Summary: As the Left burns politically, they continue their conquest of America’s institutions. Now the last bunkers are falling. Such as the Boy Scouts and evangelical Christianity. The Scouts’ decision was good business. The latter’s decision is not, as it drives away men — leaving pews filled mostly with women and the elderly. Sermons castigate men for their faults (even on Father’s Day) and urge women to have better self-esteem. They urge radical changes to marriage that benefit women. Here Dalrock looks at their advice to men about masculinity, urging young men to become gentle and sensitive. Well suited to be beta orbiters (friend-zoned) to support women between their dates with thrilling jerkboys, and later marry them (for a few years) as beta providers.
Mad Dog Chandler on Toxic Masculinity
By Dalrock at his website. Posted with his generous permission.
The #metoo era is dangerous because the rules of what is permissible are very quickly changing. This is especially dangerous for complementarians {see Wikipedia} because complementarians earn their living in the margins of what feminists are trying to destroy. This June we saw Dr. Paige Patterson rejected and discredited in the complementarian world because of past statements he made in support of 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Peter 3. Those statements were on the extreme edge of acceptable complementarian thought when he made them, but in 2018 they are entirely unacceptable.
{Ed note: That’s not exactly correct. See the prosecution, the defense, and the consequences.}
This has left complementarian leaders scrambling to signal that they aren’t like Dr. Patterson. Just last week we witnessed Pastor Doug Wilson engage in a major rewrite of 1 Corinthians 7.
The problem for complementarians is they have to live in the margins of feminism, because their whole point of existence is to serve as feminism’s loyal opposition. This forces complementarians to engage in a series of ridiculous contortions as feminists continue to advance their agenda. Complementarians can’t blame feminist rebellion, or even (for the most part) feminism itself for the radical changes we are observing, because they are terrified of angering the feminist Christian women who surround them. Thus when women insisted on entering all areas of our armed forces in the name of equality, complementarians were forced to pretend that women were reluctantly filling roles that men were refusing to fill.
One way complementarians were able to resolve the inherent conflict in their position just a few years ago was to engage in what I’ve referred to as cartoonish chivalry. Cartoonish chivalry involved a caricature of manhood that was carefully crafted to not offend the feminists in the pews. For example, see Pastor Matt Chandler’s 2014 sermon “A Beautiful Design (Part 3) – Man’s Purpose” (21 Sept 2014). Pastor Chandler explained that it wasn’t leadership that made men different, because women are as designed to lead as men are.
“When I was trying to draw up a sentence on the unique responsibility of men, I wanted to, as best I could, stay away from the word lead. I’ll tell you why. I think men do lead, and they do lead in a unique way. I also know women who can lead and who do lead. In fact, I’ve come across some women who are bosses. Do you know what I’m saying? I mean, they get stuff done. They lead. They put together teams. They help those teams function rightly, and they lead out.So saying that a man leads as a kind of attribute of manhood that is not true about women would be incorrect.”
Editor’s note for those not familiar with Christian “complementarian” thinking.
Complementarians redefine the Scriptural concept of man’s “headship” (see the relevant verses). For Chandler, a man’s “headship” meant sacrificial love for his family, setting its spiritual direction (i.e., it’s his fault if anything goes wrong), and its physical care. Thay last item means responding to his wife’s requests with either “yes” or “yes but not now.” Absolutely no actual leadership or authority!
What made men different back in 2014 was men’s cartoonish hyper-macho love for violence in the protection of women. Anything less, and you aren’t a real man. {Ed: aka, being a foolish “White Knight.”}
“By being male, that does not give you some intrinsic authority over any other woman. It doesn’t work that way. As a single man, you image headship with borrowed authority by serving and protecting women as sisters. Let me unpack that. I have an older sister and a younger sister. Here was a frequent conversation my daddy had with me.
‘Buddy, at school, you look out for your sisters. If some other guy is messing with your sisters, I want you to tell a teacher. If that teacher will not listen, I want you to punch them in their face and keep punching and keep punching and keep punching until an adult drags you off of that little boy. When they drag you off, what I want you to do is be like, “Get off me! Get off me!” You go back at them until they… There needs to be a healthy kind of fear of you when it comes to your sisters. You protect them.’ …
“Our masculinity comes out in the fight, not in peacetime but in fight. Again, it’s why the lazy men are so destructive to human flourishing. They want it to be fair. It’s not fair. You don’t want fair. You haven’t been designed for it. Think of the movies we like to watch. We want the fight. We want our lives to matter. We want to lay it down. We love Saving Private Ryan
“Brothers, you’ve been called to this. Anything less than this is outside of design and purpose.”
That was then. This is now.
But this was in 2014. What was loved by complementarian women back then is now seen as toxic masculinity. This means that the definition of the timeless essence of manhood must yet again be changed. As Pastor Chandler explained in his February 2018 sermon “Manhood Restored,” the new timeless essence of manhood involves rejecting violence and machismo in all forms, and getting in touch with your feelings:
“What we’re talking about today is extremely important, and I think it comes at a time in our culture where there are two predominate false narratives that are killing us. The first false narrative is what I’ll call the machismo narrative. If you’re my age or older, I would almost guarantee you grew up with this. Here’s what I wrote: ‘Machismo severs the emotions and sets up sexual conquest and athletic prowess as measures of masculinity.’
“If you grew up with a dad who was like, ‘Quit crying! Suck it up! Be a man! Men don’t act like that. Quit acting like your sister,’ all of that is machismo nonsense. Brothers, anybody grow up in that house? ‘Quit crying. Quit feeling what you feel. Men don’t feel; we do.’ It’s machismo. It’s ridiculous. It’s toxic to the male soul, destroys human flourishing, and teaches that brute force and violence, as well as misogyny, are masculine. It’s a lie. It’s killing us. …
“Our dads aren’t evil men. They had given themselves over to a picture of masculinity that’s very, very popular and yet wrong. ‘Suck it up. Don’t feel. Quit crying. Men don’t cry.’
Gosh, that cuts out Jesus. It cuts out King David. If you would like to go one-on-one with King David, manly man, all my cash is on him. It ain’t a lot, but I’m going to win. I’m going to double it up, even though the odds are not going to be in your favor. The dude killed a bear and a lion with his hands. I know you CrossFit, but my guess is you’re going to get yourself lit up.
“This is one of those false narratives. When men embrace this narrative, you get Harvey Weinstein. That’s what you get when this narrative is the norm. “I am entitled. It’s mine.” Violent brute force. “I take what I want. I get what I want. I’m a man!” It’s a lie. It’s from hell. It’s demonic, and our daughters and sisters bear the violence of this, but it’s not the only false narrative. …
“The motivation, the fuel for biblical manhood is love. It makes the engine run. I’m telling you, we’re all twisted. …
“Brothers, quit being so hard on yourself. God knows. Love is the motivating force. If you want to say this phrase to your boys, ‘Be a man,’ you’d better not be talking about their emotions. You’d better not be talking about their hobbies. You’d better not be talking about their feelings. You’d better not be talking about that stuff. You’d better be talking about this. This is what it means to be a man. Do you want to play the man? This is what it looks like.”
——————————-
About Dalrock
Dalrock is a happily married man living with his wife and our two children in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. His posts explore how the post feminist world impacts himself and his family. He describes how feminists are capturing the evangelical institutions in America, reinterpreting Scripture to better fit their needs.
See his posts about Coplementarians. , especially these.
- Headship tomorrow and headship yesterday, but never headship today.
- She’s the boss, you’re a guest.
- Sheila will make a man out of you.
- A picture of Southern Baptist marriage.
- Pastor Wilson discovers the secret meaning of 1 Cor 7.
- Complementarian contempt for the servant’s heart.
See other posts about his work.
For More Information
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 society and gender issues, about feminism, about marriage, and especially these about the counter-revolution…
- Feminist revolutionaries seized control of colleges. Now come the tribunals…
- A brief guide to the new war of the sexes. Both sides are 100% right.
- America’s war of the sexes gets worse. Here’s why.
- Origin of the gender wars — Analysis by Allan Bloom.
- The war on masculinity is a war on men.
- Feminists are right: sexism is the answer!
Men constitute most killers and murderers and the earlier you accept that men comprise over 90% of prison populations the better for you. It’s due to toxic masculinity.
Andrew,
“It’s due to toxic masculinity.”
What’s your evidence for that conclusion, which you state so confidently?
What % of those men grew up with their biological fathers in their home, and what % of them were raised by single mothers?
Mr Generic,
The causes of crime are complex and poorly understood, as seen in the massive increase in crime rates after (roughly) 1960 and the fall after 1990. Lead, poverty, availability of drugs, rise & fall of education systems, economic changes? All we know is that simple explanations, such as single parents, have little ability to explain.
To mention just one factor — prisons are filled with, to a large extent, people with varying degrees of mental illness and with people of below-average IQs. In the past those men could earn a decent living (lower blue collar) by manual labor. Most of those jobs are either gone or pay below-living wages. So some of them turn to crime. That’s not a rational response to us, but seems so to them.
There is no magic bullet, that we know of today.
You might not be willing to pick up the sword, but your neighbor is…
Toxic hate of masculinity.
Thank you for providing me with ‘reason number 11,000,000’ for being a practising pre-Vatican II, Latin Mass attending Tridentine Roman Catholic.
I like your country’s Evangelicals, good people. Yet vulnerable to nonsense, as you describe.
Might I suggest that if your Evangelical Church falls to this particular agent of the adversary that you find, post haste, a traditional Catholic community such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (active in 39 US Diocese). You will be welcomed with open arms.
Interesting that our community’s two seminaries are filled with remarkable young men, and that our congregations are growing quite quickly. So are the other Traditional Catholic communities and congregations.
There are many reasons for this.
M. Bailey,
As an apostate Irish Catholic, the massive pedofile rings in the Roman Catholic Church — and the Church’s long support of them — were intolerable.
The subsequent scandals were just icing on the cake.
Tough times for Christianity. Perhaps Conversions to Islam will reshape the West.
Mr Kummer, I am not Irish, have no Irish ancestors and cannot speak to your issues there as I know very little about them.
I note that the Church here was infiltrated by homosexual male peddoes AFTER Vatican II, and that they were uncovered, investigated and kicked out by then-Archbishop Pell. The Church here then accepted responsibility for being infiltrated by homosexual male peddoes, offering apology and compensation with the 1996 Melbourne Initiative.
I also note that state institutions here had much worse problems with male homosexual peddoes, as do the Mosques (which have even more ghastly problems with FGM and child marriage/rape – the worst problem is that the Wahabist and Salafist mosques do not see that FGM and child marriage/rape are problems at all. Few of these have been or are being addressed.
So your point is somewhat obscure to me.
My point was that is an Evangelical Church falls to the issue you identified, returning to original Christianity seems like a good option.
As to importing large numbers of mohammedans, remember that Egypt was something like 90% Christian in 1800. Two centuries of merciless religious oppression later it’s down to about 10%. Importing an unassimilable culture into a country which has none of the mechanisms of a settler society (we do) cannot work. And no European country has any of the mechanisms of a settler society.
Bailey,
“I note that the Church here was infiltrated by homosexual male peddoes AFTER Vatican II,”
That goes beyond my little knowledge of how the Church got to this point. My guess (guess!) is that the widespread problems in the 1960s (shown in lawsuits in the past 2 decades) shows that the problem predates VII. Note that this appears to be a problem affecting the RCC across the world. In some regions, the Church responded well (as you say Australia did). In some they resisted even acknowledging the problem, and the fight continues.
It’s not clear to me that the most senior leadership has either accepted responsibility or committed to change. Example here in the recent news.
“I also note that state institutions here had much worse problems with male homosexual peddoes, as do the Mosques”
I haven’t seen that, but the subject is outside my areas of interest. Some comparative research would be interesting to see, but it might be too early for that to be done.
“So your point is somewhat obscure to me.”
I stated it obscurely. I was thinking of the series of scandals (which you mentioned in your reply), in which Cardinal Theodore McCarrick (now exC-Cardinal) the most recent example. The rot runs deep.
“returning to original Christianity seems like a good option.”
As Shaw often said, in many ways, Christianity might be a good thing — if anyone ever tried it.
“As to importing large numbers of mohammedans,”
I’ve written quite a few posts about the madness of the West’s open borders policy.
Andrew- yes, that testosterone thing… the majority of those committing violent crime are men. And yes, that is what would represent toxic masculinity. But the impulse to defend, the impulse to fight for what is right, with force, and with weapons if needed is also a testosterone fueled trait- aggression. What Jessup, in “a few good men” did get right, despite his flawed interpretation was that: “Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns … You don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like “honor”, “code”, “loyalty”. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.”
That’s what masculinity has become now, a punchline in a bad feminist joke. Sad where we have arrived. I suspect this is the result of the dramatic level of success of capitalism that has allowed this level of leisure and complacency. You can say what you like about feminism, male traits, how boys (and or girls) should be raised, but this is giving rise to anomalies in male growth and behaviors. Boys still tend to play with trucks and guns, and girls with dolls an playing house. Not all, but generally its true. Hormonal imprinting even before birth has done its job. Even women who were born with virilizing hormonal milieu’s grow up behaviorally more like boys than feminine girls. (All generalizations, but generally accurate). It is true in most mammalian animal species as well- get rid of the testes during gestation and they are born less aggressive, etc. What we should be doing is channeling that in the right way rather than trying to quash that. As it is, we are encouraging the alpha traits as the bad boys that women want until they want to get married, and then they look for the docile men who have been so beaten down and acculturated in a feminist mold that they could defend nothing. It is actually what Osama bin Laden had counted on- the softening of the western male to the point that they could not fight. We may still get there, but thankfully we have enough men who still can. Sorry for the long post, it is alot to have to chew on.
Barry,
“Andrew- yes, that testosterone thing”
Testosterone is a biological factor, the opposite of the social training/indoctrination called “toxic masculinity.” It is one factor differentiating men from women.
Another factor, combining biological and social factors, is selection of mates by women. They might be selecting for the behavioral characteristics called “toxic masculinity.” That selection was muted in the past by social controls on women’s sexuality and mate choice. Now feminism has liberated women from those controls, and we can more clearly see women’s natural selection processes.
As has become increasingly obvious, women tend to prefer bad boys. Social scientists call this selection for “Dark Triad” characteristics. See details (and links to research) here.
Ideologs (including the religious kind) use their imaginations (fact free) to blame whatever is useful for them. Satan, the Fall, toxic masculinity, capitalism, whatever. They are chaff in our social machinery, screwing up society since forever. The sooner we stop listening to them, the better off we’ll be.
Single motherhood leads to toxic masculinity if we base it off of prison state
Lexet,
I’m afraid not, in two senses.
First, by “toxic masculinity” feminists usually describe the behavior of average men. They are explicitly NOT referring just to violent criminals.
Second, the causes of crime are nothing so simple as “single motherhood.” See my explanation upthread.
The toxic hate and labeling of masculinity. I think weak people fear the actual real potential of masculinity. But the toxic part is the feminist hate narrative.
If all masculinity is toxic then fatherless children have an advantage.
But if fatherless children are overly represented in general criminal activity then the fatherless advantage is definitely not the case.
Tim,
Wow. That’s a brilliant and original thought. I don’t know why that wasn’t obvious.
It’s an easy winner for Best of Thread! Perhaps Best Comment of the Year.
I love Dalrock but the quality of the comments here is much better.
I think you were correct in your comments about Chandler on Dalrock’s site: he’s an effeminate version of Driscoll. These guys tend to have big skeletons in their closet and they’re not natural alphas, so they’re authority over their “churches” is tenuous.
Listening to Chandler talk about fighting or manliness or work is unpleasant since he is a stranger to them. He doesn’t look and sound like he’s been in a fight. He’s used to winning with words in environments where words are the only way you’re allowed to win such as modern American Evangelicalism. He probably hasn’t worked in the trades or much with his hands at all, so when he talks about work it’s kind of like a career bureaucrat trying to describe it.
I bet a large chunk of his wife’s attraction to him is based on the fact that he’s in charge of a megachurch. Since he’s such a public figure, he’s one Twitter two-minutes’ hate away from being fired by the church board like Paige Patterson and he knows it so he has to be a feminist (Thin complementarian) as much as possible.
Rev. Shawn Mathis of Providence OPC has some excellent rebuttals of (very) thin complemtarianism such as Chandler promotes. They’re found on SermonAudio.
PRCD,
Thank you for the complement about the comments. I, like everyone running websites, have struggled with this. I’ve chosen to go for quality over quantity. It’s bad for volume, but let’s me read the comments with minimal pain.
“Since he’s such a public figure, he’s one Twitter two-minutes’ hate away from being fired by the church board like Paige Patterson and he knows it so he has to be a feminist (Thin complementarian) as much as possible.”
That’s interesting! We don’t understand someone unless we see why his actions are logical given his personal perspective. My summary fails that test, but your’s passes it!
Your blog gets very little traffic, hence the low number of comments, hence choosing “quality over quantity” (what a choice!). I can only guess at how much time you spend actively curating the comments to make sure the few positive ones aren’t drowned out by negative ones.
Normad,
“Your blog gets very little traffic, ”
What is your estimate of the FM website’s traffic per month?
I would use Amazon’s Alexa to estimate site traffic. Compare your numbers to any other smaller political blog like TomDispatch or Lawyers, Guns, and Money if you want a good laugh.
Or just count the comments per post. 100, 200, 300 comments per post are typical of similar blogs. This blog pushes 50 on a good day and this is ignoring the fact that about half the comments on here are yours.
Nomad,
(1) “Your blog gets very little traffic”
Not a good guess. The WordPress counter at the bottom of the right-side menu bar shows 8.2 million pageviews since we opened the FM website on Thanksgiving 2007. That’s 128 months, for an average of about 65 thousand per month. That include the first year of slow growth, starting from scratch. That include months in which all the authors were too busy to post much (or anything).
That’s ancient history. Traffic in the past 19 months (since Jan 2017) is 90 thousand per month. In months when I’m posting regularly, the FM website gets over 120 thousand per month. In July I’ve missed many days, and mostly reposted material from other websites — and we got 94 thousand pageviews.
We’ve never promoted the website, nor did any marketing or SEO work. Our practices are mostly the opposite of best practices. Instead of appealing to one of America’s tribes, we present material from a wide range of perspectives — Left to Right. Pissing off everybody at one point or another.
(2) Comparisons with other websites
I’ve seen surveys of active professionally-managed websites showing median monthly pageviews of 30-50 thousand. The FM website is the opposite of professionally managed, but gets 2x to 3x the median. That would put us in the top percentiles.
Compare that traffic of 3 to 4 thousand per day with common benchmarks.
10 Ten visits is quite achievable for any site, but it will require a little work. Not much, just a little.
100 A small to moderate sized business can get 100 visits if the site is well promoted.
1,000 Large businesses can get a thousand daily visits just through their branding, but other sites would need something out of the ordinary to attract this many people. This would be a good target for a niche site or a local community site.
(3) “Compare your numbers to any other smaller political blog like TomDispatch or Lawyers, Guns, and Money”
That’s nuts. TomDispatch features original material from nationally-known experts, run by a full-time professional. LGM is a hard-core Leftist website – the opposite of the FM website — with a roster of nationally-known academics (ie, lots of time to write). Neither are “small” — they are large!
The FM website is run by me, posting material in a few minutes per day late at night.
Glad to clear up your falsehoods. Good-bye.
Nomad,
“Or just count the comments per post.”
That’s just daft. Some websites, usually focused on tribal truths, have scores of comments per post. Mostly one or lines of cheers and chaff. That’s not us. Here we get longer comments — fewer, more thoughtful, often rich in data and insights.
Comments are a chore or painful for most website operators. Everybody struggles with the choice of open websites (mostly chaff) or spending the time to have moderated/curated websites with fewer but better comments. The FM website is on the extreme end of that spectrum. We have gotten 56+ thousand comments on our 4,204 posts. That’s aprox 13 per post.
“100, 200, 300 comments per post are typical of similar blogs. ”
That’s delusionally high. This is run by one guy, as a hobby (not a team of professional writers or academics or journalists, with the time they have in abundance).
Men built or invented nearly everything. Women can’t do a man’s work and even if they could, they won’t. Why? Well they might get their hands dirty or break a fingernail. If they get a cut on their hand they’ll whine and take the rest of the day off. The next day they show up with a bandage on the nick and demand light duty because they’re injured. In some places women have to do hard work but that’s not in the US where they’re spoiled beyond having to take a construction or mechanic job. Look around. How many women even know how a car engine works? How many care about welding?
I hear the Me Too dogs barking but are they barking about the millions of single mothers living in poverty? No. Do they bark about crappy health care? No. Do they bark about women and children killed by America’s illegal wars?
What they want is rights they refuse to extend to poor, foreign or non-white women. Blame Russia.
Rabbit,
“Women can’t do a man’s work ”
That seems a bit broad (pun!). Women have proven that they can do most “man’s work.” Many jobs done by women were once men’s jobs (eg, teacher, secretary).
So very true
Women have proven that they can do most “man’s work.” Many jobs done by women were once men’s jobs (eg, teacher, secretary).
Might that not merely prove that for a long time men were doing what was actually women’s work?
Feeriker,
“Might that not merely prove that for a long time men were doing what was actually women’s work?”
Or vice versa. Who knows? Who cares?
The real bottom line is that technology has changed the world. Women are not condemned to choose between frequent child-bearing and celibacy. Tech has devalued physical strength in many fields (machines do it better) and shifted the emphasis to mental work — at which the average woman is as good as the average man.
The problem with men is they are surprisingly defensive for something so obvious. It doesn’t matter wat d underlying factors are; what matters is over 90% of prison are populated by men and most violent crime are committed by men. It needs no further analysis. Toxic Masculinity is driven by the egos of men; ego drives murder, domestic violence and other forms of male toxicity. U are more likely to be robbed by a man than by a woman. You are more likely to be killed by a man than by a woman. We should all be feminists! This is not to say masculinity is or toxic. A good example of toxic masculinity is men not admiting their violence rates due to ego.
Andrew,
Making up stuff is not an answer, no matter how confidently you do so. Do you have any evidence that “toxic masculinity” is responsible? There are a host of other possible explanations.
Can you please define the term, “toxic masculinity” for us? If there’s a toxic masculinity, why isn’t there a toxic femininity or hyperfemininity?
Of course men are more violent. Fighting is to men as childbirth is to women. There are good and bad uses of violence. No one on here is disputing male incarceration rates for violent crimes.
PRCD,
Terms in general use seldom have precise meanings. People aren’t like that. Also, meanings evolve over time.
“Can you please define the term, “toxic masculinity” for us?”
Here’s my def (i.e., what feminists mean by the term): what men do that they profess not to like in a specific circumstance. Sometimes that is an actual preference (i.e., aggressive beta advances by guys they don’t like). Sometimes it is a professed but not actual preference (e.g., aggressive jerkboy advances by a high-status alpha).
“The real bottom line is that technology has changed the world. Women are not condemned to choose between frequent child-bearing and celibacy. Tech has devalued physical strength in many fields (machines do it better) and shifted the emphasis to mental work — at which the average woman is as good as the average man.”
Tech may have de-valued physical strength to a degree, but machines cannot be repaired without male strength and cognition. There are huge cognitive differences between men and women making us inventive and able to fix things. This is explained in the books “The Male Brain” and “The Female Brain.” Women also, for the most part don’t have the physical strength to tighten bolts on machines (how many women can even change a tire)?
Granted, men are less able to do these things now than their fathers because societal decline has discouraged strength, male enterprise, and encouraged us to play vidya games, but our (dorman) natures are still what they were since Adam.
Thank you, Dalrock. A good assessment. Christian Husbands do have authority in their own home. A N.T. authority to serve. And yes, according to the Apostle Paul, wives are still urged to submit to their own husbands, just as the Church submits to Christ. Sorry the feminists reject this to their own sorrow. As Elizabeth Elliott was fond of saying: “Stand true to your calling to be a man. Real women will always be relieved and grateful when men are willing to be men.”
― Elisabeth Elliot, The Mark of a Man
I, for one, am a very long term reader of this blog (one of those from 2007-8). This has long been one of the most insightful places to visit on the web.
Comment numbers do not indicate high readership. A place like here, with high quality discussion managed by our gracious host, deters people who have little to add. One just needs to look at the garbage 1,000+ comment threads on other sites to appreciate this discussion.
As to your topic, men need to embrace masculinity, but too many men can’t even see what it is. I cringe every time at church when a man talks about deferring to his wife and obeying his wife and that it his duty to make his wife feel happy and so forth.
There is a huge connection to broken homes and crime, but there are plenty of broken men from intact homes……
Men who rule the roost and make good Patriarchs are rare. Many “intact” homes are actually scenes of anarchy and dysfunction.
Pingback: The right has capitulated in the culture wars. | Dalrock
Pingback: The NuMale Evangelicals – Bryce Sharper