Summary: Feminists are not the only ones pushing for reforms to men’s role in marriage. Powerful voices support feminists’ calls for radical change. Such as their Christian Conservatives allies, who are amazing and pitiful.
What is driving the gender revolution? Some say that men have become weaker. That’s a logical result of the multi-generational the War Against Boys
But there is another aspect to this. Powerful groups in our society have worked long and hard to change the role of men. Such as feminists – and some conservatives.
A conservative Christian wants women on top in marriage
For one answer we can turn those schools of conservatives that have embraced this women-on-top philosophy. Dalrock has thoroughly documented this (see the links below). As a stunning example, he points to an important book, essential reading for every conservative man: Every Man’s Marriage: An Every Man’s Guide to Winning the Heart of a Woman
“{He} is the founder and chairman of New Life Ministries and host of the #1 nationally syndicated Christian counseling talk show “New Life Live!” heard and watched by over 2 million people each week …Steve is the founder of the Women of Faith conferences attended by over 5 million people. He also serves as a teaching pastor in Indianapolis …
“Steve is a nationally and internationally known public speaker and has been featured in national media …With over 8 million books in print {written 60+ books} he has been writing about God’s transformational truth since 1984. …He has been nominated for numerous writing awards and has won four Gold Medallion Awards for writing excellence.”
We can learn much from these books. Arterburn describes his marriage (H/t Dalrock)..
“I rushed the relationship because I was acting out of fear that I would go through life unmarried, unloved, and an outcast in the Christian community. …Sandy was a “catch” – bright, attractive, talented, and gracious – and I didn’t want to mess up this courtship. I would hide who I really was. …
“When Sandy and I were dating, I attempted to hold her hand one night. She jerked back and said that the thought of holding my hand kind of made her sick. She said it in the nicest way possible, but for whatever reason, I simply wasn’t appealing to her. My temptation was to lick my wounds and walk away. Instead, I told her that I wasn’t in this relationship to hold hands or do anything else but be with her. Well, that obviously had an impact on her because we eventually did hold hands. Furthermore, we eventually got married. …
“When we finally married, I was shocked to find that sex was a painful experience for her. She wanted no part of it. …”
The book describes how both men learned to submit to their wives, which they considered God’s way. Dalrock explains: “This is a modern Christian staple and is an expression of theological crossdressing.” Dalrock quotes Stoeker describing how he grovels before his wife in “Her soul essence is your master, and sets the terms for oneness” and “That the word of God be not blasphemed” (the title is the darkest irony). Here is a sample.
“Oneness has terms. Comply with the terms and emotional closeness follows. If you don’t comply, the emotions will die. We need to act right, or more precisely, act righteously. If we do, the feelings will follow. …Who sets the terms for oneness in marriage? Your wife. More accurately, your wife’s essence. …
“But Fred, my wife is not my master! True, but becoming-one-with-her-essence is your master. That’s your highest call, and that call owns you, my friend. As leader of your home, you must submit your rights in whatever way necessary to attain oneness, not because she has authority over you…
“What I’m trying to say is that the ‘master’ defines your rights (and remember again that though we refer to your wife as your ‘master,’ it’s our shorthand for the fact that becoming one with her essence is actually your God-given master). Why? Because you’re called to oneness and her essence sets the terms.”
Arterburn and Stoeker give valuable guidance to men. They advocate the “hair of the dog that bit me” path of life in the feminist era. This means doubling down on the behaviors at the heart of today’s system of party-of-her-life, marriage, children, and divorce – followed by independence plus child support (details here). They tell men what not to do.
How did this advice work out for Arterburn?
We learn the answer in his 2005 book, Every Single Man’s Battle: Staying on the Path of Sexual Purity
“There we were on the most beautiful beach I had ever seen, near the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. I was enjoying one of the several trips I had arranged to celebrate our twentieth anniversary together, trying to mend what had been so very broken for twenty difficult years. I had thought we were making progress, and as I walked that beach with my wife, I presumed she felt as close to me as I did her. Alas, that simply was not the case. The betrayal had already occurred, and she was making plans for divorce. …
“Not long after our trip to Australia I began to suspect that something was severely wrong. Of course, something had always seemed wrong in our marriage – since our wedding day, we both felt we had made a big mistake. Then one day …a mutual friend told me of her betrayal. …I confronted her with the truth, hoping for sorrow and a chance to work it through together, but my hopes were quickly dashed. She filed for divorce the following Monday. …Many readers of Every Man’s Battle will be stunned to discover that my marriage ended in 2002 …I had not initiated the divorce proceedings ….”
Many readers were not surprised to see that he was dumped. Also, 2002! That is one year after the publication of Winning the Heart of a Woman. Arterburn should have given refunds to those who bought his books, let along compensation for his malpractice-levels awful advice. Also, this was his second marriage (he married #3, Misty, in 2003).
Another conservative’s advice
Old conservatives love to advise young men about marriage and masculinity, as in this by Tucker Carlson (commentator for Fox News, co-founder and former editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller) on “Fox & Friends.”
“If you’re a man, stop whining and reclaim your birthright which is masculinity, and masculinity and male power derive from responsibility. You don’t embrace responsibility, you have no power. {without embracing the responsibility of a family} you’re not a man, you’re a child.”
The discussion is worth watching. Especially note the contempt Alisyn Camerota shows for men who refuse to play their traditional role – while women refuse to do so. (H/t Dalrock.)
This is a widespread belief among conservatives. As in this by Douglas Wilson, another author of many books popular among Christian conservatives…
“{T}he definition of masculinity that I believe we must return to is this: masculinity is the glad assumption of the sacrificial responsibilities that God assigned to men.”
Why does anyone listen to these people? Responsibility without respect or reward is a fool’s prize. Men are realizing that, as the numbers show.
- Why men are avoiding work and marriage.
- Will young men break America’s family structure?
- Will today’s young men marry? America’s future depends which of these answers is right.
A feminist perspective on Civilization
This commercial for Summer’s Eve “Feminine Hygiene Products” nicely captures the feminist zeitgeist — and the belief of many Christian conservatives – that women make the largest contribution to civilization (h/t Dalrock). It’s the usual self-aware post-mo we’re joking but really mean it. Also see Dalrock’s articles about “Vagina worship” (as in this advertisement, seeing it as the core of civilization) and expressions of this belief in more sophisticated works by conservatives (e.g., by George Gilder).
Tomorrow: a discussion about solutions
The most important lesson commenters have taught me: do not just analyze, suggest solutions. Tune in tomorrow.
Dalrock’s amazing posts about Christian conservatives
Dalrock has fascinating analysis and commentary about marriage and feminism at his website. Much of this is almost beyond belief, but thoroughly documented.
- About Holy divorce: The Wake-up Call.
- Real Men Step Up to Fifty Shades of Rationalization — A Christian conservative says it is men’s fault that women like 50 Shades of Grey. Be more beta and they won’t like it!
- She who must be obeyed.
- Women in the military, more divorce, more single mothers – all result from men’s failures. They just need to “man up” (which means submission). Part One. Part Two.
- Hair shirts and chest thumping – the alt-Right calls this the “Marry THOT” solution. Christian conservatives add “submit, husband” to the formula.
- Coercion is only to be used by wives: Submission with a twist.
- Left and Right agree on the miraculous power of women to civilize men.
- Does it matter who heads a family, a man or woman?
- Hierarchy equals abuse.
For More Information
The cold equations: “‘These boots are made for walking’: why most divorce filers are women” by Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen in American Law and Economics Review, January 2000. Gated. Open copy here. H/t Dalrock.
Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and gender issues, especially these about marriage…
- Women have won the gender revolution.
- The Economist proclaims that men are “The Weaker Sex”.
- Women are moving on top of men in America.
- Women on Top, chapter 10: the growing gender gap in education.
- Victims no more: the revolution puts women on top of men.
- For Father’s Day: revolutionary words that will forever change the American family.
- Classic films show what marriage was. Facts show its death.
- Child support payments create the new American family.
- Modern women say “follow the rules while we break them.”
Essential reading to understand how we got here
The Privileged Sex
by Martin van Creveld.
by Martin van Creveld.Summary by the publisher…
“Ever since Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique
“This volume, one of the very few in any language, takes on these questions head on. Roaming far and wide, it examines many aspects of the problem as it has presented itself from the time of ancient Egypt right down to today’s most advanced Western societies. To anyone accustomed to the tsunami of feminist claims and complaints, the answers will come as a surprise.”
Why you call these writers “Conservative Christians” is a mystery to me. “Trendy Christians” would be a more accurate label, since they’ve bowed down to various recent additions to the state religion’s pantheon, from the updated versions of Moloch (child sacrifice for economic advantage) Astarte (the LGBTqwerty gender-fluidity cult), the Baals (climate control zealots) and even the ultimate deity, our messianic warfare/welfare state. The accumulated consequences of devotion to these deities are described in some detail in the Old and New testimonies Christians attend to in the Bible, which offers only telegraphic accounts, but all the details we see unfolding around us merely underline the accuracy of those many solemn warnings” against “sacrificially loving the darkness” (John 3:19-21).
I have to disagree with you. I would like to link Dan Attrell’s argument, where he argues that Christianity is essentially slave morality, a moral system concerned with Good and Evil, while the pagan master morality is concerned with Virtue. The pagan gods had little use for good and evil, the relatively benign Zeus had no problems raping those he considered attractive, murder, slavery, lies, torture were all utilized by pagan gods who cared not for the feelings or mortals. From a pagan perspective women’s shaming and whining would be irrelevant.
Leftism seems to me to be nothing but secularized, oversocialized version of Christianity. It is over-concerned with what is Good and what is Evil, and it undervalues Virtue. Christianity has always been a religion based on moral rules that go beyond what is useful here and now. But perhaps you need a balance between the two perpectives.
https://youtu.be/Vo0-bBwTiiM
It is a rather complex topic, and not one I am ready to fully articulate.
Desierasmus,
“Why you call these writers “Conservative Christians” is a mystery to me.”
We use labels for communication. That’s what they are regarded as by American society. If I made up my own label, people would not know to whom I referred. You understood the label, so it works.
desierasmus has a point about “Trendy Christian” writers. They’re writing to sell a book, and make a buck on it. Trendy sells.
Today’s hucksters have found all sorts of trendy stuff to make a buck on. Trendy frightens donors to send money to combat Sharia law in Idaho. Trendy develops handy one-liner apps so you can feel educated without ever having to read a full paragraph of Scripture. Trendy demands that ignorant but charismatic preachers rule the pulpit. Trendy loves conspiracy theories.
Sunvillage,
“They’re writing to sell a book, and make a buck on it.”
Lacking telepathic powers, I don’t qustion people’s motives — unless I can quote their own words.
Thank you for the kind words and generous linkage Larry.
@SunVillageStudio
This is the point. This message is what modern conservative Christians love. Ultimately it isn’t about the writers, but the demand they accurately perceived (just like the Kendrick brothers movies Fireproof, Courageous, War Room, etc).
I should clarify that I don’t doubt the sincerity of the authors who sell Christian marriage crossdressing. I have no question they also love the message. But the most important part is that the message they are selling is what modern conservative Christians enthusiastically believe.
Dalrock,
“But the most important part is that the message they are selling is what modern conservative Christians enthusiastically believe.”
That is imo the big big point. I would like to explore why that is, but it is over my pay grade. I can’t even guess at the answer. But I’m certain that the answer would provide an important insight.
Follow-up note:
While the message sold by these conservative Christians has a big market, discussion of these problems does not.
I have been writing for 16 years. I try to focus it on leading edge problems of American society, subjects on the edge of the known. Time has shown that I have a high batting average at this, in that many of the problems discussed here eventually become headline material. But each new focus has brought a drop in readership, as people are confronted with non-consensus ideas about sensitive topics. Traffic slowly builds as people more clearly see and understand what’s happening.
That’s happening now with posts talking about the decay of marriage and the gender revolution — see from a non-feminist perspective. My West coast traffic has evaporated, so that pageviews have dropped to about 100 thousand per month. This shows that these posts are drilling on the nerve of US society.
@Larry
This pattern that we see, where women smolder with resentment that someone must be keeping really great things away from them, and men submitting to their wives in a misguided attempt to keep the peace, is the very story of the fall in Genesis. Genesis 3 opens by telling us that the Serpent was incredibly good at his craft:
And how did the Serpent tempt Eve? By telling her that God was holding out on her, keeping the really good stuff (knowledge of good and evil) to himself! If she knew these things, she would be like God!
That got Eve’s hamster running furiously on the wheel, and she ultimately couldn’t resist.
But what about Adam? The popular conservative Christian interpretation is that Adam’s sin was in failing to keep the Serpent out of the Garden so he couldn’t tempt Eve. But in Genesis God Himself tells us that Adam’s sin was listening (obeying) his wife instead of obeying God:
Even if you don’t accept the Bible as coming from God, it is clear that the author of Genesis understood the fundamental dynamic of men and women many thousands of years ago. For even then, it is clear that this is a metaphor for the nature of men and women, and how we fall into misery.
Dalrock,
Brilliant observations like that are why your website has such a large audience. I am quite familiar with both Scripture and Biblical exogenesis (as a layman), and that never occured to me.
The big picture insight I search for concerns solutions. Insights like those in your comment are useful to the extent that they guide us. Or, most importantly imo, guide young men now dating — with decisions about marriage looming ahead.
I use two perspectives. First, what men (and women, although that’s not the focus of this series) can do as individuals. Second — and ultimately more important — what we can do as groups. These take many forms: churches, the Proud Boys, movements like the alt-Right, etc.
I believe that most men can at best cope with a society whose institutions and rules are increasingly hostile to them. Men’s blogs glamorize tactics of alphas, most of which should be labeled “Do Not Try This At Home.” The solutions that work best for most individuals (women and men) harm the nations — like withdrawing from the “rat race.” Only by standing together do real reforms become possible.
But I doubt that a return to “traditional values” is possible, especially since “traditional” has changed repeatedly and radically during the past 300 years. As always, looking ahead is the key to success.
Imho it gonna take a major war to bring up man’s status. Do the Kurds have this problem, even though many of them are leftist?
dashui,
Please define what you mean by “major war?”
A “major war” means a war that threatens the very existence of the state, as in this paragraph I found in the Wall Street Journal:
“With Ukraine already teetering on default of its debts, money is hard to find. Still, the new government raised an extra $610 million in emergency defense funding by cutting spending on social programs—aid to the disabled and to mothers with dependent children.”
A state in peril needs men who can fight, not women who can vote. Unmarried women are useless dead weight to be tossed overboard when the ship of state begins to sink. All welfare benefits and make-work jobs for women will be zeroed immediately without debate, and their bastard children will be drafted as cannon fodder, with the sons of men ready to shoot them if they turn and run.
Dave,
Dashui: “Imho it gonna take a major war to bring up man’s status.”
This is a common belief on both the Right and Left. The great cataclysm will come and force us to adopt the right and just structure for society. Popular candidates are economic collapse, civil war, attack by external enemies, resource exhaustion, and natural disasters. These are often described with glee — as punishment for wicked society. For example, in Larry Burkett’s Solar Flare a solar flare kills billions. This excites Burkett, as it prepares the way for the rise of the Christian remnant (as did the Flood, although that appears to have been only a temporary remedy).
I classify this genre as tales for peons. Escapist literature. Fantasies that justify organization and work today to reform society.
Dear Mr Kummer and all,
Interesting post and thread with lots to unpack. It’s an important conversation and hard to come at in polite company, but one way I do is two questions with moms with boys 1) is there anyone with a greater influence on your boy than you, and 2) are you raising a boy that women will want. The answer to 1 is *invariably* no and almost invariably crickets followed by profound irritation to 2.
LK: Arterburn should have given refunds to those who bought his books, let along compensation for his malpractice-levels awful advice.
Amen! I am increasingly a fan of Nassim Taleb and his “skin in the game” analysis of things. Pundits, prognosticators, self-help snake oil salesmen, and others of that ilk have virtually *no* downside for being wrong. Words are a poor medium to discover what someone actually thinks or believes when compared to what they do. Women can’t or won’t tell you what they want, but they will choose. It’s amazing how many women that I’ve talked to *deny* their agency and female agency in general in mate selection. It just happens, apparently.
@Dalrock
Brilliant unpacking of the story of the fall. I have become *much* more sympathetic to religion in my dotage, though possibly hypocritically I have always been fairly Campbellian when it comes to myths in general. It’s *very* hard to transmit wisdom down the ages and these truths will inevitably accrue some cruft. Distinguishing the truth from the cruft can be very difficult and time consuming and for most folks, its better to take it as is than strap on the philosopher’s mantle.
What’s worrisome about “just burn it all down” cultural revolution is that we have no (or not much of an) idea what’s coming next except that it will be different. Massive, systemic debt, identity politics, demonization of the phallocracy or whatever they’re calling it these days from atop (or beneath) Mount Intersectionality are all ingredients for a recipe that doesn’t end in a tasty dish. Again, Taleb warns that black swan events are rare, but they do and will happen. For me, WW2 wasn’t that long ago, but it’s a mere fable told by geezers to many folks today. It’s amazing that women don’t see that they are largely responsible for shaping the culture. While men still make the things, increasingly women make the culture and the values. I hope they will enjoy the fruits of their labor.
With best regards,
Bill
Bill,
“I am increasingly a fan of Nassim Taleb and his “skin in the game” analysis of things.”
IMO Taleb has more self-esteem than wisdom. He generalizes his tiny dot of experience in financial markets to a grandiose scale. It’s nuts to treat social analysts like traders and such.
Most importantly, this shows one of the great vices of modern America: we love to make others responsible for our errors. We should replace “E pluribus unum” on US coins with “It’s not my fault.” The problem here is not that some analysts are wrong when discussing things on the edge of the known. That’s guaranteed, unavoidable. The problem is that we continue to listen to people who have been proven wrong.
A obvious example: the people who designed and cheered our invasions and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are still featured as experts on the major media. That is beyond stupid, but it is our fault — not theirs.
LK: IMO Taleb has more self-esteem than wisdom…
There is that, but I don’t think that invalidates the “skin in the game” perspective. If there is no down side to being wrong, then you will have no incentive not to be wrong. Also, much of the difference between what people say and do is explained, in part by SITG. His analysis of some things e.g., concave and convex pay-off functions as functions of random processes with respect to ruin is very good — again for what it is.
LK: A obvious example: the people who designed and cheered our invasions and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are still featured as experts on the major media. That is beyond stupid, but it is our fault — not theirs.
You’ll get nothing but an amen brother from me on this one with a little push back. It *is* partially their fault and mine to the degree I couldn’t stop it. There is only so much that one person can do (and, yes I banded together with like-minded folks in different organizations including ACLU, though my dear organization is loosing its marbles in the era of the SJW). I am guilty of fighting and losing. De rerum natura. Pick up the cross, schlep it up the hill, then die on it. Figuratively speaking, of course.
With best regards,
Bill
Bill,
(1) “If there is no down side to being wrong, then you will have no incentive not to be wrong.”
I disagree. Nutty ideas like this are why sensible societies don’t let people like Taleb near the controls. It has the glizzy appear of Libertarianism, and is just as practical.
The usual mechanisms of reward for successful forecasts — much as in science (Popper: successful predictions are the gold standard of scientific proofs”).
(2) “It *is* partially their fault and mine to the degree I couldn’t stop it.”
That completely misses my point. The analysts are not “at fault” for failing to accurately predict the future (Life isn’t Marvel comics; nobody has superpowers). Nor am I holding individual Americans response for the war. But for failure to learn from it concerning the narrow question of who to trust for analysis and recommendations about national security.
Perhaps a bit too philosophical, but:
“The problem here is not that some analysts are wrong when discussing things on the edge of the known”
Is there really an edge of the known?
From where I’m looking (and perhaps I’m wrong), it seems like the US is following Rome’s example to a T. Emperor Augustus apparently had a bachelor’s tax, effectively telling men to man up and marry those sluts (fascinatingly enough he banned his daughter from the city for being such a slut). It feels so reminiscent of today, where people on both sides of the aisles have thick blinders on as you mentioned in comment a while back.
So in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, was it really the edge of the known, or was it potentially avoidable if people read their history? I don’t know the answer, I was also only a teenager when the Afghanistan war began and so I don’t really recall the social environment the US was in.
Perhaps the flip side is that Iraq and Afghanistan were unavoidable mistakes. It seems every empire develops a solid sense of hubris and believes every other people would of course, obviously, naturally, like to be like the citizens of the Empire. No doubt the Brits thought they were doing their colonies a favor, not entirely sure the people of the colonies would agree.
Vyasa,
“it seems like the US is following Rome’s example to a T. Emperor Augustus”
Metaphors are not knowledge (we’re not Rome, neither the Republic nor the Empire). Predictions are not knowledge.
“So in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, was it really the edge of the known”
My “known” I mean in terms of social knowledge. In 1685 ideas about the nature of gravity were floating about the natural science community of Europe, but the Law of Gravity wasn’t know. In the decade after publication of Principia in 1686 the knowledge of the law of gravity was known to a tiny fraction of the population, but it was not widely known. Using it as a metaphor would be met by puzzlement from most people.
In 2001 only a microscopic fraction of Americans understood the likely consequence of our invasions. I was active writing about it, and from 2003-2008 people familiar with military history and arts — esp those with military service — were totally confident of victory. I was banned from the Small Wars Council for my pessimism (it had a representative sample of knowledgeable people).
I believe (guessing) that the current situation in the gender wars is similar to that of the WOT circa 2003. A minority have a rudimentary understanding, but few of them have any depth to their knowledge. Their understanding are cartoons, more like cheerleaders’ performances (which require skill and intense practice) — Boo! Yea! — than the grounded vision require to ether devise solutions or make accurate predictions. That boundary is the edge of the known.
“Perhaps the flip side is that Iraq and Afghanistan were unavoidable mistakes.”
I doubt that. It’s the usual rationalization after the fact to see a historical event as inevitable. It is almost always contingent. Counterfactual history is mostly entertainment, but does remind us of that important truth.
@Larry
BO: “If there is no down side to being wrong, then you will have no incentive not to be wrong.”
LK: I disagree. Nutty ideas like this are why sensible societies don’t let people like Taleb near the controls. It has the glizzy appear of Libertarianism, and is just as practical.
The usual mechanisms of reward for successful forecasts — much as in science (Popper: successful predictions are the gold standard of scientific proofs”).
—
Maybe we’re talking about different things. If you can realize upside while pushing off risks to a third party people *will* make different decisions. You see this all the time. People/firms will make risky loans if the loans are guaranteed. Cf 2008 and the current student loan crisis. Reward may be the primary motivator of behavior, but it is almost always done in the context of a risk-reward payoff, even if it is subliminal. If there is no alpha chimp (it’s good to be the king), Phil stands up. But if Morris is still there and can kick his booty, Phil keeps his place. You can over populations make predictions about behavior given risk-reward profiles. People don’t drink alcohol in Saudi Arabia because they get a shiny star sticker and an atta boy ;) I *agree* that reward is the more effective way to motivate behavior, but risk of loss and ruin *does* influence decision making and in a significant way over populations. Hubris is to ignore the risk of ruin.
BO: “It *is* partially their fault and mine to the degree I couldn’t stop it.”
LK: That completely misses my point.
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. I was on the losing side of the debate. I admit I had a knee jerk reaction to “That is beyond stupid, but it is our fault — not theirs” because I did try to act and get involved and stop a war that turned into two and more, and you’re talking about “we the people” not “you dear reader”. It’s pretty much the point of the blog and I’ve been checking in on and off since Lind was writing his On War articles. And it would be wrong to separate an aspect of the East Coast reporting media as a quasi-propaganda arm of the Establishment. I don’t mean this as conspiracy theory, but they go to the same cocktail parties, send their kids to the same schools. Ironically, as opposed to the wars as I was, I worked in support of three letter agencies from 2003 or until last year, so this is eyeball on target. I am not anti-defense or anti-military far from it. Hell, I was a gnats ass from going to work on Strategic Defense Initiative under Reagan (Gauss cannons at DOE), but I went into hydrology instead. I am anti stupid discretionary unwinnable war.
From your reply to Vyaya (I was banned from the Small Wars Council for my pessimism (it had a representative sample of knowledgeable people)) and other content on the site you were clearly on the other side of what happened. My opposition (it’s hard to remember clearly so many years ago, but IIRC) was triggered by the run up to the consummation of the PATRIOT act. The one bit of evidence I do have is that I joined the ACLU in September 2001, the freak out was so disproportionately palpable, at least to me. My opposition to the military response was a) we didn’t have a clearly articulated grand strategy, b) the links between the Taliban and the operational capabilities of al Qaeda were sketchy at best, and c) though I did not know about 4GW at the time, I did know about Vietnam and Lebanon/Hizbullah and Mao and that it’s a fool’s errand to try to root out indigenous “evil doers” who have local support unless you’re willing to kill them all and let God sort them out (e.g., the sack of Troy model kill all the men take the women and children as slaves). We don’t do that anymore for the most part.
Thanks for fighting the good fight.
Regards,
Bill
As a young man dismayed at what the current dating scene has become, I’m looking forward to seeing what solutions you propose tomorrow, Larry.
I’ll admit I enjoy the occasional escapist literature. I’ve been following the manosphere blogs for years, and I’ve realized we seem to be in a pickle:
1. Learn game, and basically get your own. I’ve been uncomfortable with this strategy (though I’ve applied it in my life) as I was always aware it would have unintended consequences and casualties. Learning game and seducing women has ripple effects on society. Alternative responses are MGTOW.
2. Hope that women start marrying young again and pick dad over cad characteristics. But this seems unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.
So yes, would love to hear other ideas!
Vyasa,
I hope I set the bar very low for my post about solutions. I’ve found little of use, beyond a thousand posts advising “be an alpha — or fake it.” Color me skeptical that these are of more than incremental use for most men (i.e., they are better than nothing, but both men and women need much more).
Re: “Hope that …” — Hope is not a plan, not a solution!
.
If anyone is interested IMO the best book that deals with Christianity and feminism is The Battle for the Trinity:The Debate over Inclusive God-Language (1985) by Donald Bloesch. In light of the rapid societal changes that this website chronicles I went back and read a few chapters and found them relevant. He rigorously engages with the theological and philosophical underpinnings of feminist thought.
The post above shows a revealing example of the American Christian-ethos encountering the momentum of major social change and proving to be quite shallow. Maybe it is a wake up call? If it is I hope Christians in this country respond with a consistent well-grounded ethic (like what Bloesch affirms) rather than reactionary fundamentalism or capitulation to the ideologues.
Matt,
Thank you for the book recommendation! These are always appreciated.
“What I’m trying to say is that the ‘master’ defines your rights (and remember again that though we refer to your wife as your ‘master,’ it’s our shorthand for the fact that becoming one with her essence is actually your God-given master). Why? Because you’re called to oneness and her essence sets the terms.”
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
Joe,
At my advanced age, I’m seldom shocked. But Dalrock’s excerpt from the “Christian conservative” literature — advocating men’s submission to their wives, almost v-worship — blew my mind.