The Semantics of Realmannspracht

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.

Prom King and Prom Queen Syndrome

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 ...

1. You were paired off with the most desirable member of the opposite sex.
2. Other members of the opposite sex regarded you as the most desirable person of your sex.
3. 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.

Amir Alerts Yours Truly to a Stupid Post

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

A couple of problems with Driscoll's rant:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Realmannspracht Is Still Stupid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Obsolete Man"

Marriage, Merit, and Manhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining Manhood (The Illogic of Socons)

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.

Is Marriage a Marker of Adulthood?

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

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.

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

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].

Manhood: It's Not About Her

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.

Biblical Manhood vs. "Game" (Reprise)

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"

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

A Necessary Rant

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.

Mother Worship (The Primal Roots of Chivalry)

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.