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

Friday, October 10, 2008

Book Announcement

This is an announcement that the book Rethinking "Getting Serious about Getting Married" : A Biblical Response to Debbie Maken's Book and to the Assault on Unmarried Men by Religious Leaders is now available at Lulu.com.

For those of you who don't know what the fuss is about, here is an excerpt from the preface of the book:
What you have before you is a critical review of Debbie Maken's book, Getting Serious about Getting Married. Why this review and why the big deal? Simple. Many changes that have taken place over the last several decades have impacted the way men relate to women and have impacted any prospects men have of being happily married. As a man, I am concerned about the fallout of these changes and what they mean for men of today and men of tomorrow. It is true that Mrs. Maken's book is primarily directed towards a female audience, but unfortunately most of her ire is aimed at men. I believe that she has become the poster girl for those voices in our churches who want to tar and feather men for the difficulty women now face in getting married. The circulation and popularity of her book merely reinforces my suspicion that the gynocentrism and misandry of the larger culture has found its way even among Evangelicals. I fear that if enough people buy into Mrs. Maken's message, the religious prejudice now directed at single men will only intensify. That is why I refuse to be silent.
The book is more than a critique of Mrs. Maken's work, however. It is also an answer to the anti-male treatment that religious men have been experiencing at the hands of religious pundits.

As some of you may recall, a critique of Debbie Maken's book was posted at the Scripturally Single blog in sixteen installments about two years ago. The original intent to make the critique available in book format has finally, if not belatedly, been realized. The book will retail at Lulu.com for about seven to eight dollars, but downloads are available for free. The price you pay for the book is essentially for some glossy thing that you can cuddle up to with your overpriced latte. The author is not making much, if anything. He will probably get less than a dollar a book when it hits Amazon.com and probably nothing if ordered from Lulu, or vice versa. The basic intent in making it available through the big distributors is to let a wider audience know how some people stand on the issues.

Take care.

21 comments:

Triton said...

Anakin, you're fantastic. Your work at Scripturally Single was a truly Herculean effort; condensing it into convenient book format is the icing on the cake. And giving away the download for free should be enough to convince everyone of your motives and conviction (unlike Maken, who is mainly in it for the "many luxury vacations").

Maybe I'll email a copy to Mohler... ;)

Something Feral said...

Congratulations! I should have wandered over here sooner, but I'm easily distrac-

Ooh, shiny...

Anyway, I'll read it in eBook format, and pushing on the Great Unwashed, as I'm experiencing a larger-than-normal audience that is receptive to my ideas as of late (with the economy and everything).

Elusive Wapiti said...

Anakin, thanks for doing this and I'll definitely be reading.

Also, didja happen to notice a little throwdown recently (HT to Christina) over at Boundless?

Appears another leader is saying that SAHDs should be a matter of church discipline.

Seems like another instance of making human conventions into God's to me.

It's looking like mainstream Christianity is getting more and more toxic to men each day.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Sorry, here's the link

Looks like the thread is dead, though.

Anakin Niceguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anakin Niceguy said...

Yeah, EW, I saw that article. I thought about panning it, and yet the readers that commented have done a good job of exposing the dogma for what it is - unscriptural legalism. I think passages like the Provider one in 1 Tim, etc. have been misused and misexegeted so many times, there needs to be an entry made for some interpretations at Snopes.com.

Amir Larijani said...

Leave it to Motte to resort to impute Scripture in such a way as to exclude division-of-labor that, while certainly not the norm, is hardly sin.

If someone from the left had done the same thing, I would suggest that conservative scholars would be ripping such a one all over the fruited plain.

But when a right-leaning commentator--for Focus on the Family--does it, he gets a pass.

Christina said...

like i said on my blog, I'm not going to say SAHDs are lame excuses for men (honestly, I like guys that like their kids and know how to cook and clean), but I still think they should remain the exception to the rule.

I think that men are much more capable of shaping society outside the home than women are in ways that I outlined and probably more that I don't fully understand - but I'm operating under the limited scope of the time consuming and limiting exercise of child-bearing (i'm a woman, I work with what I know and understand =p)

If it became the rule for men to be the primary care-givers, I don't see it lasting very long. First of all, i don't think there'd be a whole lot of kids in the future for dads to raise. And if there were, there'd be some interesting shifts in the economy and I think technology as well...either that or an uprise of retarded and deformed children =p

Personally, I just see a lot more use (need/importance?) for men outside the home than inside (not that there's nothing for them to do inside!)

Not that its really that big an issue anyway...I mean, marriage is on the skitz and no one's having babies anymore.

Anonymous said...

We are sick of hearing what you think, Christina. Decades of taking educational and job opportunities away from men, and wrapping pop-psychology and feminism in scripture have nearly doomed our society. We need action, not a kinder gentler Maken.

Mordecai Lament said...

Christina,

You probably aren't going to like me for saying it, but I call it like I see it:

You preach fatherhood, yet apparently, no man is good enough to father children, as your comments indicate. (I'm not sure if that was tongue in cheek or not, I'm assuming not, but have been known to be wrong.)

You demand that men get married, yet no man is good enough.

You think he does more good outside the home, but the view you have seems to me to indicate you see him as a tool.

Forgive my bluntness but, Can you explain to me: A. How this isn't feminism seeing as men are not fit to raise children? B. How this doesn't devalue a guy into a meal ticket?

I'm trying not to sound angry, but it's a little hard when this sounds like everything I've heard from Maken and company for the last few months.

SavvyD said...

Hmmm...I will read it. It's curious to me because not ALL of Maken was bad. There really are people who have habits that do prevent them from relating well to the opposite sex. Note--that's both sexes. And some people refuse to give up habits that later destroy their marriages. It's about compromise in a relationship. It's hard to understand what is true anymore when society in general is so messed up. Some of you probably think I'm fairly evil because I've made some mistakes while dating and then blogged about them. So be it. I've been told so many times that the only way to snag a man these days is to have sex with him because they want to know if they will be happy. But no one is really any happier. I went out with a guy recently where we started to discuss church issues. He is Greek Orthodox, so they don't have the same problems as the prot churches with feminization. In any case I'm very tired, so I'm going to go to sleep.

singlextianman said...

Most excellent book, Anakin.

Amir Larijani said...

I have no qualms against SAHDs. As long as we're in agreement that it is the exception to the general rule.

That means:

(a) we don't look down on SAHDs.
(b) we do not castigate the corresponding working moms as "feminists"
(c) we still accept the general rule that men ought to be the primary breadwinners.

How a family practices division of labor is up to them. On the other hand, it is historical--and modern--reality that men, as a general rule, have been, are, and will continue to be primary breadwinners for their families.

Denial of that is tantamount to denial of gravity.

Christina said...

Oh wow...

I'm curious...how is what I said feminist when

a) I essentially state that women aren't capable of maintaining the working economy and technology of today for extended periods of time

b) I essentially consign women to the household where I think they belong

Interesting that I'm called a feminist when

a) I acknowledge society's needs for them in the efficient running of our society.

You have an issue with me taking a cold and calculating look at it? Here, let me be fair in my cool calculation:

1) Women have babies and, if children are a valuable asset, they should be strongly encouraged to do THAT as the rule (with some exception allowed, of course).

2) Because women should be having babies and its difficult to operate in the same fashion as a man while carrying a child, they should be taught skills that can be utilized while carrying a child to full term and weaning the child off her breast milk.

Now for the man's side of things.
1) A man is more capable of consistent work in physically stressful capacity and should be encouraged to work to provide for his pregnant wife and growing family.

2) Because a man does not need to take time out for labor and to wean a child off breast milk, he is more capable of jobs that require consistent and uninterrupted attention.

So, in a thoroughly cool and calculated fashion, it makes complete and logical sense for a society that wishes to grow, progress, and "better itself" for women to stay home with the children and men to be the primary breadwinners.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

I have never seen so many people in one place that so thoroughly and willfully read into words that aren't there! I thought that was women's job in this whole battle of the sexes!

I NEVER said men are incapable of being good fathers. Where did you see that? I said I think that overall, the MORE IMPORTANT place for men (in a society and in the family unit) is being the primary breadwinner. That does not, in any way shape or form, imply that men are NOT needed in the home. Children need their fathers just as much as they need their mothers. And its a need that only grows as time goes on and they grow. If I wanted to say that they weren't, I woulda said "Because men aren't needed in their homes, they should confine themselves to outside the home, where they are more needed." I said they are more needed outside the home, but that's because if the majority of the workforce were women, we'd see a decline in birth rate - therefore making a father's need inside the home moot...because there ARE NO CHILDREN!

(OMG, but I do believe this is the trend CURRENTLY.../gasp)

I don't get it...I believe that I just now upheld the man's need in society and family. By withdrawing him from his proper role and women usurping their positions and consigning men to be of no importance, you get the following:

1) A declined birth rate
2) A poorer or inflated economy because women simply don't work as much as men or they don't output as much
3) A drop in technological progress
4) A growing population of listless men without purpose

I think that there is some (not much) role for men as SAHDs as an exception (and working mothers as the exception). However, I think there'd be a lot of issues if it were to become the RULE of society for men to stay home and women to work.

Anonymous, you are an idiot and need to learn to read.

Oddly, I think a society is stronger where strong marriages exist. That doesn't make me a "Maken"; gentler or otherwise. I'm not telling you that your sinning if you don't get married. Heck, I could give a rat's arse if you do or don't.

I have a strong issue with men who do exactly what they accuse feminists of doing - and that is telling women that they have no rightful and productive place in society. Sorry, feminism did that to the men, and you see where that gets you - why the HELL do you think doing it back is going to be any good?

If you would actually READ what I write rather than write me off as just another woman with something to say, you might actually discover that *gasp* I'd prefer men taking back their jobs and women actually seeing WORTH in having and raising kids...while acknowledging the man's worth in their kids's lives and society.

But geez louise, I believe we ain't gonna get very far if men don't even think we have any worth in THAT.

Christina said...

in my second (a), *them* is supposed to be "men".

Lol...I edited the post and took out the original (a) because I have never in any way stated it in any of my writings. Though in the last post, I finally do.

Mordecai Lament said...

Christina,

Perhaps then I owe you an apology, because I misinterpreted your quote about about how if only men raised children, they'd turn out as social retards. It would appear that I missed more than that as your second reply seems to explain much. When compared to the first post, this makes much more sense and answers my questions. Also, please forgive my knee jerk reaction. It's what happens after years of defending yourself for the crime of being male.

Wonder Woman said...

It's a crime to be a male? Wow... and they say us women are dramatic ;-)

Must read. Will read. Reaching, grasping, just a little closer...

Thanks :)

Christina said...

ML,

Thank you for the apology and you are forgiven.

I'm glad my 2nd post shed a bit more light on the situation.

Christina said...

Oh...ML - the "children as retards" was because if the woman was doing a lot of the work that men are capable of doing while she is pregnant, its likely that some jobs that require a lot of advanced technology would result in a mentally retarded or deformed child at birth.

Some jobs with such a risk include working jobs as mundane as manufacturing circuit boards to stuff as exciting as what Madame Curie did with Radiation Technology. Jobs both big and small expose women to chemicals and other dangers that can have a VERY damaging effect on a growing "fetus". Lasers, garbage handling, sewage maitenance, computer engineering, electrical engineering - all of them have very dangerous roles that a pregnant women should not be doing.

And if she were doing them, the kids she bears have a higher shot at being retarded =p

Mordecai Lament said...

Okay, good. I wasn't completely following that. I read that as, "What... you think that a Dad raising the kid develops them into a social retard? And HOW exactly is that different than feminism."

So yeah. Now I get that you weren't going there. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Blogger said...

You might be eligible to receive a $1,000 Amazon Gift Card.