Carrying on from the previous post in the series, we’ll look GW’s second objection from his comment at Dalrock’s:
Certainly not all young females who delay marriage do so because they want to fornicate with multiple men, and in the church this demographic is rarer. Normal women tend to want to get married. The number of loving Christian fathers who are okay with their daughters whoring around is zero. Let’s put aside foolish and worldly talk.
Just as with the first sentence (you can read about it by following the first link in this post), the second is, again, factually true, yet still misleading; just as anti-missile flares distract because factually they are hot.
Normal women want to get married, but normal women don’t necessarily get normal instruction and discipline (by historical standards) to be good wives. It is also quite normal for normal women to want to end their marriages. This is because of sin nature; both what women suffer directly and also what they have to suffer by proximity to their husbands’ sinful natures.
Nature teaches us that women should be submissive to men, and that women are most beautiful when covered. Men grow in stature and their heads are uncovered when at their most manful. This is not true of women, who are covered even at their most feminine; yet they want that kind of manly glory even though it is harmful to them.
Today weddings are practiced in such a way that they begin with a man’s submission to a woman when he bribes her to marry him with expensive jewelry (preferably while kneeling). The wedding proceed as a celebration of her in as full feminine regalia as can be purchased; usually beyond affording. It ends without her declaration to obey him. All of which is to say that a modern wedding conveys no symbolism about the thing it mocks. I mean it has nothing to say about Christian marriage. So why do normal women want to get “married” if they are in rebellion against, or in ignorance of, Christian marriage? Two reasons: They want to be celebrated, and because if she doesn’t get a husband she can’t pursue her sinful desire to rule him. When that doesn’t work out to her satisfaction (It never will; that’s some of the trouble with sin.) she starts thinking that she must have been fooled into marrying the wrong man. She begins to think she needs someone stronger, gentler, kinder, tougher…better. Thus normal women are strongly tempted to entertain the idea that what they need is a new marriage to a new man.
This brings us back to the motivation behind GW’s objection that, “Normal women tend to want to get married.” The unavoidable implication is that generally what normal women need are superior men than what God has provided them from which to choose. It is a statement of encouragement to a woman that they deserve a better man; that in a just world they’d get a man who understands her needs. He is saying women should get a man like him.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
I loled at the title. I think donalgraeme’s recent post ties in to a lot of what you’re saying here. Normal women want many conflicting things. They want to get married to a strong man who can pass their shit tests, and they also want to rule in the stead of the man.
Their nature by design vs sin nature.
A mark of a mature woman is her ability to rule over herself.
Just as a man can control himself, so can women.
That is the greatest blog post title of all time.
Hey gents,
This is off topic, but it’s a regular subject among our crowd, so I hope you’ll pardon me.
It’s snowing like crazy in the Midwest, which means longer commutes, which means more time to think. This morning, the following thoughts occurred to me.
Pastors have authority over their churches.
Authority means (among other things) the right and responsibility to set, and enforce, standards of conduct among the flock.
According to the standards set in Matthew 18, and 1 Corinthians 5, a pastor’s authority includes the right and responsibility to protect the flock by excommunicating an unrepentant brother.
I would gladly support my pastor in exercising his authority. If some dude got belligerent at church (I’ve seen this kind of thing once or twice), I’d gladly pull him into a rear naked choke, put him down for a nap without injuring him, and hold him down until the cops showed up.
But I’ve only known one pastor in my entire life who would support me in exercising authority in my home.
It occurs to me, however, that scrapping with another man isn’t all that difficult for most of us (For now, anyway. Ask me again when I’m 60).
But, as Dalrock and Cane have pointed out, being “mean” to a woman feels really wrong to most of us. We’ve been conditioned to protect women, which is a good thing, but (this goes back to Dalrock’s series on chivalry), it’s gotten to the point where few men will even acknowledge a woman’s sin.
Anyway, those are my half-formed, disjointed thoughts. I’d appreciate some feedback.
Looking at the third sentence in poor GW’s post, i can’t wait to see how Cane vivisects that one.
“So why do normal women want to get “married…”
1. Status – it lowers their status (among the hens) when they don’t/can’t get married.
2. Children – they want babies and someone to financially support them.
@Oscar, in fairness, I don’t think anybody really understands what’s happened. On the cynical side those for whom the system is working have strong reasons to not understand.
The rot goes deeper than men and women, but I think it does come down to authority and charity (explained to me as love in action). God actually loves us, more than any of us are capable of. He didn’t give us guidance on these matters because He hates us.
This means it’s trustworthy authority, it’s not tyrannical or arbitrary. We’re not being kind to women by not having standards it’s why they’re miserable and weird. It will take a great love to give any of us the strength to resist this the right way.
Oscar
Men hold each other’s feet to the fire at churches, but not about the right things. For single men, it’s “find a woman, get married, dont’ look at women lustfully because that’s adultery, and don’t watch porn”. For married men, it’s “give your wife everything she wants, don’t look at other women lustfully because that’s adultery and she’ll divorce you, don’t look at your wife lustfully because that’s not nice, and don’t watch porn”.
No one holds women’s feet to the fire about anything, anywhere. The only time women are chastised it is for not liking themselves enough.
@thedeti, man that’s accurate
Liberalism entails rebellion, therefore liberal powers and authorities must paradoxically support rebellion. In this case pastors support the rebellion of women against the commands of Scripture.
I don’t think anybody really understands what’s happened.
The answer starts with a difficult truth, some might call it a ‘red pill’. Liberalism is a religion, and consequently most ‘Christians’ are half-Christian at best, because their faith is syncretic. Hence they don’t believe certain plain parts of Scripture, because they simply cannot due to their other religious commitments. Show them plain Scripture to their face and they will simply ignore it. They can’t help themselves.
Related to this, Zippy and I had an old disagreement on how to view liberalism. He analysed it primarily in a philosophical as a commitment to certain political priorities, while I saw it as something more. But he was close, after all he did name the unholy trinity (Liberty, which begets Equality, and from both proceeds Fraternity).
It’s just a small step more to the reddest pill of all: that most in the West belong to the cult of the goddess Libertas. All liberals do, including conservatives that he correctly identified as right-liberals.
Excellent comment by GJ. I would just add the preference of unclear Biblical passages over clear ones (in support of Liberty of course).
@Bruce
Agreed. This is another way of explaining the two reasons I gave in the post.
No longer is this the case. The child support model has eclipsed marriage as the legal and enduring route to children and financial support. Women know this. When a Christian housewife divorces her husband for whatever reason she is not surprised to discover she’s entitled to her husband’s children and a large percentage of his income. She counts on it.
Oscar, this may be easier.
There is a neo-Marxist goal of destroying the family by turning the wife against the husband.
Most pastors you know are themselves emasculated, evident in how they don’t rule their household (as they should according to 1st Timothy). Their wives rule, so these pastors cannot properly teach or model the Scriptural teaching because they don’t themselves believe it and it doesn’t exist in their own households.
Therefore they become such useful idiots for the satanic cause of destroying families.
@Oscar, in fairness, I don’t think anybody really understands what’s happened. On the cynical side those for whom the system is working have strong reasons to not understand.
Some manosphere writers and readers eventually go political, because they’re not satisfied with just strategies and tricks and coping mechanisms, or with a mere observational understanding of how men work and how women work. They want to understand why things are changing so rapidly, and what or who is behind all this. We could call this ‘the red pill behind the red pill’.
This is not a easy path, it’s definitely more blissful being ignorant, but I would say that it’s more satisfying to reach understanding.
Pingback: Why do Christian women have the reputation of being whores? | Σ Frame
But I’ve only known one pastor in my entire life who would support me in exercising authority in my home.
Learn to recognise the true hierarchy, the other pastors are ruled by their wives.
This is a Law: a pastor that is ruled by his wife will ensure that the congregation is ruled by the wives.
Is there any essential difference between a church with female pastors, and a ‘we’re Bible-following so no female pastors’ church whose pastors are ruled by their wives?
Hypocrites paying lip-service to the law can be pushed to choose their true master.
Active rebels require a different approach.
A bit of context would be helpful, because without context it is easy to ascribe whatever strawman one wants to my words. To understand was writing, one should first read what I was responding to. My response was specifically to this paragraph by Dalrock:
For women specifically, just as with men I believe that marriage is the blessing God intends for nearly all. One of the cruel things we do to women in this regard is discourage them from seeking a husband when they are young and most attractive. We fear that if they marry young they might submit to their husband. So we urge them to delay marriage while pretending we aren’t sending them out for an extended ride on the cock carousel**
My objection was twofold; first that Dalrock needlessly used a vulgar and unwholesome metaphor and second the implication that Christian fathers en masse are intentionally setting up their daughters to live sexually immoral lives.
Both objections are in keeping with Ephesians 4:29.
“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”
Unnecessary vulgar terminology will not convince mainstream Christians about the ills of feminism or the spiritual rot that has taken place in the church. And broadly accusing Christian fathers of preferring their daughters sleep around than submitting to their husbands builds no one up and benefits only Satan. The chief reason fathers object to their daughters marrying young tends to be with her selection of mate during her late teenage years; women in general aren’t great at selecting boyfriends but young women in particular tend to be pretty bad at it. Notice that Dalrock places himself against fatherly council in the young woman’s decision of marriage. In contrast I want the father to have as much influence as realistically possible in this culture/society.
How many 18-year old men are emotionally mature enough for marriage? How many can provide for himself and a wife, let alone potential children? You can see the point. Generally, the ideal age for men to marry is higher than women, and women marrying an older man was/is the norm in many traditional cultures. But aside from arrangements, it isn’t always the case that young women (who might be ready for marriage) are in social settings around men that are ready for marriage. Blame societal and cultural shifts (college, etc.) for delayed adolescence contributing to delayed marriage, but marrying young isn’t a panacea. It may be helpful in some situations, but the reality is more complex than that.
The posting of percentages of premarital sex don’t really get to the heart of my objection. (I appreciate that you meant no ridicule toward me, because you are responding to a strawman here). I’m not denying that there is a cultural problem relating to promiscuity and fornication, even within the church. I’m certainly not denying that women are tempted and succumb to sexual temptation just as men do. I’m not even denying that delayed marriage can increase sexual temptation. What I am denying is the idea that Christian women who are tempted and/or fall into sexual sin do so because they reject marriage and just want to play the field. This fundamentally misunderstands the psyche of women.
Of women who have slept with their boyfriend and meet some definition of churched, how many would say no to a proposal from him? Getting married to the man you love (or falling love/getting married) is probably the single-most important thing in the minds (hearts) of young single women, and one has to reason that this desire skews stronger for women raised in more conservative and Christian upbringings.
This is what I mean by normal women. Normal women only sleep with men they genuinely love (have affectionate feelings for, have emotionally bonded with, etc.). Normal men on the other hand only sleep with women they are physically attracted to.
Not that they are sinless women. I never wrote that having feelings of love sanctifies sexual activity. Or that they are never tempted. Or that they won’t experience marital difficulty down the road or have trouble submitting to their husbands. I never wrote nor implied these things that you ascribe as being my motivation. My motivation rather was to correct a rather foolish and self-defeating paragraph that only obscured the otherwise good points he was making.
GW,
Thanks. You clarified that I knew exactly what you were talking about.
Normal women only sleep with men they genuinely love (have affectionate feelings for, have emotionally bonded with, etc.).
No. That’s false. Women sleep with men for all kinds of reasons, only one of which has to do with love and affection, and even then that’s not a primary reason why a woman will choose to have sex with a man.
GW’s comment reads like a troll, it hits so many trad con tropes.
GW
You don’t need to repeat yourself using so many words, I think you made yourself quite clear the first time.
That’s why Cane wrote this response.
Not at all. You strawmanned me repeatedly and ended by assuming you could read my mind and associate to me a false motivation.
You can’t get angry at mainstream pastors endorsing feminist tropes which denigrate Christian husbands and men during Father’s Day sermons while ignoring when Dalrock paints in a broad brush to denigrate Christian fathers as men unconcerned with raising godly daughters.
My father always told me that all truth is God’s truth.
One of the biggest problems in the church is a near complete failure to actually address realities that we directly perceive and know in our bones to be true.
Women, even normal women, are just people man. I was fed the whole “men are physically attracted, women are emotionally attracted” thing and it’s near total nonsense. Even good Christian girls go nuts over handsome men.
If I can be indulged, let me illustrate with an example from my own life.
The message I got at church is that I should never date a non Christian because that would just be my lust getting a hold of me and taking me down. Not bad advice so far as it goes. I ended up dating a non Christian because I wasn’t prepared for the temptation.
I was’t prepared because it didn’t come the way they said it would and they had fed me simplistic lies about men, women, and sex. I had a “chaste enough” summer romance with a non Christian foreign exchange student, not because I was an evil man with evil desires (you know, normal human mating instincts) who just “couldn’t control himself”. I dated the non Christian girl because she appealed directly to my pride. She was the first girl who ever told me I was handsome, attractive, deferred to me, and this was way more than I had gotten from any girl in youth group. Yeah she was very attractive, but my guard was up on that front. What got it down was getting that affirmation, that was the emotional juice. That was the temptation. I was looking the wrong way.
Because evangelicalism doesn’t care about the truth, we all smack up against the truth and it comes as quite a shock. We are told simplistic formulas and a few outright lies. Simple simon nonsense like “men aren’t emotional about sex” or that normal women are incapable of lust is insane on it’s face.
If our women aren’t chaste, it’s not some scooby doo mystery. I suspect at least half of it is that no one has given them a true reason not to be. You can’t just lie to them about their own nature, then when the temptation comes, they will be far less prepared than they would be normally.
I don’t think that Christian fathers “don’t care” so much as they “don’t want to know”. On a heart level they do know but they’ve ladled a bunch of stuff over what they know so they can ignore it. Slightly OT, but not really, that is why I really got into John Eldredge after reading Journey of Desire (NOT wild at heart, if you ever read him, read JoD first). He basically spoke directly to my own experience, that evangelicalism wasn’t really delivering on the joy and the freedom and the strength the Gospels and the NT promise. It’s something we all know, but like we’re hypnotized don’t want to know. He measured his experience of the evangelical church against what the Bible says, and noticed that one was not really close to the other.
Our young people are getting eaten by the world at terrifying rates because we don’t really want to think about why or justify anything we’re doing. Or rather we’re willing to accept any truth so long as it doesn’t threaten what we find really important. Like all falsehoods in the end, it doesn’t really work. Truth isn’t just valuable for it’s own sake, it’s necessary to keep from hurting ourselves or others.
That went on long, but I really believe it’s important.
“What I am denying is the idea that Christian women who are tempted and/or fall into sexual sin do so because they reject marriage and just want to play the field.”
I’ve seen two different manosphere narratives:
One is that contemporary women (presumably including most Church girls) are like porn whores, who F whatever hot guy they can.
The other narrative is that contemporary women are hypergamous and want to get the best man they can. They have relationships (of varying lengths) which include sex, with the most desirable man they can – when that doesn’t work out (he doesn’t propose or he “cheats” on her or whatever) they move on to the next hot guy. There’s a motive to get the best man and, of course, also the temptation to fornication since sex with attractive people is pleasurable for women as it is for men. Mixed motives but I don’t doubt they hope that each one will turn out to be “the one.”
If GW is saying that he believes the 2nd narrative (particularly in the case of conservative Church attending girls) then I agree with him.
Pingback: DoW III: | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: DoW IV: No Good Words for Bad Deeds | Things that We have Heard and Known