The Reason Why Men Reject Women
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.
Related: Barbarossaaaa’s videos “Humanity First and Foremost” (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) – the usual language warnings apply.
Tagline wisdom: Women need to be trained to love men, or men will be trained to hate women.
I agree with your first clause but not the second. We can’t say that women are incapable of doing something which they’ve never been taught to do. I agree with you that it isn’t innate for women to love men unconditionally and that it must be trained. However, we aren’t being trained, thanks to the lies of traditional feminism, which tells us that we are already the sex that loves properly and is morally superior.
We could only say that the majority of women are incapable of loving their husbands at all if proper training had been applied and they still failed at it. In fact, in days of yore when women were properly trained, they appeared to love their husbands and do their duty to them for the most part.
Traditional feminism has a lot to answer for. Sadly it’s not even recognized as being feminism by most people.
Is it that Man is alone? Or that he finds that he prefers to be alone rather than to be with a Woman, because loneliness is preferable to the frustration of purpose that seems to be the norm with male/female interactions these days?
@SSM
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I would also like to add: since men and women are made by God to be very different, we also have differences in how we want to receive love from the opposite sex, meaning that something that makes me feel loved by a man would likely make him feel disrespected (and therefore the exact opposite of loved) by me. Therefore, if I’m totally clueless to this (as most women are) and I try to demonstrate my love to someone, I could unknowingly do some serious damage without meaning (or wanting) to. A lot more of us than you think actually do have the desire to love a man, and men in general, but many women are clueless as to how to go about this. I’m fully aware that this doesn’t apply to the modern – thinking liberated uber – feminist woman. I’m referring to those of us who have been hanging around these bloggs as well as many more who’s motives are in the right place but who’s methods are totally out of whack.
SSM, if you are not trained to do a task, you are incapable of doing that task. That it is loving that has not been trained changes nothing. I am incapable of squatting six hundred pounds, no matter that I can be trained to do it. If you put that on my back I might be able to stand, but I would collapse. So it is with women and love. That they could be trained is one thing; that they are not trained is another, and the one with which we find ourselves faced.
Donal, either way, men are not getting the companionship. It is even worse if he has to avoid her, because then she is a negative companion, the anti-helpmeet. I avoid women for precisely this reason. I see what it does to men. What they do.
The Shadowed Knight
@sunshinemary
But we can say that when it comes to most of them because they are not humble, and therefore not teachable. (Prov 12:1; Prov 13:18) As you write, this is because of “lies of traditional feminism, which tells us that we are already the sex that loves properly and is morally superior.” The pride and arrogance that most all women hold these days is what makes them incapable of it, not the fact that they never have been taught. We have women these days that would be demanding to teach Jesus and make him help in the kitchen (and Jesus be seen as bad and evil for not listening to these women and helping out in the kitchen), rather than listen humbly at his feet.
Unfortunately right now, the answer isn’t to teach women. The answer is that these arrogant prideful princesses need knocked down off of their thrones along with their enablers. Then the teaching may begin.
@donalgraeme
One can still be “alone” in a crowded room. There’s a spiritual truth in that word as used in that statement that’s worthy of meditation.
@femininebutnotfeminist
This goes back to the pride issue. The one thing that would astound me if I haven’t gotten cynical in seeing it so much is that the women who supposedly “get it” are still pretty clueless themselves, yet thinking they aren’t. In reading this, I wonder how many women genuinely understand how these things come off to most men. I’ll elaborate a bit myself on this blog in the near future, but for me (and I’m sure most) it’s more disheartening than all the Dworkins and Steinems put together. Again, this is a humility issue. Women would do better to seek understanding of men, than think they got men and the world on a string. Now that I think about it, there’s nothing more attractive to me than a woman that’s in to me enough to proverbially kneel at my feet and explore what I need from her, and then follow through.
Another good case. It seems of this too. Peacefulwife seems to be doing an admirable job teaching the other woman, but it’s still astounding how clueless the other woman seems.
@ Ballista and TSK
I was trying to explain what TSK did. So many women these days are that “anti-helpmeet.” Having one as a wife makes you even more lonely than you would be without her, because her presence reminds you all the more of what you should have but don’t.
It’s both Donal. Leastwise for me it was/ is both
TSK:
That is true, but you are still capable of being trained to do the task. Women have the potential to love men unconditionally, but they are incapable (at present) because they have not been so trained.
Thank you, I understand now. That’s an excellent point. A woman may be capable of loving a man unconditionally if she were trained to do so, but if she has rendered herself untrainable, then she is as good as incapable of so loving a man.
I lol’d because I know these women! Of course Jesus would be seen as evil. After all, look at the way he treated Martha, neglecting her Love Language (which was obviously Acts of Service) like that.
I read the PW post; look how the young woman learns from her. It’s not instantaneous, though. We’re steeped in arrogance and pickled in pride from an early age, so learning is slower than one would wish, but by the end the young lady was admitting that she had been prideful. I see that as progress.
Another think I liked about that story was that the young man then declined to call or text her for several weeks. That was wise on his part. Don’t reward bad behavior.
@sunshinemary
It was just an illustration of how clueless women can be about dealing with men. We don’t know if she took PW’s words to heart, but it seems like there’s progress there, yes.
What do the women on the View have to do with believers? What do the haters of God have to do with how lovers of God behave? Do you think that unrepentant sinful haters of God are the same kind of people as repentant lovers of God? Are the lovers of the world and it’s ways the same as the lovers of God and His ways?
If you just want to document the ways of the world, then fine! Men of the world do not ‘need’ women. What for; to clean house, to cook, to f**k? men don’t need them. Clean and cook yourself. Watch porn; masterbate. Go gay and get as many BJs as you want. Haven’t you heard, “ass, the other vagina”. Women don’t ‘need’ men. What for? To provide, to protect, to f**k? Women can work. The government will also provide and protect. Most women can have sex any time they want with multiple men…or women.
If you want to talk about those who love God and desire(lust after) His ways, it is a totally different way. The world and the people of the world have nothing to do with the people of God. The people of God are a new creation in Christ Jesus. The old person is dead, crucified with Christ. The laws of God are written in your spirit(your heart) and the Holy Spirit is present with you to teach you and to lead you into all righteousness.
Women of God, walking in the Spirit, can love and honour their husbands, can love their children, and their neighbor. Men of God, walking in the Spirit, can love their wives, love their children, love their neighbor.
But if you are not a lover of God, then the Gospel of Jesus is only condemnation to you. Until you reconcile with God( make peace) you cannot walk and live in the ways of God.
In fact, in days of yore when women were properly trained, they appeared to love their husbands and do their duty to them for the most part.
You’ve hit on something here SSM, albeit probably unintentionally.
The word ‘appear.’
This is what hits men the hardest…..even when trained, it’s an act.
@ SSM
The only qualm I have with your post is this.
One of the major thrusts of this article is that wives are commanded to “philandros” (affectionate love to) their husbands — that is not the “agapao” (unconditional / charity) love, and that they must be taught it.
The talking point is not just the teachable aspect. The other talking point is: are women incapable of “agapao” love towards their husbands?
And note, this was Paul writing the letter to Titus, So he knew the meanings of the words he was writing, especially as he wrote Ephesians, Colossians, etc where agapao is used for Christians to agapao love God, husbands to agapao love their wives, etc.
Is Paul’s omission of agapao love for wives to husbands indicative of the inability for wives to do that, or is it because of some other reason that he chose “philandros” instead? Does it even matter in the grand scheme of things, or are we deluding ourselves of the truth if we think women can agapao love their husbands?
Something to ponder.
@Deep Strength ” are we deluding ourselves of the truth if we think women can agapao love their husbands?”
1Jn4 is all about agape love. Is it written to men only? In the beginning the woman was perfect for the man, was she not? It is that perfection that is restored in living in Christ, is it not?
And where does that ‘unconditional’ stuff come from? What does it even mean? God is love(Agape). Explain what is the good or understanding of unconditional in light of God’s actions in; killing millions or billions, including infants, during the Flood, the killing of Egypt’s first born, many of which were probably infants, killing all men, women and children at Jericho, and dozens of other examples. How did ‘unconditional love benefit any of them. Do your own thought experiment and think of the most horrible person (Hitler. Ted Bundy) and how you could unconditionally love that person and what that would mean if all people and God unconditionally loved them. Will they still burn in the Lake of Fire forever? and if so how is that result different than if There were conditional love? Jesus orders the ‘goats’ to be killed in His presence, and that is an act of unconditional love since God is love. How is the result different to the ‘goats’ than if Jesus had hated them? Very confusing, this unconditional love. You can be rewarded or punished by this unconditional love; it’s all the same. Is that really what the Spirit of God teaches you? I think only ‘The Personal Jesus” does that unconditional love thing. Probably as many men as women have Their Own Personal Jesus.
@Bobbye
Unconditional love is not to be confused with unconditional acceptance of behavior. Like a parent to a child, God can love you, but not be pleased with what you do. Hence, judgement.
Women are told to respect their husbands. When women have no idea what respect is either because she saw her mother destroy her father…or she goes out and disrespects her body…how can you expect her to respect another human being?
@redpillsetmefree
Please do give some examples of the behavior that flows from ‘ unconditional love’. According to the definition of agape love being unconditional, and God being agape, I gave examples of God’s behavior. Please ‘flesh’ out your understanding of the results of unconditional love so that I may understand also.If you do not accept behavior, please explain how the action flowing from unconditional love is different than action flowing from indifference, or action flowing from hate. Please give me an understanding of how God’s and Samuel’s dealing with Agag was an example of unconditional love, but Saul’s behavior toward Agag was…what?
Putting the descriptor ‘unconditional’ in front of love is like putting ‘free’ in front of will. Sounds like a good concept to build a religion on, but just doesn’t lend itself to an understandable explanation. Must be accepted on ‘blind faith’. ‘True’ believers have no problem with that.
I’m curious your take of John 13:34 “A new command I give you, ‘Love one another.'” where the “love” is agape. Are you arguing that women (and wives, in particular) cannot obey this command?
If the general command to love is rendered in agape, then the specific love a wife owes her husband cannot be less than that which she is supposed to show generally (in obedience to Christ’s command).
@Johnathan W
I don’t know whom you were asking , but I agree that the New Testament implies that all followers of Jesus, male and female can do those things that God asks us to do, including agape. Take it together with the beginning when God says,” male and female created He them, and called their name Adam”,(Gen5:1-2) implying, maybe, that male and female together constitute the ‘image of God’. Just a thought.
@Bobbye
In these things, when you have an implication or an inference, or a potentially new understanding, it is good to look around in the text.
Now, having cited the New Testament, then citing Genesis, you know that, if the New Testament has illumination on those verses, then, well, an orthodox opinion is circumscribed by the writing of the New Testament.
If your suggestion were within the circumscribed region of orthodox opinion on this, then Paul could not have written 1 Cor 11:7-8, as they would have made no sense. Either that, or you must suggest that Paul’s teachings are up for debate as having apostolic authority – but, simply, you must either take it all, or you cannot be serious in citing the New Testament, which you certainly seem to have been.
As such, the implication you have suggested cannot be the case.
It is always good to look toward the New Testament to ensure that you’ve understood the Old Testament. I know I speak from experience of making a similar mistake. Thankfully, having had things explained to us, we are freed of the special kind of bondage that had the Pharisees carrying around their books but unable to recognize the fulfillment of prophecy in their midst.
@jaybeepancakes
Paul also wrote 1Cor11:11-12. As for orthodox opinion or’doctrine'; I don’t subject myself to any Magistereum whether official or implied. I also look to the Holy Spirit to understand all of the bible. God is the only Authority I acknowledge. I will not stand before Paul or any other apostle at the judgement. Paul, nor any apostle will advocate for me at the judgement; only Jesus. I will take my chances with Jesus alone.
I am truely sorry that you hung your mind up, having had some one else do the thinking for you. They will not be standing there before Jesus with you at YOUR judgement.-‘ King Baldwin IV: [Baldwin chuckles] When I was sixteen, I won a great victory. I felt in that moment I would live to be a hundred. Now I know I shall not see thirty. None of us know our end, really, or what hand will guide us there. A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, “But I was told by others to do thus,” or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that.’
Your comment reminds me of the story of Mary and Martha. Mary listened at Jesus’ feet while Martha demanded that Jesus tell her sister Mary to help with the serving.
Time for CBS to ban her from the airwaves. Anyone that finds this funny is bad news.
I love everything about this post. I have lived out everything about this post.
And that graph is dead-on accurate.
This blog and these posts like this continue to resonate with me so hyper-acutely.
Wow.
I can confirm all of this. All of it.
It’s out there, everywhere: Tradcon female feminists, and whiteknight tradcon male feminists, women and wives losing their “love” for you overnight because i lost my job or i got sick. And let the whiteknighter tradcons counsel you (and God forbid, counsel your wife) while you are still a blue-piller and they will destroy you, and they will delight over it and consider themselves more pious than thou.
Fantastic stuff.
So I’m not crazy after all.
At last.
I didn’t think I was.
You know, I didn’t think I was.
Now I KNOW I’m not crazy.
There are OTHER men like me.
I mean, not just like me, but REALLY like me.
My heavens, we are outnumbered just a bit though, huh fellas?
This Red Pill thing isn’t a pill/experience that you take or do one time and you’re awake. I’ve been semi-awake for a while now. But it’s like you gotta keep taking a pill a day or something until the whole bottle is empty, the pills are gone, and then you are finally fully awake.
Dalrock was a Red Pill for me.
The Rational Male was a Red Pill for me.
Patriactionary was about two or three Red Pills for me.
I find The Society of Phineas to be about a whole handful of Red Pills.
Holy smokes is this ever ACUTE stuff I am reading.
Because, again, I have LIVED this stuff. Even some of the minor details, I am finding that I have lived this very stuff out myself, and have been burned, and burned, and burned, and harmed egregiously, and betrayed, and not just by women who claimed to “love” me, but also by the tradcon feminist hireling shepherds who Ahabically pedestalize them and encourage other idiots to do likewise.
Wow.