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

Saturday, January 3, 2009

Christian Men and MGTOW

Before last Christmas, two of my regular readers, Elusive Wapiti and Amir Larijani made some thought-provoking comments on my post, "So Sorry, But Not This Time, Amigo" with respect to the MGTOW movement. Amir wrote:
As for Christian men, I'm still skeptical as to how many of them proportionally are in the MGTOW/MRA camp. I'm not in that camp--although I can see the case for why one would want to be--and I don't personally know any who are.

I've seen a few of them in the blogosphere, but I've yet to see any stats on the MGTOW segment in the Church. I'd bet money that it is not a large one.
The question about how many religious men are in the MGTOW or MRA camp has been posed before. As a Christian man who has knowledge of the MGTOW movement, I thought I should shed some light on the issue. The question of who is "proportionally" in who's camp becomes tricky for the following reasons ...

1. The definition of the word "Christian." Do we mean someone with a casual belief in the Trinity? A traditional-minded man who infrequently attends Church (think of Joe Six-Pack south of the Mason-Dixon line). A devout adherent of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism, or some other branch of Christendom who deeply knows and practices the beliefs of his respective faith tradition? We might as well ask about the proportion of Christian men involved in the music industry or living on one's street corner.

2. I believe the MRA movement is small and I know the MGTOW movement is even smaller. The latter has only been around for about four years. Timewise, MGTOW is still in its diapers and it's hard to say what its future will be. With that in mind, we might as well ask about the proportion of any population of men in MGTOW. Also, there are men who espouse beliefs akin to the MGTOWers and yet don't label themselves as MGTOW. How do they fall into the equation?

So these are the problems of determining the proportionality of Christian men in the MGTOW/MRA movements. Let me note a few things about religious men:

1. Many of them, like their secular counterparts, are not aware of the MGTOW/MRA movements.

2. Some of them, like their secular counterparts, may have misunderstandings of what the MGTOW/MRA movements are about. This is especially the case with MGTOW. Some may falsely conclude that "Men Going Their Own Way" is inherently misogynistic or just a hedonistic, antinomian concept akin to what one finds in the Pick-Up Artist community. It's not true. MGTOW is a countermovement against feminism, statism, gynocentrism, and misandry.

3. Unfortunately, some religious men will reject MGTOW because they have a reactionary mindset and refuse to think critically about issues. Anti-intellectualism, authoritarianism, mindless conformity, and demagoguery continue to plague some people of faith.

4. I personally don't put too much stock in what the church crowd is doing, even in my own faith tradition. I endeavor to embrace what is true and what is right, regardless of what others believe. I answer to a higher authority than religious tradition (Mark 7:1-13; John 12:48; Acts 5:29). If a fellow Christian endeavors to challenge my beliefs, he will have to do it on the basis of God's Word, not because Pastor Billy Bob can't manage to rub two sticks of grey-matter together in his cranium. So, when many of my fellow Christians voted for McCain and his neocon platform, I voted for Chuck Baldwin. While many religious leaders push a trite, gynocentric, wage-slave understanding of "biblical manhood," I play a different tune. I subscribe to MGTOW because I believe MGTOW to be basically correct and morally justifiable, not because I want to be a part of the "winning team."

5. There is a story about a prophet who went about the city of Sodom, warning the citizens of their doom. In the story, a passerby exclaims to prophet, "Why are you wasting your time? You can't change these people." The prophet replied, "I prophecy not to change these people but to keep them from changing me." Or something like that. Anyway, I can't demand allegiance from any brother in Christ on my views on gender roles. I can only inform. If he wants to be a prisoner of his own device, that is his problem. At the very least, I write to encourage those men who already know something is wrong.

6. And, yes, there are religious men who know something is wrong. I've seen them on forums. They are receptive to thinking outside of the box. A groundswell at this point? Maybe not. But they are there. Consider this comment from a reader at MLV's blog:
Up here in Canada the megachurch pop christianity propaganda seems to be watered down somewhat but nevertheless these messages are insidious and increasingly pervasive. It's heartening to see that I am not the only male who is bewildered and more and more disgusted with the 'ideals' presented by the secular megachurch marriage propaganda. NOWHERE in the Bible does God lay down these rigid ideals for the genders.
Will this guy go MGTOW? Who knows. At least he is questioning what's going on. At any rate, EW said:
Also, I consider myself a Christian MGTOWer. Although my definition of MGTOW is probably a lot less bombastic than some. And it includes marriage, something that possibly a lot of other fellows do not, as they see marriage as something akin to slavery. Ironically not unlike the Second Wave femmarxists of auld.
Actually, MGTOW is not anti-marriage. I know of MGTOWers who are happily married even though a lot of other men have chosen bachelorhood. I recommend this link for anyone who wants to know what MGTOW is about. Let me also say this: There are descriptions of MGTOW but then there is the community of MGTOWers. I've interacted with these men long enough to know what the common beliefs are. They may have slightly different ideas about how to get from point A to point B, but the bottom line is that they are sick and tired of being doormats. What is my take on MGTOW? I believe MGTOW is premised on the radical notion that manhood is not a set of expectations, an outmoded concept, or a social problem--but the birthright of every male human being. There are good men. There are bad men. But all men are "real men," and no one has the right to strip away the components of their humanity.

As for marriage being slavery? Well, it has become that for a lot of men. I think the concerns that many men have about exploitation are legitimate. If a man finds a good wife, then I am happy for him. However, in the MGTOW vocabulary, there is no "must" or "ought" to question of getting married. Every man has the right to "go his own way" in that matter. If any religious leaders want to take issue with this, then they better have some good arguments to back their assertions beside the tiresome shaming tactics, traditionalism, sloppy exegesis, and logical fallacies that I have already dispensed with on this blog and elsewhere. Anyway, that my 2 cents worth on MGTOW, for now.

72 comments:

Amir Larijani said...

Anakin asks: 1. The definition of the word "Christian." Do we mean someone with a casual belief in the Trinity? A traditional-minded man who infrequently attends Church (think of Joe Six-Pack south of the Mason-Dixon line). A devout adherent of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism, or some other branch of Christendom who deeply knows and practices the beliefs of his respective faith tradition? We might as well ask about the proportion of Christian men involved in the music industry or living on one's street corner.

Anakin, if you're going to be that cynical, then why have a blog entitled "Biblical Manhood"?

By "Christian", I am referring to people who (a) identify themselves as Christian, (b) embrace items of belief and practice that one associates with Christianity, and (c) claim a regenerative experience to which they have made public testimony before the Body.

When dealing with other people, that is the most reasonable criteria that one can establish that is (a) true to Scripture and (b) provides latitude with respect to various traditional mindsets.

Moreover, it is fair to ask regarding the question about the proportion of men in the MGTOW movement, and I say this neither as an endorsement nor as a condemnation of the MGTOW crowd.

It is fair to require discernment regarding what comes from them, even when Christian leaders endorse the movement.

After all, feminism--which we both would agree is fundamentally evil--is not the only potential channel for heresy in the Church.

catwoman said...

Speaking of discernment, it's stuff like this from that MGTOW link that's not gonna help the "proportion" problem that it has:

"Instilling masculinity in men by:
Demanding respect for men
Serving as good male role models
Living independent lives
Fighting any chivalry that demands no accountability from women
Instilling femininity in women
MGTOW will hold everyone equally accountable, especially women as MGTOW believes that women currently have a protective shield around themselves which allows them to deflect blame because of their gender. MGTOW will then ignore or shun those who refuse accountability. Thus we bring about a complementary balance between the sexes instead of a competitive position as is now the case....

...Feminine qualities we seek from women: Nurturing, Supportive, Responsibility, Respectfulness, Honesty"

It's a list that tells us a bit about what you want from women (dishonestly omitting a few items, natch), but nothing about what you have to offer them -- so you have no leverage for change, and a whole lot of negative stereotypes that don't fit for most women. Just like those hoky lists of "women's rights/men's responsibilities" drafted up in the 70's that went nowhere.

In order to have leverage, you've got to have some understanding of what brings the sexes together, otherwise you're nowhere. That's how much of the lesbian-driven feminism ran the whole thing into the ground.

You can't just "demand respect". Of course there's the kind of "basic respect" that all human beings are due just for being human. But men want more than that. The kind of respect that most men want comes only in so far as you earn it, not just from women but first from other men. And most men are up for the challenge. MGTOW is for guys who have crapped out, and that's why it will never have wide appeal.

Gerv said...

I read this this morning, and thought it was relevant to the discussion:

The doctrine of the Trinity contradicts modern philosophical and social concepts. The idea of self-expression as the primary objective of life is very popular nowadays. Even in Christian circles we are being told that the first thing is to love ourselves. But these modern ideas are in contradiction to reality, to God in Trinity.

Similarly the humanist idea of the balanced complete life as the object of living is again contrary to what is actual, for humanism is self-centred in ultimate analysis. God is Trinity; Trinity is relational. The relationships are good and personal and other-person centred. The famous slogan of the French Revolution, which was the fruit of the Enlightenment, namely, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity', is in fact a denial of genuine relationship. Bestsellers today reflect the modern ideal of expressing yourself, of loving yourself, of liberating yourself from your relationships with other people which constrict the development of your own personality. Through the revelation of the Trinity believers can see that this popular philosophical concept and social objective is contrary to reality and therefore will not bring the hoped-for benefits of happiness or peace. A renewal of understanding of the Trinity and its implications for the way human life should be based will lead to the recognition that personal relationships which are other-person-centred are ultimate in value for living, even though it should turn out that in serving those relationships it becomes impossible to pursue the chimera of gracious living, the balanced life and so-called authentic existence.

Even life may be lost, but eternity will vindicate the reality of the basis of such actions. The modern philosophy of life known as existentialism concentrates on self-expression, 'living an authentic life', and this is translated into everyday language by the phrases 'doing your own thing' or 'doing what you like' [or 'going your own way'? - Gerv]. This is a very popular way of understanding true living today. People feel that they must express themselves, that they cannot be trammelled by their relationships with other people whether with husband or wife or with children. They must be independent and pursue their own goals. This is not the way in which the Trinity relates. Eastern religions popular in the Western world today have the same concept of reality. Their followers are invited to 'meditate on yourself, worship yourself, repeat the mantra going on within you; God dwells within you as you'.

The doctrine of the Trinity contradicts and corrects these modern thoughts and attitudes. It teaches that reality seeks the welfare of the other person. Reality is good, it does not serve itself but serve others. And since this is ultimate reality, any philosophy of life or any social theory which contradicts this reality will certainly be running into the shallows.


-- D. Broughton Knox, "God in Trinity", from volume 1 of his selected works, page 76-77.

Amir Larijani said...

Catwoman says:
You can't just "demand respect". Of course there's the kind of "basic respect" that all human beings are due just for being human. But men want more than that.


Actually, men are increasingly demanding correction to the inequities in our society that have been implemented in response to a number of societal factors.

This includes matters involving divorce, child support, treatment of women sex offenders versus male sex offenders; regarding male victims of said crimes on the same plane as female victims.

This goes much farther than "marriage mandate" or the "marriage strike" or "headship theology".

In the Christian world, this goes even deeper, as it involves confronting (a) the education of ministers at Bible schools and seminaries, (b) the pastoral counsel given to couples, and (c) Biblical counseling for a number of issues regarding men and women, both single and married.

Where MGTOW/MRA/whatever fits in the Christian realm is anyone's guess.

Personally, I'd say there is a case for a substantial revisiting of matters, as seminaries and Bible schools--under the influence of secular pop psychology and theological liberalism--have engaged in a nearly two-century-old attack on Biblical masculinity.

Again, whether this falls in the realm of MGTOW/MRA, I'm not sure.

Personally, I'd say that the MGTOW/MRA folks--which may or may not include some Christians in those ranks--are more apt to focus on the socio-political-legal matters whereas the larger matters to which I am speaking ought to be addressed specifically by Christians, which may include some MGTOW folks in those ranks.

Personally, I look at the MGTOW folks a shade above the feminists. The latter are fundamentally opposed to creation, as the overwhelming majority of them promote the killing of children in utero, even with tax dollars. I see no such murderous agenda coming from the MGTOW movement.

Nor do I see MGTOW folks promoting homosexuality, whereas the feminists have very large sectors among their ranks promoting that. (It is, however, possible that the MGTOW folks could devolve into gay rights, if they reject traditional marriage altogether.)

Nor do I see MGTOW folks promoting a systematic undermining of the family unit, as I see the feminists have done and are doing.

Therefore, I'd say that the MGTOW folks, while definitely radical by my standards, are hardly in the same league as the feminists, as their agenda is actually quite mild compared to the radical disaster known as feminism.

The kind of respect that most men want comes only in so far as you earn it, not just from women but first from other men. And most men are up for the challenge. MGTOW is for guys who have crapped out, and that's why it will never have wide appeal.

Would it be fair for you to demand a level of respect from one group that you are not willing to give to them yourself?

My larger point here is that the expectation of respect goes both ways.

After all, it would be fair to expect you to prove yourself to the extent that you expect men to prove themselves.

It might be more equitable to have a default position of "you have my respect until the facts no longer permit it".

I would suggest that the latter position is more in line with Scripture.

catwoman said...

"Actually, men are increasingly demanding correction to the inequities in our society that have been implemented in response to a number of societal factors."

There's a difference between "demanding correction" and "demanding respect".

"This includes matters involving divorce, child support, treatment of women sex offenders versus male sex offenders; regarding male victims of said crimes on the same plane as female victims."

Take child support/access issues and put them in the FRA box, and your not left with much of a list. Gender differences in the sentencing and treatment of sexual offenders are largely accounted for by the previous criminal histories of the offenders, and their risk to re-offend. I don't think you'll find much female objection to the impact on male victims, since it's more likely from other men that you get the assumption that the woman was doing the boy a favor.

"In the Christian world, this goes even deeper, as it involves confronting (a) the education of ministers at Bible schools and seminaries, (b) the pastoral counsel given to couples, and (c) Biblical counseling for a number of issues regarding men and women, both single and married."

I agree that matters of sensitivity have their due, but MRA issues on their own don't constitute much of a movement - just as the dog that was feminist complaints about sensitivity and inclusion had its day. I think MGTOW would to do well to apply to themselves Chrissie Hynde's "advice to chick rockers":

“Don’t moan about being a chick, refer to feminism or complain about sexist discrimination. We’ve all been thrown down stairs and fucked about, but no one wants to hear a whining female. Write a loosely disguised song about it instead and clean up ($).”

More on the respect thing later...

Amir Larijani said...

I said:
"In the Christian world, this goes even deeper, as it involves confronting (a) the education of ministers at Bible schools and seminaries, (b) the pastoral counsel given to couples, and (c) Biblical counseling for a number of issues regarding men and women, both single and married."


Catwoman replied: I agree that matters of sensitivity have their due, but MRA issues on their own don't constitute much of a movement - just as the dog that was feminist complaints about sensitivity and inclusion had its day. I think MGTOW would to do well to apply to themselves Chrissie Hynde's "advice to chick rockers":

To suggest that this is a matter of "sensitivity" is incredible.

If this were merely about gender equity, it would be a relatively small matter.

Unfortunately, the matters to which I am speaking cut fundamentally into matters of doctrine, especially the understanding of the dynamics of sin, as it reflects deeply into how matters of human depravity are addressed.

Ergo, this is much more than mere "gender equity".

You have attempted--numerous times--to relegate this to "worst case scenarios", when in fact the things that Anakin, myself, and PuritanCalvinist are describing are pervasive in Bible schools and seminaries across the board, even the conservative ones.

That is important, as that those places are where the ministers, counselors, future professors, and those who write church curriculum, get their training.

When they graduate, they end up perpetuating this nonsense in their sermons, magazine articles, textbooks, and journals. It gets recycled for future generations.

Younger preachers pick up on what these guys say and write, and repeat it from the pulpit, teach it in their classes, and pass it on to another generation of gullible parishioners.

Like I said, this is not a small issue, although it is nebulous as to the extent to which MGTOW/MRA fits into the picture.

catwoman said...

Getting into a "what is worse" argument over MGTOW vs. feminism is a pointless exercise here anyways, at least as far as the Christian world issues you raise, because no evangelical community with any influence actually supports abortion or homosexuality.

Whether or not MGTOW folks are promoting a systematic undermining of the family unit would depend on how successful they become at this notion of "going their own way" -- not very, I predict, especially among Christian leaders who will never be convinced that either gender should just "go their own way".

And as for the respect thing, you say: "Would it be fair for you to demand a level of respect from one group that you are not willing to give to them yourself? My larger point here is that the expectation of respect goes both ways. After all, it would be fair to expect you to prove yourself to the extent that you expect men to prove themselves. It might be more equitable to have a default position of "you have my respect until the facts no longer permit it".

You're basically operating under the false and sweeping assumption that most women don't respect men men, and that most women aren't as responsible (and therefore deserving of respect) as most men, a notion that would be convenient, if not also erroneous. It's interesting what Vox Day has to say on the matter of women and respect:

"is it possible that there is a fundamental difference between men and women when it comes to the notion of personal responsibility? And if so, could it be this, and not some outdated notion of physical prowess that accounts for what both men and women perceive as a lack of respect for women?

I suggest that this may well be the case. A weightlifter will certainly scorn a spindly-armed accountant's inability to lift more than a pencil, but he is unlikely to carry that same lack of respect over to matters outside the weight room. And yet, even the most ardently sensitive New Age male, awash in feminist propaganda from kindergarten through university, usually finds it difficult to show even the most accomplished women the respect that they deserve.

Let me state that I don't know why this is, I only suggest that it appears to be the case. Perhaps men are irredeemably sexist – although I fail to see how the husband-as-child motif so popular in soccer-mom circles is any less so."

Basically, he's describing a lack of respect for women, regardless of how respectable or responsible they might be, something that's been exacerbated by feminism but certainly pre-dates it. It's the sort of thing that little boys have historically had to be socialized out of, even if to a limited degree, through the efforts of both fathers and mothers.

Evangelicals who take a complementarian view will always hold men to a higher standard, as far as having to earn respect (which includes giving respect) so as to be a leader worthy of a wife's submission. I think you overlook the extent to which women do defer to men for the sake of politeness and co-operation, over-emphasizing the Vox Day soccer-mom above. And that natural proclivity to harmonize is not something that should taken for granted.

As Gerv has pointed out elsewhere, teachings will always seem a bit lopsided, with the onus being put on the man (men) to set the tone for respect. That is to be expected, and it comes to males from male leaders in the church, rarely female ones. The things that you, Anakin, and PuritanCalvinist are claiming as pervasive in Bible schools and seminaries are simply matters that beg some tweaking, a la "churchformen.com". Hardly warranting the kind of angry "MGTOW" cause-fighting, so ironically reminscient of late 20th century feminism.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Gerv,

With respect to your quote of ...

D. Broughton Knox, "God in Trinity", from volume 1 of his selected works, page 76-77.

I agree with your post, actually. But what that has to do with MGTOW is not entirely clear. If you are insinuating that MGTOWers are just selfish people who want no accountability to their fellow human beings, then you are misrepresenting the movement. I've anticipated this false charge in my post. In fact, some MGTOWers talk about the necessity of associations among men. Like I indicated, MGTOW has a context - against gynocentrism, misandry, statism, etc. In some cases, individualism and self-reliance are honorable impulses. Anyone who thinks otherwise might as well be a Marxist and join a hippie commune.

Amir Larijani said...

Catwoman says: The things that you, Anakin, and PuritanCalvinist are claiming as pervasive in Bible schools and seminaries are simply matters that beg some tweaking, a la "churchformen.com". Hardly warranting the kind of angry "MGTOW" cause-fighting, so ironically reminscient of late 20th century feminism.

You are betraying abject lack of understanding of matters, by suggesting that this requires mere "tweaking". In fact, what is needed is a paradigm shift.

Keep in mind that this is not merely about what gets taught in counseling classes; it's about (a) how Scripture is exegeted, (b) how theology is taught across the board, (c) how curriculum is developed, (d) how books are written on the subjects, (e) what gets communicated in technical journals, (f) what gets communicated from pulpits.

I work in a field--information technology--where small issues are resolved via the "tweaking" of small sections of code. The point is that mere tweaking only is effective when you are dealing with small issues that are not systemic in nature.

On the other hand, when you have fundamental systemic issues, a thorough review is necessary, as the issues involved impact the entire system, and even other systems that are also involved. If a database gets corrupted by bad information--which can happen if the corruption gets into the database and then gets fed into other systems over long periods of time--then fixing the issue can be quite messy and involve multiple departments, teams of developers, and even personnel from other companies that are affected.

(I inherited a corrupt database before, and--I can tell you from experience--that fixing the problem, which includes determining the cause and preventing its recurrence, as well as cleaning the database itself, was quite a process. A "tweak" it was not.)

That is the consequence of feminist theology and its unwitting companion, headship theology. Reversing the course is more than a mere "tweak". The problem--and its effects--are systemic.

Fixing it requires a revisitation in multiple academic fields spanning Christian colleges, Bible colleges, seminaries, curriculum development outfits, and training centers for lay ministers.

This will require a concerted effort by many people--from denominational leaders, seminary trustees and presidents, professors, publishing houses, pastors and their ministerial staff, and even lay leaders.

"Tweaking" doesn't do the issue justice.

catwoman said...

"The point is that mere tweaking only is effective when you are dealing with small issues that are not systemic in nature.

On the other hand, when you have fundamental systemic issues, a thorough review is necessary, as the issues involved impact the entire system, and even other systems that are also involved."

"Fundamental systemic issues"?? Now you're really sounding like a 20th century feminist. The irksome dynamics between the sexes have always existed. They are organic, not systemic. Nevertheless, tweak away...

thund said...

MRAs are the flip side of feminists. Like feminst who attack other women for not hating men enough, MRAs tend to attack MGTOW types for well going their own way and not being activists enough.

The MRA movement is as doomed as the feminist movement because neither side can be taken seriously. Feminist complain about problems that don't exist while MRAs complain about very real problems that could have been easily avioded had they gone their own way to begin with. Both sides live in denial.

Personally I like the idea of the Ghost Nation. It's men who have not only gone away but have completely disapeared from the radar. Men who are as removed from the world to the greatest extent possible. Ironically that is a solid biblical princable all christians should hold to not just men trying to survive in an anti-male environment.

But you know what they say. What comes around goes around. I wonder how many of these so called christian women will still call themselves that when given the choice of having their heads cut off or wearing a burka.

catwoman said...

"MRAs are the flip side of feminists. Like feminst who attack other women for not hating men enough, MRAs tend to attack MGTOW types for well going their own way and not being activists enough."

Bingo. But it's not the in-fighting that will keep both groups from being taken seriously by the secular and the religious alike. It's that both groups, like feminism, put forth ideologies that go against nature, and are essentially untenable for humanity as a whole and therefore (and obviously!) not "biblical". This is why MGTOW will never be anything more than a fringe element.

Amir Larijani said...

Catwoman says: "Fundamental systemic issues"?? Now you're really sounding like a 20th century feminist. The irksome dynamics between the sexes have always existed. They are organic, not systemic. Nevertheless, tweak away...

Catwoman, why is that you refuse to argue the point that I made, and instead resort to insults?

I described the dynamics of how teachings are propagated in the ministerial world--demonstrating how it is a systemic issue that "tweaking" does no justice--and the best you can come up with is "you sound more like a..feminist."?

Actually, I am speaking as a 21st century IT professional, who happens to understand how databases get corrupted, how that corruption impacts systems, and how those propagations lead to widespread corruption in tangential systems.

The Scriptures describe similar process, only in cruder terms (2 Timothy 2).

For you to suggest that this is a matter of "tweaking" reflects your lack of understanding of these matters, and is quite revealing further intelligence deficiencies on your end.

Again, you are more than welcome to advance an alternative explanation. We await your contribution.

Given that feminist theology--with (a) its attack on Creation, (b) its attack on masculinity, (c) its revisionism of the doctrine of sin, (d) its whitewashing of the Atonement, and (e) its attack on humanity--is so engrained in ministerial education, fixing the problem will require more than a "tweak."

Then again, I should expect no more from someone who writes of divorce in terms of a "boo hoo".

catwoman said...

"I described the dynamics of how teachings are propagated in the ministerial world--demonstrating how it is a systemic issue that "tweaking" does no justice--"

When you talk about "feminist theology", you're conflating liberal mainline theology with evangelical theology. That is disingenious, first because no one here supports the former, whereas the latter (a) opposes abortion (b) and homosexuality (c) accepts the doctrine of total depravity (d) and limited atonement, etc.

And as for restoring biblical masculinity, you won't find stronger forces in favor than those in the evangelical church. Wanna to remove the frilly banners? Down they come! Ditch the gooey love songs to Jesus? Done! How much *real* opposition truly exists against the churchformen movement? None! Why is everyone on board? Because Murrow and co. know what they're doing. And so, happily, the tweaking will continue.

But when it's all said and done, the "battle of the sexes" will still continue, not because the leaders *failed* to overcome the *systematic forces*, but because these issues transcend time eternal.

Amir Larijani said...

Catwoman says: When you talk about "feminist theology", you're conflating liberal mainline theology with evangelical theology. That is disingenious, first because no one here supports the former, whereas the latter (a) opposes abortion (b) and homosexuality (c) accepts the doctrine of total depravity (d) and limited atonement, etc.

That's not true. In fact, the point here is that evangelical theology has absorbed feminist theology.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary, for example, are quite evangelical. If you believe that multiple academic departments within those seminaries--theology, church music, Old Testament, New Testament, Pastoral Counseling, Christian Education, Evangelism--have not absorbed elements of feminist theology, then you would be greatly mistaken.

(I'll let Adam/PuritanCalvinist chime in with his take on Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)

Even recent evangelical efforts to reach men--such as Promise Keepers--have actively and passively embraced feminist theology.

What do you think "headship theology" is? What do you think the tendency to blame men for all marital failures is?

Those are applications of feminist theology, gift-wrapped for American evangelicalism.

Moreover, if you believe that "evangelical theology" is all etched in stone somewhere, you would also be mistaken.

Especially in America, where the term "evangelical" has a very nebulous meaning, and includes a whole spectrum that runs the Arminian-Calvinist gamut, not all of whom embrace the Five Points of Calvinism, and not all of whom would necessarily oppose abortion.

The elements that you specifify as "evangelical theology" (Total Depravity, Limited Atonement) are actually elements of "Reform Theology". And many evangelicals in America reject Limited Atonement, as well as other elements of Calvinism. In fact, many Church of Christ folks reject all five points of Calvinism, as they are very hardcore Arminians.

Ultimately, addressing these issues requires far more than tweaking, as this involves (a) dealing with the cause of the corruption, (b) addressing its impact on multiple levels of Church leadership and education, and (c) educating ministers and teachers--in church and parachurch settings--regarding these matters.

catwoman said...

"What do you think "headship theology" is? What do you think the tendency to blame men for all marital failures is?"

First of all, not everyone who speaks of "headship" necessarily tends to "blame men for all marital failures". You keep mentioning Doug Wilson, but you've come up with little more than that. Secondly, the more you emphasize wifely submission, the more you have to emphasize the responsibility of the husband -- that is to be expected, so I really don't see how you could have a problem with that.

You make sound as if there are all these impossibly high standards that men are being told to live up to and that this somehow makes for a congregation that either drives men away or emasculates them. When in fact, those churches that have male leadership holding men to the highest standards are the ones that attract men, stimulating and challenging them, thus earning their loyalty and devotion. No one seems to be complaining but you guys.

Amir Larijani said...

catwoman says: You make sound as if there are all these impossibly high standards that men are being told to live up to and that this somehow makes for a congregation that either drives men away or emasculates them.

If this were merely about high standards, I'd venture to say that there would be no issue here. (Anakin, Triton, PC: correct me if you disagree), as men generally appreciate that.

On the other hand, when you are being told that (a) the depravity of a woman would not exist but for the man, (b) the husband's job is to redeem his wife, (c) the wife's depravity is completely a function of the husband's, and (d) if the husband would just provide perfect leadership then the wife would provide perfect submission, then yes, not only is it emasculatory theology, it borders on outright heresy.

When in fact, those churches that have male leadership holding men to the highest standards are the ones that attract men, stimulating and challenging them, thus earning their loyalty and devotion. No one seems to be complaining but you guys.

Name for me one respondent on this blog who (a) opposes holding men to high standards, or (b) opposes challenging men.

I'm all for both. And I'd wager that Anakin, Triton, and PC would even agree in principle.

There is a serious difference, however, between that and imposing dogma that has no Biblical precedent, dogma that borders on heretical.

Having good, solid Biblical standards is one thing, Pharisaical dogmatism--imposing commands where the Bible does not--is another.

Even Murrow correctly points out that many "men's ministry" initiatives in the Church are better-categorized as "women's ministry for men".

An example he correctly cites in this is Promise Keepers. Having been to several of their conventions--Boulder 1992, Indianapolis 1994, Indianapolis 1995, Memphis 1996, and Cincinnati 1997--I can attest to what he is saying.

On one hand, Promise Keepers made a very laudable attempt to reach out to men, especially married men. On the other hand, they ventured into some theological overreaches that undermined those efforts. Headship theology--and its ramifications--was one of their pitfalls.

Anonymous said...

"Therefore, I'd say that the MGTOW folks, while definitely radical by my standards, are hardly in the same league as the feminists, as their agenda is actually quite mild compared to the radical disaster known as feminism."

What agenda?? (other than going our own way!) lol, seriously, the whole POINT of MGTOW is to be independent and find their own path in life. It's really part of being a man.

Radical? You mean (GASP) using our God-given free-will to determaine our own path in life? Uh no...if anything, its a bit "retro" as it's how things should be in a free society.



"MGTOW is for guys who have crapped out, and that's why it will never have wide appeal."

Actually its for men whom are strong enough to be men and decide their own path in life. Success is simply based on achieving YOUR personal goals and direction, not what the MSM or others tell you is "success". Oh, and for us MGTOW, simple shaming tactics us a good laugh - we're pretty much immune to such things!

As for appeal, it's very strong. I see it all over - from men whom choose not to marry, men whom may choose to head into MRA, men whom may head to a foriegn nation, find a wife and build a life there. Not all men may call it "MGTOW" as it's a newer term, however, most men I know are doing it.



"MRAs are the flip side of feminists. Like feminst who attack other women for not hating men enough, MRAs tend to attack MGTOW types for well going their own way and not being activists enough.""


I'd dis-agree with both statements. First of all, choosing to heading into a MRA is one of endless number of pathS a man may take. In other words, you might consider MRAs a part of MGTOW - that is - it is the path they have choosen. Most MRA's whom I have come across have been very respectfull to the choices and paths other men have taken.



"Bingo. But it's not the in-fighting that will keep both groups from being taken seriously by the secular and the religious alike. It's that both groups, like feminism, put forth ideologies that go against nature, and are essentially untenable for humanity as a whole and therefore (and obviously!) not "biblical". This is why MGTOW will never be anything more than a fringe element."

Wow, how wrong can you be? There is no in-fighting as becoming a "MRA" is only one path a man may take, from an endless stream. For MGTOW (of which MRAs are part), it's is the nature of a man to be independent...it is how we were created. And it is this strength which makes civilizations possible as well as progress. And it is pretty much mainstream now, although most do not call nor identify to it.

aMGHOW

Anonymous said...

"As for marriage being slavery? Well, it has become that for a lot of men. I think the concerns that many men have about exploitation are legitimate. If a man finds a good wife, then I am happy for him. However, in the MGTOW vocabulary, there is no "must" or "ought" to question of getting married. Every man has the right to "go his own way" in that matter."


Exactly. Now there is a man whom "gets it".

btw, the divorce rate in California is around 85% +/- percent. High divorce stats are not included with the national statistics to keep it lower (kinda like how they endlessly play with the financial figures). In other words, you're VERY likley to divorce, SHE will likely be the one to start it (funny how that "I'll love you forever FEELING changes") and you'll likley be one (as your a man) to be guilty (as a man, of course, your guilty!), responsible, loose everything, and pay the rest of your life for the privledge. Oh, and it really doesn't matter what religious beliefs she has.

Every man knows what happens as every man has a father, nephew, uncle, brother or male-friend from work who's gone through the for profit, all-man's fault, divorce & child support INDUSTRY, ahem, scam-system. So many men know a bad deal when they see it and are opting not to marry, some are staying at home and enjoying life more (rather than child support payments) and still others are heading overseas (expats).

I just love it when con-women try to convince men that SOMEHOW they need to marry to be "complete". Shaming tactics and PRESSURE play a large part of the game - it's like someone trying to sell you a rip-off "timeshare" or get you into a MLM pyramid scam.

Once married, especially with children (or in some place living common-law) as a man, you have NO rights. It doesn't matter what belief system a women has, if she ever feels differently your "toast" as the entire legal system and law system will move to enslave and if necessary, crush you. Every man has seen that happen to other men, countless times.

If men want to marry, head overseas to nations which are father, husband and son freindly. I would suggest nations with no legal divorce, strong patriarchal families, and where men really are men and women like to be women (and not men wanna-bes).


aMGHOW

Triton said...

Name for me one respondent on this blog who (a) opposes holding men to high standards, or (b) opposes challenging men.

I'm all for both. And I'd wager that Anakin, Triton, and PC would even agree in principle.


Amir summoneth...

It depends on the nature of the challenge, naturally. Being blind is a challenge, as is being a quadriplegic. That doesn't mean we should poke out the eyes of church-going men or lop off their limbs.

A challenging scenario must be one that yields benefits when the challenge is overcome, otherwise it's pointless. Also, those benefits must outweigh any risks or costs or effort, or else the endeavour isn't worth the trouble.

I've recently opened a currency trading account. It will be a challenge, but I accept it because I believe the potential rewards outweigh the risk. It would be easier and cheaper to buy a lottery ticket, but I don't do that because the rewards don't outweigh the risk - the odds of winning are simply too small to justify playing.

I've only been skimming the comments in this thread, by the way, so I apologize if this comment isn't very helpful to anyone.

catwoman said...

"when you are being told that (a) the depravity of a woman would not exist but for the man, (b) the husband's job is to redeem his wife, (c) the wife's depravity is completely a function of the husband's, and (d) if the husband would just provide perfect leadership then the wife would provide perfect submission, then yes, not only is it emasculatory theology, it borders on outright heresy."

Again, Amir, nowhere is any saying that the "depravity" of a woman would not exist but for the man or is "completely" a function of the husband's (when total depravity is a given for all Christians, be they reformed or not) or that the husband's job is to "redeem" his wife (as if anyone can redeem but Christ!) or that there's any such thing as perfect submission or leadership.

What's more, Murrow NEVER cites Promisekeepers as "women's ministry for men" -- for heaven sakes, he works for them! Like everyone else, they have eagerly made his recommended adjustments. In one interview, Murrow said that he was preparing himself for a great deal of opposition from the church establishment, but found that the positive reception his ideas have received have gone beyond his expectations.


So I really don't understand why you need to exaggerate the extent of the problems the way you do, Amir. Speaking of which, you accuse me of writing about divorce in terms of a "boo hoo", when that was your mistake (I said "boo-boo", as in "making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom" has got to be about more than just avoiding making a bad marital choice. I really don't think there's much point in continuing this dialogue with you if you're going to misrepresent what I say.

Amir Larijani said...

Catwoman says: Again, Amir, nowhere is any saying that the "depravity" of a woman would not exist but for the man or is "completely" a function of the husband's (when total depravity is a given for all Christians, be they reformed or not) or that the husband's job is to "redeem" his wife (as if anyone can redeem but Christ!) or that there's any such thing as perfect submission or leadership.

I'll leave it to others on these pages, if they wish to rehash every example that has been provided along these lines.

What's more, Murrow NEVER cites Promisekeepers as "women's ministry for men" -- for heaven sakes, he works for them! Like everyone else, they have eagerly made his recommended adjustments. In one interview, Murrow said that he was preparing himself for a great deal of opposition from the church establishment, but found that the positive reception his ideas have received have gone beyond his expectations.

Before I quote what Murrow actually said in his book Why Men Hate Going to Church, I will point out what I said, to establish the context:

Even Murrow correctly points out that many "men's ministry" initiatives in the Church are better-categorized as "women's ministry for men".

By the way, Murrow does exactly this in page 140 of his book. Here are his exact words: Men's ministry so often falters for this simple reason: it's actually women's ministry for men. When Christian men gather, they're expected to relate like women and enjoy the things women enjoy. Men's ministry is built around the needs and expectations of women--or more precisely, the soft men who show up for men's ministry events. So the men's retreat features hugging, hand holding, and weeping. Men sit in circles and listen, read, or share. We keep our conversations clean, polite, and nonconfrontational.

Regarding Promise Keepers, here is what I said: An example he correctly cites in this is Promise Keepers. Having been to several of their conventions--Boulder 1992, Indianapolis 1994, Indianapolis 1995, Memphis 1996, and Cincinnati 1997--I can attest to what he is saying.

Here is what Murrow said on page 140, regarding Promise Keepers: While there's nothing wrong with doing these things [hugging, weeping, hand holding, keeping conversations clean, polite...], it feels feminine to a lot of guys. So they stay home. I've heard the same thing whispered about Promise Keepers rallies: certain guys are turned off by the singing, clapping, hugging, and crying that go on there. Fortunately, men's mininstry is getting a transfusion of the masculine spirit. More in part 6 of this book.

So, yes, (a) he equates men's ministry attempts with "women's ministry for men", and (b) he cites Promise Keepers--at least elements within it--as an example. Given that the second quote I provided was the paragraph following the first, I'd say I got Murrow right.

While he may work for them, it may be a result of his identifying their deficiencies, and they have recruited him to help address those issues.

Rather than traditional men's ministry, personally I'm a fan of Men's Fraternity, which is more service-oriented, and provides that challenging atmosphere for men, without devolving into "Women's Ministry for Men".

Amir Larijani said...

Catwoman, actually you said this:
When something is "for the sake of the kingdom", there's got to be more going on than just avoiding making a boo-boo.


In this context, "avoiding making a boo-hoo" is a direct reference to divorce avoidance.

Ergo, you have logically equated divorce with "boo hoo". That may not have been your intent, but it certainly is what you logically wrote.

I'll leave it to you to clarify that, and the correction will stand as noted.

Amir Larijani said...

Oh, and Catwoman: for you to call a bad marital choice--which leads to divorce--as a "boo hoo" still does no justice to the dynamics.

Fact is, men aren't quaking in their boots, in fear of making a proverbial "boo hoo". In fact, men and women alike are just engaging in prudence that would have been exercised by other parties on their behalf in prior generations.

40 years ago, it was not considered normal for a man to fly out and meet a woman he'd exchanged mail and pictures, with the expectation that a marriage proposal would come down in a month or two. Sure, it happened, but it was the exception.

Now, it's very common for people to do that.

What I said about the third eunuch option was this: (a) one may be called to a season of singleness, as there could be a dearth of mates in his or her venue; and (b) one may be called to a lifetime of singleness, either for special service to God, or due to personal temperment issues.

After all, I'm sure we would agree that someone who is prone to be abusive would be better off--for the sake of the Kingdom--not marrying at all (as would the man or woman that would otherwise be the spouse of such a one!)


Having seen a case of a woman--pressured by a others in her church who claimed that it was God's will--marry a man who had been twice divorced, and was known to have been an abuser in his past, and who, after marrying him, ended up in the hospital, almost killed by him, I'd say this is more about "avoiding a boo hoo".

For men like the aforementioned, it would be better for the sake of the Kingdom if they chose not to get into that kitchen. It would have saved Sierra Hotel a lot of grief.

Gerv said...

If you are insinuating that MGTOWers are just selfish people who want no accountability to their fellow human beings, then you are misrepresenting the movement.

It just doesn't strike me that MGTOW people would agree with Broughton Knox that "personal relationships which are other-person-centred are ultimate in value for living." Are they really signed up to the principle of serving others before serving themselves?

In some cases, individualism and self-reliance are honorable impulses. Anyone who thinks otherwise might as well be a Marxist and join a hippie commune.

Poisoning the well?

Gerv said...

Anonymous said:

it's is the nature of a man to be independent...it is how we were created.

How does that idea fit with Genesis 2:18?

catwoman said...

Amir, are you losing your mind??

For the third time, I did *not* say "boo-hoo", so why do you keep suggesting that I did?

I used the phrase "boo-Boo", as in "making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom" has got to be about more than just avoiding making a bad marital choice (boo-Boo meaning "mistake", or bad choice).

I'm done with repeasting myself. There's no point in this dialogue with you if you're going to misrepresent what I say.

I'm outta here.

Amir Larijani said...

Catwoman: Whether it's "Boo hoo", "boo boo", or even "oh shit" (that's what we call engineering mistakes) isn't the point.

A marriage that ends in divorce is a hell of a lot more than a "boo boo". And the cost transcends mere dollar figures. The spiritual effect is staggering, and not just to the parties divorcing.

And that is what I am calling you on: your practice of employing sarcastic devices to minimize and delegitimize someone else's legitimate points.

No one here ever suggested that snowboarding or shopping were legitimate applications of "becoming eunuchs for the Kingdom".

But you certainly employed that retort to minimize a legitimate point.

You might find yourself getting a little better-respected when you stop attempting to delegitimize the people who blog here.

Fact is, we have plenty of intelligent bloggers here--Anakin, Triton, SXM, Adam/PC, Christina, Learner, Wapiti, LadyElaine, and even myself--who have raised many legitimate issues in the culture of Christian education, leaders in denominations, writers of prominent Christian publications, and even the promotions of movies that perpetuate certain stereotypes.

While there are times where you are quite reasonable--and to your credit, you are substantially improved--there are other times where you resort to minimizing, dismissing, disrespecting (especially toward folks like Adam/PC) people who make legitimate cases.

Don't get me wrong: as I said, you are greatly improved in your approach, and I'll be the first to note it--it's just that there are times where your apparent sarcasm does not do the topic at hand any justice.

The Learner said...

Evangelicals who take a complementarian view will always hold men to a higher standard, as far as having to earn respect (which includes giving respect) so as to be a leader worthy of a wife's submission.

This is an example of feminist theology in my opinion. Paul's call for women to respect their husbands doesn't contain any references to the need for the husband to earn his wife's respect. It says the wife must respect her husband, not the husband must earn his wife's respect, or the wife should respect her husband if he is worthy of it. It doesn't give husbands an out either that they are only to love their wives if they earn it.

As far as MGTOW goes, I wasn't my understanding that it was inherently against marriage, though I could be wrong.

catwoman said...

"This is an example of feminist theology in my opinion. Paul's call for women to respect their husbands doesn't contain any references to the need for the husband to earn his wife's respect. It says the wife must respect her husband, not the husband must earn his wife's respect, or the wife should respect her husband if he is worthy of it."

You're making an off-base assumption here, Learner, if you think I'm suggesting that a wife is off the hook with having to respect her husband if he doesn't earn it from her. I wasn't commenting on wives expectations of husbands at all. I was talking about what the *evangelical church* expects of men, as they approach the role of husband.

Here's another case: you'd agree that we are to respect our church leaders, right? Any position where you are to be the recipient of respect those you are to lead would also contain the burden of maintaining the worthiness of that respect, would it not? This is why the church will always hold men, and thus husbands, to a higher standard of accountability as far as worthiness of respect. Hardly a feminist position.

The Learner said...

Catwoman,

I think you are the one making assumptions Catwoman. I said the theology was bad, I didn't attach it to you.

Here's another case: you'd agree that we are to respect our church leaders, right?

In general principle I respect people until they do something to remove my respect. But, most of what the Bible says about respect and church leadership is that they should be worthy of respect, not that we must respect them as Paul commands of women respecting their husbands.

Any position where you are to be the recipient of respect those you are to lead would also contain the burden of maintaining the worthiness of that respect, would it not?

Unless there was a Biblical directive to respect someone without the condition of them doing anything to maintain that respect.

catwoman said...

"I think you are the one making assumptions Catwoman. I said the theology was bad, I didn't attach it to you."

I didn't say that you were attaching bad theology to me. You're attaching the wrong theology to the wrong discussion (I admit, my typos aren't helping the matter, either!).

We're not talking about whether or not it's OK for wives (or bretheren) to stop respecting husbands (or church leaders) if they've done something to no longer deserve their respect. The point was that those who are in a position of respect will always be considered by the church to have an added responsibility to keep themselves worthy of respect.

The Learner said...

The point was that those who are in a position of respect will always be considered by the church to have an added responsibility to keep themselves worthy of respect.

And my point was that this expectation is based on bad theology.

catwoman said...

"'The point was that those who are in a position of respect will always be considered by the church to have an added responsibility to keep themselves worthy of respect'....And my point was that this expectation is based on bad theology."

No, that was not your point. This is what you said:

"This is an example of feminist theology in my opinion. Paul's call for women to respect their husbands doesn't contain any references to the need for the husband to earn his wife's respect."

A point that was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

catwoman said...

This is discussion (for those who are tuning in late) has been about whether the MGTOW movement is becoming a significant presence in the church.

I have been predicting that MGTOW won't move much further beyond a fringe element of single and divorced men disillusioned by rejection and/or losses that go along with their experiences. Aside from the fact that most men in the Christian world will not wish to associate themselves with a losing team, because they won't warm up to its chilly indifference towards marriage and its disproportionate blaming of women for said indifference. For all its sifting through biblical minutae, there's nothing inspirational about MGTOW to stir the spirit, it's just plain disspirited.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Gerv writes ...


It just doesn't strike me that MGTOW people would agree with Broughton Knox that "personal relationships which are other-person-centred are ultimate in value for living." Are they really signed up to the principle of serving others before serving themselves?


Maybe some are. Maybe some aren't. I think you are conflating two issues (adherence to religion vs. adherence to a narrower agenda). You might as well ask the same question of businessmen, Republicans, or some other classification of people that has nothing to do with one's spirituality, per se. MGTOW certainly does not preclude "personal relationships which are other-person-centred are ultimate in value for living." . Not all MGTOWers are faithfual Christians, but that doesn't mean a Christian man can't be a MGTOWer.

Poisoning the well?

It's not poisoning the well to present the logical end of a position. I certainly didn't accuse you of being a hippie. BTW, you might want to look up the Fallacy of Equivocation and the Fallacy of Composition as these two fallacies may be coming into play in your argumentation.

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

Catwoman raises a valid point: Leadership demands greater accountability (even in the home). But we need to understand what that means. I agree that men often set the tone for the household in terms of the household's emotional and spiritual welfare (especially with regard to children). I am concerned when men fall down on the job in leading.

However, to take the church leadership analogy, consider this ...

1) I as a Christian do not have the inherent right to be less spiritual than the preacher or the pastor (elder). The purpose of Biblical leadership is that everyone reaches the same spiritual maturity.

2) I may, in fact, be more biblically knowledgeable than the preacher or elders (or have some spiritual insights they don't have), but as long as they are doing their job, it doesn't make them bad leaders or mean I shouldn't submit to them.

3) If the leadership is doing the right things, then they can't be blamed if I sin. I alone bear the consequences.

4) If the leadership is doing the wrong things, then if I sin, I am still responsible for my sin just as the leadership is responsible for leading souls astray.


Headship Theology seems to have a problem applying these points with respect to the home (especially #3).

One more thing: It doesn't make sense to place greater accountability on me as a man if I don't have the exclusive prerogatives of leadership (whether that be in the home, church, government, business, schools, etc.). Let's hold those accountable who actually ARE LEADERS (especially the ones who have bought into shaming and blaming men).

catwoman said...

Another problem with "Christian MGTOW"...

...MGTOW, when embolded by certain pieces of scripture about wifely submission, gives the disgrunted single/divorced male added buttressing for his righteous indignation.

It kind of goes like this...

"I am single because feminism has made women unsubmissive, and therefore either slutty and undesirable (nanny state welfare mom). So it's all their fault.

Or..."I am single because women are snobby and unattainable career women, and therefore "feminist", and therefore "pro-abortion", even for those women who are expressly anti-abortion -- and therefore it's all their fault."

Or..."I'm divorced because my wife was unsubmissive (ie there was conflict) and/or disobedient (ie. left him for someone else, or left him dispite him being faithful).

Even if some of these things are at least partial true for the MGTOW guy, it gives him a licence to stereotype all women this way, and therefore stay angry without having to look at himself and see how his romantic choices and non-choices factor into the situation (as well as other things that may not be his "fault", but may be intrinsic to him, such as his appearance, etc.). With MGTOW, you can always blame women!

Unfortunately, churches do attract their share of unfortunate MGTOW candidates, hoping that the traditional church culture will mean that the women will be nice and receptive, regardless of what the guy is like. And of course, when the reality hits that the milquetoast will not be simply "liked the way I am", simply on the grounds of Christian nicety, then again, MGTOW gives him every reason not to look at himself.

There are guys who can barely get a woman to have a conversation with them in the real world that expect they should be able to come to church and early find a Christian woman who'll "submit" to them, simply because of what the Bible teaches. Maybe none of you will see yourselves in this picture (although, many of you sound like it), most men know that the expectations of women, other men, the church in general, actually serve to maintain quality in men (just as quality in women is maintained by male expectations), in the way of behavior, relationships, etc.

When righteous indignation rules among single religious men and women, churches become ghettos for self-righteous geeks of both sexes. MGTOW is a manifestation of that. And so, some might say, is Maken's book. But MGTOW is especially pathetic, because it enables the man who is single by his own shortcomings to not only avoid looking at the reasons for his situation by deflecting the blame onto others, but think that there's something wrong with the females that none of them want to submit to him! Maken at least challenges women's expectations, whereas no such reality check exists in MGTOW land. And that's why church leaders, who are mostly male, will never take it seriously.

Anonymous said...

"Even if some of these things are at least partial true for the MGTOW guy, it gives him a licence to stereotype all women this way, and therefore stay angry without having to look at himself and see how his romantic choices and non-choices factor into the situation (as well as other things that may not be his "fault", but may be intrinsic to him, such as his appearance, etc.). With MGTOW, you can always blame women!"

MGTOW in general, are not an angry bunch. Actually most men GTOW are quite happy - especially the single ones. After all, they are following their path and achieving what they deem as "success".

Now I find generally in the "westerized" nations "unhappy" men generally fall into one of two camps.

FIRST: Men whom have been through the divorce and child support INDUSTRY (often through no fault of their own). Well needless to say, considering the anti-father, anti-man, anti-boy atmosphere in such nations as the USofA, that is quite understandable. You'd be unhappy to if your sons and daughters were taken from you, along with your future and everything you worked for in the past. Some of these men may have found their own paths later on, others, never find the inner strength or never overcome their grief (some of whom commit suicide, others, whom lack the inner strength and get married again).

Second: Men whom are single yet lack the maturity and inner strength to GTOW. Not all men in their youth, are ready or able to embark on their own path.

btw - The lesson is simple for those men whom want to date/marry - HEAD OVERSEAS. There are, after all, COUNTLESS wonderfull women in non-feminized nations in which to choose from. Women whom want to be women, love children and families, and whom make devoted mothers and wives. Not all nations are anti-male just as not all nations have legal divorce, abortion industries or anti-father/man/boy laws. Needless to say, many nations have far stronger family structures as they follow a patriarchical arrangement unlike the "west" which is currently dis-intigrating.

Thanks to "globalization" men have the world to choose from and should they wish too, "outsourcing" is the trend.

Other men, of course, may wish to remain single (and most I've ever seen are quite happy this way). The path if each man, is afterall, unique and individual.



"Unfortunately, churches do attract their share of unfortunate MGTOW candidates, hoping that the traditional church culture will mean that the women will be nice and receptive, regardless of what the guy is like."

True...as these MGTOW should be dating or marrying overseas in a more male and family freindly climate. The legal system being what it is in feminized nations such as the USofA, there is really no point to finding a wife there. You are after all, always just one phone call away from false child molestation accusations of which you as a man are presumed (always) guilty or from the divorce and child support industries.

Should a MGTOW wish to establish a family it must be done in a patriarchical nation which has NO legal divorce and which is not biased against men, husbands, fathers and sons.



"Unfortunately, churches do attract their share of unfortunate MGTOW candidates, hoping that the traditional church culture will mean that the women will be nice and receptive, regardless of what the guy is like."
&
"There are guys who can barely get a woman to have a conversation with them in the real world that expect they should be able to come to church and early find a Christian woman who'll "submit" to them, simply because of what the Bible teaches. Maybe none of you will see yourselves in this picture (although, many of you sound like it)"

Oh the shaming tactics start. I'll get my popcorn!

Anyways, you'll be happy to note many men are opting to remain single, and/or not go to a feminized church and/or are heading to non-feminized nations. Thus, you'll be spared the tramua. You wouldn't want to fill the church pews with men strong enough to be real men, now would you?



"MGTOW is a manifestation of that. And so, some might say, is Maken's book. But MGTOW is especially pathetic, because it enables the man who is single by his own shortcomings to not only avoid looking at the reasons for his situation by deflecting the blame onto others, but think that there's something wrong with the females that none of them want to submit to him! Maken at least challenges women's expectations, whereas no such reality check exists in MGTOW land."

lol. Another good one. Actually, it takes a great deal of soul searching, individual honesty and most of all, courage/strength to be a MGTOW. Keeping with the herds is always so much easier.

Only by overcoming ones shortcomings - and certianly not by avoiding it - can a man embark on his own path. Oh, and not all MGTOW are single, many, have moved to foreign nations and started fmailies there. Isn't that wonderful!



aMGHOW

The Learner said...

Catwoman,

Er, what? You think you are in a better position than I am to say what my point was? Really?

Let me clarify for you. You said:

You can't just "demand respect". Of course there's the kind of "basic respect" that all human beings are due just for being human.

It might be more equitable to have a default position of "you have my respect until the facts no longer permit it".

Evangelicals who take a complementarian view will always hold men to a higher standard, as far as having to earn (emphasis mine) respect (which includes giving respect) so as to be a leader worthy of a wife's submission.

And my point was that the Bible doesn't say that a man has to earn his wife's respect. This doesn't mean that he isn't expected to be all that God calls him to be including the leader of the home and all the accountability that goes with that position of leadership. I was disagreeing with the idea that a husband has to earn his wife's respect.

Wether or not that point is relevant to the discussion or not I'll leave up to the people who read it, including you, you are welcome to your opinion.

Amir Larijani said...

Learner: Just to make sure the quotes don't get conflated, I'm the one who said, "It might be more equitable to have a default position of 'you have my respect until the facts no longer permit it'."

Moreover, it seems that Catwoman is referring to the level of respect that a man ought to earn before a woman accepts a marriage proposal in the first place.

If that is the case, then I would certainly agree, adding that it is a two-way street: it would be right for the men to expect a prospective mate to earn a certain level of respect before he offers her a ring.

When it comes to the marriage covenant, both sides would be right to do a reasonable amount of vetting. The key word here being reasonable. There does come a point where one can get bogged down in that infamous "paralysis analysis".

I am speaking, of course, to those who are actively seeking to marry, and not in support of any "marriage mandate".

The Learner said...

Amir,

I agree that there should be mutual respect in relationships between men and women, wether it be before or after they marry. My point was about this:

Evangelicals who take a complementarian view will always hold men to a higher standard, as far as having to earn respect (which includes giving respect) so as to be a leader worthy of a wife's submission.

Which refers to wives and as such refers to marriage.

On that note I see that I copied and pasted the wrong quote before, when I said this was my point: The point was that those who are in a position of respect will always be considered by the church to have an added responsibility to keep themselves worthy of respect.
when I meant to copy and paste what I originally commented on which was: Evangelicals who take a complementarian view will always hold men to a higher standard, as far as having to earn respect (which includes giving respect) so as to be a leader worthy of a wife's submission.


So aparently Catwoman is in a better position than me to say what my point is! LOL :) Hey, Catwoman, wanna help me edit a study I'm submitting for publication?

Amir Larijani said...

Learner: Gotcha.

Gerv said...

Maybe some are. Maybe some aren't. I think you are conflating two issues (adherence to religion vs. adherence to a narrower agenda).

Thank you for clarifying that MGTOW is not solely a Christian movement - I hadn't picked that up.

Let me put it more strongly, then. From what I read of the MGTOW website, I can't reconcile that attitude and the principle of serving others before serving themselves. MGTOW seems to me to be fundamentally a self-centred movement. Even the associations with other people they promote are for the purpose of getting something for yourself.

On which word am I equivocating?

catwoman said...

"So aparently Catwoman is in a better position than me to say what my point is!"

Please don't flatter yourself, Learner. The quote "Evangelicals who take a complementarian view will always hold men to a higher standard, as far as having to earn respect (which includes giving respect) so as to be a leader worthy of a wife's submission" is *not* referring to a wife's submission only being given when her husband is worthy of respect.

I was intially responding to the MGTOW tenet of men "demanding respect", which was not limited to wives, per se. Then broadening that to the larger context of the what evangelical complementarian community expects of men, to be deemed respectable and thus worthy of marriage, not just for the sake of acceptance of a proposal of marriage, but in preparation for the responsibilities inherent in such a leadership position that involves another partner "submitting" (marriage preparation essentially being the main goal of Boundless, Anakin's favorite target).

The Learner said...

Catwoman,

I'm not sure how I flattered myself, but okay.

is *not* referring to a wife's submission only being given when her husband is worthy of respect.

My point was not about a wife's submission to her husband, it had to do with whether or not a man has to earn his wife's respect. Respect is about more than submission.

So you didn't mean wife when you said so as to be a leader worthy of a wife's submission ?

catwoman said...

"So you didn't mean wife when you said so as to be a leader worthy of a wife's submission ?"

As far as who deems the leader "worthy" (of either respect or submission), no, it's not about the wife deeming the leader worthy, it's more along the lines about what the church teaches about making oneself worthy of respect.

Does that make it clear, Learner? If not, you're on your own because this is just going around in circles so I'm done trying to explain myself to you.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Gerv writes ...

Let me put it more strongly, then. From what I read of the MGTOW website, I can't reconcile that attitude and the principle of serving others before serving themselves. MGTOW seems to me to be fundamentally a self-centred movement.

Even Debbie Maken said that not all self-interest is selfish.

Even the associations with other people they promote are for the purpose of getting something for yourself.

The same could hold true for bicycles clubs, going to Church, yes even getting married.

On which word am I equivocating?

Independence.

Consider the following syllogism:

*America achieved independence from Great Britain.

*Independence is contrary to a relational God.

*America is contrary to a relational God.

A question: Is it wrong to achieve "independence" from worldly norms, Pharaiseeical legalism and cultish behavior? Or are we just supposed to go along with the crowd?

Anyway, you are entitled to your views on MGTOW, Gerv. I'm probably not going to win you over to my views. However, I do appreciate your input if only to make sure my arguments are sound.

Anonymous said...

"Let me put it more strongly, then. From what I read of the MGTOW website, I can't reconcile that attitude and the principle of serving others before serving themselves. MGTOW seems to me to be fundamentally a self-centred movement. Even the associations with other people they promote are for the purpose of getting something for yourself."

There is no official MGTOW website nor any official MGTOW movement. However, there are websites of like-minded men each with a unique appeal. MGTOW is really just the nature of men.

You might want to read "The Case for Father Custody", "The Garbage Generation" or check out the "No Ma'am" blog. It covers some of the REAL reasons for marriage and a patriarchy.

As for "getting something for yourself", well, that really depends on the path YOU'VE chosen as a man. Some men lead quiet lives, some men save and live with their parents, some men may travel a-lot, some men may do volunteer service in other nations. Really, the path you choose is as self-centered as you choose it to be.

Now, in reality, there is a balance each man must find. Many times in life you have to look at your needs and that of your immediate and extended family first. You do not work for free, you do not work 40 years to buy a house and just give it away. Again, there is a balance and what exactly that balance is, is something each man must determaine on thier own.



btw, here are California divorce statistics in the matriarchical nation of the USofA...

Divorces Figures for California:

Year, CA Div.,L.A. Div.,CA Mar.,Divorce %
1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%

Average Divorce Rate: 75.54%**

**Reference: Court Statistics Reports for 1996-2004.

**btw, the REAL divorce rate for the USofA including high divorce states such as California (usually excluded to lower the natonal figure) is around >> 65 % - 75 % << !! This includes ALL belief systems including Christians.

The purpose of getting married is to have children. There is little point in a state (or a nation) where it is very likely you will divorce and you'll loose you're children/family along with just about everything else - often through no fault of your own.

So the point is, with a 65% - 75% chance of a divorce Christian or not, and IMO another at least 10 % - 20 % of men stuck in sexless and unhappy marriages, it's really only COMMON SENSE either to choose another nation where the odds are in your favour OR not get married in the first place. The divorce and child support industries really do not care what you're beliefs are - if you're a man - you have NO rights.

Also, on the cusp of what is about to become the greatER depression (worse than the 1930s), men must be very wise. You're only about 15 % into the financial issues (US) and about 30% into the housing correction and you're now entering into a period of massive job loses, rising unemployment, nationalization (facism) and so forth. 2009 is going to be very bad for many people, 2010 much, much worse.

So you might want to look for greener pastures and/or wait out the next few years in which you'll likley see the dis-inigration of the G-7 nations.

Choosing your path in life is really about common-sense.


aMGHOW

Learner said...

Catwoman,

I'm done trying to explain myself to you.

Does that mean you won't share your source for this?

Gender differences in the sentencing and treatment of sexual offenders are largely accounted for by the previous criminal histories of the offenders, and their risk to re-offend.

Gerv said...

Is it wrong to achieve "independence" from worldly norms, Pharaiseeical legalism and cultish behavior? Or are we just supposed to go along with the crowd?

If the movement were called MGGW (Men Going God's Way), and it were full of men seeking to restore a Biblical understanding of what it means to be male, and relate to others in the church and around them appropriately, I'd be all for it. I'm no cheerleader for the world's conception of masculinity.

But the very name "Men Going Their Own Way" suggests that the demand is for autonomy over one's own life choices. There's also a strong scent of relativism - picking what's right "for you", as if there were no ultimate standard of right and wrong behaviour. As Anonymous said, "First of all, choosing to heading into a MRA is one of endless number of pathS a man may take." This sort of independence is the sort I'm saying is sinful. Not that men won't end up taking a variety of different life paths, but that "it's my life, and I decide how to run it" is precisely the Genesis 3 problem.

BTW, going to church should be an other-person-centred activity. Hebrews 10:25.

Anonymous: I'm not sure if you are using the word patriarchy as distinct from male headship. It's difficult because patriarchy has, in common use, a load of negative connotations and I don't know whether you are embracing those or rejecting them. I support the principle of male headship, in the family and the church.

You also seem to think I'm opposing the idea of marrying abroad. I certainly do not oppose this - why would I? But I do find it hard to believe that almost all (75%+) of the single, available biblically Christian women in the United States are just trying to lure a man so they can divorce him and take his money. That suggestion borders on misogyny, in its proper sense.

And, as I said above to Anakin, I still think your formulation of how to live your life seems to put yourself in the driving seat. And I'm not sure that's a Biblical position - either for men or for women. Forget whether you get married or not for a moment - are you sure that you are God's servant first and foremost, 100%, heart, body and soul?

Anakin Niceguy said...

Gerv,

I asked ...

Is it wrong to achieve "independence" from worldly norms, Pharaiseeical legalism and cultish behavior? Or are we just supposed to go along with the crowd?

You said ...

If the movement were called MGGW (Men Going God's Way), and it were full of men seeking to restore a Biblical understanding of what it means to be male, and relate to others in the church and around them appropriately, I'd be all for it. I'm no cheerleader for the world's conception of masculinity.

I didn't ask you about the conditions by which you would support MGTOW. I asked you a simple "yes/no" question about independence.

I believe you continue to make the mistake of assuming that what is true for MGTOWers individually must be true for the MGTOW as a whole. That's called the Fallacy of Composition. I have been around MGTOWers enough to know that if I asked the question, "Do you believe that you are accountable to nobody but yourself and that you get to decide what is right and what is wrong?" that many of them would answer in the negative.

The bottom line, Gerv, is that God leaves many decisions up to us - that includes the decision to marry and have children. God no more asks these things from us than he asks Christians to abstain from certain meats.

Anonymous said...

Gerv: "Anonymous: I'm not sure if you are using the word patriarchy as distinct from male headship. It's difficult because patriarchy has, in common use, a load of negative connotations and I don't know whether you are embracing those or rejecting them. I support the principle of male headship, in the family and the church."

Here are some good books on the subject of a patriarchy vs matriarchy & marriage in general:

-1- The Garbage Generation
http://fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

-2- The Case for Father Custody
http://www.fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf

-3- ..and a good blog covering related items ...
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2006/12/garbage-generation.html



Gerv: "You also seem to think I'm opposing the idea of marrying abroad. I certainly do not oppose this - why would I? But I do find it hard to believe that almost all (75%+) of the single, available biblically Christian women in the United States are just trying to lure a man so they can divorce him and take his money. That suggestion borders on misogyny, in its proper sense."

I've already posted the divorce rates based on the actual California court statistics.

To recap:
Average Divorce Rate (California): 75.54%**

**Reference: COURT STATISTICS Reports for 1996-2004.

**The REAL divorce rate for the USofA including high divorce states such as California (usually excluded to lower the natonal figure) is around >> 65 % - 75 %

At any rate, it is you WHOM will be living with the consequences for the remainder of YOUR life should you be one of the 65 - 75% of men to head into the child/spousal support industry.

Also keep in mind, 70+% of divorces are initiated by the women. As I recall, there is no major difference in divorce rates between Christian & non-Christian couples.

You may *THINK* (or perhaps, FEEL) you're different from other men due to your beliefs, but, the child/divorce industry will see you as just anther man and just another buck to be made. You hold none of the cards, your wife and the government, holds them all. It's really that simple.

* Again, read the books I listed above. At least you'll know WHY this has been happening.



Anakin Niceguy: "I believe you continue to make the mistake of assuming that what is true for MGTOWers individually must be true for the MGTOW as a whole. That's called the Fallacy of Composition. I have been around MGTOWers enough to know that if I asked the question, "Do you believe that you are accountable to nobody but yourself and that you get to decide what is right and what is wrong?" that many of them would answer in the negative."

Correct.


aMGHOW

Learner said...

Anonymous/aMGHOW,

At any rate, it is you WHOM will be living with the consequences for the remainder of YOUR life should you be one of the 65 - 75% of men to head into the child/spousal support industry.

I agree that there are far too many divorces in the United States and that child custody support laws are not fair to men. I also think if you want to go to Mars to meet a woman to marry that is just fine, but you are misinterpreting the divorce statistics.

1. Those numbers from California are based on the number of divorces that occur in a year versus the number of marriages that happen in the same year. It means for every 100 marriages that happened that year there were 75 divorces out of all the married couples in CA. That ~75% statistic doesn't mean that 75% of all marriages in CA ended that year, or have ended, or that 75% of the marriages that happened that year ended.

2. The rate of divorce (divorces per 1000 people) is not the highest in CA. CA is # 19 on the list at 4.3 people per 1000 per year with Nevada at 7.1 per 1000...US average is 4.1 per thousand.

3. The statistic that 75% of marriages end in divorce (and actually it really is between 40 and 50%) does not mean that 75% of men will get divorced. During the course of their entire life about 20-46% of Americans will divorce.
This seeming difference is because divorce statistics include the 1 in 5 people who have married and divorced more than once.
(my stats come from Barna and statemaster.com...I can't put a hyperlink in a comment to save my life)

KnightWatch said...

Gerv,

>>> Forget whether you get married or not for a moment - are you sure that you are God's servant first and foremost, 100%, heart, body and soul? <<<

100%?

I don't know of anyone who can honestly make that claim. So these people are perfect, in other words? Do you ACTUALLY know of anyone who fits into this particular paradigm, I mean, 100% unselfish IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR LIFE as God's servant first and foremost, 100%, heart, body and soul?

Certainly, that ought to be the ultimate goal in our relationship with Christ, yet how many ever reach this height? And, how unselfish are we supposed to be with others? Let's say, for instance, you have a nice paying job (as a single guy), and you see where one of your associates (he's married with a family of four) is getting laid off from your company in really tough times. Are you going to jump up and give him your job? Not likely. "Oh, no, I don't need my job, you can have it! You're married. You deserve this job more than I do, and I don't want to see your family out on the streets! I've got faith that God will get me another job."

Is this action one of faith and unselfish servitude, or just out right plain foolishness. I could come up with other analogies, yet I hope you get the point.

Perfect creatures in Christ we are not. It's almost akin to some Christians who claim they don't lie. Yet, I doubt there are any on this board (or anywhere else) who could pass this rigid test (if it were used as a criteria).

There are bound to be flaws in our human nature.

Nevertheless, I would surmise, quite possibly, that there are an equal number (percentagewise) of Christian single people as there are Christain married people who are selfish (not that I'm justifying it). Have you ever heard of the phrase: "Us four and no more"? I'm sure you have.
Anakin wrote a nice post on the subject.
And here.

What I am tired of is superficial people (not pointing a finger at you, Gerv) who place single Christian men in one category, and married Christian couples in another in regards to subjects like "immaturity", "selfishness", "self-reliance", etc., etc., and making it appear that married couples are on top of some Holy Grail.

Just something to think about.

Christina said...

OMG...

Catwoman and Amir at it again.

I haven't read everything (seriously, 54 posts is SO much to get caught up on), but some comments I'd like to add. I apologize if some of it has already been said.

First of all,
"systemic issues" sounding like a feminist is quite hilarious as that type of language is quite prevalent in a Amir's line of work and is cohesive with the analogy he gave (working with computer systems and all).

Second of all, I think catwoman claimed that main-line church theology does not embrace abortion, homosexuality, and she named something else...

And yet, part of the systemic decline of doctrine and theology that Amir talks about actually has allowed acceptance of those very things into the heart of several denominations.

One girl in a Presbyterian church was told by her pastor that Abortion was ok.

The national Episcopal Conference has accepted homosexual relationships as legitimate...but not only that, they also accept ALL OTHER RELIGIONS AS LEGITIMATE. Oh, you don't believe Jesus died for your sins? That's ok, cuz your going to heaven, too.

Not systemic? did you know that the National Episcopal Conference has theologians that back up these assertions with doctrine and exegesis??? Ummm...yup. And guess what? They're teaching those things in their seminaries.

Did you know there are bibles that conveniently leave out Ephesians 5:22? And that verse in Timothy that says women should be silent. Yeah...that's not systemic. Not at all.

Little tiny things that have crept into doctrine and theology that are left untended will have a proclivity to grow and ripen and strangle anything good and flourishing.

Paul did say to cast out all false teachers.

Why is it that you would disagree with that? Why is it that you would minimize the significance of anything that is clearly wrong, no matter how "insignificant" it may seem to you?

Whether you see it or not, women HAVE been given a free pass in the church that has been hugely detrimental. I knew this prior to EVER reading anything written on any of these blogs. The only reason I'm here is because Amir posted something on one of MY blogposts about what I saw from women in the church these days - they legitimize their right to leadership over their husbands, declaring it as a spiritual gift and claiming it gives them license to ignore the direct command to submit to your husband.

And in complete and total honesty, the ascension of feminism in both country and church is the crumbling of that boundary placed on the female kind.

I was 13 and new this. Where have you been?

THIS has become systemic. No longer do you have thriving women's ministries that involve generations of young women - unlike men's ministries where I'm more likely to see a teenage boy in a mentoring relationship with a group of elderly men than I am a teenage girl. Instead, there's women striving for access to lead and pastor churches.

You end up with congregations that provide flimsy doctrine to back-up their largely inconsistent views on being pro-choice - every woman should have a decision over her own body? Yes, that is feminism. Nevermind that anything growing inside a woman's body that is going to result in life is as much his as it is hers.

You really don't think its systemic? Its everywhere. Its so incredibly embedded in everything we're taught that its nigh impossible to distinguish between what's right and what's wrong.

Kinda like the marriage mandate (don't mean to pull your tail or anything). It has a flimsy theological support that's embedded in a lot of stuff that is actually TRUE. Its a wolf in sheep's clothing...only the wolf is really actually half-sheep. And yet, its widely accepted because its hard to work your way past what IS true to the heart of the problem that is false.

Same with Amir's favorite pet-peeve, "The Covering" mentioned in the Ephesians 5 verses (23-25?). There's a ring of truth heavily intermingled with false. Both can provide "theological" support...one side with more twisting than the other.

Those are the kinds of things that can become systemic. Wasn't it Captain Sensible that claimed that "the Gift of Singleness is dead!" when they did a new translation of the bible and rephrased that verse? How many people are going to completely ignore the truth that existed in the line "gift of singleness" for their own personal motivations now that that wording is no longer in the bible?

According to the translators, the translation they provided and the one they replaced are inherently the same. However, due to the shift in words, there will be an utter shift in theology and doctrine. That's the beginnings of a systemic problem.

As PC said, "no, the gift of singleness is not dead".

catwoman said...

Uh, Christina, you said:

"I think catwoman claimed that main-line church theology does not embrace abortion, homosexuality, and she named something else..."

You should have stopped there after rambling on for inches, because I did *not* say "mainline theology does not embrace abortion, etc." I said that EVANGELICAL theology does not embrace abortion, etc.

Here's my quote:

"When you talk about "feminist theology", you're conflating liberal mainline theology with evangelical theology. That is disingenious, first because no one here supports the former, whereas the latter (a) opposes abortion (b) and homosexuality (c) accepts the doctrine of total depravity (d) and limited atonement, etc."


And as for your concern "that people are going to completely ignore the truth that existed in the line "gift of singleness" for their own personal motivations now that that wording is no longer in the bible?", I really don't care since the "gift of singleness" was nowhere to be found in the Bible in the first place. The NLT has changed it's translation back to something that more accurately reflects the original Greek, something even Adam has acknowledged as a good thing. So I honestly don't know why either of you spin that as something preserving of the GoS, when it's clearly a return towards the original understanding of that passage.

Christina said...

Catwoman,

My apologies on the first point.

As for the second, people will STILL twist that to their own purposes and already have.

Captain Sensible did. Apparently Debbie Maken did, as well.

Little tiny gives that create a weak foundation. The house may not crumble today, but give it 50 years to cause more crevices, shifts in the foundation to compensate for those crevices, and that house can be condemned.

Its why we have been told to put a stop to false teachings.

catwoman said...

"As for the second, people will STILL twist that to their own purposes and already have....Its why we have been told to put a stop to false teachings."

Well, thanks to the NLT there is now no GoS to twist, so you need not worry. : )

Anonymous said...

The Learner:

As for the 20-46% figure, I put as much faith in that as I do pretty much all of the official statistics meant for public consumption such as: unemployment numbers, (way understated), GDP (way overstated), monetary inflation numbers (aka currency debasement), illegal immigration numbers and so forth.

Though I understand what you're saying, personal experience, observations and other statistics lead me to conclude the divorce rate is much higher than is commonly known, it's not going to get better (except in numbers as much fewer men choose to get married), and increasingly children born in G7 nations will be from illegal, recent immigrants or common law "families" (matriarchy).

The child and spousal (aka wife) support industry requires fresh meat (ahh, men aka walking ATMs) to keep the profit rolling in. By removing high divorce states and "massaging" the numbers they can produce results more to their marketing requirements.

As men catch on, they will loosen the requirements -> common-law support (already in some nations), child support for children not yours (false claims, a wife's affair, a claim from a women you've never even met) and even child support towards children of women you've just dated.

The goal isn't fairness or stable families - its the enslavement of men, the destruction of boys (as they grow into under the instruction of real men), the destruction of patriarchies, the destruction of the traditional family unit (which is part of a patriarchy), social(ism) engineering, de-population, a global & socialist governance and so forth.

The "ISMs" - "matriarchy lite" such as despot-ISM, commun-ISM, corporate-ISM, fac-ISM, social-ISM and so forth, cannot exist in a true patriarchal environment such as a Republic (which is about INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms rather than communal arrangements).

It's really no different than the "con-job" that went into such things as the dot.bomb bubble and the late, great housing and credit bubble.

How many idiots out there fell for the housing bubble (aka ponzi scheme) which came hot on the heels of the dot.bomb bubble (NASDAQ)? How many people are ready for the end of other ponzi schemes in the USofA and other G7 nations - such as the end of retirement pensions or the fiat currency?

btw, the USofA is only 3 years into a 10 - 15 year housing correction. The greatest drops will be in 2008 and 2009 and to a lessor extent or depending on location, 2010 and 2011. Housing is going to be down for at least 1 decade, perhaps several. California is down (medium resales) 50% already and another 25-50% further drop is in the works (max. medium drop of 75%). note quite what most expert MSM economists or realtor's promised - even swore - would happen!

The business model is different now (dot.bomb), they are not making any more land (RE bubble), you don't understand equity (housing bubble), credit isn't debt, and consumption/FIRE is the new economy (credit bubble), feminism is about equality (feminist movement) and the developed nations divorce rates are low with equal and fair treatment for all, should it end (spousal and child support industry bubble).

Almost everyone I know around me has been divorced at least once. In fact, a first marriage is laughingly called a "starter marriage" by many. That includes the majority of Christians whom I have come across or have known.

For example, both of my sisters (both attend different & quite large Pentecostal churches) have EACH been married and divorced TWICE (while faithfully attending church I might add), and I am sure, a third is in line for the younger of the two.

A choir singer at a similar church had an affair (she was married with children) - she seduced a fellow choir member whom was also married with children.

The child and spousal support industries treated my former brother-in-laws the same as any other man whom has gone through it. btw, they were good men too, and good husbands but womens' FEELINGS do change...that is the nature of women and of "feelings".

I can go on and on with examples. I've never seen much difference inside a church vs outside in terms of divorces or even ethics at work for that matter.

At any rate and IMO, if men do wish to get married and have children, it only makes sense to do so OUTSIDE a feminized, matriarchal nation. Matriarchal societies such as those of the G7 are just not setup for stable marriages which is really the hallmark of a patriarchal environment.

Stay single & work for change (if Islamic Shiara laws can be legally used in the UK, various EU nations, and parts of the US, why can't Christians make their own, no divorce laws?). Until then, if you're going to get married, then move to and do so in a patriarchal nation with no legal divorce and where husbands, fathers make the cornerstone of the family unit, and in a nations where babies are not murdered and where boys are not forcibly meditated for simply being, boys.

Lastly, despite YEARS of warning many people still bought a house in the great housing bubble (and many will loose everything - 40% of ALL US mortgages are expected to fail and that includes "PRIME" and "JUMBO" loans), many people still bought (and lost) dot.bomb stocks in the very obvious "tech-bubble" and I would imagine many men will continue to get married and loose all (including their sons and daughters) despite over-whelming decades of evidence (and common sense) warning them not too. Such is the nature, of fools.

aMGHOW

Christina said...

aMGHOW,
Almost everyone I know around me has been divorced at least once. In fact, a first marriage is laughingly called a "starter marriage" by many. That includes the majority of Christians whom I have come across or have known.

If this is your support for believing divorce stats are much higher than reported, than for every sob story you have, I've got a success story.

My parents have been married 25 years.

My aunt and uncle have been married 35+ years.

Another aunt and uncle have been married 25 years.

People in my church? One of my photographers was married to her husband for 20 years before he died of heart failure. Another couple had been married for 50+ years.

Younger couples? My deacon at my wedding has been married for 10 years (their first marriage).

The choir director has been married for 30 years.

The church-school's music teacher has been married for 40 years.

Two of the women who threw my wedding shower have been married for 25-30 years.

At work?

My boss has been married for 10 years.

My supervisor has been married for 30 years.

Two of my co-workers have been married for 30+ years.

On my other program?
One man has been married for 15years. The other for 20.

My boss, for 10 years.

Those are ALL first-time marriages.

Maybe I'm just blessed to be surrounded by so many successful marriages...and they are...all of them speak fondly of their wives (except my supervisor, but even when he's being grouchy about her, you can tell he loves her). All of the women speak fondly of their husbands.

Yeah, I know some divorcees. Not gonna lie.

But I've seen far more successful ones than not.

So maybe its a location thing.

Learner said...

aMGHOW,

How do you know the statistics you are going by any more valid than the ones I referred to that you think are understated? When I looked for the stats you quoted from CA the 75% rate was for southern Cali, which I think many of us in the rest of the country would agree is a different world.

I agree with Christina that it may
be a location thing (and possibly denominational...pentecostal churches have one of the highest divorce rates among all Christian denominations). Of the 35 adults in my family between my parents and their brothers and sisters and all of their children there are only 5 divorces, and two of those are the same uncle and one is counting that one of my cousins is married to a man who was married before. None of my closest girlfriends from church are divorced (of the 7 of them 5 are married for the first time and the other 2 are single).

Overstating the risk doesn't advance your position. There is always the crazy and off-the-wall option of judging people on an indivifual basis.

Gerv said...

Real life calls, so I'm going to have to leave it here, but:

I didn't ask you about the conditions by which you would support MGTOW. I asked you a simple "yes/no" question about independence.

I am asserting that the type of independence for which MGTOW seems to stand is sinful. That cannot be rebutted by saying "some independence is OK". That may be true, but you need to explain why this sort of independence is Biblically OK.

The bottom line, Gerv, is that God leaves many decisions up to us - that includes the decision to marry and have children.

Where did I argue against that? "God leaves the decision about getting married up to us" is not the same thing as "I am an independent entity and make my own decisions about how my life should go".

Knightwatch said: "I don't know of anyone who can honestly make that claim. So these people are perfect, in other words? Do you ACTUALLY know of anyone who fits into this particular paradigm, I mean, 100% unselfish IN ALL PHASES OF THEIR LIFE as God's servant first and foremost, 100%, heart, body and soul?"

No. Please insert the obvious implied "trying to be" into the sentence. My assertion is that this is not the aim or ideal of MGTOW and similar movements. Do you disagree?

"We can't possibly achieve that" is no reason that it can't or shouldn't be the goal. We'll all be imperfect this side of heaven, but God calls us to holiness and increasing godliness. You seem to be saying "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (Romans 6:15)

Where did I argue that married people are less selfish than single people? Leave marriage out of it - increased holiness and godliness and reduced selfishness are goals for all Christians. And I assert they are not compatible with MGTOW ideals. Going "your own way", as opposed to God's way, is the fundamental error of sin. Eve did it. Adam did it. And so on. And if you say "well, my way is God's way", then we're back to calling the movement MGGW instead - because it's not like you came up with it on your own and God said "yeah, that looks good to me".

I've never heard the phrase "us four and no more", and none of the references I can find seems to explain it clearly. Who are the four? Me, myself, I and my wife?

Anakin Niceguy said...

Gerv writes ...

I am asserting that the type of independence for which MGTOW seems to stand is sinful. That cannot be rebutted by saying "some independence is OK". That may be true, but you need to explain why this sort of independence is Biblically OK.

Gerv, with all due respect, I have already explained why the independence was ok. I clearly indicated that MGTOW had a context - against gynocentrism, misandry, statism, etc. Did you say these things are good and scriptural? You have tried to characterize the MGTOW movement as being inherently antinomian. I'm sorry if the language used by MGTOW has that connotation for you, but quite frankly, you don't have the liberty of defining MGTOW.

Why? Because, I know many of the men in the MGTOW movement. There are religious men in the movement. Even EW subscribes to it. I know what the men mean by "going their own way." It is not the meaning you are attaching to it. Sir, I take great umbrage when you attempt to ascribe beliefs to the all the men of MGTOW, when I know that not all of them believe what you are accusing them of believing.

Leave marriage out of it - increased holiness and godliness and reduced selfishness are goals for all Christians. And I assert they are not compatible with MGTOW ideals. Going "your own way", as opposed to God's way, is the fundamental error of sin.

Well if the MGTOW movement actually held the tenets that it doesn't matter what God thinks and people should do whatever they want to do, I would renounce MGTOW. I find these kind of statements among atheists and in their literature and Humanist Manifestos. I don't find them in the MGTOW movement. Again, there is a context to MGTOW. I assert that you are misrepresenting the beliefs of the men of MGTOW.

Gerv, I have tried to be polite in this exchange, and I hope your are acting in good faith. It's one thing to disagree with someone. It's quite another to be persistent in falsely accusing some of believing something they don't believe. The latter is wrong, inexcusable, and an egregious sin.

I consider it a waste of time getting into "is not - is so - is not - is so" arguments. This is last time that I am going to make these points with you, because I have made them more than once. I hope you can stay here and contribute productively to this blog, even if it is to take a dissenting position. I beg you to not abuse the privilege that I have afforded to you.

KnightWatch said...

Please insert the obvious implied "trying to be" into the sentence.

Um, what you implied in your sentence the first time wasn't that obvious.

>>> My assertion is that this is not the aim or ideal of MGTOW and similar movements.<<<

Hmm, similar movements. Why not just simply say 'any' movement that you disagree with in that legalistic mind of yours. As for MGTOW, I am not a member, and yes, I disagree WITH their approach, BUT not to the idea that they stand against misandry. Furthermore, the site, for me, is too negative. Therefore ...


I

don't

go

there!


>>> Going "your own way", as opposed to God's way, is the fundamental error of sin.<<<

Again, I agree! Yet, it's not as cut and dried as you make it appear. For instance, going God's way does not mean a Christian will vote for the right man (whoever that may be) no matter how careful and unselfish he prays over the matter. Going God's way does not mean a Christian will fight in the right war, or for the right cause (which beckons an inquiry: Are we serving the state, or God first?). Also, consider this when you think you have all the Truth. There was once a war where 'men going God's way (the North)' fought with another group of 'men going God's way (the South).

Each side had men of faith who 'knew' they were right and 'considered themselves' in God's will.

Each side prayed and believed in the same God and read from the same Bible.


How could two sides be so different, yet claim to have God with them? Confederate Gerv believed he had the Truth. Yankee Gerv disagreed and claimed that the North was on the side of Truth. "It was the South", Yankee Gerv retorted, "that was wrong, selfish, and immoral blah, blah, blah ..."

Many of these men were possibly holier servants than anything we have in society today. By all accounts, General Lee was considered a Bible believing servant who did not agree with the succession of states, yet he fought on the confederate side because his family lived in Virginia. The point is -- both sides had men of faith who believed they were right and in God's good standing, and I imagine that at least a good many of them served God first and foremost. 100%!!!

You know, Gerv, it is not uncommon for one such as yourself, the casual 'observer you are', to lift themselves up as angels to look over everyone else with a God's eye. We can agree to disagree on the subject of how we define our independence, and whatever else. Clearly, we are at an impasse. Anymore input would be a waste of my time.

>>> "We can't possibly achieve that" is no reason that it can't or shouldn't be the goal. <<<

I made that very clear, I think. Is there a problem here?

Nevertheless, I agree with this one blog writer from Misandry Review concerning the MGTOW site.

There is something very wrong with MGTOW. Instead of talking about 'men going their own way', we see...

-Anti-Americanism (or other rants against one's mother country)
-Declarations of Chicken Little economic/social/cultural collapse.
-Religious screeds against a particular religion or against all religions.
-Conspiracy theories.
-Evangelizing the 'Deck-Stacked-Against-Us-Have-No-Hope' view of society (which is unproductive)
-Evangelizing that one ought to live like a Mexican...
-...or another country...
-Forums become a 'Yes!' echo chamber. There is no discussion, just rants filled with yes-men.

These 'elements' are well known but ignored because of the 'good things' that do come out. We should just shrug off these things and compromise with them. Well, there is one problem.

When food and poison compromise, which is the victor? It is the poison. Eating it may be sustaining... for the short term... but your body fills up with these poison toxins. You begin to lose your ambition, your passion, and generally become filled with bitterness.

I have wondered how this is occurring. It is not uncommon. Many 'movements' somehow get filled with negative filled people with anger issues and other wackos. But not all movements. So how did MGTOW become a container for this garbage?

The answer is that MGTOW is founded on a negative itself: avoidance of woman. This has caused blanket rants against women. A farmer can rant all day about the unfairness of frost, but that will not get him anywhere. There is no cosmic justice out there. The world is what it is and its better to live in it that in a hyper-reality.

Perhaps this will hit more to the point. How many years has MGTOW existed? And what has changed since then? Really, nothing has changed at all.

But I have to wonder why no one in MGTOW can keep to the subject. Pick any random thread and you will find someone start going off the reservation of a speech against a religion or another unasked for soapbox sermon on some oddball subject. Often, many will randomly insert his "brilliant" assertion that civilization will collapse in ten years.

MGTOW is based on the belief that men have made mistakes (which should be spared making mistakes). These mistakes can include marriage, being nice guy, being worshipful to women, and so on. All these mistakes have a common theme: egotism. When the man got married, he was so sure he was doing the right thing and the naysayers were all jealous villains.

Since so many join MGTOW based on being wrong in the past, why does everyone act like they are right all the time? It is amazing! The egotism never died. It just shifted into new forms. This would explain why someone can't keep to the subject of MGTOW and instead must start bashing a religion, bashing a country, or bashing something else. One can be right on something and be wrong on other things. But MGTOW do not see that. They act like they have suddenly become right on everything (so they become vocal on it).

If we were wrong in the past, and it damaged our lives (such as getting married to a fiend), why do we strut around as if we have such 'wisdom'? If we were so wrong once, we could be wrong again. Yet, this reservation is nowhere to be found in MGTOW. Every man has his own pet theories. The dogs slip their leash and begin to ravage the good content.

To be honest, I don't see many happy MGTOW. There are no celebrations about being 'free' but complaining about... something. Trust me; celebrations and good cheer are far more effective and contagious than "being right all the time".

In normal society, people do not like being around someone 'right all the time'. Even if they are right, they are downright annoying. People prefer light-hearted, good cheered fun. When I think of MGTOW, 'good cheer' is the last to come to mind. MGTOW isn't about being alive as it is about escaping pain.

For as much as we mock feminists for being negative, for getting with women to talk bad about men, it is becoming more and more clear that MGTOW is becoming more like the mirror image. Behavior by behavior, a MGTOW male acts very similar to a feminist in lifestyle and habit. You begin to live alone, have meetings with guys to 'talk bad about women' (to ease existential pains), and write bad essays.

I think it is becoming clear that marriage and children is a natural longing in not just women but men as well. Nature did not intend gender avoidance. I believe generally everyone is repelled by the negative pessimistic tone found on MGTOW. However, people return consistently for a dose of the poison to ease the existential pain (caused by the natural longing of wife and children which is found in every culture and time). Once convinced by the rantings that women are more painful than pleasurable, the male goes off semi-satisfied. But, alas, the natural longing creeps up again causing the male to return.

Triton said...

I appreciate your attempt at moderation, Knightwatch, but I have to disagree with whomever wrote the stuff you quoted.

There is something very wrong with MGTOW. Instead of talking about 'men going their own way', we see...

-Anti-Americanism (or other rants against one's mother country)


Nothing wrong with that, so long as the criticism is valid. America will never improve if its flaws are ignored.

And frankly, I'm offended by the term "mother country". I have only one mother, and she is a flesh-and-blood woman, not a piece of land or a government.

-Declarations of Chicken Little economic/social/cultural collapse.

We're in the midst of just such an economic collapse. There's nothing "Chicken Little" about it. The more egregious error is by those head-in-the-sand folks who refuse to see the reality going on around them.

-Religious screeds against a particular religion or against all religions.

No one comes to the Father but through the Son. Any religion that preaches otherwise is insufficient for salvation and therefore, in the eternal sense, worthless. Jesus himself said he came to divide, not unite. I don't know if any of that constitutes a "screed", but I won't apologize for it regardless.

-Conspiracy theories.

There have been a number of conspiracies throughout history, many of them successful. The Federal Reserve comes to mind. The amazing thing isn't that so many people believe in conspiracy theories, but rather that so many write them off out of hand.

-Evangelizing the 'Deck-Stacked-Against-Us-Have-No-Hope' view of society (which is unproductive)

Societies collapse. This is an historical fact, and thinking it can't happen to us for whatever reason is childish and stupid. Having the view may be unproductive, but that is the way of things. All of Jeremiah's warnings were unproductive, too, and God told him they would be, but Jeremiah was commanded to warn the people anyway.

-Evangelizing that one ought to live like a Mexican...

Okay, this is something I haven't heard yet. I have no idea what it means to live like a Mexican.

-...or another country...

Nothing wrong with expatriation. Some people are often fond of saying "America - love it or leave it" to those who are critical of America. I suppose the option to leave isn't valid anymore now that so many citizens have decided to do precisely that; now it's just "America - love it or else!"

-Forums become a 'Yes!' echo chamber. There is no discussion, just rants filled with yes-men.

This is no different than almost any other internet forum or blog.

The answer is that MGTOW is founded on a negative itself: avoidance of woman. This has caused blanket rants against women. A farmer can rant all day about the unfairness of frost, but that will not get him anywhere. There is no cosmic justice out there. The world is what it is and its better to live in it that in a hyper-reality.

So a farmer who doesn't like frost isn't permitted to move to a warmer climate? That's just silly. The fact that we have to live in the world doesn't mean that we can't try to improve our situations. For some men, that improvement means reducing their interaction with women.

I think it is becoming clear that marriage and children is a natural longing in not just women but men as well. Nature did not intend gender avoidance.

There is nothing natural about marriage. Nature's arrangement is matriarchy and illegitimate children - for examples, see the Indian reservations, the rainforest tribes, and the American ghetto.

Marriage, as we know it in the context of Western Civilization, is a patriarchal institution that must be purposefully constructed and maintained. It is not nature's default arrangement.

Finally, for Gerv's benefit, I would add that MGTOW has nothing to do with rebellion against God. It is about not being obligated to participate in a man-made system that is destructive and immoral.

KnightWatch said...

America will never improve if its flaws are ignored.

I don't know about that, Triton. I've been around quite some time now, and I have yet to see one improvement over the many, many flaws that have been pointed out over my lifetime. And you know what? It got to the point where I carried a log in my own eye. Alas, life simply is too short to worry about everything that goes on in the world. These problems will continue to exist after I'm dead and gone.

I'm presuming you are in your twenties, so therefore, I'll pass the baton over to you. (Here, take the ring Gandalf)

Anyhow, I do think the writer serves a legitimate point when it's the same perpetual cycle of gripes over and over again nonstop. This is what I believe he is ranting about. It becomes deafening after awhile, especially when there's all talk and no action. There's only so much exegesis one can put on a stop sign, and there's only so much a person can blog and post before his reader yells: "OKAY, OKAY, I GET THE MESSAGE! AMERICA'S GOT PROBLEMS! NOW, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?!?"

On the other hand, if this is a way to resolve your anger management problems without getting ulcers, well then, fine. :)

Sure, it's obvious that the writer left himself open for critical reproach. His attempt, in my opinion, although feeble, is to reveal that the MGTOW'ers behave like they have a corn cob up their behind a great majority of the time.

Look at it this way: If one is a part of the MGTOW lifestyle, I would think these men would be sharing the positive, more productive, results from their experiences to offset the negative aspects of the world, especially if they're trying to draw newer recruits. Is such the case? And is such the case for Christian men who, presumably, are to bear fruit, bringing a testimony of Christ to a lost and dying world?

Triton said...

I'm presuming you are in your twenties

Thirties, actually.

His attempt, in my opinion, although feeble, is to reveal that the MGTOW'ers behave like they have a corn cob up their behind a great majority of the time.

I'd definitely agree with that. Many of these men are speaking from experience; that is, they have endured divorce and having their children taken away first hand, and they have become bitter as a result. Heap enough misfortune on a man, and eventually he'll break.

Look at it this way: If one is a part of the MGTOW lifestyle, I would think these men would be sharing the positive, more productive, results from their experiences to offset the negative aspects of the world, especially if they're trying to draw newer recruits. Is such the case?

I believe so, though the ranting definitely seems more prevalent. The positive results mainly seem to be in the realm of relief and peace of mind. Men talk about living their lives the way they want, doing the things they want, spending their own money, etc. These things may seem pretty mundane, but they mean an awful lot to men who are in relationships with awful women or who have been through the divorce court/child custody meat grinder.

And is such the case for Christian men who, presumably, are to bear fruit, bringing a testimony of Christ to a lost and dying world?

I don't see how avoiding romantic relationships prevents a man from spreading the Gospel. If anything, not having to deal with all the baggage I previously mentioned can only help a Christian man's testimony. If a man hates the circumstances of his own household, then I imagine it would affect his evangelistic efforts in a negative fashion. 1 Tim. 3:5 comes to mind.

KnightWatch said...

I don't see how avoiding romantic relationships prevents a man from spreading the Gospel.

No, no, you're getting the wrong meaning here. What I was asking was in reference to the beginning of my last paragraph where I said: ["If one is a part of the MGTOW lifestyle, I would think these men would be sharing the positive, more productive, results from their experiences to offset the negative aspects of the world ..."]. If you connect the dots, you'll see that relationship avoidance had nothing to do with my inquiry.

Male Samizdat said...

I'm going to come to the party late on this one.

MGTOW is precisely that - Men Going Their Own Way. It is in reference primarily to societal expectation.

Men who subscribe to MGTOW:
1. Refuse to be pressured to marry just because society says to.
2. Do NOT apologize for being men. In this, MGTOW is the anti-Hugo.
3. Refuse to supplicate to women.
4. Date whom they wish despite societal disapproval (meaning: MGTOW places no stigma on foreign brides)
5. Refuse to place themselves in a servitude situation to a woman in which no reward is expected.
6. Understand that the proper order of things in marriage (and society) is that the man leads, the woman follows; anything else is a formula for chaos.

That's all I can think of for now.

Gerv said...

Refuse to place themselves in a servitude situation to a woman in which no reward is expected.

How does that fit with Ephesians 5:25-33? Christ did not expect a reward when he gave himself up for the Church, and husbands should also expect no reward when they sacrifice themselves for their wives. If we have no right to expect anything of God, although he often graciously gives, then we certainly have no right to expect rewards from other humans just for doing what is right. Luke 17:7-10.

A man who believes the quote above should never get married, because marriage involves mutual service with no expectation of reward.