A blog for Christian men "going their own way."

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Estrogelical Glossary (Humor)

Dear Bible-Believing Man,

Whenever you visit the websites of religious "relationship experts" and other such pundits, do you feel a disconnect between what you affirm and what they affirm? Are you confused by what they say, given that they claim to speak for believers such as yourself? Never fear! Your days of frustration are over! I hereby present the Estrogelical Glossary, a handy guide to the lingo others use when talking about "biblical manhood."

------

accountability (n): (1) A church ministry designed to assist men in overcoming their sexuality. (2) A similar ministry designed to help people that might otherwise think for themselves.

beauty (n): (1) A quality that man are commanded by the church to see only internally in women. (2) A quality women see only externally with each other.

biblical (adj): Traditional.

call (v): To demand another believer do something (Note: Always used in the passive voice as an auxiliary verb - e.g., "Men are called to be providers" as opposed to "I call men to be providers.").

children
(n): (1) A plurality of small human beings that are an unqualified blessing between a minimum quantity of two and a maximum quantity of whatever number a religious pundit feels like siring himself. (2) A fashion accessory for Christian women.

Christian: (1) (adj) Culturally reactionary. (2) (n) One who agrees with the theology of the lecturers for T4G.

church (n): (1) A building with a beautiful, commodious auditorium. (2) A civic club that uses hymn books (not to be confused with a local fellowship of believers who have all things in common and bear one another's burdens).

conservative (adj): Fashionably authoritarian.

counter-cultural (adj): A quality ascribed to customs and traditions in order to present them as being biblical and trendy, when in fact, they are neither.

courtship (n): (euphemism) (see dating)

dating (n): Something between lust and fornication. (see also courtship)

defraud (v): The act of just wanting to be friends with a woman.

discernment (n): The degree of scrupulosity bound on others that one is willing to personally adopt himself.

DTR (n): Short for "defining the relationship" (also "dudes tolerating rejection").

family: (1) (n) A mother, father, and two or more children (contrast with a widow and two children, a couple with one child, etc.). (2) (n) The "basic unit of society," contrasted with single people who are not a part of society. (3) (adj) Religiously conservative ("family values," "family bookstore," or "family activities").

feel (v): The female alternative to knowing.

husbands (n): A male indentured servant.

initiate (v): Exercising the prerogative of doing something constructive or meaningful about a relationship (e.g., "Real men initiate and women don’t!").

intentional (n): Purposefully compliant.

leadership (n): (1) The act of making decisions that are a part of adulthood but are not particularly pleasant ("Men are called to leadership, not women!"). (2) A collectivity of religious individuals who "lead" primarily in ways other than by example ("Trust your leadership in your church!").

lust (n): Showing even the slightest bit of heterosexual interest in the opposite sex, chiefly when men are interested in women.

man (n): A recovering pervert.

manly (adj.) : Acting like a jock, but religious.

marriage (n): Church-approved relationship wherein women exchange sex for financial support, not to be confused with prostitution, a practice that is sinful and demeaning to women.

mature (adj): Thoroughly indoctrinated.

ministry (n): An enterprise which involves dispensing platitudes, dictums, and non-expertise for profit.

morality (n): Responsible and ethical behavior regarded solely in terms of sexuality.

pastor (n): (euphemism) (see preacher)

pornography (n): A type of media that presents an unrealistic and demeaning view of the opposite sex (not to be confused with romance novels and anything relationship experts write about men).

preacher (n): A person in the habit of complaining about other believers who nonetheless gets paid for it.

protector (n): A man who engages in stereotypically masculine acts of aggressiveness and stoicism, even though the woman in his company is most likely not in immediate danger of anything substantive.

provider (n): The one who makes the larger paycheck ("Women are not called to be providers for their families because they are not supposed to provide anything!").

purity (n): Restraint from all indications of being heterosexual prior to marriage.

real men (n): Men who comply with one's demands.

self: (n): One's welfare (always to be denied for the sake of others who have a low opinion of it).

sex (n): A reward dispensed to a male pet who obeys his owner.

sin (n) (1) Archaic: A transgression of God's law. (2) Doing whatever a religious writer doesn't like.

singleness (n): The status of being alone and lonely--a tragedy for women, but a sin for men.

submit (v): The graciousness of a woman shown in her acceptance of whatever preferential treatment a man gives her.

wife (n): A career woman with a retirement plan.

woman (n): A asexual, angelic being who likes children and money.

worldview (n): A coherent system of wrong-headed ideas ("We need to develop a worldview to counter that of our secular culture.").

worldly (adj) (synonym for secular): Akin to whatever non-religious people embrace, whether it makes perfect sense or not.

27 comments:

Triton said...

That's quite the impressive effort, Anakin.

I especially like this part of the definition of family: "contrasted with single people who are not a part of society." I wonder who you could be alluding to. Hmmm... ;)

Amir Larijani said...

Classic!

wombatty said...

Beautiful Anakin - simply beautiful.

Where there is smoke there is fire and where there is humor there is truth.

many_luxury_vacations said...

ROFL!!

I almost fell out of my chair laughing! Brilliant piece.

Christina said...

I'm sitting somewhere between mild amusement and mild offense.

=p

Well done.

Now that you have THEIR definitions down, what about yours? (Not trying to be contrary...just curious)

Peter said...

Brilliant! So funny, and yet so true.

Ken said...

Oh man, you had me chuckling. Great stuff. Thanks for doing that.

nocigar said...

Great idea, Christina. Here's a baker's half dozen to start 'em off:


defraud (v.): what attractive, friendly women do when guys they're not attracted to end up feeling attracted to them.

flirtatous (adj.) : friendly.

initiate (v) : something that undermines "male leadership", even in its absence.

jealous (adj.) : something women make men feel.

slut (n): (1) a less attractive woman who "initiates" a friendly conversation (2) A more attractive woman who "initiates" friendly conversation with any guy other than the guy who likes her.

submit (v): (1) what women should do for "me" (but not other guys) before marriage to demonstrate suitability for same, (2) let me have my own way, agree with me even when I'm wrong, laugh at my jokes even when they're not particularly well crafted, listen to me talk about myself ad nauseam, talk only in terms of my own interests, feel attracted to me (but express it *very* carefully) regardless of my level of hygiene, grooming or fitness (3) love me JUST THE WAY I AM.

SavvyD said...

What differentiates the wives and the prostitutes is that the wives are also supposed to raise the man's children, keep the house clean, cook dinner, be nice to him and spend his money without his permission. ;) See I Love Lucy for the perfect example.

Anonymous said...

I notice the women commenting here are pointing their comments at the kinds of men they have experienced: detached, obnoxious users and players who never care about pleasing a woman, just being arrogant, having fun and moving on.

Whether they are speaking to good men trying to live a decent Christian life or speaking to the dregs of the dating pool, the message is the same "All Men are Pigs". It is simply false.

When women's first reaction to men is to try and understand instead of condemning them all instantly, we may see some progress.

Anonymous said...

I notice the men commenting here are pointing their comments at the kinds of women they have experienced: detached, obnoxious users and players who never care about pleasing a man, just being arrogant, having fun and moving on.

Whether they are speaking to good women trying to live a decent Christian life or speaking to the dregs of the dating pool, the message is the same "All women are b****es". It is simply false.

When men's first reaction to women is to try and understand instead of condemning them all instantly, we may see some progress.

SavvyD said...

Actually, my comment was meant to be amusing. No more, no less. ;)

Anonymous said...

Yeah, SavvyD, I got that. And I'm not sure how the first anonymous got the impression that any of the (presumably) three females who posted are making a blanket statement against the opposite sex, anymore than the six males cheering Anakin's definitions were. Kinda gives credence to that Marlo Thomas quote "A man has to be Joe McCarthy to be called ruthless. All a woman has to do is put you on hold." : )

Christina said...

Anonymous on The Men Commenting Here post,

Thank you so much for that response to the Anonymous on The Women Commenting Here post.

Amir Larijani said...

Anonymous says:
Whether they are speaking to good women trying to live a decent Christian life or speaking to the dregs of the dating pool, the message is the same "All women are b****es". It is simply false.

I cannot answer for Triton (although I'd say he's probably on the same page) but to follow what Anakin and myself are addressing, you must first be aware of the culture that he is confronting, which involves prominent evangelical leaders and authors (Al Mohler, Debbie Maken, occasionally our friends from Boundless, and other "counselors" who insist that men are always at fault when marriages fail).

That culture includes men (Steve Farrar, Motte Brown, Al Mohler) and women (most prominently Debbie Maken and to a lesser extent Candice Watters, and also Elisabeth Elliott).

Fact is, the men are sick and tired of getting kicked around like soccer balls, and told that if they were just more manly that the women would be dragging them to the altar, throwing them into bed, and having quiversful of children.

When men's first reaction to women is to try and understand instead of condemning them all instantly, we may see some progress.

Actually, when women--and even male evangelical leaders--stop kicking men around, you might see some progress. Respect is a two-way street.

Like I said, Anakin is addressing a culture that includes male AND female evangelical leaders and their cheap dogma. To suggest that he is attacking women in blanket fashion is to be unaware of the larger cultural issues in question.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Christina, but as I was pointing out on the thread about "raging indoctrinated feminists" (yawn! as if they are an abundant major influence today)...I see a pattern on this blog and it goes like this...

...the guys start complaining about women, and suddenly the women who frequent the blog are all ears. They do the characteristically female thing, which is to listen, empathize, gently probe and "challenge" (but not too much) - redirecting the discussion onto the cute/light territory when things get to heavy and it's clear the guys won't back down, which they never do -- on any point.

I would guess that most of the women think that by striving to see what has been presented as the male point of view, that somehow it's all going to move to a place of mutual understanding, but after observing the shenanigans here for the past couple of years, that has not been the case. It seems that these guys (despite presenting some good points) have managed to convince the women here that they are the ones so hard done by, that they have tried oh-so-hard, now it's up to women to understand them.

These guys are so stuck in their self-pity and this is not going to change. By delivering on all this one-sided empathy understanding (often by siding lavishly with the men, even when they are talking out their asses and don't deserve it), the women are not gaining their respect, but just enabling them at best-- and reinforcing their negative attention seeking at best.

For example, in your reponse to the post about women being more likely to divorce men than the other way around, you basically chalk it up to PMS, asking "I wonder how many other women realize how much an impact changing hormones can have on their decisions?".

Do you really buy into the notion expressed by many of the men here that the greater proportion of women seeking divorce is somehow an indication that women are less committed, more frivolous, or "hormonal", etc, etc.??? I appreciate your desire for a peaceful discussion of issues between the sexes, but sometimes it seems like you (and other women here) go overboard in aligning yourselves with them, without it really ending up in a place of reciprocal understanding and respect.

Amir Larijani said...

Anonymous says:
By delivering on all this one-sided empathy understanding (often by siding lavishly with the men, even when they are talking out their asses and don't deserve it), the women are not gaining their respect, but just enabling them at best-- and reinforcing their negative attention seeking at best.

While I don't completely buy the PMS argument--although I think Christina might have been expressing that sort of tongue-in-cheek--I also don't accept that she is lavishing undeserved respect on the men of this blog.

I've had run-ins with Christina. Knock-down, drag-outs even. To suggest that her respect for folks like myself and Anakin represent lapdoggery would be to ignore the real picture.

As for the glossary, Anakin clearly intended it for humor, and he is snidely attacking the subculture of evangelicalism which is fomenting the angst.

Again, you call them "worst-case scenarios", but we are talking about the leading voices of evangelical world.

Christina said...

You know Anonymous,

I think I've been commenting over here a bit longer than you.

I know whose respect I've gained, whose I haven't.

Elusive Wapiti, Triton, Anakin, Anonymous age 66, and Amir probably have a bit of respect for me.

MLV most certainly does not.

Because I choose to look at things differently and sometimes *shocking* I agree with them.

However, when someone crops up and says something completely uncalled for (and Amir is going to attack this next sentence) and start attacking the women that are commenting, rather than limiting it to "Feminists" and people like those they claim they are against, then I'm gonna start in on them. Triton, Amir, and Anakin have never done this since I've begun commenting here.

The Anonymous who made the first post ("ha ha...not" if it was you), voiced a sentiment I've heard plenty from some people around here. But it is not characteristic of all of them.

The ones that return respect when I give it, I will continue to treat respectfully. Those who don't, well...you get the idea.

But you have been thoroughly disrespectful - not only of the men on this blog, but of me as well.

You ain't doin yourselves any favors.

P.S.
My views on PMS, whether tongue-in-cheek or not, are forged in experience, discipline, observation, and living with enough brothers and sorority sisters that I could scream. My comments about it are not something I've heard from men, but from what I've observed in myself - and what I've noted about the education of self-control in people nowadays.

Anonymous said...

"You know Anonymous,

I think I've been commenting over here a bit longer than you...I know whose respect I've gained, whose I haven't....Because I choose to look at things differently and sometimes *shocking* I agree with them.
...you have been thoroughly disrespectful - not only of the men on this blog, but of me as well."

Actually, I think I have been commenting on this blog quite a bit longer than you, but that's neither here or there.

What I find *shocking* is not that you sometimes agree with the guys, but in the way that you are partial to them. And I think I have cause to point this out, considering the way that you (and learner) piled on savvy, who merely pointed out that there may be *some* worthwhile gains of feminism and got the usual response from the usual suspects. Not that her arguments shouldn't have been challenged, but it was unfair of you (and disrespectful, I might add) to single her out for "childish rebuttals and name calling" when we've seen plenty of that on both sides of the debate, and you can hardly make a case for one side being any worse than the other.

So you're hardly in a position to play prefect on the issue of "respect". Besides, when was I ever "thoroughly disrespectful" to you?

Oh, and since you're calling savvy on evading questions, I'll point out to you that you still didn't answer mine: Do you really buy into the notion expressed by many of the men here that the greater proportion of women seeking divorce is somehow an indication that women are less committed, more frivolous, or "hormonal"?

Amir Larijani said...

Anonymous asks:

Do you really buy into the notion expressed by many of the men here that the greater proportion of women seeking divorce is somehow an indication that women are less committed, more frivolous, or "hormonal"?

Not sure what the answer is, but it is probably worth examining from a statistical perspective.

It would also be worth quantifying just what people are classifying as "abuse".

After all, there are abusive wives, just as there are abusive husbands. And the way I've seen some wives define "abuse", they seem to be as guilty of it as the husbands.

Anonymous said...

"there are abusive wives, just as there are abusive husbands. And the way I've seen some wives define "abuse", they seem to be as guilty of it as the husbands."

Haven't we been over this stuff before? This is an example of what I meant on the other thread when I pointed out that you're:

"quick to boil so much of society's (and men's) problems down to sex wars and the female contribution to them (without looking much at the male contribution)"

It seems like a knee-jerk reaction for you. I can't help but think about what other facets to the issue get missed in the discussion because you're so focussed on nailing the women for something.

Christina said...

Anonymous,

I actually think that MANY (if not all) initial reactions to ANY situation in a woman can largely be traced to hormones.

The question is whether the woman realizes to STOP herself and ask herself what the basis for her reaction is.

From what I've seen, she doesn't.

If she does stop to figure out what the basis is and she realizes that maybe now is NOT such a good time to be making such an important decision and waits a week before logically analyzing (because hormones can affect logical processing), than 8 out of 10 times I bet she will not be able to justify her initial response to the situation.

But how much in today's society do you see people teaching self-control? Its "follow your heart" and "go with your instincts". Well wow...that's great advice right there. Especially if my instinct is to scream at my husband for being late for dinner *AGAIN* when its been the 3rd time in one week and you don't remember he had a deadline.

Yes, I buy into it. And it wasn't something pushed on my by these men. It was something I held to since I was 13 and my PMS was so bad I'd burst into tears over something stupid, or I'd think I have no friends...or how about at 24 years old, I'll be PMSing and my boyfriend has no signal...but I think he's avoiding my phone calls and with another girl...because he's 3 hours late for the gym...

Guess what, Anonymous? I don't need to let the boys think for me for me to agree with them.

And as for Savvy and the opinion that Feminism did ANYTHING good, I had the opinions I espoused on the other thread WAY before I started looking at blogs. I HATE Feminism and everything its done. And the good things attributed to it? They coulda been done without the Man-Hate and Anti-Feminity.

And as for Savvy's responses and why I was picking on her? Because towards the end, her responses were getting more and more emotional and you could TELL. It doesn't matter that she may have been making good points. She wasn't structured, she was too emotional, and yes - she did say somethings that were completely uncalled for. Yes, so did Triton...but not nearly so much as Savvy did. And if I gave her a hard time, its because I want her views to be treated respectfully even if they aren't agreed with. And your chiming in did NOT help situations any.

As for feminism? Yes, I think they have THOROUGHLY destroyed any hope of any reconciliation between the genders. And I have no problem blaming everything on them and did not need Amir's and Triton's and Anakin's help on forming that opinion.

So, thank you for accusing me of the same thing the feminist movement accuses me of - unable to form an opinion of my own and hold to my own beliefs and lacking of critical thinking skills. Just because I think a certain way, doesn't mean I was brain washed.

Anonymous said...

"I actually think that MANY (if not all) initial reactions to ANY situation in a woman can largely be traced to hormones...The question is whether the woman realizes to STOP herself and ask herself what the basis for her reaction is...From what I've seen, she doesn't."

This is hardly the exclusive domain of women! What about the hormonal processes involved with men and anger? Check out John Gottman's research on marriage whereby he found that men "flooded" more easily in situations of conflict and became less likely to control themselves and communicate effectively. He took blood and saliva samples to check out what was going on hormonally, as well as measured heart rates, GSR, took hours of videotape -- the most comprehensive research ever done on marriage. And yes, he made recommendations to wives not to "kitchen sink" their husbands, among other things. What's more, he found that divorce rates were lower among couples who shared more equitably with housework (and men got more sex!) and took more of a partnership approach to marriage (rather than husband lording over wife). He also challenges some outmoded feminist assumptions as well.

Feminism definitely needs to be rethought, but to overlook the reasons why women revolted in the first place is to offer an incomplete critique, since, as Gottman found in the subtleties in the marital communication, it doesn't take much to send us back there in ways that send couples headlong into divorce.

Christina said...

Hmmm...

John Gottman published his finding in 1994.

His subjects were likely to be in their late 20's to early 40's. Is that an acceptable assumption?

So the people he was studying were born between 1950-1970. They were raised in the more "oppressive" era for females... and more liberal era for males.

I think my argument still holds.

Here's the reason why:

Up to a certain point in time, mothers taught their daughters to maintain some control over their emotions. Men, not so much (to quote my grandfather, boys will be boys). There were definitly well parented men, too - the ones that had good control over their temper and emotions.

However, I think (seriously really do) that in the last 20-30 years (late 70's to present), parents aren't teaching a lot of self control to their daughters...but boys are put on ritlin and stuff to control their "wild mannerisms".

I don't think there's been a solid, well rounded, and comprehensive education for children, adolescents, and young adults of both sexes that emotions are NOT to be trusted. For men, the time period of this Gottman's study. For women, its now.

Currently, I think very few women have been taught to call emotions into question and not go with their "gut instinct" because its their gut instinct. I think more men are taught that now than women are.

And I think that the way divorce rates and who's filing has fluctuated in the last 60-70 years may correlate what I'm suggesting here...

Unfortunately, I'm no psychologist and I have no time to conduct so thorough an investigation - but I really think its worth looking into.

Christina said...

Oh - and male hormones are more constant than female hormones. A man's response to a certain situation is likely to be unvaried based on the time the situation occurs.

A woman's "normal" balance fluctuates through out the month, meaning situations that have a certain affect at one point in time likely will not have the same affect at another point in time.

I think that this was more widely accepted prior to the 60's and 70's, therefore (whether wrongly or rightly) women's responses to emotions were more disciplined than men's.

Anonymous said...

"John Gottman published his finding in 1994...His subjects were likely to be in their late 20's to early 40's. Is that an acceptable assumption?" Actually, his work is ongoing, being replicated across different cultures, different nations. Remember, a lot of Gottman's work has to do with monitoring physiological processes (GSR, heart rate, facial expressions would also partially fall into that category), so there's lot's of characteristic responses for the sexes that are quite universal.


"Up to a certain point in time, mothers taught their daughters to maintain some control over their emotions. Men, not so much (to quote my grandfather, boys will be boys). However, I think (seriously really do) that in the last 20-30 years (late 70's to present), parents aren't teaching a lot of self control to their daughters...but boys are put on ritlin and stuff to control their "wild mannerisms"."

Hmmm...I don't entirely buy this, since babyboomer parents are notoriously indulgent for both daughters and sons -- mothers in particular taking a "my son can do no wrong" attitude. Controlling "wild mannerisms" with ritalin, etc. is largely a classroom thing whereby girls simply do better because they are still more co-operative to the sit down and do your seat work thing.

"I don't think there's been a solid, well rounded, and comprehensive education for children, adolescents, and young adults of both sexes that emotions are NOT to be trusted." I wouldn't go so far as to say "emotions are NOT to be trusted", since as much as the heart is deceitful above all things, God has given us an emotional response system for a reason. Of course, you cannot go on "gut feelings" alone -- it's about listening to the head, heart and spirit. Even the "four spiritual laws" people got rid of that stupid train diagram.


"Oh - and male hormones are more constant than female hormones. A man's response to a certain situation is likely to be unvaried based on the time the situation occurs." Again, I don't entirely buy that -- Gottman talks about the physiological reactivity of the man's emotional response system requiring him to hold on to certain thoughts for the sake of emotional regulation. Which means mentally "staying in the cave" limiting themselves to beliefs, possibly erroneous ones, to keep emotions in check. So on the surface it looks like emotional stability, but not far underneath that surface, there can be a pretty flimsy compartments of anxious defenses shutting out the wholeness of the truth. Not that women don't also self-regulate that way, but perhaps the cyclical processes you've mentioned allow women more regular and dynamic interaction with the vissicitudes of their emotions, allowing them to be able to think and feel at the same time. Whereas men usually have to shut down inconvenient feelings, using whatever mental defenses -- based in fact or not -- to get on with the business of thinking.

Blogger said...

Trying to find the Ultimate Dating Site? Create an account to find your perfect date.