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