Skip to content

BD #7 – The Basic Concept Behind The Man-Up Rant.

February 21, 2013

This continues a series I’ve called “Blogging Dobson” – (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) – on some comments in the Dobson book “Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives”. I pull out some “interesting statements” which illustrate the fallacy that these kinds of ministries perpetrate of being “godly” or “family-affirming”.

dobson_book

In reading this book on Husbands and Wives, it should be unthinkable that we would get away without Dobson getting a man-up and marry the single chaste wonderful women sluts rant in. As those who frequent sites that advocate against these teachings know, man-up rants are sermons or blog articles or other things where different evangelical figures rant against men because they aren’t running right out and signing up to be a slave to marry the first available woman irrespective of choice to marry or quality of the women available. They come so frequently these days that it’s almost tiring to address them as they come since they are so frequent. The dynamics behind the current decision of men to not sign up for Marriage 2.0 have been addressed here several times (to the point that I’m not even sure this is anywhere near an exhaustive list). Needless to say, it would be a small research project to find all the examples of man-up rants that have been linked to in this site and others such as the ones on the blog roll.

This brings us to what Dobson had to write. Given that this is 1980, I doubt there were single women flooding his office crying about the alphas that they wanted (they don’t see the other quite available men due to their hypergamy) not committing to marriage with them on the exact timetable that they desire. But it was enough of a concern to Dobson that he addressed it. While it’s not a typical man-up rant, it is valuable in revealing the thought processes behind them. Dobson refers to a book that George Gilder wrote called “Sexual Suicide” (later retitled “Men and Marriage”) in writing (1):

Gilder’s point is that the single male is often a threat to society. His aggressive tendencies are largely unbridled and potentially destructive. By contrast, a woman is naturally more motivated to achieve long-term stability. Her maternal inclinations (they do exist and are evident in every culture throughout the world) influence her to desire a home and a steady source of income. She wants security for herself and her children.

Seen plainly is the misandric hate speech and thought towards men that is unfortunately all too common when it comes to Christianity. To Dobson, Mohler, Driscoll, and just about everyone else, single men are dangerous to society, other women, himself, and basically everything good and right in the world. The sole purpose of a man is defined solely in his provision to a woman and her children. The rest of this paragraph should (again) be familiar to followers of this site and others. Focus On The Family representative Glenn Stanton said something similar to it:

…women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that. But men have to be taught how to lead. They have to be encouraged how to lead. They have to be welcomed into leadership. And I don’t think we’re doing that today. We’re not taking young boys and saying, “OK, we need to make men out of you.” And I think that’s the large reason for the man problem today, is that we have to be very intentional about man-making, man-creating. And I can hear all the women saying, “Absolutely!” It doesn’t just naturally happen. It happens more naturally with women than it does with men.

Gilder, Dobson, Stanton, and the others are parroting common feminist doctrine which was originally postulated by Valerie Saiving Goldstein. A common feminist thread in both secular and theological doctrine is that men are destructive and need to be brought under control by women for the good of society.

If anyone reading this doubts me that this post is wrong, tell me about the actions of Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates, along with the average reaction that their deeds have gotten. Let’s see if you can be honest in the sight of God using His standards . . . Yeah thought so (society couldn’t pass this test either when it came to directly dealing with these women). Dobson continues to write, confirming his adherence to the false feminist doctrine (1):

Suddenly, we see the beauty of the divine plan. When a man falls in love with a woman, dedicating himself to care for her and protect her and support her, he suddenly becomes the mainstay of social order. Instead of using his energies to pursue his own lusts and desires, he sweats to build a home and save for the future and seek the best job available. His selfish impulses are inhibited. His sexual passions are channeled. He discovers a sense of pride–yes, masculine pride–because he is needed by his wife and children. Everyone benefits from the relationship.

Instead of a man finding fulfillment in his own life by his own choice, man’s sole purpose in life if he is a “good man” is painted by Dobson to solely be slaving to support a woman. In Dobson’s eyes, a bad evil despicable single man suddenly becomes good and righteous when he is under the thumb of a woman in Marriage 2.0. A man, including his choice of marriage (Dobson is not Biblical in this regard), has a God-given right to direct his own path by the guidance of God. In other words, being single is not a sin! Dobson continues (1):

When a society is composed of millions of individual families that are established on this plan, then the nation is strong and stable. It is the great contribution marriage makes to a civilization. But in its absence, ruination is inevitable. When men have no reason to harness their energies in support of the home, then drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual intrigue, job instability, and aggressive behavior can be expected to run unchecked throughout the culture. And that is the beginning of the end.

Horror of horrors! Society is meeting its downfall because men won’t man up and marry the sluts! All the social ills of the world are simply because men just won’t take the first woman they find and run down to the courthouse and sign up for marriage! Men just can’t make a good life outside of being married to a woman and being tied to her children in the eyes of most all Christian evangelicals. However, we never have the observation that the women are the ones causing the unstability in families and not wanting to channel their energies into marriage, divorcing 70-90% of the time for “marital unsatisfaction”. But it’s the men that pushed them into it, so it’s not their fault. But the fact is, women are the ones that abandoned the nuclear family in society, not men!

The fact that men can have good lives outside of marriage to a woman should be thoroughly evident in the Men Going Their Own Way movement which says that men do not need marriage in order to be fulfilled, especially in this current environment. This is a gynocentrist feminist society at all levels even in most “Christians”. In the eyes of most everyone, the only value that men can have in society and towards others is as a husband or father, or towards the service of women, including his absolute disposability. Consequently, most all women don’t love or respect men or their husbands at all, they only love what their husbands can do for them. These women are incapable of seeing a man as another person who has their own hopes, dreams, thoughts, and desires. Dobson changing the doctrine from “husbands love your wives” to “husbands make your wives feel loved” only feeds the fire of this dynamic. This is misandry against men. It needs to stop. Period.

(barbarossaaaa – some NSFW words present, I don’t agree with 100% of this but it’s very good for this topic)

Whether you believe in abortion or contraception or not is irrelevant to whether you are a feminist or not. If you buy into the feminist principles (and value men only in what they can do for women, including being just as disposable as Kleenex for the purpose of women) you are a feminist, no matter what the packaging might be. Feminism is feminism, whether it’s packaged in the secular form or in traditionalist Christian wrappings. All of it needs to be opposed and all of it needs to end, no matter where it comes from.

(1) “Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives” by Dr. James C. Dobson p 157.

25 Comments
  1. For the completely uninitiated that might come across this and wonder what a man-up rant is, here’s a few examples:

    Albert Mohler
    Mark Driscoll 1
    Mark Driscoll 2
    Mark Driscoll 3
    Kay Hymowitz
    Bill Bennett
    Penny Young Nance
    Kevin DeYoung
    Today’s Christian Woman
    Details Magazine
    World Mag
    Mark Driscoll’s Man-Up Sermon – clip of this below

    I should point out that the recurrent theme of them also includes the canard that part of “growing up” is marrying a woman – again forcing the issue of choice. Just another variation on the theme as a whole to try to shame men into giving their lives away to women.

  2. deti permalink

    Dobson “…women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that. ….. And I think that’s the large reason for the man problem today, is that we have to be very intentional about man-making, man-creating. And I can hear all the women saying, “Absolutely!” It doesn’t just naturally happen. It happens more naturally with women than it does with men. ”

    ballista: “Given that this is 1980, I doubt there were single women flooding his office crying about the alphas that they wanted (they don’t see the other quite available men due to their hypergamy) not committing to marriage with them on the exact timetable that they desire.”

    And I think this is probably key to understanding a big part of what is going on here. In 1980 we’re not feeling the full force of female hypergamy unleashed. At that point we’re only about 10 years or so into the divorce epidemic. Most of the women who now are speaking, writing and complaining about where all the good men are either weren’t yet born, or were in diapers, or were in grade school. Things haven’t completely fallen apart yet.

    I matriculated into college in the mid 1980s, about 15 or 20 years or so in to unleashed hypergamy. I remember being told about girls “sugar and spice and all things nice”, and that “nice girls don’t have sex before marriage”. I was told there is a very, very clear delineation between “nice girls” and “bad girls”. Yet I get to college and here are all the “nice girls” having as much sex as the sluts. Why? Because they can.

  3. sunshinemary permalink

    …women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that.

    I’ve read this Stanton quote before, but it still drops my jaw every time I read it. How blind can anyone be, to look around them and not notice that women by and large are behaving very badly? But of course, I’m sure Mr. Stanton sees women’s bad behavior as men’s fault. It’s because you aren’t leading us properly, no doubt. We’d develop into good women on our own if you were leading us right; it must be your fault, guys.

    Of course, if that is true, then Titus 2:3-5 makes no sense:

    Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

    But who are you gonna believe, Glenn Stanton or the Bible?

  4. Laddition permalink

    “women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons”

    that is probably correct IF you understand that ‘good’ means ‘passive and easily coerced to comply to societal norms’, but that isn’t to the credit of women.

    It’s because they start out as herd creatures, but as time passes they fear being out of the herd more and more. The older they get, the more exposed they feel outside the herd – so they are increasingly likely to toe the herd (society) line. I’ll do what you say, just keep protecting me massa.

    I’m sure that the Nazis had a lot of ‘good’ women following them. They wanted to belong to the flock more than they were worried about the ethics of that flock.

    They’re damn right that men are more likely to value justice and morality over fitting in, no wonder that they’re scared.

  5. sunshinemary permalink

    Oh, and thanks for the linkage!

  6. Three points:

    1. Instead of calling these just “Blogging Dobson” – I would have called them, “Blogging Dobson and Straightening out Marriage” or BDSM. (sorry – that is a joke)

    2. “His aggressive tendencies are largely unbridled and potentially destructive. By contrast, a woman is naturally more motivated to achieve long-term stability.” – From my observations of “dudes that definitely aren’t me” and women – I would say the opposite of this is true.

    3. “traditionalist Christian wrappings” – Odd, I thought the point of your blog was to point out that “traditional Christians” had nothing to do with Kleenex.

  7. The funny thing is that it really is true that our current problems are caused by men. Of course, the actual solution to most of those the problem, men restraining female behavior, is something these charlatans would balk at.

    What I find interesting is that by 1980, before the hook-up culture and other visible effects of unleashed female hypergamy, feminism or something else had already infected the thinking of Christian leaders. Feminism as we understand it today had been only a few decades old by then. Yet how could it have influenced Dobson in 1980, especially given his hostility to “overt” feminism? Something much more subtle is at play here.

  8. @donalgraeme:

    I think the mentality of women as innately good originated in the Victorian era and was fueled further by feminism. I don’t think feminism was the catalyst for it. Here is an excerpt from the Victorian era poem, The Angel in the House that was something of an ode to woman’s tireless and steadfast love:

    “She loves with love that cannot tire;
    And when, ah woe, she loves alone,
    Through passionate duty love springs higher,
    As grass grows taller round a stone”

    Before that time, I think most societies (because of Eve and Proverbs) viewed women as temptresses who could molded into something virtuous. With the advent of Victorian worship of women, which kind pushed feminism forward, the culture changed, and Christian teaching with it. After all, Christian leaders are a product of the culture in which they live. It takes a lot to buck the cultural trend.

  9. @donalgraeme

    While it is true that there are Victorian (and earlier) overtones, much of what Dobson wrote here has its roots in 1960’s feminism. Podles picks up these Victorian influences and describes them exceedingly well, which is why it is in the “Recommended Reading”. The idea that women are somehow “more spiritual” comes out of this period, since it was the women that took to the Churchian events more than men. However, he fails to pick through the influences that Secular Feminism had on the Church (i.e. religious feminism).

    If it were entirely free, Mary Kassian’s book “The Feminist Gospel” would go there simply because it picks up these 1960’s influences much better and describes them. I felt it important to get those parts out there, so I did some blog posts (3 total right now, I still need to do a 4th) with some notes from the book pertaining to the direct influences upon the church. Valerie Saiving’s work was published in 1960. The major driver of secular feminism into the church was Mary Daly (Church and the Second Sex – 1968). If you read even summaries of her stuff, especially relating to God, it’s completely self-evident that she was putting forth the teachings of demons, and putting herself outside the authority of God. Why the RCC didn’t deal with her as such is another question for another time. So it is not out of the question that Dobson and others were influenced by the secular elements of feminism that Church accepted in writing these things in 1980. The idea that Gilder expresses (and Dobson agrees with) of men being destructive to self and others outside the control of women is one of the doctrines Mary Daly popularized.

    Part 1 of that “Defining Feminism” series is not notes from that book, but a post addressing the disconnect you mention with Dobson. Religious feminism and secular feminism have the same underlying principles, but are packaged so differently that people have a hard time seeing the similarities. Couple that with the assumption that an unprincipled opposition to abortion and/or contraception puts you outside the feminist camp and you have a lot of people in the church who are feminist to the core (due to direct beliefs or just accepting what they see upon entering the church) but adamantly deny it.

    Of course, you have the chicken and egg problem when it comes to a book written in 1980. While Dobson obviously isn’t putting forth anything new, the question comes whether he is the one that brought these doctrines into popular consciousness or not. I don’t know enough background to know completely for sure (like I know with the Church Growth Movement). It’s reasonable that he did and I’m analyzing the first popular Churchian expressions of them by picking apart Dobson’s statements on marriage in this book. The take-away I do get from this (which I will elaborate on in the next/last post) is how clearly expressed these things were in 1980. The question I get from that is if these doctrines were such clever deceptions, especially since the church has so widely and completely accepted them, that it took manosphere thinking to reveal them. Or was there others speaking out against Dobson much sooner than when folks like Dobson were coming against them.

  10. I suppose its possible that 20 years was enough time for Dobson’s thinking to be impacted and for that influence to manifest in his book. But to be honest, I suspect the source has to go back further than that. Probably going back to wherever/whenever he received his religious instruction.

  11. This is an older song. If you are not pleasant, you become and old maid in the garrett.

    Yes, I used it on my blog a while ago, but it is good.

  12. Looking Glass permalink

    The thinking has only a subtle, surface, difference from the biblical teaching. But what’s underneath is very different. That’s the trick, really, and how people, especially the Dobson’s of the world, can fall into it.

    It’s one of those things where you have to go with “I don’t doubt your sincerity, but your practically is completely screwed up, to the point of being actively harmful.” Dobson was a practicing Pediatrician. When he’s talking on child psychology and development, most of his advice is really solid and very good. And what he’s saying here is one of those “it’s close enough you miss the change” if you aren’t looking for it. But it makes all of the difference in the world.

    I see a lot of the TradCon area as mixing two issues together and coming out disastrous: “We need to do SOMETHING!” and “I’m not trying to hurt you”. Our “nice-nice” society isn’t capable of dealing with the harsh medicine most people need in life. Without consequence, there is no failures. Without failures, you never learn. When you never learn, you willingly given up your humanity for a pittance. Part of me wants to say this is exactly what most Marxists want, but there’s really few “true” Marxists around anymore. It’s the corruption of thought that’s mostly what is left. That corruption, and the subtle shifts, leave the TradCon going “I don’t want the world like this!”, yet they can’t break the Frame of the Cultural Marxist thought enough to argue outside of it. Why would they? They believe in the Bible with the same types of thoughts. So, if the Bible is true, why would they question it?

    Thus, our problem. We aren’t just attacking Feminism in the Church. We’re attacking tenants of the Church itself because of the corruption of the World. May God have mercy on the souls of all of those lost.

  13. Kai permalink

    I just came over from a link on Dalrock’s site, and find this very interesting. Sorry for the essay, but I found it a really good topic on which I’d be curious for more thoughts.
    I don’t mean to challenge that your conclusions follow from your main point, but I don’t think they are the only conclusions.
    I’ve read other things on the topic of single men as a threat to society, but they go in the opposite direction as here.
    I don’t want to ague for or against the concept of the dangers of a single man. For one, I think there is a difference between a single man in a traditional society where everyone else is stablely married, and a single man can’t find a woman to sleep with and struggles for male peers, compared to a society in which a single man can have everything he wants and just skip the tied-to-a-bitch part. I haven’t done much in the way of personal research there, and I’ll stay out of the question. What I find interesting is that previously when I have read about the single man as a danger, the conclusions are different. I guess it was older ideas, but as with many old ideas, they seem to have merit and relevance.

    First, for a single man to be dangerous and a single woman not to be, it doesn’t have to be that the woman is better or virtuous all on her own. (The idea of women being naturally stable while men need to be taught to lead, as if you can teach that, is hilarious.)
    I could see it as simply a matter of efficacy. A single woman sits around and complains. A group of single women might form a club to all sit together and whine about their singleness. They are not likely to get into any real trouble because they’re just not really creative or effective enough to cause a problem. Their only real danger comes as they can affect young women, which I’ve addressed below, but doesn’t seem as firsthand a ‘danger’ as what can be attributed to men.
    Single men, on the other hand, have all the brains and skills needed to put their unused extra capacity to something big. Revolutions are started by single men with nothing else to occupy them. Paradigm-changing ideas are thought up by men with free time to think. An individual woman is plenty capable of great evil. but when was the last time one really changed a society?
    Single men could be dangerous because of their competency, rather than a lack of virtue.

    IF it was the case that single men can destabilize a society, it doesn’t necessarily follow that marrying them off to the sluts will solve the problem. In fact, I see the problem listed in Dobson’s own text – “When men have no reason to harness their energies in support of the home…” Since when is being tied to a harridan a reason to work his energy to home and family? To really tie up a man’s energy, you need to be providing him with a selection of quality women that he would *want* to give up his freedom to obtain – and women of a quality that he can’t have without marriage.
    Previously, when I’ve seen the complaint about single men, it’s been an exhortation that they need women, and women who are going to be worth the tradeoffs of settling down. One could read that explanation today as a call for society to be providing young men with virtuous young women that will make them want to marry and raise a family together with the woman. Along with it, while women don’t have much skill at directly changing things, over time, they too can become a danger. When women are allowed to end up old and single, they start teaching the young women poorly. Instead of being a good example of the joy a young woman can have if she keeps herself ‘good’ and looks for a man to prove her worth to, they start concocting ridiculous reasons to explain why they don’t have and must, then, not need a man (given the lack of self-insight to understand why they have failed). It again gives society a reason to ensure they are raising women who will be worthy of good men.

    The fact that modern women abandoned the old social contract and destroyed marriage doesn’t sound to me like a reasonable reason to suggest modern men need to give up their modern freedoms to marry awful ‘modern womyn’. Even if we were to take the first tenet that single men are dangerous, instead of the “man up!” story, we could easily read it that the solution comes in raising and supporting women that a single man will want – not in marrying him off to a modern womyn who is uncivilized herself.

  14. @Kai
    Welcome to the blog and thank you for your comments. I found them very good. That given, I’ve addressed them before. The point I was trying to make here was that the only value most all women and these evangelicals see in men is their utility to women. There are many proofs against this, that a man can’t have a fulfilling life without a woman. There are even men doing productive things outside of marriage, that couldn’t do them otherwise within marriage. This is only part of the narrative, and you are right, more conclusions can be taken from them.

    Anything I write here shouldn’t be taken to mean that I’m anti-marriage or anti-woman. Given that this is a gynocentric culture predominantly driven by feelings, some people will unfortunately get that take-away, especially since society expects me as a man to accept feral women as they are. To fit this into the full narrative, you have to start with the false doctrine that women are good and men are bad that comes out of the Book of Oprah (as originally discovered by bskillet81 of CMD-N):

    Verily, Oprah saith unto thee, “The woman’s heart is pure and lovely, and no defilement hath entered therein. For it is full of niceness and good feelings and rainbows and unicorns. But the heart of a man is wicked and uncaring, for it is always full of meanness, tainted by porn addiction and XBOX. Thy snowflake princess canst not err, excepting that a man hath forced her to it. It be-eth not her fault.”

    In other words, they believe that women are sinless outside the influence of men, so they will refuse to correct women for the very real sins that they commit. The snowflake princesses consequently have bought it and believe that a man should appear when they are done being “independent and empowered” and that the man should be grateful that she would grace him with her mere presence (given her godly self, fully sanctified by the personal Jesus, that should be enough), much less actually choose to allow him to be her slave marry her. Consequently, they berate men because they actually do perceive a lack of virtue in them. While I agree with this in principle:

    Previously, when I’ve seen the complaint about single men, it’s been an exhortation that they need women, and women who are going to be worth the tradeoffs of settling down.

    the problem becomes, as this post points out, is that they are incapable of seeing marriage in terms of what men are seeing today (I haven’t noticed this part in bold at all from any evangelical figures like Dobson or the popular preachers). The all too ubiquitous feral woman modern society has produced that is being seen as sinless is a poor choice to marry, but unfortunately we have too many of those in the world. The evangelicals need to focus themselves on the quality of the product if they want to save marriage, but they seem to be stuck fully on bring men into subservience to the women.

    These men who are rejecting marriage today, are actually choosing to look at the situation with self-interest and realize that Marriage 2.0 (the feminist Satanic version of marriage) is a raw deal all the way around. This is as you write:

    Even if we were to take the first tenet that single men are dangerous, instead of the “man up!” story, we could easily read it that the solution comes in raising and supporting women that a single man will want – not in marrying him off to a modern womyn who is uncivilized herself.

    The product is poor and consequently the sales job is poor. Most of the women today have no business being married. Furthermore, the conditions that a man must exist under in the modern form of marriage (Marriage 2.0) are so oppressive and offer no benefits for him to be married in the first place. Even if every woman were the chaste wonderful paragons of virtue that Churchianity proclaims, marriage to one of them under the 2.0 conditions is prohibitive in and of itself. In other words, the system is set up to produce exactly what it intended to produce.

    Again, thanks for your comment and the opportunity for thought that you have offered by them.

  15. @Elspeth

    Its goes way back even before victorian times:

    http://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. BD #8 – Ruled By Feelings And Emotions. | The Society of Phineas
  2. The Complementarian Contradiction | The Society of Phineas
  3. The Idol of the Proverbs 31 Woman | The Society of Phineas
  4. Man-Up and Marry Level 2: Re-Education | The Society of Phineas
  5. Chivalry: Falling In Love With Shame | The Society of Phineas
  6. Vito Corleone’s Forbidden Man Up Rant | The Society of Phineas
  7. Mohler Reviews Men On Strike | The Society of Phineas
  8. Links and Comments #17 | The Society of Phineas
  9. So You Want Me To Man-Up and Marry That Slut? | The Society of Phineas
  10. Ashamed | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers

%d bloggers like this: