A man once had a dog. It was a very nice animal and pet. The man named it “Dog”. It may be a strange name, but a very apt name for a dog. He brought it everywhere with him, and it was a very wonderful companion for him. Unfortunately, as all things go, the dog died. It left a huge hole in his life for animal companionship, as it went everywhere with him. So he got another animal. He loved the name, so it called it “Dog”. When he walked around with it, people noticed his new companion, saying “nice cat”. It meowed, not barked. But, no, he would reply. It’s “Dog”.
After a while, people began to tire of the man’s protests and started calling it his “Dog”. Given enough time, they forgot that dogs were creatures that barked and believed that they were creatures that meowed. They even thought it was great to get their own “Dogs” as this man’s “Dog” was such a wonderful pet. When someone new would protest about their “Dogs”, they would correct them and complain vociferously about how someone would disparage such wonderful creatures created by the wonderful vision of God. Some would persist but most would tire, just as they did. They started loving the “Dogs” and got their very own. Unfortunately with time, these poor creatures that barked were forgotten and abandoned, for so many could not remember them for what they really are. Their name was in memory, but they were forgotten.
There are those aware that I’ve been getting into some conversations on other blogs that I’ve been wanting to pick up here involving the common view of men as utilities (or chattel) for the use of women, consistent with tradcon feminism. Between praying on how to handle the topic and being a bit busy, I haven’t gotten to jump to some of it directly. But the comments I made here will be a good jumping off point (comments cleaned up and reblogged).
Traditional feminism presumes the man to be in a servile state to the woman, especially when it comes to marriage. The advent of traditional feminism is what has given us Marriage 2.0. As both men and women are trained from birth into this model, the thought that men exist or are put on this earth to serve women comes out. Most people don’t know why they’re doing it, but are indoctrinated into believing this is right by the power of tradition.
In the resulting comment thread of the main post, which is about whether and how attraction can be generated within marriage, the realization came from several that:
Women “love” men not for who they are, but for what they do.
The ridiculous claim was attempted that such a thing as “utilitarian tingles” exists, which led to this from Maeve:
Do all men think that women love so conditionally?
This is arguably a huge part of the relationship Red Pill for men. People have learned with women to believe what they see much more than they believe the tradcon feminists in terms of attraction. These men realize that conditional love is no love at all. If a woman’s love has “because he does (x)” in it, it’s conditional, especially if that love evaporates when (x) disappears. These men then realize that:
Women are innately incapable of unconditional love.
This has been proven so completely that men are rejecting the very idea of having anything to do with women. Again, believe experience rather than the protestations of the tradcon feminists.
Also, believe Scripture. Husbands are told to agapao their wives:
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. (Ephesians 5:25-28)
which is generally interpreted as the same as Godly love, but wives are not only told to phileo their husbands (“Philandros” – Titus 2:4) and their children but have to be instructed in it by the aged women:
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Titus 2:3-5)
Phileo is a friendly affectionate love. Those that are sharp on the exchange between Peter and Jesus will have heard these things before.
Controversies aside, it brings up an interesting point. Now note I said “innately incapable”, not merely “incapable”. The notion that women have to be taught to love their husbands (i.e. something other than “opportunistic” love) is particularly interesting, especially since the admonition is missing for men to be taught to love their wives in Scripture. This, coupled with the injunction to love their wives with a Godly love says that on some level friendly love is something natural to men. That women can be taught friendly or brotherly love is no question since the injunction plainly exists.
The problem comes in both men and women thinking this is not the case.
The fact that women haven’t been taught to truly love their husbands, and that a vast super-majority seem incapable of loving their husbands at all seems supremely evident. “Many in the manosphere do” because they’ve witnessed it with their own eyes. Or they witnessed on their televisions the room full of women cackling in glee about a woman mutilating her husband and got woken up. (warning, this is sick and disgusting)
The major mistake that men make when it comes to women are to think that women are capable of anything close to what they are when it comes to love, and not capable of anywhere what they are when it comes to violence and cruelty. This video shows the true nature of women in their innate state, the nature that tradcon feminists don’t want you to see or recognize. This is Glenn Stanton’s “innate goodness” on full display. Christian man, this is what the tradcons want you to worship. Of course, the tradcons will say that a bunch of men drove these women to it.
This frustration of men usually comes out in the “women want nothing more than children and walking ATMs” thing and in other ways which translate to “innate female misandry” in the minds of true Red Pill men. It comes from a very real observation of the lack of women these days who are capable of loving men, or in other words standing with a husband or other man in complete brotherhood and friendship. In other words, men want to have a human connection in fellowship with their wives. This is a minimum bar that men have who haven’t been sucked into the Feminine Imperative and have enough self-dignity to not tolerate the abuse of women, and sadly one that a majority of women have fallen short in. This is why men are rejecting marriage these days – they expect women to have real love for them, and are finding example after example that says that women are incapable of loving men. Then they find example after example of the tradcon feminists, government, and the churches supporting these women at every turn in their hate.
To put it in a Scriptural way, this bar is in Genesis 2:18:
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
The measure is wrapped up in “It is not good that the man should be alone”. In fact, the desire to have this fellowship is wrapped up in every man, for this woman was taken out of man. God’s answer was “I will make him an help meet for him.” But man still is alone after he has this thing called “woman” in his life in many cases these days.
The Churchian feminist blog Boundless (Focus On The Family‘s outreach to singles) always is a good trove of blogging material. While I haven’t read there as much as I like, it’s fortuitous that commenter Dr. Zoidberg provided a comment that included posts of both mine and Dalrock’s (links below), which brought this to my attention.
Boundless blogger Anthony Ashley writes in “Overly Picky Girls?” to those of us who observe that women have unrealistic standards in men. They develop their 463 point checklists of what a man must have and if he’s the perfect man who God sent just for her, he’ll have all of those things. While these “perfect men” do not exist, those like Mr. Ashley will defend the special snowflake’s privilege to do this, and foment men into committing idolatry in the process. For instance, Mr. Ashley’s answer to the question of what women want:
A woman wants a man who is confident, kind, Christlike, takes care of himself, and treats her like a queen.
By “Christlike”, it means worship her Personal Jesus. However, the phrase “treats her like a queen” is instructive in looking at this writing. By that, he means submit to her rule over him by doing everything it takes to please her.
The Boundless piece begins in the context of an e-mail. Ashley quotes from the e-mail:
“You can be a great guy, trying to do everything right, and still be rejected. You can be seeking after God and growing in your faith and still be rejected, all because the girl isn’t attracted to you.”
This is like most of our experiences with “Christian” women. As Christian men, we get rejected by women who then cry where have all the good men gone. They pine away in misery because men won’t man up and marry them, but no one will point out that the 463 point list is unrealistic. Women expect the perfect combination of Brad Pitt’s body, George Clooney’s charm, Warren Buffett’s money, Billy Graham’s spirituality, and Chris Tomlin’s musical ability before they consider dating a man.
Instead, Mr. Ashley illustrates the Churchian drive to feminize men and normalize Marriage 2.0. Mr. Ashley’s suggestion is not for the man to have self-respect and next the women that obviously have no interest in him, but to become her beta orbiter, or as Zoidberg wrote, her peasant. This falls into the standard feminist dogma that the man should supplicate to the woman and if he works hard enough and serves her just right, she’ll accept him.
The e-mailer then points out the very real problem of how Christian women are worldly. As expected, Mr. Ashley turns the tables and blames this man, per The Book of Oprah:
There are plenty of godly women out there who are looking for godly men, and many of them are frustrated, waiting to be asked out. If you only pursue women who desire the “Hollywood myth,” then that’s your problem, and you should stop blaming women for it.
The real problem is that Churchians encourage women in their worldliness by using a “Christian” veneer. This is universal to all “Christian” organizations such as Boundless, especially relating to the widespread adoption of feminism. They have harkened to the voice of women and not the voice of God. There are not “plenty of godly women out there waiting to be asked out”. They are rarer than unicorns if they even exist at all and make themselves available to BE ASKED OUT. They worship their own Personal Jesus and not the real one. They are, nearly to the individual, in rebellion against God. This leads to Mr. Ashley’s complaint against men:
And this gets to what I’ve perceived as the two main problems for many Christian guys who struggle in the dating game: wrong expectations and hypocrisy.
This charge is more appropriate for women, and especially Boundless itself. Take the beam out of your own eye, before you take the speck out of others’ eyes! There are godly guys who pursue godly girls, but they find are arrogant and stuck-up entitlement princesses who do nothing but worship themselves. There is nothing worthy about these women, but they are allowed to stay in this state by the likes of groups like Boundless. Allowing women to hold their wrong expectations, and expecting them to not offer something good for men (for men are to not have expectations of women at all) is hypocrisy in itself. In this environment today, all Christian women are out of the league of all Christian men. Period. We’re supposed to just be grateful that any woman would take any interest in us and allow us to bask in Her Glorious Presence.
This is from the Book of Oprah, not anything to do with God. So-called Christian women rebel against the Lord by putting her Personal Jesus ahead of the real one. They are lifted up in their pride. They are excused in their sin, being allowed to sin rampantly and repeatedly. Instead of rebuking these women and tearing down these goddesses, the churches and groups like Boundless are there to support them in their pride and self-righteousness, provoking men to rebellion as well by the sin of Adam. Actually expecting a good Christian woman of virtuous and sound character that is proven out in her life becomes “shallow expectations” of those who need to become “man enough to love a real woman”. Men are just supposed to man up and marry those sluts. Men just won’t grow up because they actually demand women of virtue who have something positive to offer.
These church groups do damage to men like the e-mailer. Instead of affirming him as important before God, he is debased and ridden down. Instead of rebuking women and demanding Godly righteousness and virtue out of them, they are lifted up and affirmed in their pride and arrogance. I seriously pray this e-mailer doesn’t take what was written as truth as it will only damage his chances with women.
What most men like the e-mailer need to do is get some self-respect (or colloquially “grow a pair”). He needs to become master over his own life, serve God alone, and stop serving women. He needs to know who he is and what he stands for, and stand steadfastly in it, even in the face of women and those that would tear him down and rend him to the dogs.
While women and groups like Boundless might not say it, deep down women want this in a man. A woman doesn’t want a pushover for a man. He exhibits power over his domain. As part of that power, he invites her in of his own free will and choice. He does not debase himself by making himself into a pathetic slave, but brings his power to bear over this woman. As commenter Marybeth is quoted there:
-”As a college age Christian girl, I can definitely say that I am attracted to guys who portray strength and masculinity, more so than ‘good’ or ‘godly’ traits. While these are definitely not mutually exclusive, often it seems that the guys who are the typical ‘nice guys’ come across as backbone-less, desperate, overly emotional and not confident. As a woman, I do not feel safe or secure or cared for with that kind of guy.”
A woman wants to be treated like a queen, true. But she wants it done by her king, not a pathetic spineless lickspittle who accepts the abuse piled onto him by her and the feminist church. This is true no matter how much the feminists like Boundless bang the drum of Marriage 2.0.
Christian men you are better than this garbage that groups like Boundless are peddling. Are you a peasant, Christian man, or are you a king? You are better than the prideful arrogant entitlement princesses that you’re supposed to be “settling for”. You are better than the woman who is to be your queen (and she wants it that way). Act like it! Stop worshiping women and start worshiping God!
Related (Zoidberg’s Links):
Dalrock: Lowering the Boom
Dalrock: Beauty Taming the Savage Beast
Dalrock: Biblical vs. Churchian Sex in Marriage and Why Christians Need Game
SoP: Putting Out A Fire By Pouring Gas On It
SoP: Women Good, Men Bad
It’s not an uncommon thing throughout history that men will look towards other men to follow rather than to follow God. It’s common spiritual principle that you become what you follow, and in the end following men only brings you the fruits of men.
This is true in person, but also extends to books – it is ever more popular today due to the ubiquitous availability of books and the ever beckoning money and fame that’s out there for those who are pleasing to men and want to scratch ears instead of present the true Gospel:
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)
Books are Just Like Preachers – Fallible
It is almost without argument that this looking towards men, especially the books of men can turn people away from the truth. Arguably, this is a large reason for the existence of Churchianity: Men don’t know the truth, and especially are not unapologetic witnesses of it. This is especially true in the drive to appease women that’s existed in the church for quite a while.
Now it is unfortunate, but yet not surprising that Free Northerner would ask for study resources himself and then get ten responses that don’t point back to Scripture. There are reasons that people do this, but namely the Churchian idea that only those that go to seminary are capable of interpreting Scripture and that the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit can not impose structure upon anything that happens within His Church. Therefore, it is thought that books written by men are required to gain Spiritual enlightenment when we are graciously granted the best Teacher possible: God Himself:
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)
It is definitely by the influence of Churchianity, where we can go from men who are “unschooled” carpenters and fishermen taking the world for Christ to the expectation that only the “schooled” can bring “structure” to the Holy Scriptures. There’s simply no place for Peter, James, John, or Jesus in most churches today.
Teachings of Men Vs. The Teachings of God
Then the Lord said, “Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service, But they remove their hearts far from Me, And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote, Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous; And the wisdom of their wise men will perish, And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.” (Isaiah 29:13-14 NASB)
Now, it takes being a leader in Christ in order to stand on the primacy and truth of Scripture, whether facilitating or participating. I know this personally from reflecting back on the ten years that I’ve spoken about Scripture before others in person, through groups like Free Northerner’s, and through the different online venues I’ve professed Scripture, including this blog. My presence in these situations has proven to be a driver for change in this regard, not due to my own actions (for I am nothing) but the grace of God through submission and holding to His word and not my own thoughts. I’m not “schooled” but yet somehow the Lord manages to use me.
The commonness of looking towards men instead of God brought an interesting comment. I had a woman come up to me after one session and state that for three years of attending “Bible studies” that it was the first time that the Bible was actually opened in any of these things she attended. She went on to relate how many obvious to her falsehoods in the books involved that weren’t challenged simply because those involved didn’t know the truth. How can you know the truth of God’s very words and have the authority behind them if you don’t know them? It was an amazing thing in my walk to discover people that knew nothing of God’s Scripture, but could quote Warren’s False Gospel to the letter and didn’t know better.
The deception that has caused the Church to give up its authority in God and its equipping for life is a masterwork of Satan. This is especially plain since the example of Jesus is so clear. The Gospel of Warren or The Gospel of Hybels or even The Gospel of Ballista74 has no power. Only the true Gospel of God holds power in the spirit realm. Knowing God through His Scripture is so important that the instruction was given to meditate on it all day and all night and to abide in the doctrine of Christ.
Teaching as One Having Authority
It becomes of interest to note that tradition takes its hold by the teaching of men in Jesus’ day to the point that He had to remind people of the truth that should have known better. It was also particularly interesting that it was said of Jesus:
And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. (Matthew 7:28-29)
To enlighten us of the culture at the time, Edersheim tells us that in the life of children, Scriptural instruction was started at five (1), the Mishnah at ten and the Talmud at fifteen. It was considered more laudable to be able to handle the later two in the culture. The interpretations of the Rabbis were considered more important than the context of Scripture to the point that they were quoted more than any authoritative teaching in the documents. Appendix II (starting on page 174 of this version) is especially enlightening in terms of what this meant. The number of references to the quotes of Rabbis are head-spinning, making it quite understandable how the scribes and Pharisees lost their way with God – the same way the Church has lost its way. By knowing men who are just as fallible and just as sinful as they, and not seeking to know God and be washed by His word. Man’s ways hold no authority or power. God’s ways hold all the authority and power.
The Proper Place of Books and Commentaries
Now books and commentaries have their place in things, if they are used properly. They can be useful to enhance understanding of the culture involved, or to give fresh thoughts to consider on matters. But they should never function as substitutes to the truth of God no more than the sermons/homilies of men should substitute for it. Unfortunately in many environments, there are people who should be learning Scripture and have that learning substituted with these books. In fact, books and commentaries should be tested the same as any other teacher or preacher to see whether what they are saying is correct. Praise was given to the Ephesians and Bereans for not accepting what they heard without question but testing it to see if it is true. In fact, dialogue and questioning was the order of the day and not the monologues of tradition today – the purpose is that we all learn and correct each other where we stray off the path, for God’s authority comes through the adherence to His words.
Leading on the narrow path is definitely a challenge, but a necessary one to the servant of God. And my response to the original post is this, which I would write there if it didn’t provide the opportunity for the text above:
Why not prayerfully consider a book of the Bible for your study instead of the teachings of fallible men? I suggest James or 1 John if they aren’t too initiated.
(1) Sketches of Jewish Social Life by Alfred Edersheim, p 121
(2) ibid page 127.
There’s something I seem to notice that’s universal, as a side effect of the very common “Men are supposed to pursue women. Women are supposed to become part of the furniture.” model of seeking out the opposite sex, which is commonly accepted but not the truth: The claim that single men just don’t exist.
Some background of where the original text is coming from, to keep the random quotes from detracting from the content:
Women initiate, men respond is the true model that works. Also, the barrier to entry that a woman puts up dictates the kind of men she “notices”.
PUAs are giving women what they want. Also, the “men pursue women are furniture model” plays right into the PUAs hands. A woman gets what she initiates on. Good men who want commitment and have consideration of a woman’s space and feelings won’t cold ask women.
Women don’t see “unattractive” men. It’s not just this poor model of dating and relating, but the perceptions of women themselves towards men that keeps them from meeting single men.
Given all that background for the uninitiated so what I’m about to write makes sense, what I wrote here has stuck with me enough to deal with:
Now given the general nature of women to be solipsistic like I’ve described, and the church officials tendency to only listen to them, I don’t consider either credible sources on available men simply for that reason: unattractive men don’t exist to women. The burden of proof is to prove that any single man does not exist in her sphere of influence, which is wholly unlikely.
I could go on and relate my own experiences in a solipsistic light in order to explain that (along with how “men pursue, women sit back on their laurels” blows up) , but this should hopefully be sufficient.
To get solipsistic now, I’ll say there’s no single women in any of the churches I’ve set foot in. I simply haven’t met a single example of one. Yes, I couldn’t even tell you who the single women are in the churches. But somehow I’m supposed to know who those single Christian women are, and find them as they keep running and running from men and somehow ask them out? There are those who are advocating this that would have me cold ask out every woman I run across, violating the 10th commandment and angering God at every step, not to mention countless men who will then desire to use me as a punching bag?
Yes this all sounds off the wall, because that is what it is: INSANE. Yet there are those that keep doubling down on the model. How can women be found if they don’t make themselves available to be found by actively seeking and engaging the single men they run across, and even make it difficult to be found? How insane is it that women are doing everything that they can to not have anything to do with single men (you know the whole I Kissed Dating Goodbye thing of “guarding her heart”), and then are crying because single men don’t exist at church? Even worse, the response comes from the pastors to shame the men there that they should just man-up and ask them out. To visit the car lot analogy, how is anyone going to be able to visit the lot if no one knows its there?
The Scripture is universal for both men and women:
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)
Asking and asking God for a husband won’t do a bit of good without seeking out who the single men are and making yourself known, ladies. Now to put on my normal logical hat, I know single Christian women do exist in the churches I’ve set foot in. There’s just too many attendees for it to not be so. But I couldn’t tell you the name of one. But I did go on Christian Mingle and found two who self-identified with those churches. Yet they haven’t been seeking enough that I would know who they are, regardless of whether I’m seeking marriage or not. And somehow, as a man that’s my fault. Yet when a woman runs away from men, and then rejects the men she finds because they’re not the perfect personal Jesus on earth – the combination of Brad Pitt’s body, George Clooney’s charm, Warren Buffett’s money, Billy Graham’s spirituality, and Chris Tomlin’s musical ability, woe is her because single men just aren’t there in her church!
It seems the flesh markets known as bars and the online flesh markets known as dating sites seem to be the only reliable way to meet a single woman, if one did want to do that. Most Christians won’t, so you have the perpetually single with women and the Churchian proctors doubling down on the insanity. If what’s being done obviously doesn’t work, then stop doing it. But women won’t see that the only thing keeping them from men is staring back in the mirror, and the Churchian proctors won’t see that neglecting to rebuke single women from actively running away from the single men isn’t doing the women a bit of good. Nevermind the whole thing is just as fraught with sin as marriage is these days.