Anyone following my writings and the writings of some fellow bloggers for the last few years will know what we are up against: Nobody's getting married like they used to and everybody wants to blame the guys for it. Let me itemize, reiterate and encapsulate a few things about the so-called "delay of marriage." But first let me say the following by way of introduction to my subject matter:Anybody who believes immature, single men are primarily to blame for people putting off marriage or not getting married at all needs to stop what he or she is doing right now, get up, go to the bedroom, and stay there until I say otherwise.
Chronically unexamined in the larger discourse are the contributions of the distaff gender to the current phenomenon of "protracted singleness." Thus, at least for the sake of balance, here are some talking points that constitute the proverbial "third rail" of the discussion on people not getting married ...
1. The Cosmo Complex
Popular culture keeps reminding men that the old rules are gone and now they got to prove themselves to women more than ever before. We keep hearing from women, "I don't need no mayyyannn, and if one is lucky to have me, he's got to ... [insert 6,045 stipulations here]." Let's be honest here. I mean it: let's-be-honest. We do not see men behaving like this. If they did, they would be written off as egoistical, chauvinistic cads, who think "the world revolves around them" or that they are "God's gift to women."
Women, due to a confluence of increased independence, increased social status, increased economic power, and a gynocentric culture, now have inflated assumptions about how men should be. A plethora of romance novels, mainstream television shows, movies geared towards women, etc. simply adds fuel to the fire. However, there is no serious widespread conversation about whether or not the criteria women set up for suitors are fair or warranted.
There are much more cultural controls for men who have unrealistic assumptions about women than vice versa. You see articles shaming men for viewing women through the lens of physical beauty. You see our media putting down men for going "out of their league" (envision the stereotypical blonde who pours the drink down the shirt of Joe Six-Pack). But where is the analogue in our cultural discourse for women who have unrealistic ambitions for men out of their league? Dove commercials can focus on realistically beautiful women (see also the Campaign for Real Beauty), but I don't see culture wringing its hands in a similar fashion to counteract some of the mental distortions women have about the ideal man.
When it comes to romance, media tells ordinary women they are all princesses and deserving of the best. It hearkens back to the Disney movies. I suppose much of this is the result of women being the pursued sex, the ones who reject the advances, the gatekeepers with regard to formation of relationships. But with woman-firstersim, the egos of the pursued sex get magnified. Women need to realize playing hard to get has it pitfalls. You won't have self-respecting men feeling sorry for you when you blow off opportunities. They are not going to listen to you whine about their being "no good men left" when you treated many men, who are indeed good, so shabbily--or like they didn't exist.
Why is there a delay in marriage? Because many women have drunk the Kool-Aid and believed they were goddesses of the new millennium and there would be an endless supply of suitors to choose from. This is especially the case for Gen X women who now are waking up with a bad hangover. Buyer's remorse is indeed setting in for women in this age group. No ladies, "you can't have it all" when it comes to mate selection.
2. The Cinderella Paradox
I've blogged about this one, and it's related to the "Cosmo Complex." Women tend to be hypergamous. The "Paradox" is that as women increase their social status, the ability of men to be desirable mates for these women decreases. The pyramid narrows at the top, but don't tell this to the modern woman. She has conned herself into believing that their are enough men of high status to go around who are, at the same time, serious about marriage.
Meanwhile, men are getting economically disenfranchised. Even Albert Mohler, who likes to target men a lot, said something revealing in a recent broadcast (see 9:40 ff. here). He indicated the recent downturn in the economy has essentially impacted male-dominated professions, except for one field--the repair industry. Of course, Al hardly connects the dots when comes to men's issues. The 300 pound gorilla that Al and others ignore is this question: Do you know any professional women who want to marry repair men?
We can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, tell women to stop seeking prestigious jobs, or tell them to get back into the kitchen and bake some pie. But the doesn't stop many so-called liberated women from confining men to the old, stereotyped role of being "the main earner" does it? The reason there is a delay in marriages is because a critical mass of women show they are clueless about this matter.
3. Your Female Essence Is Not So Great
Danielle Crittenden compares older bachelors to a subway train of "misfits" and "crazy men." Laura Nolan says men are like eggs; they must "hatch" (get attached to women) or "go bad." Candice Watters repeats what she says. Some of Lisa Anderson's friends think older men are single for reasons that are not so flattering. Let me say the following with all due respect and without malice: All the women saying these things and the such like need to collectively put a sock in it. It's no longer surprising to me, but nonetheless noteworthy, that some of the most bigoted, knuckle-dragging, anti-male sexist drivel comes from putatively conservative women.
I've already said something about women being told by society they are princesses and how such leads to inflated expectations regarding men. I also believe women being told they are princesses by a gynocentric, chivalrous society causes them to be blind to their own shortcomings. According to the Standard Party Line, it's men who have all the faults, all the bad habits, all the hang-ups, all the displays of immaturity, all neuroses, all the issues with the parent of the opposite sex, all the wrong reasons for being unattached, all the creepy behavior, etc. Popular culture leads us to believe that the typical women is Marilyn Munster, an archetype of prettiness and normality, surrounded by male freaks.
Women complain that media portrays them in an unrealistic manner. Indeed, this is the case. Popular culture is too flattering to women. Popular culture wants us to believe that the woman on the street is beautiful, intelligent, savvy, more adept than the men around her, emotionally stable, quick-witted, resourceful, etc. She is not the woman on the street that I know in real life.
The women I know in real life are not goddesses. They are Just. Human. Beings. They snore. Their breath stinks. They pass gas and it smells as bad as what comes from a man. They lose it. They have weird quirks. They take medications for their emotional problems. They have to turn to the men in their lives to fix things. They they say and do stupid things. In essence, they don't fare much better than their male counterparts in dealing with the vicissitudes of life. They're just as screwed up as everybody else. Like Alfred Adler said, "The only normal people are the one's you don't know very well."
In the meantime, I keep waiting for the female equivalent of the statement "Brother, You're Like A Six." But I suppose a society that can't realize a female murderer for what she is probably can't admit to even the slightest imperfections in women. The reason there are delays in marriage is because a lot of women don't see themselves as the flawed creatures they are--in need of God's grace like everyone else. Ergo, they are not willing to extend grace to the men around them. There is another reason for a delay in marriage. It's because some women, like men, are--gasp--not marriage material.
4. The Tool in the Company Store
Do you know what a lot of single men see when they look at their married counterparts? They see married men being treated like the tool. Nobody wants to be a tool. I daresay if your typical man wants to marry, it's because he's marrying for love. What do women marry for? From the looks of things, it's property, children, and social status. You demur when I say that, do you? Explain, then, the recurrent theme in our media of some older divorcée or widow who, having had her children and her inheritance at the expense of some man, says something along the lines of: "I'm not looking anymore. I just don't feel the need to clean up after some slob, yada, yada." Of course, she isn't looking. She got what she wanted.
There yet remains to be any serious discussion in this culture about how women objectify and demean men in marriage. Indeed, that married men might want to be treated as human beings with their own valid opinions seems earth-shattering to some women. Dr. Laura writes a book called The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands and women get upset. The insulting corniness of the title aside, why did such a book have to be written in the first place? Isn't caring about what should be the most important man in a woman's life a no-brainer? Apparently for a lot of women it isn't. Too many married men are treated like appliances, or that loud relative that visits every so often and that you wish would go away at the end of the evening.
Pundits like Mark Regnerus, Albert Mohler, and writers for Boundless.org hold out marriage to young men as the solution for sexual immorality. Really? Did they read the book Every Man's Battle? Did they read Paul Coughlin's No More Christian Nice Guy? Because these books tell a disturbing truth: A lot of Christian men hope that in marriage they can have their proverbial cistern to drink from or the proverbial breasts of a wife to get intoxicated by (Prov. 5:15-19). But men find the cistern dry. Women simply do not have enough love and respect for their husbands to care about the relationship needs and desires of these men in terms of emotional and physical intimacy. The pundits talk about men defrauding women before marriage. How about the women who defraud men after marriage (1 Corinthians 7:5)? No we can't talk about that, because men have to earn affection from their wives, dont'cha know.
Men have observed how their fathers have been treated in the new era of gender relationships. Young men are afraid of commitment. No surprise there! It's not "just a piece of paper" after all. They know "everything changes" after marriage. Indeed, what does change? Huh? Answer me. They know. It's about the obligations ... which tend to be slanted one way and offset by not very much being given back. You see, we talk about a man's fear of divorce. But there's another bogey-man here: the loveless marriage.
Like I said, many married men are treated like the tool. And the social structure is rigged like the Company Store. What's on the shelves? Marriage 2.0. It all about her expectations, their parents expectations, their friends expectations, the expectations of everyone else. It's about "keeping up appearances" and "keeping up with the Joneses." So, many men exhaust themselves physically, financially, mentally, and emotionally because what's on the shelf puts them in debt with the Store Managers. In this day and age, will a man's life really be enhanced by saying "I do" or will it be diminished? Will he have to sacrifice his dreams in a culture where a woman's opinion trumps all other viewpoints in a relationship? To say that the modern marriage (Marriage 2.0) is female-centered to a fault is an understatement.
Recently, John Thomas at Boundless offered a young man a piece of advice: "Remember: You're pursuing a person, not an institution." Boundless staff writer, Suzanne Hadley weighed in:
"I've been on the receiving end of this approach. A woman can tell when she's just on a job interview for the role of wife. Of course, single women want men to pursue them. But a woman also wants to know that a man is pursuing her because of her unique qualities -- not just because he's in need of a wife."But what I find more enlightening is the comment of one male reader who exposes Boundless' sheer hypocrisy in this regard:
I have read countless articles on this site that say the Christian dating should be intentional and with an objective toward marriage. In fact, the reason I started reading this site was a publication entitled, “A Guys Guide to Marrying Well”. This booklet is caulked full of section headings such as “Don’t Wait for a Burning Bush”, “Brother You’re Like a Six”, and “Don’t Wait For Your Soul Mate”. Apparently, Christian women aren’t getting the same message…. Because lots of you still seem to want “Brad Pitt and Jesus Christ all rolled into one”.Indeed women are not getting the same message. They're special, after all. They must never be objectified. They must never be reduced to a role or a position. They must be seen as unique human beings. Men on the other hand? Well ... uh .. um. Crickets chirp.
Who are we fooling here? It's the old tool thing again. Men are not wanted "for richer or poorer," "in sickness and health," or "for better or worse." They are wanted for what they provide. They are just a means to an end. The modern married man is just a cardboard cut-out, a body double, a convenient warm body to full the role of making the princess' dreams comes true. In the end, he is viewed as a commodity or resource that is disposable or expendable. His worth is ultimately determined by his usefulness to women. Too many men are finding out that their wives didn't really marry them; instead, these women married a fantasy of "being married." That is the essence of Marriage 2.0 for you. Moreover, let me say that a lot husbands are being torn down psychologically and blamed for everything that goes wrong in a marriage or family. But society and even the church just looks the other way. Are modern women and their male apologists so incorrigibly stupid as to believe that single men aren't picking up on these things that I've mentioned?
If what I saying here is overstated, then why is marriage framed in terms of a cost for men? Why do they say, "Why but the cow when you can get the milk for free?" If marriage was so great for men, then shouldn't they see it as an opportunity and not as a cost? Well it seems being the princess in modern society means not only that you get to treat men shabbily before a relationship, but during the relationship as well. In short, there is a delay in marriage because men are not getting anything out of what is offered and women don't care enough to have it otherwise.
5. Divorce
Yeah, can't leave this one out. It's been discussed by many others, however, so I won't belabor it. Men stand to lose a lot if women decide to cash in on the marriage. You have people like Stephen Baskerville sounding the alarm on this matter. Mind you, this man has been interviewed by none other than Albert Mohler. And yet this is what Mr. Baskerville says in his book Taken into Custody:
There is mounting evidence that as men discover the terms of marriage and divorce today, they are engaging in a marriage boycott or marriage “strike”: refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife walks out and how attractive the divorce industry has made it easy for her to do so. …. Sonja Hastings of Fathers-4-Equality says that “no matter how decent, hardworking, and caring you may be as a father, that in the event of separation, you will more than likely not get custody of your child, you will lose up to 80% of all of your assets, you will have to pay up to five times the cost of raising a child, and most importantly you could never see your child again.” In Britain a fathers’ rights group tours university campuses warning young men not to start families. Even one attorney writes a book concluding that the only effective protection for men to avoid losing their children is not to start a family in the first place. (HT: Dr. Helen)When it comes to the divorce and why there is a delay in marriage, well, "I rest my case, your honor."
Before I close, let me throw another molotov cocktail into the garden party of Blame-The-Guys-First crowd: Seven years ago the CDC conducted a study on people and their desire to get married. Do you know which gender agreed more with the statement, "It is better to get married than to go through life being single"? The men. Even among conservative protestants, the breakdown was roughly 68% men vs. 59% women. I am certain this study is not unknown to the Marriage Mandators. Even Steve and Candice Watters were made aware of it a few years back before the Boundless Line blog came on. Recently, Candice Watters was on a radio show with Al Mohler concerning their pet topic, the delay of marriage. Al, as usual, conjured up images of helpless little maidens desperate to get married and slacker dudes sitting on their duffs doing nothing. What did Mrs. Watters say in response to this talk? Search your feelings, padawan.
You see, then, how the snow globe really shakes up. Yes, there are women out there who are nothing like what I described above. That's not the issue. The issue is this: We have a cultural climate (both in and out of the church) that allows women to be exactly like what I described and a statistically significant amount of them are "like that." I've touched the third rail. It deals with how women treat men. And yet, I'm not shocked in what I've said. Are you?
93 comments:
Anakin-
I'm glad that you and others continue to beat the drum.
For this generation of women, though, there is nothing ahead but tears.
It's too late for them - by the time they figure it out, they will be long past their marriageable prime.
It is just as well, since the chorus of female whining is just beginning to ramp up. They are not cries of repentance, however, they are cries of personal loss. There is still no recognition that the men they so despise are human beings just like them.
For both the men and women it will end badly, but at least for the men it will end in lonely freedom, for the women, a lonely prison.
Sorry ladies, you've had your chance, now I'm just popping the corn and watching you wrinkle up good.
Women thrive on looking good and being appealing, and when there is no cure left for their aged ugliness, the sole reason for desiring them will be gone.
One of the best blog postings I've ever seen. Well done, sir!
"According to the Standard Party Line, it's men who have all the faults, all the bad habits, all the hang-ups, all the displays of immaturity, all neuroses, all the issues with the parent of the opposite sex, all the wrong reasons for being unattached, all the creepy behavior, etc."
One exception to this comes when an insecure or controlling woman marries, and suddenly will insist to her husband that every female in his life other than her... friends, coworkers, family members... are untrustworthy and out to screw them over. Suddenly, every other woman in the world he knows becomes an enemy.
Regardless of the faults of women or men, one reason for a delay in marriage is that it generally takes longer now for a man to become established to the point where he can financially provide for a family. These Early Marriage Mandaters think it is unrealistic that men will maintain purity if they marry later (and just who is interacting with men in these cases, hmmmmmm?) or not at all, but they don't think it is unrealistic for a man to marry, be a good husband and father (meaning always doing all of the things his wife wants him to do, cleaning up around the house, playing with the kids and changing their diapers, being there for breakfast and dinner) while AT THE SAME TIME completing his education... while already working in a job that earns enough income to provide for his family AND being active in church activities... and climb up the professional ladder while not "disrespecting his wife" by networking with female professionals.
Sorry... most of us do not live on isolated family farms anymore. Unlike our fathers and grandfathers, we are competing with women for seats in university/grad school classes and job openings and for payroll dollars. Getting professional established often involves evening events or working late, working weekends, business trips, and relocations. It is also taking men (and probably women, too) to figure out who they are and want they want in life, especially with more choices than ever.
"here are some talking points that constitute the proverbial "third rail" of the discussion on people not getting married ..."
A brilliant piece.
It ought to be nailed to church doors.
Great, GREAT piece. I'm forwarding it around to everyone I know.
Anakin wrote: "...there is a delay in marriage because men are not getting anything out of what is offered and women don't care enough to have it otherwise."
Men can get sex outside of marriage, and without having to financially support their sexual partners (as is the case with a wife). Women who have sex outside of marriage during their prime marrying years (early 20s) are wasting precious time.
But I have a question... If men can "get the milk free," aren't they still paying a price because they are still under the spell of their own libidos? It's great to be liberated from the possibility of being turned into a wallet via marriage. But we're still slaves to a sex-saturated culture. We can "get the milk" of sex outside of marriage, sure. But aren't we still slaves to our own passions because we think that we NEED the "milk?"
I'm not married, and yet every time I can see so many ways in which men are manipulated by their libidos. The Bible says that a MAN is a slave to whatever has mastered him:
"[17] These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved. [18] For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, [19] promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved." [2 Peter 2:17-19]
And so it's not enough that men can escape the risks posed by modern marriage. In this sex-saturated culture, he's still being manipulated every day. I want to have more discussions about how men can overcome their judgment-compromising libidos, and master their own sexuality. I want to see men -- even single men -- not being led around like dogs in hopes of getting some woman's snack.
Just because we're not slaves to wives doesn't mean that by indulging our own passions indiscriminately, we might not become slaves to women and to our own libidos.
This is a really interesting topic, even for a Christian woman (which I am). Now, please hear me out:
On one hand, I think you are slightly bitter, have had bad experiences, and have no clue how many women are so desperate that they'd take any man with a pulse. Apparently, you've never been on the receiving end of such a woman, else you'd not have written these things. On the other hand, you're right: the culture has made men look like the ditz, there are some ridiculous married chicks who mistreat their husbands thereby making it hard for onlooking single men to even desire marriage & families, and it's true that many women are more in love with the institution than the person.
But in reading the rest of the blog post, I find myself asking "WHAT TO DO?" If we're responsible to our future lives and posterity and marriages, we have an obligation to have standards and do our research before gleefully saying "yes" to a courtship request as if our whole lives are bent on a particular marital status. So to have no standards and just say "I need to extend grace to him even though he is irresponsible, has scores of broken hearts in his past, and has mood swings" would be suicide. On the other hand, we do need to encourage the men we know (as we should be an encouragement to all our siblings in Christ) in their lifestyles and spiritual growth ... and to treat them as human beings we genuinely care about. These are our brothers for eternity! And maybe those who are called to marriage will be more willing to build families when they feel comfortable that the women in their lives actually care for them and aren't just huge leeches interested only in what men can provide.
Well written post and couldn't be more timely. I just wrote yesterday on how marriage has become bad for men's mental health and the hypocrisy of women's claims that they don't need a man. What load of BS. I can't see how marrying today confers any benefit to men.
I Caught the Vapors - ”…So to have no standards and just say "I need to extend grace to him even though he is irresponsible, has scores of broken hearts in his past, and has mood swings" would be suicide.”
When you put it that way, it does make sense…but,
I think you may have misunderstood Anakin’s point as to just what sort of men he’s suggesting are not getting the grace they deserve. I can understand from the context of “flawed creatures” why you might focus in on men who demonstrated irresponsibility, but I’m fairly certain that these sort of “flaws” he’s talking about [Anakin, please correct me if I’m wrong here myself].
What I believe he’s suggesting is that it is the men who are being flippantly over-looked by young women who are the one’s NOT being extended the grace of being judged by their goods character and qualities rather than their looks, wealth, or charms. (their “flaws” being their lack these latter attributes).
I take it you are not familiar with the typical subject matter of “Men’s Issues” forums? If you were I would expect that you’d be aware that on constant theme (darned near obsession, in fact) is the contrast between “alpha” and “beta” type men.
I doubt that Anakin, or most other men, for that matter, would ever urge women to extend still more grace to alpha type jerks who have scores of broken hearts in their pasts.
The simple fact is that you women (speaking collectively, of course) already give those men way, way, way too much “grace”. The attractive qualities that provided them with those scores of hearts to break just keep attracting women to them – women who all too often are far too willing to give up far too much to such men in the faint hope of winning their hearts and “fixing” them up as men for long-term relationships.
I’m going to go ahead and suggest that you search out and read up on this issue.
Now, it is only my personal impression here, but I do believe that the men Anakin is calling for women to consider extending grace to are those men who DO NOT posses the qualities that normally attract scores of women to them.
What you will find, if you bother to examine the cultural landscape with open-eyes is that there are many, many men who are simply passed-over by women who are bent on finding a more “alpha” man. And, often this is done by women who, to be frank, are of somewhat lesser quality (in the looks department) than are the men they brush-off. This seems to be as true in churches as it is in every other social setting.
Anyway, that’s my take on Anakin’s intent. I’ll leave it to him to set you, or I, or both of us straight.
I gotta start proof reading....
The last sentence of my third paragraph about should have read:
"I’m fairly certain that these are not the sort of “flaws” he’s talking about"
Vapors: Anakin is "slightly bitter" in much the same way as Andy Dick is "slightly gay" and Michael Jordan is "slightly famous". He's just as much of a tool, sadly, as the uber-feminists who blame men for everything wrong in the universe and insist on using the pronoun "ze" to avoid gender non-neutral terms. Anikin has much more in common with those broken and, let's be honest here, sad women than he does with real, well-adjusted men.
vysota - "He's just as much of a tool..."
Just out of curiosity, do you actually have any refutation of the arguments he makes?
Or, are the insults and shaming merely to compensate for your inability to provide anything of substance?
Caughtthe vapors:
So to have no standards and just say "I need to extend grace to him even though he is irresponsible, has scores of broken hearts in his past, and has mood swings" would be suicide.
But these are the men that women ARE dating.
The men they are rejecting are the ones who do not have these issues, but are just plain everyday guys with average looks and boring jobs.
Women lament the lack of good, yet sexually exciting men.
There are very few of those, and they are taken right away.
Given the choice between the other options, they choose to try to reform a bad yet exciting man instead of choosing an average man and live with less excitement.
The female need for sexual excitement (not necessarily sex) is what is undoing the fabric of our culture.
He makes arguments? Werner, I'm sorry, he does no such thing. He whines that women expect too much of men. Not only is this demonstrably false (I still can't believe my girlfriend would want to date me, she is far too beautiful, IMHO), but this is merely another way of stating "other losers have girlfriends, why don't I?" That's not an argument. That's a cry for help. And the idea of blaming an entire gender for, well... anything, is -- let me be as kind as I can possibly be here -- absofreakinglutely retarded.
How's that for a "counterargument"?
vysota - "How's that for a "counterargument"?"
Piss-poor, frankly!
Actually, I cannot make out where you've attempted ANY counterargument what-so-ever.
Maybe if you'd address some specifics...?
How about this for a start: Give us your analysis of his first paragraph of his section on The Cosmo Complex, explaining what he has gotten wrong, why you believe he is wrong, and what you believe is a better explanation.
The point is, when attempting to make a counterargument, on will need to point to the other persons argument, and then directly refute it.
Why don't you go ahead and give it a try?
Werner -- again, there IS no argument in that paragraph. All he says is "women don't like losers therefore it's their fault losers don't get married". Well, duh. If you have nothing to offer to a woman, she won't marry you.
Anikin's problem? Women who he wants are out of his league. Women in his league he does not want. He has the exact same problem as the unattractive, uninteresting girl waiting for a prince. But people like Anikin and Anonymous have absolutely nothing to offer, and then then expect busloads of hot, smart, sexually available women to shower them with attention. He even, probably subconsciously, calls himself out. He makes up this "Cosmo complex" in which he basically bashes women who read Cosmo. They are out of your league, Anikin. Focus on women who read "Today's Knitting" and you might get further.
Werner -- again, "I can't get a date" is NOT an argument. It just isn't.
vysota - ”Werner -- again, "I can't get a date" is NOT an argument. It just isn't.”
I think I see the problem here. You and I seem to be arguing about two different posts of his.
I was referring to the one in which he set out to show that young men are not solely responsible for the observed delaying of marriages.
In that post, he made some rather insight arguments as to why women, too, have their own faults, and therefore share in the blame.
I must have missed the post you refer to, in which he addresses HIS difficulties getting a date. Perhaps you would give the link to that one.
And, for the record:
Encarta Dictionary definition of argument - 2. give reasons for something: transitive and intransitive verb to give reasons for an opinion in order to support it.
Do you have any such arguments, vysota? If so, you really should try presenting them.
"I was referring to the one in which he set out to show that young men are not solely responsible for the observed delaying of marriages."
Can you show me that post? So far he's only whining about how women are responsible for everything. It does not take much reading to realize that his problem with women is that they don't pay enough attention to him. It's sad, sure. But it's also a bit despicable. I remember when I could not get a date. I did not sink into this "women are evil" despair. Anikin needs help, not validation that his misogyny, somehow, a real "argument".
vysota - "So far he's only whining about how women are responsible for everything. It does not take much reading to realize that his problem with women is that they don't pay enough attention to him."
Perhaps it's only a matter of human nature that you would become reflexively defensive and intransigent when you feel that your entire gender is being attacked.
But he is really only arguing that some of you women – the younger ones, who imagine themselves as “princesses” – are the ones who’s action also serve to give men (and women, for that matter) pause about getting married.
The fact is, that while you may not be such a woman yourself, there are a significant number of women who are not being at all realistic in their view of who they should be looking to marry, and what a marriage should be.
Many of us, not just Anakin, have observed that many of you seem to be primarily interested in the wedding – not the marriage. Again, this may not apply to you personally, but many women ARE that way today.
Men are not the problem with the delay of marriage. But they are part of the problem, and their share of the problem is wildly overstated not only in the MSM but, sadly, among Christian circles as well.
It's past time for Christian women to recognize that the common denominator in each of their failed relationships, or lack of dates at all, is them. I reckon women are half the problem for delayed marriage, so for our sisters to sit back and point the finger at us immature guys when they go out and blow $300 on a prada handbag during a psychologically fulfilling shopping spree strikes me as a touch obtuse. Now not all do this, but I'd say that the vast majority of the female universe is more interested in holding men culpable for their (as in, women's) choices than in being a Godly wife.
Vapors brings up an interesting point, in that what are single Christian women to do when looking for a guy? I know of a few women, both IRL and in my blogosphere, who are single, Christian, want to find a man, but can't seem to find one or where to look. And I lack an answer to their questions--other than "go out and look!"--about how to go about finding a hubby and where to look, or what standards to use when separating a good man from a bad match. I don't know the answer to these questions, yet I submit that if your standards are so high that you are rejecting as a "loser" every fellow you meet, perhaps your standards should be re-evaluated.
Speaking of finding men, a word about churches. Reading Regnerus' article on CT (to which I just left a comment), I spied his 3-2 f/m ratio in church statistic. I submit that church isn't a good place to look for guys, at least the ones that you'd like to date, because it chases most of the self-respecting ones away. A church that bangs on men for their foibles but gives women a pass for their misbehaviors, sins, and unwillingness to submit is one that exists for the aggrandizement of the women in the congregation. I read the article Anakin linked from Coughlin, to that testimony I'll add that my own home church recently instituted a policy that proscribed men from taking the children of the Body to the bathroom or change their diapers. I squawked of course, and I'm waiting to see if the policy will be changed, but if that sort of reflexive misandry lays at the heart of the male pastorhood in other churches as well, well then I say that self-respecting Believing men need to find someplace a bit more man-affirming to worship. And women should go to those man-positive places to find quality guys, because it's evident that a good portion of guys in the church these days are already married or don't have stiff enough spines to be attractive to a woman.
@ slwerner 2:10PM, a good response, my friend.
@ vysota,
1. Appears your blogger profile is private. Do you have a blog where we could read about what you say and think?
2. Laying out potential reasons why people--men and women both (i.e. not blaming an entire sex)--delay marriage isn't the same as saying "i can't get a date!".
"...not validation that his misogyny, somehow, [is] a real "argument"."
Oh dear. So far we have Code Red, Code Purple, Code Lavender, Code Gray, Code Black.
Shaming language is great, isn't it?
Werner -- you're a tad slow, ain'cha? Or maybe hard of reading? Or maybe imagining things in your, erm, "state". I'm male, home boy. Very male. And people like Anikin and yourself reflect poorly on my gender.
What you say is actually somewhat cogent. Congratulations. There is, I'm sure, a fraction of women who are the way that you describe. And there is a fraction of men who are immature idiots, or hopeless losers, or both. But Anikin whining about this is no more productive than women whining that "there are no good men". There are good men. And there are good women. As for why they're not attracted to you (Anikin or whoever) -- well, that's YOUR problem. You have to fix that.
Wapiti -- I don't have a blog. I don't have a need for one. And you're right, saying "marriage is delayed for these reasons" is a good topic. Maybe Anikin will blog about that some day. So far his blog entries are confined to the topic of "women are the problem with this world, and here's why". And, invariably, the reasons he lays out deal with "women want flashy, or interesting, or masculine men". It does not take a degree in psychology to see what he really is upset about.
It was only a matter of time until the typical shaming mangina would show up here.
Anakin's post was about the reasons why (1) it is inaccurate to blame men for the delay in marriage among Christian men and women, as the church generally seems to do and (2) why men are reluctant to enter into committed relationships and marriages today.
I didn't see much in there about "I can't get a date, and here's why", or "Albert Mohler is the reason I can't get a date". He's simply critiquing the oft-repeated stereotype in the churches that men are the reason for the delay in marriage.
But in any case, it's very transparent when someone's form of argumentation immediately jumps to the ad hominem -- such provocateurs are simply not to be taken seriously, folks.
vysota - "Werner -- you're a tad slow, ain'cha? Or maybe hard of reading?"
If you mean teh part about your having girlfriends, oh, I read it alright - I just took you for a lesbian.
The reliance on insults and shaming - as opposed to any sort of cogent argument; the inferences about Anakin's life and his motives, without anything of substance to back up your words - well, frankly, let's just say that such a style (or, rather, lack thereof) is fairly atypical of men who post on such forums.
vysota - Nobody is blaming an entire gender (i.e. women) like you are accusing. The topic is about a system that is now broken, and one gender, the Men, are being blamed for it.
Educate yourself on these issues before coming here with your mindless shaming drivel.
"When it comes to romance, media tells ordinary women their are all princesses and deserving of the best. It hearkens back to the Disney movies. I suppose much of this is the result of women being the pursued sex, the ones who reject the advances, the gatekeepers with regard to formation of relationships. But with woman-firstersim, the egos of the pursued sex get magnified."
The egos of the "pursued sex" can only be magnified only to the extent that they are pursued, and most women just don't get a fraction of the pampering that you seem to think they do -- especially where you see shortages of single men, like you do in most churches. Again, it's just seems like more selective outrage from you over the crimes of the "hot".
"I daresay if your typical man wants to marry, it's because he's marrying for love. What do women marry for? From the looks of things, it's property, children, and social status."
Men marry for "love", based on what? Looks and charm? Nothing wrong with that, but it's hardly more noble than women's "long lists" that often include a lot of practicalities such as security and provider potential.
"But where is the analogue in our cultural discourse for women who have unrealistic ambitions for men out of their league?...but I don't see culture wringing its hands in a similar fashion to counteract some of the mental distortions women have about the ideal man."
"If you were I would expect that you’d be aware that on constant theme (darned near obsession, in fact) is the contrast between “alpha” and “beta” type men."
Yes, yes...women holding out for "alpha" men...as I've pointed out elsewhere, most women aren't after alpha men because they aren't likely to stay, unless they're with an "alpha" looking female, which most of us are not. I think what you're talking about is low-beta or omega guys (in terms of looks or means) having a hard time finding women, whereas it seems like women of that ilk should just take one of them on, already. Falling in love with a low-beta or omega man isn't as straightforward as when a man has more going for him. Besides, most men don't want their daughters marrying "omega" men. As such, a lot of women might just prefer to stay single, not because they're "princesses" (since the true princesses get married, come hell or high water).
Unfortunately, that makes things more difficult for *some*, but certainly not *most* men.
I suppose you could say that you could judge a gender by how it's lowest status members treat the lowest status members of the opposite sex. But by those terms, neither gender would come out all that great.
"Let's be honest here. I mean it: let's-be-honest. We do not see men behaving like this. If they did, they would be written off as egoistical, chauvinistic cads, who think "the world revolves around them" or that they are "God's gift to women."
Well, some do and that is what happens. It's like a non-stop innocent victim tirade with you, Anakin.
With your never-ending solipsystic chain of complaints, you only end up implicating yourself as being on the low end of the spectrum, as vsota pointed out using other terms.
"I don't need no mayyyannn"
Sure as hell not that kind of man.
It's not "men being blamed", and women off the hook. The conservative Christian tradition of the "tan your hide" message will always come down a bit harder on the guys, because of "husbands lead, wives submit" and the burdens that come with that leadership. Leaders like Mohler are also responding to the shortage of men in our churches.
Oh now it's "women submit" then is it? Equality when it works to your advantage, and Submit when it doesn't.
How very convenient.
Anakin,
Some great links in that post.
catwoman,
"Let's be honest here. I mean it: let's-be-honest. We do not see men behaving like this. If they did, they would be written off as egoistical, chauvinistic cads, who think "the world revolves around them" or that they are "God's gift to women."
Well, some do and that is what happens. It's like a non-stop innocent victim tirade with you, Anakin.
I could be wrong but I believe the point is that when men do this they are met with societal disapproval and this societal disaproval is not laid upon women at anywhere near the same degree.
Also...
I find it interesting that people keep mistaking vysota for a woman.
Leaders like Mohler are also responding to the shortage of men in our churches.
Perhaps if Dr Mohler and other like minded church leaders stopped laying the blame for the decline of marriage, global warming, and hang nails at the feel of men there would be more men in church? That's always a great way to draw people...treat them like crap.
It's not "men being blamed", and women off the hook. The conservative Christian tradition of the "tan your hide" message will always come down a bit harder on the guys, because of "husbands lead, wives submit" and the burdens that come with that leadership. Leaders like Mohler are also responding to the shortage of men in our churches.
Well, his approach is working very well, don't you think?
You're not going to get men back in the churches by browbeating them like Mohler does. This is 2009. Men will tune you out and play World of Warcraft with that kind of harangue.
Honestly the nonsense that Mohler peddles is more harmful to the prospects of Christian women marrying than it is helpful in any sense. And the truly ironic thing is that he totally does not get that. It makes me laugh when I read his stuff, it really does -- so much self-deception and lack of understanding piled into one mind is something you don't come across that often, really.
With your never-ending solipsystic chain of complaints, you only end up implicating yourself as being on the low end of the spectrum, as vysota pointed out using other terms.
And more with the shaming language. Seriously, Anakin is just saying that the tilt against men in churches is misguided, and blaming men for the delay (or lack) of marriages is inaccurate for many reasons. Some people apparently can't deal with that, which is fine, but in no way justifies ad hominem attacks.
"Well, his approach is working very well, don't you think?
You're not going to get men back in the churches by browbeating them like Mohler does."
Maybe you're not that familiar with evangelical culture, NS. The churches that have the most men are the ones that challenge them the most.
Can it cross the line into browbeating? Sure. But that's not why there's less single men in church than women.
Whether its browbeating or just a subtle challenge to men, Anakin's sure to jump on it.
In Orthodoxy we challenge men, too, but not in *that* way. The challenge is that the spiritual practices are rigorous. People speculate that this is one reason we have not bled men as other churches have -- who knows. But men are also not singled out and browbeaten, generally.
So you think that Mohler is being effective? So there's no problem with single men not being the churches then, right? I mean, CW, if his approach was effective, it would have worked by now, right? It's not like it's something he just started.
Why in your mind is there a lack of Christian single men in your churches? Do you agree with Mohler that it's because men are immature and behaving irresponsibly? And if you do, why do you think they are behaving like that?
"So you think that Mohler is being effective? So there's no problem with single men not being the churches then, right? I mean, CW, if his approach was effective, it would have worked by now, right? It's not like it's something he just started."
Evangelicals addressing the shortage of men (esp. single) in their churches has just started. It was pretty much a taboo topic up until about five years ago.
"Why in your mind is there a lack of Christian single men in your churches? Do you agree with Mohler that it's because men are immature and behaving irresponsibly? And if you do, why do you think they are behaving like that?"
First of all, young single men are a tough crowd to reach. There's been some interesting reach on sociosexuality that may end up shedding some clues on this issue, and a lot of it focusses on five-factor personality measures between genders, across cultures. One finding is that men tend to score lower on "agreeability" than women, AND the religious people tend to score higher on agreeability, ALSO, people (be they male or female) with high measures of sociosexuality tend to score lower on agreeability.
Thoughts anyone?
So you're basically saying that you think because men are more "sociosexual" (for everyone else: tending towards promiscuity), that they are less agreeable, and that lesser tendency to be agreeable means they are less inclined to go to church?
I'm not saying that higher sociosexuality makes them less agreeable per se. Probably higher testosterone makes young men less agreeable, and thus more skeptical and competitive, emerging also in their sexuality. Characteristics that can put them somewhat at odds with church life, yet are essential to the masculine spirit.
I am highly skeptical of that for this reason: if that is the case, it certainly is nothing *new*. And because it is not new, it surely can't explain the relatively new (last few decades) development of fewer younger, single men in the churches. If this were the case, young men would have always shunned church, which they did not.
What has changed?
The pill: sex without consequence
Child care payments: socialization and removal of females' reliance on husbands
Child care, carers, old age carers: socialization of maternal services
Gender discrimination: state sponsored affirmative action
Changed social contracts: state enforced removal of natural law marriage contracts and dissolution of husbands' rights
Caste laws: creation of 'special' laws for females ie. domestic violence
Technological changes: Improved domestic technologies
The state has socialized females' responsibilities and enforced male provision of these benefits.
Marriage is no longer 'needed'. Only in the case of procreation are males needed which is why females wait until they hit their biological wall.
A want is created by an unsatisfied need. If the unsatisfied need is met outside of marriage, why bother?
There has always been somewhat more women than men, dating back at least to the 19th century. Organizations that become slightly more female tend to become even more female as men are less likely to join or stick around, the more feminine the climate becomes. And a feminine climate is hard to avoid when you have more women than men.
"Marriage is no longer 'needed'. Only in the case of procreation are males needed which is why females wait until they hit their biological wall.
A want is created by an unsatisfied need. If the unsatisfied need is met outside of marriage, why bother?"
Wouldn't you rather be with a woman who wants to be with you, rather than someone who *needs* to be with you?
There has always been somewhat more women than men, dating back at least to the 19th century. Organizations that become slightly more female tend to become even more female as men are less likely to join or stick around, the more feminine the climate becomes. And a feminine climate is hard to avoid when you have more women than men.
Then there's no "crisis" then. Business as usual.
A want is an unsatisfied 'need'. It is the alleviation of dissonance.
A want does not exist in and of itself.
Wouldn't you rather be with a woman who wants to be with you, rather than someone who *needs* to be with you?
Perhaps not in the context of a legal system which men perceive as adverse to them. What someone "wants" and whom they want changes over the course of a lifetime. It's fickle. Same for men and women on that score. So in a system where there is no "need" to be married or stay married, and very permissive rules on divorce, basing it all on what or whom someone "wants" at any given time is a recipe for the widespread failure we see today with marriage.
"A want is an unsatisfied 'need'. It is the alleviation of dissonance.
A want does not exist in and of itself."
Or you could take it a step further and say there's no such thing as a "need". As in, "all you need is Jesus".
"Then there's no "crisis" then. Business as usual."
David Murrow said that he expected all kinds of opposition to the ideas put forth in his book, vis a vis creating a more man-friendly church climate. What he found was an overwhelmingly positive response from both women and men.
Women have not driven men out of the church. Men have been drawn away by other more compelling interests. Whether or not churches can become more compelling to men despite those competing interests remains to be seen. As one old farmer he quoted, "Why don't men go to church? Cause they've already been".
If the state collapsed overnight you can bet your arse you'd see lines of woman from 14 to 60 years old 'needing' to get married.
Learner wrote:
"Perhaps if Dr Mohler and other like minded church leaders stopped laying the blame for the decline of marriage, global warming, and hang nails at the feel of men there would be more men in church?"
I think that would be a start, but not sufficient. It would cease to repel men, but wouldn't attract men either.
Honestly, I think a different approach to preaching and focus of exegesis will be necessary. Less Lamb and more Lion. More practical and less abstract. Less "adoring love" and more worship of the Wise Father.
The best man-friendly sermon I've ever listened to was by a black preacher from Oroville, a working-class town in NorCal. Close second are a lot of Mark Driscoll's stuff. Maybe the white seminaries just turn out effeminate preachers.
Bettys do not drive dudes out of church. But squishy emotive feminine styles, feminized imagery, feminized worship and feminized preaching does IMHO.
"First of all, young single men are a tough crowd to reach."
Men in general are a tough crowd to reach. The generative power and natural independence of men don't lend themselves well to organized religion.
Also, young women these days are as promiscuous as men or more.
What EW said, although one difference between women and men in measures of sociosexuality is that men answer more affirmatively on items that determine how promiscuity they want to be. If a single man openly admits he would like to be more promiscuious, how comfortable will he feel in church, where he will be given the message that he should be abstinent. If a woman has been promiscious but doesn't want to be from now on, she can sit primly in the pew as a repentant sinner -- perhaps returning with the same intention after she has backslidden (time and time again, even). Whereas, I think a young man would want to avoid being a hypocrite and just skip church while sowing his oats.
Women have not driven men out of the church. Men have been drawn away by other more compelling interests. Whether or not churches can become more compelling to men despite those competing interests remains to be seen. As one old farmer he quoted, "Why don't men go to church? Cause they've already been".
I though Murrow's point was that churches have become too feminine?
"I though Murrow's point was that churches have become too feminine?"
I think there's a big difference between churches being hostile to men and driving them out, and a more feminine climate that evolves over time as men drifting away. Would you expect a church to remain every bit as masculine, no matter how far the ratio drops? Perhaps we should be wondering how so much male leadership has survived, despite the large numbers of female congregants. Yes, female leaders have emerged, but what do you expect? Over time, that's bound to happen.
What EW said, although one difference between women and men in measures of sociosexuality is that men answer more affirmatively on items that determine how promiscuity they want to be. If a single man openly admits he would like to be more promiscuious, how comfortable will he feel in church, where he will be given the message that he should be abstinent. If a woman has been promiscious but doesn't want to be from now on, she can sit primly in the pew as a repentant sinner -- perhaps returning with the same intention after she has backslidden (time and time again, even). Whereas, I think a young man would want to avoid being a hypocrite and just skip church while sowing his oats.
Again, I don't see this in my own church, which leads me to be skeptical that this is the issue.
Men in my church respond pretty well to discipline and strictness, but it's not only applied to them. Most of the newcomers to our churches in the OC are men, not women. And a good number come from your churches, actually. I don't think the issue is strictness and discipline and an emphasis on sexual morality at all. I think the aspects that EW mentioned are more relevant, at least as far as I can tell from the men I have seen coming our way from your churches.
To take one liturgical example, this is what we sing on Easter, our biggest feast:
Priest: Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and on those in the tombs bestowing life!
Congregation: repeats easter hymn
P: Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered; and let those who hate him flee from his presence
C: repeat easter hymn
P: As smoke vanishes, let them vanish. As wax melts before the fire!
C: repeat easter hymn
P: So shall the sinners perish from God's presence, and the righteous shall rejoice!
C: repeat easter hymn
P: This is the day which the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad therein!
C: repeat easter hymn
I quote that not to suggest it is liturgically superior or anything like that, but to demonstrate how quite masculine it is. It's something that this is only one reflection of, but which men seem to find attractive about our churches.
Well, it’s not just the ladies who are at fault. And not all self-reporting “good guys” are really good to women. For me there has to be some attraction as opposed to repulsion and revulsion from bad habits, bad manners, bad subject matter on dates and other bad conduct like being on cell phones, canceling via text or only calling and staying on the phone for about 5 minutes to attempt “creating attraction”, propositioning me on dates, etc, etc, etc and so on. All of which are reasons why I keep a blog and have crushes on the men who have been kind–one of whom has moved to Seattle.
Perhaps I'm not like all women. I've been rejected, and done some rejecting mostly based on what I said above. A truly nice guy does not turn around and treat you badly because you won't go home with him. That's not "nice". Those are the ones I've rejected. I've given chances to men and most blew it by being rude crude and/or cruel. If you hate women, the attitude comes out and it's not attractive. I don't read cosmo, romance novels and the like. I've bought luxury goods, but I've seen men engage in even more excessive displays.
The problem is not princesses--folk tales have been around for centuries.
Men have always gone away to seek their fortunes and sought a wife when they were ready. I think one of the real lies of the modern age is thinking that you are to be with someone in your same age group. It's just not normal.
Women are hypergamous... What about all the complaints I hear about women going after less-than "alpha" males while crying that they are doctors or lawyers or whatever.
In reality, we no longer have the social structure that helps things along. People move far from home, are isolated and expected to make difficult decisions on their own. I think this has more to do with it.
You'll get no opposition to more masculine liturgy from me, or any evangelical women or men that I know. As I was saying, Murrow expected opposition, but found that practically everyone he spoke to supported his suggestions around less feminized worship and more masculine imagery etc. There is no war on against men or masculinity in the church. Changes are taking place right now. How effective they will be in bringing in more men, again, that remains to be seen.
"Men in my church respond pretty well to discipline and strictness, but it's not only applied to them."
Well, I disagree that discipline and strictness are "only applied" to men in the evangelical church and not women. Do men get singled out for a bit more hide tanning than women? Probably. But Anakin makes this out to be a significant feature of evangelical life, when it's not. It's a pet peeve of his when he sees it, and since there have been few higher (but not that high) profile examples in the past few years, he jumps on them gleefully as if they are a defining characteristic of our church culture.
Women are hypergamous... What about all the complaints I hear about women going after less-than "alpha" males while crying that they are doctors or lawyers or whatever.
I think this relates to a different understanding of what "alpha" means. When men use that word, we don't mean a doctor, lawyer, or something like that. The only thing we generally mean when we use that word is a man who can easily attract women in sexual terms. That's all it means. He may be an actor, he may be a mechanic, he may be a lawyer, sure (but most lawyers are not "alpha" in that sense). it doesn't have to do with your position in the social or economic hierarchy, it has to do with being able to attract women easily. As one man said, that seems to be a combination of: looks, wealth, fame and "game" (or charm). Very few have all of that, and the ones who do of course attract the most women. But even men with high scores in, say, two of the four are probably going to be in the alpha category, and the higher you get in the other areas the more alpha you get.
But Anakin makes this out to be a significant feature of evangelical life, when it's not.
Yeah, because no one else ever mentions this issue at all. It's is just that wacky Anakin and his paranoia talking. Nothing to be concerned about here, right?
Reminds me of something a friend of mine always used to say; "denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt!"
I think there's a lot of grey areas as well, in that a guy could have a high paying career, but have some fatal flaw, such as a mood or attitude problem, limited social skills and still not do well with women.
Expectations also factor in. There are some guys who don't have that much going for them, but they have really low standards (think: Kramer on Seinfeld). These guys are hardly "alphas".
How well people do with the opposite sex seems to be a combination of:
mate value (looks, means, etc) - motivation (sociosexuality) - expectations
I suspect a lot of the people here are smart individuals with more expectations than they admit, and perhaps some liabilities in the mate value dept (looks, charm, etc). Combine that with the additional expectations that Christians often have, and perhaps a more restrained sociosexuality, and there you have it -- a recipe for bachelorhood and spinsterhood.
"It's is just that wacky Anakin and his paranoia talking. Nothing to be concerned about here, right? "
It's not exactly what you'd call a critical mass.
I suspect a lot of the people here are smart individuals with more expectations than they admit, and perhaps some liabilities in the mate value dept (looks, charm, etc). Combine that with the additional expectations that Christians often have, and perhaps a more restrained sociosexuality, and there you have it -- a recipe for bachelorhood and spinsterhood.
In some ways that may very well be true.
As I say, am "alpha" would have at least two high scores in the four areas I mention. So Bill Gates, for example, is Alpha because he has fame and wealth. Looks -- not really. And charm -- well I dunno if you've ever seen him speak, but not really, either. But his wife was a quite good choice for him, and one many men would have wanted, because Gates, despite his deficiencies in the looks and charm departments, scores very high in the wealth and fame departments, so he is still "alpha", although a lesser one. Someone like Clooney, for example, is a higher alpha -- he has looks, wealth, fame and charm -- all four in quite high levels. And he avoids marrying, because he has so many options due to his being a higher alpha.
So I think you are right that there are many men and women alike who are holding out for people above their weight in terms of mate value, and perhaps this is exacerbated among Christians due to a reticence to engage in the culture fully. But I do think that people who are non-Christians are also many of them in the same boat. I think both men and women have unrealistic expectations -- in different ways of course, but there all the same.
"Gates, despite his deficiencies in the looks and charm departments, scores very high in the wealth and fame departments, so he is still "alpha", although a lesser one."
Actually, I would describe Gate's looks to be average, or even a bit better than average. As a high level manager, his personality has got to be above average, or he wouldn't have the ability to persuade. He would have the pick of probably most brainy attractive women, but I don't think that would necessarily translate to success with hollywood starlet types (nor would he have much long term interest in them). Yes, Clooney can be a horndog, and he is one.
Actually, I would describe Gate's looks to be average, or even a bit better than average. As a high level manager, his personality has got to be above average, or he wouldn't have the ability to persuade. He would have the pick of probably most brainy attractive women
He did, which is how he landed Melinda. But charm is different from managerial personality. Gates is an engineer, first and foremost. Strong on maths, not so strong on persona. He is strong willed and ambitious, and I suspect that also helped him with women, but he doesn't really have "game" or the classic loverboy charm that, say, Clooney has or Denzel Washington has and so on.
"But charm is different from managerial personality"
True, and you're right that ambition and other personality traits that indicate success are appealing. I think you once said that game doesn't work on a lot of smart women, because they see through it. I don't know if that's the case with Melinda, but I think that for a lot of professional women who want to have secure family situations, successful guys with "nerd appeal" have an edge over guys who are obviously charming. I've heard someone say that you see charm a lot differently when you think of it as a verb, rather than a noun. Something that someone does instrumentally, rather than some magnificent characteristic that they possess.
Of course, there is plenty of overlap regarding Alpha and Beta, too.
As anyone who has ever attended their 20th - 25th high school reunion can plainly attest (or just refer to Facebook}, many stud alphas in their teens and twenties begin to lose their looks by their 40's: Hair loss, potbelly, increased aging (possibly due to drugs, partying, stress, and/ or sun worship}, etc. etc. While some Betas, on the other hand, appear to have cocooned or caught up to the Alpha in the looks department.
If, like myself, you have clearly never seen your old friends or classmates in a long time, be prepared for some shocks! Some of these people were way beyond recognition. It's definitely an eye opener.
Knightwatch--so true! Even at a 10 year things have changed. You will laugh at everything you wore back then. The biggest compliment is that you haven't changed--even if you have changed some.
I find it interesting that people keep mistaking vysota for a woman.
A big part of it is the massive amount of shaming language vysota uses rather than actually addressing what Anakin wrote. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make vysota a woman. Vysota could just as easily be a mangina.
For that matter do we even know if vysota is an actual person? Everything he/she/it says is so repetitive and formulaic (like nearly all feminists and manginas) that "vysota" could be a computer program of some kind, perhaps a simple script of a server somewhere. It would take much and no one would be able to tell the difference.
I find it interesting that people keep mistaking vysota for a woman.
I don't. Read the comments here (scroll to near the bottom of the page) and decide for yourself. If someone calls me "darling", I'm presuming they are female, regardless if his/her/its true intentions were curt.
A big part of it is the massive amount of shaming language vysota uses rather than actually addressing what Anakin wrote. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make vysota a woman. Vysota could just as easily be a mangina.
Exactly. Vysota engaged in a form of behavior that is performed by feminists; trying to emasculate men who do not conform to a gynocentric attitude. In this case, like a pack of panglossians, men should continue to work within the very system, performing the same actions that continue to upend them ("suck it up and move on" / "pull yourself up by the bootstraps"} and hope that everything will eventually change, which is basically the definition of insanity:
Insanity - Performing the same action on a repetitive basis and hoping for a different result.
However, if vysota is male, he appears to have a very unsophisticated, parochial view of the world. He/she/it also carried a stereotypical hangup of the male anatomy by mixing myths (that size matters) along with other unfounded generalizations and unsubstantiated claims that are based on his own deluded assumptions rather than actual reality.
Yes the penis size insult was almost a dead give-away because it's a classic red herring but nevertheless is generally very popular for shaming.
I'm reminded in this of Michelle Langley's book on female infidelity in which she includes a fairly breathless section on the importance of penis size for women (she argues that it's the most important thing for a woman by far) -- which struck me as largely inaccurate and included, in the way she did, to shame men. Langley, like vysota, is filled with anger towards men, and wants men to feel anxious and inadequate due to their penis size, so that she can mentally wound them for the rest of their lives (and all based on something that is simply not true for most women, even if it may be true for Langley herself -- although I am guessing it isn't for her, either).
Oh yes, Michelle Langley, that academic giant.
Looks like the troll vysota has retreated to lick it’s wounds, having been unsuccessful in it’s efforts to silence (bloggers like) Anakin and to derail this thread.
Still, one has to wonder if, as well written as it is, Anakin’s piece here is little more than an academic exercise at this point. It seems unlikely that marriage (at least in the hideous Marriage 2.0 form it has morphed into) will have much of a place in the not-too distant future.
It seems unlikely that the current trends can be reversed at this point, and that by-and-large, the modern Christian church is entirely unwilling to make any of the necessary efforts towards doing so – mostly out of fear of alienating it’s female adherents.
Christian “leaders” calling on men to “grow up and marry” seems to me to be little more than rearranging the deck chairs. They bury their collective heads in the sand, and join with good Christian women in completely ignoring what is happening in the secular world (and what WILL be creeping into the church as well).
Blogger Whiskey has recently had a pair of rather provocative posts (and spirited discussions) about such:
Funny People and the Cultural Re-Norming of Marriage
http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2009/08/funny-people-and-cultural-re-norming-of.html
&
Beyond Gay Marriage
http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2009/08/beyond-gay-marriage.html
For a good teaser, let me add the remarks of one poster, Ray:
”Monogamy is not natural. Christian marriage has traditionally been a sacramental covenant that requires a man and woman to overcome their sinful natures and conform to God's law instead. Solomon had numerous wives and described the ideal wife as a woman of valor. Today's ministers do not have the intellect of a Solomon or the Apostle Paul. Most of them have decided to teach watered down pop psych crap instead of ancient wisdom. We live in a very strange time when the writings of a self proclaimed atheist and hedonist like Roissy are closer to traditional Christian teaching than what most pastors teach. If the west is to survive the church must grow a backbone. Do'in what comes naturally will lead us back to the stone age.”
I have to agree with this guy (unfortunately).
I agree with what he said there, too, but would slant it slightly differently.
Strict monogamy is not "natural", that's true. Pair bonds are natural, but cheating on pair bonds appears likely to be natural as well. The insistence on strict monogamy is the hallmark of marriage, and what distinguishes it from "natural" pair bonding.
Fascinating stuff. Could it be, though, that you and your Boundless nemesis are not really that much in contrast? That the Fall has so distorted our views and practices of love and sexuality that both men and women are to blame? Not to mention the media and Satan and any other scapegoats we could throw into the mix? Yes, what you said about women and expectations are true. But I'm a 25-year old single Christian male who has spent much of my life in locker rooms, listening to male after male degrade and objectify women! We certainly at least SHARE the blame!
Schumes - "We certainly at least SHARE the blame!"
While some Men's sites do tend to tilt towards blaming only women, I just don't see it here.
What I see in the original post here is a refutation of those who would selectively blame men.
I've heard a bit of locker room talk myself - but that sort of content is hardly limited to men talking about women. Men certainly have plenty of faults, but as you see Anakin pointing out here, so do women.
The real "problems" begin to arise when womens flaws and even serious misbehaviors are no longer addressed (by the church, nor by other women), and misbehaving women are no longer corrected.
You can do as some (here) do, and "poo-poo" such concerns as trivial, and not worth addressing, or attempt to shame men for bring up such issues; but, the net effect has become that men are becoming increasingly less inclined to want to ever marry.
And, if you've kept up at all with what Anakin and others bring up, you will no doubt have noticed that the standard response to this growing concern has uniformly been to blame men, shame men, and try to cajole them into marrying - but never to address either the increased risks (selectively to men) of getting married, nor to challenge women to be more marriageable.
It is this distinct hypocrisy that many of us to seek to address. We don't seek to excuse bad male behavior, but rather to apply the same "rules" to all.
Slwerner says:
The real "problems" begin to arise when womens flaws and even serious misbehaviors are no longer addressed (by the church, nor by other women), and misbehaving women are no longer corrected.
Bingo. And that requires husbands and church leaders to show some stones.
"A big part of it is the massive amount of shaming language vysota uses rather than actually addressing what Anakin wrote. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make vysota a woman. Vysota could just as easily be a mangina."
Or a progressive.
Shaming and ad hominum attacks are their stock and trade.
Trey
Vysota is not a guy. Until I see a notarized statement saying otherwise, I'll believe it's a feminist cunt posing as a man. :)
The shaming tactics are so overused, we should all know them by now. Anyone who doesn't agree with the feminist BS has: no girlfriend, a small penis, hidden hatred of women...
Well guess what? None of the above, bitch!
Threats and smear campaigns have been used for years by the feminist cunts to silence journalists, academics, writers and politicians. But it doesn't work on the web.
Of course we all know about the marriage strike due to divorce, but I found that the implications of divorce spill over even into married couples. Just as the writer, I noticed that my married male coworkers, friends, cousins, neighbors are treated with (sometimes outrageous) disrespect! I think that it is a side-effect of the "nuclear option" that is divorce today: it gives women the upper-hand and the power to disrespect and abuse their husbands.
Hey Anon, I do not think that kind of language is appropriate here. Now I am nobody here, not even the bottle washer, but there is my opinion.
Trey
Just thought I should mention that a recent study shows that on any given sunday there are 13 million more women in church then men.
Albert Mohler, who I have met, is actually bringing in record numbers of men. As are Robert Lewis, Vodie Baucham, and many others who you claim are shaming men. I have yet to see your theories actually work anywhere. What I have seen is thousands of men show up to hear Robert Lewis tell men that they need to step up and actually be men.
Further, rebuking in love is always your biblical right, but rebuking out of frustration is a sin. With 13 million more women in churches, making up 61%of attendence, I would say that we're talking planks and splinters. I don't know any of your marital situations, but I had no trouble finding a godly women with reasonable expectations. I mean, there are about 13 million more of them than us, right?
P.S. Feel free to view my post in partial response to yours on my blog www.heroinstinct.com. I think that some of your other posts have been good, but on this one I have to disagree. Not with everything, but with the general attitude. Comments are welcome but profanity is not.
What Josh said.
To Josh Kreebs who writes:
Just thought I should mention that a recent study shows that on any given sunday there are 13 million more women in church then men.
Women tend to be social creatures. Is church attendance a sign of theological depth?
Albert Mohler, who I have met, is actually bringing in record numbers of men. As are Robert Lewis, Vodie Baucham, and many others who you claim are shaming men.I have yet to see your theories actually work anywhere. What I have seen is thousands of men show up to hear Robert Lewis tell men that they need to step up and actually be men.
Joel Osteen draws a crowd, too. What's your point?
Further, rebuking in love is always your biblical right, but rebuking out of frustration is a sin.
I dunno. Albert Mohler seems like one frustrated fellow to me. I don't he could be much nastier in vilifying young men (e.g., "where are the MEEENNNN?") Debbie Maken even more so. Anyway, what do you do with the Old Testaments Prophets, the Apostles, and Christ himself? They were most certainly frustrated with people's stiff-necked attitude, just I am frustrated with the stiff-necked attitudes displayed by some about the issues I address. Maybe you need to understand the difference between being "nice" and being holy.
With 13 million more women in churches, making up 61%of attendence, I would say that we're talking planks and splinters.
What does church attendance have to do with the inner heart and readiness to marry? Even homosexuals attend church.
I don't know any of your marital situations, but I had no trouble finding a godly women with reasonable expectations. I mean, there are about 13 million more of them than us, right?
Let me see here. According to Prov. 19:14, a prudent wife is from the Lord. If your wife is from the Lord, then why do you boast as if you accomplished some virtuous thing? Again, if something is a gift from the Lord, then on what basis does a man boast? Is such boasting edifying and fruitful? I daresay there are men more godly than you that go without wives even as they seek them. Will you compare yourself to them before Lord with the attitude that you have in heart? When you boast in your possession of a wife before other men in order to shame them, what does that say about your counsel concerning biblical manhood?
Josh: I have also met Al Mohler. There are many issues on which I agree with him. I was at Southern Seminary when he was inaugurated (1993). I can attest to the fact that he cleaned out the trash at Southern. And trust me, it needed cleaning.
On the other hand, I was a member at Al Mohler's church for over 4 years. I was in the "singles ministry" at the "main campus" during that time. I can attest to (a) the men who were there and (b) the women who were there.
I can also attest to the fact that Mohler never once stepped foot into that class during my 4 years, and therefore hasn't a clue what is going on in the singles department in his own church.
Fact is, the marriageable single women were not in the "singles ministry", and the single men were effectively segregated from the ones who were marriageable.
(By marriageable, I am referring to women in their 20s and 30s, never-married, aspire to marry, and are otherwise of sound mind. Those are the women whom folks in my age bracket are generally interested.)
The women who were in the "singles ministry" were usually in their 50s or older and divorced. If you were a single man in your 20s or 30s--even your early 40s--you were not going to find a single woman (never-married and not already taken) in that class.
No...almost all of those women were shuttled into other classes. Trouble is, unless you knew where to look, you weren't going to find them.
Personally, I think that was by design: there has long been a "we don't run a dating service" mentality among many people in that church. Mohler didn't cause that problem--it existed long before any of the current ministry team got there.
I saw the underpinnings of that in the "singles ministry": otherwise good teachers were unwittingly discouraging singles from getting together, although they never thought of it that way. Was that Mohler's fault? Of course not. I would even take it easy on the teachers, as they didn't realize what they were really doing.
That culture existed long before Mohler ever got there. And it's not just at his church, either. It's prevalent in Baptist circles.
Over in my blog space, we have had several regular respondents get married recently. I am engaged. Apart from that, several of my friends in real life have recently married.
None of them met their mates at church. Almost all of them met their mates online. I met mine in the blogosphere. And we're talking Christians here.
Why are so many Christian singles finding Christian mates in other venues besides the church?
That's the problem that guys like Mohler need to start addressing. Yesterday.
On a different note, if any Christian guys are looking, I have a number of single women who are regular respondents at my blog. They wish to marry, and have not had any interested parties in their local venues.
They are as far to the west as California and as far the north as Canada and as far to the east as DC.
I have no financial interest in them getting married, but they would make otherwise good mates and are themselves frustrated at not having found men.
And many of them are willing to travel...
Anakin-
First of all, attending church may not be a sign of spiritual depth, but there are plenty of other venues in which women can be social. Why do they choose church? I agree that churches reach women much better than they do men, I just disagree with your view of what causes that failure. And I am willing to bet that with that many women in church, enough of them have spiritual depth to cover the godly men who are actually seeking marriage.
Joel Osteen draws a crowd because he tells people what they want to hear, someone who draws people telling them what they don't want to hear? That's a bit unusual I would say.
I am not familiar with Debbie Maken, but Albert Mohler is in general a very gracious person. The fact that he comes down hard on young men seems to me a witness to the fact that young men need to be taught discipline by older men. 1 Peter 5:5
And as far as the prophets, apostles, and Christ were frustrated I have 2 points.
The first is that they were acting on direct revelation from God-which you are not. And secondly, while I would agree that they burned with righteous anger-which was from God-they were not frustrated and did not lash out.
Amir-
I appreciate you bringing up a very good point. I have no doubt Mohler is uninvolved in "singles ministry" at his church. And I agree, godly men in singles ministries are not likely to find the kind of women that are marriage material. Godly women have a natural (and good) tendency to latch onto older women to learn from and help them grow. Young men are wise to do the same. Godly young men need to get out of singles ministries and join churches with solid community across the age barrier. That is where relationships are formed.
And as for knowing God fearing women who are looking for a godly man, I know a ton of them and I am meeting more everyday. What I don't have is a lot of godly men to send their way.
A man who is earnestly looking for a wife that meets God's approval is seeking a good thing (Prov. 18.22). And we know that when we seek to obey God we are blessed.
Not every man will find a wife, atleast not quickly, but that doesn't mean that they can blame others. Should church leaders talk about this more? Yes. Are women admonished to seek proper roles outside of a (comparatively)few solid churches? Not really. Are men treated unfairly in the culture at large? Often yes. Does that get men off the hook for their failures, general lack of presence in culture, church, family, etc? Absolutely not!
Anakin-
I am not boasting, though I admit that it does sound that way, I was trying to be encouraging that to those who are earnestly looking in the right places, God does keep his promises and there are godly women to be found.
Josh says: I appreciate you bringing up a very good point. I have no doubt Mohler is uninvolved in "singles ministry" at his church. And I agree, godly men in singles ministries are not likely to find the kind of women that are marriage material. Godly women have a natural (and good) tendency to latch onto older women to learn from and help them grow. Young men are wise to do the same. Godly young men need to get out of singles ministries and join churches with solid community across the age barrier. That is where relationships are formed.
Here's the problem...
If I join a church--such as Al Mohler's church, which is one of the largest churches in Kentucky--they are going to have me fill out a card. I will likely check that I am single and never-married. (I did.)
They will proceed to stick me into the "singles ministry", which--as I pointed out--has a dearth of marriageable women.
Now let's assume we have a few ladies in that church, who are in ABF class #1 and ABF Class #2, which might meet at different times, and perhaps on different campuses at that church.
How do you get those ladies in touch with the men who got pigeonholed into the "singles ministry"?
Answer: YOU NEED A NETWORK!
Jews know this: this is why, in spite of myriads of challenges over the centuries, they have a knack for getting people together, sometimes traversing geographic zones. They are not the most resilient people in the world by accident. They know how to NETWORK!
Instead of attacking the men, perhaps Mohler can exert some pressure on leaders at his church to help connect these single ladies--that are, for all intents and purposes, hidden from the single men--with the men who might otherwise make good husbands.
The men are at that church, but are being pigeonholed. The men and the women are getting burned by this practice.
I think you will find, as my jewish friend from college pointed out to me once, that the reason jews find spouses so easily is that they have older people in their community that they trust giving them guidance and suggestions. If a church forces you to join a singles ministry, I would get out of that church!
Men and women are getting burned by the segregation of age and sex in churches. You don't need church leaders to fix the problem, you need to find a little old lady who know everything that goes on. Mow her lawn, help her out to her car, and ask her who are some godly young women worth pursuing. I won't say it works every time, but I'll be darned if it doesn't work alot.
Community is absolutely necessary to finding a suitable mate. Now, I'll admit that there is plenty church leaders could do to de-segregate their churches and form community, and alot of churches fail at this, but there are also alot of churches doing it right.
In Louisville a good example is Clifton Heights Baptist Church. Tom Schreiner is the pastor there, and it is an excellent church.
Josh says: Not every man will find a wife, atleast not quickly, but that doesn't mean that they can blame others.
Nor does it mean that church leaders--like Mohler--should just shame the single men, when in fact those men are getting pigeonholed by the "leaders" at the very church at which he serves as the "teaching pastor."
Maybe he can follow the advice Jesus offered: "Physician, heal thyself." Maybe when he starts addressing the problems in his own church, then he will begin to have the credibility to deal with what is going on in the larger Church community.
Should church leaders talk about this more? Yes. Are women admonished to seek proper roles outside of a (comparatively)few solid churches? Not really.
And that lack of admonishment has a tendency to impact the women who are marriageable. In this case, it's clearly a sin of omission.
Are men treated unfairly in the culture at large? Often yes. Does that get men off the hook for their failures, general lack of presence in culture, church, family, etc? Absolutely not!
That isn't the issue; fact is, it's Mohler who is blaming the single men for all these women being out there who long to marry, but aren't getting finding a man.
In fact, what we have established here is that the church leadership--and at Mohler's very church no less--is an integral part of the problem.
If single men are getting shuttled into a "singles ministry", and single women are settling in classes with couples and older ladies, then it seems that the church is setting these ladies and gentlemen up for failure, or at least aren't thinking with respect to their success. Without a network, you will have two sets of people who may never know the other exists.
And yet, Mohler is pontificating without having a fundamental understanding of what is going on in his own backyard.
Mohler is a smart man who carries a lot of weight in his convention. In his church, he is E.F. Hutton.
If he cracked the whip and said, "Dr. Ezell (the lead pastor at his church), we have a lot of women who wish to be married, and we have some men who are grumbling, because they don't know where these women are. Let's get our heads together and see how we can deal with the problem. Let's get some single men and women on our team and get a more equitable framework in place," chances are you could get a solution that would be modeled all over the country in large churches.
If Jews can network people all over the globe, then Mohler and Ezell and like-minded pastors who supposedly care about all those women who want to get married, can help get Christians--in the same general vicinity--networked.
As for me, I'm engaged. I never dropped out of the church. I simply moved on to another. If I had it my way, I would have been married many years ago. We don't always get the breaks we want in life, though.
I just wish the Mohlers of the world would get a handle on what is really going on--and they could if they looked at their own congregations--before painting with their wide brushes.
Perhaps Mohler does not deal with the women and their biblical roles because he feels his wife is already doing a good job of this through writing and ministering. Perhaps he feels, rightly, that it is the job of older women--not young men--to teach women how to be godly.
I am not "shamed" by what Mohler says. Nothing he says seems unbiblical to me, perhaps you could point out specifically where he has erred. I find with most Christian leaders if you don't fit the target they probably aren't aiming for you. If you do fit the target, I don't remember Mohler saying anything particularly shaming, perhaps a little stark, but not shaming. And I can certainly say that it was not meant as shaming, but as rebuking.
Oddly enough, for all there talk about shaming, it seems that many of the comments here are meant to do just that.
Furthermore, biblical masculinity always asks "what am I doing?" first. This doesn't seem to be the attitude here.
Josh says:
I am not "shamed" by what Mohler says. Nothing he says seems unbiblical to me, perhaps you could point out specifically where he has erred. I find with most Christian leaders if you don't fit the target they probably aren't aiming for you. If you do fit the target, I don't remember Mohler saying anything particularly shaming, perhaps a little stark, but not shaming. And I can certainly say that it was not meant as shaming, but as rebuking.
I'll let Anakin do that. He's got quite a voluminous collection of such snafus here. Adam (PuritanCalvinist) can also illumine you on this.
Quite frankly, I don't have time.
Furthermore, biblical masculinity always asks "what am I doing?" first. This doesn't seem to be the attitude here.
First off, I never left the Church...I've been involved for many years. And for most of the last 15 years it was in the Louisville area. I served in teaching roles that extended from children to adults. A sideliner I was/am not. I am currently involved in a church in central Kentucky.
Nor was I particularly passive in those years, as I did my share of pursuing the women who were in my path. Those did not work out. I tried online services. Those did not work. Some shot me down; others I shot down.
In many cases, I was left with a dilemma: stay at the church where I was serving, or bolt and go somewhere else, and take months and years to re-establish myself.
Like I said, I'm engaged. I've found a mate. It took longer than I wanted or would have planned, and I had to do this from a longer distance than would have been ideal, but I'm not complaining.
As for Mohler, he tends to provide simplistic answers--blaming single men for the protracted singleness dilemma--when in fact there are a number of contributory factors, some of which are very real and substantial.
Some of those are on the Church (as I've pointed out), some are on the men, some are even on the women, and a heck of a lot of those are due to social factors for which none of us asked.
He never mentions any of those matters, but sure levels the boom on the single men.
If he really believes this, then he needs to get with the singles leaders in his own church, and start calling them to don sackloth and ashes.
Either that, or he needs to admit that the problem more complex than the pat answers that he has offered on this matter.
I wanted to give a huge THANK YOU to Anakin for his incredibly astute analysis of Generation X Women and the current marriage debacle. He absolutely hit the nail on the head! I heard a comedian some time ago compare marriage to a parachute. How many men would go skydiving if they knew their chute had a fifty percent chance of opening? Well, that's the current divorce rate, brothers! Bravo, Anakin!
Couples need to be able to first identify what the differences are in their marriage and find out what went wrong in their relationship.marriage counseling san diego Most couples do not have the open environment that marriage counselors provide to encourage communication and discussion, so being able to see what is wrong and knowing what the conflicts are leads to couples realizing what they need to address. Many times, married couples will realize their problems can be easily fixed with one or two changes on their part.
A word to those women: If you are the woman that is described by this author, repent. And we all are guilty of it- from not allowing yourself to see your own imperfections (Matthew 7:3), to expecting more than you are willing to have expected of you. Wherever your sin lies- repent.
Now, a word to those who feel that good Christian men are still not excused from doing their part- you would also be correct according to this female-commentator. You see, despite the imperfections of women (so ungracefully pointed out here- none the less accurate in most), and despite any media pressures (to either gender), we are expected to move forward with faith.
Yes, a man should still ask a girl out (hopefully he'll be kind enough to ask the girl which will give him a chance and despite hoping to be seen as a princess knows her faults). And yes, a girl should give a guy a real chance.
If a woman takes advantage of the type of good, Christian- trying to do his part- man, described in this blog post, she'll be no less accountable at the judgement bar than will the man who simply let fear override his faith.
Faith my friends. Faith...
Sincerely,
A girl who hopes to be seen as more than a feminist- because she would rather be in a kitchen, treasure her husband and live a happily ever after together, rather than as a 'single princess'.
hey man, good post. I realize its old but its new to me. I hear where you are coming from on this topic. I was brought up to believe that whenever a marriage failed it was because the husband didn't treat his wife right. I'm not divorced and i do have an awesome wife but looking around i see lots of messed up girls. There is more than enough blame to go around for failed marriages and it most certainly is not always the husbands fault. I also see lots of people delaying marriage and what you are saying makes alot of sense. I work with young single men in a ministry i have been given. They have many challenges to face and finding a wife is one of them.
Useful blog post. Thanks for sharing....
Boon for childless couples in chennai
Post a Comment