Excessively Useless Friendships

Donal Graeme, in his latest post asks some questions in response to another blogger’s post on friendship with women.

In this modern day age of empowered, strong, independent women, what does a modern women provide as a friend that a man cannot? What valuable skills does she bring to the table? What unique talents is she offering as a friend?

This is an important consideration. Theoretically, a female friend ought to be more useful than they are. Several reasons for this, but mostly it is not so much sex-biased, but environmental. Saying someone is a friend should be more than a statement of approval. Our postmodern society dissolves every substance in emotion until it loses all form and function because formlessness is what postmodernism/deconstruction do, and emotion is a powerful and freely available solvent; one to which at least half of people simply like to use. After all: It often feels good, and what remains of emotionally-dissolved substances requires no commitment. The sex-biased part is that because few people hold females to any standard they don’t learn anything useful. I believe men are less useful than they used to be, too, but there is still a residue of expectations. How many pre-marriage women can be counted on to prepare a menu of food? How about a cup of coffee that makes one say, “Mm-hmm!”? Can they even introduce a single man to other available women? What good are they to those around them? Women want to be useful, and they even believe that they should be.

Yet acceptance of formless emotionalism[1] is a painful predicament from which to be extracted because the process of molding and holding a person to standards is destructive to comfort, niceness, and the perception of happiness. It’s fun and comfortable to exist without the imposition of expectations; especially for women. Not only are they driven by desire, but the zeitgeist encourages us to prefer the punishment of the smallest infraction of impolite imposition over even the direst need for discipline.

[1] Edited on August 3rd, 2015 by inserting a paragraph break and “acceptance of formless emotionalism”; which probably was wiped during an earlier edit and which BuenaVista brought to my attention.

Find the Lady in Weighting: The Church Woman’s Con Game

Oscar asked:

I have an off-topic question for you regarding 1 Cor 14.

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I understand the entire chapter’s subject is maintaining constructive order in collective worship, but I don’t understand why it’s inherently “disgraceful” or detrimental to constructive order for a woman “speak in the church”.

Or, am I missing something about what Paul is referencing when he mentions women speaking in church?

SirHamster replied:

In two different mixed-sex Bible studies I’ve led, I have had women drone on and on off-topic, caught up in their feelings on the subject.

“God is love, so God is feelings! Feelings are important!” That Bible Study had previously emphasized that Biblical love is an act of will, not feelings – and I’m ashamed now that I let that go on with no answer for 5 minutes. Need to learn to cut off unfruitful tangents in a discussion.

What I am learning from those experiences and various Manosphere/Game blogs is that women are not men with boobs, they have a womanly nature that processes the world differently. And they can and will go on a chain of “logic” that is not.

Bobbye added:

Women asking questions in the assembly show a fundamental disrespect for her husband and /or father if he is also a member of the assembly. Did she ask at home and not get an answer? Are the men in her home without knowledge? Or is it that she doesn’t respect their answers? She wants an answer from a ‘real’ authority. If headship serves no real purpose, why pretend that the husband is the head? If the woman’s husband/father is not a christian, then for decorum’s sake she should ask her questions privately, so as to not lead others astray.I once attended a church where an elder did not know who Jeremiah was. If churches actually practiced this observance, then men would be obligated to be more knowledgeable and wise in the Scriptures and the ways of God.

It’s these, altogether. This blog is not a church, but it suffered the same problems. No feminists trouble me. The impetus for my ban on female commenters was the comments of wives who confessed to believe the Bible and the husband’s headship.

Inevitably, disagreement happens and when it does then many of those supposedly Bible-believing, husband-following wives switch to a conversational form of Find the Lady. When what she had said is challenged, that gets shuffled to the position of “what her husband said”; to the cheers and jeers of the shills around the challenger; who becomes their mark. The shills may be male or female, but usually consider themselves conservative, or traditional.

Some of those wives become more emboldened in argument and more immodest in spirit. Like a wild donkey in heat, they will often start feeling around to take a grab at another man’s balls: “If you were a real man…”; “My husband would kick your ass…”; etc. Such a woman’s hands–one on her husband and one on his adversaries–are filled with two weights; which Moses called dishonest and an abomination.

11 “When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

13 “You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. 14 You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. 15 A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God.

She needs to be content with the full and fair weight and measure she has been given in her husband, and not go around fondling other men’s weights to see which is heavier. To do so is dishonest and an abomination. It is this which Paul called disgraceful, and it is; to her, to her husband, and to the church.

The only way to beat the con is to never play. The best way to protect gullible men from becoming marks is to never let disgraceful women setup the con. And the best way to keep disgraceful women from setting the con is to not let any women speak in church…or on this blog.

True Story of the Times

Video is crude, and probably NSFW, but it’s all here.

Great song and a keenly insightful video. This is a good jump-off point for discussion with others. The perps, the victims, the methods…it’s a true story. Tell me what you see in the comments.

A Very Brief Note on How to Vet a Potential Wife

This post is sorely delinquent, and I apologize to the emailer; whom I long ago told I would respond. He writes:

I got together with my girlfriend less than a month ago[1]. I’m ashamed to say that at 39 years old, I’ve never had a girlfriend. She’s my first. I am inclined to steer our relationship slowly towards marriage — a Christian marriage — and I realised the importance of having fun with her. Having said that, I hope you can share with me some advice on how I should “vet” a girl on whether or not she can be a good (Christian) wife. In fact, I’ve been reading Dalrock’s post about how much a husband should share with his wife and I picked up your comments, which to some, is a dismissal of “Game”. However, I believe your perspective is — as men we should be astute in choosing our wives, so much so that any form of “Game” or “manipulation” will never be necessary in the marriage.
So, I will be grateful if you can share some thoughts about vetting for a potential mate.

The first thing to vet is your attraction. Do you find her attractive? Do you want to touch her, etc.? That part is easy.

The second thing to discover is whether or not she is a Daddy’s Girl. Does she listen to her father? Does she express love for him? Does she speak of him respectfully? Does she live at home? When she discusses a past moment of disrespect or disobedience of him, does she express regret?

No woman is perfect and all of them have been given bad advice (even by their fathers), but you must get a sense of this, and you must see it in action. You need to see them together. Is she affectionate towards him? A woman’s love of her father is the best indicator of whether she has

  • self-control
  • dedication
  • love of family
  • mental sobriety
  • piety
  •  (importantly!) whether she will submit your children to your headship.

You may respond that it’s hard to see her and her father’s relationship in action because she lives in a different city. Well, that’s an answer. It may be that her father encouraged her to move away. Take the fullness of that into consideration. While it demonstrates regard for her father, it also demonstrates that her father didn’t train her up to be a wife; that he encouraged independence and ultimately rebellion. Be wary!

Searching out a woman for Daddy’s Girl qualities is much easier than finding out her IQ, or her time orientation (if such a thing be real), or her theology, or any of that other stuff. In the end, these qualities are beside the point; nor do they address women’s imaginations and frailties. Every day smart, forward-thinking women with in-depth theologies decide they are too good to listen to their husbands. A future-time oriented wife who doesn’t put her husband first is a woman who won’t get on the stick when her husband needs present-time faithfulness. And when a woman decides to leave her husband with half his paycheck: She is thinking longterm.

Also: Be doubly wary of the father who married another man’s divorcee. If he is not repentant of that, he will shelter and foment a daugther’s rebellion.

[1] Email was sent to me on 3/9.