tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post2264430855499522306..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: The Unmanly Bitterness of the ManosphereDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-39185252036381818612012-02-23T22:04:17.989-05:002012-02-23T22:04:17.989-05:00[continued]
No. No. No. No. These women just happe...[continued]<br /><i>No. No. No. No. These women just happened to hop into bed with these men randomly? Married them perhaps? The stats agree with me that they did not marry them and in the vast majority of cases jumped in bed willingly. This illustrates the point. Women, if we are to consider them moral actors, should be held responsible for being sluts.</i><br /><br />My remark that you took exception to was that women should face economic risk when engaging in extramarital sex -- but also that men should. You seem to have this pattern of repeatedly demanding to know why consequences are not visited upon women while squealing every time anyone hints that consequences should be <i>equally</i> visited upon men. You may have a fetish for imagining the punishment of women (as well as a fear of men being punished for their own actions) but neither God nor I suffer similar qualms. <br /><br />Let me lay this out very clearly because your delicate manosphere sensibilities seem to have difficulty grappling with this fact: The ten commandments, and all of God's law, apply to both men and women. Equally. Your PUA associates risk damnation just as much as the "sluts" you seem so eager to discuss. Indeed, if their sin is, like your words, more full of viciousness than misplaced love, they may well be damning themselves much more severely. Dante showed correctly that the panderers and seducers inhabit a far lower circle of hell than the lustful or sodomites. You work yourself into a lather imagining how "sluts" must be punished, yet you choose to spend your time in the company of man-sluts and are angry when their misogyny is called out for what it is.<br /><br />Keep in mind too that those who bind up heavy burdens for others to carry, those who are while whitened sepulchers concealing the rot within them, those who are eager to say "I thank God that I am not like these" -- all of these are condemned by Christ in far harsher words than he ever used against women caught in sexual sin.<br /><br />Does this mean sexual sin is not serious, or is not serious in women? Of course not. Fornication and adultery are mortal sins -- though they are sins of misplaced love. Maybe someone who had thrown herself or himself on God's forgiveness, and received it, would feel conflict or regret in responding to your preening insults. However, having "done it the right way" I have no hesitations or doubts in calling your lack of any sense of charity what it is. You say that God gives us, particularly as men, the gift of righteous anger? Well, you're welcome to a nice dish of it. Neither women nor men who have sinned and sought God's forgiveness are denied marriage, nor should they be -- even if it would satisfy some twisted appetite you have to think of women who have sinned sexually as uniquely wretched in a way that men are not. That you are so excited about Old Testament notions of ritual purity and so uninterested in Christ's notions of forgiveness of sins suggests a problem -- if what you want to be is a Christian. So no, I don't think it's scriptural, I don't think it's Christian, and I think that woman who have had sex before marriage but truly seek God's forgiveness and commit themselves to a Christian marriage are far more likely to be successful and happy in their marriages than the creatures who seem to inhabit the "manosphere".<br /><br />Now, I'm done with you. In your initial comments, you seemed like you were open to reasonable and polite discussion. Your last few comments have become increasingly insulting and, frankly, suggest some rather perverted obsessions. Take them elsewhere. You've shit tested one too many times here and it bores me. If you comment again on this blog, I will delete it. <br /><br />And I'm closing comments on this thread. I'm not impressed with the level of thought coming over from manosphere blogs, and I'd rather spend my limited writing time talking about something interesting.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-5074508163574992732012-02-23T22:03:54.210-05:002012-02-23T22:03:54.210-05:00Mr. Anonymous,
I thank you for not taking GK Ches...Mr. Anonymous,<br /><br />I thank you for not taking GK Chesterton's name in vain on this blog again. Chesterton was Catholic and a gentleman, something you are not, and I do not like having your words attached to his name on this blog.<br /><br />By blogging tradition, it is wrong to rebut someone and not allow them to answer back. However, since you are, it the phrase of the milieu in which you have chosen to place yourself, "shit testing" me, I am choosing to set the rules as my preference and inclination see fit. <br /><br /><i>God doesn't allow women to be priests. God doesn't allow contraception. God doesn't allow women to have abortions. I hate to berate the point but what the Church does is preach the existing Divine law.</i><br /><br />You make a distinction without a difference. The Catholic Church is God's one, true and united Church on earth. Its teachings are God's teachings. It teaches these things because the Holy Spirit guides it to proclaim God's truth. And those who dislike the truth dislike the Church for that reason.<br /><br /><i>The East also traditionally forbids women who are menstruating from helping with the preparation of the communion bread. Also see my response to your wife on the scriptural injunction on whom priests (still upheld in the East) can select for marriage.</i><br /><br />Yes, you do seem to have an especial affection for the "ew, girls" elements of the Old Testament. <br /><br /><i>For example, I believe [feminism] was primarily the product of men (mostly of the PUA persuasion as many of the manosphere agree) because I firmly believe patriarchies are impossible to destroy as we naturally tend towards them. However that doesn't mean women didn't contribute to the system. It would have been an easy bone to throw to her potential audience and she avoided it.</i><br /><br />Don't play dumb -- it's unbecoming even among knaves. Feminism is a women's movement, developed and led by women. Though certainly enjoyed and supported by the manosphere pick up artist types for all their unmanly howling.<br /><br /><i>Whoa. Slow down that's a lot of ground to cover. First, it is entirely reasonable for a married Christian man to expect sex as long as he is also willing to expect its ends, "do not be denying one another" (cf. 1 Cor 7:5).</i><br /><br />The comment you're responding to is clearly talking about sex outside of marriage.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-33186468506388135042012-02-23T19:08:33.011-05:002012-02-23T19:08:33.011-05:00God doesn't allow women to be priests. God do...God doesn't allow women to be priests. God doesn't allow contraception. God doesn't allow women to have abortions. I hate to berate the point but what the Church does is preach the existing Divine law.<br /><br />I am clear on head coverings, you should wear them. The East also traditionally forbids women who are menstruating from helping with the preparation of the communion bread. Also see my response to your wife on the scriptural injunction on whom priests (still upheld in the East) can select for marriage.<br /><br /><i>Okay, if someone labels feminism itself as being a problem, one would think that the name itself is a pretty good hint that it was invented primarily by... not men. It goes without saying that feminism is the product primarily of women and that feminists are virtually all women. </i> <br /><br />I'm not sure it does. For example, I believe it was primarily the product of <i>men</i> (mostly of the PUA persuasion as many of the manosphere agree) because I firmly believe patriarchies are impossible to destroy as we naturally tend towards them. However that doesn't mean women didn't contribute to the system. It would have been an easy bone to throw to her potential audience and she avoided it.<br /><br /><i>And, ironically, one of the big beefs of the manosphere seems to be that sex is not always as consequence free as promised -- because first the feminists announced they were going in for sexual liberation, and then the next generation of feminists discovered that a lot of women were stuck as single mothers and so supported hitting up the deadbeat dads for money. And while I do recognize that this system gets abused (and that it takes some of the economic risk out of pre-marital sex for women, and thus could be encouraging immorality) my level of sympathy for guys who are sleeping around in the first place is pretty low.</i><br /><br />Whoa. Slow down that's a lot of ground to cover. First, it is <i>entirely</i> reasonable for a married Christian man to <i>expect</i> sex as long as he is also willing to expect its <i>ends</i>, "do not be denying one another" (cf. 1 Cor 7:5).<br /><br /><i>that a lot of women were stuck as single mothers and so supported hitting up the deadbeat dads for money</i><br /><br />No. No. No. No. These women just <i>happened</i> to hop into bed with these men randomly? Married them perhaps? The stats agree with me that they did not marry them and in the vast majority of cases jumped in bed willingly. This illustrates the point. Women, if we are to consider them moral actors, should be held responsible for being sluts. Scripture is very free to label these sorts of women but the structure of your comment shows the modern Christian males have difficulty in discussing sluts as such.<br /><br />Another example, you discuss the "risk" for women but not the <i>sin</i> involved in those actions. That's a real problem. Rakes can't feed without sluts to supply them satisfaction. You need <i>both</i> but the way we discuss the problem creates this false and completely modern picture of women as morally pure. I argue that your level of sympathy, especially as a complimentarian Christian, for the <i>women</i> should be <i>lower</i> than that for the man. I could site dozens of saints, as you have effectively admitted that speak of the weakness of men related to their sexual appetites and the wantonness (that is the willingness to abuse this weakness) of women.<br /><br />They by being sluts are violating a fundamental part of their God given nature in the same way that a man who does not provide for his family is, "worse than one of the unbelievers" (cf. 1 Tim 5:8).<br /><br />Mr. AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-88111804934037715072012-02-23T17:55:46.799-05:002012-02-23T17:55:46.799-05:00Mr. Anonymous,
You'll excuse me if I don'...Mr. Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>You'll excuse me if I don't buy that. Her rhetorical positioning is similar to the famous, "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. She is posing a scenario and I have to take her seriously on that proposed scenario. Let's even go so far as to say she's right, that the vast majority of these men have been in some way targeted by feminism and are bitter because of it, is the right response really man up by being silent? I'd propose that the _opposite_ is true. The manly response is take up arms (at least rhetorically) as we've done since God made us.</i><br /><br />I'm unclear what you're referring to here. <br /><br /><i>Duffy's post evidences a serious concern amongst the "Christian" ... manosphere that the Church actively supports reminders of duties for men but only reminds women of rights.</i><br /><br />I'm not clear where one would get this sense. What rights does the Church suggest that women have but men don't? What duties does it teach that men have that women don't?<br /><br />I'm far more used to defending the Church against charges of misogyny, since:<br /><br />- We won't allow women to be priests.<br />- We don't allow women to use contraception.<br />- We don't allow women to get abortions. (these two being interpreted by many feminists as attempts to keep women pregnant all the time and deny them the control over their bodies that men have)<br /><br />Heck, in the conservative Catholic circles in which Betty and I move, most wives don't work and people like me are considered "modern" because I don't think that women must wear veils in church or that it's immodest for women to wear attractive clothing.<br /><br />Now, the manosphere types have been hanging around Reverend Sally's House Of Divine Love and Acceptance, maybe I could see where they could get such an idea. But in reference to the Catholic Church? If anyone has a history of making feminists' blood boil, it's us.<br /><br /><i>For those of us in the manosphere her post positively reeks of that attitude. Men are blamed for feminism but there is no acceptance of a woman's responsibility.</i><br /><br />Okay, if someone labels feminism itself as being a problem, one would think that the name itself is a pretty good hint that it was invented primarily by... <b>not men</b>. It goes without saying that feminism is the product primarily of women and that feminists are virtually all women. <br /><br />Betty's point, a relevant one given that the manosphere seems hesitant to separate itself from its PUA roots, is that feminisms embrace of "sexual freedom" and rejection of marriage would not have worked had there not been plenty of men eager for consequence free sex. <br /><br />And, ironically, one of the big beefs of the manosphere seems to be that sex is not always as consequence free as promised -- because first the feminists announced they were going in for sexual liberation, and then the next generation of feminists discovered that a lot of women were stuck as single mothers and so supported hitting up the deadbeat dads for money. And while I do recognize that this system gets abused (and that it takes some of the economic risk out of pre-marital sex for women, and thus could be encouraging immorality) my level of sympathy for guys who are sleeping around in the first place is pretty low.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-52525278956457794692012-02-23T17:39:58.414-05:002012-02-23T17:39:58.414-05:00So much for anonymous...I HATE defaults.So much for anonymous...I HATE defaults.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-82810447204489946522012-02-23T17:39:31.774-05:002012-02-23T17:39:31.774-05:00Leviticus 20:10 establishes the maximum extent of ...Leviticus 20:10 establishes the maximum extent of the Law for this offense (one I'm not at all upset by) allowing for the death penalty in the case of lying with a <i>married</i> woman. Deuteronomy 22 versus 22 and 25 reinforce this; instating a death penalty for men who take another man's wife. This is the only time both parties are given the same punishment.<br /> <br />Women have a couple of alternate punishments available. One is found in Numbers 5 and proscribes enforced bareness. It is interesting that this section of the law gives no equivalent punishment for the man (just for a jealous husband).<br /><br />Now that we've established all of that we can look at your point. First be aware that you are focusing on the male <i>punishment</i> rather than the male right that is being protected, that is, marrying an unblemished maiden.<br /><br />Consider the Bible's description of Rebekah and why she was alluring and valuable match (cf. Gen 24:16):<br />"The young woman was very attractive in appearance, a maiden whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up."<br /><br />This isn't considered in the case of Isaac at all.<br /><br />Priests are an excellent example of the <i>holy</i> desire for a virgin. Consider Lev 21:10-15 which establishes the requirements for priests:<br />“10 “The priest who is chief among his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil is poured and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose nor tear his clothes. 11 He shall not go in to any dead bodies nor make himself unclean, even for his father or for his mother. 12 He shall not go out of the sanctuary, lest he profane the sanctuary of his God, for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is on him: I am the LORD. 13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people, 15 that he may not profane his offspring among his people, for I am the LORD who sanctifies him.””<br />He violated his vows if he took anything <i>but</i> a virgin. It is also no mistake that Mary is a virgin. Nothing else would be worthy of the Lord. Nor is it a mistake that St. Paul says:<br />“For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” – 2 Cor 11:2<br /><br />There are a host of things that men get specifically punished for in the Law and the Gospel. We get called on the carpet for a host of things. However, the scriptures acknowledge an unequal approach to sex and stress the importance of virginal status prior to betrothment. This doesn’t let men off the hook sexually, our eyes can damn us, but it does place a special burden on women who think they want to ever marry and warns men against those who are “wanton” women.<br /><br />Mr. AnonymousGK Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11412564496846777444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-27973398972203381942012-02-23T17:39:01.592-05:002012-02-23T17:39:01.592-05:00Actually, I believe the words of Christ to the wom...<i>Actually, I believe the words of Christ to the woman caught having sex with a man not her husband were "Go, and sin no more" -- words that certainly don't preclude marriage, especially if one consider's Paul's advice that it's better to marry to burn.</i><br /><br />That is an honest misunderstanding of the text. Christ does not encourage the harlot to marry. In fact tradition holds that she didn't ever marry. This would be consistent with every former prostitute turned saint that I am aware of. If you can cite a saint I'm not aware of I'd love to hear her story.<br /><br />As to Paul's advice I'm assuming you are discussing 1 Tim 5:11 which is addressed to <i>widows</i> this doesn't cover Darlock's discussion nor mine of out of wedlock sex.<br /><br /><i>Also, I believe that the Old Testament holds men to a fairly strict standard as well: "When a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall pay her marriage price and marry her. If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still pay him the customary marriage price for virgins." (Ex. 22:15-16)<br /><br />"If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives." (Deut. 23: 28)</i><br /><br />Indeed it does and you are quite correct to cite these texts. Of interest though is like most things in the Bible there is no equality in how this is dealt with. In fact these scriptures go a long way to supporting Darlock's and my own case. <br /><br />These women, by male action, were viewed to be harmed in perpetuity. By losing their virginal status they were deemed unfit to marry. The only way to restore their status was to give them the option to enter marriage with the man who had taken them.<br /><br />The opposite was not true. As your cited Scriptures point out the punishment for the rake who seduces women was to marry them. He was stuck and lost the freedom to philander that he desired.<br /><br />Mr. Anonymous [continued]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-38041233294657587272012-02-23T14:29:15.423-05:002012-02-23T14:29:15.423-05:00However overall I find the advice incredibly usefu...<i>However overall I find the advice incredibly useful. Chief amongst that advice is to not marry women who are have slept with other men. If they are willing to violate their conscience, risk pregnancy and dependency they are just too unstable as a marriage partner. <br /><br />There is a strong, even in me, visceral reaction amongst social conservatives to such a response. But bit-T Tradition and Scripture both evidence this view. The Law allowed for virginity tests for women and Tradition, as you point out, is rife with warnings against temptresses.</i><br /><br />Actually, I believe the words of Christ to the woman caught having sex with a man not her husband were "Go, and sin no more" -- words that certainly don't preclude marriage, especially if one consider's Paul's advice that it's better to marry to burn.<br /><br />Also, I believe that the Old Testament holds men to a fairly strict standard as well: "When a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall pay her marriage price and marry her. If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still pay him the customary marriage price for virgins." (Ex. 22:15-16)<br /><br />"If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives." (Deut. 23: 28)MrsDarwinhttp://darwincatholic.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-19094202950266167552012-02-23T13:07:04.047-05:002012-02-23T13:07:04.047-05:00Also, between the tacit acceptance (even admiratio...<i>Also, between the tacit acceptance (even admiration) of "pick up artists" and the frequent wallowing in gender war language, I honestly think that the manosphere is feeding into the culture of divorce just as much as secular feminism. I would strongly counsel anyone wanting to strengthen his marriage not to spend much time in such toxic waters. </i><br /><br />I actually agree. There's too much acceptance of the Pick Up Artist/PUA. Way, way too much. To be fair, Social Pathologist, also part of the manosphere, isn't accepting of these folks. Dalrock is somewhat accepting which is problematic.<br /><br />Also, to the article you site which I believe (having trouble finding it right now) explicitly calls out PUA's as wrong behavior in the opening paragraphs. <br /><br />However overall I find the advice incredibly useful. Chief amongst that advice is to not marry women who are have slept with other men. If they are willing to violate their conscience, risk pregnancy and dependency they are just too unstable as a marriage partner. <br /><br />There is a strong, even in me, visceral reaction amongst social conservatives to such a response. But bit-T Tradition and Scripture both evidence this view. The Law allowed for virginity tests for women and Tradition, as you point out, is rife with warnings against temptresses.<br /><br />Mr. AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-78957535551728297512012-02-23T12:41:43.213-05:002012-02-23T12:41:43.213-05:00There are at least two folks posting with anonymou...There are at least two folks posting with anonymous, I'm using "Mr. Anonymous" at the end. Less we cross that up...<br /><br /><i>At the more general level, the whole view of relationships and marriages as existing in a state of tension in which the woman is constantly "shit testing" the man, and he's having to show dominance in order to win her respect strikes me as contradictory to a really Christian understanding of married relationships.</i><br /><br />Ideal or real? Remember we are reminded of Adam's sin in the garden was, "you listened to your wife's voice" and that the curse for women was that she would be dominated. Eve sinned by not following her husband but Adam _actively_ sinned by listening to that. I hate the term, but Adam got "poo tested", and failed. That we in our weakened state repeat the scenario shouldn't be surprising.<br /><br /><i>Yes, the husband is most definitely the head of the family, and he needs to exercise (as well as earn) that authority. </i><br /><br />I think most men (even say Dalrock) are ok with that parenthetical thought _as long as_ that is understood as a duty of _men_ and not _women_. That is, a wife doesn't get to judge a man's competence to lead _anymore than_ a man gets to judge his wife's desirability to be _loved_. This is key to many of Darlock's comments.<br /><br /><i>But not working authority relationships is subject to constant testing and striving. Marriage is complementary, not competitive.</i><br /><br />Ideally yes, in reality no. We are accursed and for that reason men have to be warned by our Lord to not glance about at other women and _women_ need to understand that they have a natural propensity to buck their husbands which they are actively warned about in Scripture. Which one do you hear more about from the pulpit? I'll go further, as heads of families, as the responsible party, as the dominant I'm ok with men hearing about the first part _more_ but I'm not ok with the near silence of women's responsibilities.<br /><br /><i>What's described by the "game" as "shit testing" strikes me as simply being bad behavior. I would not have continued in a relationship with (much less married) a woman who was constantly behaving badly just to see what I'd do.</i><br /><br />The assumption is that women do that just to irritate men which is a misunderstanding of the phenomenon. I can't outright reject my wife when she does that anymore than she can dump me for having an increased heartbeat when a gorgeous woman walks by. Married game also indicates that the better you react to every test the less likely the next test will be difficult. <br /><br />[continued]<br /><br />Mr. AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-82057487509647887082012-02-23T12:18:45.553-05:002012-02-23T12:18:45.553-05:00You'll excuse me if I don't buy that. Her...You'll excuse me if I don't buy that. Her rhetorical positioning is similar to the famous, "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. She is posing a scenario and I have to take her seriously on that proposed scenario. Let's even go so far as to say she's right, that the vast majority of these men have been in some way targeted by feminism and are bitter because of it, is the right response really man up by being silent? I'd propose that the _opposite_ is true. The manly response is take up arms (at least rhetorically) as we've done since God made us.<br /><br />It is reasonable, if targeted, to be angry. God gave us that emotion and _properly directed_ it is a good thing (my biggest beef with the manosphere is the vague direction). I think Darlock does that.<br /><br />Duffy's post evidences a serious concern amongst the "Christian" (and I use that loosely here as there are few of them outside of Darlock and Social Pathologist) manosphere that the Church actively supports reminders of duties for men but only reminds women of rights. For those of us in the manosphere her post positively reeks of that attitude. Men are blamed for feminism but there is no acceptance of a woman's responsibility. That does indeed make me mad even if I don't harbor her any personal grudge. Maning up would even imply we _should_ be angry with a state of affairs that reduces the value of marriage. However that was a very small part of my post and I await the answers, even in blog format, on the rest.<br /><br />As I said in my previous post her own later comments on her personal blog indicate an uneasy truce at best and possibly even a longing for feminism. I see this as problematic since feminism as such is antithetical to the teachings of the Church. Again, I don't fault her much for this personally, as its a pop culture phenomenon. But it is something that people should react strongly to.<br /><br />Mr. AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-6678902449189164562012-02-23T09:08:43.019-05:002012-02-23T09:08:43.019-05:00GeekLady, I've turned off word verification fo...GeekLady, I've turned off word verification for comments for the time being, so I hope that will help. I know there are certain sites on which I simply can't log in using my phone, but I hope we've made ours more accessible now. We'll keep word verification off as long as we don't get deluged with a quantity of spam.MrsDarwinhttp://darwincatholic.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-59135128167379271122012-02-23T08:34:08.102-05:002012-02-23T08:34:08.102-05:00"How is learning to manage my wife adversaria..."How is learning to manage my wife adversarial?"<br /><br />Ian, <br /><br />The answer to your question lies within the question itself. Your question presupposes two ideas. First, that your wife requires your management in order to meet your needs. Second, that manipulating your wife to accomplish your ends is an appropriate use of your authority. These are inherently adversarial assumptions.<br /><br />The idea that a wife requires management implies she either cannot or will not of her own volition. This creates conflict, either of her will opposing yours, or her incapacity failing your needs. The idea that your authority permits you to manipulate your wife is just one stratagem in an attempt to win this conflict.<br /><br />Christianity, by comparison, says there should be unity between husband and wife. Not two wills opposing each other, not one will dominating the other, but one united will in which man and woman both fully participate.<br /><br />(Darwin, on a technical note: I've been through the captcha with OpenID a couple dozen times now and it won't take it from my iPad, even when I'm sure it's correct.)GeekLadyhttp://geeklady.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-12334915884185589152012-02-23T08:14:44.915-05:002012-02-23T08:14:44.915-05:00"Jack Lord",
You seem like you're t..."Jack Lord",<br /><br />You seem like you're trolling for a reaction. <br /><br />Anon,<br /><br /><i>Ok, I get it. Your response to injustice, so long as you are not personally affected, is indifference. </i><br /><br />I'm not indifferent to injustice -- I just don't like it when people use one-sided accounts of injustices to get themselves riled up. <br /><br />So, for instance, I think that there's been plenty of injustice in the Middle East. I think that people who support Hamas can successfully point to lots of real grievances in which real people suffered real injustice. That does not, however, cause me to have any affection for Hamas.<br /><br />I see that Dalrock has another post up in which he basically says: Oh yeah, you think we seem like a bunch of angry, rabid jerks? Well, we've got reasons to be angry!<br /><br />To which my thought is: Women often treat men badly. Men often treat women badly. I would like to do anything possible to remedy all of that -- but I'm not interested in rabid jerks and I'm don't think people who are only interested in helping one side of a problem are likely to be useful to a long term solution.<br /><br />Also, between the tacit acceptance (even admiration) of "pick up artists" and the frequent wallowing in gender war language, I honestly think that the manosphere is feeding into the culture of divorce just as much as secular feminism. I would strongly counsel anyone wanting to strengthen his marriage not to spend much time in such toxic waters. <br /><br />That doesn't mean I'm indifferent to the real social problems which are occasionally dredged up as justification for a toxic attitude towards women and marriage, but I don't think what truth there is in the message makes the messenger any less unacceptable.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-34886177985479113272012-02-23T02:29:31.162-05:002012-02-23T02:29:31.162-05:00What makes no sense to me regarding the "Mano...What makes no sense to me regarding the "Manosphere" is why all these guys are so angry that women like my wife exist. My wife is a gorgeous, brilliant atheist, is career-focused, enjoys sex like many guys do, and has never wanted children. We're a perfect match for all those reasons and more. Many of the Manosphere guys mock women like her, while simultaneously accusing them of ruining the dating market. <br /><br />My wife and women like her are very, very clearly not suited to men in the Manosphere. It would be nothing but mutual misery and a quick path to breakup. But plenty of women DO desire a traditional lifestyle with the husband as head of the household, so why don't they just find and date THOSE women, either in America or, if American women are the hideous pigs they claim, overseas? Every minute these men waste complaining about the existence of women like my wife is a minute they aren't spending finding their conservative virginal dreamboat chicks. It's like a vegetarian going to a steakhouse and whining that there's no pasta or salad on the menu...or an atheist getting angry that he has no matches on a Christian singles site.Jack Lordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-1760261150397859492012-02-23T00:16:39.339-05:002012-02-23T00:16:39.339-05:00Ok, I get it. Your response to injustice, so long ...Ok, I get it. Your response to injustice, so long as you are not personally affected, is indifference. <br /><br />Thanks for clearing that up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-6112162926433198062012-02-23T00:03:25.014-05:002012-02-23T00:03:25.014-05:00Meh.
Like I said: I'm against divorce. I don...Meh.<br /><br />Like I said: I'm against divorce. I don't know what sub-segment of society you could point to as being more against divorce than the orthodox Catholic sub-culture. I get that people routinely treat each other badly and sin terribly during the course of divorces.<br /><br />The thing, however, that distances me from the cheap outrage of the manosphere on the topic is that:<br /><br />a) I don't think that men are only the victims in divorce. I think that men and women manage to sin against each other petty equally. (Indeed, the tiny world of conservative Catholicism was rocked by its own local no fault divorce soap opera when Bud Mcfarlane, who ran a "ministry" left his wife and secured custody of the kids. Her complaints in trying to fight that were pretty similar to the ones outlined in the Touchstone article.)<br /><br />b) I will think about taking manosphere complaints about divorce seriously when those who make those complains completely banish and denounce the PUA element of their community. As long as the two mix in relative amity, I'll take the whining about as seriously as I take Cosmopolitan readers and women who who say "you go girl" when watching Sex In The City when they then turn around and complain there are no good husbands available.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-56534867803981023572012-02-22T23:24:38.038-05:002012-02-22T23:24:38.038-05:00Please read this article at Touchstone magazine. T...Please read this article at Touchstone magazine. The things described are a part, but only a part, of the anger that is building among men. <br /><br />http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-01-019-fAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-11910257151413429762012-02-22T23:22:00.547-05:002012-02-22T23:22:00.547-05:00Also, could you post links to specific articles in...<i>Also, could you post links to specific articles in Darlock's site that you view as antithetical to a Christian view of marriage? It might help in the discussion.</i><br /><br />For starters, in his "Interviewing a Prospective Wife" pair of posts, Dalrock effectively says that marriage is a fallback if you aren't already enjoying yourself too much being a PUA. Needless to say, from a Christian point of view, there is no acceptable place for a PUA. Sex is intended to exist only within marriage. The idea that one would only bother to get married if one wasn't already getting plenty of sex outside it is antithetical to any sane or Christian view of marriage or society.<br /><br />Now, maybe the response here would be that Dalrock is just being polite to a sector of the internet which PUAs pioneered and in which they still have a prominent place. <br /><br />Honestly, I think that'd be a bad excuse, though. If one's view of marriage and relationship was pioneered by promiscuous jerks, it just might be that it's a deeply flawed analysis of marriage and relationship. I notice that just the forth comment down on Dalrock's response post closes out, "Don’t commit, don’t cohabitate, and stay independent. That is what men need to do today. Use them for sex when required, and that’s all."<br /><br />Frankly, if that's an attitude that fits in well with one's view of relationships, then one is very far from having a Christian understanding thereof. <br /><br />At the more general level, the whole view of relationships and marriages as existing in a state of tension in which the woman is constantly "shit testing" the man, and he's having to show dominance in order to win her respect strikes me as contradictory to a really Christian understanding of married relationships. <br /><br />Yes, the husband is most definitely the head of the family, and he needs to exercise (as well as earn) that authority. But not working authority relationships is subject to constant testing and striving. Marriage is complementary, not competitive.<br /><br />What's described by the "game" as "shit testing" strikes me as simply being bad behavior. I would not have continued in a relationship with (much less married) a woman who was constantly behaving badly just to see what I'd do. To accept that as a normal or even healthy aspect of a married relationship strikes me as just crazy.<br /><br />And now I'm hitting the point of irretrievable verbosity, so I'll stop.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-10033785923364086072012-02-22T23:21:44.424-05:002012-02-22T23:21:44.424-05:00[continued]
While Mrs. Duffy is correct that men ...[continued]<br /><br /><i>While Mrs. Duffy is correct that men are complicit in the feminist movement I think she doesn’t examine at a deep level how much feminism has colored our thinking and how dangerous that is for conservative thinkers. For example, while she attacks the role men have played in feminism’s growth she seems unable to discuss the role of women. She uses “us” but never once says anything about women. This tendency has, as discussed by Dalrock and others, infected social conservative thinking. The easy response is, “she wasn’t discussing that in her article,” and that to some measure is true; but it’s a general problem with us as social conservatives. We don’t like discussing women behaving badly and we will work very hard to come up with excuses for them. If a space alien descended he would have to assume from modern Christian writing that women don’t sin. This is distinctly different from classical Christian writing.</i><br /><br />It seems to me fully acceptable to write about the manosphere when one is writing about the manosphere, rather than writing about feminists. I'm sure you know the all-too-true joke about feminists:<br /><br />"How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? That's not funny!!!"<br /><br />But it seems like the manosphere version is, "How many manosphere writers does it take to screw in a light bulb? Oh yeah? How many feminists does it take? Huh? Huh? Why are all the jokes about men? Why no jokes about feminists?"<br /><br />I can't guarantee what circles others move in, but having lived in social conservative circles all my like (heck, I even when to a conservative college) I have never run into this alleged idea that women never sin. Indeed, if anything, once you get really far into conservative circles you get back to the idea that only women sin. Because, you know, women are TEMPTRESSES.<br /><br />One of the things that Betty <i>did</i> in her article is that she is unable to align herself with feminism because secular feminism is deeply based on contraception, sexual immorality and abortion. I don't exactly see how saying that feminism is based on immorality and murder fits with saying that women never do anything wrong.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-69500014976957935682012-02-22T22:53:28.934-05:002012-02-22T22:53:28.934-05:00[continued]
What’s worse I think Mrs. Duffy is un...[continued]<br /><br /><i>What’s worse I think Mrs. Duffy is unsure of her own positions. I commented on her own blog, since she’s on the periphery of my social circle, under “anonymous”. Those comments and her original comments have since been deleted. In them she defended a general right of divorce, which is not allowed at all in Catholic theology, as well as the feminist movement in toto. Neither of these were wise, which is why she deleted them, but represent a weakness in her own thinking on the subject.</i><br /><br />The only exchange I can recall (and obviously, this is trick, since you say it was deleted) that could be even loosely so construed would be the one in which Betty said something along the lines of "each divorce has its own story with two sides". <br /><br />This seems fairly obvious and true to me. I've seen some occasions in which women have behaved really horribly in a divorce. I distantly witnessed one a couple years ago in which the wife first left, then came back, falsely accused the husband of assault, got a restraining order against him, occupied the house, and then had the police keep him away from the house. Yes. Really bad stuff, and a case in which a woman who wanted to be "free to have fun" appeared to mess a guy up for no good reason at all with the complicity of the courts. On the other hand, I knew a case (sibling of a college friend) in which an angry ex husband demanded a chance to talk one-on-one about visiting schedules, and when the wife agreed to go meet him her body wasn't found until several days later -- and in that case the courts also failed to provide any conclusive punishment. <br /><br />So yeah, I think divorce is terrible. As a Catholic, I don't think divorce is even valid, and if you civilly divorce after being validly married you aren't aloud to marry again. Period. On pain of damnation. <br /><br />Clearly, I don't buy the feminist line on this. But I also don't buy the manosphere line that men are strictly the victims in all this. Plenty of women end up immiserated as a result of divorce. Indeed, for all the MRA complaints that child support is "ass rape", single and divorced mothers are, as a group, poorer than divorced men.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-79671467225284016602012-02-22T22:31:44.065-05:002012-02-22T22:31:44.065-05:00[okay, mass over, kids down]
I want to pick up on...[okay, mass over, kids down]<br /><br />I want to pick up on the point where I left off, because it's striking me that there's something else I want to touch on here. Let's look at that Betty quote again:<br /><br />"The married portion of the manosphere has gained traction among some Christian and Catholic men, who—perhaps raised in broken homes—are looking for male role models as they strive to build a marriage and a family that will last."<br /><br />Or how about this one:<br /><br />"Like most reactionary philosophies, an undercurrent of anger informs its theories and practices. The manosphere is not just pro-man; it is really mad at women."<br /><br />Now let's look at a couple Dalrock quotes:<br /><br />"After reading the post several times, my best take on what she is trying to get across is Shame on you if you read (or write) blogs in the manosphere. She could of course have had another point in mind entirely. Instead of my take on her blog post, she may have actually meant I like pizza. Her lack of specific assertions backed up by facts and logical argument makes this impossible to know. This is tricky business, and I’ve learned recently that you can’t take a woman’s own written claims as indicating her own opinion. It could even be the case that I need to tell her what she meant before she can decide if she will or will not back up her own assertions."<br /><br />Or this Dalrock quote:<br /><br />"I do have some concerns about her assertion that men shouldn’t be concerned about women’s lack of control of their own hormonal cycles. I don’t mean this from a game perspective; proper game form in response to a woman behaving irrationally is often a posture of amused mastery. But this frame of mind is specific to a context where the woman’s emotional whims can safely be disregarded."<br /><br />Or how about this:<br /><br />"Aside from being about a general sense of unhappiness, feminism at its core is a rejection of the patriarchal view that women at times behave like children, and a deep desire of women to be taken seriously. With this in mind, I can only assume that Ms. Duffy very much wants us to take her seriously when she tells men not to take women too seriously."<br /><br />Now it sounds to me like the person who is insecure and angry at the opposite sex is Dalrock, not Betty. <br /><br />There are plenty of times when I don't think a woman's writing lives up to my expectations of reason and understanding -- Betty's piece did not fail in that regard. However, there are also times when a man's post falls way, way short of what I'd expect of a man, and Dalrock's post fits that criteria just fine. <br /><br />That's why I don't have a problem with Betty's post, but my response to Dalrock's is, "Man up, punk."<br /><br />Now on to the the next issue...Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-82813097510347423712012-02-22T17:37:01.128-05:002012-02-22T17:37:01.128-05:00Mr. Anonymous,
Thanks for the polite reply. I...Mr. Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for the polite reply. I'm going to start working through some responses. My apologies if I have to leave off for a lengthy period part way through -- I'm using the internet a lot less during Lent and I need to head out to Ash Wednesday mass in a bit here.<br /><br />I take it my background is somewhat more assumed, but just to provide where I'm coming from: I'm a fairly conservative orthodox Catholic in my mid 30s, married for ten years with five kids. My parents were happily married for 30 years until my father's death.<br /><br />Moving right along...<br /><br /><i>[Y]ou don’t seem to dispute Duffy’s claim that if you are religious and involved in the manosphere at all you must be an emotionally wrecked son of divorce. This, is the seat of Dalrock’s complaint an entirely justified one.</i><br /><br />Well, I think it's worth looking at what Betty actually said:<br /><br /><i>"The married portion of the manosphere has gained traction among some Christian and Catholic men, who—perhaps raised in broken homes—are looking for male role models as they strive to build a marriage and a family that will last."</i><br /><br />She doesn't say that anyone "must" be an emotionally wrecked son of divorce, she doesn't even say they must be emotionally wrecked, she just says that they're "looking for male role models as they strive to build a marriage and a family that will last" and provides one possible reason why they might be doing this on the internet rather than among their real world friends and family.<br /><br />I suppose one can complain it's a slightly pat kind of assumption as to why someone would be seeking that kind of guidance in that place, but given the prevalence of divorce in mainstream society I don't think it's necessarily a bad guess. However, it also doesn't seem to be a major part of her understanding of the thing, more a toss-off than anything else. <br /><br />[more in a bit]Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-6838127502340513222012-02-22T16:38:04.583-05:002012-02-22T16:38:04.583-05:00Also, could you post links to specific articles in...Also, could you post links to specific articles in Darlock's site that you view as antithetical to a Christian view of marriage? It might help in the discussion.<br /><br />Mr. AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-22089944694584762282012-02-22T14:33:34.690-05:002012-02-22T14:33:34.690-05:00The only thing that really struck me as new from m...The only thing that really struck me as new from my brief reading of Game was what is called "The Shit Test". Looking back on life it hit me that there were a lot of those tests and that I'd failed them by being the wrong kind of nice. I had deferred rather than taken action and that had caused hurt feelings all around. Feminism teaches us that we should pander while the Bible with its strong description of men teaches us that we should decide and that women will test, as in the case of David and his first wife, over truly odd things.<br /><br />As to “neging” it is a behavior that sadly works well. I don’t know why but I’ve seen it used and I’m thoroughly depressed by its effectiveness. I think it explains a lot of really bad relationships.<br /><br />I'd agree with your comments about a loss of a sense of "what a marriage is for" in the manosphere and particularly Game oriented sites. But that brings us back to Dalrock who is anti-marriage game. He's been very explicit about it. His position is that if you have to game your wife to keep her from breaking sacred vows then something is horribly wrong. This is something both of you can agree on.<br /><br />So this brings us back to Mrs. Duffy and her article. Dalrock is right that she attributes the worst to the manosphere and writes an article that if it had been pointed at Catholics would have caused you serious concern. Consider her characterizations of those who are Catholic and involved in the manosphere as being essentially broken men. In this her discussion of men can be seen as a close parallel to Nietzsche’s description of Christians as being needy weaklings. <br /><br />What’s worse I think Mrs. Duffy is unsure of her own positions. I commented on her own blog, since she’s on the periphery of my social circle, under “anonymous”. Those comments and her original comments have since been deleted. In them she defended a general right of divorce, which is not allowed at all in Catholic theology, as well as the feminist movement in toto. Neither of these were wise, which is why she deleted them, but represent a weakness in her own thinking on the subject.<br /><br />While Mrs. Duffy is correct that men are complicit in the feminist movement I think she doesn’t examine at a deep level how much feminism has colored our thinking and how dangerous that is for conservative thinkers. For example, while she attacks the role men have played in feminism’s growth she seems unable to discuss the role of women. She uses “us” but never once says anything about women. This tendency has, as discussed by Dalrock and others, infected social conservative thinking. The easy response is, “she wasn’t discussing that in her article,” and that to some measure is true; but it’s a general problem with us as social conservatives. We don’t like discussing women behaving badly and we will work very hard to come up with excuses for them. If a space alien descended he would have to assume from modern Christian writing that women don’t sin. This is distinctly different from classical Christian writing.<br /><br />I think a by far better introduction to the frustration is Dalrock’s post on “Serial Polygamy” as can be read here:<br />http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/marriage-lite-mistaking-no-sex-before-monogamy-for-a-moral-statement/<br />Dalrock and Duffy are not true enemies however they are doing a darned good job of making themselves such. Both have read far more into each other’s work than they should. However, I hold Duffy especially to blame since she tossed the first grenade. I think Dalrock should calm down his rhetoric and I think Duffy should take a real hard and long look at how many feminist presumptions she is carrying around.<br /><br />Mr. AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com