Biblical Manhood

Time to Stop

2010-02-26T17:52:00.001-06:00

This is it. My last post for Biblical Manhood. I think for over a year (or two), I knew that I was going to be quitting this thing. I felt that God was leading me to "the next gig" in my life, but I wanted to get my parting shots in before closing down the blog. Now, it's going to be a bit sooner than I originally planned.

I have spent a lot of time involved in MRA and MGTOW activities for six or more years now. From my viewpoint, my break from the scene is not so much a change of conviction about the things I have discussed as it is a change of direction and focus. There is still a lot of gravel that needs to be shoveled by someone. I still think misandry (religious or otherwise), gynocentrism, neo-chivalry (especially lifeboat feminism), biogynism, realmannspracht, and other forms of garbage thrown at men are a serious problem. I still consider these things to be intolerable and sinful. I still stand by my manifesto on Biblical Manhood (parts 1, 2, and 3). The manifesto is my personal stance against what I perceive to be some false doctrines about manhood in religious circles, and against some really bad ideas that are found even in parts of the "Manosphere."

Maybe the Lord will change my mind on some things. Maybe not. But I feel convicted that he wants me to put an end to this. No one has threatened to fire me, turn me in, or report me to the Gender Correctness Police. I haven't been seduced by a female to soften my views. Brother So-and-So didn't call on me to repent of my views. I didn't get "straightened out" by a therapist. This is simply what I feel to be a work of the Holy Spirit on my heart.

I still believe there are too many broken cisterns that men are trying to drink from (Jeremiah 2:13). Women, sex, status, money, health, power, careerism, approval of the crowd--these are the ones that come to mind. Granted, some of these things are permissible. Yet the Word of God is clear. Men are made acceptable by the blood of Jesus, not the broken cisterns (Romans 4:25). Joy and the peace "that surpasses understanding" comes from God (Galatians 5:22; Philippians 4:7), not the broken cisterns. Completeness comes through Christ, not the broken cisterns (Colossians 2:10). Value comes through being added spiritually to the Lord's body (1 Corinthians 12:12-27), not through the broken cisterns. None of the broken cisterns are vital for a man to be the kind of man God wants him to be. Anyone who says otherwise is in spiritual bondage to a lie.

I end this post with a prayer ...

Let those who mock men be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who refuse to stand up for justice for men be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who bind heavy burdens on men that God does not bind be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who turn the blind eye to the suffering of men be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who diminish the God-given worth of men be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who equate manhood with sexual prowess, romantic success, being married, or having children be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who equate manhood with status, strength, worldly success, or power be defeated in their counsel.

Let those who are in power and who commit injustices against men be defeated in their schemes.

Let all falsehood be utterly defeated.

Let the Word of God stand forever.

Let everything that I have prayed which is according to will of God be granted.

In the name of Jesus Christ I pray. Amen.

God bless you all.

[Edit: If you are interested in another blog primarily devoted to the subject of "biblical manhood" that is male-friendly and sensitive to what men really experience in church, then I recommend SingleChristianMan's place. He is not MRA/MGTOW like I am, but I find his writings insightful, edifying, and satisfying. Let me also say that appreciate you other compadres in the blogosphere that have read me and linked to me. You know you who are. Take care.]

Sexual Politics in the Churches of Christ

2010-02-16T00:00:00.000-06:00

Last month, Eumaios wrote a post about the dynamics of male/female relationships in Churches of Christ. I found his comments on how men are treated by the women in that faith tradition to be instructive, and can personally bear witness to what he is saying. The various conservative groups in Christendom have their theologies and doctrines, but the tinge of human nature is ubiquitous.

Happy Valentine's Day

2010-02-14T00:00:00.003-06:00

This one is for you, ladies ;-) ....

(Click picture to enlarge)

Religious Women Who Are (Gasp) Porn Users

2010-02-05T17:28:00.004-06:00

From time to time, the religious status quo has to acknowledge the truth that the rest of us take for granted. A recent article at Boundless.org on female use of pornography is one such example. I just wonder this: When Christian women use porn, are they heartless perverts that demean and objectify men and children? Or are they poor little souls trapped in sin who need the love of Christ? I suspect there's a gender difference in how we "love" the sinner.

Some Thoughts on Christianity and MGTOW

2010-01-27T00:00:00.002-06:00

In this post, I wanted to share a few thoughts about Christianity and MGTOW. There has been some talk on men's blogs about what the "solution" might be for men who are trying to stay afloat in a post-feminist world. I know what the solution is for the believing man, whatever his fate with the opposite sex may be (Romans 15:13). A man can spend all his time learning tips to attract women. He can read up on "inner game" all he wants, but as somewhat profitable as these things may be, they are insignificant compared to the power of the Spirit (2 Timothy 1:7). Indeed, "joy" and "peace" are fruits of the Spirit, not one's marital status or one's sexual history (Galatians 5:22). The one who has overcome the fear of man (Proverbs 29:25) has overcome the fear of woman, the fear of rejection, the fear of shame, and yes, the fear of indefinite loneliness.

Abide in Christ (John 15:4), draw near to God (James 4:8), ask for the Spirit and be led by him (Luke 11:13; Romans 8:14). What I am saying is not new. But I know that sometimes accepting a proposition intellectually is not the same as understanding it experientially. So seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (Matthew 6:33) and wait for the Lord (Psalm 27:1-14). Spiritual maturity does not come instantly and it does not come easily. You may be like Jeremiah. He was unable to take a wife and live a life in the context of a supportive community because, well, the community around him was under judgment. But even when others around you forsake you, you are never alone if you stand with God (1 Kings 9:1-18).

A Biblical understanding of MGTOW does not relish isolation from others, not even women. But what it does seek is peace and meaning in the person of Christ. So, when the churches fail, when the women of our culture go after the idols of our day, when those in power grow more tyrannical and corrupt, when men are marginalized and stripped of importance, when misandry flourishes, when society moves further away from God, a man can stand firm and unshaken in Christ (Matthew 7:24-25; Psalm 46). The saying that "Jesus is all you need" has fallen on hard times, probably because it has been used in too many instances to dismiss those who suffer from loneliness. But even so, some of us have at least a partial appreciation of its truth, even though the appreciation has come through many failings. It's a truth that helps us to not only survive the depersonalized structure of our modern society, but also to thrive. It keeps us from being tools for those with an ungodly agenda.

To men who feel alone, I say this: Don't thirst for the affection of those who are perishing. Look around you and discern. The people that mistreat you and that you are tempted to envy are like chaff. They will be blown away. Read Psalm 49 and Psalm 73. There will be those who will falsely accuse you of being bitter, envious, and insecure. Don't marvel at this; false accusations against the people of God are nothing new (Matthew 5:11). The women that demean you are enslaved by the spirits of bitterness and pride. If they refuse the healing of the Great Physician, what fellowship do you have with them (2 Corinthians 6:15)? They will sink. Don't be sucked into the wake of their demise. Your religious leaders may scoff at you, too, but remember that they scoffed at righteous men before the Babylonian Captivity and before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The wicked will not prosper--even if they stand before podiums in large auditoriums with stained glass windows.

I suspect there are those who will accuse me of a "sour grapes" attitude that masquerades behind piety. They don't understand. They don't have the slightest clue. And I suspect the reason they don't have a clue is because they haven't taken the idea of walking close to God in their personal lives very seriously. A lot of them are nominal believers, at best. If they were walking close with God, then they would understand what I am saying.

This is not about my wounded pride, although all of us struggle with it. The love of God that allows me to stand alone in the crowd if necessary is also the biggest challenge to my pride. How can I be prideful in anything if the very blessings of life I have are gifts (Matthew 5:45)? What accomplishments can I boast in if it is God's power that sustains me (Philippians 4:13)? Why should I be afraid of looking like a fool if I am a fool for Christ (1 Corinthians 4:10)? Why should I be afraid of facing up to my failures if, in Christ, all things are made new (2 Corinthians 5:17)? Why should I be afraid of being weak if, in Christ, his grace is perfected in such (2 Corinthians 12:9)? Why should I care if others say I have "no life" if indeed, I have given up mine for Christ's sake (Mark 8:35)? Why should I be worried if everyone is better than me if the One who is perfect loves me still (Psalm 18:30)? Indeed, it is his love that helps me to love others as myself (1 John 4:19).

If my accusers had what I had more abundantly than me, I would be happy for them. But of course, if they did have it, their behavior towards me would be quite different, even if they still disagreed with me. Furthermore, if the Spirit of Christ leads me to repudiate either the tone or the content of what I have written over the last few years, then is it the end of the world for me? No. As the Apostle Paul said, "I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ" (Philippians 3:8). Even through my failures, I am confident that God will continue his sanctifying work in me until the day of his Son's appearing (Philippians 1:6).

Here is the essence of a Biblical understanding of MGTOW: Go ahead and call me a loser. Go ahead, because Christianity is for losers (Matthew 10:39; 1 Corinthians 1:26-29). There is no need for me to be defensive about that statement because the victory is already mine in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:57). I stand upon this confession:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:8-12, NASB).

I am not writing this for my own benefit; I'm writing for the benefit of the others. You see, many of you have tried to make it all about me. But it isn't really about me. It's about Christ, regardless of what you or I think about things. If I have said some things over these last several years that shouldn't have been said, then I apologize. Let what is good stand; let what isn't fall. If my counsel is not of God's will, then I will be defeated (Proverbs 19:21). The same goes for you. Take care.

The Best Ones Are Already Taken

2010-01-24T01:09:00.003-06:00

A lot of men like to complain about the fact that the "best ones are already taken." Well, it is true--in one very special sense. These women of which I speak are "already taken" by Christ. In a strange way they, who have already given their hearts to another, are the only ones men should be pursuing. Other women have given their hearts to romance novels, the American Dream, living it up, the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, or the pride of life (1 John 2:16). Many times, men are far from number one in a woman's life. So at best, a woman who has Christ as #1 will put her husband at #2, and not dead last (as is the case with not a few husbands).

You might retort, "But I've met a lot of Christian women who claim to put Christ first and they still treat me like dirt." Yes? And your point is? Do we need to rehash matters about the state of our churches today? Needless to say, religiosity, cultural conservatism, and the such like are not reliable metrics of spiritual maturity. Take the most conservative, Bible-believing congregation you like and compare them to the Pharisees. How will they fare? The Pharisees were moralistic (Luke 15:2), zealous about studying the Scriptures (John 5:39), and zealous about following the Law (Acts 22:3). You see, there many are who zealous for God's word and yet are not zealous to walk in intimacy with the One who authored it. Are they led by reliance upon God, Christ, and the Spirit? Or they led by their self-righteous expertise in knowing doctrine and performing religious acts? Now you know why so many conservative churches are utterly dead. They have forsaken their first love (Revelation 2:4) and have become country clubs for suburbanites.

Some would assert that Christian men "have no excuse" and that there are "plenty of women to go around" in our churches today. Those who assert this are looking at the matter though the eyes of man, not through spiritual lenses. The Bible is clear about the kind of woman a man should date or marry (Proverbs 31:30; 1 Peter 3:1-6). This simplifies the picking and rejecting to a great extent. It has to do with one's attitude, not a flurry of religious activity or putting up a front. It has to do with the heart, not the backside and where it is planted on Sunday morning.

So you see, when religious leaders tell me that I need to find a wife that helps me "glorify God" or helps me perform "kingdom work," I think they often do not know what they are asking for. They may think of church buildings, programs, funded ministries, grandiose missions, professional clergy, filled church nurseries, filled pews, filled coffers, good times ahead for their man-made denomination, middle-class values, a return to the 1950s in the general culture, or whatever. Being Spirit-filled does not equate to any of this. And being married to a Spirit-filled woman does not equate to any of this. It does look a lot like what one reads in 1 Corinthians 13.

The Christian man who has turned his back on the dating scene is not to be consumed with bitterness, selfish anger, vengefulness, or hate. But he doesn't need to bother with romance, either. True, he is called to love women as his neighbors (Mark 12:33) or as his sisters in Christ (1 Timothy 5:2), but he is also called not to cast his pearls before the swine (Matthew 7:6). Quite frankly, a lot of woman are acting like swine because their souls are in spiritual bondage to the Enemy. This includes a lot of churchgoing women who are deceived by their own religiosity.

I have said many times that a Christian man has no Biblical obligation whatsoever to date or marry. Now, it may be that God may individually lead a man to marry and put a desire in that man for a wife, but that is God's private work in somebody's personal life, not dogma to be bound on the body of Christ (Proverbs 18:22; 1 Corinthians 7:25a). The Scriptures still grants men the right to refuse to marry (1 Corinthians 7:37).

What I'm getting to is this: A Christian man doesn't have to worry about what people think about his singleness if he is not even surrounded by Spirit-filled women in the first place. If he finds a woman filled with the Spirit, and if he is filled with the Spirit, there will be very little holding each of them back if the Lord is pleased to have them together. The two of them won't need a "mandate" and won't have much use for pretense and stratagems. Love has a way of accomplishing what coercion cannot.

The Miserable Comforters of Men's Ministries

2010-01-18T22:26:00.000-06:00

Anyone who has read the book of Job knows just how unprofitable his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were in his hour of need. Even though Job did nothing wrong to deserve his fate, his friends saw the situation differently. They insisted that Job must have sinned in some respect and that he needed to repent. After all, they reasoned, God brings favor to the righteous and punishes the wicked. At one point in exasperation, Job exclaims, "I have heard many such things: miserable comforters are ye all" (Job 16:2, KJV). God himself sets the record straight at the end and gives Job's friends the 6:00 AM wake-up call:

It came about after the LORD had spoken these words to Job, that the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has. Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, and go to My servant Job, and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves, and My servant Job will pray for you. For I will accept him so that I may not do with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has." (Job 42:7-8, NASB)

The modern church doesn't have any characters like Eliphaz and his buddies, does it? To ask the question is to answer it.

I fear too many men's ministries are headed by "miserable comforters." They don't get it. Their theology is pat, simplistic, and lacking in serious reflection that comes from a concerted study of God's word and a modicum of spiritual growth. They falsely assume that the problems men face are largely self-inflicted. As Paul Coughlin has noted, women get "fellowship" groups while men get "accountability" groups. The "miserable comforters" will declare that if you only do "xyz" then God will resolve things. They don't want to listen. They want to discourse at length about their Mickey Mouse theodicy and assume that solves the problem. Sermonizing relieves them from understanding, compassion, and weeping with "those who weep" (Romans 12:15).

Here's a dangerous question to ask: What qualifies these people to minister? Are they ruling by decree? Or leading by example (1 Peter 5:1-3)? Really, let's think about it ...

1. Do they come from a tough background or where they raised in a supportive Christian home?

2. Have they ever experienced long periods of social isolation or alienation?

3. Have they ever struggled for a long time with sexual desire in the face of constant rejection from the opposite sex?

4. Have they ever lost their job, relationship, or something else comparable because of a personal failing?

5. Have they ever felt they were going nowhere with their life, being stuck in an unrewarding, dead-end situation?

6. Have they ever felt that their dreams have been dashed and that the doors have been slammed in their face?

7. Have they ever felt out of place in churches and among other believers?

8. Have they ever had to struggle with health problems at a young age?

9. Have they ever struggled with depression, serious backsliding, feelings of worthlessness, anger at God, feelings of being rejected by God?

10. Have they ever "hit bottom" with a serious challenge such as drug abuse, a prison sentence, contemplating suicide, etc.?

I suppose you or I could add to the list. I am not saying that men have to go through all of these things before they minister to others. On the other hand, if you see a pattern where self-proclaimed experts on "Biblical Manhood" act patronizing and condescending to men, and yet have never really struggled with the things many men struggle with, then take note. I fear that too many involved in "pastoring" or "ministering" to men grew up in the system, or were accepted early on because they "looked the part." Jesus, on the other hand, was "despised and rejected by men," "acquainted with suffering" and "tempted in all points" (Isaiah 53:3; Hebrew 4:15). Jesus understands what men go through. The others? I'm not so certain.

Jesus described his ministry this way: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:18-19). But of the Pharisees he said, "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger" (Matthew 23:4).

Do you feel free from the spiritual bondage of sin, guilt, dread, emptiness, and/or despair? Or do you feel weighted down? It's one thing to demand that people be holy; it's quite another thing to show them how to be holy by example. Gentlemen, test the spirits (1 John 4:1). Get out the litmus strips and see if your leaders are authentic. Maybe God, in his mercy, can work through them even though their motives are less than honorable (Philippians 1:15-18). Maybe they are in an acceptable relationship with God, but I really think many of them have misunderstood their calling. Perhaps the best thing they can do to advance the cause of Christ is to sit down and shut up.

Holiday Weekend Links

2010-01-16T00:34:00.005-06:00

I've got a long weekend because of the MLK holiday. So, here are some good links ...

1. A nice Tubecast of Paul Elam of Mensnewsdaily.com explaining who the MRAs (and MGTOWers) are and who they AREN'T ...

You can find the longer article here.

2. An excellent piece by Paul Coughlin. Considering my last post, its subject matter couldn't be more timely. (HT: Singlextianman).

Men and the Psalms of Disorientation

2010-01-11T00:14:00.003-06:00

A notable contribution to the interpretation of the Psalms is that advanced by Walter Brueggemann. A well-known scholar in seminary circles, Brueggemann has taken a sociological approach to study of the Old Testament, which though not entirely without criticism, cannot be summarily dismissed either. While Brueggemann veers slightly towards liberation theology at times, his work should not be pigeonholed as such. I daresay evangelical scholars who are worth their salt acknowledge the contribution Brueggemann has made to the study of the Psalms. Pick up any academic work on the Psalms put out by Eerdmans, Baker, IVP, etc. and you'll probably find a hat tip to Brueggemann right along with Derek Kidner or Trempor Longman.

Brueggemann posits a threefold scheme to understanding the book of Psalms (or the Psalter, if you will): psalms of "orientation," "disorientation," and "new orientation." Psalms of orientation express sentiments of faith when all is right with the world. These are psalms of praise, psalms extolling the value of God's word, or psalms that assure the blessings of the righteousness and punishment of the wicked. Psalms of disorientation represent a crisis in faith. These psalms cry out in agony over sin, sickness, persecution, defeat, despair, etc. Many times these psalms are frank and brutally candid in their desperation. The often wonder aloud why God is taking so long to right a situation (Psalm 13) or they may express their desire for vengeance against a personal or national enemy (Psalm 109). Finally, the psalms of new orientation represent a restored sense of faith after a crises has passed. Psalms of thanksgiving, for example, can fall into this last category.

I want to focus on the psalms of disorientation. They remind me of Job's statement: "Therefore I will not restrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul" (Job 7:11, NASB). Brueggemann has stated these psalms have a vital role to play in the lives not only of individual believers but of the Church as well. Modern Christians may be taken aback by some of these psalms, such as the imprecatory psalms (where curses are pronounced against enemies). I myself do not think we can easily adopt the sentiments of all these psalms in toto (Romans 12:14), but in many other ways, we cannot ignore the negative emotions expressed by believers of old in the Psalms.

Brueggemann warns that when the psalms of disorientation are absent from individual or corporate worship of the Church, two things happen. One, the believer has an inauthentic relationship with God, only telling God what the believer thinks God wants to hear and not what God sees in the heart anyway--the grief, frustration, anger, sorrow, fear, moments of doubt. The second danger is that churches become a mouthpiece for the status quo, blind and indifferent to the suffering and problems others face. The churches are too busy singing "happy, happy, joy, joy" when they should be mourning for others and mourning for their own sins and failures (Romans 12:15; Jeremiah 8:11). Brueggemann indicates that a body of believers who cling to the mode of orientation when times of disorientation are upon them have become inauthentic in their expressions of faith.

So, the ones who quote Proverbs 18:22 on marriage forget that the same author penned Ecclesiastes 7:26-28. The ones who quote Psalm 127:4-5 on children forget that the same author penned Ecclesiastes 4:1-3. The ones who focus on Psalm 9:11 and want to sing praises forget Psalm 137:3-4 where the author, witnessing the brutal subjection of the Jews by the Babylonians, doesn't have the gumption to sing any songs at that moment. I could go on and on. There is a time and place for everything (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8). The scriptures speak to the places where we are at in our lives. Our churches, unfortunately, all too often speak the same tired litany. They're stuck in Psalm 65:4 while Jeremiah 7:4-8 rings out from the streets.

What does this have to do with men? I think it is obvious. I have already written how social conservatives have betrayed men. I have already written how the things that people consider blessings can oftentimes only serve as a painful reminder to some men that things are not right. Religious leaders and so-called "men's ministries" would like men to stay in a hollow mode of orientation. They would deny us the language, the liturgy, or the venues to express our grief, our despair, our anger, our frustration, our sense of outrage against injustice. They tell us to "stop being bitter," "move on," "get over it," "stop whining," "man up," "stop being so self-centered," "stop blaming others," and on and on. Yet they would do well to hear what Brueggemann says:

It is a curious fact that the church has, by and large, continued to sing songs of orientation in a world increasingly experienced as disorientated. That may be laudatory. It could be that such relentlessness is an act of bold defiance in which these psalms of order and reliability are flung in the face of disorder. In that way, they insist that nothing shall separate us from the love of God ...

But at best, this is only partly true. It is my judgment that this action of the church is less an evangelical defiance guided by faith, and much more a frightened, numbed denial and deception that does not want to acknowledge or experience the disorientation of life. The reason for such relentless affirmation of orientation seems to come, not from faith, but from the wishful optimism of culture. Such a denial and cover-up, which I take it to be, is an odd inclination for passionate Bible users, given the large number of psalms that are songs of lament, protest, and complaint about the incoherence that is experienced in the world. At least it is clear that a church that goes on singing "happy songs" in the face of raw reality is doing something very different from what the Bible itself does. (The Message of the Psalms, pp. 51-52) [emphasis mine]

Men, like Hannah, are weeping in the "bitterness of soul" to God (1 Samuel 1:10), but our church leaders too often play the part of Eli and falsely accuse these men of impropriety (1 Samuel 1:13-15). And all too often, church leaders are impatient with those who are suffering, forgetting that the seasons of refreshing and renewal for an afflicted believer are in God's hands, and the issue cannot always be forced. Job and the author of Psalm 88 must wait in a disoriented faith until the Lord encounters them.

So, we see, dear readers, that the ones who often accuse men of spiritual immaturity may themselves be spiritually immature. The issue of how our churches, our popular culture, our society as a whole, and even women treat men is not going away and cannot be swept under the rug of a bogus ecclesiasticism. Men of faith who are concerned about these things are finding a way to talk about these things, the cavalier dismissal of the religious status quo notwithstanding. In the face of religious misandry, they can look with a vindicated conscience to the words from the Lord by the prophet Amos:

I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! (Amos 5:21-24, NIV)

Gentlemen, let's take a cue from Amos. Let us never be shamed into silence. Let's roll.

More recommended reading:

"What Can Miserable Christians Sing?" (by Carl Trueman) (a fuller version of this piece was published in Themelios, February 2000)

More Thoughts on My Thoughts on Sex

2010-01-08T23:25:00.002-06:00

Some may look at my recent posts and see some apparent contradictions (I say "apparent" as opposed to "actual"). First I say "incels" do not exist, but then I acknowledge that people are having difficulty obtaining intimacy. I say that men can control their sexual appetites and live happy lives without obligating themselves to women, if need be. Yet, in the same post I acknowledge that men are biologically hardwired to want sex with women. Moreover, I acknowledge that the male sex drive is strong enough for some sex-deprived men to want to go into pornography, etc.

I don't think I'm contradicting myself. I am reacting against some extremes. On one hand, too many people want to box men in and tell them that they can't be independent of romantic relationships with women. On the other hand, too many want to turn men into polite eunuchs and ignore the natural reality of the male sex drive, chiefly its intensity, ardor, and attraction to physical beauty in women. That is why male chastity that honors a man's sex drive is a more complex matter than a chastity that demeans men (especially a type of demeaning chastity that incriminates and/or devalues men and pedastalizes women). A Christian man that doesn't want to get married is called to be chaste, but that chastity should be informed by a male-friendly type of "gender realism," not a white-knighting, Estrogelical narrative that is so common among religious pundits. The male-friendly chastity of which I speak requires an unlearning of things (an "unplugging from the Femamatrix" if you will) and the inculcation of a new knowledge base and mindset, but I nonetheless think it's doable and in reach for nearly all the men who want it.

On a related note, an "incel" site called love-shy.com has picked up my post on the "incel" community. Needless to say, the folks at that site are none too pleased with what I have written about the matter. It's too bad, really. I understand that many people are lonely and not in a good position to enjoy intimacy under the circumstances they would choose or tolerate. But frankly, the "incel" label is a self-imposed form of victimhood. It's like some people getting together and starting a group called the Society of the Involuntarily Socially Awkward. As it is, very few people can truly say that they absolutely cannot get sex. There is, more often than not, some desire that is stronger than the sex--a desire to avoid rejection, to not be bothered with too much effort, to save money, to save time, to save one's sanity, to "keep oneself unspotted from the world", etc. Sometimes these desires are legitimate; sometimes they are not. The "incel" label doesn't take this matter into account, though. Rather, the label is counterproductive, given to waving the white flag and lying down in the ditch. It's especially tragic since a happy and productive life should not be held hostage to having sex with people.

The Mutton Chop Tease Show

2010-01-07T21:59:00.004-06:00

In C. S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity, there is a peculiar quote about sexuality. I think I recall it being quoted by others in defense of conservative sexual mores:

You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act--that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?

One critic said that if he found a country in which such strip-tease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving. He means, of course, to imply that such things as the strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual starvation. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence showed that a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the same way, before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion than has been since Pagan times. [C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1973), pp. 89-90]

So, according to Prof. Lewis, our age is one of sexual gluttony, since our appetite for sex is keen even in the presence of bounteous access. I have never fully agreed with Lewis' above quote and even now find myself siding somewhat with his unnamed critic. Lewis' wrote his work in the middle part of the last century. I highly doubt he could have foreseen the wreckage that feminism and the Sexual Revolution has wrought on our cultural fabric.

Sure, the socially dominant and the unscrupulous may be getting more sex, but others are finding themselves increasingly isolated in a depersonalizing culture. The burgeoning online dating industry, as a case in point, is indicative of how intimacy has become elusive for many souls. Moreover, if we are to believe, as some do, that married people have more sex than singles, then a decline in marriage itself can point to sexual starvation.

Some fellow bloggers tackling men's issues also point to the haremization of our culture. It could be the Government Harem of Marriage 2.0 and family law. It could be the Cultural Harem of women chasing a tiny pool of "Alphas" or women holding out for idealized mates that don't exist. Either way, men are getting locked out.

So I think Lewis' appraisal of our situation is deficient. I am not surprised that porn has mushroomed and been normalized. I am not surprised that some are now talking about the next phase of technologies in the sex industry (teledildonics, haptic technology, sexbots, whatever). What else could have happened? The relationship between the sexes is highly dysfunctional. Men are told that they can't live without sex or women. The Pink Wurlitzer plays that tune non-stop. So when people don't get any intimacy in a healthy way, its understandable when they scrape around in trash cans for poor substitutes.

Social conservatives just don't get it. They are following C. S. Lewis' line of reasoning. They typically think gluttony is the problem, when in many cases, desperation borne out of deprivation is the problem. If they do acknowledge an intimacy famine, their "solution" is Marriage 2.0. That is no real solution. The institution of marriage must be fixed in our culture, shorn of its misandrist elements before it can be taken seriously again. I have consistently preached that men can do without intimacy with women if only for the sake of their dignity and sanity. Indeed, sensible men will do without if the medicine is worse than the ailment. In many cases, it is.

Yet the problem remains. Men don't really have a lot of good options, so many of them take poor ones. The solution to our sexual ills cannot be reduced to theological and political soundbites. The religious pundits will yammer on and rail against men, but more male-bashing will accomplish very little. The hungry are still hungry. We've only just made them feel guilty about it. The Mutton Chop Tease Show will continue.

Female Sexuality, Ambient Porn, and the Pink Wurlitzer

2010-01-04T00:00:00.002-06:00

The feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton once said:

"When women can support themselves, have entry to all the trades and professions, with a house of their own over their heads and a bank account, they will own their bodies and be dictators in the social realm." [Emphasis mine]

Dictators in the social realm indeed. There is one area in the social realm where men know all too well how women wield a dictatorial power that rivals that of any oriental despot--female sexuality. To quote Novaseeker:

Basically it's fair to say that women defended their own power bases and actually increased their power over them substantially such that they have a near totalitarian power over their own traditional bases of children and sex (abortion rights, VAWA, rape and harassment laws, c/s regimes, family law) while aggressively colonizing the male space. When women speak of equality, therefore, I think what they really mean is (1) equality between men and women in what was previously the male space coupled with (2) absolute power of women in the female space. [Emphasis mine]

How can women wield absolute power in the realm of sexuality? Well, the degree to which female sexuality is celebrated and publicly flaunted in our culture is unprecedented. I cannot but wonder if there is a connection between the fact that (1) a lot of women are increasingly incapable of relating to men in healthy ways and (2) women are increasingly resorting to extreme measures to beautify themselves and flaunt their sexuality in front of men. In short, we may have a craven attempt to heighten the demand for something that is losing its real value.

There are all sorts of studies on the long term affects of being exposed to environmental noise (how it causes mental fatigue, reduces productivity, etc.), but do men think about exposure to the amped-up sexual noise of our culture? There is a name for this sexual noise in our public spaces--ambient porn. When men think of pornography, they think of Playboy, nude bodies, videos of sex acts. But what about all those stupid billboard ads, flash animations for online dating sites, suggestive scenes on television, etc.? The women need not even be scantily dressed. There are plenty of advertisements directed at men that feature fully clothed women with flirtatious looks and poses. The problem is that men are not aware of how this constant bombardment of stimuli affects them because it is so subtle, hence the term "ambient porn."

Like it or not, men react on a very basic biological level to sexual stimuli, even when they are virtuous enough to not want to follow through on anything illicit. Do we, as men, stop to think about what the constant barrage of female sexuality does to our mental and emotional health, if not our spiritual health? Think, for instance, about the unwanted sexual tension and the mental and emotional stress, anger, and depression that all too often follows. Think about all the compromises that men make with regard to their dignity and self-worth in order to fulfill a strong drive that has been overstimulated (marriage 2.0., woman-firsterism, illicit and immoral sexual acts).

What is particularly galling about discussing this matter is that it will be greeted in three very unhelpful ways:

1) Mockery: A man will be accused of being a "frustrated loser."

2) Apathy: You will be regarded as a prude. After all, it is supposed that men want non-stop titillation by women.

3) Chivalrous male-bashing: There may be some acknowledgment that wanton displays of female sexuality are a problem, but men will be held solely responsible. Men will be regarded as lecherous beasts, while fashion models, porn stars, and other immodest women will be regarded as precious, unfortunate victims who have been exploited.

All of these approaches are blindly myopic and refuse to acknowledge the biological and psychological realities of male sexuality. These approaches have their roots in woman-firsterism, the "blank slate" lies of feminism, and the such like.

On the third point above, I will say that women who knowingly and voluntarily flaunt their wares cannot in any way be called victims. They are no more victims than a drug pusher on some street corner who sells an ounce of crack cocaine to a minor is a victim. These women know what they are doing. On a religious note, if lust is a sin in men, then so is inciting that sinful desire. Jesus said, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!" (Luke 17:1). The logical end is that there is a place in hell for immodest women if there is one for the male lecher.

But there are some things my male readers ought to agree on, regardless of whether or not they are religious or conservative. I submit to you that a society that amps up the noise of female sexuality while curtailing the means by which men can express their sexuality (whether the curtailment be through law, religion, workplace rules, custom, shame, what have you) is clearly demonstrating a demeaning and hostile stance towards men. I count every porn star, bikini model, and woman who dresses immodestly to seek the attention of males as my enemy. If the dish isn't for sale, it shouldn't be on the menu. For it to be on the menu is a clear case of unethical fraud.

Yet even beyond the widespread flaunting of sexuality is the whole foundation of attitudes that nourishes it and exacerbates the problem for men. It's like the "Mighty Wurlitzer" (a term that people use to describe the agitprop of the mainstream media). What we have is the "Pink Wurlitzer," an incessant droning on and on in our culture that makes female sexuality out to be the valuable prize that cannot be turned down but rather must be sought out at all costs.

One odious idea piped by the Pink Wurlitzer is that men need to seek out intimate relationships with women. Even church leaders are guilty of propounding this ridiculous lie while the Bible contradicts them (1 Corinthians 7:25a, 7:37-38). Attitudes like this only serve to inflame the sexual desperation of men to where they compromise their happiness, integrity, and sanity. As desirable as intimate relationships with women are (Proverbs 18:22), such relationships are not a necessity for a virtuous and fulfilled life. A man thus needs to be on guard against the shaming, peer pressure, and social coercion that shoves him into relationships with women. Such strong-arm tactics don't serve him as much as they serve the agenda of other parties.

Anyway, I could write much more on this, and perhaps I will in the future. In the mean time, any man who is concerned about the anti-male ramifications of unbridled female sexuality needs to spare some time for the following links.

1. A post on what "ambient porn" is (from a religious perspective).

2. A reader comment at Boundless.org that discusses how the porn industry preys upon insecure men.

3. A post on how female sexuality is used against men (from a Roissyphere/Game/MRA perspective). The blogger Snark writes, "Feminists have certainly played their part in boosting the demand for women's bodies - at which point, they about turn and tarnish men for succumbing to their physical desires. The sexual desires of men - provoked by women - are then used to denigrate men, as rapists and oppressors who see women only as sexual objects." I think this may be a collective case of what psychologists call projective identification. In other words, self-styled victims (such as feminists) provoke people into behaving in ways that reinforce the self-styled victims' persecution complex (see this post by Dr. Tara Palmatier for more information).

4. A male-friendly, four-part series on managing your sex drive (see these links: 1, 2, 3, 4). You mileage may vary on what you get from this one. But read it nonetheless. If you are out of control, others will be in control.

5. A post I wrote at Scripturally Single on what the Bible has to say about men needing sex. I quote something interesting from Abraham Maslow on celibacy. It's noteworthy because Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a concept that is often bandied about among some "Game" advocates.

6. This post by Social Pathologist on the consergame approach Christian men can take to female sexuality. One reservation I have: He says, "The other interesting thing about it is that love is not chosen, it's an involuntary reaction to the other person, you just can't will yourself to do it." If he means eros, then yes. But if agape, then he is flat out wrong, and it takes more than eros to build the kind of relationship that God wants between husband and wife.

So, my fellow men, when the three Sirens of biology, ambient porn, and the Pink Wurlitzer sing their tune and bid you to do something against your better judgment, will you be brought to your knees or will you "go your own way"? I ask this because every red-blooded male (whether he be a husband, boyfriend, or unattached) is one sex act away from being a supplicating, white-knighting beta. Any solution to this potential problem will probably have to be implemented on an individual, personal basis. I can't force you one way or another on the matter. Rather, I will close with this thought: Sex is good and fun, but it should be your handmaiden, not the Red Queen that controls your life. You may reach a situation where nothing is better than something. Think on these things.

The Worth of LTR Game

2010-01-02T00:00:00.004-06:00

What is the worth of LTR Game (or consergame)? On the heels of my recent post "Psalms 127:1 and the Sexes," Talleyrand offered his own thoughts about the matter. His conclusion? LTR Game is only good for damage control--after a man gets ensnared in a relationship like a marriage 2.0 situation. Otherwise, there's not much use for it, as men would do well to avoid any serious commitment to modern-day women. But then, one should read this recent piece by Hawaiian Libertarian, who takes a more sanguine view of LTR Game/consergame. I can see where both of these guys are coming from.

My view? I think a long term relationship is like any other heterogeneous system or organism. There are disparate parts that make up the whole. Charity may not be enough, but neither is charm or infatuation enough. Like MarkyMark said, there has to be physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual bindings. You're inviting problems when any one of these elements is missing. In short, I don't think "Game" by itself can put much of a dent in this.

(See also this post).

H.N.Y.

2009-12-31T23:00:00.000-06:00

Happy
New
Year.

The Semantics of Realmannspracht

2009-12-28T00:00:00.002-06:00

About a year ago, I came across a lengthy paragraph in a book that I thought was quite illuminating. I am glad to have rediscovered it just recently. Consider what it has to say and how it might pertain to our ideas about manhood ...

The word gentleman originally meant something recognizable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then came people who said--so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully--"Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behavior? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is a "gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualized and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose. [C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1973), pp. 10-11] [emphasis mine]

Yes, C. S. Lewis said that. It's not much of a leap to take a page from the good professor and level a similar charge against realmannspracht (that term I have coined for any talk or discussion about "real men" and the such like). I submit that the words "man," "manhood," etc. have suffered pretty much the same fate as the word "gentleman." These terms are often employed in an imprecise, highly subjective manner. They have become essentially meaningless. While the term "woman" remains sacrosanct in what it conveys to the modern ear, the term "man" has been reduced to a fashion statement, covering everything from Axe body spray to Browning Buckmark decals on pickup trucks. Bastardization of our language is the price we pay to further the stupidity of gynocentrism and misandry.

Let me close by saying this: People are in the habit of asking, "What makes a man?" That's the wrong question to ask. The better question is, "Who makes a man?" The answer to that question has already been determined. God makes a man, and we have no choice but to accept the fact of the matter (Gen. 1:27; Gen. 2:7; 1 Cor. 11:12). In sum, realmannspracht is not only anti-male, it's linguistic rubbish.

Three Wise Folks

2009-12-26T11:54:00.006-06:00

In the spirit of the holidays, I present three people bearing nuggets of wisdom on men's issues:

1. The conservative blogger "Playful Walrus" has a good summary of what's bothering a lot of us men. [Of course, it's also nice that he has given me some kudos. ;-) ]

2. Here's a 25-point reality check for how modern women treat men. Written by a bitter bachelor living in his parent's basement? Nope. It's written by a female clinical psychologist. We men are all too familiar with the nagging laundry list of "to-do's" written by relationship experts. It refreshing to see the shoe on the other foot for a change.

3. Here's an article by Paul Coughlin on abusive religious leaders (HT: Singlextianman). Churchgoing men might want to check this out. I am somewhat tempted to see much of the dynamics between male congregants and their church leaders through the lens of "Game" theory. In other words, some "pastors" act like insecure Alpha-wannabees given to religious "AMOGing," browbeating men into obsequious "betatude" (quite contrary to Ephesians 5:21; Mark 10:35-45; Matthew 23:1-11).

Happy holidays.

Merry Christmas

2009-12-24T17:00:00.000-06:00

Merry Christmas.

Psalm 127:1 and the Sexes

2009-12-21T00:00:00.001-06:00

Over at MarkyMark's blog, there is a post about a show called Jersey Shore that is of particular interest to me. MM writes:

In far too many modern relationships, the only glue holding them together is the physical. There is little or no mental connection made between the man and the woman. There is little or no emotional connection made. Finally, there is little or no spiritual connection made. In order for a relationship to last-REALLY LAST-it has to have all four elements present; there have to be mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical bindings holding it together. Only then will a relationship have what it takes to last. When there's only one binding (especially when it's the physical, as is usually the case in modern relationships) holding it together, the relationship simply doesn't have the strength to withstand any serious stress.

A show like Jersey Shore confirms what MM is saying. The show is sickening and sad, and yet it points to the existence of God. How so? Well, when I read MM's reaction, I notice that he mentions the "spiritual" component. Human beings can't get away from this. Jersey Shore illustrates what happens when God is not present in people's lives. The young people of that show are following verses 20 to 32 of Romans, chapter 1 to the script; and they most likely don't even know it.

God creates human beings. We create things. It's no surprise, then, that in a godless culture, we reduce people to the status of things--from the impersonal, dehumanizing environment of the workplace to the pornification of our sexual relationships. Even "love" becomes a product to be sold, negotiated for, and consumed.

Around Thanksgiving, I said the following at MM's blog in response to a post about "Game" ...

There has been a lot of talk about LTR Game but frankly I think it is overrated. The bottom line is that people are more materialistic, self-centered, into instant gratification, etc. than ever before. Young men may learn about seduction the way young women learn about dressing to the nines. But, today, the youth of either sex have extremely poor relationship skills that doom any chance of monogamy. That's why cohabitation is on the rise and marriage is in decline.

Relationships are just another form of recreation, a hobby, a drug, an appliance, what have you. When people get bored or dissatisfied, they just trade in their partner for a new one. The values of integrity, loyalty, industriousness, sacrifice, compromise, humility, patience, longsuffering, and selflessness that are needed for marriage are nonexistent among a huge swath of young people. That's why LTR Game is a nice theory, but in practice, it has no remedial effect in stemming the mass decay.

When people mention LTR Game, I sometimes think what they are really saying is: "I hope to get a hottie to love me forever" or "I hope to get married one day after I have all my fun." They don't realize that sleeping around is a strong predictor for relationship failures down the road.

The people of today are wanting the quick fix. And I'm afraid they see "Game" as the solution. But secret to relationship success is not "Game" per se. It's a nice component. I certainly am not against men and women making themselves sexier in the eyes of each other (within the bounds of reason, morality, and good taste). But, like I said, "Game" is not the fix.

This is the 300-pound gorilla in the room. This is what some "Game" advocates are failing to address. Relationship success in the past depended not so much on "Game" as it did on character. Today, a lot of people have an insufficient amount of character. They break their promises and think only of themselves.

In terms of male-female relationships, society especially encourages women to be completely devoid of any sense of responsibility for how their relationships turn out. The whole woman=good, man=bad paradigm has resulted in a whole generation of self-absorbed harridans that have no business getting within 100 feet of a bridal shop. So the question needs to be asked by men interested in LTRs and marriage: Why practice "Game" to attract the attention of a female demographic that is pretty sorry in the first place? And if you are a man from one of the more recent Media Saturated Generations, then you may need to consider if you are all that mature and selfless yourself. [quote edited for typos and layout]

Why do I bring up what I wrote? Not to criticize "Game." That's not my point. If a man wants to practice "consergame," there nothing is wrong with that, per se. I suppose it works for some people. Moreover, I am not pinning the blame entirely on women, although I believe society is arguably more lenient about their peccadilloes than those of their male counterparts. What I'm saying is that a lot of people are missing the big picture--the spiritual aspect of relationships, as God intended. When it comes to heterosexual relationships, hookups represent the bottom of the food chain. It's diving for rotting leftovers in a dixie dumpster. A God-honoring marriage is what men and women must pursue if they are thinking about intimate relationships. I do not apologize for saying that.

"Love" is an abused word in this society. I'll tell you what love entails. It entails forgiving the faults and failures of a person because you made a vow "for better or for worse." You see, when you recognize the personhood of another human being, you have to recognize the whole package. You embrace that person, not just what that person can do for you. Love will demand you to sacrifice for that human being even when you are not thanked for it. Love can be a painful, thankless task, and it makes no apologies for that. This kind of love is pretty much impossible without a meaningful relationship with God, who helps us to love others (Galatians 5:22-53). It's no surprise to me. God loves those who have been constantly thankless towards him--that includes you and me (Romans 5:6-8). At some point or another, we have acted or are acting in a thankless manner towards him. So now you know what the scoop is. Read 1 Corinthians, chapter 13 and it will tell you what love is all about. Does that describe your relationships?

When someone belittles a single man as a loser, etc., the charge is usually hollow and effete. Why? Because the ones who sleep around, get into shallow relationships primarily based on status or infatuation, etc. can be just as relationship-starved and deprived of love as the man sitting at home alone on a Saturday night eating cold pizza. Don't tell me how well-fed you are if your idea of nourishment is eating Skittles all day long. Day after day, socially unattractive people fall in love and have deeper relationships than the Hollywood celebs that hop from one bed to another. Why do we envy the latter group's sad existence, then?

I daresay the kind of love I've been talking about is the kind most of my readers want, regardless of their background or whether or not they agree with my posts. But it costs something--your selfishness and your ego. When I hear the talk of some people who fancy themselves as winners in the relationship game, I can tell they are not ready for love and that they are doomed to failure if they don't clean up their act. The men and women who have been consistent, who have stuck with it for the long haul, who have gone through the peaks and valleys with their spouses, etc. do not talk so loud about their conquests. They do not gloat so much in front of others who have been unlucky in love. They usually don't yammer on about "losers who can't get laid." These men and women who have stuck it out understand the price. Love has humbled them. It makes them thankful, not arrogant. As for the ones who continue to be arrogant about their social value in eyes of the opposite sex, poetic justice will find them out and kick them in the posterior (Proverbs 16:18).

Is the heterosexual love I'm talking about worth it? Sure it is (Proverbs 18:22). Furthermore, if you are trying to live up to the vows you have taken before the Lord even when it gives no paybacks, it is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58). But having said that, you should think before you leap in the first place. That's my take, folks. This culture has all sorts of ideas about love and how to get it, but like Psalm 127:1 says, "Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it" (NASB).

Blaming the Barometers

2009-12-19T01:53:00.003-06:00

I am linking back to a post by Single Christian Man and plugging him while I'm at it. From time to time, he offers his comments here. Though he doesn't agree with everything I say, I find him to be a straight shooter on a lot of points. Anyone who is concerned about the issues men face in churches (especially religious misandry) needs to be reading SCM's blog regularly.

SCM's post in question is a good take on how the churches are driving single men away even as they vilify them. I think these churches are blaming the barometers. With respect to the church atmosphere, the needle is clearly pointing to FEMINIZED.

Christian Women Are Easy?

2009-12-17T00:00:00.004-06:00

Christian women are easy ... or, uh, at least this guy thinks so. Needless to say, his message is disturbing to me as a Christian man. And yet I see his point. Take his post like you would take one of the Screwtape Letters. He might be correct in a lot of cases. The Church in the West ain't what it used to be.

It takes two to tango, ladies. So I won't be blaming the PUAs who bed you as much as I will be blaming you, who claim to follow Christ and claim to know better than those "worldy women" that I can't date. Although I believe in second chances, you'll might end up being one of these (especially the one that says "Project"). Don't say you haven't been warned.

"So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." (1 Cor. 10:12-13, NIV)

Later.

Prom King and Prom Queen Syndrome

2009-12-14T00:00:00.003-06:00

We live in a status-obsessed society, especially here in America. The infamous question that gets asked all the time is, "So what do you do?" I wonder if some people actually believe questions like this have been asked since the dawn of time. As it is, the dynamics between men and women today is often not so much about love as it is about status--who wants it and who confers it. The obsession with status figures largely in what I call Prom Queen Syndrome and Prom King Syndrome. Remember when everyone wanted to be the king or queen at the high school prom? What did such status confer? Simple ...

You were paired off with the most desirable member of the opposite sex.
Other members of the opposite sex regarded you as the most desirable person of your sex.
You were the envy of those of your own sex--your competition.

The coronation, of course, requires an audience--the chaperoning adults, the kids who didn't make the cut, etc. Not only do the others need to be deprived of status, they need to desire what they don't have. They need to play the part of the Envious Onlookers. If enough people didn't care to go to the prom, or it was sparsely attended, the coronation would be a bit anticlimactic, wouldn't it? It's all a massive ego boost wrapped up in adolescent hormones and sexuality, if you ask me. Quite intoxicating if you think about it.

We have left high school behind, haven't we? Well, not really. I think for older adults, the yearning or desire typified by the antics of high school only gets subdued to a degree. Hence, we have the pandemic of Prom Queen Syndrome and Prom King Syndrome in our society.

How does Prom Queen Syndrome play out? Women only look at men who have status in the eyes of other women. It also explains why women get upset if an undesirable man finds a desirable woman elsewhere. You think it would be logical that if a woman is not attracted to a certain man, she would not viciously attack him when he is successful in another venue. But it happens nonetheless. Just witness the vitriol launched against men with foreign wives or girlfriends. Why does this happen even though a given woman doesn't want a man in such a circumstance? Simple, the man is undermining her status as an attractive woman.

A woman wants attention from men even though she will never reward them. That's how she amps her up "game." You undermine the "game" when you find a woman of comparable social status who makes less demands, or when you don't bother with the dating scene or whatever. This is why I think men who stay home on weekends to play video games are viewed in the same light as men who take candy from toddlers or kick puppies.

Then there's the Prom King Syndrome. If you opt out of the game or find a woman abroad, you can tick off some other men, as well. Men may thrive on your envy of their situation. That's why they say, "Living well is the best revenge." Men can't have that revenge if you are not really intimidated by their success. A lot of men want you to notice how important they are, where they live, what woman is beside them. They want you to notice them when they walk into the room. If you are indifferent to their self-importance, then you become a threat to them.

I think that explains why some guys get so vicious and hot-headed about MGTOWers and MRAs. "You guys are losers! There's something wrong with you! You're cowards and you need to face up to your faults! You need to fix what's wrong with you. You need to be a man and risk rejection!" Why do the MRAs and MGTOWers need to do this? Because it validates what other men are doing?

A lot of men were the ones who lost out in high school. They didn't get picked. Some of them are probably licking their wounds about that and trying to drop their emotional baggage on you and me. While society goes down the toilet and treats men like feces, these guys are still worried about trying to be the Prom King with the Anglosphere girl of their dreams. If you are a man, would your ego be a little stung if not too many other men found your wife or girlfriend attractive? You wouldn't be sitting next to the Prom Queen, then, would you? If my words are hitting you right now, then you are probably suffering from Prom King Syndrome.

I thinks this may partially explain why religious leaders and Christian women are ticked off at bachelors. They want to come up with all sorts of religious psychobable and accuse single men of being selfish and unspiritual. I don't think it has to do with finding good women for these men as much as it has to do with validation of the status quo. If anything, a man needs to try to find a wife, fail, and be miserable so he can play the part of the Envious Onlooker for the Church Mafia. Even though he may not have any of the qualities that confer status and which others value, he can't be the Envious Onlooker if he doesn't really care about said qualities, can't he?

You can accuse men of having psychological defenses for loserdom, but your harping on it may betray a little of your own insecurity. If a group of men are so weak, pathetic, and unenviable in your eyes, why does it concern you so much that they've latched on to a narrative that makes them feel better about themselves? The question needs to be answered. Why do they need to change themselves to be what you want them to be? Are they involved in something immoral? No? Are they unhappy? No? Then what on earth is your problem? Why are you personally threatened by their choices? Why have you suddenly decided to become an informant for the Bureau of Fashion, Taste, and Social Custom (BFTSC)? I'll tell you why. Your brain is still in high school and you're just a tool for peer pressure. You're like the twelve-year-old girl that liked a boy until her friends told her she "deserved better" and that being seen with "that wierdo" wouldn't look too good. You get initiated into the gang when you knock off some innocent soul.

Here's a revelation: Unless you have some control over my physical welfare, I don't need you to like or respect me (Galatians 1:10). Usually, exercising this independence of social approval is the prerogative of people with status. However, when someone with no status exercises this power, people get upset. The apple cart is turned over. "How dare you go your own way! You selfish, immature, creepy bastard!" I ask, "Why?"

Why should I care what anyone thinks about my romantic potential if they are not genuinely concerned about me as a person? Can you tell me that? Oh, I know. So I can be the water boy at the prom and serve you cake and punch while you chat up with the cheerleaders. Or if you are the cheerleader, maybe you want me to hand you some punch and notice the curves of your body in your sequined halter gown. "Look, but don't touch, dweeb." It all would be rather amusing if it weren't so sad and didn't have serious spiritual repercussions (1 John 2:15-17).

If nothing I said has penetrated your thick skull then I want you to riddle me this: What is it going to matter to you when they pull the feeding tubs from your shriveled body and you go to meet your Maker? Hmm? Your promming me doesn't work anymore. Life is too short for me to be the Envious Onlooker or even to stay home and be miserable about not going to the Prom. If you are blessed with the good things of this life, be humbled that you have been favored by God who gives to both the "just" and the "unjust" (Matthew 5:45). But don't expect me to grovel. Have fun at the dance.

The Sleeping Beauty Fallacy

2009-12-09T23:26:00.001-06:00

There is a dangerous myth permeating our society, a myth which I suspect has been around for a long time. It has to do with what men can reasonably expect from women in terms of romance, marriage, and sex. Men are led to believe that if they overcome all sorts of difficulties and trials set up for them by an implacable woman, her heart will melt and she will be become fully theirs. We see this theme played out over and over again in our arts, literature, popular media, and culture as a whole: "Oh, what she needs is a good man who knows how to unlock her heart!"

Baloney. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for people to get a clue. A man can battle the dragon, struggle through the thorns, kiss the unresponsive girl, and still not have her wake up to his love. What people don't understand is the brutal reality of human nature. Let me point out some things to my male readers:

1. If the woman you are attracted to is spiteful and disagreeable (to others, if not you) before she is committed to you, she will likely be so afterwards.

2. If you have to jump through endless hoops to prove yourself before she marries you, be certain you will have to jump through endless hoops after you are married.

3. If a woman has a low conception of who men are, don't think that your being attractive and appealing to her will change the fundamental problem she has with men. At first sign of hardship or your being vulnerable, don't be surprised if she turns on you. Remember, a snake charmer can only play his pungi for so long.

Like my grandfather said, "You breed hound, you get a hound." If a woman is self-centered and emotionally immature, it's not your job to fix her, nor should you be under the illusion that you can. That's her responsibility. She needs to get her life right with the Lord. And heaven forbid if her emotional problems are severe. Don't get the idea that your folk theories on how to manipulate women can do something for your sweetheart what professional psychotherapy cannot do.**

Happily Ever After?

Another aspect of the Sleeping Beauty Fallacy is the idea that obtaining a beautiful woman = happily ever after. I am concerned about people who just assume that getting in bed with the best-looking ladies is the goal of every sensible man. Oh, yes it is!! Just like it's the goal of little kids to eat ice cream all day long. Come on, folks. This is not high school. This is adulthood and there are serious life-changing ramifications to the messages we embrace about relationships.

Some must live in a parallel universe, because they apparently have never heard of the adage that beauty is only skin deep. I have something to say to those who are skeptical of my message: Um, beauty really is only skin deep. Why even the Word of God echoes this sentiment: "Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised" (Prov. 31:30, NASB). Imagine that! Given this very elementary observation, don't you think it is utterly stupid and ridiculous to approach men's problems on the basis of who and who isn't getting laid with beautiful women?

Men shouldn't be afraid of rejection from beautiful women. They should be afraid of being committed to the wrong person. Do you a think good waist-hip ratio and facial symmetry automatically translates into a woman being a good mother to your children or a good wife to you? Yes? Then take your pick of the bat-crazy, crack-smoking narcissists that fit that description. No? Then why are you wasting your time focusing on attracting these women? And why is your self-image wrapped up in such a pursuit?

The Two Fishing Ponds

Let me leave behind Sleeping Beauty for a little bit and take you on a fishing trip. There are two ponds you can fish. One is stocked entirely with prize fish you like, but the pond has unacceptable levels of mercury in it. Not all of the fish have mercury, if that makes you feel better. The other pond has edible fish, too, and there are various kinds in it. There are reputedly some you like in the second pond, but mostly it's others you like a little less and some that you can't acquire a taste for.

Now, there are men like you with their boats in the second pond and a handful are snapping up the rare kind you like the most (and the fish you like are indeed rare in the second pond). The rest of the men in the second pond are taking home other kinds of fish, but are generally content with what their going to have for dinner. What about that first pond? Yes, there are guys in it, hauling in the prize fish. But they are playing catch-and-release. So let's review your choices: you can play catch-and-release, hazard eating a prize fish full of mercury, spend all day trying to catch a prize fish in the second pond and probably not come home with anything, settle for something less than your favorite but which is still palatable just the same, or just refuse to fish in either pond.

You say, "I'll use my special lure and catch an edible prize fish in the second pond." But you're missing the point. Your fishing strategy doesn't begin with the tackle, but with the pond that you're going to put your boat in. That's my question to you. Don't tell me about your tackle gear and your custom fishing pole. Where is your boat at, dude? Because if you are focused entirely on prize fish without any concern about the safety of taking such home, then I know what pond you are in.

But if indeed you are in the second pond, then I gotta' say your special tackle gear will only take you so far. You may have a special lure to throw in the pond that attracts the prize fish like a magnet, but if there is only so many of those fish around, then you may be waiting a long time. That is especially the case if the other fisherman have lures as good as yours. And don't forget this: Some fisherman may not have a top-dollar lure, but they show up early when there are more prize fish. Since they are in the second pond, they don't play catch-and-release. Don't expect them to share their catch with you. The day is getting on and the sun is setting. What are you going to do?

Yes, Sleeping Beauty is like the prize fish. But you need to ask yourself is she worth it. Let's put things into perspective. A woman's physical attractiveness only lasts for a minor portion of her lifespan. It's maybe thirty years out of eighty plus years of living, if we are being generous. If you are going to be monogamous and honor God's law on marriage (as opposed to playing the catch-and-release game of bed-hopping), then think about what life will be like with your hypothetical beauty queen after she goes through menopause. Could you stand to be around her with her looks gone and your sex drive barely functioning? Maybe you could; maybe you couldn't. You need to be honest with yourself and look down the road, beyond the short-term perspective of our ADHD culture.

Conclusion

I come to the close of my discussion by revisiting my first concern: men thinking women will magically change for the better. I fear some people assume the problems men face boil down to the type of tackle and gear they have, as if the right tackle can turn a Pond 1 fish into a Pond 2 fish. Such an attitude shows no concern for the environment the fish was swimming in. It's total. Utter. Nonsense. It ties in with the Sleeping Beauty Fallacy. A leopard can't change it spots and you can't turn a slattern into a church girl by pulling a Svengali on her. Your are not Pygmalion.

We laugh at women who think they can change their men. But I guess some men are now drinking the same Kool-Aid and are thinking, "If I act a certain way, she'll respond in certain way." It ain't necessarily so, compadres. Women are not robots. They have a mind of their own and a lot depends on their personality, their life's experiences, their internalized values, their goals, what they want from you, and what they don't want from you. Men who confuse what it takes to attract women with what it takes to change a woman's fundamental character do so at their own peril. You've been warned. Don't be a dead guinea pig for a shaky theory. A lot of times, the sleeping beauties are like sleeping dogs--it's best to let them lie (and not with you).

**Note: Since the time of completing the draft of this piece, I have come across an informative website (shrink4men.wordpress.com). It's the blog of a trained psychotherapist and offers a male-friendly perspective on dealing with difficult women in relationships. A lot of the content reinforces what I am saying here. The key to change for an abusive person of either sex lies with that person, not you. There's something else to consider: the pathological views about men that are prevalent in our society. It's a pathology that feeds itself and escalates into the breakdown of relationships between men and women. I daresay it results in the proliferation of the kind of women mentioned in the following links. For my male readers, carefully consider these links:

1. Why Men Are Attracted to Crazy, Emotionally Abusive Women

2. 10 Reasons You Can’t Communicate with a Narcissistic or Borderline Woman

3. Why Couples Counseling Rarely Works with Narcissistic and Borderline Women

4. Will My Emotionally Abusive Girlfriend or Wife Be Different With the New Guy?

Biological Gynocentrism

2009-11-22T21:45:00.005-06:00

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

2009-11-21T03:14:00.006-06:00

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

2009-11-14T16:02:00.002-06:00

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

2009-11-10T00:00:00.001-06:00

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

2009-11-06T00:00:00.006-06:00

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

2009-11-02T00:00:00.005-06:00

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.

Boundless Shenanigans

2009-10-31T05:00:00.002-05:00

Albert Mohler, Steve and Candice Watters, and the Boundless staff in general no longer surprise me with their behaviors. In the last couple of weeks or so, they have been ramping up their predictable marriage mandate nonsense, gynocentrism, and misandry. Some developments ...

1. Candice skewers a young man who is going to be a pastor because he is not committing to a female friend. Read this excellent analysis from Puritan Calvinist on the matter.

2. Boundless staff showcase a series of posts by Tim Challies that excoriate men about pornography but downplay the problem of "female porn" (romantic novels, chick lit, and the such like). Ted Slater makes a point of telling everyone that he even deleted an article on "female porn" from the Boundless site. Well, fortunately we need not depend on Mr. Slater to find out the truth about how "female porn" is ruining relationships between men and women. Thank you, Ted, for being oh-so marriage-friendly that you've turned the other way while women indulge in destructive fantasies about men and relationships. This Boundless reader gets it. Ted doesn't.

3. Candice comes unglued when a Boundless fan writes in about a boyfriend not wanting to have children (see 33:55 of this broadcast). According to Candice, the lack of desire for children is right up there with being unequally yoked with non-believers as a "deal breaker." Of course, when I tried to make the Boundless folks and their readers aware about this post of mine, my comments didn't get published. Needless to say, Candice's rabid pro-natalist dogma is clearly an unscriptural addition to God's word.

4. Ok, this one takes the prize: Albert Mohler along with Steve Waters and Lisa Anderson of Boundless beat the drum about marriage on a radio broadcast. They claim marriage brings people back to Christ in a way that age "cannot." Also, receiving marriage, among other gifts from God, supposedly brings other issues of life into "alignment," giving people a "wholeness" they will never "find anywhere else." Listen to 31:30 onward in the broadcast. If I was standing next to Mohler and the others on a golf course while they said this, I would run for the sand pit and duck so I wouldn't get hit by the lightning. It borders on sacrilege. Marriage is necessary for a wholeness I can't find anywhere else? Marriage brings people back to Christ? Hey, folks! What about the plain preaching of the gospel (Rom. 1:16)? Or the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11)? Or Christ giving us "wholeness" through our relationship with Him (Col. 2:10)? I fear some people are really going off the deep end.

There Is No Such Thing As an Incel

2009-10-26T00:00:00.008-05:00

I've recently come across a term for people who are involuntarily celibate: "incel." What do I think about incels? Simple. There is no such thing as an incel. Ok, if you are in a coma, have some severe physical deformity, etc. then maybe I can see how the term applies. But for the rest of us? Uh, no. I've already written on the topic of discretionary singleness. The idea behind "discretionary singleness" applies to sexuality as well.

Virtually anyone reading this post can have sex if they want it. The question is: How do you want it and what price will you pay for it? Will you sacrifice ...

1. Your money?
2. Your time?
3. Your emotional welfare?
4. Your health?
5. Your relationship with God?
6. What????

You can throw your religious and social scruples to the wind, take a trip to Nevada and set up a few appointments with some people who are, um, licensed and professionally trained to help your so-called "problem." You can learn some approach techniques from some seduction experts. You can talk pleasantries with a twentysomething office worker in a bar who has had too many cosmos to know better, but not too many that she can't give legal consent. You can learn a new love language to talk to women, such as Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Romanian, etc. You can upgrade your skills, look for a good-paying job, take on interesting hobbies, work out, eat right, save up for cosmetic surgery if need be.

What if you think sex outside of marriage is a sin? I certainly think it is! So what's your choice? Simple. Get married. Go to church, get active, meet a nice Christian girl, drop your picky preferences, lay yours chips on the table and go for broke! No? Too risky? That girl in the pew is not your type? Well, you could decide it's all not worth it. In that case, you would be voluntarily celibate.

What's your problem? There is no problem. You made the choices. Accept it. Your fear, your laziness, your self-pity, your pickiness, your inflexibility, your ego, and your selfishness are your choices. Likewise, your good sense, your prudence, your dignity, your integrity, your morality, and your spirituality are your choices. Everything has it price. Deal with it.

When She Asks About Your Past

2009-10-20T03:16:00.001-05:00

In response to a recent Boundless post about recovering porn users, I wrote basically the following:

To any Christian man who has turned from using pornography ...

Don't count on forgiveness or trust from Christian women. If it is such a problem for them, they are better off not wasting their time or your time. They should find a man who hasn't struggled with pornography.

Men, work on being happy with your life. Your freedom from pornography is proof that you don't need women (because if you are practicing self-control over that, then you are practicing self-control, period). You'll be much happier by yourself than with someone who is going to hang your past over your head anyway.

I don't know if they'll publish my post, but I was thinking at lunch yesterday: It's hypocritical for me to come down hard on Christian women who slept around in younger years if I, as a man, was doing the same thing or championing men who do it. If a woman has a problem with me not being a virgin and/or using porn, that's her right.

Men, if and when the subject of your past comes up with a Christian woman, be honest and ask her if she is going to hang it over your head. Because if she is not resolute about letting the past be the past, then you and her are going to be miserable together. Cut it off right there and go your own way. You don't need women to play back your sins to you. If a woman thinks she's alright with it, then she needs to promise to not let it get between the two of you. If she does it later, call her out on her lying and broken promises. Remind her that fidelity is more than just the sexual part. She needs to be good as her word. If you are married to her and she is still pulling this garbage on you, she is sinning against you and the marriage bond. You probably need to take the matter to a church leader you can confide in. And men, you need to swallow the pill on this one: the rules of forgiveness work the other way, too, if you chose to marry the reformed bad girl.

I believe God can bring good out of a bad situation. Look it at this way, if you are a man and you messed up in your past, then your past sexual sins can help you separate those who really are caring from those who just warm pews. As a bachelor, if you got the nerve to be direct about this with people at church, you can find out quickly who is the real McCoy. The women, in particular, who have hang-ups about sex and won't put out in marriage are probably the ones that will freak when they find out your looked at porn or slept with a woman. Congratulate yourself on dodging the bullet. The woman who lovingly embraces you with a spirit of charity is only one you need to bother thinking about pursuing, if anyone at all.

There's another benefit if you are not in any hurry to get married. Marriage mandators and other anti-bachelor zealots won't have much of a comeback if you tell them, "Look, Christian women will probably have doubts about dating me because of my past. So why beat a dead horse, here? We should be considerate of their feelings." Your inquisitors will probably love the part about being considerate of the feelings Christian women have. Turn their own chivalrous impulses against them. Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove (Matthew 10:16). Escalate the game. And, again, congratulate yourself on dodging the bullet.

Defining Manhood (The Illogic of Socons)

2009-10-14T00:00:00.011-05:00

Over a year ago, I wrote a post critical of something Albert Mohler said on the definition of manhood and masculinity. Like some of my readers, he tried to slip "father" and "husband" into the definition. I called him out on his illogical thinking, however. He wanted to make an exception for the Apostle Paul that he wouldn't make for ordinary men. Yet something is either essential to the definition of a certain class of entities or it isn't (e.g., the class of those we call men). It's has to do with the "law of the excluded middle" (and there is definitely no false dichotomy on this point). If you read the Wikipedia entry on the "law of the excluded middle" it has a quote from Aristotle the I find to be apropos to this discussion:

It is impossible, then, that 'being a man' should mean precisely 'not being a man', if 'man' not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance. … And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call 'man', and others were to call 'not-man'; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact. (Metaphysics 4.4, W.D. Ross (trans.), GBWW 8, 525–526).

You see, language is a powerful tool, and there those who want to abuse it to create falsehoods in the minds of others. I have to hand it to the feminists in particular for their acumen in twisting language to create imposed realities for social discourse. We most assuredly need to exercise due diligence to cut through the demagoguery, rhetorical legerdemain, and sloppy and imprecise thinking of others.

Anyway, I am revisiting Mohler's writings because of recent comments made by my readers on the subject of manhood and its relationship to marriage. Socons need to make up their minds about a few things when discussing this subject. In Mohler's post about manhood, he wrote:

In a biblical perspective, manhood is defined in these roles and responsibilities ["the role of father/protector/provider"]. A man is defined in terms of who he is and what he does in obedience to God. A society that rejects or sidelines these roles and responsibilities -- that does not honor fatherhood and hold it out as expectation -- will sow seeds of disastrous confusion. The damage to our language is among the least of our problems.

While the Bible clearly honors men who forfeit the blessings of wife and children for the sake of the Gospel (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 32-28), the history of the Christian church indicates that these represent a minority. The normative expectation is that a young man will mature to take on the role of "father/protector/provider" that Peters correctly sees as "not considered as necessary or desirable as it once was" within the secular culture. Those men who are faithfully living out these responsibilities are not likely to be too concerned about finding true masculinity. They are living it.

So, Mohler wants to define men in sociological terms.** It's akin to something one of my readers said: "'Manhood' is a qualitative judgement." Ironically, this same reader of mine compared the ideas of another reader to something a "liberal feminist" would come up with. Why do I say "ironically"? Read on.

Consider what Albert Mohler wrote in two other posts about transexuality. First this quote ...

Goodman's writing is crisp and concise, but she runs right over some basic issues that are hard to miss. The first is the assumption that "sexual realignment surgery" can actually change a person's sex. The other (and obvious fact) is that Thomas Beatie is still functioning as a woman, even to the extent of retaining her reproductive capacity.

In other words, she had her physical characteristics changed -- at least some visible markers of gender -- so that she would appear as a man rather than as a woman. But -- and this is crucial -- the baby did not emerge from a man's womb. There is no such thing. The baby, we might summarize, was not fooled.

So, a man is a man and woman is a woman, eh? But wait, there is this quote ...

Well, it is one inescapable question. After all, Boylan resists "binary" categories, yet when it comes to gender she offers only two options -- male and female. She changed her own legal gender from one to the other, but there remain only two designations. She is as "binary" as the rest of us. We cannot make sense of any conversation without using terms like he/she, man/woman, male/female, father/mother, son/daughter, and his/her's. We live in a stubbornly binary world.

Armed with this realization, we face a clear choice: We will see this binary understanding of gender as a gift from God revealed throughout creation, or we will see it as a socially-constructed reality that we can (and should) deconstruct. Are we bound to these categories by a Creator? Or did we do this to ourselves?

The Christian worldview is clear at this point. The Bible presents gender as part of the goodness of creation. God reveals his glory in every aspect of creation, and this is abundantly true with respect to the two sexes. God glorifies himself in creating humanity in his own image, both male and female. To deny or confuse this distinction is to deny God the glory that is his due. And, that which brings God's greatest glory will also bring us greatest joy.

How strange that the last two paragraphs sound a lot like something I wrote recently about realmannspracht! It's just too bad that Mohler and others socons are so incredibly inconsistent on this matter.

What happens when a feminist or other liberal suggests that concept of "man" and "woman" is sociologically determined? The socons throw a fit and shout, "No! The concept of 'man' and 'woman' is rooted in creation, dummies!" Indeed. There have even been all sorts of arguments to show how biology drives behavioral differences between the sexes. You'll get no disagreement from me on that, folks!

But what happens when the socons want to shame a man into taking on certain social roles? Well, suddenly we get into talk about how being a "man," "manhood," and "masculinity" are driven by the expectations of others. In other words, people start resorting to the intellectually compromised language of realmannspracht. It's simply a case of socons talking out both sides of their mouths, a trait they have in common with the feminists.

Look, either the biological markers of manhood are sufficient to identify a man or they are not. If they're not, then it's open game on the concepts of manhood and womanhood! The feminists would just love that! Someone might say, "You're not really man because you have failed to do [xyz]." Well, the other person could retort, "Yeah. I decided to be a woman instead or embrace a fluid understanding of my gender." What are you going to say then, Einstein?

So where does that leaves us? Well, earlier this year, I wrote:

Manhood is the birthright of every adult, male human being, whether we respect that man or not. Biblical manhood is rooted in a relationship with God. This relationship is effected through the atoning work of Christ, not through performing duties and rituals (Eph. 2:8). Biblical manhood is a male state of being, which manifests itself in good works as God gives ability and opportunity to a man.

By the way, this quote answers the baseless charge that I have never defined "biblical manhood" on this blog.

Feminists want to destroy the differences between men and women. Socons want to impose the differences. I say let nature decide what the differences are. Adulthood and masculinity are biological; ergo, manhood is biological. Biblical manhood, consequently, is adult people with XY chromosomes living like Christ wants them to live. What about men who fail to live up to our expectations? Well, it's like I said in recent posts. You may not like what a man is doing, but he is still a man. If he's not doing something he should do or is doing something he shouldn't do, then tell him. But don't resort to realmannspracht. Leave that kind of talk to the misandrists, because now I've shown that such talk is not only unchristian, it's patently absurd, as well.

** Note: I take it that Albert Mohler is not discussing "biblical manhood" as one expression of masculinity, per se, but the definition of manhood in general from what he thinks is the proper perspective.

Your Marriage is Not a Ministry

2009-10-07T00:00:00.006-05:00

Are you planning on getting married? What if I told you that a mate was already picked out for you? The mate picked out for you is physically unattractive and mean-spirited. What if I also told you that you cannot have kids but must instead adopt some children with severe behavioral problems? Do you still want to go for it? Why not?

For the married men reading this, what was the primary motivation that caused you to choose your wife? Did you think, "I am marrying this woman because she will help me teach alien sinners the Gospel"? Or did you think she would help you feed the hungry in Africa? Or was it something along the lines of, "She makes me very happy and I want to spend the rest of my life with her"?

You see, there is a very popular notion among Evangelicals that marriage represents some type of ministry or "kingdom work." We are told that unless you have a special gift as a single person for some notable work for Christ, you should get married. Marriage is your "vocation" or "calling" in this respect. Well, I've been wanting to write on this matter for some time because it is Pure. Utter. Poppycock. Your marriage is not a ministry. Period. Where did this idea come from? Luther? Calvin? I don't know, but it didn't come from the Bible. It's not there.

I covered some ground on this matter before in my book-length review of Debbie Maken's work Getting Serious About Getting Married, but let me repeat some things, if need be. The word "calling," "called," etc. is used in the Bible to refer to the Gospel invitation (Ephesians 4:1) or to a particular role in the Church (Romans 1:1). A "calling" is always made explicitly through a theophany or through the revealed Word of God. It is never used to describe a marital status.

Moreover, I want you to consider carefully the following verses because they most assuredly show some tension between our earthly loyalties (such as marriage and family) and our work in the kingdom of God ...

1. Luke 6:32 - "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them." (NASB)

The Lord asks a rhetorical question here. We need to answer it. What credit is it to you to love those that love you? Sounds like the marriage and family bond to me.

2. 1 Tim. 5:18 - "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (NASB)

Why is the neglect of your family worse than what unbelievers do? Because even unbelievers take care of their own. Tell me, are unbelievers engaged in "kingdom work" or ministry for Christ simply because they got married and had kids? You may say, "But I'm raising my children up in the Lord." I certainly hope you are doing that, but teaching others the gospel and encouraging others to be Christlike is something incumbent upon all believers anyway. As it is, there are lots of single Christians who have probably had a hand in "raising your children in the Lord."

3. 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 - "But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided." (NASB)

Note what this verse says. It doesn't say the married man has less time for church work than the single man. It says the married man's interests are divided. Between what? One type of "kingdom work" and another? No. Between "the things of Lord," on one hand, and "things of the world, how may please his wife" on the other. Okay, class, which category does married life fall into in this passage? "The things of the Lord" or "the things of the world"? This is not hard.

Or maybe a preceding passage might help you ...

4. 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 - "But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away."

Look at the vocabulary of that passage. It all has to do with the things of this life. And where do you find marriage? Right smack dab in middle of it, along with such things as buying and selling.

So, if marriage is not a ministry or "kingdom work," then what is it? Simple, it is a gift from God (Prov. 18:22, 19:14). It is an optional gift (1 Cor. 7:27). Rejoice in your gift if it's yours (Prov. 5:18)! I am happy for men and women who shower one another with love in marriage. I surely hope there will be more unions like that. Marriage is God's idea and it is a good thing. He is compassionate and generous to many, even though they don't deserve the good gifts they get. He is also understanding about the demands and troubles people face as a result of the gift of marriage (1 Cor. 7:28). There is nothing wrong with wanting to be married. If you're scripturally eligible to marry, you want to marry, and you found someone good to marry, then go ahead and receive God's gift to humanity.

"But," you might retort, "marriage is not just a gift. It's not a lifestyle option! It's a labor of love! It's tough being married with children! You have to sacrifice! It's a lot of hard work!" Indeed it is, but that's the price tag, my friend. You see, you get something back from the transaction. A high-profile lawyer can say, "I work so many more hours that clerk in the front office" but if the lawyer spends his money on a McMansion, a yacht, and "many luxury vacations" with his svelte trophy wife, then why he is whining?

You married men have to sacrifice? Well, the Christian bachelor has to sacrifice. He can't sit in a sofa with a wife he doesn't have and laugh about things. He can't go out with her. He can't share his sorrows and tears with her. He can't make passionate love with her. He can't turn to her in the night to take away his solitude. He can't look into the eyes of any children and call them his own. He can't dream about what his children will become. There will be no Christmas photographs with a multigenerational clan of people surrounding him in his old age. It's uncertain if anyone who cares will show up at his funeral.

Do you want his life, married man? Well, look at the divorced man without his wife and kids. Is he happy he's unattached? No? Then maybe you got a good thing. I don't know; you'll have to speak to that. But please don't make yourself out to be religious martyr because your kid threw up and you had to take her to the hospital. Life is hard for you, but hopefully you are getting something worthwhile and it's for .... you.

The notion that married people can prance around like a bunch of star-bellied sneetches and assume they are more sanctified then your ordinary Christian bachelor is the biggest crock of elephant dung to be dropped in the Cleveland Zoo. Let's look at it another way ... I'll tell you what all the parallel talk about Christian bachelors being "selfish" and "immature" suggests to me. It suggests some people are less than happy with their married lives and think the grass is greener on the other side. It makes me think that some people are speaking out of bitter envy. Why don't these people just come right out and say it: "You bachelors have too many freedoms. You have to be miserable like us!" It's like H. G. Wells said, "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."

When people say, "Marriage doesn't make you happy, it makes you holy," they ought to be slapped. God makes us holy, folks! That's what the Holy Spirit and the Christian life is for! If you don't think the Christian life is tough enough and sanctifying as it is, marriage or no marriage, then you got another thing coming (Luke 14:26). If marriage is not making you happy, don't construct some goofball theology around it and write books about your beliefs. If God didn't design marriage for people's happiness, then Proverbs 5:18-19 doesn't make sense:

Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love. (NASB)

If marriage is not making you happy, then it's because you live in a fallen world, not because your marriage is functioning according to God's perfect plan. In the Garden of Eden, God did not say, "It's not good for the man to be alone. He is having too much fun. I'll give him a life of tedious responsibilities instead. I will a create someone suitable for not helping him." God made marriage to be a good thing, not a punishment.

When religious leaders talk about marriage as a "sanctifying work," basically spinning it as some arduous initiation into adulthood or a higher level of spirituality, it sounds a lot like a band-aid. That is, it's a band-aid to cover over the abysmal failures of marriages in the church. The whole "sanctifying" bit may be just some pep talk to make people feel better about their sorry lot. So instead of churches facing the epidemic of loveless marriages in their midst and asking what are the causes of the mess, we have the pseudo-spiritual psychobabble of positive thinking and semi-asceticism. "Is your married life a drag? Oh, but move beyond the thoughts of your happiness and realize this is the way the Lord is refining you!" Yeah, don't look at the underlying causes: wives with a post-feminist entitlement mentality, husbands who are insensitive ne'er-do-wells, children who are materialistic brats, employers who are tyrants, the lack of communal support for marriages, or a combination of these and other related factors. And whatever you do, don't look at the fact that some people just shut down their brains, think they need to marry no matter what, drink the Kool-Aid, and fall right into a Marriage 2.0 situation.

So is the married man's life harder than the Christian bachelor's? I don't know if that's necessarily true in all respects (Eccles. 4:9-12). Does the husband and father have to sacrifice and care for others? Yeah ... and the poor man can boast how he is being sanctified in his adversity the way a rich man isn't. But if the poor man's station in life is partially his own fault, then his boast sounds a little hollow. That's the way I view the boasting of some religious people about marriage.

"Oh, you just have no idea! The hassle of balancing work and family! The bills! The worry about what little Brittney and Carson are doing!" Yeah, the bachelor has no idea. Why should he? Does hardship give you a license to turn up your nose and look down on those who have it easier than you in some respects? What are you? Mother Theresa? The Patron Saint of Self-Mortifying Charity? Someone may tell me that married people care for others the way single people usually don't. Well, I can just as easily point out that single people can draw close to God in a way married people usually don't have to, especially in terms of dealing with rejection, isolation, alienation, loneliness, feelings of being unvalued and unloved, etc. What is this? A spiritual tobacco spitting contest? Anyway, it's not like a lot of people considering marriage have thought about doing without a spouse and living in some dirt poor country to carry on mission work. "Oh, but I don't feel a calling to do that." Yeah, you don't feel a calling, because you don't want to. Spare us the cloaking of your desires with prettified theology.

Granted, singleness has it privileges. The freedom. The choices. The fun things. The lack of worry. On it goes. Do you begrudge the carefree bachelor the perks and privileges of his station? What does that say about you? He picked door #2. You picked door #3. Everyone should be cool with the good things they got, and stop provoking and envying one another (Gal. 5:26). What's the problem? Why do we have to be anti-bachelor Nazis? Needless to say, it's time for people to get real. Some of the ones who embrace marriage, that is.

Is Marriage a Marker of Adulthood?

2009-09-30T00:00:00.005-05:00

Recently, one of my readers claimed that marriage was a marker of adulthood. This claim sounds familiar; I am sure I heard it from someone else. It sounds like something Albert Mohler would say. At any rate, the statement that my reader made may sound profound and axiomatic to many. But the more I think about the claim that marriage is a marker of adulthood, the more I realize it leaves something to be desired in terms of what it conveys. Just what do we mean when we say marriage is a marker of adulthood?

1. Is it a marker of biological adulthood?

I certainly hope so, or some people are going to have certain difficulties on their honeymoon. Indeed, some jurisdictions would not look too kindly on marriages where one or more partners had not reached the stage of biological adulthood.

2. Is it marker of maturity (emotional, financial, spiritual, etc.)?

If it is, then I want to know how whackos who beat their spouses, spendthrifts who plunge families into debt, and people who have no regard for God manage to get married. As it has been pointed out under the "Code Green" entry of the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, "It should be remembered that one’s sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc."

3. Is it a marker of single people's immaturity?

This assertion makes absolutely no sense at all. Logic 101, dear readers:

Invalid proposition: If (A then B) then (if ~A then ~B)

Where A=marriage and B=maturity

We are better off talking about singleness being a marker of immaturity, but then do we want to accuse the Apostle Paul of being immature? Singleness, per se, like marriage, says nothing about the character of a person.

4. Is it a marker of some notable achievement that benefits society?

Maybe we are getting close to the core of what people mean when they say, "Marriage is a marker of adulthood." However, there are two problems with this assertion. It is on this point that I will spend the bulk of my discussion.

First, just because you ate some wedding cake, gestated, and then pushed a baby out of your uterus does not make you a matron saint. Likewise, if you contributed sperm to the making of said baby, you are not the great Cincinnatus (and indeed, society constantly reminds men of this fact). Let's tie in a Bible verse on this matter:

Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son; But he that is a companion of gluttons shameth his father. (Prov. 28:7, ASV)

If the legacy you leave behind are spoiled, amoral, hedonists, then what credit is that to you? Day after day, men and women create children and yet are unprepared to raise them. We don't need anymore thugs, hoodlums, and the such like raised by single mothers and lousy parents. Some people just need to forget about the marriage and family thing and keep their pants on. Just because these people were pretty enough and tough enough to get into the bed with someone doesn't mean society is somehow in debt to the unfortunate fallout of their unions.

Why do you deserve a trophy because you got married and had children? You're taking care of you own? Good. Even the unbelievers do that (Matt. 5:47; 1 Tim. 5:8). Nobody forced you to get married. Society doesn't owe you a debt of gratitude because you raised emotionally stable children who are productive. You've only done your duty (Luke 17:10), and it is your children who owe the debt of gratitude to you (Eph. 6:2). Society will owe your children something when they actually do something valuable. Otherwise, your children are, at best, a charity case. And we don't need people producing more charity cases (Prov. 30:15a; 2 Thess. 3:10).

Anyway, the second problem with seeing marriage as a marker of some notable achievement benefiting society is that it ignores a basic question: If you are a Christian and you are called to be a pleaser of God and not necessarily a pleaser of men (Gal. 1:10), then why should you necessarily care what society wants from you? Society says that I am not a man because I am not impregnating a woman? Very well, then. Society can go talk a long walk on a Mobius strip, for all I care in that regard.

Ladies and gentlemen, is society an end to itself? Are we collectivists, now? Replace the word "society" with "state," and you'll see my concern about this matter. I fear some of us are aspiring totalitarians and authoritarians. This is one of the reasons why I get bristled when socons say, "Family is the basic unity of society." It implies that married people and children are just cogs in a machine. But society is for the benefit of the family and individual, not the other way around. I may have an obligation to God and my fellow man (Luke 10:27), but I don't necessarily have an obligation to a social structure.

There is an a fortiori principle here. If society doesn't value me, then how can it say it values my marriage and my children? Society may say that I am expendable as a man. Women mock the usefulness of men, the workplace threatens to outsource men's jobs or eliminate them through technology, and on it goes. If you declare men to be expendable, however, then you are declaring that you don't need them. If you declare that you don't need men, you release men from their obligation. That's where our logic leads us. In short, if society questions my worth as a man, then my full participation in it becomes optional.

If society wants men to feel like they have a stake in its welfare, then it needs to treat them fairly and with respect. If society wants men to go above and beyond the call of duty, then carrots will do better than a stick, otherwise it's just duty society will get. But no one is really doing any of these things I say need to be done for men, so I can only guess that marriage and family really isn't that important to society, after all. I mean, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. There is no free lunch and if you want men to do something, then you better pony up with the goods (see here and here). Someone may try the religious angle to force men and women to get married, but I've been hitting that one out of the park, too (see here and here).

Now, let me summarize everything I've said on marriage being a marker of contributing to society. Society needs to drop it's male-bashing act like um, yesterday, if it wants men to be good citizens by copulating, procreating, and siring the next generation of taxypayers and cubicle workers. Society need to support men in other ways, too. Married men, in turn, can't demand some special recognition for raising great children, much less just getting wedded. Raising your children to be godly is your default obligation, not some form of sacrificial service that gives you glory. This especially the case if society is supporting you as a father and husband; in that case, you are discharging your debt to society.

Look, people, here's an analogy: Let's suppose some employer says to me, "Man, we could really use you for a position on the executive team, so why don't you go back to school and get a degree for us?" The problem is that I can't afford the tuition for an advanced degree. So what would you advise my employer to do? Sweeten the pot for me?

But on whom does the obligation fall once I take the bait? Suppose some individuals in my faith tradition pay for my tuition so I can get a degree in theology. Do I get to march into some dean's office and demand a gold-plated plaque for the late nights I spent doing homework? As it is, the individuals that paid for my tuition would probably expect me to take a position for several years in some capacity that benefits the church community. That plaque would have to wait.

Or think about this scenario: I'm an independent contractor and a guy named Al calls me over to his nice home. Al says to me, "I'll pay you $50 to remove a pile of gravel from my back yard." I say, "Sorry, but my regular price is at least $150." About that time, a guy named Steve drives up in his pick-up truck. He strolls up gingerly to the both of us and hears a bit of the conversation. Steve says, "Hey, Al. Don't worry, man. I'll do it for free." Al says, "Wow! You don't see generosity like this anymore. Steve, you are a real man!" Steve looks at me, cracks a smile, and quips, "Well, Anakin, you heard what Al said!" I reply, "Yeah, I heard what Al said. But Steve, what you really are is a tool if you have that kind of attitude. Al could have just as easily moved this pile himself or paid me to do it. In fact, he's paid me in the past for these kind of jobs. And here's the thing, Steve. I know you are not doing this purely out of the goodness of your heart. Why? Because last week, you were telling me how you needed some gravel for your driveway. So you're shoveling this pile of gravel for free. What do you want? A biscuit, dude?"

Do you see where I am going with my analogies? Marriage is not a marker of anything except that you got lucky with a member of the opposite sex. And for some married men, they would probably question the part about "getting lucky." Marriage and family have perks and privileges, and they come with obligations. If you're married, you're not entitled to a train load of biscuits. Married people have picked their pile of gravel. Nobody forced them to take the pile. If you want me to shovel the pile, then be prepared to pay me. If a chivalrous dude wants to volunteer to shovel it for free so he can use it for his driveway, then he can't gripe afterwards if no one offers him a dollar or a round of applause. And he can't call me a lesser man than him because I didn't shovel a pile that I had no duty to shovel. After all, maybe I don't want a gravel driveway. The married man gets his driveway, and the single man gets to walk away from a sweaty job. Sounds fair to me.

Separating the Men from the Boys

2009-09-23T00:00:00.001-05:00

In response to my post about "Realmannspracht," a reader brought up a concern about how we, as a society, can mark the transition from boyhood to manhood. In the past, society had various rites by which males moved from being a child to being an adult. However, we need to realize that the transition is not really dictated by society, but by biology. Manhood is still something God, not culture, gives to men. I think we've fooled our ourselves into believing otherwise, but inasmuch as we have done so, it has been to the detriment of boys, men, and our culture as a whole.

Let's look what the Apostle Paul said:

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. (1 Corinthians 13:11, NASB)

Note the progression: (1) A child acting like a child, (2) becoming a man, and then (3) putting away childish things. Step 3 does not come before Step 2.

We like to say, "Act your age." Why do we do this? Because we have subconsciously regarded biological age as the determining factor of someone's development. You don't expect someone who indeed a boy to act like a man. Likewise, you don't expect someone who is indeed a man to act like a boy. Life is indeed a series of initiations for men. They are not initiations from boyhood to manhood, but initiations from one social set of expectations to another. Some rites are indeed optional, like marriage or having children.

The cultures of the past understood this. They may have said, "You don't become a man until you do (xyz)" but their actions pointed towards a different, far deeper reality. Think about the Bar Mitzvah. People don't have the ceremony for 26-year-old men with jobs, houses, spouses, and children. They don't say to these men, "Ok, now you're a man." No, the Bar Mitzvah happens at a very young age. While the Bar Mitzvah may not be a initiation in manhood, per se, the Talmud is clear that boys become men around the time of puberty.

So, we need to remind teenagers of a sobering reality. They are no longer boys and girls. They are men and women. They are at an age of life when their focus should be on taking on the responsibilities of adulthood. What I am saying is shocking to a culture that clings tightly to extended adolescence, the banalities of youth culture, and the choice of older people to refuse to act their age ("60 is the new 40" or whatever). And yet, what I am saying has support from other conservatives.

Teenagers need to realize that just because they are adults, they do not get the privileges of adulthood until they earn them by acting responsibly. I didn't get to use a car for myself until I learned to drive. I didn't get to come and go as I pleased from my home until I moved out, got a real job and payed my own rent at age 24. The expectation was there that I needed to move towards these things. If I stalled anywhere along the way, I got dressed down.

Teenagers are not ready for sex until they are ready for marriage. If they are ready at age 18 like their great-grandparents, more power to them. If they have to wait till their forties to get ready for marriage, so be it. Marriage and sex are the a privileges of adulthood, not the things that make you an adult.

Someone will retort that a 16-year-old "boy" [sic] is not as mature as a 26-year-old man. True, but a 26-year-old man is usually not as mature as a 46-year-old man. Just because a male teenager doesn't have all his ducks in a row doesn't mean he is not a man. In fact, having all one's ducks in a row usually takes a lifetime. The 16-year-old man just happens to be near the beginning of the journey unlike some of us. Remember, the State may say one is a man at 18, then bump the age up to 21, then to 25, etc. But what the State does is irrelevant to nature. It may prohibit me from doing things until I reach a certain age, but it can't deny that I am a man when indeed I am a man.

What have we learned? There is no real initiation into adulthood, per se. You are an adult when your body says so, but you don't get the perks and privileges that adults enjoy until you earn them. The last point goes for any age.

Now, a reader said something about people regarding me as a "boy" when they denied I was a "man." Well, if I was indeed a boy, then why the contempt? If I was indeed a boy, then I was acting according to the stage of my physiological development. However, if I was actually a man, then the people calling me a "boy" were most likely trying to insult me and trying to play upon any insecurities society attempts to inculcate into men about their masculinity.

Inasmuch as people uphold the age-old lie that manhood, unlike womanhood, is something that can be granted or denied by culture, then I must regard any charge they make against my manhood as being in earnest. After all, such people clearly think they can invalidate my manhood through opprobrium and censure. They would, however, be guilty of slandering me, an action which is regarded as sinful by the Word of God (1 Corinthians 6:10). If God and nature says I am a man, then who are you to bear false witness? If we want men, but especially young men, to be mature, then let's do it by speaking according to the truth, not by resorting to playground insults and acting like children ourselves.

The Cosmo Complex Confirmed

2009-09-19T17:39:00.005-05:00

Let me refresh your memory, dear readers. Do you recall the post that I wrote on men and the delay of marriage? Do you recall what I said about the "Cosmo Complex" and how women have overly inflated expectations about their romantic potential and what they could ask from men? Well, some readers accused me of being bitter. Also, one or more readers said that the issues I addressed were only a problem with highly attractive women. Guess what? Even the mainstream media is confirming what I am saying. Here's some relevant quotes:

"Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists."

"According to the American research, there has been a 67 per cent increase in it [narcissism] over the past two decades, mainly among women."

Now, ladies and gentlemen, what do you think has caused this? Could it possibly be a society stuck in a "girls are nice, sugar and spice/boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" mindset? Academics have written books about this mess. I mean, you tell me, folks. What do you think happens when young, impressionable women and girls marinate for years in a toxic cultural cesspool of gynocentrism and misandry? Nothing? They're just impervious to it all? So, the media mavens who spend fortunes on swaying public opinion on everything from presidents to pretzels have absolutely no effect on the female psyche? Uh-huh, um ... yeah. I think we know the answer to that. And you know what? I don't think I'm as worried about the so-called "bad" girls as I am the "decent" ones who unwittingly allow popular culture to shape their views on relationships between men and women. Again, countless sermons rain down down on men, castigating them for their "unrealistic" ideas about beauty. But what of the distaff gender? That's right. Keep hemming and hawing, and talking about the weather while the 300-pound gorilla takes a dump on the carpet in front of you.

(HT: MarkyMark)

Realmannspracht (The Spiritual Problem with "Real Man" Talk)

2009-09-17T00:38:00.003-05:00

Realmannspracht. It's a word I have coined for "real man" talk. Indeed, there is a lot of it afloat. Do you know what a "real man" is? Can you know? The psychologist Roy F. Baumeister wrote:

The phrase “Be a man” is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive. ("Is There Anything Good About Men?" Address to the American Psychological Assocation, 2007)

I'm quite happy to uphold this traditional understanding of what makes a "man" if we uphold the traditional understanding of what makes a "woman" ... thus rolling back many of the economic, political, and social gains that women have been given. But seriously, I think that if we have made progress in how we treat women, people of color, etc., then surely we should make a little progress in how we treat the "disposable sex." What makes a man? Who gets to answer that question? How about the One who actually has made man?

What does the Word of God say in Genesis 1:27? It says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (KJV). Here's something to note from this passage: To be a man or a woman is not to merely state one's sex, but to affirm one's humanity. Value judgments about what a man or a woman should be are ultimately subordinate to how the Creator has made us. He is made us "male and female." Webster's dictionary defines a man as an "adult male human." A man is distinct from a woman, a child, or an animal. Even a man who is a eunuch is still a man.** To be a man, in essence, is a matter of God's creation, not social conditioning.

Throughout the ages, "real man" talk has been used by people to shame men into compliance with social norms. Even feminists with all their bravado about "equality" and freeing men from "restrictive sex roles" are not above using this type of language as a bludgeon themselves. That woman do not receive similar treatment is indicative of the sickening disrespect modern society has for men. It's "lifeboat feminism" at its worst. And yet, the talk of "real men" persists, even among those who profess to be Christians.

When someone denies that I am a man, he denies that I am a male human being created in the image of God. This denial of my humanity suggests that my soul is not valuable and that my life is not higher than an animal's. Such a willful denial is an act rooted in hatred. No one who claims to follow God can hate his fellow man: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15, KJV). Look, you may not like what a particular man is doing. I may not like it either. But neither you or I have any right under God's throne to deny that man's humanity by declaring he is not a "real man." Religious pundits and commentators do not get to exercise some special prerogative in this matter, either.

I suppose I have may have used the phrase "real man" or "real men" in the fashion I described. We all slip up, but I think we need to change our language if we going to endeavor to be a civilized people. Self-respecting men should balk at the phrase "real man" the way women balk at the phrase "dame" or "broad."

What should we say of those who still use the phrase "real men" or "real man"? I may, at first, call into question their understanding, but if I've already warned them, then I am forced to call into question their integrity. Indeed, there a lot of "real women" and "real men" who don't have it.

-----

Note:

**In the Greek text of Acts 8:27, the Ethiopian eunuch is a called "a man" (aner). That logically presupposes he had all the essential characteristics of a man. And yet, he was a literal eunuch [see Darrell Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 341].

Which MGTOW?

2009-09-11T21:01:00.001-05:00

In response to my last post, Puma opined:

The way I see it Roissysphere is part of MGTOW. It is a form of MGTOW, but not the only one by any means.

Ghosting and Roissysphere form the opposite ends along one axis of the equation (i.e. sexual involvement with women). But there are other axi [axes] within MGTOW as well. These include one's position on financial choices, career choices, geographical choices, etc.

MGTOW is a multidimensional movement.

I get where Puma is coming from. When I read some of the comments left by my Roissysphere readers, I don't see much of a material difference between what they are saying and what some of my colleagues in the MGTOW movement have been saying (viz., the part about making "the mission," not women, the "priority"). Indeed, Novaseeker, a Roissysphere blogger, recently wrote the following:

No, for us, our exhilaration comes from the ability to simply let go. If women want our role, let them have it. It frees us up to do something else – something that we want to do, rather than paying attention to lectures from others about what we should do, what others want us to do, and so on. That is a true, real freedom for men. It means the freedom to live our lives as we wish to, and not as is dictated to us. It means expanding our role as men, our self-conception as men, beyond ideas that tie us to women (provider, protector, husband, father) and embracing a new self-definition that is really about us, and not at all about how we relate to women. That doesn’t mean ignoring women or living aloof from them, but rather refusing to define ourselves at all around our roles relating to women and children (the latter being itself ultimately tied to our relationships with women), and instead defining ourselves around ourselves, our own beliefs, needs, priorities, interests, dreams, goals, wherever they may lead us. The new world allows us this freedom, and as men we need to take this freedom and run with it. To me, this is the ultimate adaptation for men to the new world and its rules/non-rules.

Whether readers realize it or not, the above statement is the essence of MGTOW. There may be others in the Roissysphere, though, that question to what extent men can have self-determination apart from intimate relationships with women. I don't know. Others can speak to that better that I can.

I bring this up because I find the exchanges between the Roissysphere and MGTOW camps to be instructive. I consider these exchanges to be opportunities for men of the respective camps to educate one another about what they perceive to be the most pressing issues, etc. Moreover, the exchanges serve as a place for appreciating both differences and common ground.

The veterans of MGTOW have always maintained that men "going their own way" will take various paths in their lives. Like I said, even one of the guys who came up with the MGTOW concept has been happily married for many years. There have been other key players, who though originally single, have gone on to become engaged and married without renouncing their MGTOW beliefs. In short, MGTOW is not a call to hermitage, but a call to self-determination. And when I say self-determination, I don't mean an utter disregard for fellow humanity, morality, etc. (contrary to what some knuckleheaded critics in the socon camp might say about MGTOW). But there is nonetheless variety in the MGTOW. Just as there are Christian, Buddhist, or atheist people who can be Republicans, Democrats, or members of your local chapter of the Rotary Club, you will find men from all walks of life in the MGTOW movement.

In the past, men have often looked to others in order to form their identity. Their "manhood" was imposed on them by their respective cultures, usually as a package deal with "take it or leave it" terms and conditions. Our cultural institutions are still in the business of trying to force feed men scripts for manhood, with little or no option given for men to question some or all of these scripts. And yet, these same cultural institutions have betrayed men. Even our religious communities have failed to live up to their spiritual and ethical responsibilities with regard to how they treat men. What is the problem? Too much of our world privileges a female understanding of reality at the expense of the male experience. Also, too many things asked of men clearly spring from questionable motives. MGTOW is an attempt to grapple with these disturbing developments.

I say all of this because even last evening, I came across an attempt by a blogger to categorize certain spectra of thought among men's issues advocates. Using the Nolan Chart as a model, he had MGTOW on one end of an axis and PUA on the other end with the word "Women" beneath the axis. I appreciate the discussion he is generating about the issues, but I found his chart to be incorrect and thus made a recommendation to him. If there was a continuum between "avoiding women" at one point and "having relationships with women" at the other point, where would the men of MGTOW be? Answer: all over the map.

"But why do so many MGTOWers talk about marriage strikes and the such like?" one may ask. Well, MGTOW reminds men that they have options. It just so happens that a lot of men who understand this to be case take the option of getting out of "the Game" (i.e., they go "Ghosting"). Their actions are not so much a reflection of MGTOW prescribing a particular course of action as they are a conclusion that the actual market values of Marriage 2.0 and even Relationships 2.0 do not square with the price tags affixed thereunto. Let's face it: A lot of men are where they are at in their marriages and other relationships with women because they have never questioned the hand that has been dealt to them. They are still "plugged in" and drinking the Kool-Aid about gender relations. When men start to open their eyes and realize they are not in Kansas anymore, it's no big wonder that so many of them expresses little or no interest in the proverbial cow or even her proverbial milk. Are there good women out there? I have no reason to doubt it, but a lot of MGTOWers feel it's not worth their time and energy to go hunting for them.

Anyway, I hope my thoughts might clarify a few things for my Roissyphere readers.

The Roissysphere: A MGTOW Perspective

2009-09-10T00:14:00.003-05:00

What exactly is the Roissysphere? I have to admit that I did not hear about this term until this month, or maybe it was last month. I can't remember. I consider it from an outside perspective as a MGTOWer. After reading some about it, it strikes me as a network of bloggers who follow the writings of individual named "Roissy." Who is Roissy? He appears to be somewhat like a PUA (a pick-up artist - one that seduces and beds women), who just also happens to have some views on gender relations that might fall in the category of MRA thought. In short, it's MRA meets seduction theory.**

Novaseeker is supposedly in the Roissyphere. Ferdinand Bardamu is in the Roissysphere. So is Chuck Ross and Josh Xiong. And on it goes. The guys in the Roissysphere seem to be relatively new to the MRA scene on the internet. Roissy's blog only goes back as far as April 2007. These individuals have a lot of beliefs in common with MGTOW, and yet they largely seem to have only a partial knowledge of MGTOW. I say that because of statements that some readers of Roissy have made about MGTOW.

So for those of you who move about in the Roissyphere, I thought I would compare the MGTOW scene with the MRA/PUA hybrid ideas of the Roissyphere:

1. Critiques of feminized culture? Roissyphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.

2. Libertarian-leaning critiques of big government? Roissysphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.

3. Critiques of misandry? Roissysphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.

4. Critiques of conservatives being just as bad as feminists in their misandry? Roissysphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.

5. Realistic and brutal honesty about female behavior (including sexual behaviors and mating preferences)? Roissysphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.

6. Some members into learning aspects of "Game" in order understand and relate to women, especially for the purpose of intimate relationships? Roissyphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.

7. Some members of the community being happily married? Roissyphere: Check. MGTOW: Check. (One of the architects of MGTOW has been happily married for years.)

8. Championing standing up to women and not being a pushover? Roissyphere: Check. MGTOW: Check.

9. Some members of the community being happily single or even unattached? MGTOW: Check. Roissyphere: I dunno.

10. Realization that average men can live without sex or female companionship just fine? MGTOW: Check. Roissyphere: I dunno.

11. Realization that everything has it costs and trade-offs and therefore, being involved with women is not necessarily better than not being involved with them? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.

12. Realization that a man's worth and happiness does not depend on women? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.

13. Realization that when it comes to men's issues, "Game" isn't everything, much less the proverbial "silver bullet?" MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.

14. Realization that "Game" doesn't make a low-integrity woman into marriage material? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.

15. Realization that "Game" doesn't necessarily protect a man from a low-integrity woman or from family law, the false allegation industry, the DV industry, etc.? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.

16. Realization that our culture and the proliferation of low-integrity women makes the American Dream for men increasingly elusive, "Game" or no "Game"? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.

17. Avoidance of "real man" talk, shaming tactics, and other forms of high-handed judgment against men who don't want to play by the old roles, who don't make scoring with women a high priority, or who actually want do something about the inequality in our society? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.

18. Respects the right of men to buck the system and embracing their own vision of manhood? MGTOW: Check. Roissysphere: I dunno.

In years past, when many men where trying to air their grievances on the internet, trying to come to terms with the misandry and gynocentrism in our society, and trying figure out what to do about it, some PUA-leaning heckler would invariably butt into the conversation and say something like, "You guys are just whiners who are not getting any! You need to learn seduction techniques!" Such an arrogant, myopic, and hopelessly naïve attitude about men's concerns has understandably left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of MRA and MGTOW men. I don't know enough about the Roissyphere to determine whether or not any of them indulge in the adolescent posturing and display of peacock feathers that some PUA advocates have embraced. Time will tell.

The Roissyphere has its share of talented writers who are saying some noteworthy things about what men face today. I tip my hat in respect to these gentlemen for that. On the other hand, I have a bit of "wait and see" attitude, given how some PUAs have comported themselves in past. I'll let the men of the Roissysphere speak for themselves on the questions I raise. The Roissyphere bills itself as (1) being realistic about relationships between men and women, and (2) being a voice that gives men's options. From my admittedly limited perspective, it remains to be seen whether or not the Roissysphere can live up to both of these promises the way MGTOW already does. In the end, "Roissyism" may actually be a form of MGTOW.

**Edit: The men of the Roissysphere generally follow ideas that come from the Seduction Community; however, not all of them fully accept the lifestyle that Roissy has embraced.

Manhood: It's Not About Her

2009-09-04T20:08:00.007-05:00

One of the primary problem's men face in society is this: Their masculinity is too often tied to being accepted by women as potential mates. If women reject a man, then his manhood may be regarded by some as being less than fully realized. However, the problem is that women are not obligated to accept men as mates, even when there is nothing particularly wrong with the men in question. So we are left with two choices for men:

1) Men expressing anger towards the women that reject them.

2) Men expressing anger towards a social system that defines their masculinity in terms of the interest women have in these men.

Option #1 is the option that is often taken, but ultimately, it is counterproductive because women are free moral agents who have a right to their own preferences regarding mate selection. Option #2 is logical but draws criticism from those indifferent or hostile to men's issues (socons, liberals, and other individuals held under sway to popular ideas about manhood). I suppose many expect men to embrace a vision of masculinity that depends on the romantic interest of women and yet, at the same time, expect men to accept rejection from women as a fact of life. Such an expectation amounts to nothing more than asking men to accept humiliation and dehumanization.

To hold a man's self image and self-worth hostage to the whim and caprice of what others find to be sexually or romantically attractive is one of the worst forms of psychological slavery there is. It is unjust and inhumane, and no society built upon such a foundation deserves to survive. Indeed, given the judgment of history, such a society probably won't.

"Game" - A Summary (But Perhaps Not a Conclusion)

2009-08-26T22:10:00.000-05:00

I am hoping against hope that this is going to be the last post devoted to PUA theory that I feel the need to write for some time. I'm certain my critics feel the same way. But all joking aside, I offer this post as a summary of my previous three posts (see here, here, and yes, even here). I have no illusions that what I'm about the say will be the "last word" on this topic, either for myself personally, or for the whole discussion in general. But I'm a busy man, and I don't have a copious amount of time to burn on chasing rabbits. Here are my main points:

1. "Game" advocacy must come to terms with the historical baggage of the Seduction Community.

This includes: (1) The sexual immorality, (2) any behavior that would be deceitful and fraudulent in what it conveys [Are you making a concerted effort to give a false impression of what you really are?]**, (3) encouraging the Alpha Jerk culture and skank behavior in women, (4) engaging in any other unethical and sinful behaviors in the name of masculinity, and (5) making an idol out of sex. One reader ("Thursday") retorted, "None of the bad behaviors you described are even close to being necessary to attract women" but he seems to contradict himself and Ferdinand Bardamu, who has said the following:

Have you considered, Mr. Auster, that the two explanations are not mutually exclusive? Namely, that in the absence of social conditioning, women will blindly follow their genitals straight into the arms of violent dirtbags? Those men are socially dominant by dint of their nature, which is why women are drawn to them and why, when they get slapped both silly and senseless, they almost always go back to them.

Which is it? Do women flock to alcoholic philanderers and other baddies or not? If not, then why are the baddies not alone? If women do flock to baddies, then what makes anyone think that Game Lite will do the job? If being a thug is what it really takes to do the job, then just what is the Christian man's option "in the absence of social conditioning?" Either you admit that Christian men are going to have a hard time finding decent wives in today's social climate or you admit that women can choose to change.

2. "Game" advocacy must disassociate itself from the Seduction Community.

My critics insist on using the language of PUAs (even invoking the acronym itself, which means "pick-up artist", duh!) and yet take exception when they are lumped in with the PUAs. Folks can't have it both ways.

3. "Game" advocates must be more forthcoming with specifics about how "Game" can contribute to interpersonal relationships between men and women in ways that others sources of knowledge cannot.

I have come across two "success stories" thus far, but when one drills down the narratives, they merely talk about about the husband being more assertive with his wife (something a man could just as easily learn from a tome in a family bookstore). The reader "Thursday" remarks that attracting women requires "considerable nuance" above and beyond merely being a confident and responsible man. Never mind that another "Game" advocate assures us that, "Game is not a series of tricks. It teaches men to grow a spine and grow a set."

How strange that our ancestors never heard of the "Mystery Method." I can hear it now, "Oh, but Anakin, they practiced game." Funny that none of the people I know who lived in the 20th century B.F. (before feminism) have ever mentioned anything about the "considerable nuance" of seduction techniques being the key to success to their dating and their marriages. Funny how men of old managed to find good women without the benefit of the modern Relationship Expert Industry (PUA, Christian, feminist, or otherwise). I tell you what changed: the expectations of many women. Instead of calling women out on their unrealistic nonsense, some men apparently want to kiss up and try to please the Exulted High Maintenance Ones. If you have to walk on sexual eggshells to please the modern woman then what does that say about her expectations and the viability of the relationship itself?

4. The claim has been made that "Game" can benefit Christian men hasn't been substantiated.

I threw down the gauntlet. I raised my ethical, moral, spiritual, and theological concerns. The responses on this matter have been disappointing. Anyone who has following this blog knows how I take great pains to answer any critics who say my views are not scriptural. But what do I hear from "Game" advocates? Something along the lines of, "It doesn't matter what you say Anakin. Women won't change. Game works!" Pragmatism and utilitarianism may work for a secular audience, but as a theological argument for Christians, it falls flat. How does "Game" square with what the Bible says about manhood? Can anyone take a stab at that question?

5. "Game" advocacy must show that it something more than "Cosmo for men."

I fear that the Beta Revolution, for example, is reductionist to a fault in its embrace of "Game." The Beta Revolution, like social conservatives, are concerned about normal, hardworking men dropping out of society. The Beta Revolution, however, thinks sex will motivate these men back to the salt mines. The critics of men's rights advocacy often declare, "You guys are just mad because you can't get laid." The Beta Revolution, in effect, says, "Yep, you're right!!" But does the Beta Revolution (or neo-traditionalist conservativism, for that matter) really focus on fixing society or dealing with women's behavior? Not to any great extent that I can see. It's mostly about fixing men. Men are the problem. Either they are not nice enough, or as the PUA seems to think, they are not sexy enough.

So, if a man learns "Game" and becomes desirable enough for women, just how exactly is his lot improved? How does he win, if at the end of the day, society doesn't respect men? How do his male descendants win if nothing changes for them, either? What reward is it to be the stud horse if, at the end of the day, you are still locked up in the same stall of those who own you?

Over at Novaseeker's blog, I wrote:

Let me remind you that I am not one of those evil "socons" that want men to be doormats to their wives. As a Christian man, I have written more against the misandry of social conservatives than anything else. However, the "beta revolution" will die in the nursery if you and others don't deal with the moral, ethical, and religious concerns of your target audience (responsible betas).

I stand by my words. The discussion has been lively and heated, but I am not out to spoil anyone's party. On the other hand, I am trying to offer constructive criticism. "Better the wound of a friend than the kiss of an enemy."

**On the deception issue, someone might counter, "Hey, women wear make-up and push-up bras." Well, for starters, I have some questions about Christian women wearing immodest clothing in public. Secondly, sooner or the later, the make-up is going to come off and I am going to see the woman for who she really is physically. But I don't hear anything about men letting their Alpha facade down. This, by the way, gets me to my next point: Men and women set each other up for disappointment by putting on an act during dating. If the relationship progresses, sooner or later, you are going to see your mate as he or she really is (bad habits, vulnerabilities, etc.). The eventual slam of reality is most painful for those who rode their ship on the crest of romantic illusions (including those generated by male "Game" and female "Rules").

Baptizing "Game"?

2009-08-25T01:34:00.001-05:00

From the feedback I received on my last two posts, I've learned some about how people understand the dynamics of mate selection between men and women. My last two posts (see here and here) stated my moral and theological objections to the PUA community. I have had basically two reactions from my readers:

1) People agreeing with me and saying what PUAs espouse is evil. The idea of seducing women with manipulative techniques in order to bed them is understandably off-putting to people of faith.

2) People who think I misunderstand "Game."

What I am seeing is a lot of cross-talk, argument over semantics, perhaps some special pleading and a few other things that impair clarification and resolution of the issue. I am certain I can take some blame for this, but I don't think I can take all of it.

There is apparently a group of men in the blogosphere that want to bowdlerize PUA tactics. That is, they want to crop off the seedier aspects of "Game" and talk about ways that men can improve their interpersonal relationships with women. "Game", for this group, is understood in a general and innocuous way. Indeed, some posters even talk about "Game" saving marriages. But that doesn't answer what I have already written:

Some readers want to redefine "Game" to mean things men have always done to catch the eyes of ladies. Historically, the word "Game" has had more negative connotations than that. I say it has too much to be used by Christian men.

When a godly women makes herself attractive, we don't call this "teasing." When she is sexually assertive with her husband in the bedroom, we don't call her a "porno slut." Likewise, we should not the use the language of PUAs to describe what godly men do to attract women ...

In short, I ask why some male bloggers feel the need to use the language of "playas," pimps, lotharios, lounge lizards, and the such like to describe the general concept of making oneself more attractive to women? And to say a Christian man can do this? Why would a Christian man want associate himself with the sexually immoral by using their language to describe his dealings with the opposite sex? It doesn't help his testimony, even if he has no intention of sleeping around. I can see it now: "Hi. I'm Chad. I go to Grace Community Church and I'm into Game!" What do you think Jane Q. Public is going to think about that? It's like saying, "Hi, I'm Hannah, I go to Grace Bible College, and I'm into teasing guys!" No, uh, "epic fail." You are not going to win the hearts and minds of men who are serious about sexual purity by asking them to borrow terms from the Seduction Community. At the very least, a new set of terms and/or concepts needs to be put forth that are acceptable to men of faith.

What is it that the Seduction Community can offer men of faith that they can't pick up elsewhere? I can go to a family bookstore and there are plenty of books telling men how to romance their wives, how to stop being a wimp and be a "real man," etc. Ever read No More Christian Nice Guy by Paul Coughlin? Many of the authors of these books are licensed counselors and therapists. Consider that there are also marriage enrichment seminars, workshops, etc. to boot that a religious man can attend.

You can teach men how to approach women and how to maintain the interest of women. All fine and well. More power to you if you can approach this subject in a format acceptable to Christian men. But the bottom line is that teaching men how to approach women is a meaningless exercise unless men and women genuinely love and respect each other. I am all for being physically attractive and romantically attractive to one's spouse, but I am not going to be able to do much seducing if I'm wasting away from inoperable cancer. The same goes for women. I've said a lot on this blog and elsewhere about Christian women needing to be more responsive about what turns men on instead of be such priggish prudes. One thing I will not do, however, is to suggest that sexual attractiveness is the foundation rock of a godly relationship. Agape is the foundation. Agape expresses itself by being considerate of the erotic needs and desires of one's spouse. However, the fruit of a tree should not be confused with the tree itself.

As it is, the three-hundred pound gorilla in the room is this: A lot of women and men don't love and respect each other. Seduction techniques, per se, cannot create this love and respect. Without the prerequiste love and respect, seduction techniques only lend themselves to sports sex, grudge sex, sugar daddy prostitution, trophy spouses, or what have you. Such is a turn-off to a godly man. Until men and women respect each other, their relationships will essentially be nothing more than détente at the genital level. Obviously, there are men in the PUA/Seduction community who are not bothered by this, but the rest of us should be bothered. And when it comes to love and respect, women have their work cut out for them, given the fact that they gotten off with something less than a slap on the wrist for the last 40+ years. That's what lies at the heart of the issue - people's integrity, not a technique.

Biblical Manhood vs. "Game" (Reprise)

2009-08-21T13:51:00.009-05:00

In my last post, I looked at how PUA theories about women and men were incompatible with the Christian worldview. Some of my readers nonetheless tried to defend "Game." I can understand someone disagreeing with me, but what is baffling is when people merely restate the very thing that I just got done refuting and don't offer any counterarguments in response to my specific points. I put forth several scriptures that show just how unscriptural PUA theory is in its assessment of what it takes to attract women. No one addressed the scriptures, specifically the scriptures that tell men how to act--scriptures that are quite clearly in conflict with worldly notions of masculinity.

One red herring thrown into the discussion is that women don't like pushovers. Another red herring was the mention of men doing things to attract women and how natural that was. My discourse is about neither of these things, per se. Some readers want to redefine "Game" to mean things men have always done to catch the eyes of ladies. Historically, the word "Game" has had more negative connotations than that. I say it has too much to be used by Christian men.

When a godly women makes herself attractive, we don't call this "teasing." When she is sexually assertive with her husband in the bedroom, we don't call her a "porno slut." Likewise, we should not the use the language of PUAs to describe what godly men do to attract women. Are you nostalgic for the masculinity of the past? I'll tell you where the PUAs would be in the past--on the bottom of the food chain, dismissed as gigolos, cads, and rakes. They would be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

What Attracts Women = Natural?

You might say that women are naturally attracted to cads and rakes. I say that women are sinfully attracted to cads and rakes. God did not design women to be attracted to the things he clearly condemns in his Word. Worldly women are attracted to the wrong things because they are in rebellion against their Creator. So, let's break it down and review some examples ...

1. "Game" might say that cockiness and arrogance attracts women, but the word of God condemns cockiness and arrogance (1 Pet. 5:5).

2. "Game" might say having wealth and material things attracts women, but the word of God condemns the eagerness to get rich (Prov. 28:20).

3. "Game" might say that the "neg-hit" attracts women, but the word of God condemns unedifying speech and unduly provoking others (Eph. 4:29; Gal. 5:26).

4. "Game" might say that keeping women on a yo-yo keeps them off balance and clinging to you but the word of God condemns dishonest and inconsiderate behavior towards others (Prov. 11:3; James 3:17).

5. "Game" might counsel men to avoid "one-itis" and to keep several different women in rotation. "Game" may even point out that women like men who already have other women in tow. But the word of God condemns sexual immorality and treating women in impure ways (1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Tim. 5:2).

6. "Game" might say that women are attracted to men who know how to assert dominance by keeping other men down, but the God of word spells out doom for such a man (Mark 10:42-43; Psalms 72:4; Isaiah 26:5; Luke 1:52-53).

7. "Game" might say that women are attracted to the man with the "warrior" spirit, who fights others for what he wants. But God condemns brawlers, self-seekers, and the such like and commends peacemakers, those who are gentle, and those who suffer for righteousness sake instead of taking vengeance (2 Tim. 2:24; Titus 3:2; Rom. 2:8; Rom. 12:9).

8. "Game" might say that men who are "bad boys" (those who are uninhibited enough to engage in socially deviant behavior) attract women, but the word of God condemns these confident men as fools (Prov. 14:16) and tells men to suffer as those who do good, not as evildoers (1 Pet 3:17).

I could go on with other examples of ungodly things that attract women. The bottom line is that I rather be boring to women than be damned for eternity.

About Confidence and Taking the Lead

Now, to be fair, there is dating advice out there for men, which the PUAs expound on, that is not so morally problematic as the examples I give above. A lot of it focuses on behaviors that make you appear to be confident to women and in control of the situation. Here's the catch: I note with concern how men talk about confidence as something you do to attract women. I see this kind of talk especially among PUAs and traditionalists. Even Paul Coughlin, in his book No More Christian Nice Guy, cages the idea of being a strong, manly, confident guy in terms of something that pleases women. It is not till the very end of his book that he mentions, in passing, the idea of men being something more than that.

MGTOW does not look at confidence as something you do to attract women. MGTOW looks at confidence as something you ARE IN SPITE of women. I think this is one primary way in which MGTOW "owns" and "pwns" the other voices out there speaking on masculinity. The key is not traits and behaviors that women think express confidence, but actual confidence itself. The man who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to take the nuclear option and tell wicked women to buzz off, even if it means being alone, is at the mercy of women. He is the real pushover. But look at the PUA guy. He keeps flashing his peacock feathers before women and doing dances that make him look "confident." I frankly don't see how any man who is deathly afraid of going without sex and female attention can be called confident. Sure, a stupid woman with no sense or discretion will fall for such fake displays of confidence. It's easy to bed stupid women. It's not so easy to stay happily married to them (And I remind my readers that marriage is the only "game" ChristianGuy gets to play). Authentic, godly confidence risks turning women off for the sake of what is right and what is just. A lot of men outside of MGTOW don't have that kind of confidence.

The Limitations to Attracting Women

I have already pointed out that men cannot embrace any traits or behaviors that are sinful in order to attract women. But even in morally neutral matters, a man cannot work to attract women at the expense of his relationship with God (Luke 14:26). If his ultimate care is to please women instead of pleasing Christ, then he is no better than the young lady that primps and preens herself and yet does not grow in her spirituality. Religious leaders are always telling young women to maintain their inner beauty and not to make outer beauty their primary focus (1 Pet. 3:3-4). We need to be telling young men a similar thing. We do not need to be reducing young men to peacocks on display for female consumption. We do not need them to be reduced to success objects or status objects that provide women with "many luxury vacations." Apathy in this matter is inexcusable.

Pushing Back

Another point: Women, culture, church, and even family members often push back against the expectations men have about attractive women. They tell men "stop being shallow," "be realistic," and the such like. Well, men need to do the same thing with women's expectations. Push back!! When I look around, though, I see a lot of passivity from men ("Women won't change," "that's the way they are," "you won't get laid thinking that way"). But I ask: Why are men expected to change their preferences on everything, but not women? Men who don't have the courage to question women on their expectations (which may be the product of a feminized culture and not biology) don't have the right to talk about other men getting back the physical tokens of their masculinity.

Recently, a snarky poster viciously compared me to George Sodini, a man who recently took his frustation out on some women and killed them. But as Amir has pointed out, George was into PUA ideas, not MGTOW. Mr. Sodini allowed himself to be a tool for a stupid culture that says you are a nobody if you are not getting laid. And sadly, in death, he has become a tool for paranoid pundits who want to tar and feather every man that voices misgivings about misandry and gynocentrism. A man like Sodini can feed anger and resentment to the extent that he lets others control his self-image (including women). If a man looks to others for approval, he gives them that control. On the other hand, a man can never be the "loser" if he refuses to play "the Game" in the first place.

Biblical Manhood vs. "Game"

2009-08-19T00:00:00.003-05:00

Seduction theory, PUA (Pick-Up Artists), "alpha" male, "beta" male, "neg-hits," "Game," etc. I have been familiar with these terms for just about as long as I have been focused on men's issues. The theory of gender relations that lies behind these terms has been the stuff of chatter among some MRAs, MGTOWers, and the such like. To be certain, the ideas of the PUA community have not been entirely adopted by MGTOWers and MRAs. A lot of PUA literature seems to suggest that men who don't get laid are, of necessary, "losers." MGTOW rejects this message for the simple fact that the approval of women is not a valid metric of a man's worth. However, some still see value in the PUA philosophy for instructing men in how to view women and how to treat women. If you are not religious, the following discussion will be of no value to you. You may choose to ignore this post. But what about the Christian man? Can he carry anything away from PUA theory?

First of all, let us deal with the main goal of PUA theory: to seduce and bed women. PUA literature, with little or no exception, assumes sex outside the bond of a committed, godly marriage. There is talk of practicing and honing your skills on women. But what does the Bible say in response to this?

For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Gal. 6:8, NASB)

And there is a lot to reap in this side of eternity from promiscuity and sports sex: jealousy, crimes, financial loss, loss of health, emotional problems, and yet even loss of life.

But then their is other side of eternity:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:19-21, ASV)

Simply put, a Christian man can forget about "Game." He needs to keep his pants on and his mind pure. Someone may say, "Okay. I'm not going to sleep around but Game Theory allows me to understand women better." For what purpose? To get married? To stay happily married? If you are thinking that, then you are wrong on both counts.

PUA only explains the behavior of ungodly women. Note, I didn't say "non-religious" women. I said ungodly women. Doing "game" in order to attract a godly woman is like telling Christian women to wear slutty clothing and swing on a pole in public to attract godly men. It's a false and unbiblical approach. Indeed, I am certain doing "game" and being the Alpha male will work for a lot of church-going women, but it is because they merely have a form of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5), but are not really mature in Christ (if they are even saved at all). Do you want to be married to those kind of women? Remember, "Game" is great for casual sex with emotionally unstable women, not for helping you find a spiritually mature woman that cares about your mind, body, and eternal welfare.

PUA may insist that women are the same and hardwired to respond in a similar fashion. The Word of God declares such reasoning null and void. Read the Bible plainly says about the "nature of women":

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. (James 1:13-18, NASB)

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (Rom. 6:16, NASB)

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. (Gal. 5:16-17, NASB)

Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:24, NASB)

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (2 Cor. 5:17, NASB)

Look at the verses carefully. When it comes to being tempted by the wrong things, no woman can claim God made her a certain way. A biblical anthropology declares that women are free moral agents who have choices for their behavior. A woman who chooses a "bad-boy" thug over a responsible but unassuming Christian man is not acting on some trait that is innate to women. Don't blaspheme the Creator, who made women, because your are unwilling to think outside the box about how women should behave. The woman who responds to PUA tactics is in bondage to sin and worldy self-deception. Likewise, men can be in bondage to worldy self-deception about women. Before I was a Christian, the women of Playboy were awe-inspiring. After I got serious about God's word regarding sexual purity, the women of Playboy became pitiful (the display of their flesh becoming like what Amir Larijani would call "cattle shows").

As a Christian man, your main goal in life is not be pleasing to the women of the world (including the women of world that sit in a church building). You main goal in life is to be pleasing to Christ. If the women in your faith tradition don't appreciate that, then their souls are probably in a precarious spiritual condition. You should be concerned about their eternal destiny and where they might take you if you allow yourself to be influenced by them (Eccles. 7:26; 1 Cor. 15:33).

Being Christian man means you won't be having sex with a lot of hot women, if any women at all. The Bible commands men to be responsible, dependable, gentle, humble, agreeable, longsuffering, law-abiding, not greedy for gain, not brawlers, free of selfish ambition, not high minded, those who honor others over themselves, not self-promoters, cautious, and slow to speak their mind (1 Cor. 15:58; 1 Tim. 6:11; Col. 3:12; James 3:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Tim. 6:17; Rom. 12:16; Rom. 13; Heb. 12:14; Phil. 2:3; 1 Thess. 4:11; Prov. 14:16; Prov. 27:2; James 1:19). These and other godly qualities are not exciting to the women of the world. They'll dismiss you and write asinine essays about why "nice guys aren't so nice." You might like to think of yourself as a "bad boy" who nonetheless plays by the rules. Think again, pal. Believe me, when they say "nice guy" in a peeved tone, they most certainly mean men like you. That's the brakes and that's your cross to bear.

You may wave your John Eldridge books in my face all day long, but here's the bottom line:

For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. (1 Cor. 1:26-29)

It annoys me to no end to see Christian men get all defensive when the world questions their masculinity ("Hey, being a Christian doesn't mean I'm a wimp! I can clean out an entire bar with my two bare fists!"). Sorry, but you will never be "man enough" in the eyes of the world (and in the eyes of nominally Christian women). Accept the shame.

As a Christian man, you might get married to a woman who is very physically attractive, but there's no guarantee of that. Both sexes like a modicum of physical attractiveness in one another. But overall, the only women you should be remotely thinking about are godly women. By this I don't mean the culturally conservative, churchy types who want a man to provide them with "many luxury vacations" or the nice house, two cars, and three kiddies. I am talking about a woman who a heart on fire for Christ. Spiritual people of either sex are hard to find, even in churches. Churches in America have degraded to nothing more than well-furnished, well-lit community centers for people who are into SWPL. For either sex, finding a godly spouse means going through buckets of chaff to find one grain of wheat. As a Christian man, that is the reality for you in an age where Western Christianity has "left its first love" (Rev. 2:4).

The pile of gravel the Christian MGTOWer has to shovel is a unique one. It deals with the cost of discipleship. That means you may never find "the one." It means you may have to fly solo through this life. When you go to heaven, you will be given a new body. It will not be the body of a male porn star or the Studmeister (Luke 20:35). That should clue you in the bigger picture of what your life is about.

Personally, I happen to be friends with a single woman who is very spiritually-minded and devout. There are times when she makes me feel like a spiritual beta. The women of the world, on the other hand, do not make me feel like the "beta" because they have nothing to offer to me--besides illicit sex. What good is that? (Mark 8:36). But get this: Being a slave to Christ means that you are free from the Untouchable Goddesses Who Reign Over Male Self-Esteem and Happiness.

Let me put it to you another way: Do you care if an ugly woman calls you a "beta"? She says, "You're not my type!" You think to yourself, "So what's your point, lady?" In the same manner, the Christian man looks at the women of the world (including the worldly ones that sit in the church) and sees the truth: these women are like whitewashed tombs. So, what good is Game Theory to me if my intimate relations with women are limited to marriage and if I am studiously avoiding those women who are in bondage to sin and the devil? I don't have to consult Doc Love or whoever to ferret out these women. I just need to consult my Bible (Luke 6:44).

I know how some of my posters might retort: You take the Bible too literally. Religion is a just a tool for weak-minded people who have no life. Yada, yada, yada. Sorry, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this blog. If you have a gripe against Christianity, there are other venues for you to express your misgivings. What I have expressed here is not some form of self-medication or statement of "sour grapes" regarding mate selection. I am simply stating what my religion demands of me. Even if I was in a position to have sex with every lingerie supermodel and NFL cheerleader under the sun, I would still have to answer to God for my actions. If you are going to follow Christ, these are the facts that you must come to terms with. It is really as simple as that.

Final note: Culturally conservative women who play the "nice girl" act, don't put out for the gents, and yet are worldly and spiritually immature in so many other ways most assuredly have nothing to offer me (Prov. 21:19). If marrying "in the faith" means marrying one of these suburban female overlords who wants her SUV, Martha Stewart lifestyle, and "many luxury vacations," then take me to the urologist for my scheduled orchiectomy (because it's going to happen one way or the other in that case).

Suggested reading: Women Who Diss Christian Men as Being Weak

The Delay of Marriage (Men Are Not the Problem)

2009-08-12T00:00:00.016-05:00

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?

That Broadcast

2009-08-08T01:35:00.008-05:00

Well, true to form, Albert Mohler is celebrating Mark Regnerus' article in CT and has decided to beat the drum about the matter. My thoughts about Al's broadcast (see the minute markers below) ...

13:30 ff. (But especially at 14:50 ff.) ... Let's see. "It's unreasonable to expect" young people who delay marriage to not sleep around ...but wait! Sexual sin is problem! It's theological schizophrenia at its worst. Listen up folks: I'm all for early marriage, but it's becoming apparent to me that Albert Mohler and Mark Regnerus are much more fatalistic than I am about people being able to obey God's commands. Apparently, only married people can be pleasing to God. Everyone else is doomed to sexual sin, unless of course, you are one of the mystical 144,000 with the gift of celibacy.

16:10 ff. Marriage makes adults of us? Those of us who have witnessed the legacy of parents this side of the Baby Boom can have a laugh at that one.

16:20 ff. Gross eisegesis of 1 Cor. 7:7. I see no mention of the "gift of celibacy" here. No mention of Paul having a low sex drive or some divine gift of not caring about women. It doesn't stop the Marriage Mandate movement from imagining that it's there in the text, though. Just like Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:18, they've quoted the passage so long, they stopped actually reading it.

17:55 ff. Our poor teens don't have the gift of celibacy because they are having sex! Umm, they probably don't have a clue, either. Could it be the real reason evangelical youngsters are not so far apart from the world in having premarital sex is because they are surrounded by a pornographic culture? Or how about these reasons ...

(1) The religious community of which they are a part is more culturally conservative than spiritual. I mean Christianity is more than just refraining from sex. But with so many religious conservatives, their faith seems to be about mere do's and dont's. So, their kids see through the charade and conclude that even the do's and don'ts are a waste of time. Why should the kids be serious about tackling sexual sin when the grown-ups at church aren't serious about tackling materialism, selfish ambition, gossip, bitterness, wrath, backbiting and all the other works of the flesh that you don't hear the cultural warriors talk about? Christianity has been dead in North America for a long time (being reduced to a civic club for Republicans) and the putative 80% of church kids sleeping around only puts the icing on the cake, IMHO.

(2) Albert Mohler and others have already told young people in so many words they are going to fail. So the mantra goes like this: "God designed us for sex!" No, folks, God designed us to fear him and keep his commandments, whether we get "get lucky" or not (Eccles. 12:13).

21:00 ff. Some talk about "the World" and "the Biblical vision" (read "us" vs. "them"). Is the Marriage Mandate Movement really all that separate from how the world views relationships between men and women? You mean male-bashing and an overemphasis on romantic relationships being the solution to life's problems are Christian concepts and not something I can see on the Lifetime Channel?

23:50 ff. Proposal that we grill young men about their marital status. "How are you handling this?" Hey, Albert, how are the married men handling it? Or is Proverbs 21:9 just written in jest and not really meant as cautionary advice? All the questions you fire at the young man struggling with his chastity could be fired right back at the older man struggling in his marriage. Everything has its price (1 Cor. 7:28).

29:00 ff. Guess who is on the show tonight, folks! Candice Watters is in da house! Al hearts ya, SISTAH! Cue from stage left and sit in the easy chair next to the big man. Smile to the camera and tell us about your latest movie.

32:30 ff. Male bashing. What would Albert and Candice's shtick be without that? Men delay marriage "because they can?" Yeah, and more power to them, I say. Men delay marriage because the owners of the club have set the entry fee too high. Or men delay marriage because it's not available to them. Maybe Marriage 2.0 is the only product on the shelves in a given situation.

33:10 ff. The fundamental responsibility is mostly on men to "grow up and get married"? And that part about how oh-so-many Christian women are "ready for marriage?" Are these women ready for marriage, or they just ready for the wedding? Big difference, there, Al. Because in marriage, it takes two to tango. It takes mutual sacrifice. I have a difficult time believing that a generation of women raised on a diet of cultural misandry, helicopter parenting, materialism, and the therapeutic zeitgeist of putting female felt needs before all else is really ready for marriage. Are they really ready to selflessly love a man and be his helpmeet? Are they even ready to keep the toast from burning?

Finally, Al, you ask, "Where are the men?" They're all around you, pal (Although, they are probably not dancing to your tune.). They're all around those poor little evangelical bachelorettes, too. But the women don't see those men. When ladies ask, "Where are the men?" they probably mean only those that could perchance fall within what Roger Devlin calls their "erotic field of view." The young Christian maiden is probably wondering why Matt the pretty boy "won't get serious" and be "spiritual" like her and "realize his call" to embrace "Biblical manhood" by embracing marriage. Unheeded goes Raymond, who is shy and socially awkward, but loves the Lord much more than Matt ever will. Put another way? I fear too many women are confusing strong feelings with the quality of being spiritual.

Anyway, with respect to Al, it's essentially just more of the same. I'll leave it at that.

HT: Puritan Calvinist.

That CT Article

2009-08-01T01:34:00.006-05:00

Puritan Calvinist has beat me to the punch in panning an article which appeared in this month's issue of Christianity Today about marrying young. I saw the hard copy at work earlier in the week, and like I told PC in the comments section of his blog, I was a bit dismayed when I looked at the front cover of the magazine and saw the title emblazoned there. My fear was that Christianity Today had drunk the Kool-Aid of the Marriage Mandate Movement.

I am in strong agreement with PC on one point: Unmarried people can live without sex (and that without too much effort). Any suggestion to the contrary flies in the face of the clear teachings of the Word of God, which sufficiently addresses the issue of choice and sexual responsibility (1 Thess. 4:3-5). My readers can attest that I have been quick to lower the boom on any statement asserting that "men can't live without sex, blah, blah, blah." That said, I can see some of the point made by Mark Regnerus, the author of the article in question, about the challenges of staying pure. The hoops we make people (especially men) jump though in order to get married well is, at best, an unnecessary barrier to promoting sexual morality.

Here is what the church should do: It should support a social trend towards making the goal of marriage obtainable, but nonetheless optional, for young people. Unfortunately, what some religious pundits seem to be doing is making the goal of marriage unobtainable by upholding unrealistic social expections (chiefly the ones they pile on men), and yet making marriage mandatory at the same time. This latter course of action is irresponsible, unscriptural, and downright stupid.

In his comments about Christian men, Regnerus drops the ball. Like so many other commentators, he can't resist the temptation to paint single women as victims and men as immature playboys. He also can't resist the temptation to overstate the benefit of marriage to a man's development as a human being. Ignored are the social realities of "lifeboat feminism,"shrinking economic opportunities for men, unrealistic expectations of men by women, the objectification of men as success objects, the Cinderella Paradox (where the increased socioeconomic status of hypergamous women collides with the decreased ability of men to be desirable mates for said women), male-bashing, the divorce industry, the domestic violence industry, the sexual harassment industry, our therapeutic culture's focus on making women happy above all else, and the simple plain fact that men don't need to marry if they don't feel like it (oh, and did I mention lifeboat feminism?).

Yet as much as I may disagree with some of the key points of the article, I though this line was pure gold: "In societies like ours that exhibit lengthy economic prosperity, men and women alike begin to lose motivation to marry and have children, and thus avoid one or both." Believers need to keep this in mind the next time they are tempted to blame the New World Order, environmentalists, Democrats, slacker dudes playing video games, or the such like for people not wanting to "play house."

At any rate, read Regnerus' piece with a large chunk of salt.

A Necessary Rant

2009-07-11T15:14:00.009-05:00

All the recent discussion on various blogs about the decline of marriage and fatherhood has got me to thinking. Suppose you were on a cruise ship that got sucked into a maelstrom and landed on an island in a parallel universe. While on the island, you notice a odd phenomenon about the natives. All the men insist on only marrying healthy, attractive women. However, they routinely deny women adequate nutrition, exercise, etc. The end result is that most women are not attractive enough for the men. Also, the men routinely ignore some of the women who are partially attractive because the men have such high standards. So many partially attractive women grow old without a husband. Then the men ignore these women even more and accuse these women of having issues. The men also complain about their being "not enough good women to go around."

How would you feel about these men? How should one feel? You know where I am going with this, don't you? Yep, let's turn the tables. Now you know just how despicable many women are. There is a systemic problem with female expectations in this society. Let's face the facts: Men have been betrayed by women. When many of us were growing up in the shadow of feminism, we were told that women wanted equality. Did that mean true equality? Men were promised that they could be sensitive and they didn't have to be success objects. Men were led to believe that social dominance wasn't not as important as a man's character. Men were led to believe that women would love them for who they were and not for the roles people expected men to fulfill. It's all been a lie.

Too many women are not interested in equality as they are in "eekwalitee" (having their cake and eating it, too). Women are the choosier sex and often express a preference for socially dominant males (men who are confident, ambitious, resilient, industrious, and who have social assets - whether that be looks, wealth, intelligence, or whatever suits the whim of women for that given moment). After all, we are told that women need to pick wisely in order to maximize the benefit for their offspring.

And yet what have we seen?

1. Men being socially disenfranchised as women compete with them for social, legal, and economic power. Men are left scratching their heads. How can women expect men to provide something that women are taking away in the first place?

2. Men have been psychologically beaten down by an anti-male society. From an early age onward, they receive little or no affirmation or encouragement. They encounter very few positive male role models and they receive no real mentoring. Mostly it's blame, recrimination, ridicule, vilification, and neglect they receive at the hands of others and the hands of culture as a whole. The end result is that these men either don't have self-confidence or don't have any ambition (traits women find attractive in men). How could the men have these traits? How could they feel that they have a stake in a society that repeatedly demonstrates indifference, distrust, or outright hostility towards them? Again, how can anyone expect men to possess something that is being taken away in the first place?

The bottom line is that men are having an increasingly difficult time being what women want them to be. And what's even more disconcerting is that many women don't even seem to be bothered by that. It's make one wonder if women have just seen men as a means to an end: genetic material and resources for the offspring. Now that women can receive much of what they want without men, look how many of them act. Women in the mainstream media revel about the demise of men. If these women said similar things about blacks or Jews, they would be dismissed as mentally unhinged. Indeed, they are mentally unhinged, but very few people challenge these women on their sick, mindless, androphobic drivel.

Don't you dare tell me it's "the way women are" and that I need to deal with it. If we place social constraints on the behavior of men, then corresponding constraints need to be placed on women. Churches rant and rave about male promiscuity, the "male gaze", and men "being hung up on looks." Where are the church sermons that address the problem women have in objectifying men as success objects? Have you heard any lately? In the animal kingdom, a lot of female organisms work to accumulate resources for themselves and their offspring with little or no regard for others. Male organisms are reduced to a disposable resource. What are faith communities doing to challenge women to move beyond such a base mode of existence? We talk about a "Christian worldview" but I think a lot of conservative women act like Darwinists in their relationship with men. We are hypocritical when we suggest that masculinity and the male sex drive are sinfully disordered (a result of the Fall, or whatever), but the behavior of women is just "something natural" and the "way they were designed." Excuse me, but I have a difficult time believing the Creator designed women to treat men like tools, or worse, like garbage.

A lot of women are being incredibly foolish if they think society can move on just fine without being concerned about the welfare of men. Readers should take note of this: Women have no power unless men consent to it. That even goes for sexual power. If men don't have a personal stake in the welfare of future generations, then there won't be any future generations. If a critical mass of men start caring more about video games than about impregnating women and parenting the resultant offspring, then this society will fall flat on its face (or it will be replaced by something more rooted in reality). The future is not independent-minded white women. The future is traditionalist, brown-skinned women of an "ancient and enduring" people "whose language you do not know."

Women can't expect to play "top dog" and yet be married to the "top dog." There can only be one "top dog." Embracing gender equality means ditching the Alpha Male Fantasy(tm). Embracing the Alpha Male Fantasy(tm) means ditching gender equality. Remember what I said about the New Gender Deal. Women can't have it both ways.

People also need to start showing genuine compassion, concern, and respect for men as human beings; they need stop acting like men need to earn these things. Otherwise, an increasing amount of men are going to get the idea that nobody genuinely and honestly cares about their inherent worth as people. When men start believing that, they are not going to show much care and concern in return. I think that lies at the heart of much of the crimes men commit.

In short, if nothing changes, then women are going to destroy this society. It's going to be a classic case of the Tragedy of Commons. You don't like me talking about women? Too bad. There's going to be little or no real progress for men and women until women get their act together and rethink their behavior. We can blame the government, the liberals, the New World Order, technology, chivalrous men, genes, or whatever, but here's the indisputable truth: A critical mass of women are primarily responsible for the mess that has come about. Someone needs to point this out. When women constantly belittle, demean, and marginalize men at every turn, someone needs to say something. When women try to have their "eekwalitee" cake and eat it too, giving men the shaft in the process, someone needs to say something. Otherwise, the whole mess is going to explode in the face of women, and they will have no one to cry to.

The Behavior of Women (A Video Interview)

2009-07-11T01:53:00.001-05:00

A few days ago, I came across a video interview between Dr. Helen Smith (aka "Dr. Helen") and Dr. Richard Driscoll that was originally aired on Father's Day. Novaseeker has already covered it (with probably some other bloggers), and perhaps some of you may have already seen it. All the same, I find the interview to be thought-provoking for what it has to say about the behavioral patterns of women as a group. It's telling when two psychologists reiterate what many MRAs take for granted.

Here's what grabbed my attention ...

1. Driscoll indicates that our status quo depends on chivalry and men who are desperate for female approval (i.e., getting sex).

2. Driscoll affirms that men like sex more than women and that women are choosier in mating. This shows how utterly hypocritical people are in attacking the so-called "unrealistic standards of beauty" men putatively have without addressing how women can be picky to a fault.

3. Driscoll claims that women are hardwired to perturb men and give them grief (to "test" them, as it were). He also confirms that women are hypergamous, which doesn't bode well as women economically disenfranchise men.

4. Driscoll points to a survey where 34% of women were found to be always resentful of men, compared to 14% of men being always resentful of women. Quite chilling, but it confirms the prevalence of misandry (and why the charge of misogyny is often false and patently stupid).

5. Driscoll avers that relationships are predicated upon the exchange of a man's resources for sexual access to women. Driscoll narrowly skirts by calling marriage "prostitution" but I think it's worth addressing. Is Marriage 2.0 nothing more than "prostitution" with a grossly-inflated price tag? Are religious conservatives basically pushing church-sanctioned prostitution? Are married men nothing more than glorified Johns, where the primary thing that is valued is not their humanity, but their money? How do women view their relationship with men when the money dries up? Do women really take hubby "for richer or poorer" or are they lying through their teeth?

Bottom line: I am not a hardcore marriage-avoider, but having watched the video, I will not be surprised if more men have vasectomies and stay inside with the video games.

Male-Bashing at Boundless (Again)

2009-07-06T23:49:00.006-05:00

On a recent podcast at Boundless, Lisa Anderson discusses a sentiment that seems to be common among some women she has talked to: If a man is still single by a certain age, then there is something wrong with him (Never mind that single women don't have to jump through as many hoops as men do in order to attract the opposite sex.). Ted Slater thinks there's some truth with the sentiment expressed by these women. You can hear the salient part of the exchange here (starting at 18:00 minutes into the broadcast).

Yeah, bachelors are just a bunch of dysfunctional ne'er-do-wells who are a drain on our society.

Recommended Essay

2009-07-03T15:40:00.006-05:00

I was troving the MRA blogosphere when I stumbled across a wonderful essay by F. Roger Devlin ("The Feminine Sexual Counter-Revolution and Its Limitations"). Devlin has written for a publication called Occidental Quarterly and apparently the essay in question was supposed to be published by that journal. The piece is over year old and perhaps some of you have already seen it, but it nonethless gets to the heart of one of things this blog has been trying to fight. That is, the whole neo-chivalrous, "damsel in distress," marriage mandate, Makenite tripe that has gripped the imagination of religious conservatives. Devlin's article busts the stupid myth that women are just precious little angels that need to protected from unscrupulous, immature men.

A juicy quote:

When the sexual revolution began, women imagined that the "slavery" of marriage was unfairly standing between themselves and endless erotic fulfillment. Forty years later, many are imagining instead that the availability to men of sex outside marriage is standing in the way of their wedding. "If other women were not sluts," they reason, "the man of my dreams would be forced to discover my true value and come crawling to me with a diamond ring." One of the interviewees from Shalit's first book, for example, complains: "After three dates when I wouldn't sleep with [a certain man], he dumped me, just like that! If you ask me, it's because it's way too easy for them. Why should they waste time with a girl like me when they can get it for free?" (RM, p. 104)

Now, how does the woman know this is the reason he "dumped" (stopped courting) her? Never once have I heard a woman say: "I am such a pain in the derriere that after just three dates men are charging for the exit." Appealing to the supposed universal availability of sex has become a way for women to avoid facing the reality of rejection. Men break off courtships for all kinds of reasons: they may sense that a particular girl might not be faithful, is not careful with money, has too many bad habits, or just plain is not for them. Holding out for wedding rings is not going to solve these women's problems and allow them to live happily ever after. If we could wave a magic wand and cause extramarital sex to disappear overnight, many women would be shocked to discover that handsome movie stars were still not flocking to their doorsteps with flowers and chocolates. (emphasis mine).

Devlin's essay is actually a review article of Wendy Shalit, but it could have just easily been a response to Debbie Maken, Albert Mohler, certain staff writers for Boundless.org, and the Evangelical Establishment Media to boot. It's a lengthy piece, so don't scan over it and miss the good stuff. Enjoy.

Puma on Marriage 2.0

2009-06-20T14:13:00.002-05:00

[Puma left a comment on Marriage 2.0 that I thought was worthy of reprinting ...]

Marriage 2.0 is like the shapeshifter alien in sci-fi movies, which has killed the original crew member and took his shape.

This is why it is so difficult to warn men about the dangers of marriage; because they say: "What are you talking about? That is Scotty. He is not a bad guy. My family has known him for years!" ... not realizing that Scotty is dead, and in his place is this beast that is getting ready to devour everyone else on the ship.

The same tactic is used by the HIV virus when it commandeers human white blood cells, by replacing their DNA with its own. That cell is no longer a human cell, but a virus factory that then infects many other cells. The body can't defend it, because your other white blood cells still think it's one of them, and won't attack it, or try to stop it.

That's why we need some kind of marker to call it out. Calling it Marriage 2.0 can be that marker. Without it, when Joe Public sees our anti-marriage rants, he thinks we are a bunch of Anarchists insulting the choices of all their ancestors (i.e. getting married). Whereas in reality we are warning them about the beast that has taken its place.

[Excellent words from Puma. I liked how he equated Marriage 2.0 to a shape shifter. I suppose other runner ups would be carnictis sordidcus of Skull Island or Carcharodon megalodon.]

My Response to the Question Posed

2009-06-17T21:06:00.006-05:00

Novaseeker has linked to this article, lifted some relevant quotes from it and asked his readers to ponder on what the quotes say about the women of Generation X or thereabouts.

Well, I already have a response. It comes courtesy of another writer, and it's a rather nice response given that it appears, of all places, in the British MSM. Click here for your pleasure. Yes, ladies, we are getting wise to what many of you are all about.

Endgame is nearing. It's almost as if Neil Lyndon channeled Daniel Plainview. I can image the latter declaring, "Stop your crying, you sniveling yuppie females, stop that nonsense. You're just the by-product of Nanny Statism, secularism, and consumerism. They should have put you on some old reruns of Days of Our Lives from the eighties, given all the drama you exude. Where were you when women were screaming for their rights and putting traditional men down? Sucking your pacifier? The good will's been had. There's nothing you can do about it. It's gone. It's had. You loose."

Just my two cents worth.

EDIT: In fairness, some female journalists see through the nonsense, too.

Marriage 2.0

2009-06-16T21:40:00.003-05:00

After reading a post on MarkyMark's blog, I have become aware of a term that has entered the vernacular of a few MRAs. It's called "Marriage 2.0." Basically, it serves as an umbrella designation for everything that is wrong with marriage today in terms of what it offers (or fails to offer) men. For examples, see here, here, and here. I like it. It separates the wheat from the chaff. Already, I am thinking of examples of how to use it ...

"Churches are trying to shame men into Marriage 2.0."

"Marriage 2.0 is not a part of manhood."

"Just how do men benefit from Marriage 2.0 anyway?"

"God ordained marriage, but I doubt he ordained Marriage 2.0."

The above are just a few possible examples of what I might say. You have been forwarned. ;-)

Mother Worship (The Primal Roots of Chivalry)

2009-06-11T21:42:00.009-05:00

Novaseeker has recently posted an excellent piece on why chivalry needs to come to an end. In thinking about chivalry myself, I wonder if men's rights activists need to look more at how men are affected by their mothers in this regard. No one challenges the truism that the "hand that rocks the cradle rules the world," so why aren't people who are interested in men's issues discussing the ramifications of what this means?

I'm certain there will be plenty of men that deny that they are under the control of their mothers. There is a stigma attached to men who are. They are called "momma's boys." However, watch what happens to a man if you insult his mother. You may accuse me of waxing Freudian, but we are stupid to deny that there is a special bond between a mother and her son. Even if the bond is dysfunctional and characterized by abuse and neglect, the influence is still there.

Here are some inarguable facts: The mother is the primary caregiver for a boy the moment he comes into the world. This typically lasts well into middle school years. If there is no strong male figure around, this can last into young adulthood. Let's be more specific about the primary caregiver role. Human beings are born with a need for physical intimacy, quite apart from any latter considerations about sexual development. A man's first experience with physical intimacy comes from his mother when he is an infant. She additionally provides food, dress, clothing, warmth, and relief from psychological distress to her baby son. Finally, she is the first contact he has with the opposite sex. A very young boy may refer to grown women as "mommies" before he learns better.

I will not linger on restating the obvious of developmental psychology, here. True, boys grow into men, and usually make a significant psychological break from their childish idealization of their mothers. They may talk of marrying their mothers at age 3, but not at age 13. But let's not kid ourselves. A man's relationship with his mother usually has an impact on how he relates to women.

We hear the term "momma's boy" bandied about. Unfortunately, it may be misused against grown men who have a healthy relationship with their mothers and who are merely trying to honor their mother as the Bible commands. I think of envious wives and girlfriends who resent the affection a man may have for his mother. Unfortunately, in some cases, the only woman that may truly care for a man is his mother, and I think it is by virtue of the fact that he is her child. Women often give to their own children the unconditional love they seem incapable of giving to men their own age.

Yet, there is perhaps some men who truly haven't quite cut the apron strings. To many people, these men seem admirable and responsible. But in actuality they have simply transferred their childish idealization of their mother to women in general. A gynocentric culture may reinforce
this childish idealization of women by men. This may lie at the taproot of the chivalry we see.

I hear so many fellow men talking about how they can't live without women (whether it be due to the sex, the intimacy, or whatever). These men extrapolate from their own insecurities and assume that other men are equally beholden to women. It's truly galling and nauseating. Like male infants who haven't formed an identity separate from their mothers, these men refuse to form an identity independent of what women think of them. I think these men need to cut the apron strings in their minds.

Men need to stop treating women like Mesopotamian fertility goddesses. Women are not going to magically make the crops grow, put food on your table, make everything in your life fall into place, etc. We may feel naked in the face of the existential abyss. Indeed, we are. Running to the arms of the opposite sex is not going to make the abyss go away, however. Only God can touch the deepest longings, loneliness, fears, and vulnerabilities of the human heart.

Women are only human. They can be just as messed up as men are. In a gynocentrist society, they are oftentimes even more messed up than men. They are not the default solution to men's problems. In too many cases, women are the problem. The Bible tells us men how to treat women, especially the ones in our families. We can honor them, we can provide for them, sacrifice for them, and love them as Christ commands us. But please, men, stop worshipping them. If more men heeded this advice, we might make some progress in securing justice for both sexes.

Albert Mohler's Reading List For Men

2009-06-10T01:42:00.006-05:00

Albert Mohler has compiled a list of books he recommends for reading during the summer. He says it is "intended especially for men, and it is written in the hope that men and older boys will find this list particularly helpful and interesting." So what is on the list? Except for one book, it's nothing but books about war. In other words, books that deal with killing and breaking things. Pretty dim view of masculinity, don't you think? Is that all men are about? Is that what they should primarily be about? Man as the aggressor? It's a caricature of manhood that feminists vilify and that conservatives idolize. Both groups really have no clue about what masculinity is about.

One more thing about war: You know, chemotherapy kills good cells as well as bad cells. It makes the body sick but it also saves lifes in the end. Nobody, however, recommends chemotherapy as a part of a daily health regimen. There is even less rationale for the wars we fight, and yet we embrace militarism as a culture. We celebrate state-sanctioned killing. We give the soldier high-fives instead of feeling sorry for putting him in a morally questionable position in the first place. We essentially equate war with manhood. War is not only the health of the state, it's the health of misandry. It's also the health of certain apostate expressions of religiosity that masquerade as "biblical Christianity."

Kid's Cereal for Feminists

2009-06-08T22:23:00.007-05:00

It's interesting that Tom Neven of Boundless brought up a case about a lawsuit over a kid's cereal brand. I've been having my own thoughts about the issue of kid's cereal, and I conclude it's only a matter of time before academia and government address the controversy surrounding this consumer product. Specifically, I am concerned about cereal mascots. Toucan Sam, Tony the Tiger, Dig 'Em Frog, the Rice Krispies Elves, Silly Rabbit, Count Chocula, and other notables are clearly male (which is a social problem).

The obvious gender imbalance may affect the self-esteem of young girls. To correct this situation, a bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives by the Democratic members of the Women's Caucus, entitled the Lily Loopy Cereal Equality Act. A government agency will oversee the introduction of new brands of cereal on the market reflecting the aspirations of young female consumers. Some examples include ...

1. Gaia - Not your typical kids cereal. It contains puffs made from organically grown rice with a small packet of the natural sweetener Stevia, marketed under "fair trade" specifications. Also included is an educational booklet for young girls discussing the importance of the environment and possible careers in science.

2. PowerPuffs!! (with the two exclamation marks) - It features the PowerPuff Girls(tm) as the mascots. Commercials will feature young girls beating boys in some traditionally masculine pastime. "Every bowl's a bowl of Grrl Power!!!"

3. Bratz C3r3l - For the modern material girl and lipstick feminist. Cereal box features significantly more prizes than usual.

Of course, there will be no need to create brands of cereal targeted towards boys, because we live in a patriarchal culture and every brand of cereal is really a boy's cereal, anyway. Girls, on the other hand, will be encouraged to eat whatever brand they like.

Follow your nose.

A Little Dirty Truth About 2nd Wave Feminism

2009-06-06T14:22:00.003-05:00

I found this interesting video, which discusses an incident that I heard about some time ago (I think Stephen Baskerville may have mentioned something about it, but I can't remember.). Anyway, in this video, Aaron Russo relates a story about his personal dealings with the Rockefellers and their role in spreading feminism.

Click here for the video.

Two Women Who "Just Don't Get It" About This Blog

2009-05-29T21:14:00.009-05:00

This blog has been linked to Emerson Eggerichs by a female blogger named Suzanne McCarthy as well as by one of her readers (named "Janet"). In a comment to a post by Suzanne, Janet says:

"Just to clarify, Eggerich[s] doesn't support MGTOW (acronym for "men going their own way"), but some of the guys on MGTOW sites quote from Eggerich's book to justify their ideas about all the world's ills coming from "feminists", "skanks" and generally nagging shrews who just won't submit to male authority. The Biblical Manhood site is one such blog." (emphasis mine)

For the record, I do not support Eggerichs. Eggerichs says women need love, whereas men need respect. Actually, the Bible supports the converse as much it supports Eggerichs' contention (Titus 2:4 - women are to "love their husbands"; 1 Peter 3:7 - men are to "treat" their wives with "respect", NKJV). If Janet and Suzanne had actually taken the time to read about my views on women (something I highly doubt they did), they would realize the my stance on gender issues is much more nuanced than they imply by their comments.

Regarding MGTOW, Suzanne made this ridiculous claim:

"The second question is whether the subordination of women movement among Christians is not actually a part of a wider cultural phenomenon reflected in groups like MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way." (emphasis mine)

Then there is this quote Janet at a different blog**:

"For example, there has been a burgeoning Christian 'men’s rights' movement on this internet (aka 'MGTOW', 'MRA') that uses Eggerich’s writings to reinforce their mysogynistic stereotypes of women as shrews. In the wrong hands, Eggerich’s sweeping quotes can be very toxic stuff."

Wrong, ladies. MGTOW, by itself, is not about subordination of women. It's not even inherently religious or culturally conservative, although some MGTOWers are. The MGTOW movement is quite diverse and largely centers on a message of self-determination for men, free of society's gynocentrist and misandrist expectations of men. I suspect Suzanne and Janet have spent little or no reading after MGTOWers, much less trying to understand their concerns. Like many gynocentrists, they're trigger happy against men who dare have any opinions about gender roles that are not shaped by feminist discourse.

I've been interested in men's issues for a long time. I don't know if Suzanne and Janet would claim to be feminists, but I will say this: I have yet to meet one feminist who did not grossly misrepresent men's groups as being repressive to women, wanting to keep women under the thumb, etc. I find feminists to be largely an unethical group of people in that regard. What Suzanne and Janet engaged in is a textbook example of the shaming tactic known as the Charge of Misogyny ("Code Black"). If they are not feminists, they most certainly act like they are.

**The URL for Janet's remark is (please note it is broken on two lines for those cutting and pasting) ...

http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/
reproducing-an-older-post/#comment-5826

(Last accessed May 30, 2009 at 1:06 AM)

Chauvinist Pigs

2009-05-24T19:03:00.015-05:00

For those who are old enough to remember the "Battle of the Sexes" that was waged in the sixties and seventies, consider the concerns that many women had about men. What, according to women, was the problem with men? I believe many women viewed men as the following ...

1. Boorish
2. Crass
3. Rude
4. Angry
5. Mean-spirited
6. Bullying
7. Violent
8. In love with status, power, and things
9. Shallow
9. Egotistical
10. Insensitive to others
11. Clueless when it comes to relationships
12. Sexist
13. Promiscuous
14. Unfaithful
15. Treacherous
16. Destructive

Isn't this list pretty much the take the feminists had on the stereotypical, 1950s style "male chauvinist pig"? Didn't women say that the aforementioned traits, too often found among men, were problematic for relationships, family and society? Didn't women say that men in general were complicit in allowing these behaviors to predominate? Didn't women say that even good men needed to examine themselves and see if they needed to make changes? Didn't women say that all men needed to consider how they acted even in their closest relationships with family members of the opposite sex? In other words, a man claiming that he loved his wife and mother was no defense against the charge of sexism.

Nobody balked at the feminists. Nobody told women to shut up. Society did not question these concerns. Even most conservatives today have conceded to some of these concerns. My generation was weaned and raised in the wake of trying to address these concerns. Men did adopt.

Pray tell, how do women act now? Let us repeat that list ...

1. Boorish
2. Crass
3. Rude
4. Angry
5. Mean-spirited
6. Bullying
7. Violent [yup, I said that]
8. In love with status, power, and things
9. Shallow
9. Egotistical
10. Insensitive to others
11. Clueless when it comes to relationships
12. Sexist
13. Promiscuous
14. Unfaithful
15. Treacherous
16. Destructive

This is how women are glorified in our media. This is how they are allowed to act in our culture at large. Aren't the aforementioned traits, too often found among women, problematic for relationships, family and society? Aren't women in general complicit in allowing these behaviors to predominate? Don't even good women need to examine themselves and see if they need to make changes? Don't all women need to consider how they act even in their closest relationships with family members of the opposite sex? In other words, is a woman claiming that she loves her boyfriend, husband, or father a valid defense against the charge of sexism?

You say that I sound just like a feminist? Well, I sound just like what society has said for the last thirty to forty years about men. Do you want to go back to a time when men were allowed to treat women as inferiors in the home, the classroom, the workplace, before the law, and in culture at large? No? Then we need to drop the bomb on women who treat men as inferiors in the home, the classroom, the workplace, before the law, and in culture at large. Just as feminists were not ashamed to point out the failures of men, I will not be ashamed to point out the failures of women. Don't accuse me of "misogyny" when I point out the truth about women. That is a shaming tactic, and I won't listen to you when you hurl that charge against me. I don't endeavor to spread hatred for women, but neither will I be silent when the Exulted Empress wears no cotton-pickin' clothes. What's good for the gander is good for the goose. It's time to give women a dose of the medicine they forced men to take. Without apology, I say, "Chug-a-lug, ladies."

Finding Manhood (Part 3: Resolution)

2009-05-16T01:28:00.004-05:00

[This is the final planned installment of a series on understanding biblical manhood. Those who agree with what is written are permitted and encouraged to reproduce it. No credit or attribution is necessary. Click here for the first installment and here for the second.]

It goes without saying that there are plenty of unsatisfactory paradigms and false metrics of manhood afloat in our social discourse. Many of these have been previously addressed and summarily debunked. What approach, then, should we take to the issue of biblical manhood? In answering this question, the following is not meant as an authoritative creed, but it is meant as a roadmap to help men in their quest for self-understanding.

Rejection of Functionalism

In critiquing the pro-choice position on abortion, the Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft has rightfully drawn attention to the problem of "functionalism" as a pervasive belief system in our culture. Consider what he has to say about its deleterious effect:

"Functionalism is not only theoretically weak, it is also practically destructive. Modern man is increasingly reducing his being to functions. We no longer ask, 'Who is he?' but, 'What does he do?' We think of a man as a fireman, not as a man fighting fires; of a woman as a teacher, not as a woman teaching.

"Functionalism arises with the modern erosion of the family. Our civilization is dying primarily because the family is dying. Half of our families commit suicide, for divorce is the family committing suicide qua family. But the family is the place where you learn that you are loved not because of what you do, your function, but because of who you are. What is replacing the family, where we are valued for our being? The workplace, where we are valued for our functioning."

We can see the destructive influence of functionalism with regard to the personhood of a fetus, a comatose patient, the elderly, or the permanence of the marital bond, yet we blindly ignore the destructive influence of functionalism in conceptualizing manhood. Religious conservatives, who ought to know better, fall into this trap. Consider what Albert Mohler has declared: "In a biblical perspective, manhood is defined in these roles and responsibilities [father/protector/provider]. A man is defined in terms of who he is and what he does in obedience to God" (emphasis original). Mr. Mohler's speech betrays him. He has simply taken the worldly philosophy of functionalism and dressed it up in religious garb.

In reality, the essence of manhood does not lie in embracing a role, that is, performing a function. Manhood is the birthright of every adult, male human being, whether we respect that man or not. Biblical manhood is rooted in a relationship with God. This relationship is effected through the atoning work of Christ, not through performing duties and rituals (Eph. 2:8). Biblical manhood is a male state of being, which manifests itself in good works as God gives ability and opportunity to a man. In the absence of ability and opportunity, however, a man can still be as God wants him to be. The elderly, unmarried, childless paralytic can thus glorify God just as much as the young married preacher of a megachurch, if not more so.

What can men do for society? What can men do for women? These are the wrong questions to ask. Men do not need to make an apology for their existence. They have worth as those who bear the image of God (Gen. 1:26). That others may have no use for men is immaterial. Men can find fulfillment through Christ (John 4:13-14; 10:10) without needing the affirmation of others (Luke 6:22-23).

Regulative Principle of Manhood

Some may be familiar with the concept of the Regulative Principle of Worship. It is an approach to biblical interpretation, embraced by some faith traditions and applied to the practices of corporate worship in a church setting. According to this principle, whatever is not specifically enjoined by the Scriptures through command, example, or necessary inference is rejected as an unauthorized addition to worship.

A similar approach can be taken to the issue of masculinity. The Regulative Principle of Manhood is rooted in the concept of sola scriptura. That is, the Word of God is the sole authority for determining the spiritual requirements of manhood (1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Tim. 3:16). Yet, even in this, the Word must be rightly divided (2 Tim. 2:15). Man is no more bound by incidental passages in the Bible relating to a culture of a pre-Christian age than he is to the particular elements of temple worship in the Old Testament. Acknowledging this truth provides a sound mooring for defining biblical manhood, even as many religious pundits go astray in this regard (whether it be pushing arbitrary courtship rules or other antiquated ideas about how men should behave, etc.).

Men must look to the New Covenant, as laid forth by Christ and his apostles, as the rule of faith (Hebrews 8:1-13). This rule of faith is the standard by which biblical manhood is defined, not religious leaders, not the latest volumes stocked in "family bookstores," not one's church, not custom, not tradition, not speculations about what is "natural," and not popular notions of what is right. Biblical manhood is simply manifested according to the following parameters:

1. The general commandments by God given to humanity (Eccl. 12:13).

2. Specific commands given to men in specific capacities regarding the church and the family (e.g., Col. 3:19; 1 Pet. 3:17; Eph. 6:4).

3. The rejection of all false metrics and false paradigms of masculinity as unacceptable distortions of biblical manhood (Mark 7:7; Prov. 30:5-6).

4. Charity and the willingness to extend liberty and tolerance to men in areas not addressed by the previous parameters (Romans 14).

Ultimately, the Regulative Principle of Manhood grants men considerable freedom in defining their masculinity. It also serves as a check against legalism and the social tyranny perpetuated against men by academics, popular culture, traditionalists, and the such like. One finds that in Christ, the dividing wall of hostility is broken down between the truck driver and the poet. In fact, the truck driver and the poet can be the same man.

The Principle of Societal Covenant (The "Nebuchadnezzar Principle")

The Bible tells of the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. The books of Jeremiah and Lamentations, in particular, portray this event as a divine judgment against the Jewish people. Because the Jews were not faithful to God, God removed his protection from them and allowed their kingdom to be conquered. In discussing biblical manhood, there is a principle to be carried away from this historical event.

Men have an unconditional obligation to love God and they have an unconditional obligation to love fellow human beings (Mark 8:29-31). They do not have an unconditional obligation to a visible institution, a set of customs, or a given culture. Visible institutions, customs, and cultures govern transactions between people. They ebb and flow with the tide of history, and their legitimacy is dependent upon their agreement with the Holy Writ. Whatever obligation they would impose upon men must be offset by some meaningful benefit to men.

The reason for this is as follows: God is one who interacts with humanity by means of covenant. Humanity's obedience to God is rewarded with blessings from God. Disobedience is rewarded with punishment (2 Cor. 5:10) (as was the case with the kingdom of Judah). Humanity is created in the image of God and interactions between people are governed by God's moral law (Matt. 7:12). Thus, the idea of covenant is central to the function of a healthy society. "Covenant breakers" are judged harshly by God's word (Rom. 1:31, ASV).

When society breaks its covenant with men, it condemns itself. Men do not have an obligation to promote a system of human interactions or an institution that is morally corrupt (Revelation 18:2-5). Men have the right to turn their backs on such. From the Reformation to the Montgomery Bus Boycott to the fall of Communism, this maxim has held true. The moment society declared that the "personal" was "the political" was the moment men could no longer trust in the stability of the most basic social institution of all--marriage. Since men have no scriptural obligation to personally embrace this institution, their personal rejection of marriage is their inalienable right (1 Cor. 7:32; 35-38). More generally, men do not have obligation to protect and support a culture that belittles and devalues them. They are, in this respect, justified in "going their own way." A culture that does not cherish men is accursed. Barrenness is the death sentence. Such a culture must repent of its stance towards men before it is too late.

Militancy (The Conclusion of the Matter)

Men who would enjoy the fruits of the aforementioned principles have the obligation to defend them. For too long, men have been too apathetic and too accommodating towards others. The laudable tendency of men to protect others, to be self-reliant, to refuse to complain, etc. has been turned against them by powerful interest groups. Some might declare that men should move beyond their anger in order to be more "spiritual." But godly anger in the face of injustice and sin is no vice (Mark 3:5; 2 Cor. 11:29; Eph. 4:26).

Men should not stand idly by. If they choose the route of being agreeable, then the most outrageous and despicable ideas about men will be mainstreamed--even in our faith communities. Men will truly suffer, then. Men need to speak out, if need be, in classrooms, in workplaces, in church buildings, against politicians, on the internet, on talk radio, to family and friends, whenever, wherever. Silence may be necessary in some venues in order to avoid undue attention and persecution, but silence borne out of apathy and indifference is never excusable. In short, men can embrace biblical manhood by first embracing the truth. The choice is theirs to make; one can only hope that they choose wisely.

Cited Sources:

Albert Mohler, "Masculinity without Manhood?," March 5, 2008. Available at www.albertmohler.com.

Peter Kreeft, "Human Personhood Begins at Conception," n.d. Available at www.peterkreeft.com.

Lifeboat Feminism

2009-05-12T22:16:00.006-05:00

Elusive Wapiti has a post on "lifeboat feminism" that's worth reading, and I'm sure some of you have already seen it. I've got my own two cents to add to this story. When a woman says she is "not a feminist," I suspect she means something along the lines of the following ...

* she shaves her armpits
* she likes to wear make-up and high heels
* she is not a lesbian
* she's not adverse to getting married and having sex with men
* she likes the idea of the man taking initiative in many ways
* she's not angry at men as a whole
* she might go to church
* she probably doesn't support various leftist causes
* (maybe ...) she doesn't like the welfare state
* she doesn't want a unisex society
* she opposes abortion

But that's largely where the rejection of feminism ends. In many other ways, I say most women in our society today embrace "lifeboat feminism" to some degree or another. I think a large percentage of men do, too (if not a majority of them). Lifeboat feminism is the predominant paradigm for gender relations, just as statism is the predominant political philosophy. Both the cultural left and the cultural right have their own particular permutations of lifeboat feminism, just as they do with respect to statism. Among the religious, I daresay lifeboat feminism represents the largest group of believers. The second largest group are the patriarchalists, a group that wants women home-schooled, married through courtship, confined to the house, and pregnant. Then there is the last group that just wants the hypocrisy to end, that is, a handful of pugnacious male bloggers that will go unnamed. Anyway, both lifeboat feminism and statism result in the same thing: innocent people getting the shaft.

Later, folks.

Does Marriage Make Men Happier and Healthier?

2009-05-07T12:00:00.000-05:00

You've seen all the statistics on how married men are happier than single men. You might think that marriage is the cure for the single man's depression. And you would be wrong. As this linked article points out, marriage does not have much of an affect on the state of mind that you already had. So what are we to make of all those unhappy single men out there? I suspect a lot of those studies about unhappy single men demonstrate a self-selection bias. Single men tell themselves they can't have a life without a woman and therefore they believe their own tale. Q.E.D. What tale are you going to tell yourselves, gentlemen?

As for marriage making men healthier, I've covered that matter before. However, I found another piece on this matter that was worth a read. The last part of the article suffers from a bit of kneejerk leftism (the part about accepting the lifestyles of gay and lesbian friends), but other than that, it serves as a good sledgehammer against the stereotype that single men are creepy, porn-addicted losers with anti-social proclivities.

Condolences for MLV

2009-05-04T12:00:00.001-05:00

Many of you know "MLV" (the blogger behind Many Luxury Vacations). I've always liked reading MLV's posts on how men get shafted by the church and religious women. Recently, he posted an announcement that he is in "the final stages of inoperable cancer." I left a note on his blog offering my condolences and I offer them here again. If you haven't done so already, you might want to drop by his blog and leave him a note.

Thanks folks.

Cultural Conservatives and the Religious Establishment Do Not Care About Men

2009-04-28T23:09:00.001-05:00

Though I have done a lot of writing on the intersection between religion and men's issues, I thought I take this opportunity to offer the following summation of my concerns: Cultural conservatives and the religious establishment do not care about men. Granted, I am willing to acknowledge that there are notable exceptions to my thesis, but in large, I think it stands as an axiomatic observation. I say this from the perspective of one who is a men's rights activist and a Christian man. I submit for your consideration some propositions which are subordinate to my thesis. I do not intend to get into a detailed discussion about them, but I offer them as talking points for an ongoing discourse that I have been having for some time on this blog and elsewhere.

Cultural conservatives and the religious establishment do not care about men as evidenced by the following ...

1. They expect men to silently bear pain, suffering, shame, and humiliation at the hands of others in the name of "manhood" and "virtue."

2. They are largely silent on issues that men's rights activists address, such as lopsided divorce laws, paternity fraud, male-bashing in media, etc.

3. They assert that men are primarily, if not solely, at fault for the problems that arise between the sexes (either in interpersonal relationships or in general).

4. They generally don't hold women accountable for their actions against men.

5. They address issues which affect men only to extent that such issues might be of concern to women and others.

6. They treats a man's masculinity and humanity as a privilege that can be granted or withdrawn by others (viz., all the talk about what "real men" do).

7. They define manhood in terms of a man's usefulness to women and others.

8. They push antiquated stereotypes about what men should be like (e.g., having an extroverted personality type, being stoic, etc.).

9. They push the notion of men being "protectors" and "providers" without any meaningful discussion about whether or not these roles are always necessary or appropriate for men.

10. They typically demand a type of arrangement between the sexes where options accrue to women and responsibilities to men. This is especially the case where men are expected to embrace traditional roles while women are given more leeway in how they define themselves.

11. They present marriage and fatherhood as hallmarks of masculinity, adulthood, and spiritual growth to such an extent that men who don't embrace marriage or fatherhood are put in a bad light.

12. They have high expectations of men but give no meaningful guidance or or assistance so that men can meet those expectations (viz., the expectation that young men should have the ability to support a family, even in unfavorable economic and social conditions).

13. They imply that male sexuality is, at best, of secondary importance to female sexuality. At worst, they regard male sexuality as being generally suspect or disordered.

14. Whatever outreach they offer to men, they imply that men are in need of remediation (e.g., the proliferation of "accountability groups" but no real support groups).

15. They have no compassion for socially marginalized men such as single men, divorced men, economically disadvantaged men, men who are socially awkward, men with emotional problems, men caught up in sexual sin, etc.

If you want an apt illustration of the disconnect between cultural conservatives and the welfare of men, consider the following on-air exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Mark Rudov ...

Bill O'Reilly's dismissive attitude is par for the course among cultural conservatives. Mark Rudov raises a valid issue about why women should be treated as "equals" if they need to be mollycoddled. O'Reilly never addresses that issue, and neither do a lot of other right-wing pundits who claim to be "against feminism."

Religious pundits are just as cavalier towards men's concerns. Why would they be otherwise? They cater to women and powerful men. Their paycheck does not depend on the men they excoriate, belittle, and demean. Or if it does, then these pundits escape accountability because the men they vilify are mentally arrested by fear, insecurity, a restrictive social upbringing, or just plain ignorance. All in all, from Phariseeism to Jim Crow to man-bashing, the religious establishment has dropped the ball on being merciful and just to those who are lower down on the social totem pole.

When you see a religious figure engaging in any of the behaviors I described, then you know what kind of specimen your dealing with. Jesus said you can know a tree by its fruit (Matthew 12:23). Some religious pundits just need to be marked and avoided (Romans 16:17). True, Christian men have an obligation to be a part of a visible faith community whenever possible (Hebrews 10:25), but they have no obligation to hold up the hands of those who fail to be compassionate to men. The Bible speaks of "shepherds" who are no shepherds but are, in fact, oppressors (Ezekiel 34). When these "shepherds" fail the flock, it's time to look to the One, True Shepherd for the healing our souls--Jesus Christ (Hebrews 13:20). If need be, leave your faith community if it does not respect men.

When cultural conservatives and the religious establishment start talking about men, and when they claim to be "concerned" about men, take their claims with a grain of salt. It may be a ruse and a sham. Cultural conservatives and the religious establishment are "concerned" about men as a commodity. Men's right activists, on the other hand, are concerned about men as people. Think on these things.

Lauren Winner on Men

2009-04-25T11:40:00.012-05:00

Well, dear readers, I've been very busy the last couple of weeks. I find myself somewhat annoyed, feeling the duty to address the anti-male nonsense that passes for religious journalism, and yet feeling too tired and preoccupied to hose the sheer volume of it off the sidewalk. A week or so ago, I read an article by Lauren Winner at Boundless.org which addresses the contemporary problem of men not being achievers like women are. You can read her article here and the reactions Boundless readers had to it here.

Now for some fiskin' ...

Lauren says ...

But when we talk about gender and leadership, we may have been leaving out one crucial fact of contemporary life: Regardless of what we say we think about women and leadership, when it comes to college-aged and 20-somethings, women are leading in all sorts of areas.

Let me offer two examples — one anecdotal and one backed up by hard research.

With all due respect, we've had more than enough of the anecdotal from women who write about the sexes, but anyway ...

The anecdotal example comes from just about every church I've visited in the last year. Ask church staff, especially staff in charge of young adult ministries, who steps up to the plate when something needs doing, and you are likely to get the answer, "women." ...

"What's going on here," one of my friends tells me, "is not just volunteering or service, but real lay leadership. I'm thrilled to have so many active, vibrant women working with me, but I do wonder why the guys are so slack — why men who regularly attend Sunday worship and come to all our single's group social events can never be counted on to help out with anything. And I probably perpetuate things, because now, when I really need something done, I often don't even think to ask any guys. I go to the women who I know can get things done."

No, I'll tell you "what's going here." A lot of churches in the Anglosphere are nothing more than social clubs for blue-haired ladies and their richer donors. There is no spiritual depth. The men who have a stake in institutionalized Christianity usually grew up in it. The men who haven't are probably not going to go for it, or if they do, they might find down the road that they have been taken for a ride. Here's what institutionalized Christianity thinks about socially marginalized men ...

"I have no sympathy for those pushing churches to cater to the unregenerate man as a way of drawing him in. The fact that a beer guzzling, Nascar watching, porn-viewing, minimum-wage earning loser thinks that church is not for him; well, he is right." -- Debbie Maken

Just substitute a few words with the phrases "tax collectors" and "sinners," and you'll understand my ire. But, hey, at least Debbie Maken is honest. Why would Joe Six-Pack darken the door of any place that treats him like a recovering child-molester, a useful idiot that pays and obeys, or scandalized object of pity (such as someone dying of AIDS). This is why books are being written by fellows like David Murrow and Paul Coughlin. 21st century Christendom in the West, liberal or conservative, is about as relevant as 1st century Judaism, Sudducean or Pharisaic.

Continuing on with Ms. Winner ...

"It's not just in the ranks of church volunteers that women are outshining men. According to a recent cover story in The Chronicle of Higher Education, women are outpacing men on college campuses, too. More women than men are attending college, and once they get there, women get better grades and devote more time to civic activities and serving in leadership positions in campus organizations. At graduation time, women also bring home more awards and honors than men.

"What are the guys doing while women are studying, running the sorority charity drive, leading a Bible study and heading up the school debate team? Playing Lost Planet and The Legend of Zelda. Seriously. According to the Chronicle article, that's one area in which male students do significantly best women: Men devote far more time than women to playing computer games. Men also exercise more and watch more TV, and are more likely to oversleep and miss class."

What's the problem, madam? Isn't this what you girls wanted? Higher education has been the hotbed of misandry and gynocentrism for the longest time. Women have had all sorts of entitlements and handouts from various social, educational, and legal institutions to engage them. Men haven't. Why would a man want to go into debt in the first place, just so he can sit in some English class and listen to some middle-age woman drone on about Margaret Atwood's book The Handmaid's Tale? When I was in college, I sat at the feet of "those oppressive white men" who were Ivy League-trained and read works written by "those oppressive white men." A lot has changed now and a college degree has, in many respects, become a joke. Young men know this.

Experts have been scratching their heads about this trend, but no one seems to have any solutions. Should colleges accept male students with lower GPAs, with the aim of having a student body that is roughly half men and half women? Should classroom standards be radically retooled and made more "boy friendly"? For example, should teachers accommodate students' differing learning styles by no longer asking them to sit still?

(Again, I'm not making this up. As strange as it may sound, a colleague recently suggested to me, in all seriousness, that the real problems begin in the fourth and fifth grade when boys were forced to "act like girls" by sitting still to learn.)

Sorry, Lauren, but I caught you. Nice rhetorical move on your part, but you've been outed. You are attempting to marginalize the concerns that others have about anti-male discrimination by characterizing these concerns as being "strange" etc.

Let me quote from the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics:

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) - The Brown Shirts Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples:

* "You're one of those right-wing wackos."
* "You're an extremist"
* "You sound like the KKK."
* "... more anti-feminist zaniness"

Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").

Anyway, moving right along, Lauren says ...

I was discussing the college gender gap with a group of honors college students at a Christian college a few weeks ago (and, notably, this honors class had far more female students than males). The students agreed that student leaders on campus tended to be women, and that women applied themselves more enthusiastically to their studies.

"You know what's really lousy about this?" said one gal. "There's no one to date. I mean, I want to date someone who is my equal, who challenges me, and who likes to spend his time doing some of the same things I do. I want to date someone who values the same things I value."

Well, sweetheart, maybe the guys think you and your hobbies are boring, or maybe they think you are a bit of a control freak. I dunno. Why is "the problem" always with the men? Get over yourself, ladies. If you want to marry up and have a knight in shining armor, then "get back in the kitchen." Men want to marry women who are attractive and have a great personality. They don't necessarily need a rocket scientist, or even a liberal arts professor. They want a helpmeet, not a competitor that reminds them of their boss and every other unpleasant authority figure they've known in their lives ...

So maybe that's the way to get men to take their studies more seriously — by pointing out that if they don't, they'll have a hard time catching the eye of an accomplished and interesting woman.

I'm so scared. Pass me the game controller, dude.

Are the two trends — the slack computer-gaming of male college students, and the seeming dearth of male volunteer leaders at churches — related?

I'm guessing they are. After all, college is a formative period, and (as your parents are endlessly telling you) "the habits you establish now will be with you for a lifetime."

Yes, because we are all now weekend statisticians that confusion correlation with causality. You know, folks, articles like this are all too predictable. If men are disengaged, well, it must be their own fault. They must be, like um, playing too many video games or looking at porn, or something like that, don't cha know. They need to grow up, man up, and be "Real Men(tm)!"

What should the church's response to this be? Well, I hope it's two-fold: First, women should get some applause for the wise way they're stewarding time and all the contributions they make to church and civic life. At the same time, we all need to encourage even young boys to devote more time to civic engagement and less to computer gaming.

I've asked before. I'll ask it again: Why should men care about a society that doesn't care about them? Pass the game controller, dude.

What we should not do is buy into a discourse that pits men against women, takes competition for granted, and tacitly assumes that only one group — men or women, but never both — can excel in college or take responsibility in church life.

All too often, discussions of any kind of "gender gap" polarize conversation. That is, people respond to the news that women outnumber men in college classrooms with panic and decide they need to devote all their attention to helping men out.

Whistling past the graveyard, aren't we, Lauren? Now boys and girls, Ms. Winner has instructed us to not say anything about the 300-pound gorilla in room that's urinating on the carpet. Mind your manners, now. But seriously, she might as well tell us to not think about pink elephants. Lauren needs to stop trying dictate the terms of the debate. Her suggestion comes off naive at best and condescending at worst.

The discussion was polarized from the start!! The polarization started when some ideologues decided the "personal" was the "political." It has been the feminists and their lackeys in government, academia, media, etc. who have elevated women by keeping men down. Young men have no positive mentors in their lives because their fathers are removed by homewrecking mothers or Nanny State functionaries. Education has become a "hostile and intimidating environment" for male student and male teacher alike at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary level. Women must take their share of the blame for this mess.

I believe Lauren Winner doesn't know any better. She has grown up in the wake of feminism and has spent her life in elite institutions where one can expect her gender to be coddled and pampered. She now teaches at one of those elite institutions. That doesn't make her a bad person (and I don't want to diminish her accomplishments), but I do believe her background poses some potential barriers to having a better understanding of the issues men face today. A lot of educated women have make their bed with the entitlements. Now they have to lie in it.

Views on Marriage (Church vs. Culture)

2009-04-04T11:47:00.008-05:00

I do not have to remind my readers that there is a difference between the spiritual realm and the secular realm, between what our faith communities uphold and what popular culture upholds. Scan the pages of church history and see what believing men of old have said about marriage, and compare their words to what the unbelieving voices of modernity have said. On one hand, we have these words ...

"Marriage is something more serious than the pleasure of two people in each other's company; it is an institution, which through the fact that it gives rise to children, forms part of the intimate texture of society, and has importance extending far beyond the personal feelings of the husband and wife."

"But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex, but as soon as children enter in, the husband and wife, if they have any sense of responsibility or any affection for their offspring, are compelled to realize that their feelings towards each other are no longer what is of most importance."

"I take this view because I regard marriage not primarily as a sexual partnership, but above all as an undertaking to cooperate in the procreation and rearing of children."

"Children are the purpose of marriage ..."

On the other hand, we have these negative statements ...

"The world is already full, and the population is too large for the soil."

"Grant this obtained; let us sketch a marriage in every way most happy; illustrious birth, competent means, suitable ages, the very flower of the prime of life, deep affection, the very best that each can think of the other, that sweet rivalry of each wishing to surpass the other in loving; in addition, popularity, power, wide reputation, and everything else. But observe that even beneath this array of blessings the fire of an inevitable pain is smouldering."

"If only, before experience comes, the results of experience could be learnt, or if, when one has entered on this course, it were possible by some other means of conjecture to survey the reality, then what a crowd of deserters would run from marriage into the virgin life; what care and eagerness never to be entangled in that retentive snare, where no one knows for certain how the net galls till they have actually entered it!"

"So many-sided, then, so strangely different are the ills with which marriage supplies the world. There is pain always, whether children are born, or can never be expected, whether they live, or die. One abounds in them but has not enough means for their support; another feels the want of an heir to the great fortune he has toiled for, and regards as a blessing the other’s misfortune; each of them, in fact, wishes for that very thing which he sees the other regretting. Again, one man loses by death a much-loved son; another has a reprobate son alive; both equally to be pitied, though the one mourns over the death, the other over the life, of his boy. Neither will I do more than mention how sadly and disastrously family jealousies and quarrels, arising from real or fancied causes, end. Who could go completely into all those details? If you would know what a network of these evils human life is, you need not go back again to those old stories which have furnished subjects to dramatic poets. They are regarded as myths on account of their shocking extravagance; there are in them murders and eating of children, husband-murders, murders of mothers and brothers, incestuous unions, and every sort of disturbance of nature; and yet the old chronicler begins the story which ends in such horrors with marriage. But turning from all that, gaze only upon the tragedies that are being enacted on this life’s stage; it is marriage that supplies mankind with actors there. Go to the law-courts and read through the laws there; then you will know the shameful secrets of marriage. Just as when you hear a physician explaining various diseases, you understand the misery of the human frame by learning the number and the kind of sufferings it is liable to, so when you peruse the laws and read there the strange variety of crimes in marriage to which their penalties are attached, you will have a pretty accurate idea of its properties; for the law does not provide remedies for evils which do not exist, any more than a physician has a treatment for diseases which are never known."

"If you do not throw into the fire wood, or straw, or grass, or something that it can consume, it has not the force to last by itself; so the power of death cannot go on working, if marriage does not supply it with material and prepare victims for this executioner. If you have any doubts left, consider the actual names of those afflictions which death brings upon mankind, and which were detailed in the first part of this discourse. Whence do they get their meaning? 'Widowhood,' 'orphanhood,' 'loss of children,' could they be a subject for grief, if marriage did not precede? Nay, all the dearly-prized blisses, and transports, and comforts of marriage end in these agonies of grief. The hilt of a sword is smooth and handy, and polished and glittering outside; it seems to grow to the outline of the hand; but the other part is steel and the instrument of death, formidable to look at, more formidable still to come across. Such a thing is marriage. It offers for the grasp of the senses a smooth surface of delights, like a hilt of rare polish and beautiful workmanship; but when a man has taken it up and has got it into his hands, he finds the pain that has been wedded to it is in his hands as well; and it becomes to him the worker of mourning and of loss. It is marriage that has the heartrending spectacles to show of children left desolate in the tenderness of their years, a mere prey to the powerful, yet smiling often at their misfortune from ignorance of coming woes. What is the cause of widowhood but marriage? And retirement from this would bring with it an immunity from the whole burden of these sad taxes on our hearts. Can we expect it otherwise?"

In the negative set of quotes, the first one is from Jerome. He is commenting on what a "present distress" means in terms of staying single (1 Cor. 7:25); in the same context, he quotes Jesus' statement on the "woe" of those who are "with child" and who "give suck" (Matt. 24:19). The remaining negative quotes are from Gregory of Nyssa's work "On Virginity." Both of these men are canonized saints in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. And for the first set quotes, which are more favorable towards marriage? They come from the book Marriage and Morals by Bertand Russell (an atheist).

You may ask, "What is the point? You've proven nothing. Anybody can quote somebody that agrees or disagrees with your beliefs." Indeed, quoting celebrated dead theologians in support of my position and comparing them to what an unbeliever might think doesn't say anything about whether I'm right or not. Who woulda' thunk it? Let him who reads this understand what I'm getting at.

Amusing Commercial

2009-03-28T12:21:00.004-05:00

Remember, guys, to "count the cost"; you don't want the chivalry police to catch you looking at this one. ;-)

HT: MarkyMark

A Sensible Article on Manhood

2009-03-12T22:51:00.003-05:00

Here is a sensible article that explores the "five myths of masculinity." The author says pretty much what I have been saying all along about the concept of manhood.

Nice, Balanced Piece on the Marriage Mandate

2009-03-09T22:56:00.002-05:00

Kevin has written a good post that takes issue with two extreme positions: the "gift of singleness" school of thought and the "marriage mandate" school of thought. Now, personally, I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures any kind of insistence that most people should get married. Maybe most will, but that's a matter I believe God has left up to us. I believe the Bible declares singleness and marriage to be states that are both intrinsically good (1 Cor. 7:25-40). Yes, I know that you know that I believe that (grin), but I thought I offer my standard disclaimer just in case.

Sloppy Exegesis Strikes Again.

2009-03-05T00:47:00.002-06:00

PC recently penned a must-read on the sloppy exegesis culture warriors use to hogtie religious men with old-fashioned gender roles. Take a gander at it, fellows.

Later.

Drai-nage!!!

2009-03-03T01:06:00.005-06:00

There is an article by Russell Moore in Touchstone magazine (HT: Boundless.org) about how consumerism and materialism is ruining the church. Especially noteworthy is this statement:

"Why do Christian parents, contra St. Paul’s clear admonition in 1 Corinthians 7, encourage their young adult children to delay marriage, sometimes for years past the time it would take to discern whether this union would be of the Lord? Why do we smilingly tell them to wait until they can 'afford' it? It is because, to our shame, we deem fornication a less awful reality than financial hardship."

Of course, Mr. Moore gets it wrong about 1 Corinthians 7. There is no clear admonition in 1 Cor. 7 for young to people to marry. It's just plain old marriage mandate poppycock to suggest otherwise.

But why all this talk about getting back to the warm fuzzies of relationships and spiritual matters? Where were people like Mr. Moore 15 or 20 years ago? I agree for the most part with what he has to say but his words ring a little hollow and disingenuous. As a young man, I languished in putatively conservative churches where the subtle implication was that if you were not Mr. Biff Success with a Bible, no Christian woman would want you. Indeed, the zeitgeist of "many luxury vacations" is older than Debbie Maken.

The men of my generation were told to take cold showers, realize that women don't need us, and to grin and bear it. They were given the "gift of singleness" talk by the pundits. Where are those pundits now? It seems that there is some theological revisionism going on these days. What is the matter? Did preachers decide their gospel of corporate consumerism is no longer suitable, and are they worried their grown daughters won't find a decent chap to marry? Are they are afraid of not having grandchildren? Are their pews getting empty? Are they getting nervous because the American Dream has been priced out of the market for so many people and people are thus not having babies?

Where were these preachers in the nineties and the earlier part of this decade when things looked good--when people had crummy jobs but economic bubbles seem to disguise the malaise? What did they have to say to young men who were struggling then? What did women have to say to young men who were struggling then--before middle age hit and the eggs started drying up? Where are Ani DiFranco, Alanis Morissette, and Meredith Brooks now?

I think some people are a day late and dollar short to be doing an about face. The plaintive cries of Russell Moore are akin to a deathbed repentance for institutionalized religion in North America, something that has become irrelevant to many men in my generation. It is odd that Russell Moore would lecture us about the possibility of living in trailer parks when he himself works in a very nice office. It really doesn't sound convincing when the people who would tell the rest us to stop being so materialistic look, well ... so predictably yuppie. And I wonder if Mr. Moore feels like he has "done something" about materialism by stating what the rest of us have already known for years.

I think about how men such as myself and others in the MGTOW community might feel about all of this. There is a well-known movie short that has made the rounds in cyberspace and which sums up nicely my feelings about the belated calls for men to get married, for men to come back to the sandbox, for Christians to become less materialistic, etc. I have my straw, so watch and understand ...