Links and Comments #9

I’ve been busy followed by sick followed by busy, so I haven’t been able to post as I would like. But I have found a few links and things to share that have been interesting to me:

---

On the topic of traditional non-Marxist feminists (or tradcon feminists as most of the rest of the manosphere call them): I’ve run across the opposition to men’s rights and equality in the law before from traditionalist feminists. Most don’t use those specific words that “rights don’t exist for men”, but it does seem to be what they believe. PMAFT has been writing about the opposition to “equality” that’s been self-evident among all the feminists. As he points out, Louise Pennington wrote that “The older I get, the more I believe that ‘equality’ is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women.”

As he and others point out, the message from them doesn’t seem any different. From the old TWRA site to other voices such as Suzanne Venker, the message comes out that women need to preserve their “special rights” they have over and above men, inherent to chivalry. Hence, the lack of rights for men, and the lack of responsibilities for women. While the traditionalists do not identify with the Marxists, they are defending their own system of female supremacy, coupled with the delusion that men were “in charge” of marriage. Hence, they will side with each other when abortion isn’t on the table. The traditionalists know well to not upset the female-supremacist apple cart.

The silence from the whole community of Churchianity regarding the abuses that go on in the name of “the holy institution of marriage” (a video link I can’t embed here) is telling – their silence indicates support! The answer to the ills of marriage is to fix the redefinition and reframing from Biblical Christian marriage. But the traditionalists see no problem…

Related: Cail Corishev’s case of tradcon tourettes. Hollenhund’s response.

Also related: Christianity is self-defeating. It definitely is, when it exhibits a complete and total hatred for those born in the physical image of Christ. Anti-male is Anti-Christian. When you institutionally hate men (and especially single men) as a matter of traditional doctrine, don’t be surprised when men leave and take their families with them. Don’t be surprised if they leave embittered on Christianity as well. Being a boy or a man is not a “mental illness”. It is also not sinful!

Related #3: A Mentu repost about his attempt to secularize Dalrock’s “Reframing Christian Marriage” series:

I can’t speak for Christian marriage, but I firmly believe there is no evidence of an attempt at reframing traditional marriage – but that’s only because it has already been reframed. Today’s man has three options: He must worship at the altar of vagina and surrender his soul to the Hamster Gods in exchange for the honor of constantly working to ensure marital bliss, or ignore the tenets of Girligion and be forever banished to the torments of marital hell and it’s demons of divorce, or be the heretic who finds comfort in other manly pursuits while having fun jumping from bed to bed in relationship PUrgAtory.

Also when doctrine doesn’t follow what is handed down in Scripture, it is defeating as well. Case in point is Kim Kardashian and Kanye West (H/T Dalrock) While Kim Kardashian should be a very loud warning to the average “Christian” woman, it should be noted that Satan takes care of his own children. The only issue to address to the world anyway is the acceptance of Christ – what the world does besides that is irrelevant. Besides being like the world and following the world doesn’t equate to spiritual health.

---

The topic of relationships:
The truth about relationships: “Relationships are about trust, honestly, transparency and love.” is false.

The truth about what women are attracted to: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the Boston bomber that is in custody) now has more girls crushing on him now than probably ever before. Remember, men, this is the kind of women that society would have you man-up and marry. Parents, remember that this is what your young angelic daughters are attracted to. And remember that this is a consistent story with all these “bad guys”. A good steady Christian man who keeps his nose out of game has no chance with women when they are attracted to this…

An example relating the truth of hypergamy from Anonymous. His later explanation.

The truth: What a hamster running smack into the wall looks like.

There is freedom in singleness. What is missed by the traditional attitude towards marriage (and the message of MGTOW) is that life is not completely bankrupt without the personal approval of (and involuntary slavery to) a woman.

Related: One of the more balanced presentations of singleness I’ve found recently (H/T):

Beginning here and continuing down through the comments: Michael discovers the truth of the red-pill. Women don’t want a beta-provider. They don’t want Larry Lawyer, they want F***buddy Rockbanddrummer (to borrow one of Deti’s figures).

The erection of barriers to finding someone. In this day and age, singleness is definitely manufactured in the church and not because men won’t man up and marry the sluts.

---

Dalrock’s latest post What is the Manosphere? has spawned some interesting discussion.

Hollenhund on the position of men. And on women.

Hannah’s discovery of matriarchy in the Church.

It’s interesting to read how many different definitions and misconceptions people have about all the groups, even those that self-identify with the manosphere. Related to that are these videos about MGTOW:

Meanwhile, it’s odd that Dalrock groups MRA/MGTOW together. Right now there’s a turf-war going on as evidenced by this video from a “female MRA” (the senior editor of Elam’s outfit), attacking other men (MGTOW):

---

Some stuff unrelated to each other:
One of my searches has been to find a woman who speaks about marriage that gets Biblical marriage and the needs of men completely. While I haven’t found a perfect case yet, I do stumble across some interesting things in that realm. The latest example, Peacefulwife, writes a couple of interesting things.

On Mother’s and Father’s Day.

Why Do Men “Hate” Us?

On the loss of community: For being on the Internet so long and the experiences I have as a result, I have a lot of off-topic stuff to say about that, but that’s for another time and another blog.

A video of the previous “be kinder and gentler slave masters” it-girl to Suzanne Venker, Danielle Crittenden:

Things do get boring sometimes when you run into the same old things all the time.

---

I hope sharing these things have been useful to someone in their travels. Until next time and some talk about Marxism and marriage…

Responsibilities Don’t Exist

Free Northerner had a response for one of my little blog thoughts involving some reading, which in these posts are meant to be backed up in the material presented in the links.

While he agreed with me in complete principle, he went to the typical tradcon feminist line that “rights don’t exist”. Now I thank him for a “respectful response”. While he will see my response to what he wrote within this post, I would like to point out that this is not wholly the response, but his response happened to be a perfect take-off for a post I was planning beforehand (the opposition of rights and equality for men), the content of which you see here.

Rights are exhibited in the form of laws, and God has His own laws. “Right to life” – “thou shalt not kill”. “Right to private property” – “thou shalt not steal” and the like. Those that go around claiming “rights don’t exist” will at the same time cry about their rights or the rights of others when the government comes to take their guns, or someone robs their home, or even claim a “right to life” when it comes to the issue of abortion. They reveal their own biases in this claim that rights don’t exist.

These are God-given rights by virtue of the fact that He specified these limits. We should not confuse the sovereignty of God over what He has created (addressing 2 Thess 3:10-12, and the Jesus decision), and should not confuse the fact that rights can be taken by other just men acting in God’s will and God Himself for various reasons. Taking the rights of others outside of this should result in proper justice to be done if mercy is not taken by the wronged. God even supports this in the laws to His people and the expectation He has in enforcing such laws.

This leads into responsibilities undertaken willingly, which addresses Col 3:22 and Matt 16:24-27. People can willfully trade responsibility for responsibility. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist, but that people have the right to negotiate an exchange of goods and services. It, however, is a proof that responsibilities come from rights and not the other way around. Undertaking all things have a cost, and even Jesus warned of counting costs in such things. The misapplication of these Scriptures involve the fact that a choice was made to undertake a vow. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. If you say you’re going to do something, do it. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist.

Christ does not bid anyone come by force. This is obligation. The nature of men is to turn something that should be out of love into a forced obligation and something that should be given out of grace into an entitlement. This is the state of traditional Christian marriage (Marriage 2.0) and has been for about 1000 years.

This brings us back to the silly and absurd statement that “rights don’t exist”. When this is said in the context of the manosphere, it usually meant to mean “Rights Don’t Exist for Men.” In traditional practice, this is a true statement. This is readily seen by the practice of chivalry, which takes all rights away from men and all responsibilities away from women. This is akin to the statement that “Responsibilities Don’t Exist For Women”. Feminism (both tradcon feminism and marxist feminism) of all stripes has taken rights away from men and responsibilities away from women. Free Northerner’s mistake is not carrying out his very true statement into the rest of his work:

The delinking of the rights and responsibilities is one of the largest causes of societal dysfunction. From it flows the entitlement society.

The statement that there is no discussion of rights without responsibilities would be great in a sane world, but we live in an insane world vis-a-vis men and women and must formulate our actions based on reality and not hopes and dreams. Much of that world has been created over the last millennium by the traditionalist Christians in instituting chivalry. Chivalry creates an obligation (or unchosen responsibility) upon all men by birth.

In that sense, it’s true that responsibilities don’t exist for anyone.

Women don’t carry responsibility for anything, as evidenced by the female infantilization inherent to chivalry.

Men carry obligations from birth in the terms of traditional Christianity as penance for being born with “the demon rod” as Augustine puts it. As he viewed it, “the cause and effect of original sin is lust, the symptom and disease is the erection, and semen is the agent transmitting this sin to the next generation.” In this sense, one-sided obligations out of hatred of men are placed upon men. To say it another way, men must continually pay penance from birth for the sin of being born a man by being involuntarily enslaved to all women. This is the hatred of men and female-supremacism (i.e. feminism) that is inherent in traditional Christians and why they support Marriage 2.0 wholeheartedly.

This also explains the special hostility that MGTOW gets, since they have chosen to not value their own lives in the frame of women. Marriage 2.0 is a raw deal, which is why the men who have rebelled against this arrangement aren’t undertaking it. They have stopped acknowledging their sinhood for being born men and start seeing marriage not as an obligation of slavery but as an exchange. This is why I speak in terms of exchange in several places when it comes to marriage. I hold enough value and self-worth in my own life that I do not choose to enslave myself to be the footstool of a woman – the value provided by the woman does not match what I would have to give up.

It’s been noted in several places (examples to come in my link farm tomorrow) that there’s been a degree of TradCon Tourettes (and agreement with the Marxist Feminists) in the opposition to equality or the idea that men have rights. That they sound suspiciously similar for a reason – their beliefs on marriage are one in the same. This leads to commenter Rexoffender’s response:

Feminists love rights without responsibilities. Solid example that I’m not exactly shocked wasn’t brought up by anybody during the debate on women in combat roles is why no women have asked to be included in Selective Service. At its core, feminism IS rights without responsibilities. They want the right to an abortion, not the responsibility of providing for a family. They want the right to equal pay, not the responsibility of equal work. They want the RIGHT to go to war, not the RESPONSIBILITY of the draft. The decoupling of the rights and responsibilities is central to almost all of the social madness in America. Feminists are just a loud example.

This leads back into Antz’ comment (which I thank Free Northerner for preserving all the links):

Regardless of how each of us evaluates the intrinsic fairness (or lack thereof) of the traditional marriage contract, it is important to stress that the traditional marriage contract is gone forever. Any man who enters into a traditional marriage permanently indentures himself as a servant of a woman who can rip up her part of the contract at will, with no consequences.

From the moment that a man signs on the dotted line, his freedom, his property, his life, and his children permanently belong to HER.

The modern version of the traditional marriage is the ultimate embodiment of modern feminism:
* Rights without responsibilities for women
* Responsibilities without rights for men

And into the other link, which illustrates the hatred of men within traditionalist circles:

She unilaterally divorces you? Too bad, rights don’t exist.
She falsely accuses you of domestic violence? Too bad, rights don’t exist.
She bears false witness against you in any other way? Too bad, rights don’t exist.
She makes sure you never see your children ever again? Too bad, they’re hers! rights don’t exist.
She cuckolds you? Too bad, rights don’t exist! Man up and pay for the child!
She commits adultery against you? Too bad, rights don’t exist! Besides you caused it!
She divorce rapes you and takes away your livelihood? Too bad, rights don’t exist.

Too bad the traditionalists won’t extend this way of thought into other realms…or into women, and see their female-supremacist bias for what it is. Women have all the rights in the world. Men? Just the obligation to pay penance as a slave for the rest of his life for his sin of being born with the demon rod. Granted, when traditionalists speak against rights and equality they might be responding to the liberal Marxist concept of “rights” meaning outcome and not opportunity as myself and the MRA movement means it. But it still amounts to opposition against and hatred of men. Being Anti-man is being Anti-Christ. As I think on it, it’s probably sensible that man would be persecuted for being in the physical image of Christ – after all, Christ came as a man.

Ordinarily, in any other case outside of gender relations, I’d agree with Free Northerner’s post more wholeheartedly. But the original text was about the relationship between men and women and must be dealt with in that light. With the warped and twisted way life is right now, the only proper thing is that any discussion regarding men is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve rights. Conversely, any discussion involving women is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve responsibilities. As long as the rights/responsibilities pendulum is being held to the side and not allowed to rest at equilibrium, this must be the case.

Defining Feminism Part 4 – Defining Her God

This is the final part of a series of posts to more specifically define feminism (1) – (2) – (3). It represents my notes from the book The Feminist Gospel, as I have blogged through it. It will present summaries I compiled from the book of certain basic ideas which I can see readily expressed in modern Churchianity, and then my commentary on those ideas. My commentary will be in red. The book as a whole is much more detailed in both religious and secular interests of modern expression of feminism, and if you can locate it, I suggest it as a good read.

Having described the assertion in feminism that each woman has the right to define her own world, this will describe the next assertion of feminism. This is the assertion that women has the right to define her own god.

Changing The Gender of God
It should be no surprise from the previous parts that modern feminism places an extreme importance upon language. For example, “Mary Daly identified the ‘maleness of God’ as a major problem for the liberation of women in the Church.” (1) This question was brought out into the common religious community by a New York church, which erected a statue of a female Christ on the cross. (1) The statue was complete with its own breasts, hips, and vagina. (1)

This led to a study of sexism in the Bible by many denominations, in an effort to find “ways for making worship and study more inclusive of all participants.” (2) Feminist theologians rejected much of the Bible as male-biased. (2) They believed that “the Bible itself needed liberation from the misogyny that shackled it. (2) This led from the recognition that language is a human symbol that represents reality. (3) The symbols of the Church had presented God as “He” and as “King”, “Lord”, and “Judge”, and they argued that these symbols needed to be updated to reflect the new feminist consciousness. (3) As Letty Russell wrote: (3)

We cannot wait for a new generation of female and male scholars to publish new Bible translations and commentaries that eliminate the hitherto unconscious sexist bias of writers, most of whom are male.

Most didn’t have a very holy attitude towards Scripture and were more than ready to comply with the wishes of Letty Russell. As Burton Throckmorton, Jr., a professor of New Testament and member of the NCC revision committee for the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is quoted (13):

The scripture is the church’s book. I think the church can do with its scripture what it wants to do with its scripture.

We have the explanation for the changing of gender language and other factors within the Bible with respect to new translations. While they all have problems of this fashion, the New International Version is the most notable as the Feminist Bible (1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5). The fact that there is very little respect for God’s word as handed down through Spirit-inspired writers is very evident all over Churchianity. People believe it can either be followed or not, and literally be changed at the whim of those reading it.

Russell believed that the linkage of the gender pronoun applied to God with fleshly men reinforced inferiority and superiority stereotypes, alienated women against the Church, and served to limit God to physical male imagery and was as a result idolatry. (4) Russell’s suggested changes to language to alleviate this are illustrated through the feminist reading of the Lord’s prayer, which also illustrates feminist church doctrine as described in previous parts (5, verse numbers added by me to follow along):

(9) Our Mother/Father, who is everywhere, Holy be your names.
(10) May your new age come May your will be done In this and in every time and place.
(11) Meet our needs each day and
(12) Forgive our failure to love As we forgive the same failure in others.
(13) Save us in hard times, and Lead us into the ways of love. For yours is the wholeness, and the power, And the loving, forever. Amen.

Kassian gives adequate commentary of the effects of this in the book, so I defer to her.

As Kassian points out, Russell alters and renames God into something different than how He revealed Himself. (5) This is the true Biblical idolatry that is condemned. In changing the language, they serve to eroticize/sexualize God, depersonalize God, attacked God’s character, deny the Trinity, obscured the person and work of Christ, obscure humanity’s relationship to God, and even confuse personal identity. (6) The end result of renaming God was that the feminists became the authority which named their own destiny. (7)

Changing the God Altogether
“Since its inception, the ultimate goal of women’s liberation had been the attainment of personal meaning, value, and wholeness.” (8) Such a quest is an undeniably spiritual one. (8) Given the secularists tendency to rebel against everything that they perceived as Patriarchal, for they perceived that it did not do these things, it should be no surprise that they would rebel against traditional religious expression. Since the God of Scriptures was connected to the male-defined male, He was discarded. (9) They ultimately turned to what was perceived as the matriarchal, or goddess worship, by looking into Greek, Egyptian, and Eastern mythologies. (10) It was ultimately seen as reflexive worship of one’s self with the goddess as the symbol of that worship. (11) The principles of this kind of worship are: All is One, All Is God, Self Is God (12), and served well to reinforce personal experience over external objective authority.

While feminist spirituality is an interesting topic of study that explains a whole lot in modern society, the focus of these notes is upon how feminism has affected the Church.

It should not be surprising that the feminists who wish to self-identify with the Church wanted to worship in this way as well. What kept them from doing so was the issue of Biblical authority. (13) As talked about in previous parts, the feminist believer was allowed to accept or reject whatever Scripture that didn’t align with their vision of equality. (13) This meant that a new authority had to be made to replace Scripture. This new authority was laid up in the community of believers, which allowed interpretations of the Bible to differ from accepted Christian theology. (13) “If a woman perceived that some of the Bible’s words did not liberate and give wholeness to the pressed, then she could legitimately judge those words as inauthentic with the ‘Word of God.’” (14) In other words, the Word of God conformed to her and she did not have to conform to it. Experience equals authority. (15)

This “experience” led feminists to add to the canon. (16) They searched for sources outside of the Bible which confirmed their personal experience and then by their personal authority added them to the Bible. (17) They found examples in Montanism, gnosticism (this explains the popularity of the Gnostic Gospels, they believed self-knowledge was knowledge of God), ascetics, witchcraft, and sectarianist Christian groups to add to their Biblical canon. (17, 18)

The Refining of Language
The feminists have proven themselves right on the point that language has meaning. As has been illustrated in previous parts, religious feminists have learned to use language loosely to blur the distinction between Christian and pagan. (19) This has resulted in a complete merging of the ideals of religious and secular feminist spirituality, though both are shrouded in different language. (19) Both would say totally different things with the same meaning. (20)

The twisting of words into different meanings is evident. The feminists are correct in that words have meaning and words have power. As Haley sought to replace submission with deference, feminists have been changing the meanings of all kinds of words. As well, the feminists have eroded and destroyed the historical understanding of gender, especially as it relates to Scripture.

Putting authority into the community has resulted in frustration as it relates to spiritual conversations. It requires, first, an awareness that different people may be carrying different meanings of common words. Then it requires a desire (and patience) on the part of the parties to discuss what they mean by each of the words they use. These words represent typical historical building blocks of the Christian faith, so this discussion is a necessary one for a spiritual conversation to have fruit. For example, by “Jesus” do you mean Jesus of Nazareth or the Personal Jesus? What is meant by “faith”, “holy”, “works”, and a number of other commonly used words? I can guarantee you in this day and age where moral relativism reigns that any sample of people are carrying a multitude of definitions for something that should be standardized among Christians. It’s sad that the average expression of Christianity today is in such a bad state.

Religious feminists believe in the “All Is One, All Is God, Self Is God” mantra as well. (21, 22, 23) They speak in terms of “connectedness” or “union” with the Creator, and believe that everything and everyone is connected through the Creator and to the Creator. (21) They recognize that God is present in all things and all people, and favor use of material names to describe Him (rock, door, water, plant). (22) They recognize God as an impersonal force or energy that permeates all things through His indwelling Spirit. (23) Then, while religious feminists are careful to not identify themselves as God, they use language which indicates this belief by the recognition that Christian conversion only recognizes the fact and belief that self is one of the many manifestations of God. (23)

The goal of religious feminists (i.e. The Feminist Gospel) is to get people to recognize their “connectedness” to God (thereby abolishing dualistic thought) and then bring home to the Church all who have been defined as “other”. (24) Those who fully actualize themselves in these things are considered to be “children of God”. (24) Then once all have been actualized in this manner, the Kingdom of God will be at hand, along with the return of Christ. (24)

Note, the abolishing of dualistic thought. This means the idea of right/wrong, sinful/not sinful, holy/profane, light/dark. Ultimately, all you have to do is bring yourself, you don’t have to change or adhere yourself to God at all, and He loves you just the same anyway. Sounds like the Personal Jesus.

While I didn’t intend on going into “women-church”, the term was used above, so I thought it would be worth going through Kassian’s material and coming up with a definition.

Women-Church Defined
“Women-Church is a feminist counterculture movement that interacts with, but is not controlled by traditional religion. (25) These take the form of small women’s Bible-study groups, women’s groups in a traditional church, women’s churches, women’s courses, and women’s retreats. (25) “The purpose is to form a critical culture or exodus community that rejects patriarchy– both in the Church and in the world.” (25) Feminists view Women-Church as the true Church of God, and leading the Church greater into its new home. (26) Women-church seeks to gain a stronghold within the existing Church while it dialogues with traditions outside of the Church. (26) It seeks to replace older traditions of the patriarchal Church with new traditions that celebrate the women’s journey of liberation and reflect the Woman-Church as a community of liberation from patriarchy and oppression. (27) Ultimately, the ritual and practice of a Woman-Church is indistinguishable from those of secular feminism. (28)

As note taking can get tedious, it has taken 10 months to complete this series. As I thought the material was important as a formative reference, I thought it important to take notes and present it. I hope having the reference has been useful and will be useful in the future. And finally I would like to thank Mary Kassian for doing the research and writing this book, as it’s in my list of books that have been formative for me in explaining the waywardness of the modern church.

(1) The Feminist Gospel by Mary Kassian p 135. (2) ibid page 136. (3) ibid page 137. (4) ibid page 138, 139, 140 (5) ibid page 143. (6) ibid page 144, 145, 146 (7) ibid page 147. (8) ibid page 152. (9) ibid page 153. (10) ibid page 154. (11) ibid page 159. (12) ibid page 161. (13) ibid page 169. (14) ibid page 170. (15) ibid page 171. (16) ibid page 172. (17) ibid page 173. (18) ibid page 175. (19) Page 185. (20) ibid Page 186. (21) ibid page 187. (22) ibid page 188. (23) ibid page 189. (24) ibid page 190. (25) ibid Page 196. (26) ibid page 197. (27) ibid page 199. (28) ibid page 201.

Links And Comments #8

I’ve been cleaning up some things in my blog notes and doing bits of research for some more involved post ideas. But I’ve still been reading around and have much more this week:

---

Usually when the female-supremacist hatred comes out, the arrogance and ignorance comes out as well. All you can do is trust that those of right Spirit and truth will see the hate for what it is, reject it, and walk away from those who purvey it. For what comes out of the mouth is what makes one clean or unclean. This is proven out in both Scripture and experience:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7:6)

There will always be those who will seek to enslave others and this is no exception.

Related to this matter is the blog post here. While men need their gardens to tend and need them to bear fruit, the problem with Free Northerner’s premise is that it is couched in terms of responsibilities and not rights. Any responsibility undertaken without the complete freedom of choice (a right) amounts to slavery. This is the usual mistake of frame that the feminist man-hating traditionalist “Christians” make to justify their warped and twisted profane view of marriage. It is these same people who are producing the man-up rants when their man-slaves run off the plantation and deprive a woman of her rightful divorce and fabulous cash and prizes. As Antz writes (the first comment):

Any man who enters into a traditional marriage permanently indentures himself as a servant of a woman who can rip up her part of the contract at will, with no consequences.

From the moment that a man signs on the dotted line, his freedom, his property, his life, and his children permanently belong to HER.

The modern version of the traditional marriage is the ultimate embodiment of modern feminism:
* Rights without responsibilities for women
* Responsibilities without rights for men

---

And onto the topic of the lack of value that men place in themselves (the real man-up message that needs to happen), commenters Retrenched and donalgraeme get it:

Retrenched: Truth is, despite most of the faux alpha posturing men do, most men will actually hump just about any woman if they think shes their best option at the moment.

Donalgraeme: Retrenched is right, most men give a higher priority to their sex drive than to their dignity. Unfortunately, this tendency hurts all men, as women can drop their standards.

As I’ve talked about many times, control sex, don’t let sex control you. It’s well noted that this is what the feminists of all stripes are doing, and men have been falling for it hook, line, and sinker. When a man’s only requirement of a woman is that she has a vagina, he serves to debase himself. But unfortunately, this is the default script, even in traditionalist “Christian” circles. Those like the ones mentioned above would rather have men be sniveling little [vagina] beggars begging and pleading a “woman” to marry him let him be her personal slave. As AVfM commenter Jean Valjean writes, the whole notion of the “real man” is pent up on how useful he is to women:

To me, whenever someone says “real man” or “man up” I do not hear those words. I hear “slave” or be a “better slave” because everything that constitutes a “real” man in our society are also the perfect attributes of a slave.
…
We are already real. So I reject any standard or idea that puts conditions on my being treated as an equal human being deserving of respect and dignity.

Men are put in this place by society and Churchianity, and men are accepting this debasement and ultimate slavery with open arms at the chance of getting to worship at the altar of the vagina. The self-debasement. Needs. To. Stop.

---

Crimson Viceroy and others have really been lighting up the comments at SSM’s place (a great post in and of itself showing that traditional Christian marriage is feminist marriage, but it’s hard to pick just a phrase or two out of the comments):
Crimson Viceroy #1:

If a man claims to be Christian and following Jesus than the overriding thought process should be upon what qualities God approves of, NOT upon what women find attractive. I already accepted their dark side and that’s why I’m letting men know that it’s a perfectly acceptable and noble option to leave them by the wayside. So no, there’s no beta-tude in me to wringing about how they are precious little flowers. Perhaps in this day and age, a man will have to ultimately come to decide upon whether or not he values his walk with Christ more so than his own desires of having a mate.

A wife or marriage can not come before Christ or you are not worthy of Him. This is blasphemy in the traditional “Christian” movement (reported to me by several sources), for a man’s wife is his god, proving again what is traditional is not Biblical.

Crimson Viceroy #2, again showing a good God-first mentality, dealing with the other flavor of [vagina] beggars:

Spare us the “alpha man up” sermon, if we’re sick and tired of Churchian pastor’s manning us up, what the hell makes you think that we’re willing to listen to another “man up” sermon about how if we don’t learn Game our lives will be over? I’m not advocating the other camp where men come in and “save the day” by marrying carousel riders. But I’ll be damned if I “adapt” and give women what they hedonistically want. . . My concern is solely with what God thinks of me, not the moisture level I induce between the legs of a woman. For true Christian men, God’s opinion of who they are should be at forefront of their minds, not chasing tail and “getting some trim”.
…
Men are adapting…WE’RE WALKING AWAY. We have our own salvation to consider and I’ll be damned (poetically and literally) should I continue to waste what precious little time I have left on the mortal coil having to reframe myself to be more pleasing to women.

Chasing after the flesh is always vanity and never pays before the Lord. Sunshinemary:

. . . modern Western women as a group have become truly contemptible creatures, ugly in mind, body, and spirit. Why should men do anything to suck up to such creatures?

---

anonymous writes, proving the importance of environment on the determination of the holy and the profane (Control your environment if you want to be holy before the Lord!):

Then I realized…. 20 years ago, I would have indeed profiled them as hookers. But why had I lost that ability? What had blunted my discernment?

The next day was Sunday. And as the girls strutted into church, I suddenly realized exactly where my desensitization had occurred! Female coworkers don’t dress that way, female neigbors don’t dress that way on the road or in the market. No, it was years and years of the Sunday morning slutwalks that desensitized me to revealiung clothing, to the point where i could no longer automatically profile a hooker as a hooker!

---

Commenter Eric on the effects of the typical traditionalist frame:

Or as Plato expressed it even more clearly, sin is willful disobedience to the Divine, whereas righteousness is to love the Divine and seek to imitate it. If the dichotomy of man=bad and woman=victim is accepted as reality, it can’t help but lead to sin and social degeneracy; since to fulfill this role, men would have to accept, own, and embrace their own evil natures instead of turning from them. And women likewise, by adopting the role of victim are indirectly accusing God of injustice towards them, since victimhood is supposedly in their nature.

Under such ways of thinking, self-improvement and the pursuit of wisdom and righteousness is actually seen as a liability.

---

Link-fest, few comments:
Why do Christians even care about such trash of the world like Kayne West and Kim Kardashian, much less celebrate them?

Haley soft-pedals submission into deference to please the feminists, as deference implies an optional choice, putting the woman at the head of the marriage.

Sunshinemary on early marriage. Again something rejected by traditional “Christians” to the point that when it came up on Boundless there was such a backlash that one of the creators had to come defend it.

So Ferdinand Bardamu was Matt Forney? I don’t know if I necessarily buy that, given that I wasn’t around at the height of the In Mala Fide stuff. But after following Matt Forney’s blog a while in the past I don’t get the appeal if he really *was* Ferd.

Where have all the ladies gone? They died off and womyn took their place. Rightfully so due to the female infantilisation inherent to chivalry, but these womyn haven’t been forced to grow up.

And finally Donalgraeme writes (links added by me):

I think that this field of thought- exploring how traditional doesn’t necessarily mean Christian, is one deserving of more attention. Ballista over at Society of Phineas has delved into it a bit, but we are still looking at the tip of the iceberg.

I think it to be an especially important inquiry because I believe that “feminism” is in fact an older phenomenon that many realize, and as a result many traditions have a feminist bent which isn’t obvious at first. This is just one example. As far as I can tell the historical concept of a stay at home mother who doesn’t work is very recent, and not at all consistent with the standard practice of a Christian marriage over the ages.

This has really been the whole point of the blog. It’s a huge topic and it’s going to take a while, given what people are ready to hear. Until next time…

Some Problems In Christian Dating

I went into some of the factors that keep people getting together and marrying before. Some of those factors have to do with dating, but there are other factors out there which keep people from getting together. They are mostly all common to all men and women. Those are:

1. Don’t have unrealistic expectations of the partner you will accept.

I wrote of the tendency (of mainly women) to look for the absolute perfect in their minds and not accept anything less. The advice to not just settle for anyone and wait for “that special man set aside by the Lord just for you” causes this mindset.

Or as I could apply it to houses: I may want to live in a mansion with all the accoutrements, but should I not live in a house at all if that’s my perfect desire? Or find something that I can get by God’s grace, which may be what He thinks is good? I’m reminded of the joke about the man caught in the flood whose faith desired a miracle of God to save his life but wouldn’t accept what God sent his way. You may have this conception in your mind of the perfect mate, but God may have a totally different idea. Don’t reject “good enough” in the sight of God for the absolute perfect which doesn’t exist. Grace requires that we all settle for what is less than perfect, because God settled for us (men and women) who are completely disgusting in his sight.

2. Don’t follow the popular advice given in the church.

With the drive to purity that’s happened within the church, there have been teachings that are not only designed to push abstinence, but has had the effect of rendering men and women unable to communicate with one another. This happens due to the common segregation that occurs today (men’s and women’s ministries for instance), but also due to bad dating advice such as I Kissed Dating Goodbye which pushes abstinence for reasons beyond sexual motives and ultimately teaches single men and women to not have anything to do with each other at all for fear of fornication. That this impedes the normal interaction between men and women is without question. The end effect of “kissing data goodbye” seems to most certainly be kissing marriage goodbye as well.

Whether you are a man or woman, be sure you get into places where you can have normal interactions with members of the opposite sex. Interacting with members of the opposite sex is normal – how else do people meet one another to be married?

3. Learn to be confident in who you are and what you have to offer.

Self-confidence (and self-esteem!) before both God and others is an important factor. Be the person that God would be pleased in His love to match up with someone else. Seek to better your walk before God and better yourself as a person before others. Yet be confident for who you really are. Dalrock commenter Tracey provides an unfortunate sad example of a lack of confidence:

Sometimes I feel (yes, feel!) like guys want perfection, though. I’m no Scarlet Johannson or Kate Upton.

We are often our own harshest critics. But remember, that a genuinely good person who loves you is easy to please. Also, that when it comes to meeting people, we tend to teach others how to treat us. If we devalue ourselves, others will eventually believe us.

Work with God to be a better person (masculine or feminine) and learn to see the attractive parts that God made in you.

(please watch this video, it will be useful for the later discussion)

4. Don’t have wrong conceptions of how dating works.

One of Tracey’s misconceptions was that she just had to show up and the men would appear to ask her out on dates. I explained in the comment I linked to and Dalrock elaborated on that women have their own feminine form of pursuit which is almost always required for her to get any action. Generally put, people think of pursuit in terms of who asks on the date, and this loses the fact that both pursue in their own masculine and feminine ways. Looking at the video along with other resources will prove that a woman’s indicators of interest are literally the INITIATOR of interactions. Let me say that again, the woman is the one who pursues first! (See the video starting at 4:22-5:07)

Women, realize that you do have to put effort into things if you want a man. You might have to put a little more work into it than just a look and a smile, since a lot of men are pretty dull at these kinds of things. Regardless, realize that you might have to purposefully try to do some things if you don’t already.

5. Be socially open and available.

Notice where the eyes are of these women when it comes to the men. No contact for those two!

A woman who is not socially open and is closed off (either through an activity or her friends) or even worse is putting out an angry, aggressive vibe (it’s common enough there’s a term for it) will not be bothered except by the most crass of men, who will inevitably be PUAs. (See the video at 5:45-6:22) If you want a gentleman, women, you need to make yourself a gentlewoman towards him to be approached. As the video notes, the women who get approaches are the ones who smile and make eye contact with the men. By contrast, notice where the eyes are of the women in the image to the left. No eye contact, and most certainly no smiles.

This is further reinforced by Janine Driver’s Body Language tips:

6. Center Yourself
7. Face the Action
8. Make Physical Contact

While they didn’t do an online video of it (I would have loved to embed it here, it’s a great illustration), the show sent two women (twins) into a bar and had one just sit at the bar and nurse her drink and the other be at the tables facing the crowd. Only one got approaches. Which one should be obvious.

Be willing to be socially available when you go out. If you are feeling anti-social, it’s probably best that you don’t go out with the goal of being successful socially. This is perhaps the biggest barrier that exists with Christian women, which shuts down the dating market.

6. Be willing to express yourself, but be Godly.

By all means, be willing and open while you are getting to know one another (see the video). If you are interested, be sure to show that you are. But be Godly. Be polite, don’t be crass, especially if you find out something about the man that’s on a reasonable list of non-negotiables. There’s an awful tendency for a woman to not politely reject a man, but give him a nuclear rejection that is heard and seen by all in the room.

In conclusion, I wanted to point out something in a Saturday Night Live video to pull some of this together.

Witness Paige and how she interacts with Vince Vaughn (yes obviously an alpha). From my bit of research, it seems the audience didn’t know he was going to do it. Notice how she reacts and shows her interest?

The Confusing Of Gender And Sex

In my studies, I’ve come across a distinct confusion regarding the nature of what masculine is and what feminine is, especially when it comes to the interpretation of spiritual matters. This misunderstanding has been caused by many factors, and has caused many wrong traditional practices and problems. These have conspired to eliminate the historical and proper understanding of these attributes.

Firstly, these things are caused by the application of erotic language to spiritual things, as well as bridal mysticism. The application of erotic language is a mistake, for spirit can not be thought of in terms of flesh. Therefore, eros love is Biblically inappropriate to anything to do with God, including its use in songs. It’s impossible to prove a lack of presence of anything, but one can take the exercise to look at the New Testament definitions of “love”. The one almost exclusively used is agape in describing the love for the Father or the Son. Not eros, which is where we get the word “erotic”, which relates to carnal, physical, sexual intents. Given the nature of such things, it doesn’t make sense on the face of it to consider such language towards the things of God.

The justification people have for erotic language is the practice of bridal mysticism, or the confusion of Biblical roles and identities. The misapplication of Scriptural references of “the Bride of Christ” in referencing the individual instead of the group as a whole to justify bridal mysticism has happened for a very long time (since about 1200AD or so), but only has gotten more common for the last 20-30 years due to the rise of the “Jesus is my boyfriend” gospel and the desire to express it. This is further exacerbated by an endemic misunderstanding of the symbolic meaning of marriage.

Secondly, the historical understanding of gender has been eliminated through the assigning of bodily sexual characteristics to the historical use of gender identifiers. This has been done because of poor education, but also because of the prejudicial actions of the feminists. The drive to make language gender-neutral comes from these things, and well seen in the Feminist Bible and other more modern translations. While people don’t realize it, gender designations impart a certain meaning.

If you study Roman languages (Spanish for example), you’ll note pretty quickly that different words that relate to both people and inanimate objects are classified as masculine or feminine and the language changes to denote these classifications. For example (please excuse the lack of accent marks):

The word “the” (and sometimes the word) changes in each of these things due to the application of gender. The particular applications to inanimate objects are of interest in this discussion because they bring out a meaning that’s different to us. Podles writes on this question (p84):

Integration and communion are at the heart of femininity, as separation and differentiation are at the heart of masculinity.

So, to bring this around to the application of the spiritual things, Christ is masculine as He is a separator and differentiates. While He appeared on earth as a man and not as a woman, it is a mistake to think of Him now in terms of mere flesh but of Spirit. He says this Himself:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:34-38)

If we apply this to the believer, this also makes the individual believer (both man and woman) masculine since they are both conformed into the image of Christ and follow a journey of separation from the world and flesh. This understanding is reinforced by the King James referring to all individual believers as the sons of God. Calling a female fully in-Christ believer “son of God” is appropriate, since there was no begotten daughter of God. As Podles writes:

In the New Testament, Christians are referred to as the sons and daughters of God only in quotation from the Old Testament. Otherwise, they are referred to as the children of God, sometimes with an implication of immaturity, or proleptically as the sons of God, with emphasis upon what they are destined to become . . . The begetting of the Son by the Father and the begetting of the Christian by God is a revelation of something humanity could never have imagined. The Son is truly begotten of God; he is not simply “like” God, the closest thing to God of any creature; rather he is the same substance (ousia) as God. He is the only-begotten; there is no other like him.

Yet Christians are also begotten in a sense that surpasses all metaphor and is almost impossible for reason to fathom. The Son, by pouring forth the Holy Spirit, creates other sons. He conforms both men and women to his own image as Son, by that making them all God’s sons (not daughters). God has no only-begotten daughter; he therefore has no daughters begotten of the Spirit, only sons. There is only one pattern for both men and women to be conformed to, that of the Son. In the Son, Christians become deiform, apotheosized, and achieve an intimacy and union with the godhead that is beyond the categories of natural reason. Christians are the children of God, growing into the image of the Son, that they may also become sons of the Father.

The Church, however, is feminine. This is not because of any flesh-related things – again it is a mistake to think of the Church in terms of anything but Spirit. This is because the Church is concerned with integration, relationship, and communion. These attributes occur because the Church is the body of Christ on the earth of whom He is the head.

As with the issue of the separation and differentiation of the believer away from the world and towards Christ, the integration, communion, and relationship of believers with one another as a part of the Church can be shown with numerous Scriptures (many more beyond the ones cited). These themes occur again and again throughout all of Scripture.

Traditionalists and feminists have sought to throw away the true equality that women are given in Scripture before Christ in favor of creating heresy for trying to identify themselves in an unscriptural wicked way. This involves placing the rightful burdens of women onto men instead of making women carry their own burdens. And lately, it even involves rejecting the nature of Christ, as feminists and lately Churchianity-at-large has done. This means a woman identifying herself as a “princess of God” or “daughter of the King” is being heretical, as she is not recognizing the separatory nature of Christ with the world.

Interestingly enough for the neo-feminists bellowing about equality, especially within the Church, they spit on something that places men and women as true equals on the journey with Christ. Both are given the same rules and requirements before Him, and God does not respect persons in His judgment. In doing this, they make their true nature clearly known.

(based on old comment on CMDN. This also constitutes a finished post from here, as well as the Scriptural analysis referred to here.)

The Society of Phineas – One Year

It has officially been one calendar year since the first post has been written here. This is post #125. Two of those posts are from the previous iteration which had 47 posts total.

I would like to thank all who have read the things on this blog, and those who have linked my posts in their work, and those who have put this blog in their blogrolls. I would also like to thank those that have helped me along in the path of life that God has me on. Most of all, I’d like to thank God for the grace He has given despite the things I’ve done to offend Him. After all, I’ve been shown many times how insufficient I am of myself – it’s not my profane self but Christ through me. For:

And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. (Deuteronomy 8:17-18)

There wasn’t any point to link to top posts of the year or the like (since they’re still the same as calendar year), so in seeing this and this, I thought I’d go into the search terms for the blog. There’s not that many illogical ones for the whole year, because (I guess) my writing style is not that strange. But there’s a few:

christian femdom – this is more a learning thing than a weird one. I referred to the common state of feminist marriage (Marriage 2.0) using the phrase femdom. But I was mystified that I kept finding search hits on that phrase (169 of them to date). I had to search it and find out why…let’s just say…it’s a real thing. Don’t search it if you don’t want to know. What has been seen can not be unseen.
single christian men on facebook (4) – I guess some single Christian women trolling for dates?
images for sunshinemary (4) – anything you’re not telling us?
single mother of three seeks christian man (4) – uhmm…no thanks.
when men submit to women when they kick them (3) – evidently the reason that there are so many submissive beta/omega men is that women are kicking them?
best sex posistion for men for sataisfied the women (2) – sex tips at a single Christian’s blog?
two hand snake (2) – didn’t know snakes had hands.
bald heart submissive wife (2) – I didn’t know hearts could be bald? Do submissive wives have these?
hamster nude people on physical fitness equipment (2) – oooooookay?
what do forty year old sluts looking for (1) – a white-knight to ride in and rescue her Don’t you know you’re supposed to man up and marry the sluts?

The what I’m reading pile is pretty light since most of it has been reflected in posts already, but here’s some, fitting with the purpose of the blog:

Dalrock commenter Asher writes:

I think why so many Christians, of which you appear one, enjoy telling people they”re going to hell is that it is easy to do, whereas enacting political change is an enormous task. It’s easy to march against abortion because no real change is going to happen and it doesn’t really affect most churches – really how many of the women attending conservative churches have had abortions. On the other hand, how many female attendees of conservative churches have frivolously filed for divorce? Sin is sin, so why is the church trying to change the outside world when it doesn’t even police itself? Why isn’t the church fighting tooth and nail to protect fathers in the female-dominated family courts?

I would like to think I’ve grown in my writing as well as my focus over the year. As well, I know I’ve learned much in doing it, like the usual answer to most of the garbage I run across is “Nope”. The About page still stands as a testimony to how unfocused my mind was about this blog when I started it. I really need to rewrite it sometime. But this has always been the focus. To point out what needs to be heard and not what the proctors want to say. I pray that’s been done and will continue to be done as long as this blog is in operation.

The other thing I’ve realized ever more so is the value of freedom, be it in Christ and otherwise. The default state of man is slavery (the opposite of freedom), so it takes much effort to gain and maintain (freedom is work), admist the fear, self-doubt, and hostility of others (NSFW for language):

These are the Men that the feminine imperative is threatened by – a vanguard of men who are aware of their real value to women and society, and can make life impacting choices free from the influence of the imperative.

There are always people that love their yoke of slavery and will want you in the yoke of bondage. Men have devised many schemes to cause the enslavement of others, like feminISM. (H/T Donalgraeme)

Until next time, make every day Freedom Day!