”, that you follow the Truth while they follow the approval of women, that you are a wartime ambassador of God’s holy patriarchal kingdom, while they reflexively support a daughter church of the Mother of Harlots, as it whores after the world’s approval.

      The enmity between your beliefs and their beliefs, between the Spirit that should indwell you and the spirit that deceives them, is already preexistent even if you were to wax too cowardly to speak out in the presence of those sock-puppets of Satan. However, cowardice is a fruit of fear and faithlessness, not the fruit of a man who only fears God and not the foes of this world. You have to be willing to push back against their wickedness. Ultimately, how will you ever have the fortitude to give your life up for Christ, if you are too afraid to even contend for the True faith with a false preacher?

      Satan’s ploy right now is to try to get you to self-censor.

      Like

  12. feeriker says:

    “My speculation is that they (pastor and his wife) are generally hypothetically concerned for the broader community of young adults but aren’t willing to go against the grain to do anything about it.”

    This describes churchian “leaders” in general, even when the subject of this blog isn’t at issue. Not rocking the boat, not taking a stand, not putting themselves at risk, not speaking the truth when it needs to be spoken (all of these, by the way, are manifestations of a complete lack of trust in the Lord) are all the norm for these people. It’s why the church in the western world is such an abject failure and the target of so much derision and disrespect.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Devon70 says:

    Feminism has grown everywhere as the dating/mating market has gotten worse for men. A large number of men have few if any options so they are loathe to say anything that would offend women. The few open “chauvinists” I’ve known were good looking guys that had a lot of options so they didn’t care if they offended some women. I think more men are learning that pandering to women won’t make them like you. Don’t surrender your beliefs for women that don’t care about you.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. info says:

    For all the Talk of Mysticism I note that Sola Scriptura isn’t just Scripture alone as much as Scripture as the final Authority. Whatever happened to the Church Fathers like Tertullian, St John Chrysostom, Victorinus, Irenaeus, St Basil the Great, and so on. Especially this Church Father among others who supports Protestant orthodoxy in one respect:

    Triablogue: Victorinus and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (2014-11-24)

    Perhaps a consensus of the Church Fathers. So many heresies and false teachings wouldn’t have to be rehashed. And the wheel doesn’t need reinvention. Have us Protestants actually plumbed the depths of the Church Fathers? The Patristics?

    Like

    • info says:

      2 twitter accounts that do this include:

      If you think Modern Right-Wing thought is too extreme. The Church Fathers are even more so.

      Like

    • Derek Ramsey says:

      “For all the Talk of Mysticism I note that Sola Scriptura isn’t just Scripture alone as much as Scripture as the final Authority… Whatever happened to the Church Fathers?”

      No, the Holy Spirit is also the ultimate authority in and of itself. Menno Simons wrote (emphasis added),

      “I dare not go higher nor lower, more stringent nor lenient than the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit teach me.”

      Hebrew priests communed directly with the Spirit of God, especially the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies. So, the priesthood of believers shows thus:

      “Sola scriptura implies that the meaning of Scripture does not depend on interpretation by a priest. Anabaptists believed that collective interpretation of the Bible by the community of believers was indispensable.”

      Or as this paper describes:

      “Anabaptist worship was characterized by form and freedom. It included reading and interpreting the Bible by preachers and other worshipers… while allowing for immediate promptings by the Holy Spirit, as in 1 Corinthians 14 […] there arose renewal and missionary movements for whom Spirit-led improvisation was essential for true worship that was accessible to seekers.”

      Imagine a room filled with lines of chairs, where men are seated from the spiritually youngest to the spiritually oldest elder. Down the line they go, with each person sharing their promptings (if any), until it stops at the most spiritually mature, who gives the final words. Thus the elders guide the young, as in the early church.

      The church fathers and their writings are neither scripture nor the Holy Spirit. Tradition can be valuable in more-or-less the same way that church elders are valuable: they are in roughly the same category and subject to the same level of review. But, the primary weakness of tradition is that it isn’t the words of the living, and cannot respond to the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

      Now, I want to emphasize the last sentence of the quote above in light of Jack’s post:

      “…eventually we’re going to have to stop ascribing such overwhelming power to Feminism in the abstract, and start picking apart the tacks and threads that hold it all together.”

      Sin (“feminism”) has power, but it does not have overwhelming power. It cannot stand in the face of the movement of the Spirit, even as it is plain that scripture without the Spirit is insufficient. The way to victory, especially to reach the seekers, is to be Spirit-led.

      If the Anabaptist approach is the wrong one, why then do the Amish and plain Mennonites have the highest fertility rates in the United States? Their plainness and practices are the subject of repeated popular ridicule, yet their actions have born the fruit we all crave. If there are still any places where feminism has not taken root, that’s where it is. While it seems unlikely that we will be able to reproduce what the Amish have, we can see the value in their approach.

      Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        The Church Fathers dealt with many heresies and movements who keep popping up. Nowadays they change names but their essences is still the same. As guardrails they serve their purpose.

        Like

      • info says:

        That said, The Holy Spirit is necessary since it comes with salvation, and He does as you say. However the Church Fathers are also likely saved themselves and have the Holy Spirit as well.

        Like

  15. locustsplease says:

    The topic changed a bit. On raising daughters I’ve been very clear with mine. You cannot manipulate me. The people around us in family are not Christian and clearly are headed in the wrong direction. The family’s only concentration to her future is make damn sure she goes to college and becomes a career gal. I showed her all the stats years ago how that will fail her.

    Even her mom has admitted it. She wanted to be a stay-at-home wife but wouldn’t take commands and needed me to make double what her income was. And I explained to the daughter, “Your dad is 6’3″ and makes about 6 figures. Men like me are in control of dating not you. There are thousands of young attractive women fighting for a handful of men. Your gonna have to realistically settle for a 5’9″ 50k per year husband. If you’re having sex with men, all kinds of men will lay you but won’t marry you, so your giving yourself unrealistic expectations.”

    Liked by 3 people

  16. feeriker says:

    “And I explained to the daughter, “Your dad is 6’3″ and makes about 6 figures. Men like me are in control of dating not you. There are thousands of young attractive women fighting for a handful of men. Your gonna have to realistically settle for a 5’9″ 50k per year husband. If you’re having sex with men, all kinds of men will lay you but won’t marry you, so your giving yourself unrealistic expectations.”

    One of the most essential aspects of the (now defunct) “Patriarchy” where it existed was that women weren’t given the opportunity to put themselves in the harm’s way that would destroy their lives. They were restrained socially, legally, financially, and sometimes even physically from “becoming a cum toilet for an endless string of Chads.” Society simply wasn’t going to abide the destruction caused by such permissiveness, especially on a massive scale, and took active steps to prevent it. It was all well and good that little Suzy was aware of the dangers and destructiveness that resulted from being a slore, but whether she was aware or not, whether she was willing to accept the risks or not, she wasn’t going to be permitted to do it. Period.

    This one reason why I’m not entirely averse to the “honor killings” common in the Islamic world. While the reasons for committing them are admittedly often specious, the fundamental idea behind them that women’s irresponsible actions have catastrophic consequences for people other than themselves is wholly valid and well founded.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “…becoming a cum toilet for an endless string of Chads.”

      Let’s keep the conversation civil. The politically correct term is “zinc bank”. 🙂

      Liked by 3 people

  17. Pingback: Headship is an extension of the life you built when single | Christianity and masculinity

  18. Pingback: Shaking the dust off your shoes | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: The 12 Harbingers of Masculine Doom | 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