Dalrock on Female Agency

The root of apostasy in the modern church is the denial of female agency.

Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Length: 1,600 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes

Do women have moral agency?

Over his 10 year history of dedicated blogging, Dalrock maintained the steady stance that women do indeed possess agency, but they consistently and even predictably fail to implement it. This assumption created a steadfast source of religiously serious tongue-in-cheek humor for his constituency. Dalrock’s detractors, many of whom carried the presumption that women do NOT possess agency, often took offense at his writings for this very reason, although for many years, no one (to my knowledge) ever called him out on this, instead attacking and hotly debating him on doctrinal and rational grounds, thereby missing his point and inadvertently giving him fodder for further observations of the phenomena. Because the basic assumption of whether female agency exists was never addressed, these arguments never really came to fruition.

Until… in early 2018, some of his adversaries latched on to Dalrock’s understated presumption of female agency, calling it The Dalrock Route and clumsily describing it as “over-realized patriarchy” (which is telling of their views). More precisely, The Dalrock Route is the biblical assumption that people, including women, are aware or should be aware of their own nature, and that they should take responsibility for themselves. In short, it is carrying the presumption that all humans possess moral agency, including women. The Dalrock Route is only seen as “over-realized patriarchy” by those conditioned by Feminism and Chivalry (male feminism) who want to believe that women lack agency and are therefore not able (nor willing) to take responsibility for their own decisions.

The real Dalrock Route – Route 66 (AKA Lakeview Parkway) facing east through Dalrock Rowlett Texas, U.S.A.

From there, Dalrock’s many readers (he was numbering about 20 million views by that time) slowly latched on to the question of female agency, bringing this issue to the fore, and this ultimately culminated in his interview exchanges with Warhorn Media (2019/2/1 — 2019/3/11). This interview was hosted by Nathan Alberson, the Creative Director of Warhorn Media, a media ministry of Pastor Tim Bayly’s Clearnote Church in Bloomington, Indiana.

Dalrock offered the most concise description of his views about Female Agency in this interchange.

Here, I’ll focus on one particular post in this series, Warhorn interview: Male responsibility and female agency. (2019/2/18), because it succinctly encapsulates Dalrock’s general views on Female Agency – views that run in the background of most all his other writings.

He quotes Nathan as saying,

“If I’m not mistaken, you see the work of my pastor and others like him as somehow undercutting the concept of female moral agency. I see your work as needlessly undercutting male responsibility in the name of establishing female moral agency.”

Dalrock responds by saying,

“The problem is that the most ridiculous things are being claimed as male responsibility in order to deny reality and therefore shirk [female] responsibility.  Feminists openly and methodically marched through all of our institutions for decades.  Conservative Christians responded to this by simply denying that it was happening.  Changing the subject to men, no matter how ridiculous, is the go-to coping mechanism here.”

Moreover, Dalrock asserts that the general stance of conservative Christians is identical to that of the wider secular feminist society, with the most egregious sin being the habit of making up transgressions to pin on men in order to absolutely avoid holding women responsible. 

Dalrock went on to assert that Nathan’s pastor Tim Bayly, Denny Burk, Joe Carter, Matt Chandler, Doug Phillips, John Piper, Owen Strachan, Douglas Wilson, and many other conservative Christians including Dr. Jason K. Allen, President of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, lack the courage to confront the advancing front lines of feminism and that they even make up all kinds of zany stuff to avoid confronting feminism. He named the following examples.

  • Conservative Christians claim that feminism is the logical reaction to Christian men shirking their responsibilities. (This was the same claim made by the feminist firebrand, Betty Friedan.)
  • Conservative Christians invented a fiction that women weren’t coveting men’s roles, and instead men were forcing women to push their way into traditional male roles (such as clergy and the military) by abandoning their responsibilities.
  • He quotes Pastor Matt Chandler explaining that if a Christian husband truly loves his wife (according to his understanding of love), then she can’t be tempted into feminist rebellion.
  • He cites Mary Kassian as an example of how Conservative Christians believe that when husbands fulfill their responsibilities then wives don’t feel the temptation of feminist rebellion.
  • He quotes Pastor Doug Wilson teaching that a Christian husband is responsible for making his wife more physically attractive.
  • Dalrock also offered a couple dozen links (!!!) to posts in which he called out similar attitudes within the church, and gave a list of posts in which Conservative Christian leaders embraced congruent stances on how men should be held responsible for the presumed lack of female agency.

In every case Dalrock cites, the sin of women demanding to usurp the roles and responsibilities of men was never addressed by the church leaders. In all of these cases the pastors blamed men, and entirely avoided the issue of women’s rebellion.

Dalrock points out that none of these viewpoints are Biblical, and dismisses all such viewpoints as “flat out nuts.”  He says no one notices within conservative Christianity because it is so common and it has been going on for so long.

Dalrock then tears down the veil by asserting that Christian men really are shirking their responsibilities, but not in the ways that most Conservative Christians believe.

“The irony of all of this is men really are abdicating their responsibility. These absurd lies are used by cowardly men to avoid manning up and challenging the feminist rebellion. In this sense I hope we are aligned. You want men to man up. I want men to man up. But manning up doesn’t mean cowering in fear while striking a heroic pose. Manning up means doing what is difficult. We are failing Christian women, and women in general. But we aren’t failing them by not making them pretty, or forcing them to insist on taking on the roles of men, or making it possible for them to feel the temptation to sin.”

Dalrock’s banner image. “SLOW NO WAKE” being the general attitude of the converged church in times of apostasy.

Here, Dalrock implies that men are shirking their responsibilities, not by refusing to perform male roles adequately nor by failing to love or protect women, etc., as is commonly purported by conservatives, but by failing to hold feminists and women accountable. IOW, Dalrock is placing his finger on the common belief that women do NOT have moral agency as the primary catalyst of heresy, the convergence with progressive feminism, and the overall failure of the modern church. As a side note, this is fully illustrated in his banner image which depicts a buoy floating in a murky brown lake illuminated by the fiery tones of a sunset, having the words, “SLOW NO WAKE” — the vain plea of the church to avoid being cast about by the winds of false doctrine and the waves of doubt (Ephesians 4:14; James 1:6; Jude 1:12-13) — by denying female agency and catering to women’s sin!

Dalrock states that feminists, men, and women who shirk their proper roles and responsibilities (presumably according to either interpretation) should repent, but they haven’t been called to repent, and won’t be, because complementarians insist on changing the subject to the issue of men’s responsibility, and thereby avoid the issue of female agency.

“Complementarians form consensus with feminists that men are bad and women should be cherished, and the matter is left there. In theory someone, somewhere will hold women accountable for crossdressing. But never complementarians, and never today.  […]  Women rebelled by demanding to take on men’s roles, so the PCA drafted a resolution condemning men for not fulfilling their roles (a lie), and then stressed the importance of cherishing and protecting women (a non sequitur at best). This is cruel to women and girls. Imagine if we did the same thing to boys. Imagine if we responded to [men] cross dressing by declaring that we are appalled that men feel the need to be feminine because women won’t do it, and men deserve more than they currently get from women. This would ironically be more true than the claim for women and the military. But it would still be a lie, and it would be cruel to men and boys who are tempted to sin in the way [crossdressing men] are sinning, because we would be sending the most confusing message imaginable to them in order to avoid offending [crossdressers].”

The interesting thing about Dalrock’s argument here is that by putting the shoe on the other foot, he is applying the same measure to both men and women, which buys into the unbiblical rhetoric about gender equality.  Even so, his argument holds water and comes across as ribald because he is using his antagonists own standards in his arguments.

Dalrock’s cutting insights about the nature of female agency (or the lack thereof), his divisive charge of its denial by conservative Christians, and the brilliant humor of his arguments, fully explains his enduring popularity, even going on three years after his retirement from blogging.

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, Chivalry, Churchianity, Collective Strength, Complementarianism, Convergence, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Elite Cultural Influences, Ethical Systems, Female Power, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Introspection, Male Power, Manosphere, Media, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Online Personas, Reviews, Sphere of Influence. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Dalrock on Female Agency

  1. info says:

    @Jack.

    I despise snakes who infiltrated the positions of Authority. So as to lead huge numbers of women into perdition.

    Especially those so called “Conservatives” that Dalrock is talking about.

    By God’s Grace. Dalrock has come to lift the veil. And now the battle is joined. Now if only we pray without ceasing alongside necessary work. God will grant us victory.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. cameron232 says:

    Yes, and those Christian men in positions of authority have taken the whiteknight approach because in their observation and personal lives, if they don’t bow to women the women divorce them, or deny them love, affection, sex, etc.

    And why is it that women are in this (superior) position? It’s the reason deti always says. Beta males are much more attracted to beta females than beta females are to beta males. The psychology of having settled runs much deeper in her than in him. She’s more ok without you than you are without her. She knows it and she knows you know it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      “She’s more ok without you than you are without her. She knows it and she knows you know it.”

      This is interesting because I am not sure. In my situation, both of us know that if it were to ever end, my life would essentially consist of me living a bachelor life, seeing my kids 1/2 of the time, engaging in serial monogamy with 30-somethings (this is who I get IOIs from these days-sometimes even right in front of both of us) and basically doing my own thing. I would hike more, hunt more, finally start a band again, etc.

      I can do pretty much everything for myself. Cook, clean, do laundry, dress well, pay my bills, etc. I’m not sure how she would fare in that situation, with 4 little ones in tow. Maybe she could pull of 50 something single-mom and find something better. But I don’t really think about it much.

      But if the underlying, never spoken presupposition was as you say, I would be miserable.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        If you see yourself the way the other person sees you, you have given them WAY too much power.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        That’s because you’re not a beta male. 50 year old beta males don’t get frequent IOI’s in front of their wives from 30 year olds. She doesn’t feel about you the way most wives feel about their beta hubby.

        For all women’s pissing and moaning about wanting a man, they don’t want the men who are available to them as much as those men want them. The men are scared of being alone or, just as bad, being in an affectionless, loveless, sexless marriage with a harpy.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Also the clergy that Dalrock mentions are tied to their religious convictions. If wifey pooh is a frigid bish, or leaves him, hubby is bound by the rules of his denomination. So even if they could pull off a better deal with another woman they have to live their faith, even more so since they’re public Christian leaders.

        Such men are often more principled about Christian rules on divorce and remarriage – the women more pragmatic. NAMALT and NAWALT.

        And there’s the endless social media memes that women read teaching them whatever they want to believe.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        “50 year old beta males don’t get frequent IOI’s in front of their wives from 30 year olds.”

        It’s funny. She’s the one who notices. I am oblivious. She will say, “Go back in there next week by yourself. You’ll see.”

        She’s usually right. I think I don’t notice because I am still crazy about her. So I am happy.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Jack says:

        Scott,

        Re: Husband’s getting IOIs from other women.

        “It’s funny. She’s the one who notices. I am oblivious.”

        It’s the same with me and my wife. Whenever my wife tells me something like, “You need to keep a distance from [a particular woman]”, or “You need to protect yourself from [a particular woman]”, or “Don’t let yourself be alone with [a particular woman]”, etc., then I know she’s feeling a vibe from her and there’s some potential there that I would’ve had been blind to if she hadn’t pointed it out. If she would just keep her mouth shut, it would save me from a bit of temptation and I’d have less energy wasted on thought control.

        So to counterbalance the other point made about how husbands getting IOIs can strengthen a marriage, it is also necessary for the wife to take this in stride and be confident of her own sexual authority over him for this to work. It becomes more difficult for a husband to avoid temptation when the wife is jealous, suspicious, or fearful of him straying. She tears down her own house with her own doubts and fears.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        My mental turning points in my marriage were realizing that life would be much easier being single than married and that Rollo’s chart on the SMP was true. When my outlook changed I started to change what I’d tolerate from my wife. It was a power dynamic change that started between my ears, then spilled over into my behavior and eventually Mrs. Apostle fell in line with (mainly, still working on it).

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Could be RPA but also you had the benefit of an unorthodox position on divorce and remarriage. The pastors Dalrock quotes probably don’t. Scott can do that with his faith even if devout because EO can remarry twice. These tradprotestants are going to understand it as “unless she commits adultery you’re locked in for life.”

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron,

        “Could be RPA but also you had the benefit of an unorthodox position on divorce and remarriage. The pastors Dalrock quotes probably don’t.”

        At the time I shared a similar view as the pastors that Dalrock quotes. The concept that only actively going outside the marriage, and not actively denying intimacy inside it, was the only justification for divorce was part of the stress in my life. I felt completely trapped. The other stressful aspect was thinking about not being around my boys all the time.

        The hopelessness I felt is what caused me to start examining scripture on marriage. The study ultimate lead to what Scott referred to as (paraphrasing)

        If you go in water you get wet
        Put you hand in a fire you get burned
        Get married and you have sex (or y’all are just roommates)

        There are multiple ways to cheat your spouse sexually no matter what the consensus is amongst religious “leaders”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        She’s usually right. I think I don’t notice because I am still crazy about her. So I am happy.

        Do you realize that doesn’t happen to most men?

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        This is why Scott and Elspeth have such an affinity for each other. They are in top 5% marriages. Their marriages are exceedingly rare. Elspeth is married to a man to whom she is extremely sexually attracted. Scott is a top man, married to a woman who is extremely sexually attracted to him.

        They have a hard time understanding that most people will never, ever experience this. Scott does understand this intellectually. Elspeth doesn’t understand this at all. I’ve been patiently explaining this to her for at least the past 5 years and she still can’t understand it.

        Liked by 4 people

      • lastholdout says:

        “If you see yourself the way the other person sees you, you have given them WAY too much power.”

        I like this. It is what I didn’t give up in the 33 years with my late wife. I never believed what she claimed me to be. The churchians fed her all the lies she wanted to hear that Jack cites as Dalrock’s named examples in the OP. Call me stupid, but I didn’t leave when I should have. However, but by the grace of God, that is all behind me.

        The modern churchians are toxic. I haven’t been in a church in many years because of the poison they peddle. I don’t need a pastor or church to tell me who I am in Christ. That’s the beauty of the Gospel.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        LastHoldOut,

        “I haven’t been in a church in many years because of the poison they peddle. I don’t need a pastor or church to tell me who I am in Christ. That’s the beauty of the Gospel.”

        If you don’t already, do your best to find scripturally sound men to, for lack of better phrasing, do life with. We were not meant, nor designed, to be in isolation. Throughout scripture, God, who made us in His image, reveals that He is a relational being. It’s why He ultimately sacrificed His Son to make relationship with us fallen humans He chose possible.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        I know, I know. I have to embrace my chadhood or whatever.

        But the thing is, how chad is it that we are crazy about each other in equal measure?

        I take coffee to her work and leave it on the front counter with little hearts drawn on it.

        I smack her a$$ in public because I can’t stop.

        I wink and smirk at her when we are sitting in totally different parts of the living room and she loves it.

        I took her on a cruise to Alaska for our anniversary and I loved the way she lit up like a pinball machine when I told her about it.

        That thing I mentioned about dragging her finger along the back of my arm in the parking lot made the goosebumps rise.

        I just don’t talk about her like she’s “the boss” who I have to “check with.” I don’t ask her about her needs nor do I ever negotiate for affection.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Jack-

        A little possessiveness is kind of cute/fun.

        Crazy b!tch who can’t deal with other women noticing you is exhausting.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        You’re right, deti. Scott doesn’t get it.

        Don’t worry, Scott. The rest of us mere mortals are happy for you!

        Liked by 1 person

  3. cameron232 says:

    Male counselor that I’m talking to said to me that women change with age. That young women, when they’re ovulating (intensely I assume) want bad boys. Later they want stable men. Is the redpill becoming mainstream?

    Like

    • Scott says:

      Not really

      It would take a force with the destructive power of a coast guard ice breaker to break through the thick covering of the blue pill conditioning that is upon everything.

      Take, for example, YouTube.

      Go on there and add to your history all the red and black pill stuff. Watch tons of it.

      You’ll start getting ads from countless guys claiming to help your marriage.

      Every single ad starts with “I can help you win your wife back!

      The starting presupposition is that SHE is a prize that you must have lost by being a retarded sitcom dad. EVERY. SINGLE. AD.

      Those guys are making money on that racket. They have thousands of clients. Men STILL believe they are the problem. They just need to figure out the formula to get her hot and excited again. Just one more surprise birthday party. One more act of service. One more load of laundry. I’m ALMOST there!

      It’s going to be a while, probably not in our lifetimes before this is smashed.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Scott says:

        Whoops way too much bold there 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Betcha there aren’t a lot of “help you win your husband back” ads for women.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Just like I see plenty of “I love my wife” bumper stickers but never “I love my husband” bumper stickers.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        “win your husband back”

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        While someone like Elspeth might see her husband pulling away and think “Holy crap! I need to win my husband back!” this is not a thing.

        Men are conditioned to think “I am so lucky she stooped to my level and touched my private parts.”

        I remember at the Reagan funeral, the prior Canadian Prime Minister gave one of the eulogies and he recalled sitting with Regan, who leaned over and said, “We have something in common. We both married up.”

        RONALD REAGAN married up.

        The rest of us are doomed then.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        And I think men actually enjoy saying crap like this:

        “…we have something in common. We both married up.”

        They get what former blogger empathologism used to call “the lift.”

        It’s when all the m’ladies in the room throw you an approving glance that says, “Yes. That is the correct way to view your wife. Good boy.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        If you dare say something like, “well, I mean, I brought some kind of important stuff to the marriage too though”, you might as well have walked into the room and taken a dump on the floor.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “Whoops way too much bold there”

        I’ll think of that as smoldering intensity. 🙂

        As God’s appointed leader of the family there is something to be said about a man guiding his wife back into the fold as a means of avoiding further adultery on her part. This is the washing her in the word of Eph 5 and helping her avoid sin is part of being the spiritual lead of the household.

        The “help you win her back” is complete nonsense of course. It should be, if you are willing to the model of Christ sacrificing himself for a rebellious church because he’s obedient to the father, then this is how you do it. She may not respond well in which case you have to move on and that’s OK.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “I remember at the Reagan funeral, the prior Canadian Prime Minister gave one of the eulogies and he recalled sitting with Regan, who leaned over and said, “We have something in common. We both married up.”

        RONALD REAGAN married up.”

        There is a great story about Reagan as he was being rushed into surgery after Hinckley shot him. A nurse was holding his hand and talking to him as they were rolling the gurney to the OR and he asked her, “Does Nancy know about us?”

        He may have had some serious wife goggles for Nancy, but he does not appear to have ceased being himself because of her.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        RPA-

        Right. I think the only way the Reagan comment about marrying up works is as sarcasm. He was crazy about Nancy, but he wasn’t confused about his status.

        But most men say stuff like that and actually mean it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        It takes God to cut through the Gordian knot. Our prayers contribute to that. God delight in seemingly impossible situations and nothing is too hard for God.

        May God accelerate the change.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Lastmod says:

    Meanwhile in California……Saturday night, Los Angeles. Lastmod DJ-ing at The Regal Inn…. Soul, soul, soul!
    Sam and Dave “I Thank You” (1967) clip is from Instagram. Slowly getting LA famous in the soul / DJ scene (hopefully). SO much fun, such a supportive crowd!

    Liked by 7 people

  5. thedeti says:

    “RONALD REAGAN married up.

    The rest of us are doomed then.”

    that’s kind of funny to hear that Reagan said that. Have you ever looked at old photos of Nancy looking at her husband? She gazed on him with a devotion and love that you see only on reddit.com/r/girlsmirin. Nancy Reagan admired, submitted to, and feared her husband. She was absolutely 100% DEVOTED to that man.

    I have never met Elspeth or SAM, but this is how I envision Elspeth looking at him. This is the relationship I envision Elspeth and SAM have.

    What Elspeth doesn’t understand is that most marriages aren’t anything like this nor will they ever be. Most women can barely stand to be next to their husbands, much less admire them or submit to them.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Scott says:

      The other day we were walking out of the grocery and she was about a step behind me. I was wearing a not tight, but snug t-shirt. (And I just finished another body composition cycle.) All of the sudden I feel her finger lightly tracking along the back of my shoulder and down my arm and she says, “I like the way this part is turning out.”

      I love that.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. thedeti says:

    “The psychology of having settled runs much deeper in her than in him. She’s more ok without you than you are without her. She knows it and she knows you know it.”

    I tried this out on Mrs. deti during our blowup back in 2011, 11 years ago.

    “If you’re so unhappy with me, maybe you’ll be happier without me. Think you can do better than me? Do it then. Go. Leave. Be alone. Be with someone else. I don’t care. Stay, go, I’ll be fine either way.”

    I suspect that made her actually think it through.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. thedeti says:

    “Could be RPA but also you had the benefit of an unorthodox position on divorce and remarriage. The pastors Dalrock quotes probably don’t. Scott can do that with his faith even if devout because EO can remarry twice. These tradprotestants are going to understand it as “unless she commits adultery you’re locked in for life.”

    My position used to be exactly that: Can’t divorce except for adultery. The reality is that you can’t divorce and remarry except for adultery. So I was going to be just fine divorcing Mrs. deti without (proven) adultery, because I had no plans on remarrying. I still don’t — at this point, at age 54, if my marriage ends for any reason, I won’t ever be doing this again. I don’t have another marriage in me. My life would look a lot like Scott describes up there, but with fewer IOIs from women.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Catholics believe no divorce, ever, for any reason. Marriage endures on earth until one spouse is dead.

      That’s fine for Catholics to believe that – never mind that most Catholics in the US at least don’t actually live that way. I know TONS of divorced Catholics who have “remarried”, just not in the Church. And they still receive the Eucharist. Their priests know that in the eyes of the Church, they’re adulterers and adulteresses – but they’re still served communion. Their priests know they’re shacking up with people they’re not married to the eyes of the Church – but they’re still in communion with the Catholic church.

      All I can say about this is, Catholics really don’t like church teachings on sex and marriage, because almost none of them actually live them.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        The Catholic Church teaches against ABSOLUTE divorce (as in you’re free to remarry) for those who are sacramentally married. The way around this? Just do it anyway and no one notices or cares OR come up with a BS excuse for an annulment which, unfortunately, the American church is really accommodating about. “What? You didn’t understand this was for life when you said “I do.” Defect in form. You were never sacramentally married.”

        Zippy used to say most American Catholics probably aren’t sacramentally married. Given the misunderstanding most of them have about basics (does someone who approves of gay marriage even understand God’s teaching on marriage?!!) they probably didn’t consent to God’s definition of marriage. The scandal is that the American church doesn’t shore this up.

        It’s all a sh!tshow. Just do what’s best for you. Make sh!t up. Google to find the answer you want. Catholic, Protestant, whatever. Google has the right answer for you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        In reality, Catholic and Orthodox teaching on this is that Orthodox/Catholic divorce does not exist at all.

        This is why the two are able to handle it somewhat differently but the doctrine is the same. They both follow the exact same canons. The RCC calls it “canon law” and Orthodoxy calls it “the rudder” (as in a rudder that steers the ship of the church). But its the exact same text, from the exact same ecumenical councils until the last one in 787 AD.

        Which is why neither can ever accept divorce as a official procedure. It is simply not laid out as a thing. It would like a “reverse sacrament.” But you can no more unconsecrate the host than you can un-marry a couple.

        The RCC does the whole nullity of marriage and Orthodoxy basically says something like, “We do not offer an official divorce. But YOU COUPLE divorced, so a divorce happens.” (You are functionally divorced without the church officially recognizing it.) They allow you to do this twice.

        It gets really hairy trying to tease apart the canonical implications of both positions, but they are essentially the same from the heterodox perspective. They are trying to deal with the fact that people “divorce” each other all the time, regardless of what the church teaches.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah I guess that’s right – the alternative would be to just kick them out.

        I’m biased towards the RC way – you can have an exceptional situation where someone was coerced or a woman remarried long after her husband was presumed lost in foreign lands and he just shows up to claim his wife. Consent can be defective, knowledge imperfect.

        “We’ll tolerate it up to 2 times” sounds unprincipled EXCEPT Catholics (particularly the American church) are all loosy-goosey now so who are they to judge the EO. They both sound like “pastoral” exceptions now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Can Caldo wrote a piece about it once called “divorce happens”

        He, if you don’t remember, is a member of an Anglican community that seeks communion with Rome, so he has a interesting perspective on it.

        Liked by 1 person

    • locustsplease says:

      I am 38 my dad remarried after marrying 2 extremely angry women before at 58. How in the heck can you do that to yourself. Wealthy -kids out of house and doing fine you can’t cure simp. Me I would b in the carribean sail boat towing my skiff from island to island eventually do all the America’s Fishing. He just put his head in the guillotine no questions asked. The guy makes 200k per year retired and has millions!

      Why do I need some bitter old woman by my side complaining? A few years ago a pua said get good at talking to women by talking to everybody old people kids gas station employees. So I started striking up conversations with strangers for fun. I am intimidating and it’s good to break the silence. I would rather make new friends than b stuck with crappy ones. You don’t have to b a loner just because you don’t have a romantic partner I meet people all the time.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Jack says:

      “My position used to be exactly that: Can’t divorce except for adultery. The reality is that you can’t divorce and remarry except for adultery.”

      Even this falls short of the mark.

      What is the goal or the purpose? Is it to live by the letter of the law and appear acceptable to fellow churchians, or is it to receive God’s grace and mercy and learn to love Him more?

      Earlier this year, I pointed out that infidelity is anything short of fidelity, and RPA addressed the futility of staying in a debased defunct “marriage” and talked at length about how the marriage is dead no matter what you do. Earlier today, Cameron quoted Zippy as saying that most Catholics don’t have a sacramental marriage, and I would interpret this to mean a sanctified marriage by extension. These stances get massively hard kickbacks because of the implications. Because of this monolithic wall of resistance, most will stop right there and not examine the matter any further.

      What I don’t understand is why some Religio-Trads insist on denying God’s grace in their lives while simultaneously thinking that they’re somehow going to win prizes in heaven for ignoring the obvious. When in reality, they’re giving in to wimminz demands and throwing their lives away because of a bad decision.

      Anything to avoid conviction and coming to the truth, I guess.

      Like

  8. thedeti says:

    Dalrock’s posts as summarized here are less about female agency than they are about the male response to expressions of female agency. One of Dalrock’s most cogent, but obvious and unspoken, insights on this is: conservative Christian men are terrified of women. It all boils down to women bashing men over the heads with every new expression of female power they obtain, and essentially saying:

    “Do what we say. Give us what we want. Do it our way. If you don’t, we’re leaving. No volunteer time at church and no tithe money. We will tell everyone we know what petty, small minded, sexists you are. We’ll report you to your superiors in the church. We’ll undertake letter writing and social media campaigns against you.

    And we will not have sex with you.”

    Women’s tactics on this have been overwhelmingly successful. Why? Because p_ssy makes men stupid. Men are all about the p_ssy, and both men and women know it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “Women’s tactics on this have been overwhelmingly successful. Why? Because p_ssy makes men stupid. Men are all about the p_ssy, and both men and women know it.”

      When the P no longer holds much power it is amazing how clear thinking becomes.

      This is why “we will not have sex with you” is a foolish threat. Men have been conditioned to cave, but eventually if women push too much they reach the end of the guy’s rope and the tactic backfires.

      I am exhibit 1A of the tactic backfiring. Had my wife doled out just enough sex to keep me appeased I probably would still be the same guy I was 3 years ago. But she she pushed too far and y’all know enough of my story to connect the dots.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Also, I chose my handle purposefully. I am not shy about sharing with men relevant parts of my story to help them have little ‘aha’ moments about women in their own lives.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        RPA,

        “This is why “we will not have sex with you” is a foolish threat. Men have been conditioned to cave, but eventually if women push too much they reach the end of the guy’s rope and the tactic backfires.”

        Dalrock covered this dynamic in Frigidity and power. (2014/8/3). In Sexual Authority and Sanctification (2022/8/8) I went over how it is apparently God’s will for wives to have this authority over their husbands, but the problem is that women are prone to abuse and misuse their sexual authority.

        “Had my wife doled out just enough sex to keep me appeased I probably would still be the same guy I was 3 years ago. But she pushed too far…”

        I wonder whether this was her intention — either (1) to get you to toughen up, or (2) to stop giving her unwanted sexual attention and leave her alone — or if this result was a total surprise to her. Or maybe her intentions of toughening you up didn’t toughen you up in the same way she had imagined. Or maybe it did. Did you ever figure that out?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Jack,

        “I went over how it is apparently God’s will for wives to have this authority over their husbands, but the problem is that women are prone to abuse and misuse their sexual authority.”

        Absolutely true. Women are only given authority over their husband’s body to use them for sex. But if they use their husband’s for sex we end up with the ideal of God’s design. Woman wants her man and shows it and man bonds to her (high powered wife goggles). Women tend to be too enamored with control to try and give her man wife goggles, and the temptation to use sex for control overtakes her.

        I believe this wifely control/sex dynamic to be true throughout all human history. In modern times there is no objection from the church when they implement their base inclinations for control.

        “I wonder whether this was her intention — either (1) to get you to toughen up, or (2) to stop giving her unwanted sexual attention and leave her alone — or if this result was a total surprise to her. Or maybe her intentions of toughening you up didn’t toughen you up in the same way she had imagined. Or maybe it did. Did you ever figure that out?”

        Neither. She wanted control. At one point in an argument she tipped her hand. In a moment of honest exasperation at my immovable resolve on a point of contention she told me, or more accurately, tantrumed, “I wish I would have married someone that would do what I tell them to do.” The sentiment had played out over paying off debt, where we go to church and a myriad of other decisions in our marriage, so I knew it was what she really believed.

        I think my reaction, when I finally stopped restraining myself and let my thoughts fly, took her by surprise. She still fought for control but it has been a war of attrition for her. Now she has her moments, but they are fewer and farther between compared to the past. I do not believe that it ever crossed my wife’s mind that I would react the way I did when I’d finally reached my breaking point. She was too used to getting her way with her dad. In my opinion, he failed her in accommodating her the way he did leaving me with a mess to clean up. It’s a mess that I picked though, so it’s my mess now, but getting smaller and smaller.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        RPA,

        “I wish I would have married someone that would do what I tell them to do.”

        Wowzers!

        “I do not believe that it ever crossed my wife’s mind that I would react the way I did when I’d finally reached my breaking point.”

        She totally expected you to fold, thinking that is the right thing to do!

        “She was too used to getting her way with her dad. In my opinion, he failed her in accommodating her the way he did leaving me with a mess to clean up.”

        I hate to say this, but it sounds like your wife was a cultural churchian, not a Christian. Same goes for her parents.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Jack,

        “I hate to say this, but it sounds like your wife was a cultural churchian, not a Christian. Same goes for her parents.”

        I don’t doubt my wife’s faith, nor that of my in-laws. My in-laws are great people. But in no way will I disagree with you that churchian notions pervaded my father-in-law’s thinking.

        He’s a genuinely good man, that lives deep in the South and attended Southern Baptist churches for decades. This means that concepts of antebellum Southern chivalry mixed with Southern cultural Christian concepts of what a good Christian man does. He’s crazy about my MIL, acts towards her the way Scott talks about Mychael on your blog, and my wife grew up with him as her step father looking past all my MIL’s flaws (her father died of cancer when she was a toddler).

        He did his best, which he thought was to encourage her to get education and be independent. Part of this may be him seeing what my MIL went through as a widow with a child, but no degree. Part of it was certainly a cultural feminist bent of pushing education and career on women, and as a result my wife was the first in her family to graduate college and then grad school.

        I missed the implications and the giant neon flashing warning signs. In my family almost everyone has a degree, or degrees, and usually from decent academic institutions. In my 24 year old mind education was the norm and I was oblivious to the implications of the SIW education path he thought was good for her. The implications are obvious to me now, but experience is the worst teacher, always putting the test before the lesson.

        “I wish I would have married someone that would do what I tell them to do.”

        Wowzers!”

        That’s a gem right there, ain’t it? My memory being what it is, that is close to being an exact quote from her. I know that my marriage is an example that is way out there on the “wife wants control scale”, but if there is not a more telling quote of a wife honestly expressing her broken human condition, I don’t know of it.

        Liked by 1 person

    • locustsplease says:

      My pastor said there’s a %5 drop the next week if they criticize women. Now I would see that as this place is filled with people with zero interest in Christianity who need weeded out but that’s not what they saw it. And this is the softest criticism I ever heard. What’s God’s criticism going to sound like.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Only 5%?

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        Yes but figure half are men and they didnt even hear it. Then many are kids with their parents. And most of the congregation is married and the couples are not skipping so it was a large amount of the unmarried young women who wouldn’t comeback the next week. Way more than %5. And a few weeks later they would make it back. Pretty fickle.

        My dad was a dam drill sergeant – literally. And I’ve personally been called out by the pastor not by name but It was something direct and he was right I was wrong. Sure it jolted me a bit but were all fair game and I needed to hear it.

        Like

  9. naturallyaspirated says:

    I cut my teeth on the Red Pill on the reddit “Married Red Pill” forum. There was a lot of “owning your own sh!t” bantered about, with the idea that if you are the proper captain, your first mate will be content. Drunken captains are the main issue, and then the first mate has to do a bunch of sh!t she isn’t trained for, wired for, or really has any interest in doing. (She’s not particularly good at it either.) Then she starts to resent the captain, the respect is lost, and it’s all downhill from there.

    This seemed to make sense, and it explained things I had witnessed and experienced, and opened my eyes (“swallowed the red pill”). It assumed that women are fundamentally reactive, that they want to settle into your frame and leadership, and when they don’t have that security blanket, they start to malfunction.

    So when men lift, look good with their shirt off, have interesting hobbies, set clear boundaries, protect the household, provide reliable resources… then women properly respond. They don’t choose to care about all this, it’s how they are wired. It’s said they are “the oldest teenager in the house”, and they need the structure provided above, or they act out.

    I say all this because I don’t know how this informs female agency. Maybe they need to have the introspection to know that they work best as a first mate and not be afraid to articulate it. (Although they hate when they have to tell men how to act. They want men who have it as the default setting, not pretenders who have to work at it.) Maybe they just have to react as they are wired and not overthink it.

    I truly don’t know.

    Liked by 2 people

    • naturallyaspirated says:

      Also, I can’t overstate how important it is for a functioning marriage that other women see you as a good captain, and constantly let your wife know that there are plenty of good first mates out there who would line up for you if you were available.

      Scott’s wife seeing IOIs from 30 year olds when they are out together is incredible glue. It’s like that rhino horn aphrodisiac you dip yourself in every morning in her eyes.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “Scott’s wife seeing IOIs from 30 year olds when they are out together is incredible glue. It’s like that rhino horn aphrodisiac you dip yourself in every morning in her eyes.”

        Yes. Because it delivers the following message to Mychael, very, very clearly:

        “This is a high value man. If you don’t do what it takes to keep him, someone else will. If you aren’t what he wants, someone else is, or will be. If you don’t give him what he wants, someone else will. Therefore, you had better do what it takes, be what he wants, and give him what he wants, or you will lose him.”

        This is a crystal clear message to women who pride themselves on their indirect communication and their “intuition”.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Jack says:

      NaturallyAspirated,

      The Captain and First Mate analogy is quite informative about the marital relationship.

      Furthermore, a first mate exercising agency means that he takes orders without a lot of hassle and faithfully carries out his duties to the best of his ability. A “good” first mate is one who carries out his duties well and with few errors, such that the journey can be made safely and securely.

      According to this analogy, a daughter or wife exercising agency means that she is respectful, submissive, and obedient without a lot of hassle and faithfully carries out her duties to the best of her ability. A “good” daughter or wife is one who carries out her duties well and with few errors, such that the husband and family can enjoy the many benefits of having a warm, well ordered home.

      “Maybe they need to have the introspection to know that they work best as a first mate and not be afraid to articulate it.”

      This would certainly help. But the larger problem is wives getting the notion that the captain is derelict or incompetent, and thinking they could be a better Captain themselves — a subtle mutiny. And as Dalrock elucidated, this problem is amplified when the church feeds women the same narratives that feminist secular culture does, thereby encouraging mutiny on a mass scale.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “But the larger problem is wives getting the notion that the captain is derelict or incompetent, and thinking they could be a better Captain themselves — a subtle mutiny. And as Dalrock elucidated, this problem is amplified when the church feeds women the same narratives that feminist secular culture does, thereby encouraging mutiny on a mass scale.”

        We keep kicking the dead horse, but Jack’s sentiment here is the embodiment of God’s curse on Eve. She wants control and is subtle and manipulative in procuring it for herself. She is then turned off by a man who is too weak or incompetent to catch on to her schemes. She’s put herself in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

        Often this course of events shows up with a woman being “perpetually unhappy”. The man tries to make her happy and his acts of actually loving her reinforce in her mind that he is inferior to her because he’s appeasing her bad behavior.

        This is why men need to think about women as “the most responsible teenager in the house”. With kids we don’t, or at least we shouldn’t, let them create scenarios where our leniency on boundaries causes them to hurt the family or themselves. With wives the same applies. A man’s purpose is the focus and anything she does to detract from his efforts get corrected.

        If he needs to go out and fight the world a peaceful home is essential. Anything she does to upset this is working against him. Ditto goes for how the kids are to be raised and what he wants for his family.

        Once a man’s eyes are open to the truth, knowing what needs to be done to make your marriage better is a matter of logic. What gets hard is the will to implement the steps.

        Liked by 1 person

      • naturallyaspirated says:

        “…the larger problem is wives getting the notion that the captain is derelict or incompetent, and thinking they could be a better Captain themselves — a subtle mutiny. And as Dalrock elucidated, this problem is amplified when the church feeds women the same narratives that feminist secular culture does, thereby encouraging mutiny on a mass scale.”

        Yes, more “fitness tests” is another way to put it. I remember the reply that feminism is one gigantic fitness test.

        Maybe what’s happened is the level of competency for accepted Captainship among first mates has gone up with feminism. What used to keep a woman happy was a Captain operating at the 50th percentile or higher. Now, you need to be an 80th percentile captain to keep her happy. Feminism run amok, wokeism, social media, and an increasingly secularized culture (among many other things) have made captainship harder, women expect more, making mutiny statistically more likely.

        Men are increasingly realizing the juice is not worth the squeeze, thus MGTOW continues to grow.

        But back to the subject of this post: If we agree that women are reactive, and the oldest teenager in the house, how do we view their agency?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        NA,

        “But back to the subject of this post: If we agree that women are reactive, and the oldest teenager in the house, how do we view their agency?”

        We view women’s agency as agency with the caveat that there are situations in which the covering of headship can protect them from emotionally driven regrettable decisions. Read Numbers 30 for the specific details.

        What I find interesting about male headship is that the concept is designed to protect the weaker sex from herself. Every time I see a woman make a head scratching decision on her own, a decision so obviously bad that Stevie Wonder could see the outcome, I think that I do the same thing to Christ as my head every. single. day. It makes me thankful for his covering over me and the grace and mercy involved in the role he took on.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ NA (cool pseudonym, by the way)

      I haven’t read the Reddit forum you mentioned, but they seem to start out right.

      We can only control ourselves. We can’t make our wives submit if they really don’t want to. Therefore, we have to start with ourselves. Real leadership, after all, says “follow me”.

      Where a lot of “Red Pill” men go wrong is that they believe the same lie a lot of “tradcon” men believe – women are responders.

      In other words, they treat women like they’re machines – give them the “right” input, and they give you the desired output. People don’t work that way. They never have.

      How did God fail Eve that caused her to disobey Him? What did she lack?

      Like

      • naturallyaspirated says:

        It’s the odds we play, I guess. Just like vetting doesn’t guarantee anything, only improving your odds of success.

        Most (many? the majority?) of women will respond something like a machine, be a good Captain, and she’ll slide comfortably into the First Mate role and be happy. Any individual woman, however, may malfunction for a host of reasons we all know

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        NA,

        I think the opposite is true. A good woman will respond well to good leadership, but good women are rare.

        The average woman will probably grudgingly submit in some areas, and not in others. Eventually, God willing, she might eventually figure out that submitting makes her happier.

        A bad woman will probably react to her husband’s authority like a vampire to a cross.

        Whatever the case may be, submission is part of her moral agency.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Oscar says:

        By the way, the same principle applies to women. If a woman complains about her husband, the right thing to do is to advise her to fix her issues first.

        A good man will respond very well to a woman who treats him well. In fact, I’d argue that it’s a lot easier to get a man to respond well.

        But, there are limits.

        My wife and I know a family – I’ll call them the Bs – where the wife can’t do anything to fix the marriage.

        Mr. B won’t keep a job. Mrs. B works as a teacher and doesn’t make much money. Mr. B quits, or gets fired from jobs willy nilly, and spends long periods unemployed, playing video games at home. He’s in his 40s, by the way.

        There is no solution to this problem. Mrs. B married a lazy man. There’s nothing she can do to turn him into a hard working, ambitious man. So far, she’s choosing to stay with him for the kids’ sake.

        The same dynamic happens to men. You can’t turn a bad woman into a good woman. If a man does everything he can (not perfectly, of course), and she refuses to follow his lead, then he needs to accept that he chose poorly.

        Now what?

        Talk to deti and RPA about that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “We can only control ourselves. We can’t make our wives submit if they really don’t want to. Therefore, we have to start with ourselves. Real leadership, after all, says, “Follow me.”

        Where a lot of “Red Pill” men go wrong is that they believe the same lie a lot of “tradcon” men believe – women are responders.”

        Right on. Women are absolutely active drivers in marriage in many cases. They may respond, like a child responds to a parent who caught them in a behavior that is not acceptable, but for the most part they are actively pushing limits to see what they can get away with and what they can’t. The very nature of their probing admits God’s design of husband rule as those in authority never probe those in their charge to see what they can get away with.

        “The same dynamic happens to men. You can’t turn a bad woman into a good woman. If a man does everything he can (not perfectly, of course), and she refuses to follow his lead, then he needs to accept that he chose poorly.

        Now what?

        Talk to deti and RPA about that.”

        With a difficult wife, a man can set boundaries along the lines of scripture and then trust God will work all things to the good of those that love him. It may mean that the man is single again. It may mean that he has the work of husbandry ahead of him to bring his wife in line. My case is the latter and it is a route of effort, endurance and emotional self control.

        The effort can pay off, but each man has to decide for himself if the juice is worth the squeeze. In my case, my sons get to grow up in an intact nuclear family and when I told my wife to give me a little shake as she was walking away from my office this evening she did. So there are some perks to the effort.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Oscar,

        “Where a lot of “Red Pill” men go wrong is that they believe the same lie a lot of “tradcon” men believe – women are responders.”

        This contains another irony. Women really are responders, so it’s not a factual lie. The lie comes into play when men get the notion that the woman is like a vending machine, as you described.

        “In other words, they treat women like they’re machines – give them the “right” input, and they give you the desired output. People don’t work that way. They never have.”

        Then when her knees don’t automatically spring open they get bogged down in the details of the mechanics, thinking they didn’t push the right button or pull the lever at the right time, etc. It’s a very naive view of women that leads to the “dancing monkey” impression surrounding charisma, Game, and giving feedback.

        This is the same lie that Red Pill grifters use to get men to keep buying their stuff, paying for subscriptions, etc. “You didn’t do X right.”

        People also get similar ideas about God — that if they do X, Y, and Z, then they’ll get something they desire or some other kind of blessing, similar to the Prosperity Gospel.

        At its root, it’s a works-based mentality.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Women really are responders, so it’s not a factual lie. The lie comes into play when men get the notion that the woman is like a vending machine, as you described.”

        I was thinking about how I would explain this to my boys, or some other young men, because you’re right, there is some truth in this lie. The most effective lies are built around a kernel of truth.

        The truth is that everyone is a responder. We all respond to other people’s actions, but we’re not all the same. Two different people will respond differently to the same action. Hell, my wife will respond 10 different ways to the exact same action on 10 different occasions depending on her mood at that exact moment.

        Another irony is that men are much closer to being like vending machines than women are. If – by chance – some woman out there doubts me, try giving your man a blow job, then asking him for something you want, and see what happens.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Scott says:

    In my lifetime, I have seen plenty of women make moral choices when doing the wrong thing would have been easier.

    This is true even when no external force was incentivizing it. That is, doing the right thing simply because it’s the right thing.

    But it seems that this gets REALLY complicated in the realm of romantic relationships.

    This tells me that something about morality gets short circuited when sex or sexuality is on the line.

    I’ve also seen myself make crucial errors ethically and morally in the same context. It’s like everyone’s moral compass just gets thrown out the window when their libido kicks in.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Pingback: Deti on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  12. Random A says:

    Just gonna say I still miss Dalrock. He had the talent for contrasting the Bible to the views and the behaviors of the churchians. Really turned my head as he blazed the trail since plowed by DS, DG, Jack, Deti, Scott, Novaseeker et al. I still go back there to reread posts by topics.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Pingback: Deep Strength on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Donal Graeme on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Rollo Tomassi on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  16. rodney dangerfield impersonator says:

    The solution is to start telling women to woman up. Constantly.

    But be careful, I told my wife to woman up and I came to find her in bed with another woman. I get no respect I tell you. No respect.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      Rodney,

      “The solution is to start telling women to woman up. Constantly.”

      As this month’s theme is progressing, it’s looking like this sums up the prescribed action plan in a nutshell. It reinforces the same conclusion I found a few years ago: Men must make the majority of demands in the relationship.

      Like

  17. Pingback: Sharkly on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Catacomb Resident on Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Artisanal Toad on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: On the Concept of Agency | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Zippy Catholic’s View of Female Hypoagency | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: Bruce Charlton on Agency | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: Red Pill Apostle on Women’s Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  26. Pingback: D. Bradley on Women’s Moral Agency | Σ Frame

  27. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Female Agency | Σ Frame

  28. Pingback: Men’s Role in the Mess | 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