Biological Gynocentrism

When our mainstream media broaches the issues of gender in whatever context (law, medicine, or even biology), it often does not favor the male point of view. So, I am not surprised when so-called "academics" talk about the disappearing Y chromosome, reproductive technologies that favor women, studies that underscore some supposed cognitive edge women have over men, etc. There is a clear anti-male bias in our public narrative about the science of gender. That's why Larry Summers gets fired for going against the tide. What then? Obviously, men need to take note how discussions about gender and sex usually get framed in this regard.

One thing that concerns me about men's issues advocates is that men whose writings I often agree with and support are falling down in the matter of scrutinizing mainstream ideas about gender and are inadvertently supporting a woman-firster mentality. How so? By coopting popular discourses about the science of mate selection, etc. These discourses may be framed in ways that support biological gynocentrism. I especially see this as a concern with respect to some of the men who champion "Game."

What does biological gynocentrism (or biogynism, as I am going to call it for the sake of convenience) often entail? At least three beliefs: (1) Women are biologically designed to choose among men who compete for female affection; (2) men who don't have sex are losers; and (3) women, biologically speaking, are the more valuable sex in general. Evolutionary Psychology is usually invoked to support these assertions. I am calling "foul" on all of them, though. First, let me state up front that as a Christian, I don't even believe in evolution. But I shall, for the sake of argument, approach the above issues on the basis of practicality, if not morality or spirituality.

She Loves Me, She Loves Me Not

First, let's deal with the matter of sexual selection. If the Law of Jungle is true, then do women have a choice about mates? If they do have a choice, then why on earth do we have to have laws on the books protecting that choice? In the wild, females are often weak and vulnerable (that includes human beings). They are no match against males. "Females choose dominant males." What a stellar observation. What other choice do they have!? If I am a hairy male animal that just kicked the stew out of a rival male and I approach a female, what is she going to say to me? "Sorry Mr. Bull, but you're not my type"? Yeah, and I'd honor that opinion about five seconds after I overpowered her and mated with her. That's why some female primates have to travel in herds to ward off male aggression. Of course, males can cooperate, too, rendering the whole matrilocal defense shtick meaningless.

But honestly, when we start looking to animals to understand human behavior, we open a can of worms with faulty assumptions, hasty generalizations, and bad analogies. At the end of the day mice are mice, chimps are chimps, and humans are humans. They ain't the same. If you want to understand human behavior, you have to understand humans. Otherwise you're likely to get ideological spin and biased nonsense like this article from a feminist.

Evolution or no evolution, take a good look at the whole of human history instead of myopically focusing on what's going on in our own culture. How have women fared in the game of love with respect to arranged marriages, being punished more severely than men for adultery, sexual slavery, war, mass rape, etc.? How are they faring outside of the Anglosphere now? Do you think Westernized Chivalry is hardwired in the men of Sudan? Do you think the Ferragamo-pumping sisterhood of New York City would want to trade places with the women of North Africa in the dating game? If women are hardwired to possess some sort of "reproductive choice" then I'd like know what feminists have been fighting for all these years. The truth is that in the natural order of things, women don't have reproductive choice. They have often been the property of their fathers and the men who paid some money (dowry, etc.) for them. The only reason women have the choices they have now is because of the goodwill of men, not because of some evolutionary form of supremacy.

Mate or Die

Another aspect of biogynism is the belief that one's manhood and life is based upon sexual success with women. And why do biogynists believe this? Because if you don't pass on your genes, you are a supposedly fundamental failure. Laying aside the conflict such a sentiment has with Christianity (Isa. 56:3-5), there are other problems with the assertion. People are conflating reproductive success with sexual attractiveness. The two, of necessity, have been separated since the advent of birth control.

Let me tell you something: You could be handsome, intelligent, rich, have "Game", and bed the most attractive women in the world, but the moment you slip on a condom or the moment your paramour takes the pill is the moment you opted out of the race. If you are a biogynist and tie your worth to reproductive success, then you are a loser by your own definition unless the reproductive community of which you and your descendants are a part are having kids above the 2.10 replacement level. I highly doubt that many of the folks into Evo-Psych are part of such a demographic. I highly doubt the women they are chasing are part of said demographic, either. Why? Because rearing a house full of kids would cramp their lifestyle.

Let's face it. Sex is fun, but raising three or more children is not. And of course, rearing children in order for your descendants to have a chance in life puts a leash on your sex life, too. Do you want to be in a strict sect that demands that you have children and ties you to a rigid code of behavior (Amish, Mormon, Hasidic Jew)? How about living like the folks in the third world? They're having children! You see, in our modern world, there is a necessary trade off between quality of life and "reproductive success." That's why when women pursue education and other forms of advancement where they don't have to depend on men, they tend not to have many children. In short, the Lotharios and the women they are chasing are, to use a popular secular phrase, "Darwinizing themselves." Westernized cultures are dying out because they want to.

Here's something else to think about: We are all descendants from the same genetic family. Both the Bible and science hold to this view. So if you don't believe as I do in the scriptural Adam or Eve (whose is called the "mother of all living" in the Bible), then what will you do with Y-chromosomal Adam or Eurasian Adam? There is something Obi-Wan did not tell you. I am your cousin! Search your feelings. You know it to be true! And so is Cupcake that you've been kissing and smootching with, fellas.

If one looks at things from a naturalistic viewpoint, then "reproductive success" is a value neutral enterprise. The indifferent universe, in such a case, does not care about your genes. Therefore, for non-religious Darwinists to talk about "winners" and "losers" in some judgmental, value-laden way is ludicrous. When you tell me you are winning the game because you had a child, I can reply, "Thanks for being my surrogate." Hope your descendants don't break your patrilineal or matrilineal line. Of course, with the coming depopulation, that's a very real possibility.

Still obsessed with your pedigree? The world is full of people who have children and grandchildren that didn't turn out the way everyone expected. Most people do not live the kind of lives that are immortalized in history books and on monuments. Abraham Lincoln's descendants are no longer around and there's no guarantee that yours will be in a few generations either (if it they are not absorbed in some longer pool of humanity, making whatever contribution you made unrecognizable).

Look, love for women and family is not rational. It's emotional. That's the way love is, and there's nothing wrong with that. One can hope that your love is realistic and reigned in by sound judgment, but at the end of the day, it's emotion that impels you into marriage, sex, and family. If you try to make a rational case for why men should want to have sex, get married, or have children, then you will lose your case. It's like to trying make an argument for why I ought to like sunrises, peppermint ice cream, or fluffy kittens. I either like these things or I don't. Barring obvious considerations of morality and wisdom, it is utterly stupid to force your emotional preferences on other people. That's why the term "evolutionary mating strategy" is such a misnomer. Bacteria don't sit around at a mahogany table deliberating on how to take over the biosphere. Neither do birds, bees, fish, elephants, or fluffy kittens. Well, maybe the HBD crowd, but I jest.

She's One in a Million

Another idea floated by biogynists is that men are more disposable than women because "eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap." This is nothing more than a classical case of the Fallacy of Composition. Pray tell, which gender tends to draw the short end of the stick in sex selective abortions? Which gender typically inherits the property of the parents? Do we know something traditional cultures closer to margins of survival than we are today didn't know for thousands for years?

Somebody has brought up the matter about men, as opposed to women, being sent into battle. What about that? I think the reason women have not often been sent into battle is because they generally can’t fight and kill as well as men. Which, by the way, is the real reason why men are called upon to “sacrifice” and “be protectors.” Not because there is something inherently valiant about killing other people. That’s just a bunch of psychobabble to motivate young men to do dangerous things that no one in their right mind would do. No, it is about who is the most effective killer–and that’s men. Who makes killers out of men? That’s right--the big men at the top. War is young blood for old money.

Anyway, have women been valued more than men? Probably for the same reason that donkeys, coconuts, and seashells have been valued more than men. That’s what men in power do--cherish things and use men. They dehumanize others. Ogg the Barbarian may have valued his gold, donkeys, and women more than his hostile neighbour Uluk, but he didn't necessarily value them more than himself or his sons. He certainly didn't value his daughters more than his sons. So why are women esteemed so highly today, even over their male counterparts? Like I said, it has to do with the goodwill of men, not some evolutionary edge.

Anyway, Novaseeker delivers the coup de grâce to the "disposable male" meme:

As men, we should never, ever, buy in to the idea that we are disposable or of lesser value than women. Disposable? If all men went on strike for 48 hours in North America, we would soon see just how silly it is to view men as the disposable sex.

In closing, if we are going to dispose of something, let's dispose of the mentality that makes men out be a bunch of bulls and steers paraded before female auctioneers at a cattle show. This kind of thinking is detrimental to men, period. As men, we can do better than this. And when it comes to a Christian context for all of this, don't try to argue with me on that (1 Cor. 11:3, 7, 8-9). Both sexes have equal value before God (Gal. 3:28)!

Addendum: This recent article at Mensnewsdaily.com makes some good points about biogynism. See also this excellent post by a reader at Ferdinand Bardamu's blog.

Amir Alerts Yours Truly to a Stupid Post

Amir gets the hat tip for this: Motte Brown has posted a video of "cussing pastor" Mark Driscoll talking about manhood. I wanted to make a response to the post but Boundless' website would not accept my comments. Motte obliquely mentions "niceguys" in his post. I wonder who he had in mind.

A couple of problems with Driscoll's rant:

1. Driscoll needs to stop using "Lord" and OMG as interjections. Such indifferent uses of the designations for Deity are irreverent and possibly a violation of the prohibition against taking the Lord's name in vain.

2. The realmannspracht, anti-male cheap shots, shaming language, and extrabiblical, cultural understandings of manhood. Sorry, but contrary to Driscoll's functionalism and misuse of 1 Cor. 11:7, manhood is not dependent on "producing" (just as God's deity is not dependent on Creation).

3. Throwing the bit in about being married. Getting married is not necessary to be an adult. Did you see anything in the Bible about John the Baptist getting married? I rest my case.

4. Belittling the serious issues men have with the modern church. Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. Keep it up, and men will be sure to stay even further away from church.

5. Belittling Christian men. See #4, buddy.

Granted, Driscoll had a lot of good points (myth of adolescence, men to need to be responsible, men need to be resolute and bold for Christ, etc.). Even my readers from the Roissysphere will love his mention of "Game." Sadly, his good points were derailed by his overall lack of insight not only into lives of men but into other truths in the Word of God.

The overarching problem here is the spread of what Michael Horton calls "Christless Christanity." Who is Driscoll's target audience? Probably women who want stereotypical tough guys instead of the socially awkward men that God can use (1 Cor. 1:26-28). Or maybe nominal Christian men who are too clueless to read and study their Bibles in-depth, and would rather listen to some glorified motivational speaker spoon-feed the exegetical equivalent of Crystal Light(tm) to them. Look at Driscoll's presentation again. One or two Scriptures quoted out of context and misapplied, at best, and a shoot-from-hip, street smart rhetoric. I'm not impressed.

Edit: Mark Driscoll's Garth Brooks style, contemporary worship shtick is just as hopelessly culture bound as a church full of blue hairs singing the hymn "What Shall It Be" to the drone of a Wurlizter.

Defining "Game" and Consergame

I think one of the most frustrating aspects about debating the pros and cons of "Game" is the loose way the term is defined. Why, even looking up information on the internet is daunting, given all the other ways the word is used in our post-Nintendo culture. And a lot of the people in the "Game" community are conflicted in the ways they use the word themselves. One has a basic definition of the word here:

Game is the sum total of the attitudes and behaviors that women find attractive in men. Practice and perfect game and women will be attracted to you. - Ferdinand Bardamu

Sounds good enough, but then one gets into arguments about who has "Game" and who doesn't, what's necessarily a part of "Game" and what isn't, etc. The one yapping in your face about you not having "Game" may be less attractive to many women than you are. When one thinks about it, there are a lot of miserable guys who have "Game" by the above definition. After all, they got married. They must have some relationship value for a woman to want to be with them.

So, does "Game" mean something more? Does it mean using your attractiveness to get women to comply with your demands? Does it mean being attractive to the woman you find attractive? But what if she's below a "6" on the looks scale? Does that make you a "Herb" or a "beta"? Does "Game" mean being attractive to women other men generally find to be physically attractive? But what if you're a stereotypical "Nice Guy" ("beta"/"loser"/"AFC"/whatever) that managed to marry a pretty girl from Laos, all without having to "learn game"? Confused yet? I think these are valid questions to ask, nonetheless. Someone can accuse me of being "anti-game" but then I could ask, "What game are you taking about?"

Consergame

I myself have been blindsided by some socially conservative and religious men telling me that "Game" is good, moral, Apple Pie, and that stuff. But when I was talking about "Game" some time ago, I mainly had in mind "Game" as many PUAs embrace it (viz., for recreational sex). So maybe I should distinguish between PUAism and consergame, the latter being "Game" as practiced by guys who just want to find and keep a "good woman" for the sake of marriage, family, hearth, and home. Consergame is "Game" for the wholesome boy-next-door who goes to church every Sunday.

I don't have a problem with consergame in and of itself. Any religious guy that wants to be happily married should learn some form of Biblically sound consergame. The problem I have is that some fellows who are into consergame also seemed to have dipped their cups into the brackish waters of sexual nihilism and the naturalistic, atheistic system of Evolutionary Psychology. Or at least, that's the vibe I'm getting from some of things they are saying. If these guys really believe that Suzy Cupcake will turn on the them the very second they show any signs of weakness, lack of dominance, lack of confidence, lack of status, or overall "Betatude," then I've gotta' ask, "Cui bono, compadres?"

If the relationship between the sexes boils down to raw biological tokens of looks, status, power, etc. then why on earth would you even bother with marriage?! Let me figure this out. Supposedly, Cupcake doesn't love me for the "special snowflake" that I am, but only loves me to the extent that I can play Top Alpha Dog and do the DHV thingy. So if agape is passé in the New Era of Things then, um, what exactly am *I* getting out of the deal if my dearly beloved is going to age like cottage cheese? It's like Ferdinand said, "I’m no economist, but a commodity that gets more expensive as it becomes increasingly worthless sounds like one only a sucker would buy – and make no mistake, when you get married, you’re effectively 'buying' a woman."

I don't get it. I don't get how men can preach consergame and yet accept the brutal claims of Evolutionary Psychology (viz., that we are nothing more than naked apes with mercenary mating strategies). If I wasn't a Christian, if I didn't believe in agape, if I didn't care about sexual morality, if I accepted Evolutionary Psychology, then I would run straight past the Chapel and the wedding going on there for me, go to the nearest college pub where the co-eds are, and round them up like there was no tomorrow. Or maybe not. Maybe the thought of STDs and mindless conversation might drive me to porn instead. But the bottom line is this: If women are entitled to chase Alpha boys, then I am entitled to chase women who are young and physically attractive. Evolutionary Psychology says so, don't-cha know, so let's be consistent!

Let me put it to you another way. If I am not the "special snowflake" that will be loved "as I am" in my weakest moments, and if women in this culture act in a way that supports Evolutionary Psychology, I'd rather stay celibate than be married. No, don't bristle. Think about the balance sheet, folks. I rather live alone than be stuck with a female Evo-Psych specimen who will still hold the marriage bond over my head, test me, and demand Alpha performance from me while she goes through menopause and turns into a old crone. That's not Biblical matrimony, that's not living a life, that's not "Game." That's a rip-off! There's no ROI there, fellas! I say, "Ladies, either love me for real or go find another sucker." Life is easier without having to be under the gun of someone who is not doing much for you.

For the Christian man who thinks about this, marriage makes sense ... but only in the context where husbands and wives live according to the Law of Agape, not the Law of the Jungle. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense ... especially if a Christian man keeps running into "Christian" women who want to act like the "naked ape" and not like they are created in the image of God. Hmmm. Maybe that partially explains why some of us are not so sanguine about dating and marriage.

Postcript (A Morality Play)

Anglosphere Chick: "Anakin, your bitter for writing a post for like that. You just need to accept the fact that women are attracted to certain traits, blah, blah, de blah, blah."

Anakin: "Well, men are attracted to good looking women. So what happens when you hit forty and your looks go south? What exactly do I get at that time for being the Alpha husband to you?"

Anglosphere Chick: "You're so shallow and cold. Can't you love a woman for her character?"

Anakin: "Well, there were a lot of unassuming guys with character that you passed by in your youth, hypocrite."

(Overcome by frustration and impotent rage, Anglosphere Chick spontaneously combusts in a puff of smoke.)

The End.

Men Are Like Jars

Men are like jars. Why do I say this? Well, some men who are older are getting a "second look" from women, but oftentimes the connections are still elusive. You see, a goodly number of men eventually go through the Awakening. It's the time of their life when the increase in their good sense catches up with the decrease in their hormonal urges. A man looks around and notices that all the women of his generation who were so intimidatingly beautiful have disappeared for some reason. They have been replaced by aging women. The wrapper is pulled off, the playing field leveled, and the essence of what these women are is clearly seen by the men around them. For better or for worse, these women basically have their "wonderful personalities" as their main draw, and not much more than that.

Anyway, there is a lot of talk about the "problems" with older, unmarried men. They are accused of "having issues," "being inflexible," and "having bad habits." I think it is good for men to parse these accusations flung out by media and the culture at large. Consider the following ...

1. Sure, a man may "have issues" ... or he may have a tempered outlook on women, life, etc. He may not be so gullible about human nature as when he was younger. He may have some notable concerns and criticisms about what's going on around him. He has issues? Indeed. Valid issues with how so many others act.

2. Sure, a man may be "inflexible" .... or he may have legitimate standards and expectations. Maybe it's just that he's not so desperate, after all. He may not feel a need to wear a mask and remake himself in order to curry favor with people of dubious character. He may not feel the need to grovel or compromise on the important things, such as his dignity and his sense of justice.

3. Sure, a man may have "bad habits" .... or he may have his legitimate hobbies, tastes, pursuits, idiosyncrasies, and expressions of his individuality. He may understand what so many people do not: that God didn't make us like dandelions (each one looking the same). He may look around and see all the things some married men have had to give up in order to be ... what? Not much happier than him? Maybe living single with his beloved Kawasaki is not so bad, after all.

So, unmarried men, watch out. First you will be invisible. Then, when you reach a stage where you don't have much invested in the Game, you will be seen as "the problem." Most likely, though, you are not the problem. Rather, some people coming down hard on men have created their own problems and don't have the maturity to face up to them. Some people simply fail to understand what men are like.

Ladies, understand this: men are like jars. The bigger rocks are easier to cram into a jar at the beginning when it's being filled than later on. When men are younger, there is often space in their lives for the woman of their dreams and the things that come with her. But as the years pass, other important things may take up that space (including some nuggets of wisdom and experience). If you don't come into a man's life early on, don't expect it to be an easy thing when he is older and he is more sure of himself. He will probably have very little time, inclination, and patience for glam, glitz, games, hype, and nonsense. What will you have to offer then? Indeed, it's a question you need to ask yourself--before you start to remove the rocks and put in your bouquet of dandelions.

Realmannspracht Is Still Stupid

Once again, it's time for me to drive a spear Phinehas-style through the fat, greasy body of realmannspracht. I notice the men who talk the loudest about who is a "real man" and who is not a "real man" tend to define manhood in ways that square nicely with their interests and agendas. How strange that the self-appointed "experts" on manhood contradict each other on some very fundamental points. I guess it's all a sophisticated version of what the Seduction Community would call DHVing. However, I prefer to dig deeper and ask some questions about the motivations of these "experts," who just happen to live in a status-obsessed age. For indeed, too many are attempting to connect manhood to some form of external attribute or token of importance. I guess in their hunt for "markers" of "manhood" they are not content with (or even appreciative of) the primacy of character or spirituality. Contrast their attitude with what the Bible says in 1 Samuel 16:7 ...

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Of course, I believe non-biological "markers of manhood" in and of themselves are problematic. A man is a man by virtue of the fact that he is created in the image of God. We don't have the right to destroy that image either through deed or word. I want people to think about what Genesis 9:9 says:

"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

Some only look at this passage as their go-to text for capital punishment and don't really think about the premise behind it--there is something sacred about humanity. If you don't believe that someone who is male is really a man, why don't you kill him? That's where such thinking leads. It starts with a thought and ends in the act (1 John 3:15).

The men who founded this country believed in the following proposition:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But if a male is not really a man, then I guess the above statement doesn't really apply. In short, realmannspracht is inconsistent with Christianity and with the concepts of liberty and freedom that have made Western Civilization great. In the past, there were all sorts of classes of men who were deemed as being of less worth than others. Christianity transformed the world by challenging such nonsense. Over time, the vestiges of the nonsense has lingered in various forms such as murderous statism and racial prejudice, for example. But the sacredness of man's humanity has refused to be denied. Today, the lingering challenges to the sacredness of man's humanity take such forms as legal misandry, woman-firsterism, and status-based conceptions of manhood (physical strength, money, success with women, etc.). I defy the nonsense. I am not a utopian. I am a follower of Christ--not of Nietzsche, Darwin, or Oriental warlords. There are a lot of people who claim they care about men's issues. But the reality of the situation is clear: You can't claim to care for men if you deny them the right to be exactly that---men.

And for those who still don't get it, spare me 30 minutes of your time and watch the following video ...

"The Obsolete Man"

Marriage, Merit, and Manhood

Recently I penned two posts that talked about marriage as an indicator of emotional and spiritual maturity. These were entitled "Is Marriage a Marker of Adulthood?" and "Your Marriage Is Not a Ministry." You should read them, if you haven't already done so, to gauge my thoughts on the matter. Also read "Selfish Singles? (An Exegetical Challenge)," while you're at it.

Anyway, I wanted to say a few more things about the issues at hand, especially as they relate to men. Let me first restate something I wrote a little while ago in response to a reader [with a few grammar corrections]:

I am not trying to minimize the heavy sacrifices parents make. They need our acknowledgment and support in that matter. What I am questioning is whether or not they have a right to use their sacrifices to cast aspersions on single people who don't want the hardships of the married life. Because if we are going to open that can of worms, then I can work a similar angle on exceptional people who sacrificed a lot more than most married Christians in order to cast aspersions on married people.

What I am saying is let's not throw stones in glass houses. This fracas got started because some marriage mandate folks decided that casual singleness was unspiritual and that people need to get married to be on a higher spiritual plane. The marriage mandators also seem to indicate that men who are single for casual reasons are deficient in their manhood. At least that's how I take their statements. And I say in response that marriage should be entered into voluntarily and not out of some weird sense of religious duty, per se. I find so scriptural support for the latter sentiment.

When Paul gave the Corinthians a reason for not marrying, it wasn't "some of you are gifted for exceptional service." It was, "I want you to be free from concern" (1 Cor. 7:32). It's a very basic, mundane reason for not getting married. No talk of a high-falutin' irrevocable calling. No talk of being marked for marriage or for singleness. Just some practical pastoral advice that was non-binding (1 Cor. 7:27-28).

I stand by what I said. Marriage is not a call to ministry. It's a gift (Prov. 19:14) and it comes with responsibilities.

I want to clarify and perhaps tweak some thoughts, though, in case I'm giving the wrong impression on a matter. I do think that married people deserve special recognition, especially for raising children. We need to give them praise, encouragement and support to keep their family bonds strong. I retract any other statements of mine to the contrary. However, what we should not do is encourage a mindset where marriage and family is based on some selfish desire for status and recognition. If you want to be a spouse and have children to boost your self-esteem, you need to stay a mile away from the opposite sex. Other people's lives are not your stepping stone. Your actions need to be motivated by godly love and the desire to give it.

Moreover, to touch upon what I've already said, we should not diminish the spirituality, maturity, and manhood of those men who chose not to marry for mundane reasons. Not wanting the hassles of the married life is not a spiritual problem. Someone may retort, "Singles are lazy and disconnected from others." Which singles are you talking about? If you are talking about a 24-year-old who is not looking for a job, lives in his parent's basement, doesn't help around the house, and plays the Xbox all day long, then yes, you have a point. But that's a shopworn stereotype. There are plenty of bachelors who are earning their keep, active in their churches, etc. They may not be giving as much of their time and money as others, but they are staying in the game. If you want to engage in spiritual one-upmanship with the bachelors, then watch out. The measure you use will be you used against you.

If you are a married man, do you want to compare your sacrifices and your manhood to the Apostle Paul, who turned down marriage so that Gentiles you like you could hear the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:5)? The desire for female companionship must have meant something to the Apostle, after all, or else why would he have mentioned it? What about those thousands of young, unmarried men that died on battlefields for your freedom? They never had a chance of finding a good woman and raising a family. Or .... what about One who was a man like you, never knew the love of a woman, and yet hung on a cross for your sins? Are you a better man than He was when He was on earth because you're married and He wasn't? It's because of His sacrifice that people are even able to have the privilege of lifting their heads up with any dignity.

Nobody's knocking you because you chose the good life with a pretty spouse, smart kids, and a nice house. Nobody is saying you're less of a man for it. If you're walking in humility with God and in kindness towards others, you'll get no flak from me on that matter. But if you want to hang the "Kick Me" sign on the single man's back, then I'm calling you out on your nonsense. Yeah, you sacrifice, but rest assured, you ain't about to make the new edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs anytime soon. It's something to think about, dear readers.