Time to Stop

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.]

Some Thoughts on Christianity and MGTOW

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.

Holiday Weekend Links

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

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)

Three Wise Folks

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.

Biological Gynocentrism

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

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

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

She Loves Me, She Loves Me Not

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

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

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

Mate or Die

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She's One in a Million

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

Which MGTOW?

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

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.

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.

A Little Dirty Truth About 2nd Wave Feminism

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

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

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."

Lifeboat Feminism

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.

Cultural Conservatives and the Religious Establishment Do Not Care About Men

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.

Menleavechurch.com

I have discovered menleavechurch.com and it makes me angry and sad. I am grieved not so much at the webmaster as I am at the people and institutions that made his slide towards atheism so much easier. I want to thank all the marriage mandators, the misandrists and woman-firsters in sheep's clothing, all the Christian women who have a prima donna attitude, spiritually complacent religious leaders, men with their heads stuck in the sand, sanctimonious believers, and institutionalized religion itself for turning yet another single man away from God. He is not the first man I've seen become a spiritual causality of organized religion's callous indifference or animosity towards men. I fear that he will not be the last.

When I first stumbled across his site, I thought I found another brother-in-arms in the fight against religious misandry. It's been a lonely trek for me in the blogosphere on this issue and the occasional companions have been few and far in between. All too often, others only partially address the subject. Other times, the discussion gets derailed by counterproductive proposals involving some form of macho Christianity or the such like. When it comes to expectations, one set of hoops for men to jump through like little puppy dogs is often exchanged for another set by those who claim to be sticking up for men. Regrettably, the damage has been done for the guy who runs menleavechurch.com.

It's been a depressing week for me and my discovery of menleavechurch.com is the icing on the cake. Let me take this opportunity to express my dismay at the folly and arrogance of other human beings. Have a good weekend, folks.

Christian Men and MGTOW

Before last Christmas, two of my regular readers, Elusive Wapiti and Amir Larijani made some thought-provoking comments on my post, "So Sorry, But Not This Time, Amigo" with respect to the MGTOW movement. Amir wrote:

As for Christian men, I'm still skeptical as to how many of them proportionally are in the MGTOW/MRA camp. I'm not in that camp--although I can see the case for why one would want to be--and I don't personally know any who are.

I've seen a few of them in the blogosphere, but I've yet to see any stats on the MGTOW segment in the Church. I'd bet money that it is not a large one.

The question about how many religious men are in the MGTOW or MRA camp has been posed before. As a Christian man who has knowledge of the MGTOW movement, I thought I should shed some light on the issue. The question of who is "proportionally" in who's camp becomes tricky for the following reasons ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. And, yes, there are religious men who know something is wrong. I've seen them on forums. They are receptive to thinking outside of the box. A groundswell at this point? Maybe not. But they are there. Consider this comment from a reader at MLV's blog:

Up here in Canada the megachurch pop christianity propaganda seems to be watered down somewhat but nevertheless these messages are insidious and increasingly pervasive. It's heartening to see that I am not the only male who is bewildered and more and more disgusted with the 'ideals' presented by the secular megachurch marriage propaganda. NOWHERE in the Bible does God lay down these rigid ideals for the genders.

Will this guy go MGTOW? Who knows. At least he is questioning what's going on. At any rate, EW said:

Also, I consider myself a Christian MGTOWer. Although my definition of MGTOW is probably a lot less bombastic than some. And it includes marriage, something that possibly a lot of other fellows do not, as they see marriage as something akin to slavery. Ironically not unlike the Second Wave femmarxists of auld.

Actually, MGTOW is not anti-marriage. I know of MGTOWers who are happily married even though a lot of other men have chosen bachelorhood. I recommend this link for anyone who wants to know what MGTOW is about. Let me also say this: There are descriptions of MGTOW but then there is the community of MGTOWers. I've interacted with these men long enough to know what the common beliefs are. They may have slightly different ideas about how to get from point A to point B, but the bottom line is that they are sick and tired of being doormats. What is my take on MGTOW? I believe MGTOW is premised on the radical notion that manhood is not a set of expectations, an outmoded concept, or a social problem--but the birthright of every male human being. There are good men. There are bad men. But all men are "real men," and no one has the right to strip away the components of their humanity.

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

Joe Biden (uggghhh ....)

Many of us already know the story on old Joe, but if you don't, read here. A man voting for Joe Biden is like a minority vote for David Duke.

Update: Here's another article worth looking at on the same problem.

My View of Women - A Disclaimer

In light of the kind of feedback I have received from readers over the past few years, I think it is apropos to offer my disclaimer on my views on women. It may come as a shock to my regular readers and foes alike that there are some views that I don't hold about women:

1. I don't believe in limiting myself to courting supermodels, exceptionally attractive women, and the such like.

2. I don't believe that if I am a lazy slob with a poor physique, poor hygiene, poor earning potential, and poor social skills that I should expect to win the affections of women with a higher social status than me.

3. I don't believe that women have to make me happy, always agree with me, or just tell me what I want to hear, not even as a condition for being my wife.

4. I don't believe that I am entitled to love and physical intimacy of any woman unless she freely gives it to me by the vow of marriage.

5. I don't believe husbands have the right to be inconsiderate and unresponsive to their wives' concerns.

6. I don't believe that any woman has to get married and/or have children in order to be complete.

7. I don't believe it's necessarily a sin for women to work outside the home or even to have a prestigious career.

8. I don't believe in paying someone less or turning them down for a secular job simply because they are female.

9. I don't believe in taking away a woman's right to vote or hold public office (unless we want to do the same for men as well).

10. I don't believe that women are necessarily less logical than men.

11. I don't believe that women are necessarily less intelligent or competent than men.

12. I don't believe that woman are necessarily less virtuous than men.

13. I don't believe that women are necessarily less spiritual than men.

14. I don't believe that women have less intrinsic worth than men.

15. I don't believe in treating the female body as a commodity for media (e.g., the advertising industry).

16. I don't believe in leering at women and/or making sexually suggestive comments about their bodies.

17. I don't believe in a work environment where women are expected to act out in a sexual manner in order to please clients, co-workers, or the boss.

18. I don't believe in making any sexual advances towards a woman unless I'm married to her.

19. I don't believe in supporting the sex industry.

20. I don't believe any woman deserves to get raped or sexually assaulted, not even by her husband.

21. I don't believe any kind of physical or psychological abuse against women is acceptable or even a trivial matter.

22. I don't believe government has an inherent right to tell women what to do with their reproductive organs.

23. I don't believe past generations necessarily hold the secret to resolving the problems that face men and women today.

Now the bad news:

I still believe the Bible delegates the oversight of the local church and the home to men. I still believe that only men are allowed to teach in the worship assemblies of churches. I still think churches have sold out to woman-firsterism. I still believe that anti-male sexism is serious problem in our society (including government's tyranny against men and the demonization of male heterosexuality by leftists and rightists alike). I still believe that marriage has become a liability for men. I still believe men don't need women to the degree that many people think. I still believe that many women are not marriage material and that many of them are single to due their demeaning attitudes towards men and their arrogant sense of entitlement. I still believe many women have succumbed to Nanny-Statism. I still believe that society panders to the worst in women. I still believe feminism is evil. I still believe that abortion is murder and should be outlawed. I still believe in speaking my views about these matters unapologetically. In essence, I ask you to think before you pigeonhole me.

A Raging, Indoctrinated Feminist

Well, that's what she calls herself, anyway. She has found my blog via this post. Of course, she couldn't let it go--she offered her own commentary on her LiveJournal space (which, like many feminist blogs, does not have a very open commenting policy). Let's look at some of the things she said. My original comments are posted, followed by her replies, and then by my rejoinders.

----
I said: If you are woman, and if you want both genders to be treated with equal dignity in our society, then stop calling yourself a "feminist".

The feminist: "Yeah, because obviously this guy is the sole and final authority on what feminism is and isn't."

My reply: Are feminists the sole and final authority on determining what equality is?
----
I said: Feminism is best defined as a political ideology that concerns itself with the advancement of women. Period. Nothing else.

The feminist: "Wait. Is there something wrong with the advancement of women? Did I miss something here?"

My reply: Yes, in fact, you did miss something (or rather, you left it out--conveniently). It's the next couple of sentences in the paragraph you quoted. I actually said: "Yet, even in defining the word, we must take into consideration how feminism is widely practiced. All too often, feminism promotes women at the expense of other human beings (men and children). Inasmuch as feminists have repeatedly failed to rectify this situation, they no longer deserve any modicum of respect."

Puts a different spin on my words, doesn't it? But, alas, I am not surprised to find myself misrepresented by a feminist.
----
I said: I put feminism on the same level as child pornography.

The feminist: "Hey, I always said that believing that women are people to is exactly the same thing as sexually abusing children!"

My reply: Actually, if you substitute the word "men" for "women" in your sentence, I think you might have an apt description of how feminists feel about men. Anyway, the feminist once again left off the context of my original statement, which reads: "I put feminism on the same level as child pornography. Are you taken aback at that statement? Ask yourself this: Is the murder of innocent children better than the sexual abuse of them? Feminism is most assuredly responsible for the death of millions of babies. Not only that, it is also responsible for creating a debased culture where men and boys are routinely and systematically dehumanized."

Of course, the feminist exclaims that she won't "dignify" my statement. I wonder if she dignifies this t-shirt (which, of course, dignifies this). Ah, yes, feminism. The radical notion that "women are people" ... unless they are still in their mothers' wombs. I guess the sex-selective abortions that occur in third-world countries must cause the feminists no small amount of grief. Because the babies are human? No. Because they are female. So, gender trumps the humanity of a person, right? But wait, I thought feminism was about remedying that!
----
I said: The moment you call yourself a feminist is the moment I have stopped taking you seriously. Why? Because you have never taken seriously the concerns of men.

The feminist: "I keep forgetting, it's the duty of feminists to put aside their trivial concerns about the welfare of women and see to men's needs. Silly me!"

My reply: I am not surprised at your response. The priceless logic of the quintessential feminist: "Why should I take the concerns of men seriously? They're the oppressors! Oh, by the way, women's issues are everyone's issues! Men can benefit from feminism! Why don't they take us more seriously?!"

Next.