Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt

College Men Centers

2012-01-25T12:23:00.000-08:00

I was linked to on the College Men Centers site. Glad to see these groups getting traction and want to spread the word.

A History of 'Women and Children First'

2012-01-24T06:33:00.000-08:00

An interesting history of 'women and children first' can be found here.It starts....
"Winston Churchill’s joke in response to a question about why he was traveling on an Italian cruise ship when a British one was available appears to be prescient commentary on the Concordia disaster:
There are three things I like about Italian ships. First, their cuisine, which is unsurpassed. Second, their service, which is quite superb. And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first."
The article ends with a standard suggestion that women should be first in order to bear future generations. I have to wonder if men die to save women how exactly is the future generation to be created?
But that’s no small thing. As science fiction writer Robert Heinlein wrote in his novel Time Enough For Love:
All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can — and must — be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function.
By that, men are no more than surplusages, to be dumped in an emergency such as a sinking ship.

Light Your Pipe and Fold Your Arms

2012-01-17T12:00:00.000-08:00

In the excellent book, "What's Wrong With Benevolence: Happiness, Private Property, and the Limits of Enlightenment", author David Stove, ends with the following:

"There is a story in American literature somewhere, but I cannot remember where, of a solitary Indian in his canoe, who has been fishing many miles upstream from Niagara Falls. Despite all his local knowledge, he makes some slight misjudgment of time, or wind, or water, and finds himself surprised by the current. For hours he puts forth all his strength in trying to reach the shore, but long before the fatal event itself, he passes a point at which his diminishing strength, and the increasing strength of the current, make further resistance vain. He then ships his paddle, lights his pipe, and folds his arms.
In the circumstances those are the actions of a rational man. Similarly, in my opinion, the world-current of Enlightened benevolence is now so strong, and we have been launched upon it for so many years, that we passed the point of no return a long time ago, and will, if we are rational, emulate the Indian in the story."

I found this story right on point to describe my outlook. Its obvious that I hold traditional values and believe them to be the lynchpin of society, however, I also recognize that these values will never again regain a strong footing in our modern world. All good things must come to an end--at least in our mortal world that is. Active Social Conservatives and those of similar minds continue to put all their strength "in trying to reach the shore", in restoring their values to America, yet all the while they are in denial or ignorance that the Falls are coming no matter how hard they fight against. We passed a point of no return long ago and accepting reality, the course ahead, is a rational conclusion. The sooner we accept our fate as a society, the sooner we can grieve, come to terms, and find some sort of closure with its impending death.

Women as "Instruments of Peace and Security"

2011-12-20T07:50:00.000-08:00

This is it. Women have their chance to save the world and prove they are a much more peaceful force than men. How long have they bemoaned about the violent and harsh nature of men and that if only more women were involved a blanket of peace would cover the land. Well, this is their chance. Let's see how the next several decades go.
"The United States hopes to prevent and defuse conflicts by getting more women seated at negotiating tables around the world, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday.
Clinton said a new U.S. plan, signed by President Barack Obama, would help train and give more voice to female community members who often have a strong sense of how to address dangers and strains in conflict zones.

"Women are bellwethers of society and, in fact, sometimes they do play the role of canary in the coal mine. They know when communities are fraying and when citizens fear for their safety," she told a Georgetown University event."
Since at least the 1800s a women's delicate, peaceful nature, has mistakenly given rise to women as the morally superior sex. Because women appear more 'soft' than men they all of a sudden have a "strong sense" of how to handle conflict. What is always forgotten is that women, as much as they may appear as angels, are also fallen human beings with the same tendencies and gravitations toward sin that men have. Women can be more deceptive in their sin as they naturally are wearing sheep's clothing.

The campaign for women to vote was lead largely by the ideal of women as morally superior and that if only women could vote, the country would be changed around--that women would have a calming, peaceful effect on politics. Well, nearly 100 years later and has politics really changed now that women can vote? Of course what will be said, is that not enough women are voting or not enough women are involved in politics. "If we can just get MORE women involved, then we will see a difference". There is always some magical amount of women being involved that we never reach, but yet is suppose to solve everything. What is hard for the modern woman to admit is that being woman by virtue alone does not make them a magical wand. Their sinful nature is not erased by their sex.

Also, if women know when communities are fraying, they must have missed the boat here in America. Before they get involved in world conflicts, they could start mending the home front. Although ironically, they are the reason many communities are fraying; through feminism we have seen the destruction of the nuclear family--the heart of the community.
"As a result, U.S. combatant commanders will have an officer dedicated to gender issues to ensure protecting women is central to planning, and American diplomats will focus on bringing women into the political process as a core part of their work."
Why do they need protecting? If they are equal to men or superior to men in peaceful negotiating, they should be able to handle it like men. Plus their peaceful nature should instantly calm any foe out to do harm (sarc.).

"No Crazy Chicks"

2011-12-17T02:00:00.000-08:00

NOTE: I've been away recently tending to family. Just so my readers know--I haven't disappeared and don't plan to. I hope to resume a more regular posting schedule soon, but for now I will just post when I can. Thanks. Onwards.....

Here is an article about the red flags to look for when looking for a man online. I found this one particularly noteworthy:
"Red Flag: The list of all the things one doesn’t want in a partner. This list often includes the phrase “no crazy chicks.”
What It Means: I’m not so stable myself.

"Most online dating sites have a “what you’re looking for” section. If someone uses that section as an opportunity to vent about everything they hate, they are a bad-finder who will sniff out all of your faults. The worst among these are the “no crazies!” men. Dudes who are positive that bitches be crazy are also dudes who are willing to write off anything you say as “insane” if it’s something they don’t want to hear. They’re convinced that much of the female population is mentally unstable because they have on occasion run into females who believe they are entitled to their own thoughts, opinions, and rights—and exercise the right not to be interested in No Crazies guy. If you are a reasonably intelligent woman with some amount of self-esteem, you will eventually be branded as “crazy” by No Crazies Guy. Because, frankly, No Crazies Guy is crazy. See also: Men who refer to women as “females.”
To any observant reader it will be clear this is a classic deflection back to men. It offends women to think they have the possibility of being crazy or that even one of their sisters was crazy at one point, so to make them feel better it is easier to rationalize that crazy chicks aren't really the problem--the problem of course lies with men. If men say they don't want crazy chicks, then they don't want crazy chicks--period. Leave it to modern women to complicate a simple statement. If a woman posts and ad saying "no crazy guys" are we too also infer that what that really means is that she is not so stable herself. Something tells me it doesn't also work that way.

Godly Ambition Does Not Mean Pleasing Women

2011-11-06T19:52:00.000-08:00

In my previous post, Justin brought up a good point:

"First, the Christian men that are “good guys” could use a little–what’s the word I’m looking for – ambition."

Hmm, which one of the traditional Christian virtues is that? Which Bible teaching instructs men to be ambitious about worldly pursuits?

John McArthur offers clarification on this point.

In speaking about Paul, he says:

"He had ambition, first of all, that went high, verse 9. “We have as our ambition whether at home or absent to be pleasing to Him.” Just look at the phrase “to be pleasing to Him.” That separates spiritual ambition from sinful ambition. Paul never sought great things for himself, he always sought great things for God. The Apostle is like a violinist who cares not for the audience applause but for the smile of the master who taught him. He lived to please the Lord. Everything he did he did to the glory of the Lord."
Basically the only ambition Christians (women included) should have is in pleasing the Lord, in pleasing HIM. This does NOT mean primarily pleasing women, as much as many would like. Christian ambition is not about pleasing women, feminists, men, the world, or even ourselves. This is what many will find so upsetting. I'm sure some will say that in pursuing worldly ambitions, you end up pleasing women and this in extension will please the Lord, but that is certainly a stretch. The aim should be God first and all others second. Paul did not seek great things for himself or others as the "Manning up" message forces Christian men to do. He rather sought great things for God. His focus was on Him rather than on the many hoops women and society can make a man jump through. If in a man's aim to please God he happens to end up with a successful career that benefits himself and family, that then is the best of both worlds. It is a backwards approach though to aim at pleasing the world first and then hope that God will be satisfied with whatever hoops you jump through.
"In 1 Corinthians chapter 4 he really makes some very, very powerful statements about this. Verse 3, he says, “To me it’s a very small thing that I should be examined by you or by any human court.” It is a minor detail in my life to be examined by people. I really have little regard for what you think or what any human tribunal things. Any evaluation by people has very limited value to me."

Now he’s not saying that in an unhealthy attitude. “I don’t care what you think” attitude which betrays some kind of open display of indifference. But he is simply saying, “At the end of the day I don’t do what I do for your approval. My accountability really is not to you, it’s way beyond that. There is a higher court than any human court.” He even goes on to say, “I don’t even examine myself, I’m conscious of nothing against myself, yet I’m not by this acquitted.”
“At the end of the day I don’t do what I do for your approval. My accountability really is not to you, it’s way beyond that. There is a higher court than any human court.”
I suspect Christian men do not hear that message enough and why would they as it competes and takes away attention from women and the world. It also is the complete opposite of the "manning up" message. "Manning up" is about doing things for human/societal approval. The motivations behind "Manning up" is not to "man up" for God, to please Him, its so women can get married and have their 'happily ever after'.

We are seeing a growing movement of men who are taking on the above attitude. Whether these men are Christian or not, it still sends a powerful message and cannot be ignored under the "manning up" banner. Men have ambitions, its just not towards women (and this is where the outrage stems). If the man is Christian, his ambition (if biblically understood) is in pleasing the Lord and if a man is not a Christian his ambitions may just be in pleasing himself in the interests of self-preservation (which cannot be judged as a bad thing if the man does not profess to being Christian).
"What motivates you? No earthly reward, no earthly honor, no earthly threat, no earthly possibility, no earthly circumstance, no earthly opportunity motivated Paul. He could take it all."
By Kevin DeYoung's standard of ambition, looks like Paul would have been categorized as one unambitious, unmotivated dude. What motivates Christian men should not be pleasing women. The loss of earthly honor that may come from not "manning up" should be of no concern. Saying this will certainly get me in trouble with some traditionalists, but as mentioned above, I am not saying this for their approval.

If "godly ambition" is called for, let it be just that--ambition towards pleasing God. Let it not be used in vain to push man's ambition towards pleasing the world.

Christian Manning Up

2011-11-05T20:45:00.000-07:00

This article takes the cake for being the best example of a "man up" shaming lecture. What makes it so is not the usual talking points, but that it is Christian--proof that the feminism in Christianity cuts deep and if Christians can't even figure out what is so very wrong about the tone and motivations of the article, there is no hope for their secular counterparts. The problem universally in our culture is with men and Christians and non-Christians continue to make this very clear.

Christian women are pleading: “Please speak to the men in our generation and tell them to be men.” Sound familiar? I suppose the difference with the Christian women in general (not all) is they have to get a male author or anyone other than their 'oh so meek, feminine self' to do the legwork for them. Christian women have no issue with taking action in their lives (such as college and careers), but when it comes to what they want in relationships they retreat to demure, helpless wall flowers who need a man who is man enough to tell other men to "man up". They can't take their dating life by the horns with the same fervor they took their college education.

Christian men are no doubt asking for women to be women as well. To demonstrate their desire to be women, not by rushing off to careers and taking on manly endeavors, but by being wives, mothers, and helpmates first and foremost.Women who take on manly endeavors and characteristics should not be surprised if men are taking on typically female characteristics, like being less "ambitious".
"Go to almost any church and you’ll meet mature, intelligent, attractive Christian women who want to get married and virtually no men to pursue them."
Really? I know commenters experiences and my own experiences will beg to differ. It took me awhile to find a church where the young women were not in mini-skirts, with bra straps showing, and texting away on their cell phones. It took me awhile to find a women's bible study where gossiping and men bashing did not occur regularly. The women in theses churches and groups were not even close to thinking about marrying, but about college, grad schools, and "fun" dating until they were established. They certainly met worldly standards of maturity and intelligence, but were lacking in more Christian attributes of humility and wisdom.

Men do not think they need to pursue because Christian women have proven they do not have an issue biblically or otherwise to pursue something if they really, really want it. So, why is it different with men? They pursue with a passion careers, jobs, college, and even pastoral leadership, but when it comes to their dating life, they still have the old-fashioned notion that men are to do the pursuing. It just doesn't add up and women can't have it both ways. Either you are a pursuer and take on college, career, men, and all your dreams or you meekly and quietly submit to the plans of the Lord and learn to be content in whether you go to college or not or whether a man pursues you or not. There is an attitude of submission that still survives the modern church, but only when it comes to being pursued in dating. Before dating and I suspect after dating, in marriage, a modern Christian woman's attitude reverts back to pursuer/conqueror/leader. It is just this narrow gap in a modern young woman's life where she gets nostalgic for the old-fashioned values of being pursued. In short, men receive a mixed message from a woman who is ambitious in all other matters except her dating life.
"These women are often in graduate programs and may have started a career already. But they aren’t feminists. They are eager to embrace the roles of wife and mother. Most of the women I’ve met don’t object to the being a helpmate. There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of mates to go around."
Indeed, they have no problem getting serious about college and careers, but when it comes to getting married, they expect to just roll over and let the men come do all the work and shame them when they don't. It may be one thing if we lived back in a pre-feminist era when women did not pursue college and careers, when men truly were expected to do the pursuing and courting, but modern Christian women can't have it both ways. You can't insist on being an independent career woman and take on the values of the modern world yet also shiver into an 1800 timid, Christian girl when it comes to dating. He insists these women are not feminists, but as my readers know there are also sheep that insist they are not wolves. A career woman with a cross around her neck does not negate her feminist choices. If women were truly eager to embrace wife and mother roles, they would have been serious about it at a young age, more serious than they were about their graduate program. Wife and motherhood should not be an afterthought if it is a priority. There are certainly mates to go around, just not good enough or man enough mates, in other words, mates they don't want to help.
"First, the Christian men that are “good guys” could use a little–what’s the word I’m looking for–ambition. Every pastor has railed on video games at some point. But the problem is not really video games, it’s what gaming can (but doesn’t always) represent. It’s the picture of a 20something or 30something guy who doesn’t seem to want anything out of life. He may or may not have a job. He may or may not live with his parents. Those things are sometimes out of our control. There’s a difference between a down-on-his-luck fella charging hard to make something out of himself and a guy who seems content to watch movies, make enough to eat frozen pizzas in a one room apartment, play Madden, watch football 12 hours on Saturday, show up at church for an hour on Sunday and then go home to watch more football."
There really is no sympathy here for the man who really is down on his luck, for the man who is struggling for identity in a struggling economy, which I believe makes up the majority of these alleged unambitious men. I wonder what would be the advice to a Christian woman who is dating or wants to date a young man who is going through a tough time. Is it "avoid them like the plaque" until you find Mr. Perfect (who can then later loose it all or his job in an instant) or can a lesson be learned that if you want to be a "helpmate" in marriage it may involve helping your mate in a "down-on-his-luck" situation.

"I don’t think young women are expecting Mr. Right to be a corporate executive with two houses, three cars, and a personality like Dale Carnegie. They just want a guy with some substance. A guy with plans. A guy with some intellectual depth. A guy who can winsomely take initiative and lead a conversation. A guy with consistency. A guy who no longer works at his play and plays with his faith. A guy with a little desire to succeed in life. A guy they can imagine providing for a family, praying with the kids at bedtime, mowing the lawn on Saturday, and being eager to take everyone to church on Sunday. Where are the dudes that will grow into men?"
I like how he suggests women don't have such high standards as to expect an executive and three cars, but then goes on with a laundry list of items that women are to expect. His list may seem like more virtuous or Christian qualities than desiring an alpha with three cars, but the desires for perfection are the same. "Some substance" turns out to be a lot of substance and I have to wonder what happens to a man if he fails in any of these ways. If he fails to "lead a conversation", to have the right level of "intellectual depth", to "pray with the kids" and especially if he "fails to provide", what will happen to those men, who cannot meet or sometimes come in short with Christian women expectations? Are young women equipped to deal with a less than perfect man or will they shame him or divorce him when he isn't? Note it may not even be enough to take the family to church on Sunday, but he must also be "eager" in doing so.
"Men, you don’t have to be rich and you don’t have to climb corporate ladders. You don’t have to fix cars and grow a beard. But it’s time to take a little initiative–in the church, with your career, and with women. Stop circling around and start going somewhere. It’s probably a good idea to be more like your grandpa and less like Captain Jack Sparrow. Even less like Peter Pan. Show some godly ambition. Take some risks. Stop looking for play dates and–unless God is calling you to greater service through singleness–start looking for a wife."
Yes, men, take initiative in a feminized church, in a feminized work place, and with less than feminized women!* "Circling around" sounds a lot like the secular article that says men are "thrashing around". Aw, and cue the "Peter Pan" line. "Godly ambition" may come if women start to show "godly submission", but as long as Christian women are out chasing worldly pursuits, pursuing degrees and fancy careers, there leaves little room for men to show ambition as the women are doing it for them.

*Sarcasm.

Men Thrashing Around

2011-11-04T10:33:00.000-07:00

In reaction to more men living at home, "men sort of thrash around a bit" is the latest expression for those who allegedly refuse to grow up. Charming.

“Women mature at a younger age so they are probably more able to hold down a job and pay the rent,” she said. “Men sort of thrash around a bit.”

It could easily be suggested that women are so mature that they no longer need men or marriage (and this is suppose to a be good thing). Maturity in our modern world is defined by dependence from needing anyone or anything.

In a related article, we learn that only women with low self-esteem would date a man in a hardship situation.
"I'd also contend that, for a man, living with one's parents doesn't necessarily kill one's dating life, either. Since most women have their own places and many women have low self-esteem, nowadays the number of women who absolutely wouldn't date a man driven by hardship to live at home is dwindling."
How the times have changed. A modern woman is not there to support her man in hard times unless she is a woman with low self-esteem. Because clearly a mature woman with high self-esteem, who knows better, with moxie and girl power, would only stay with and support a man during the good times.

Lack of Good Men to Blame for Mean Women

2011-10-31T06:52:00.000-07:00

Why are women mean, cruel, heartless, and competitive? Because of no good men of course. This is just another attempt to blame men for women's poor behavior and failure to accept responsibility for their own actions.

The most hilarious part:

"Even women's success over men in education and the job market is fuelling the Mean Girls trend.
Though women are delivering higher academic scores than their male counterparts, colleges are limited in female admissions as they must adhere to rules stipulating a fair 'gender balance'.
'Individual women aren't just being victimized by these preferential admissions policies, but their relationships with their female peers,' he writes."

Women's own success is making them mean and the very policies women demanded for equality in admissions is making them this way!

The comments to the article overwhelmingly get what is going on:

"As a women who has lived in dorms with other women, went to an all female high school, and worked in women-dominated fields, I can honestly say that women LIVE for competition. I EMPATHIZE with men who have to choose from a dating pool of self-absorbed, materialistic, status-obsessed phonies. They hate themselves and they hate each other and then try to pin the blame on men for all this hatred. Let's leave men out of it this time. The truth of the matter is: WOMEN ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES."
- lilarae

"Only going to get worse until the courts get straightened out.I am 36, fit, with a good paying job and home. Could have been married twice, but what's the point? 50-60% of marriages end in divorce anyways and who gets the shaft? The man."I need to go find myself, so I want a divorce. By the way, I am taking the house, the kids, the car and 1/2 to 1/3 of your income. Have a nice life!"Yeah that sounds like something I want to be a part of"
- marinevet

"There are plenty of good men. Our entire lives, women have manipulated us and rejected us in favor of thugs and players.As we have gotten older, we have become aware of the colossal unfairness men endure in the divorce courts. And we are keenly aware that a relationship with a woman puts us at the mercy of a nasty shrew who can have us arrested, or worse, at the pointing of a finger.We, the good men, are out there but we know better than to have anything to do with women.Enjoy spinsterhood and cats, ladies. You've earned it."
- Good men know better

"Plenty of good men, they are just avoiding women."
- Old Fuzzhead

UK Raises Women's Pension Age to Equal Man's --Women Throw Fit

2011-10-22T08:14:00.000-07:00

Equality is a bitter pill to swallow. This story about the outrage over raising women's pension age is a good example.

First, some background on UK current pension ages:

"For men born before 6 December 1953, the current State Pension age is 65.

For women, the current State Pension age is increasing from 60 to 65 from April 2010. This affects women born on or after 6 April 1950."

So, let's see, currently (and for however long) women have been able to collect their pension a whole 5 years ahead of men even when women typically live longer too. Now, the mere proposal that women's pension age will be the same as men, has sent some straight to a hissy fit:

"Ministers have just announced details of an eleventh-hour lifeline to hundreds of thousands of women affected by controversial plans to raise the state pension age.
They have decided to delay an increase in the pension age to 66 in 2020 by six months after being inundated with complaints from angry women.
Significantly, the changes will apply to both men and women and will cost £1billion."
Naturally, the article did not point out the simple facts from the government website I linked to above, that women currently and have been privileged enough to collect their pension 5 years ahead of men. Due to economic realities, you would think women could get off their gravy train and rather enjoy some humble pie, but oh no, giving women the same pension age as men is of course an "injustice" and "sexist".

"The U-turn means that women – some of whom were facing the prospect of waiting an extra two years before they could claim their state pension – will have their wait reduced to 18 months. The move will benefit around 300,000 women.
The Pensions Bill currently going through Parliament proposes that the state pension age for women will reach 65 by November 2018 and rise to 66 for both men and women by April 2020. Instead the amendments laid today will propose that men and women reach 66 by October 2020.
The Daily Mail has led the way in campaigning against the injustice being faced by these women and the Government should take credit for listening to these concerns."
Injustice? And men waiting 5 years after women to collect their pension, is what exactly?

"‘Six months! Is that it!’ is the response I have just had from one of the women affected by these changes. And I suspect that is going to be a cry of women in their mid-fifties up and down the country."
Cry away. The day will come when no one gets a pension and both men and women will have to work to the grave. These are the golden days of privilege and entitlements.

How Toilet Stains Can Offend a Modern Woman

2011-10-20T17:03:00.000-07:00

Funny the things a mundane google search will turn up. In this article about cleaning toilet rust stains we find Tiffany who is offended by the accompanying article photo:

"I can not even believe the picture that went along with this article. As a full time working professional woman it really bothers me. Please join us in 2007."

The offending photo:

The responses to Tiffany were right on:

Lisa ---"As a woman in 2009 (or 2007) you should be confident enough in yourself to not be bothered by antiquated images of housewives cleaning toilets."

Tom---"Now I’m wondering what Tiffany’s toilet looks like. As a hard-working professional woman, Tiffany probably has little time to clean her toilet. And she spends a lot of time being mad. On second thought, I don’t think I want to see Tiffany’s toilet."

Funny thing about cleaning is that no matter how feminist you are, it still needs to be done. And if you are a single working professional woman all the more likely you, a woman, will be cleaning the toilet yourself.

A Lesson about Women from The Twilight Zone

2011-09-28T17:34:00.000-07:00

Caught an episode of "The Twilight Zone" that interestingly captured a modern woman's attitude and how it can break a man. In the episode, "A Stop at Willoughby".....

"Gart Williams is an overstressed New York advertising executive who has grown exasperated with his career. His overbearing boss, Oliver Misrell, angered by the loss of a major account, lectures him about this "push-push-push" business. Unable to sleep properly at home, he drifts off for a short nap on the train during his daily commute through the November snow.
He wakes to find the train stopped and changed into an 1880s railcoach, deserted except for himself. The sun is bright outside and as he looks out the window, he discovers that the train is in Willoughby and that it's July 1888. He learns that this is a "peaceful, restful place, where a man can slow down to a walk and live his life full measure." Being jerked back awake in the real world, he asks the conductor if he has ever heard of a town called Willoughby, but the conductor replies, "Not on this run . . . no Willoughby on the line."
That night, he has one more argument with his shrewish wife, Jane. Selfish, cold and uncaring, she makes him see that he is only a money machine to her. He tells her about his dream and about Willoughby, only to have her ridicule him as being "born too late," declaring it her "miserable tragic error" to have married a man "whose big dream in life is to be Huckleberry Finn."
The next week, Williams again dozes off on the train and returns to Willoughby where everything is the same as before. As he is about to get off the train carrying his briefcase, it begins to roll, returning him to the present. Williams promises himself to get off the next time he is in the village.
Experiencing a breakdown at work, he calls his wife, who abandons him in his time of need. On his way home, once again he falls asleep to find himself in Willoughby. This time, the conductor warmly beckons him to the door and Williams discards his briefcase.
Getting off the train, he is greeted by name by various of the inhabitants, who welcome him while he tells them that he's glad to be there and plans to stay and join their idyllic life.
The swinging pendulum of the station clock fades into the swinging lantern of a train engineer, standing over Williams' body. The modern-day conductor explains that Williams "shouted something about Willoughby", just before jumping off of the train and was killed instantly. "Poor fellah", the engineer mumbles, as the conductor nods in agreement. Williams's body is loaded into a hearse and as the back door closes, we see that it was sent by the Willoughby & Son Funeral Home."
Below, at the 2:45 part is the start of the scene with the wife. It is worth watching to the see selfish and unsympathetic nature of this modern woman. She could care less about her husband's well-being, about what he wants in life, about the stresses he is under; what she cares about is that he doesn't blow it and ruin his career that affords her the lifestyle she so deserves. She is clearly angry that her husband is not a natural alpha and that rather she has been stuck with, in her mind, a loser. He says its his wife's appetite that got him where he is today (meaning this negatively), she then brags about where would he be without her appetite for status and wealth as if he would be nothing without her and that those are the only things that truly matters. He then offers a very honest answer--he wants to be in a simpler time or at least live a simpler life, like his dream of Willoughby. This is where she then "ridicules him as being "born too late," declaring it her "miserable tragic error" to have married a man "whose big dream in life is to be Huckleberry Finn."

A following scene shows Gart at the verge of a breakdown at work. He calls his wife in a desperate plea for help and support; it is his only hope, but all she can do is hang up on him. This leads to a tragic ending; one that is becoming all to familiar amongst men as the women in their lives who are suppose to be with them for better and worse, to be their support, their comfort, continue to give up and abandon them just because the men are not living up to the expectation of what they consider to be a "a real man". We are told time and time again that men should share their emotions, that "holding feelings in is not what being a man is about", yet here we have a man who is doing just that, opening himself to his wife, and all he gets is ridicule and abandonment. The lesson here is that Huckleberry Finns won't do for the modern woman and men today are unfortunately learning this the hard way.

From Eve the Temptress to Eve the Innocent Victim

2011-09-04T11:22:00.000-07:00

In the book Faces of Feminism by Olive Banks, 1981, there is a particularly interesting chapter entitled "The Ideal of Female Superiority". I found this section clearly spells out how we got to where we are today(emphasis mine):

"In the hands even of the most conservative of them the cult of domesticity became transformed into the ideal of female superiority, and the doctrine of separate spheres into the attempted invasion of the masculine world not simply by women but, potentially even more revolutionary in its impact, by womanly values. Moreover, the process by which this change occurred was bound up, as we have seen in the previous chapter, with the transformation of woman from Eve the eternal temptress to Eve the innocent victim. According to the new ideology, it was now the male who was naturally evil; the female essentially good, and through her goodness and purity was able to redeem mankind from sin."

"Fiedler(1960) has pointed out that this reversal of attitudes to women was associated with a conversion of Calvinist dogma into sentimental piety or, as he himself calls it, the Sentimental Love Religion. It was, he argues, part of 'a genteel transformation of Christianity from a religion of duty and the conviction of sin to one of benevolence and the conviction of innocence'. This increasing 'feminization' of religion, as it has been called, was associated partly with the increasing importance of women in the congregation, partly with a growing stress on the softer feminine virtues of love and forgiveness (Welter, 1974). As Stevenson (1956 p.137) puts it, 'the harshness of an earlier era was slowly melting throughout the nineteenth century, like an iceberg in warmer seas'. In the United States this transformation of Calvinism is associated particularly with Henry Ward Beecher, a brother of Catherine Beecher and an active supporter of women's suffrage in the 1860s, although in later years the scandal associated with his alleged adultery with Elizabeth Tilton was actually to harm the suffrage cause. Beecher preached 'a new experimental Christianity that emphasized God's love for man and the availability of salvation for all'. The new religion was a 'religion of the heart, an appeal to the feelings and emotion that replaced the cold, formalistic evangelical theology of the previous generation' (Clark, 1978, pg. 4)."

Conservative feminists of the time and also today, perhaps even more so than the radical/liberal feminists, are responsible for the current superior women mentality. It is easy to see how the adherents of the cult of domesticity could easily become full of themselves and transform what should be the humble, self-denying sphere of motherhood, tending the home, and being a virtuous wife into a weapon of 'women know best' and in turn create the cult of women's superiority. Pride simply overcame them. They took the God given gifts of feminine character, made them their own, and continue to use those gifts as leverage over men and society in general to be the world's moral gatekeepers and saviors of society.

The Christianity of today is largely variations of this new experimental Christianity that appeals to "feelings and emotion", which is what instinctively convicts women, not sin. To some women, Christianity is still "a religion of duty" as long as they are telling and overseeing what the duties are and who should be doing what duty, especially as it relates to men and their duty to marry, provide, etc. The transformation of the cult of domesticity into the cult of women's superiority has placed women as the authority for morals and duty. The authority to claim what is moral, what/who is true/real, what is good, can also go the other way with the authority to claim no morals or everything is relative, as the liberal feminists tend to do.

Christianity and the culture in general has gone from viewing woman as temptress and capable of sin, to women who are innocent victims, free of sin, and can do no wrong. What keeping women viewed as temptress' did was give a healthy dose of reality and humility in suggesting that all women, just like all of humanity are sinful and fall short of the glory of God. Take away that 'harsh' reminder, and women can have a field day of relishing in their pride as God's morally superior beings. With the new "Sentimental Love Religion" and the push for emphasis on feelings, its only natural that Eve as temptress did not make the women feel good, therefore that image was done away with; to be replaced with "innocent victim", which does make women feel good because it creates one big umbrella to bring her morally superior claims under. As an "innocent victim" the sky is the limit to how she can wield her power and authority.

This is also why I believe All Women are Like That (AWLT). By default, all women are natural sinners (just like men) and its only by the grace of God that we become pure and virtuous. The key to remember is that it is the grace of God, his gift, not by our own understanding or superior authority, that grants one a virtuous spirit.When we start thinking our better qualities come from ourselves or come innately from our own sex, we forget the true source and should give praise to God, the only true morally superior being, rather than give praise to our own sex as women. Only through God can mankind be redeemed from sin, not through the "goodness and purity" of women.

Women Seeking the Perfect Life

2011-09-01T17:20:00.000-07:00

In general, this is an interesting article, specifically as to the admittance of these statements:
"If you have a teenage son, warn him now: women are ruthless when it comes to mapping out their perfect life. They will trick you, and by this I don’t mean by merely dyeing their hair and extending their eyelashes and dropping their passport in the pool so their date of birth develops a smudge (guilty as charged)."

"I believe women are only really capable of great love, free from the distortion of procreation and a detached house, when they are either very young or very old. There is no desperation at either end of the life-cycle.

Its seems not that modern women are looking for love per se, but rather the "perfect life" and they believe part of that life comes with finding love or the appearance of love with some man. Its about image, about the American dream, about suiting their own purposes. If you believe 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, you know that love is "not self-seeking". Love can be found at any age and with the less than average looking man who doesn't make that much money, but then that is not the self-seeking love that gives one beautiful children, beautiful homes and materials things, or the perfect image of a life. When very young and very old we do tend to grasp better the true meaning of love; however, somewhere along the way modern women sell their opportunity of true love in exchange for the hope of the perfect life that certain sinister forces keep telling them will come if they just do this, that, and the other.

The message more and more men are being warned about now is that women aren't primarily seeking love in the good-old fashioned sense, but rather the perfect life, which may or may not include some version of love. And that perfect life is defined by whatever current, modern trends say are perfect. All the love in the world from a good man won't be enough if the woman continues to think that her life is lacking in some way. If she doesn't have a particular lifestyle, there is the promise and hope that another man can offer her such. She can convince herself she hasn't found love or is not "in love" anymore because her situation isn't matching up to what she thinks it should be.

Men Should be Seen and Not Heard

2011-08-27T17:04:00.000-07:00

A comment was left by Anonymous Reader over at Dalrock's place that deserves more attention regarding common frustrations with traditionalists (read full comment string for context):
"Elizabeth, I understand that you do not want anyone to criticize you or your friends in any way. But that is not how the world works. Sure, trad con web sites can ban disagreement – either by refusing to post criticism & banning critics as one has for a while, or by censoring Blogger comments via deletion as another recently engaged in – but that won’t make the reasoned, thoughtful, sometimes angry critics go away. You don’t convert a man by silencing him, although history is full of churches and states that tried it. And you don’t win people over to your side by bashing them with your god one day and calling them “evil” the next."
That is just the thing--men are becoming increasingly frustrated and even angry as they wake up to our brave new feminized world. Whether their comments are banned, deleted, or scolded to "be agreeable", at the end of the day, the feelings of these men still remain. The simplest or perhaps it is billed as the "Christ-like" solution is to ignore these men as if their thoughts and feelings don't exist. Put the fingers in the ears and sing "la la la la" and continue on with the elephant in the room. Women want men to share their feelings, but as with many other things, what they really mean is "please just share the feelings that make my feelings feel good." It used to be children, but now it is men that should be "seen and not heard". Many aren't necessarily looking for agreement or to be friends, but simply just to be heard and you don't have to agree or become friends with someone to truly listen.
"What would be a good idea would be to acknowledge the ugly reality of marriage law in the US, for a start. Not in a flippant, “oh, well, yes, there’s a problem” manner that has more than a whiff of the college girl in lit-crit class, but in a serious, adult, sober manner. I don’t see trad cons doing that first step.
Traditionalist/conservative people have to come face to face with facts; to continue to live in a fantasy world where every social problem can be solved by men “just manning up” is simply a non-starter. I’ve grown weary of pointing out the same inconvenient facts over and over again to people who seem unable to learn. It is not enough to flippantly acknowledge “some issues” with marriage at one moment, and then turn ’round and once again demand that men should just “man up” and marry in the next. There is a huge blind spot among tradcons regarding the reality of Marriage 2.0, to be blunt. And it’s not getting better. For people who claim to have long memories, trad-cons in my experience don’t seem to be able to use them very well; I should not have to point out the one-sided nature of modern marriage 2.0 contract enforcement over and over and over again, should i? Yet that has to happen every time I attempt to engage any trad con on the topic, even those that I’ve discussed the issue with before. If a group of people can’t get beyond the initial problem statement, if they can’t overcome their own denial that a problem exists, I do not want them as allies, because they are useless since they cannot learn from experience. And the trad-con fantasy that somehow, after a societal collapse, everyone will turn to them for advice is not even worth discussing. It’s on a par with something a teenager might dream up after reading too much apocalyptic science fiction. Yet I keep seeing it here and there – I cannot take seriously any group that entertains such nonsense.
Your cite of Christians and marriage is really not useful, given the fact that evangelical Christians get divorced at essential the same rate as the larger society – 38% vs. 40% – so I really do not see why anyone should take any advice from you on that score seriously at all. You show me a church with a divorce rate that is, oh, under 20% and I will pay attention to what they have to say. As it is, churchianity folks are like a drunk on a bar stool pointing at another drunk and hollering “Hey! You’re drunk!”. It’s not impressive to anyone that is sober."
This point about Christians failing at marriage cannot be stressed enough. This is absolutely true and we cannot sell and market marriage to a secular world when the product is defective and has such a high return rate within our own community. Christianity and churches are frankly a mess. They have a huge denial problem, or "blind spot", and tend to think its about quantity not quality. If a lot of people (thousands in the mega-churches) are attending church, then everyone must be OK and spiritually whole. All the while many, if not all, are left struggling and in a spiritual void. Same thing with marriage--the push is that if we can just get more to marry, like getting more to go to church, all will be OK. As if saying a few vows and worshiping a few Sundays, will set the world right. Both marriage and being a Christian takes A LOT of work. It is not the act of a wedding or the act of going to church that determines the quality/strength of a marriage or the heart/faith of a Christian. Simply getting married in our 2.0 world, does not guarantee the strength or dedication to that marriage. The churches have failed in efforts to strengthen and preserve the marriages that already exist. Before secular folks can even begin to take us seriously, we need to get serious about our own beliefs.

In response to the Christian divorce statistics another commenter had this to say:
"Concerning divorce rates among Christians, yes it’s a shame. Their murder rate is probably high,too. What does it matter? As a Christian I’m supposed to live according to God’s laws, if some other people call themselves Christian and violate them it hardly gives me license to do the same. Since most MRAs are apparently unbelievers they simply can’t grasp it."

What does it matter?! It matters because Christians are to be "the light of the world". If Christians are not setting a good example, what chance does the rest of humanity have? Secular people are not paying attention to individual marriages, but to statistics and to how bright the Christian community light really shines. There is little motivation for others to move towards marriage when our light is nearly half burned out. We should present a sign of hope that marriage can work; but as a whole, we are not doing that and we then expect secular men to jump on the marriage bandwagon, sit down, and most importantly---shut-up.

Finding Love with Grace

2011-08-13T08:17:00.000-07:00

In a new book, "How to Love an American Man", grandma provides lessons on the lost art of love. In listening to her grandma, the author found:
"I had a history of demanding what I wanted from a guy instead of relating to my partner with caring and patience, which resulted in a lot unfulfilledness and sometimes even embarrassment," she said of her change in attitude. "When I started operating with more grace and a grasp of how naturally beautiful a woman is created to be, that calmness elicited the exact result I sought in a relationship. That's what continues to work for me today.
How simple and so sad that such a profound truth has been lost to generations of women.

Dash of Salt - August 10, 2011 Edition

2011-08-10T15:13:00.000-07:00

There are so many things to comment on and never enough time, so I am going to start doing a post here and there with random links/news stories that I find interesting, or in other words, provide a "Dash of Salt".
True Femininity has a good piece on why the underlying principles of feminism are in conflict with a Christ centered life.

Nothing new here, except that its admitted in print, ABC's fall line-up has one mission in mind--portray women as strong and men as dumb and weak.

New phenomenon of college women seeking "sugar daddies" to pay for that mounting college debt. At what point does having self-respect outweigh the cost of college? Or is college just so important that women must do whatever it takes? The irony is that women used to marry for financial security, but that became seen as a form of slavery and a unhealthy dependence. They have now traded one form of 'slavery' for another. No matter how you slice it some women still need men for financial help; the difference is in how they go about getting it.

Fox News host, Megyn Kelly, says shes not the sort of mother to be effective as a stay-at-home mom and worries that she'd get stale from missing her old life.

Great article from Mike Adams about why to hold off on or skip college.

Alcuin on why women can't "have it all".

Elusive Wapiti on the problem of segregating by age in church.

A Husband Cannot be Relieved from his Liability to Support his Wife

2011-07-31T15:09:00.000-07:00

Lesson 36

From this article we find another interesting discovery from the past. I did not add much commentary as this is one of those pieces that speaks for itself.
"In section 51 of the Domestic Relation law, 1909, we read:
A married woman has all the rights in respect to property, real or personal, and the acquisition, use, enjoyment, and disposition thereof, to make contract in respect thereto with any person, including her husband and to carry on any business, trade, or occupation, and to exercise all powers and enjoy all rights in respect there to, an in respect to her contracts, and be liable on such contracts as if she were unmarried; but a husband and wife cannot contract to dissolve the marriage or to relieve the husband from his liability to support his wife."
This bold line is the gem of the article. Despite our modern understanding and before feminism fully took root, it turns out married women had quite a plethora of "rights" 100 years ago. Given women weren't writing the laws back then and feminism did not have much of cultural influence just yet, it seems the men bestowed women these rights on their own accord. In doing so, they covered women so well that they even put themselves at a disadvantage by insisting that a husband is not to be "relieved of his liability to support his wife", despite what she may accomplish or wealth she may accumulate on her own. Were men the alleged tyrants claimed back then, I would think they would leave that part out.
"The common law on which the law of the State is based has always recognized the family as the social unit, and held the husband and father responsible for its welfare. There is in the minds of some persons at present and Mrs. Johnston-Wood seems to be one of the number, a disposition to ignore or decline to recognize, this point of view, and to declare that the individual, in contradistinction to the family, is the social unit."
A fundamental difference in views today stem from whether you believe the family or the individual is the driving unit of society. Supposedly, those days of patriarchy or men leading/controlling their families are mostly behind us, so therefore you would think that the husband/father no longer holds the responsibility for the welfare of the family. Not quite, as the above demonstrates. While we are talking 1909, I believe an undercurrent of that notion still exists. Women were relieved from their alleged burdensome responsibilities of living under a patriarchy, but conveniently have kept men in their role of being responsible for their welfare, despite any wealth women accumulate on their own. Were we really to get rid of patriarchy, women would have to step up to the plate and assume the responsibility for the family's welfare regardless of how much money men brought in or acquired on their own.

Men supposedly had it so good back then and women so bad, yet the welfare of the family was entirely the man's responsibility. This is no small or easy job. What if we were to start new laws where the family unit was still held as the basis of society, but rather women were solely responsible for the welfare of the family and no matter how much her husband may have amassed his own "individual estate", she could not be relieved of her liability to support him. I imagine such laws would be deemed sexist as it would be placing an unfair burden on women. Yet when unfair burdens are placed on men, this is perfectly normal and just.
"To insist upon reviewing the law as it stands while refusing to recognize the spirit which gave it birth, and to look at it through the distorted medium of deliberate misunderstand, is as foolish and misleading as it is disingenuous, and quite unworthy of even a special pleader. Because the husband and father was and is responsible for the subsistence of his wife and family therefore he was recognized as logically the proper person to administer and inherit the property of the family; but as time wore away the barriers raised for protection had become coercive between the family and the world and industrial life began to call women out of the home, and property amassed by the wife was claimed by the husband and used sometimes for his benefit rather than hers, the gradual changes began to take place which have in the last thirty or forty years entirely changed the relation of the wife toward property and the guardianship of her children. The change has all been in the favor of the wife and mother, and one after another the privileges which men had over the property of their wives and the guardianship of their children have not only been lost but many of them have been actually reversed. The legal relations are as though they were unmarried, excepting that they cannot alter or dissolve the marriage. The wife cannot release the husband from the obligation to support her.

"....I wish to call attention to the fact that throughout these laws it is assumed as an unalterable condition that when a man marries and makes a woman the mother of his children he thereby incurs the responsibility which the wife never shares no matter how much property she may have. For over thirty years a woman has been able to hold and enjoy her separate property, however acquired, even when it has been given by her husband, freed from any interference or control by him, and from all liability for his debts. A husband is, however, liable for necessaries purchased by his wife and also for money given his wife by a third person to purchase necessaries, and he is bound to support her and her children without regard to her individual or separate estate. Even when a separation occurs a husband is compelled through the payment of alimony to continue to support his wife, nothing short of infidelity on her part and consequence divorce relieve him of that liability. No obligation, however, to furnish necessaries to a husband rests upon the wife under any circumstances whatever.

A woman may sell, assign, or transfer her real and personal property and carry on any trade or business and perform and labor and service on her separate account and her earnings are her own sole and separate property. Mrs. Johnston-Wood says that the "joint earnings of husband and wife belong to the husband", but she forgets to add that out of those joint earnings the wife must be supported and that if they are large enough to be invested in real estate it becomes impossible for the husband to sell or devise it except subject to her dower right. Through this "dower right" Mrs. Johnston-Wood complains that a husband is obliged to lease only one-third of his real estate to his wife, and that she has only a life interest in it. But this right of hers attaches to any her owns at the time of marriage, or acquires during the marriage, and no act of his can divest her of it. On the other hand she can buy, sell, give or will away her real property as freely as though she were unmarried without any right to interference by him, and without any claim of his upon it. This "dower right" is a very real and active line upon a husband's estate, while the so-called "courtesy right," which is supposed to offset it, is a very shadowy affair, and has been so seldom exercised as to make it difficult to find authorities defining its exact limits and privileges. A husband has no right to any of his wife's estate until after the birth of a living child, and this right is so lightly considered that a wife may absolutely defeat it at any time without the consent of her husband, either by conveying her real property during her lifetime or by devising it by will. Should he inherit through "courtesy" right, his too is only a life interest. A husband is not obliged to leave his personal property to his wife, but neither is the wife obliged to leave any to her husband. There is no "discrimination against", they stand on equality.

Mrs. Johnston-Wood complains that a woman cannot make a binding contract with her husband to be paid for her services. But she doesn't need to do so. He is obliged to support her, but she can go into any business she pleases, keep all the profits and still demand support from him. A husband has no claim against his wife's estate for having supported her, but if she supports him, as by keeping a boarding house and he acknowledges the debt, she has a valid claim for reimbursement against his estate.

Generally speaking the rights of a wife against her husband are such as he cannot deprive her of, while his rights against her depend entirely upon her consent and she can deprive him of them at any time with the greatest ease."

Women's College Admits Men

2011-07-25T19:04:00.000-07:00

The title of this article was just too funny to not blog on right away:

"Women’s College Admits Men, Gender-Segregates Classes, Pisses Off Everyone"

That was the men's reaction when women were granted entrance to all males schools! What goes around comes around. More thoughts to come to later...just wanted to get this up now to start discussion.

Is Sewing and Crafting a Necessity for the Homemaker?

2011-07-25T17:17:00.000-07:00

The traditional or perhaps stereotypical image of a homemaker is one who besides taking care of the children, cooks, sews, and does other crafty projects, for the betterment or to create a cozy environment for her family. I think that is all well and fine and I certainly enjoy such things myself, but as far as sewing and crafting goes it can get expensive* and I wonder where is the line drawn as far as a cost/benefit analysis?

At what point is the cost of such niceties too much for a family, that it overrides any enjoyment? A homemaker should also be prudent with the funds available to her and if such and such a project is too costly or can be bought ready-made elsewhere and for cheaper, should she still partake? Are we to simply do these things because that is what a homemaker does and that is the image we are to maintain or do we put aside image in some or all cases for the financial whole of the family or maybe even because a husband thinks money spent on crafting could be of better use elsewhere?

A woman used to be needed at home to make and mend clothing as this was a huge money saver, nowadays it is significantly cheaper to buy clothes at thrift stores or even to buy brand new than it is to buy the material. Of course there will always be the button that needs to be sewn back on and other minor sewing tasks; I am talking more about full-on garments and sewing projects. Craft projects can get expensive too and scrapbooking is one such example. Although, the scrapbooking of today is a far cry from old fashioned scrapbooking where you took items you collected, like a movie ticket stub, and glued it into a modest book, rather than the fancy papers, scissors, etc., that are used today. Scrapbooks of today have very little "scraps" and are mostly a glorified photo album.

It seems to me that crafting and sewing should only be done if it can be done very cheaply and should not be done just for the sake of homemaking. Crafting, even at a higher cost, can be justified if that is part of a home business and the cost of supplies can be recouped in the amount received for finished product.

Also, if the husband does not find any value in crafty projects, even if done cheaply, then perhaps the wife should not partake. I think most men will not find their home any less cozier if it was void of sewing and crafts. The idea is to make a comfortable home for your husband and children and if your husband is perfectly comfortable and satisfied without sewing or crafts, there really is no need. Crafting as a hobby seems reasonable (as money allows), but being something a homemaker must do as part of the image, does not.

We should not fool ourselves into thinking all things are a must for our husband/family or that I must do this because that is what a homemaker does. It is easy to have the homemaker image become an idol where we end up worshiping that image, rather than focusing on the exact needs of our family. The end goal is to have a peaceful haven of a home, where the children are happy and well cared for, the home is reasonably clean, meals are prepared (they may not be glamorous, but are nutritious and sustaining), and that a husband feels at ease and comfort in his own house. All these things can be met without following stereotypical homemaker images, such as the 50's housewife. It shouldn't matter how those things are accomplished but that they are accomplished.

*I recognize that crafty materials can still be found cheaply if you know where to look, for free, or even around the house; however, it is not the norm and not always as easy to find as the traditional homemaker meme makes it out to be.

Why We Need Men....

2011-07-21T16:29:00.000-07:00

....to remind us to get our pap smears and mammograms--DUH!! Finally, a use for men! I didn't know that the modern, independent, educated woman of today needed such help. They can get higher education degrees and climb the corporate ladder, but can't schedule a doctor appointment. Of course I am being sarcastic here, but others are quite serious. A new website's (Men for Women Now):
".....mission is to engage men to join in the fight against women's cancer by asking the women they love to get their mammograms and pap smears. Early detection has always been my passion. We need to form an “Army of Men” to watch over women."
While I believe this site has good intentions (forums, etc), I also can't help but find it ironic when men are rounded up to come to women's aid when after decades men have been told women don't need them, especially to watch over them. Will it someday be blamed men's fault if a woman ends up with cancer....cause "darn him, he didn't remind her to get her check ups"? I certainly hope not. I wonder why not call the site "Women for Women Now" as it doesn't matter who is reminding you for check ups, unless, could it be......women really do need men. In the end, when life isn't going that great, women always come back to men. Despite all the independent, "big girl" talk, they know they need their "army of men" to love, support and keep them on track.

The Family "Having it All"

2011-07-15T17:37:00.000-07:00

Keoni has two great posts on the cost of "having it all". There are some great comments to be read here and here. A few thoughts:

With our individualistic society, we tend to think in individual terms of women "having it all" or rarely even men "having it all", but that got me thinking--what about the family "having it all"? By that I mean, the family "having it all" as God intended; with the husband in a traditional breadwinner role and the wife at home tending to children and hearth, combine them together and as a family they do "have it all". God knows none of us are strong enough to be all things to all people. On our own accord we cannot provide for all our material needs and also be attentive caregivers (Jack of all trades, master of none). With the finite time we are allotted, choices and divisions of labor have to be made so that we can all benefit in the end as a family and that each can be a master of their sphere. With a breadwinner father and caregiver mother, the children get the best of both worlds and "have it all". Their material needs (not wants) are met and they are attended/cared for by the one meant to (not a third party stranger). As it stands now the family ends up not having much of anything, except maybe material items from two careers. The children loose out and don't "have it all", so that instead mom can "have it all".

Taking on a more united outlook, rather than our modern individualistic one, shows their is a bigger picture than our own little world and personal desires. The family is the bedrock for civilization, not necessarily individual men or women, yet our modern world acts like each person has to "have it all" to be a success, when really just the family needs to "have it all" and then we will all be a success in our own right and roles.

Note: I do cringe at combining the family and the "having it all" expression, but for lack of better lingo, I think my point is clear.

If You Don't Do Something Extraordinary for Women, You Don't Count

2011-07-10T08:30:00.000-07:00

This touches upon my previous post. Apparently, being the first female PM of Thailand does not count as a feminist victory. Why? For several reasons, one being that she didn't really work for the honor but instead rode in on her brother's (or it could be any man really) coat-tails. Not to mention that many men also don't get where they are in politics if they aren't riding in on someone's coat-tails. In politics and business, its usually about who you know and where you come from. Rising from an unpolitical, lower income family into the leader of a country isn't something that happens for most men, let alone women. If the requirement to a feminist victory is to do it all by yourself, then you would think feminists would give more credit to Sarah Palin. Another reason is that the new PM has not explicitly said she is for "women's rights", so therefore she must really be a man.

Below is a quote that captures how you're not a successful woman or count at all to feminists unless you are specifically vocal about women's rights, nevermind if you care about the country in general. If you don't make a point to grovel over women, you are no different than a man.

"She provided little reassurance to feminists when, announcing her candidacy in May, she said: "I will utilise my femininity to work fully for our country."
Yingluck "never said a single word about women's rights promotion during her campaign," said Sutada of GDRI."
"We have a lot of women's issues in Thailand, particularly violence against women and discrimination against women," she said, adding that the vast majority of Thailand's 32 million women lived in poor or rural areas."
"She might have the anatomy of a woman, but she thinks like a man and I don't think she will do anything extraordinary for women," said Arpaporn Sumrit, a lecturer at the Women's Studies Centre at Chiang Mai University."
Again, as eluded in my last post, it doesn't matter if you do anything extraordinary, what matters is that you do something "extraordinary for women" and women only. Efforts put forth that do not specifically focus on the welfare of women simply do not count.

"Sutada hoped Yingluck would be strong enough "to step out of her brother's shadow and be herself" -- a sentiment many curious Thai women will share as the political novice prepares to take on the top job."
In other words, "be the sisterhood", which may or may not be herself. For all the push for women "to be themselves", what they really mean is to be the sort of woman feminists think you should be.

For Women, Politics is About Their Needs

2011-06-25T19:06:00.000-07:00

This article is rich with material. Essentially it is talking about how much nicer the world would be if only more women were involved in politics. This is a meme that has gone back to the Suffrage days, although back then it was used as an argument for women to vote; being that a woman's superior moral qualities would soften and refine the nasty world of politics. This has not seemed to happen yet, but of course the problem is there just are NOT ENOUGH women involved in politics. What's needed is an equal amount, if not the majority, and then all will be right with the world. Of course it can't be that women bring the same sinful tendencies to the table as men and that is why we have not seen a large scale difference. Power corrupts even the most delicate and well-meaning of flowers.

Here are some parts highlighting the good women do:
"Elinor Caplan began by fighting for a cross-walk at her children`s school. Marilyn Churley fought against lead in the soil. Kathleen Wynne fought for smaller classes and against the megacity. These successful women determined to make a difference stand in stark contrast to those (unfortunately mostly men) who were all too eager to suit up in their team jersey and run with no other purpose than to repeat their party's talking points verbatim."
I always think it is interesting that women will fight for things like a cross-walk for their children's school or for smaller class sizes when there doesn't have to be any fight at all if you home school, etc. A lot of the problems women now fight against are problems they first created, by handing children over to third parties for care and 'education'. They will care will great zeal over a class size, but not about the fact that they are essentially letting strangers educate their children.

These women are determined to make a difference in the things that interest them; whereas if men are seeking to make a difference in things that interest them, like something dry and unemotional as "cutting spending", then they are accused of just being a puppet for their party. I don't doubt that anyone in politics wants to make a difference, I just also think it is interesting that people think politics is the only way to make a difference. Women used to make a difference by being keepers of their home and raising children who were not shipped off to third parties. They also did extensive volunteering and charity work.
"Jane Jacobs said that "good public policy is developed when the policy-makers can keep in their mind's eye the people affected." I was astounded when I came to Parliament that so many of the issues being debated were those that my patients had faced -- unfairness in the Divorce Act, difficulty getting a small business loan, poverty, domestic violence, smog days and asthma, discrimination, and affordable housing."
See, issues that are being debated or that women care about are the ones that only personally affect them (i.e. the personal is political). Had they not had some personal connection, would they still be interested? The latest craze now is "moms" being involved in politics. The website "As a Mom...." captures this (not a bad site though). I just have to wonder were they not "moms" would they still have an interest? Without personal/emotional connections for women, I believe that most of them will be entirely uninterested in politics, which is what some of the anti-suffragists suggested. The world of politics involved manly interests, while their interests were served and addressed, through volunteer, charity, and church.

Whatever happened to "As an American....."? We identify ourselves too much by our personal backgrounds, rather than our commonality as a nation. For women, this is one of their biggest downfalls. "Woman" is their identity first and foremost and political motivations are primarily served (not always) in fighting for what will serve them and their sisters. They care about unfairness in the Divorce Act as far as it affects them, not necessarily the unfairness as far as it affects men. Not all, but I'm sure some fight against poverty, DV, discrimination, etc., solely as its affects women. We just don't see women getting involved in politics to fight for men or even equally for both as eluded to in the below quote. There is a personal motivation to politics (for some men too) that would seem foreign to generations past who got involved for love and service to country, not love and service to self and how to make one's personal life more comfy. Sometimes what is best for the country is not what is best for an individual person.
"She goes on to say, "Women have a biological imperative for insisting on a new social contract which takes their needs into account." There is no question that they are many ways to 'insist' on change -- NGOs, professional organizations, media. But there is also no question that the time has come that politics is too important to leave to the men!'"
I think the above quote is key as it basically confirms that women are in politics to make sure THEIR needs are taken care of, not necessarily the inclusive needs of the whole country. Many of our modern needs are more so entitlements. In our personal lives all we really need is food, clothing, and shelter, but we also have many, many wants;which are fine, but they are not needs and therefore not the highest of priorities. Some, again not all, men in politics may be more for focusing on true needs(like keeping the country afloat, so that women have the luxury to focus on "their needs"), rather than wants (often emotional), yet this does not make their motivations any less important. Childcare, wage-gap, workplace discrimination, etc., etc. are not usually high priority things for a country that has far worse problems like fixing and staying out of debt and keeping the economy healthy, so that people can even have a job, let alone worry about discrimination, so that people can feed, cloth, and shelter their families. Pretty soon we won't have the luxury to worry about school cross-walks or class-room size.

"Practical Christian Womahood": Evangelicals Attempt to Reconcile Traditional Beliefs with Feminism

2011-06-21T16:01:00.000-07:00

If it's not Sarah Palin, it's Michele Bachmann promoting a Christian feminist message. They are both the same and show that any woman at that level cannot be at that level without towing some sort of feminist line. There is a huge problem right now amongst Evangelicals, problem being that Evangelicals fail to see that there is any problem or disconnect in how they view and reconcile their supposed traditional beliefs with the world. This article sums it up:
"Evangelicals tend to follow traditional gender roles at home, so it is unusual that Bachmann, a woman of conservative Christian faith, is not only running for the White House but also receiving considerable evangelical support for it. Observers unfamiliar with evangelicalism may wonder then how Bachmann, who couldn’t even serve in formal leadership roles in many evangelical churches, can receive evangelicals’ blessing for something much grander: the nation’s highest office
The reality is that evangelicals today have crafted a notion of what feminist scholar Marie Griffith calls “practical Christian womanhood,” whereby adherents hold seemingly contradictory notions regarding authority and gender ideals"
Holding contradictory notions doesn't seem to phase Evangelicals at all, thus they have created a "practical Christian womanhood", which I interpret as meaning---we as Christians will bend our beliefs and Scripture, so that it is "practical" and fits in with the modern women's outlook on life. What else should we change and make "practical" about the Christian faith? The Bible is practical and useful to those who seek to follow God and not the world. Those chasing after worldly pursuits and philosophies, will often find that the Bible falls short in many areas and people have to bend or re-imagine those shortcomings to jive with their postmodern sensibilities.

The article called attention to the part I quoted above and then swiftly moved on to Bachmann as a mother. You get the sense there is no concern that Evangelicals are holding contradictory positions. Of course I recognize it was probably not the purpose of the article to dig deep into Christian issues;however, I find such a casual and matter-of-fact reference troubling.

For Evangelicals, holding contradictory positions on anything does not set a good example of the faith and for potential Christians. Part of what lead me to Christianity was needing something that was a solid, unwavering, uncompromising ROCK. I did not need a religion that was as wavering as the ocean. I can see how some who are seeking that consistency, can be easily turned off by Christians who can't seem to get their story straight or hold any one consistent position through worldly trends and influences.

While I disagree with Palin's and Bachmann's endeavors, it would not be as troubling if they also didn't profess to be Christians and at the same time use their sex as a tool to sway the voters. Americans love the image of the "good, wholesome, family Christian girl" and they use this to their advantage, no different than any politician would. Before Christians rush to give "blessings" to such candidates, they should be carefully compared to secular candidates and I imagine what will often be found is a difference in religious title only. Had she not proclaimed the Evangelical banner, how would she be "set apart" from others candidates?

The articles says that Bachmann is "first and foremost a mother" and then calls this "political genius". Just as saying you "support the Evangelical base" or you're "for women's rights" is genius. Really, there is nothing genius about such claims at all, but is rather common sense to take a position that the majority of voters will identify with. There are many secular or non-conservative women running for office who would also say they are "first and foremost a mother". Those who don't are seen as heartless. Yet when someone like Bachmann says it, there is this swooning over what a great Christian she is--"she really cares about family values", all the while forgetting that she for the most part is not at home with her family.

What Feminists Leave Out

2011-06-18T07:48:00.000-07:00

Author, Lev Raphael, made a shocking discovery as detailed here (emphasis mine):
"Remember Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth? Remember how faded socialite Lily Bart drops down the social ladder, from unpaid secretary for her wealthy friends to untrained seamstress in a hat shop?
It's a steep, hopeless, miserable decline, and highly dramatic, but Wharton presented a false portrait of Lily's possibilities. There were dozens of options open to women like Lily in 1905 New York. I discovered them while researching my novel Rosedale in Love, which tells Wharton's story from a completely different angle.
Looking for Gilded Age books in varying genres, I found the eye-opening How Women May Earn a Living. It was published in 1900 by Helen Churchill Candee, a successful journalist, author, and interior decorator, who would later survive the Titanic and keep writing and traveling until she was 80.
Candee explained that the world of work in 1900 was expanding for women way beyond the menial labor Lily Bart ends up doing. She gave very specific advice in surveying the pluses and minuses of dozens of professions that included some you might expect like nursing, waitressing, and secretarial work. Others might surprise you: life insurance agent, realtor, and personal shopper. Yes, that was an actual profession over a hundred years ago! Candee called it "private shopping."
Candee didn't neglect careers that required more education like architecture, medicine and law. But no matter what the profession -- from florist to freelance journalist -- she closely examined the needed skills, the training involved, the expenses, the joys and burdens, and most importantly, the typical salaries. The New York Times Book Review praised her sensible and useful book, noting that it made no distinction whatsoever between men and women: "in the field of business there is no sex. Practical capacity is the keynote to success."
I wrote Rosedale in Love because I wanted to tell Wharton's story from the perspective of Jewish outsiders. One is the banker Simon Rosedale, a character in The House of Mirth whose inner life and background she completely ignores. The other main character is his cousin Florence, a woman I invented along with everything else about his family. Florence may seem privileged, but she's always aware of her outsider status as a "Jewess."
In my research, I learned a great deal about New York in 1905, but one of the most surprising discoveries was how many types of jobs were open to women who needed to support themselves or their families. Wharton ruthlessly narrowed Lily Bart's options in life to make her seem trapped. Reading Candee's book is a reminder that what novelists leave out of their work can be as significant as what they include, and that artistic vision can sometimes cloud the facts."
Likewise, the lesson to be learned here is what feminists leave out can be as significant, if not more so, than what they include. A lot of my posts, specifically AFU, is designed to point out the other side of the story. One can take it leave it. I just like to encourage the mindset that with any given issue, there may be more than meets the eye. Do your own research as with the internet these days history/herstory's secrets are at everyone's fingertips.

A copy of the 1900 book, "How Women May Earn a Living" can be read here.

Male v. Female Income

2011-06-11T07:47:00.000-07:00

Very interesting.....

On the original source, there are many interesting comments, including this one, from Ziel:
"It seems rather obvious that women, who began in earnest to enter the workforce around the same time as male incomes began to stagnate, have soaked up any additional personal income that men might have earned otherwise. It’s unclear how significant the impact of pro-women affirmative action policies are in these numbers, but all large companies are under intensive pressure to “equalize” salaries and in particular to promote women through their ranks. There obviously has to be some impact on men’s incomes, and perhaps enough to show up in these graphs."

A million conclusions can be drawn from all this, point being though, at the end of the day, male wages are down and whether this is due to the line of work men have traditionally done, the influence of feminism, or both---what is going to be done to help male income get back on track? Of course the popular solution is to shame the men and tell them to "man up" and join more service oriented jobs and while at it marry one of the many "good girls". This is not a solution, but a PR opportunity for women to brag on their superiority. How smart and savvy they think they are that they have been able to keep up and adapt to the economy, whereas, the supposed "rulers of society", have not. Nothing can be done to help men, until this attitude is first fixed. I suggest a serving of humble pie and then hopefully a renewed spirit for helping men. Even if wages for men do not recover for a long, long time, the least women can do is not rub salt on the wound, but be a support for one who is in a situation they did not ask for.

'Christians' Giving Christians a Bad Name

2011-06-05T11:17:00.000-07:00

True story. A non-Christian woman has a Christian woman move in with her. After one night the Christian woman moves out claiming the house is possessed by demons and warns the non-Christian to be careful when doing yoga as it will let in evil entities. The non-Christian was hospitable and gracious the whole time and even wished the Christian her prayers and best in life. The Christian retorts, "No thanks, I do not want your prayers". Presumably, because her prayers must be evil. The Christian was overall very nasty and righteous to a degree that was not biblical.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1)

I found this to be a classic example of how Christians get a bad name and how they can easily become hated. It is people such as this that keep many from the faith or away from church. It takes a certain level of faith to realize the Christian's acts here are not godly, yet is rather sin gone wild. Nothing in this Christian's manners convinces one to move towards Christianity, if anything it hardens their heart and reinforces their often already negative beliefs about Christians. Had this Christian been more humble and gracious, living with a non-Christian could have been a great opportunity to bring one to Christ. Yet sadly, her own superiority, her own version of Christianity, her own sin that I assume she believes she is exempt from, took over the situation and rather brought the non-Christian further away from Christ. This is why Colossians 4:6 is so important; that are words are to be gracious and interesting, so that you will know how to answer everyone, even those yoga practicing people you may not agree with. I try my best with this, but admit that I do not always get it right. It takes practice as being gracious is not something that comes naturally to fallen beings. 'Christians' giving other Christians a bad name is a common and tricky problem. My only coping strategy is to cling to the bible, rather than people; however, this can be hard to convince to a post-modern culture who puts more faith in people and their words, than they do in a dusty, old and supposedly irrelevant book.

The Luxury of a Job You Enjoy

2011-06-03T17:14:00.000-07:00

I heard on the radio a discussion between two DJs; one male and one female. They were talking about regrets people have at the end of life and it was brought up how some end up in a line of work they do not like. The female DJ seemed to not understand how this could happen. She said she would never choose a job if she did not think she would enjoy it. The male DJ made it clear to her that she is in the minority to have such a luxury; that most people don't have the option of happiness or fulfillment through a job as it is merely a means, a necessity, to pay living expenses. When food needs to be kept on the table, often there is not the luxury to pick and choose what you want to do, especially so in this economy.

The female DJ acknowledged this point, but from further discussion it seemed she still did not grasp the reality of it all; that for for her, as a modern educated women, working has been sold to her as a means to happiness and fulfillment, not necessarily as a means to survive. Sure, she understands she needs to work for money, but for modern women finding something they enjoy first, takes priority. If this takes awhile, there is always someone there to support her until her heart is content, be it parents or a husband/boyfriend. Working class men and less privileged women do not have this luxury. There is much more pressure for a man to get out and support himself regardless if his line of work will make him happy. With middle-upper middle class women there is not a pressing need to work until she finds that which will fulfill her. A 25 year old woman living at home does not have the same stigma as it does for a 25 year old man. She can take her time trying different jobs, different degrees,or even go back to school. It is more of a journey and self-exploration project than it is for men.

There seems to always be a disconnect between those who are happy with their jobs and those that are not. Those that are happy can't understand why the others are not and why they simply don't just switch careers or go back to school, as if it is as easy as flipping a switch when there is a mortgage and family in tow. Those that aren't happy, can't understand why some rush off to work everyday with a smile, work long hours for fun, and seem to thoroughly enjoy the rat race. Certainly there are men who too have the luxury of only choosing jobs they enjoy, but they seem more of the exception.

I wonder what will happen if/when there is another great depression and women no longer have the luxury of choosing a job they enjoy. All of a sudden being a SAHM may not look so bad after all. Will we then see a rush of women to the home? If so, this can be good or bad. Bad, in that we should not automatically jump to conclusions that women have become more "godly" or traditional as most will just be trying to maximize their own comfort and semblance of happiness. Good, in that over time the women may learn to be content in all things and all conditions and learn that happiness will come from the contentment, not necessarily from worldly pursuits that bring "fame, status, wealth, pleasure, power, independence". I do think that seeking happiness before contentment is akin to putting the cart before the horse and the reason that happiness eludes the modern world is because we are a restless, uncontent world.

One Woman's Review of Contra Feminism

2011-05-31T17:37:00.000-07:00

I believe a regular commenter here posted an Amazon review on the book Contra Feminism, which I previously posted on. The author came on and refuted some of her (JR Corry) points and then Corry responded again. I found it an interesting discussion and therefore will add my two cents and further the discussion here. It is probably best to read the original review and the author's response to get the full context. This can be viewed here. What I am commenting on is Corry's response back to the author.

Author: "First, it would have given readers a better idea of the book's purpose if the reviewer had pointed out some of its main themes: (1) that a woman's main purpose in the life is the same as a man's - to find Christ, serve him, and spend eternity with him"

Corry: "I did point this out, and several other good points throughout."
LGR: I have to reiterate the author's purpose--that all the the things the world offers fails in comparison to what God offers. It is this message that drew me away from feminism and being trapped in worldly philosophies. I think it is one of the most important things for anyone, especially women, to hear. A man who does not like women would not go to such trouble of writing a book largely for women. He wants women to
"find Christ, serve him, and spend eternity with him" and women can't do this if they are distracted by worldly things, often enclosed in feminism.

Author: "His sin was greater, as his knowledge and insight was greater - and why does Paul say sin entered the world through Adam, "one man," and not through Adam and Eve? Does this show Adam and Eve's equality?"

Corry: "Because he DID know more than her. But claiming his spirituality was superior is obviously inaccurate."

Author: "As to whether Eve was alone when approached by the serpent, as I believe she was, it is possible for someone to claim they were together, though it seems odd to me that Satan and Eve would have this important conversation while Adam just stood by. But, this minor point has nothing to do with any of my main arguments"

Corry: "It does show that Adam was a spiritually inferior guardian."
LGR: Above it is said that claiming Adam was superior is inaccurate; wouldn't then saying that he is spiritually inferior be the same? An equal view would be that neither is anymore inferior or superior than the other.
Author: "Does she mean to say that someone who has orthodox views of Christ, of salvation, and of the authority of the Bible is not a real Christian because he does not have the right views of women?"

Corry: "She means that she doesn't believe you really share the Bible's view of women; you're pretty darn extreme, more than many. Many of your "lesser" points are really giant statements about women and not minor at all."

LGR: Back to what the author said. Is the author then not a Christian, because he does not hold the correct views of women?

Author: "Saving a woman's life" is often just an excuse for keeping the door open to any and all abortions anyway"

Corry: "This is an inaccurate and frankly offensive reduction. You speak greatly of something you know little about."
LGR: For a Christian, dying is not the worst thing that can happen. This is the world getting in the way again--being so hung up on this earthly life. And how is it that we know the author "knows little" about abortion. Is that an assumption that he, as a man, must not know about abortion, women's bodies, etc.?
Author: "Esther was in complete subjection to her husband, and risked her life by entering his presence without his permission. That she had more spiritual power is nowhere supported by scripture"

Corry: "Other than the fact that she was directly inpsired by God, while his relationship with God seemed non-existant?"
LGR: "Seemed" is the key here. "seemed" or appearances are often just that. It is tricky business trying to determines one's heart and all too often women assume men are not interested in spiritual matters based on what they appear to do or not be doing. A man who does not go to church can also "seem" to have a non-existent relationship to God. Some can be quick to admonish and shame such a person for at least not creating the appearance that they are spiritually engaged. We often use worldly measurements such as church attendance to determine a person's heart and I don't know if that is particularly wise.
Author: "Joan of Arc? I'll stick with the Bible. Do godly women look to Joan of Arc for inspiration and ignore the Bible?"
Corry: "Many people in history serve as incredible examples of God's presence without being in the Bible. Joan is one of the most striking."
LGR: I wonder at what point do we and don't we look to non-biblical characters and lives for inspiration, because it can be dangerous. Oprah, for one, is someone, mostly women, turn to for spiritual inspiration/guidance yet a lot of what she says is hardly Christian as noted here. As always, discernment in all things.
Author: "The reviewer claims that the church is stronger now that women are involved - I see no evidence of this in America today"

Corry: "I did not say they are all stronger today; I said they are always stronger when both sexes are involved."
LGR: Women have always been involved in church, just not in the same capacity as men, which does not make their involvement any less significant or the church any less weaker back then. The problems come when roles get confused.
Author: "I am told "scholars" contradict me. Many "scholars" present weak and shaky arguments designed not to explain scripture truthfully but to support the Feminist agenda. Frankly, I think some "scholars" are out to lunch and do not deserve the title"

Corry: "And many scholars look harder and deeper than any human agenda and don't wish to serve males anymore than females."
LGR: How can they really look deeper than any human agenda if they are in fact, human. Having a certain degree of education does not exempt you from making human error and bias. Plus, in biblical matters, it is said that the Bible alone is sufficient for teaching, correction, etc (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It does not say the bible, plus a PHd or some special knowledge is required. Some of the best insight out there comes from regular people who have been blessed with wisdom, rather than "education".

Author: "I have no interest in "joyous songs" that are contrary to the Word of God".

Corry: "LOL In other words, those songs are not accordance to God's will if they're sung by women. No one but a person who dislikes the female voice could go to such extremes; this alone makes your book worthy of overall dismissal."
LGR: I believe what he is saying here is that joyous songs CONTRARY to the word of God have no place in a church setting. They are "not in accordance with God's will", because they are contrary, not because they are sung by women. He also said, "song", not "women", but as is typical some women assume everything is directed at or against them. Women can sing in church, specifically in choirs, but not to the degree that it places all the attention on them and off of God. What I have noticed about a lot of modern church services is several solo female performances that seem to redirect the glory to the women. This would be equally bad if they were men performing the solos, because what it creates is an environment where we are worshiping the singer, not God, regardless of how "godly" the lyrics might be. Choirs are best for music in church because the focus and glory does not go to any one person. Women do seem to lead the charge in church when it comes to musical performances or the music ministry in general and it is a coincidence ,perhaps ,that women are more likely associated with "joyous songs".

Also, how it is assumed that the author does not like the female voice based on his remark is curious. It is admitted that the author makes good points, but then out of an emotional assumption, the entire book is quickly dismissed--good points and all. I suppose this is what frustrates men most of all--the emotional knee jerks that are often founded on women's feelings or projections and not necessarily on what is explicitly said.

Shaming Man Won't Reform Him

2011-05-27T20:04:00.000-07:00

In 1950 it is asked, "Can a wife "reform" her husband"?

Answer from psychologist:
"As a rule, not if she goes about it on the basis of a conscious or unconscious feeling that she is morally superior to him."

Bingo! A simple truth.

Lazy Husbands and Hard Working Wives

2011-05-20T17:19:00.000-07:00

Quoted from here:
"Household chores are a frequent source of domestic disputes between lazy husbands and their hard-working wives, but women have been warned not to expect men to pull their weight any time soon."
Oh yes, those darn lazy husbands, the ones that are very frequently doing household chores that involve yard maintenance, shoveling snow, fixing things, etc. Those points are rarely brought up in such articles (somewhat mentioned in this one, but not in the sense I am talking). As far as chores I think men and women pull their weight; however, what this is really about is that men and women (really men) won't swap sex (or gender as it is preferred, because gender can be swapped, but sex cannot) roles. Men won't cook or clean, but I don't exactly see the women out their mowing the lawn in droves or scooping leaves out of the gutters on a two story house.

Women are still claimed to do the marjority of child care, but how can this be when so many work. I wonder if they include the female child care workers.

The study says it measured how much time each gender spent on household chores. Another aspect and maybe more important than time spent, is the amount of physical exertion. A day of re-insulating the attic is equal to a month of cooking or laundry, especially when cooking these days can be as easy as throwing something in the slow cooker and throwing some clothes in machine and pushing start. There is no easy alternative to manual labor.

They say men won't start to help out equally until 2050, but the funny thing is if the men not marrying continues to pick up pace, these women will know the true meaning of having to do unequal housework. They will have to learn how to handle manly chores or live in a condo (as many single women do) or end up hiring a man.

American Pie

2011-05-18T17:36:00.000-07:00

"Mom didn't have time today so we made you this baked apple pie."

This Mcdonald's apple pie box captures a glimpse into our modern culture. At first glance, I didn't think much of it, but then I read it again and thought--how true it is. Mom just doesn't have time anymore to bake apple pies or even cook, so children are now raised on McDonald's--the new American mom. Clever marketing. This is but a snippet of the larger trend of other entities often stepping in for an often absent mom.

Making it Cool to Marry at 30

2011-05-14T18:57:00.000-07:00

This article is chock full of little snippets that I feel compelled to opine upon. Apparently Kate is making it cool for women to marry later. This is not a new trend by any means, but a publicity opportunity to encourage young women to wait even if their instinct tells them otherwise because its cool, trendy, and sexy. [Hyperlinks are from the original article and I thought they would be interesting to leave in].
"But actually, if Kris, my boyfriend of nearly four years, proposed tomorrow, I'd say no. Not because I don't love him. I do. And not because I can't imagine spending the rest of my life with him. I can. And not because I'm morally opposed to marriage or anything. I'm not. I just happen to think 27, my current age, is too young to say I do."
Too young! Aw this is a familiar meme and then all of a sudden you are 35 and too old! Why women keep thinking they are "too young" must speak to something deeper. Subconsciously they must really think they are children still inside and are not capable of making life decisions. Wasn't all that long ago that women were mature enough to make such decisions and did so gladly. On the other hand though, they can make big decisions about education, loading up on debt that sometimes comes from the education, and traveling, yet for marriage they are just "too young".

"Which is why I love that the most famous bride of the year—and probably the century—was almost 30 when she walked down the aisle. Frankly, I've gotten sick of hearing everyone get all excited about celebs in their early twenties (Avril Lavigne, Kate Hudson, Heidi Montag, the list goes on...) tying the knot. And I always feel like a cynical, jealous b---- when I say things like, "Sheesh, what's the rush?" or "That's not gonna last" or "Heidi, what the hell did you do to your face?" Oh wait, that last one had nothing to do with getting married young.

But watching Kate walk down the aisle, I wasn't grumbling about anything. I was giving her props. She was making it cool to get married at 29.
Let me be clear. I don't think 27 is too young for all people and that every single woman should hold off till 29. I have lots of friends who got hitched younger than that, couples I think were totally ready and will be together for a looongrelate to their decision. But I can relate to Kate." time (shout out to Jess and Corey!). And it's not like I go to weddings where the bride and groom are in their early or mid-twenties and scoff at their decision. It's just that I can't
I should be clear as well too, I don't care when women get married, they just need to be well informed that doing so is gambling with mother nature and that there are more important things in life than several degrees and world travel, especially when your instincts are telling you already have the right guy. Most of their goals can still be accomplished in marriage and are even better when done together.

"Not to the whole becoming royalty thing (damn), but about waiting till 29 to say I do. Yes, I know they called her Waity Katie, but I think at least some part of Katie was making the choice to waity. She knew that exchanging vows before she and Wills were both ready would be a bad idea. And I bet there was a lot she still wanted to do before becoming Mrs. Windsor. And I'm with her—I want to check off a few more things on my life to-do list before becoming a married woman. Travel, moving up in my career, adding a bit more to my savings account, finally learning how to cook a Thanksgiving meal."
All these things can be done within marriage too. Not good reasons and if you feel such things will be hindered in marriage, then you are not a marriage candidate. What man is going to want a woman who marrying him is the last, least priority thing to do on her list?
"And it's not just the single girl bucket list. I fully believe the studies that claim getting hitched in your early twenties ups your risk of divorce. As Cosmo explained in an article, "the more years of higher education a woman has under her belt on her wedding day, the lower the chances that she’ll get divorced...and by 25, you’re more likely to have earned a degree or two". An expert goes on to say, "Educated women tend to be more confident about who they are and less willing to settle for a man who doesn’t meet their standards."
But I happen to think 29 is the new 25. So many of my friends have changed careers, gone back to school, moved cities, and done complete 180s when it comes to their life plans — and many of them have done it at the age of 25, 26, 27. But I've watched my older friends hit 28 and 29 and I've noticed that they just seem to have a better sense of what they want."
The more education a woman has also means she will be older. I don't think it is the education per se, but age--that is, if you arguing for women marrying older being less likely to divorce. 25 is not a bad age and most won't even meet someone till that point anyway. What I am objecting to the most here is the desire to push off marriage in order to focus more on me, me, me. Further, what it really comes down to with women and being likely to divorce is their attitude, regardless of age or education. If you have a modern woman entitled attitude, marriage will indeed be difficult. All the degrees in the world can't give a woman the attitude or wisdom that is often needed for marriage.

There is also an inference here that an uneducated women, which often includes those with just a lowly BA degree, aren't as smart and will settle for men that don't meet their standards. The standards any normal woman would apply in finding a man are the bleeding obvious, common sense sorts that are so easy even a 20 year old with no college can figure-(i.e., you want someone who has a good heart, sense of family, values, etc). The educated women with an MA or higher must apply some other more enlightened set of standards. The problem is women are too confident in who they are and when comparing men against themselves, no one measures up.

A better sense of what you want does not mean that is what you are going to get. Some women think they can take X amount of years to decide on the qualities of a perfect man or life and then they can just go somewhere and place an order. The other side that some soon come to find out is that while women were getting a better sense of what they want, so were the men, and the better sense that men are getting is that they don't want women. Irony at its finest. Some will attempt to shame these men for tossing aside their "duty"; duty being, sitting around and waiting for these women until they are ready---forgetting that these men have lives too and cannot wait for women to make up their mind only to be taken as a last resort once everything else is crossed off their list. When the women put everything else in life before the men, what sort of message does that send to men? My education, career, travels, etc., are all more important than you. So, it is no wonder that men have basically checked out and choose to not waste their energy where they are not wanted and clearly not needed. After all, a women with so much education must know everything to not need men anyway.
"Maybe it sounds unromantic, but as much as I trust my gut right now that Kris is the one for me, I'll feel a lot more comfortable letting him put a ring on it in another year or two when I know that not only are my instincts telling me to shout yes, but my rational brain is also in agreement."
Or rather, not until the rationalization hamster is also in agreement.
"So, thanks Kate for putting off marriage until you're almost the big 3-0. If you could handle reporters and paparazzi and the Queen of England asking you every two minutes, "When are you two finally going to get married"?, I'm sure I can handle a few people asking me the same thing (and Kris's mom telling me, "You know, you're born with all of the eggs you'll ever have and you just lose more and more each year."). And thanks for reminding me (yes, even I sometimes doubt my desire to wait) that dating a guy for a long time and getting married at 29 (or perhaps later) is smart, sexy, and utterly appealing."
Doubts and all, what matters is that waiting to marry is smart, sexy, and appealing. It's cool and being "cool" is at the heart of being a modern woman.

Contra Feminism

2011-05-13T13:49:00.000-07:00

Please check out this excellent new book:

Contra Feminism

About:

“Everything that the women’s liberation movement has to offer – fame, status, wealth, pleasure, power, independence – it will all crumble to dust before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ.” (from the Introduction)

“Emancipation! Liberation! Freedom! Choice! Equality! Opportunity!”

"Who can object to these lovely words? Under these banners vast forces of social change have been unleashed and have radically transformed our understanding of women’s roles in every area of life – but what does the Bible say?
Contra Feminism argues that the Feminist revolution represents the wisdom of the world, and hence is inevitably contrary to many plain biblical teachings.

A careful analysis of women in the Old and New Testaments reveals something very far from modern ideas of unisex and role reversal, first advocated by open opponents of Christianity. Feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, Betty Friedan – their and others’ teachings are studied and found to be very far from the cross and from the straight and narrow way of Jesus Christ.

Biblical Christianity offers women what the world does not see or know: forgiveness of sins; the Spirit of God; a constructive life of service to Christ (whether inside or outside of marriage); and eternal life in the kingdom of heaven. The world offers something very different – let’s not make the wrong choice."

There aren't that many Christian books out there that challenge feminism, so I am thrilled to find this one. It seems to touch on some of the topics here and explains better what I can't. I was particularly moved by the author's willingness to discuss the problem of "women's superiority". Below is a section from the book:

"This is very evident in the way the doctrine of women’s superiority is entering the church. How many times has the fact that Jesus appeared to the women first after his resurrection been used to show that the women had more faith than the men? I attended a church regularly years ago—on Mother’s Day Sunday, the women were exalted and lifted up. Mothers were given important parts to play in the service (reading the Scripture, for example), and the sermon was dedicated to women in a very uplifting (or flattering?) way.

Father’s Day Sunday was a different story. Fathers were not correspondingly elevated, and the sermon was basically a criticism of the failure of fathers to meet their obligations. In another service the same pastor (I believe it was the same one, it was the same church anyway) joked about men’s “strong backs and weak minds.” One devotional book I have been reading has some very good points, but also has occasional references to the alleged facts that women are better than men in subtle ways.

Lowering the men and raising the women to put them on an equal basis in a worldly sense starts a process that does not stop exactly at 50% equality. The process continues, the men are depressed and the women are elevated, and slowly the women come to be extolled above the men. Men come to like having women pastors, women teachers, women professors. It is so much easier for the men to abdicate their traditional positions—after all, that’s what life is all about, making everything as easy as possible, isn’t it?

It is claimed by some today, both inside and outside the church, that women are less egotistical than men; that they are more in touch with their inner selves and their intuitive faculties than men; that they are less rigid, more open, more sensitive, more in tune with the Feminine life spirit; that they have a collective history of suffering, and hence find it easier to transcend their own egos than men do. Some are exalting what they call the “sacred feminine.”[10]

Is that why Jesus appeared to women first after his resurrection—because women are more spiritual than men? That seems to be the message that more people are becoming interested in these days. The world sets the agenda and the church conforms itself, trying to win acceptance and be relevant. This is not the faith that overcomes the world. This is the lack of faith that is overcome by the world. Why is it that so many people do not see the simple fact that the women were looking for the dead body of Jesus?"

Temporarily Deleted Post

2011-05-13T12:57:00.000-07:00

Since blogger was down yesterday, my last post was "temporarily" deleted. Once it is back up, I will publish the comments that came through, but could not be published yesterday. Until then, on to the next post.....

Buy Your Wife a Mother's Day Gift, or Else!

2011-05-09T19:00:00.000-07:00

Quoted from here:
"I was watching The View this morning (shut up) and heard something interesting: the day after Mother's day is one of the highest rated days for women to have an affair. In fact, about 31,000 women flocked to a particular website called "ashleymadison.com" to get their cheat on. Mother's Day is a day where mothers across the world are constantly disappointed in the gifts they received, the love they were shown and the incredible amount of disgusting dishes they had to wash despite having a day named in their honor. So it almost makes sense that these unappreciated women want to get a little bit of attention--in the bedroom.

Listen, I don't condone affairs, but I guess I could see how reality can set in for some of these women who may have a less than ideal home life and are just sick of dealing with their bratty kid, not to mention their annoying children. Ha! See what I did there? The kid is the bratty husband and the annoying children are....I'm so smart.
I guess the lesson to be learned here is that you men better start planning for Mother's Day 2012..like....TODAY. Unless you don't mind your wife sitting on the web looking to find another man to sleep with. "
The real lessons to learn: (1) that motherhood is about selfless service and responsibility, regardless if you never ever receive a gift. Gifts should not be expected as some sort of entitlement for being a mother and if you don't get one it should not be used as a threat, test, or bargaining tool; (2) that, as par for the course, men better buy their wives a gift, or else! The solution here isn't that women should be held responsible and not act out in such outrageous ways for simply not receiving a gift, oh no, the solution is that men need to continue to cater to women to prevent such misbehavior. It is men's fault that the wife is misbehaving. Had she just received that gift, she'd be a good wife. These are the threats/tests that men have to deal with in our modern world.

The Service of Motherhood

2011-05-08T17:48:00.000-07:00

By Charles Stanley:
"Children are a blessing from the Lord (Ps. 127:3-5). Motherhood is a great honor and privilege, yet it is also synonymous with servanthood. Every day women are called upon to selflessly meet the needs of their families. Whether they are awake at night nursing a baby, spending their time and money on less-than-grateful teenagers, or preparing meals, moms continuously put others before themselves.

Sometimes this constant serving can be exhausting and even discouraging-particularly for a first-time mother. But you can take real encouragement from Jesus. One of the best examples of gracious servanthood is found in John 13:3-16. By kneeling to wash His disciples’ feet, the Lord showed that the key to true leadership is humility. And it is humility that leads to eternal reward.

Unless you are willing to stoop down and get your hands dirty, you will miss the real riches of motherhood. By dying to your own desires and pouring your life into someone else, you become like Christ and create a godly legacy that will carry on for generations to come. What greater blessing could one hope for? Of course, the motivation for serving others is not to reap benefits, but when we follow God’s plan for our life, that’s what happens.

In giving us children, God places us in a position of both leadership and service. He calls us to give up our lives for someone else’s sake-to abandon our own desires and put our child’s interests first. Yet, according to His perfect design, it is through this selflessness that we can become truly fulfilled."
One of my take-aways from all this is how much this applies to not just motherhood, but life in general and that perhaps the biggest problems we face comes down to just the two things mentioned here: (1)selfless servitude--or lack there of and (2)humility--or lack there of. It was ironic this devotional touched on humility because recently I was thinking it is the single most important quality to have as all other good qualities seem to stem from it. I wouldn't say humility is the key to leadership, but rather the key to life. I don't know if our modern world can even grasp anymore the concept of humility, as evidenced in this video:

Feminism aids in the cultural misunderstanding about humility, because it is a philosophy that is "me" first. Behind all the "women's rights and issues" efforts, the life force behind feminism is making us turn inward to a life of selfish servitude and sometimes arrogance. That side effect of feminism is something we all absorb; women, men, and children.

New Blog Look and Anti-Feminism Theme

2011-04-30T11:28:00.000-07:00

I am in the process of updating and refreshing the look of this blog. When one first starts blogging they never know where it will lead. In the beginning, I had the idea this would primarily be a homemaking blog. While such issues still greatly interest me, it is not my passion when it comes to writing. What I love is fighting feminism and covering all sorts of related topics. Since that is the dominating theme here, I wanted to create a new look to make it clear this is an anti-feminist blog first and foremost. I will still cover other topics as I feel inspired. I also should reiterate that I write from a Christian worldview perspective. Some believe this is primarily a stereotypical Christian blog filled with verse and theology. It is but it isn't. I write about anti-feminists issues form a Christian lens, as opposed to some of those who write from a secular or atheist lens. With that said, I think I am pleased with my new header as it captures the dominant theme. My fight is against feminism because it breaks the bonds of "loyalty-harmony" (as shown on the banner between the two kneeling), the bonds that Christianity is largely based upon.To learn more about my header image, click here.

In the next few days I will be doing some spring cleaning with links, blogroll, and widgets. I have many I have been meaning to add to my blogroll. If you would like to come on board, please send me a link and I will consider. I also want to de-clutter the look and focus on the essential. I may add a new link section for "men's rights" since they are spearheading anti-feminist writing and doing a stellar job to boot. I realized why I spend so much time on men's site is because they are the ones taking feminism to task. Were women en masse holding feminism accountable, I would be at more female sites, but you just don't see that happening.

Probably every time you come here something will look different until I am done tinkering. Thanks for your continued support and I look forward to fighting feminism in all shapes and forms.

Conservative Feminists Claim Men Cause Abortions

2011-04-29T20:11:00.000-07:00

To make it perfectly clear that conservative feminists are still feminists, I present the following from Red State Feminists in an article entitled “Successful Fetal Surgery at 19 Weeks: Time to Open Our Eyes to Fetal Life and to the Responsibility of Men” (also covered by MarkyMark and PMAFT ):

“…….it will finally be time to realize that ABORTION IS A MEN'S ISSUE. That's right, for too long we have assumed abortion is a women's issue. It's not. Men make women pregnant. Women don't make women pregnant. Can we open our eyes and see that reality, too?
It is the sexual incontinence of men that drives the vast majority of abortions in our nation. Men want to have sexual relations with no responsibility concerning what happens to their female lover--even if what happens is pregnancy. It's time for pastors and bishops and rabbis and imams to starting telling it like it is over the pulpit: "Men, if you made a woman pregnant, you are morally responsible for the abortion. God will hold you accountable that you sired a child in a context where you had no intention of taking care of the child and its mother." Isn't it time that we engaged the moral choices men are making that create the abortion problem in the first place? But most of these pastors and bishops and rabbis and imams are men, and so abortion wrongly remains a "women's issue."
If we are going to open our eyes to the reality of fetal life, then it's also time to open our eyes to the reality that it is men that are causing abortions. The next time your religious leader gives a sermon on the topic of abortion, listen carefully to see if they preach about both these realities. If they don't, then be a Red State Feminist and speak up!”

A few reoccurring themes:

1. Female denial/refusal to take responsibility for her part.
2. A religious scolding about the moral choices of men all the while women's moral choices get a pass. She is not morally responsible for the abortion or for perhaps even being as "sexually incontinent" as him.
3. The assumption that men have no intention of wanting or taking care of a child.

The Horrors of Strengthening Men

2011-04-26T19:43:00.000-07:00

This is not an endorsement for Allen West. It is merely my observation on the latest political brouhaha.
"Because, according to Wes t , women's role is to strengthen men. In his speech, he said:

"We need you to come in and lock shields to strengthen up the men that will go into the fight for you - to let these other women know, on the other side, these Planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women who have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness, to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient. That's what we need you to do. Because if we don't, then the debt will continue to grow."
A million things can be inferred from this. I am only focusing on one--the horror that arises when it is suggested that women should support or strengthen men. Had it been suggested that man's role is to help strengthen women, one can imagine the outpouring of praise. Our culture is now built around strengthening women, yet one comment that women may have a role to play in strengthening men is deemed hateful.

If as a woman you insist you don't need a man to fight for you---great! I wish you success. There was a time though, not too long ago when men and women needed each other. That time is long gone. Men are going their own way and women are going their own way. Sad, but that is reality. Despite the last several decades and all the efforts that were put forth to strengthen women (pushed by feminists, but granted by men), some women can not even shudder the thought of supporting men.

Some women will chuckle at this and take glee with the inference that men are so weak they need women to help them. This makes them feel strong. Oddly, it takes a strong person to admit they are weak or need help. That is more than some women can say. Comments have already been made that West and presumably those who agree with him are "not real men". Oh, how familiar is that? I'm sure this stems from conservative women as well, ironically those who West thinks can help him. Since women have been raised to believe that "real women" don't need men for help, it follows that likewise "real men", don't need women for help. They don't know what else to think. Feminism killed the concept of interdependence.

We All Bleed Red

2011-04-20T16:57:00.000-07:00

Great song.....reminds me of how we are all fallen beings just trying to do the best we can....

Never Gonna Give You Up

2011-04-17T15:43:00.000-07:00

Those who remember Rick Astely's "Never Gonna Give You Up" will get a laugh out of this.....

Why I Don't Trust Women, or Rather--"Attention Whores"

2011-04-15T20:28:00.000-07:00

On Alte's blog, David Collard said the following and Alte responded.
David Collard---I like LGR. She is a good girl. I don’t mind her attitudes.

Alte---Are you kidding me? She keeps showing up and reminding me to leave Big Thoughts to the men, and that I shouldn’t trouble them when they are discussing Important Things as they find my feminine stupidity tiresome. She’s totally in the “women should be suck dick but not talk” wing of the MRM, and she praises the most obnoxious and misogynistic behavior from the men.
Notice I’ve removed her from my blogroll.
After reading that I typed up and emotionally charged post. After a day to reflect, I figured I would handle this on her own blog and see if we can make amends. Silly me. My response follows:
Since you are all talking about me, I feel compelled to jump in since some of this has been taken out of context.
Alte, some of the things you say (i.e. “She’s totally in the “women should be suck dick but not talk wing of the MRM..” is why I don’t trust women. You admit I have good things to say, but because we disagree on something or even many things, I will get a classic female backstabbing. When I don’t agree with someone, I just don’t comment or disappear for awhile and try my darndest not to make comments such as you did above. While you used no cuss words, you weren’t exactly speaking civilly either. As I have been told, what’s so wrong with saying, “I disagree with LGR’s approach…”
You say you are all into debate, but lately I have found this site to be more of a gossip circle or clique. It seems making this blog private does not foster debate, or it does, but with only the circle that agrees with you. I imagine I would not be invited since I am now a masculinist feminist, yet oddly have so many great thing to say. My point to you at IMF about debate was that the men’s sites are not the best place to find that. The best place for debate with no cussing is TTH, yet oddly she defines the terms.
To set the record straight for my alleged defense of men’s nasty language—–what I defend is their right to express their anger, thoughts, in which ever way they see fit. Deprogramming from the matrix is a cruel process and words are going to fly. Anger is justified with what a lot of them are going through. I don’t feel by me jumping in and telling them to “speak civilly” is going to help matters. It just makes these men more bitter toward women. They don’t need a lecture like we are their moms. We can’t change them. If us women are bothered by it, click away. I survive at the Spearhead by skipping over nasty comments and not internalizing them. I generally ignore and let men do their thing. As much as I promote gracious speech, I also know this cannot be forced on someone if they don’t want to change. I try to set a good example with language, which is all I can do. What I get annoyed with is the women who continue to think they can force these men into talking pretty on command. Some of these men will always be that way, but I also think most are just going through a phase as they deprogram and express their anger at all the lies they were told. I have even had a conversation with a few who admit they are not angry anymore and regret their past words.

Deuce,
This is what was said at IMF:
KATHY: “In any case “REAL down to earth people”?
Bitch, cunt, get the fuck out, etc.. Does not make a man a REAL down to earth person.”
LGR: At least they are calling it to your face, rather than behind your back as so many women do. Nice to your face, backstab you later. I don’t think a man biting his tongue to please the ladies all the time makes him real either. To me, a real person is someone who says what they think, stands by their convictions (as wrong as someone might think they are) despite what people think of he/she. I would call radical feminists as being “real”. Like what they say or not, they are being honest about their radical views and I can appreciate that. This is opposed to those who claim to be “not feminist”, but their words or actions speak otherwise. With radical feminists, you know what you are dealing with and can respond/handle accordingly.”
My point here isn’t the men should be saying such things, but that I appreciate their bluntness. With a cussing fellow, at least I know never to engage with them in conversation and to steer clear. Perhaps I don’t express myself well.
I say all this in good faith. I apologize for any tone, but one usually does not react happily when they read the above comment, especially from someone they liked and wanted to trust.
Alte's response:
"There is no misunderstanding. You express yourself very well, and your message has been clear all along. Our answer is also clear: We do not agree at all, and we think it is abominable that you would support such behavior. And you are clearly supporting it, rather than merely tolerating it, as you have repeatedly admonished us to not complain about it.
Everyone can see for themselves what you wrote over there. The people on here know exactly what some of those guys are capable of. The fact that you can even defend such horrendous behavior shows that you are drinking some serious kool-aid.
Unlike Kathy and I, you seem to be forgetting that you were writing on a site (IMF) where the blog owner made it specifically clear that women were welcome there because he didn’t want it to turn into a male therapy session with an echo chamber in the comments, like at the Spearhead. So you showing up and lecturing us there, right under an e.g. of what we were discussing — a topic I wrote in defense of male commenters, not myself, if you had even bothered to read the article — was pure chutzpa.
If you think there’s no debate here, and only cliquish behavior, then you know how to remedy that. Find a different site. Problem solved. But remember, it is not a compliment to be admired by men who think women are garbage.
I say all this in good faith. I apologize for any tone."
So, there you have it. I have long seen a split coming. I became weary a year or so ago when she left an unprovoked comment about me on the Spearhead. Red flags went up. Our relationship went like this: Nice comment. Rude comment. Nice comment. Rude comment behind back. Friendly email where you think you are becoming friends. Back to rude comment. For the men who cuss me out on the first shot---thank you! You save me a lot of guesswork. I don't trust women*
because trying to do so is exhausting. Its always one step forward and two steps back trying to keep up with their whims and emotions. Time to move on. I said my good-bye.

*Actually what I should say is that I don't trust "attention whores", which Alte has admitted to being. I don't want to offend my female readers as many of you are wonderful women, I do trust.

"Women Showing Men Their Place"

2011-04-13T17:09:00.000-07:00

I bring you this nauseating story. An adult video website is allegedly paying homeless men to be filmed while being beaten up by women. Why? For the ultimate feminist fantasy, of course.....
"We look forward to helping you live out your ultimate fantasy; women, showing men their place, whether on the mat or in an alley, we have it all. ... Come act out your deepest and hidden fantasies," the site advertises on its home page.
We know if this were homeless women (or any women) being beaten up by men, this story would be the shot heard round the world---so, spread the word. As a side note, curiously single homeless women are only 13% of the homeless, where as single homeless men make up 44%. Makes you wonder about all those oppressed women. I guess most of them at least have homes, which is more than some men can say.

Not What They Were

2011-04-11T17:36:00.000-07:00

Via this great article, I found this great quote from a woman shortly after the Titanic disaster in 1912.

“‘Men are not what they were.’ The phrase falls from the lips of every woman. In it’s train falls the stereotyped indictment: Politeness is a forgotten art; deference to womankind is unknown. In a packed tram, the woman is allowed to stand while the man sits; in a rush for the boat, the woman is shoved aside by the more muscular man; in offices or shop, the girl worker receives no consideration from the man; and so on and so on. The grievance is lengthy…

“Yet it may all be true. Very likely ‘men are not what they were’ because, you see, women are not what they were, and things have to balance themselves. We decline altogether these days to have a sphere of our own; we walk triumphantly into man’s. We not only want, we insist on having, his privileges, his pleasures, his work, occasionally ousting him out of them, in any case sharing them willy nilly…

“But we must remember what Nursie taught us long years ago; you cannot have your cake and eat it, much as you wish to. And if man finds you persistently invading his domain, sharing his pursuits, working as a man, acting as a man, aping man’s free and easy arrogance, he is apt to forget, despite your apology for petticoats, that you are not a man. You want to be a free and independent comrade? Well, then, accept the penalties as well as the pleasures of comradeship.”

Calling for Men's Stories

2011-04-01T20:49:00.000-07:00

W.F. Price writes the following (emphasis mine):
In a Bind
by W.F. Price on April 1, 2011
Feminism succeeded in part because of some of the idiosyncrasies of the culture it was resisting. For example, that awful, stultifying, boring middle class lifestyle of the late 20th century left a lot of time on women’s hands. A mere decade before the 1950s women would have been working too hard just getting by to make much noise politically. The affluence and surfeit of spare time spawned an activist class of women who flocked in large numbers to “progressive” institutions that lobbied for government intervention in their favor.
Unfortunately, men don’t have that luxury, and never really have. Additionally, the men who have the most to gain from activism are those who have the least time for it. Divorced and unmarried fathers of all sorts are amongst the most hard-pressed people of all in our society, in many cases living an existence barely above the poverty line and having to keep their noses to the grindstone to stay out of jail. In fact, it seems almost deliberate, but I suspect that the primary motivating factor in keeping them under this regime has more to do with the desire to milk them for all they are worth.

Because of this setup, most of the more successful men’s rights activists are not dealing directly with the most pressing of the issues themselves. Perhaps one could draw a parallel between them and abolitionists, who were ultimately far more important to the abolition of slavery than slaves themselves.

However, it is still important that men who are going through family law hell have some say, and be given some opportunities to act in tangible ways. Those for the whom the problem is still fresh may be too overwhelmed to do so, but some of the more compelling figures in the news have been fathers whose children have been abducted to foreign countries, men who were locked up for not paying for children who are not their own, and men who spent decades behind bars for being falsely accused and convicted.

Perhaps the most important role wronged fathers and husbands can take on is that of the icon of the oppressed. Their stories should become cultural touchstones that people will remember whenever they hear the term “men’s rights” or “fathers’ rights.”

So, in seeking more public support, we ought to look for and broadcast these painful narratives. There are plenty out there, including many in which children are involved, and we shouldn’t shy away from using them to gain sympathy and change the public perception surrounding the issue of custody and fatherly responsibility. If this effort is pursued with enough skill and dedication, eventually the image of the “deadbeat” may be replaced with the far more accurate image of the wronged father and child.
_____________________________

With that said and particularly the last paragraph, I would like to offer my blog as a "broadcast" point for men who want their stories to be heard. You can email me and I will anonymously publish your story. It is said that history is written by the victors. In the past 100 years or so women have often been the victors (regardless of how they argue to the contrary).The present is a chance for men to broadcast their narratives in as many forums as possible, so that their stories will not be lost to history.

The Movement to Disbar Mary N. Kellett

2011-03-29T16:28:00.000-07:00

by Paul Elam

[Special note: I urge and implore all bloggers, anywhere on the internet, to reprint this article in its entirety with a link back to this page. Please help me get this event in front of as many eyes as possible. Thank you – PE]
There are often times that we shake our heads at injustices in the world. Sometimes it seems to be all we can do. And with so many problems in modern life, and their often systemic, intractable nature, it can be difficult to choose what battles to fight and when. Because of this we have increasingly become a nation of head shakers, concerned about an array of injustices but often not knowing where to turn or what to do to solve them.
With that in mind we have an opportunity, right here and now, to face down and fight against a terrible injustice, an absolute evil, going on in the state of Maine.
Vladek Filler is about to face trial for a second time on the charge of raping his wife, Ligia. He was brought to trial the first time by Bar Harbor prosecutor Mary N. Kellett, who has sought to imprison Mr. Filler despite the fact that she knows that there is no physical evidence that he ever committed a crime, and despite the fact that his accuser Ligia Filler, has proven to be a violent criminal, a liar who has been caught in false allegations against her husband, and a physical and emotional abuser of her husband and children with a history of severe psychiatric problems.
Ligia Filler has been referred to as “certifiable” by sheriff’s department personnel who she repeatedly threatened to kill.
Mary Kellett’s professional conduct in this case breeches virtually all canons of legal ethics where it concerns prosecutors, from intentionally misleading jurors to avoiding pretrial discovery to actually asking a law enforcement officer to refuse to comply with a valid subpoena in order to help her conceal exculpatory evidence.
All of this, and many other similar cases, have been conducted under the supervision of Bar Harbor, Maine, District Attorney Carletta Bassano, leading to the almost unavoidable conclusion that the problem is not just one rogue prosecutor, but one in which District Attorney Bassano is an enabling accomplice.
Additionally, all of these events have transpired without so much as raising an eyebrow in local news media.
Given the complicity of her supervisor and the lack of attention by local media, Kellet appears emboldened to continue this reign of terror on the life of Vladek Filler, his children, and other innocents who reside in the community Kellett is supposed to protect.
After having Filler’s first conviction overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct by the Maine Supreme Court, she is coming after him again, putting him through another trial on the same slipshod evidence.
Kellett is not pursuing justice; she is making a mockery of it in ways that border on criminality. She is out of control and no one with authority over her is doing anything about it.
And given the hubris demonstrated by her actions, it is clear she feels free to proceed with impunity.
We cannot, must not, allow this to happen.
This is a battle worth choosing to fight, and A Voice for Men is not the only place that is happening. Glenn Sacks at Father’s and Families, the nation’s leader in father’s rights advocacy is speaking out about this story. You can also read about it at The False Rape Society. This article will also be running at the-spearhead.com, with thanks to our good friend Mr. W.F. Price.
The organization Stop Abusive and Violent Environments(S.A.V.E.) has taken the even more significant action, sending a Complaint for the Disbarment of Prosecutor Mary Kellett to the Maine Board of Overseers for the Bar.
They have also authored a letter to Paul LePage, the Governor of Maine, referencing the disbarment complaint and making an appeal for an intervention on Mary Kellett on behalf of Vladek Filler and the people of Maine.
And you can do your part.
Write Governor LePage here and respectfully insist on an investigation to the practices of Mary N. Kellett. The message can be as simple as. “For the sake of justice, please assure that Mary Kellett is relieved of her prosecutorial duties and disbarred from the practice of law.”
Write the Board of overseers for the Bar here, and insist that they respond to the allegations against Kellett with an investigation.
Lastly, try to get the media involved. Bill Trotter does crime reporting for the Bangor Daily News. You can write email him at btrotter@bangordailynews.com or phone him at 207-460-6318 and ask him to consider investigating this story.
Don’t wait for others to do this, please, or think that just one person calling and writing is enough. That would be a fatal mistake.
When you have done one or all the suggestions listed here, please come back to this thread and simply put the word “done” in the comments, wherever you are reading this.
What is happening in Maine is only a microcosm of what is happening across the western world. So regardless of where you live, your insistent message to one or all of these people can help force them to consider looking in to Kellett’s activities. And make no mistake about it, Kellett’s actions, if unchecked, are a forecast of own future. We know this is a witch hunt, but because most are ignoring it, it will spread. If we take this silently, we have lost in the most tragic and disgraceful of ways.
This is a fight worth fighting, people. If you are reading this, you could be another Vladek Filler, or someone who cares about him. Your children could be hurt the same way his children have And your freedom, even if seemingly secure today, cannot be assured for tomorrow. As long as the likes of Mary Kellett are allowed to practice predatory prosecutions against innocent human beings no one is safe.
And If she is allowed to build a career on doing this, there will be nothing to stop the same from happening where you live.
It is your future, and your move.

[Addendum: A Voice for Men Radio is doing a one hour special on this tonight, March 29, 2011 at 9:00 p.m. EST. You can listen to the show live here, or the archives are always available in the sidebar at avoiceformen.com.]

iRon

2011-03-23T19:27:00.000-07:00

From a forwarded email:

It all began with an iPhone.....

March was when my son celebrated his 15th birthday and I got him an iPhone. He just loved it. Who wouldn't?

I celebrated my birthday in July and my wife made me very happy when she bought me an iPad.

My daughter's birthday was in August, so I bought her an iPad touch.

September came by so for my wife's birthday I bought her an iRon.

It was around then the fight started....

What my wife failed to realize is that the iRon can be integrated into the home network with the iWash, iCook, iClean. This unfortunately activated the iNag app.

Which lead me to the iHospital. iGet out Thursday.

A Web of Men

2011-03-12T19:12:00.000-08:00

"The clever woman sits at home, — and like a meadow spider spreads a pretty web of rose and gold, spangled with diamond dew. Flies — or men — tumble in by scores, — and she holds them all prisoners at her pleasure with a silken strand as fine as a hair. Nature gave her at her birth the "right" to do this, and if she does it well, she will always have her web full. But her weaving must not be to hold the flies, — i.e., to influence men, — solely for her own amusement and satisfaction; — she must learn to take a wider outlook and use her limitless powers for the benefit and betterment of the world.

I love my own sex, and I heartily sympathise with every step that women take towards culture, freedom, advancement, and the moral and intellectual mastery of themselves. I would fain serve them in all that may be for their peace and perfect happiness, but I honestly feel that such peace and happiness are not to be gained by violent or unnatural methods. The object of woman's existence is not to war with man, or allow man to war with her, but simply to conquer him and hold him in subservience without so much as a threat or a blow. Clever women always do this; clever women have always done it. It is only stupid women who cannot command men." - Marie Corelli 1855-1924

Marie Corelli was not too keen on the women's vote and not for the usual reasons, but because she felt women can have much more control over men and the world by webbing or conquering them with her feminine influence and charms. Women who sought the vote were seen as weak for having to resort to masculine tactics for influence. She was all about control as much as the suffragettes or feminists were, but her tactics were more stealth like. If a woman was clever or sneaky enough she could use her influences to come in under the cover of darkness and bend men and in turn politics to her will. It is manipulative and cunning and quite frankly how conservative feminists operate. Such women don't command men by masculine or normal feminist tactics, no, they "sit at home"* and for pleasure subtly craft a web for men to fly into and do what they will. And don't forget---nature gave her the right to do this.

*As much as like the idea of women in the home, I also recognize it can be used for trickery. As all things can be used for good or evil.

The Benevolent Order of Superior Sisterhood

2011-03-07T15:55:00.000-08:00

Click to make larger. How true. Notice how it spells "B.O.S.S.".

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/

Holding Out for a Hero

2011-03-06T07:24:00.000-08:00

Women are generally single for two reasons; they want to be single and/or they are "holding out for a hero". I was recently reminded of the Bonnie Tyler song, "I Need a Hero" and oh how it captures the modern women's MO.

Where have all the good men gone [sound familiar based on recent news articles?]
and where are all the gods?
Where's the streetwise Hercules to fight the rising odds?
Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
Late at night I toss
and I turn
and I dream of what I need.
I need a hero. I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night.
He's gotta be strong
and he's gotta be fast

And he's gotta be fresh from the fight.
I need a hero. I'm holding out for a hero 'til the morning light.
He's gotta be sure
and it's gotta be soon And he's gotta be larger than life!
larger than life.
Somewhere after midnight
in my wildest fantasy

Somewhere just beyond my reach
there's someone reaching back for me.
Racing on the thunder and rising with the heat

It's gonna take a superman to sweep me off my feet.
I need a hero. I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night.
He's gotta be strong
and he's gotta be fast

Point is fewer and fewer men want to be a hero (or chivalrous) for women when the female sex, in general, has insisted they are their own hero for so many decades. Men have been sent the message that they are not needed, let alone needed as a hero. So, some women can keep holding out for Superman to sweep them off their feet and others can be realistic and realize that nice, average guy next door isn't all that bad.

Women, Take a Look in the Mirror

2011-02-27T16:25:00.000-08:00

So many great critiques were done over the Kay Hymowitz article, most notably wrapped up by Elusive Wapiti, that I didn't know what else I could say on the matter (or rather said by someone else). That is, until I came across this piece. Here is a female author who has more of a clue than most:
"You can’t blame Gawker’s Adrian Chen – or any man for that matter – for getting a bit defensive after reading this article. Hymowitz seems to be operating under the misconception that “guys” (who are “[neither] boys [nor] men but something in between”), are the only ones who have helped create this allegedly undesirable, destructive, pre-adult status quo.

According to author Julie Klausner, who is quoted in the article, “We [women] are sick of hooking up with guys.” So … WHY ARE WOMEN STILL HOOKING UP WITH GUYS?! Both Klausner and Hymowitz overlook the all-too-important fact that women play an integral part in perpetuating this “pre-adult” hookup culture they presumably find so unappealing… after all, these beer-guzzling, Star Wars-loving 20-somethings aren’t hooking up with themselves. In fact, if anyone is to be exclusively blamed for today’s hookup norm, it is women.

This past weekend, in a bar in Washington, D.C., I found myself at the watering hole of these so-called “pre-adults”: single men and women in their 20s and 30s, drinking, and quite obviously hoping not to be going home alone (or at least, not to be going home without a phone number). While most of the men could be found drinking a beer or scotch, dressed in a button-down and jeans, most of the women were sporting tight jeans, high heels, and plunging necklines.
By 2am, it is almost always the girls who are the ones downing shots, screaming along to Miley Cyrus at the top of their lungs, and dancing wildly in the middle of the dance floor – praying to catch the eye of some guy. Ladies, if that’s your thing, go right ahead and keep partying in the USA… but when you wake up the next morning with a vicious hangover in some guy’s bed, don’t label him as an immature, selfish bastard when he doesn’t call you the next day."
Elusivc Wapiti ends his article thusly:
"So, where indeed have all the good men gone? A good question. I suggest that Hymowitz start by encouraging her sisters to look in a mirror to begin to answer to this question."
Likewise.

Craving Cavemen

2011-02-23T07:26:00.000-08:00

Lesson 35

Not much I can add to this 1937 article:

Do modern women, for all their boast of freedom, still crave cave-man husband? A speaker at the American Sociological Association Convention declares that they do. As he puts it: “Super-ordination of the husband and subordination of the wife appear still to be the accepted status of most marriages and what the majority of wives still want and expect”.

Of course all the married women in the length and breadth of the land will rise up and with one voice deny this allegation. They will say: “Haven’t we got the very word ‘obey’ expunged from the marriage ceremony? Don’t a lot of us even keep our own names after we get married and go on calling ourselves Miss Jones or Miss Perkins even after we have a houseful of children? And we would like to see any mere husband telling us where we get on and where we get off: the nerve of them!”

All of which is, of course, more or less true. No one can deny that in this land of free and emancipated ladies that the head of the household often wears skirts than breeches. It is the wife who decides where the family shall live and what they shall spend; how the children shall be reared; whether they shall attempt to climb the social ladder or sit contentedly at its foot; who even buys her husband’s clothes and dictates his politics and religion.

“All of us know plenty of men who abroad speak with the voice of authority to which millions listen, but who sing small in their own homes with no one to lend them an ear. We have seen heroes with their chests covered with medals for bravery in battle, but who tremble before little two-by-four wives. And we could point you to any number of men who are autocrats in their business or professions, but who wipe their feet on the mat before they enter their own doors and say “yes ma’am” to the women to whom they are married.”

Human nature being what is and all of us, both male and female, having a streak of the tyrant in us, it follows inevitably that a wife will dominate her husband if she can. But, curiously enough, while she can’t resist the temptation to boss him, it doesn’t make her happy to do it. In her secret heart she wishes that he had backbone enough to stand up for his rights.

“For, in reality, women are still primitive creatures emotionally and so far as their relations with men are concerned they haven’t got a yard away from their cave mother’s point of view. They still admire strength, whether it be physical or mental, more than any other quality in the male. They still want some man to tell them what to do and make them do it. They still want to be a little afraid of the august godling to whom they are united. For all their swaggering and bragging about equality no wife really wants to be on her husband’s level. She wants to look up to him.”

If every woman had her heart’s desire she would be wooed by a brute with a club and dragged by the hair of her head to his lair, instead of getting a namby-pamby written proposal from a timid love who didn’t have even enough spunk to come and do it in person. If you don’t believe this just look at the stage and screen lovers over whom the fair sex go crazy. Big burly fellows who treat ‘em rough and knock ‘em down and marry ‘em in spite of themselves and who waste no time on silly soft talk in getting what they want.

“As I remarked in the beginning, virtually every woman will henpeck her husband if he will stand for it, but even while she is doing it she isn’t enjoying it because it tinges her love for him with a certain contempt. It makes her feel that she is stronger than he is, that she has better judgment, that he recognizes his inferiority to her and the picture of the clinging vine husband is not one that ravishes any woman’s fancy.

Invariably you will find that the happy and contented wives are those who are married to men whom they admire and respect and to whom they willingly defer. No slavish obedience is theirs to a tyrant, but a glad submission to husbands whom they believe to be wiser than themselves, with more experience of life and better fitted to deal with the problems of their mutual lives. Whenever you hear a woman begin every sentence with “John says” you have the strongest possible proof that she is happily married.

“And if this be caveman stuff it is the stuff out of which successful marriages are made”.

Men are to Validate Women by Wearing Girl Jeans

2011-02-15T18:05:00.000-08:00

Men--I am sorry to report that it appears women now need you to wear girl jeans in order to feel validated and respected as a human. Check it out:
"We all know what happens in most high schools: competition, name calling, "mean girl" typical teenager stuff. But sometimes it goes too far. Something interesting happened at Oak Park-River Forest High School after one (yet to be named) student created a Facebook list ranking 50 students (all girls) based on their looks and included sexually explicit details and racial and ethnic slurs.

The girls decided to fight back and guys have joined them in the counter movement called RESPECT. Feminism could be looking at a fundamental change, one that focuses on women as humans rather than a special segment of humans, with these teenage boys joining the efforts.

"We’ve seen young men embracing their femininity in a lot of ways in recent years, proving that areas that were once considered “women-only” are no longer. Guyliner is still all the rage -- just look at Pete Wentz. Long hair is back in style and tons of guys use three times as much hair product as their female counterparts.
Beauty is in for men. As they borrow from women for their daily regimens, they are subconsciously breaking down gender lines. Blurring those boundaries goes so much further than just being pretty or willing to use girlie products.

Men are now wearing women’s clothes, even -- jeans being the most popular of course. The guys of yesterday wouldn’t have dreamed of donning a piece of women’s clothing, except in jest. That was purely the territory of the pranksters and transvestites. Once again blurring gender lines, guys are validating women by the simple act of wearing girl jeans."
There you have it. So, in order to validate that women are humans too, the men have to become feminized and don those girl jeans. Sure, makes sense. I suppose they figure women have been validating men all these years by wearing pants. It could be said that women shun their own femininity by not widely wearing skirts, yet they want the men to wear girl versions of a garment that used to be entirely male. Men are supposed to conform to female definitions of beauty and not their own. Men are to be beautiful now, not handsome. Because, of course, female standards (beauty included) are always better.

Elusive Wapiti has a good post about how the young men today are looking more and more feminized. He presents photos that captures the feminized look of young men today and compares them with photos of how young men used to look. Be sure to check it out.
"Standing in solidarity with their fellow students is just a more concrete example of this change in feminism. Guys are starting to consider themselves part of the movement, instead of just bystanders. If this keeps up, we could be looking at a humanist movement, instead of one that remains segregated down gender lines."
So, by being part of the movement, in order to respect women as humans, apparently young men have to look feminized or essentially become girls themselves. Men wearing girl jeans are going to make women human! Soon we will hear how men are not "real men" unless they start to look more feminized.

Note: Of course the facebook list terrible; however, men don't need to become feminized to recognize women are human.

Women are More Successful, but THERE IS STILL....

2011-02-13T07:13:00.000-08:00

Some of us have long known that women tend to think they are better than men in a wide array of areas; therefore, it will come as no surprise that women also think they are more 'successful' than men. It will also come as no surprise that despite this 'good news', women still find something to complain about by prefacing such complaints with "there is still" (TIS). You will see below what I am talking about (emphasis mine):
"Nearly half of all American women think they are doing much better in their career than the man in their life, according to a new poll.Forty-nine percent of women say that they feel more successful than their significant other, and 78 percent feel they are doing well in their chosen field, according to the March issue of Women’s Health magazine, which hit newsstands this week."
"It’s great to see a finding like this," said Lisa Bain, the magazine’s executive editor. "It’s a measure of how confident women are feeling these days, and how many more opportunities they feel they have in their careers.It’s also evidence of what we’ve all been hearing, that women have fared better during the economic downturn than men have, and that they tend to be better educated and more financially secure than the men in their lives."
I seem to recall a lot of talk about how the recession is affecting MORE women than men and articles about the "mancession" were met with sharp criticisms, but I guess that was just my imagination now. The economy and many other areas are used as a negative or a positive depending on the context of the article. If too much attention is going to men, like the "mancession" articles, then women come out saying how really more women are affected by the recession. This gets the attention off the men and back to women, WHERE IT BELONGS, of course. In this particular article, mentioning the economy is used as a positive for women, because it keeps the attention on women, again, WHERE IT BELONGS.
"While there is still a wage gap in, which women make about 80 percent of what a men make, among young women under 30 the gap is gone. Women in that age bracket are making about 8 percent more than their male peers across the country, according to study released last year. Bain sees the tide as turning toward women."
Did you catch that? Despite the 'good news' of this article we have to be reminded that THERE IS STILL a wage gap. Now indeed, the tides are turning towards women and away from men, but there is still a wage gap, can't forget that. If this is really about equality, then the women making the 8% more than men, should find such an unequal number troubling. Even though women are more confident than ever and those under 30 make 8% more than men, they had to throw in the obligatory wage gap talking point. Like I said in my MDTT post, women can't just sit back and hear something negative and they obviously can't sit back and hear something positive either. This is another example of women deflecting back to blaming men and/or a culture that allegedly holds them back, despite what they achieve. Doesn't matter how good something is; with every silver lining comes a cloud.
"Though there’s still a gender disparity, significantly more women attend college these days and they earn graduate degrees at higher rates, so that wage gap should eventually narrow even more," she said. Women also have high ambitions these days."
Again, "there is still"..... how can there be a disparity for women if women are going to college more than men? Of course what they mean by "significantly more" is that more women than ever before in history are going, but since it is not female dominated, there is still a "disparity". I don't see a disparity when women are 60% more likely than men to obtain a bachelors by age 23.

So, why do women have to always bring up TIS? I was thinking that feminism is a prescription drug that was prescribed liberally to women for all that ails them. Some may use the pill of feminism sparingly and as prescribed here and there to effectively manage pain (or whatever ailment/grievance they have) , i.e., the imagined horrors of being a woman, yet others will become addicted and they can not truly enjoy success, their confidence, or their independence without the pill of feminism. Therefore, when good news is reported about women, we can't forget about that pill. The pill of feminism is a comfort or security blanket that is revealed with NAWALT, MDTT, and TIS statements.
"The magazine poll of 900 women showed that women today don’t feel they’ve made it until they are making at least $100,000 a year."
Given so few men even make 100K a year, women believing they aren't a success until they are making AT LEAST 100K is setting them up for failure and disappointment. This is not the measure of success that women need to be following, nor is it for men. Judging success on worldly standards is a guaranteed path to unhappiness and discontent. Success (if one has to use the word) for women is better represented in the Proverbs 31 woman, which did not measure her worth based on her paycheck and whether she is better than men, rather, it was based on her character, especially as it relates to being a good wife.
"Fifty-six percent of women also think they are more successful than their friends, and 51 percent think they are more successful than their siblings."
Once one starts to think they are more successful or better in any way over their friends and family, the sin of arrogance begins to set in. Worldly success may be something to strive for, but it is also well known for tearing apart relationships. All that glitters is not gold. In pursuing worldly success, people push aside God and learn not to depend on him. Worldly success is about independence; especially financial independence. This jives well with feminist philosophies, because they are independence based. If one bases success on careers and making at least 100K, then they don't need men and they certainly don't need God.

I like this quote from Albert Einstein:
"Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value."

Likewise; try not to become a woman of success, but rather try to become a woman of value. In other words, the Proverbs 31 woman, who "lacks nothing of value".

Beware of Effeminate Christianity

2011-02-09T19:09:00.000-08:00

For there is some danger of falling into a soft and effeminate Christianity, under the plea of a lofty and ethereal theology. Christianity was born for endurance…It walks with firm step and erect frame; it is kindly, but firm; it is gentle, but honest; it is calm, but not facile; obliging, but not imbecile; decided, but not churlish. It does not fear to speak the stern word of condemnation against error, nor to raise its voice against surrounding evils, under the pretext that it is not of this world.
It does not shrink from giving honest reproof lest it come under the charge of displaying an unchristian spirit. It calls sin ’sin,’ on whomsoever it is found, and would rather risk the accusation of being actuated by a bad spirit than not discharge an explicit duty. Let us not misjudge strong words used in honest controversy. Out of the heat a viper may come forth; but we shake it off and feel no harm.

The religion of both Old and New Testaments is marked by fervent outspoken testimonies against evil. To speak smooth things in such a case may be sentimentalism, but it is not Christianity. It is a betrayal of the cause of truth and righteousness. If anyone should be frank, manly, honest, cheerful (I do not say blunt or rude, for a Christian must be courteous and polite), it is he who has tasted that the Lord is gracious, and is looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God.

I know that charity covereth a multitude of sins; but it does not call evil good, because a good man has done it; it does not excuse inconsistencies, because the inconsistent brother has a high name and a fervent spirit. Crookedness and worldliness are still crookedness and worldliness, though exhibited in one who seems to have reached no common height of attainment.
-Taken from God’s Way of Holiness, 1864.
— HORATIUS BONAR (1808-89)

H/T: Apprising Ministries

"Men Do That Too" -- MDTT

2011-02-06T11:05:00.000-08:00

Christianity Today has this article up where it discusses whether or not women are too picky in selecting a man. It is based on the ever controverisal Lori Gottlieb book, "Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough ", which oddly enough is now being marketed as a Christian book. Got me!

Before I get to my main point, this part is good:
"According to Gottlieb, the problem is that women are no longer satisfied with companionship, security, and stability. Instead, we believe we deserve it all, and that includes a soul mate who is exciting, passionate, masculine, and has the same emotions women do. To make matters worse, we start to believe that no matter how great a guy is, there must be someone better out there."
Caveat: "She does not advocate resigning yourself to a life of misery with a man you find unpleasant, but rather, adjusting your expectations and being happy with a more realistic version of Mr. Right."

What I found most interesting, was the following:
"Unfortunately, there is little acknowledgment that men should not be picky about the women they date. It is accepted without question that men choose women based on age and physical beauty. I can’t help wondering where the book is that tells men that they need to “settle” for a woman who is kind and caring but might not look like a supermodel."
This is what women always have to do when something 'negative' is suggested of them, such as being "too picky", they have to deflect it back to men. Of course men can have similar faults, but the book is not talking about men; it is addressing women. Just because the author does not counter every female fault with a male fault, does not make for a downfall of the book. Had the purpose of the book been to equally critique men and women and we found the author being bias towards women, then such a criticism might be fair. Even if Gottlieb equally suggested that men are "too picky", what would be the point as men are not going to be reading that book; all it would do is just reinforce to women what they already believe. They just want to believe more than anything that the problem isn't them and are disturbed that Gottlieb didn't try to make them feel better or lessen the blow, by equally calling out men.

It's like they can't sit still for one minute without having to say "men do that too". Much like NAWALT was coined from "not all women are like that", I propose MDTT for the equally used "men do that too". Yes, yes, we get it, "Men do it too" and "all women aren't like that", but instead of whining about it and pointing the finger every time, just sit back and accept that women aren't perfect with no stammering or 'but, but, but-ing...". Don't deflect back to men and accuse men of starting it (whether they did or not is pointless), the point is improving and restoring women, and books such as "Marry Him", make an honest attempt in doing so. Don't worry about what the men are doing, but what you are doing.

When Women Come Back to "Nice Guys"

2011-02-02T18:29:00.000-08:00

Below is a story sent to me from a reader (I will refer to him as "X"). I normally don't cover such issues, but thought my male readers could help a fellow out.
"About ten years ago, when I was in my early 20's, I was working in the computer department for a company that was nationwide. I was on the helpdesk and had to take calls from all around the country. So one of our sites out in the field had regular problems and I got to talking to one of the girls at that remote site. We became friendly over the phone and exchanged phone numbers to chat outside of work. I'm sure you can see where this is going. We were 2000 miles away from each other so it's not like I could drive out to visit her.

Over the phone we grew close, or seemed to, and after a few months we talked about plans to meet each other. Yes I did beta stuff like send her flowers and other presents I'm too embarrassed to even think of right now. So we set a date and everything seemed like it was going fine. She insisted on coming to me instead of me coming to her.

About a week before she was supposed to visit she started to act weird on the phone. I knew something was wrong so I told her "Look if you don't want to come visit me, I understand this is kind of weird and all. Just let me know." She continued to insist she was going to come. At the last minute she said we'd have to reschedule because of some crisis I don't remember any longer.

Another month or so goes by and we were supposed to get together again, but again a last minute crisis keeps her from visiting. The phone conversations become tortured. I keep telling her "if you think it's too weird for us to ever meet just say so". Of course she doesn't. We set up a third time and this time she doesn't say there is a crisis she just doesn't show up at the airport. I can't contact her, she won't answer her phone. Finally I call her at work (doh!) and her boss lets me know it's not appropriate to call this girl any longer.

My eyes are bleeding just re-reading this.

So tonight on Facebook I get a friend request. I open it up to look at it and I see this girl's name that I kind of recognize. It's the girl from ten years ago. After the last failed meeting I did go through the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance and learning about Game. She follows up the friend request with a message:

"I'm really sorry about what happened all those years ago. I was really scared and that's why I did what I did. I hope you don't hate me and would like to know how you are doing."

At this point I'm not sure what I should do. The civil (beta?) side of me is telling me to send back a polite reply. But I'm also thinking "after all these years, why is she even sending this message?" The more I think about it, the more this whole thing seems stupid to me. Stupid for what happened ten years ago and stupid for her finding me again on Facebook. Considering how generic my name is (second only to "John Doe!") she would have had put some effort into finding me.

Actually what I think I really want to do is just nothing at all.

Thoughts, comments, advice, etc. welcome"
My two cents: Based purely on the above, I think it is a classic example of a woman, who turned down a nice guy thinking she could get a better or more alpha one. After 10 years of dating and nothing fruitful, she remembers that ~~boring~~ sweet guy from her past and starts swooning. Realizing she has no better options and is only getting older, X is starting to look pretty good. I'm not sure if her interest is genuine, its just better to be with any man, than to end up alone. Certainly people can make mistakes and I do believe in redemption, but there is also a fine line. At what point do you take somebody back who has deeply harmed you and what point do you show them the door? If men continually take back every girl who hurts them, what lesson is that to women? That they can dump men when they feel like it and then when it is convenient for them, they can come back and the men will be waiting? Maybe if women knew they wouldn't have a second chance so easily, they would think twice about dumping the "nice guy". If the story was reverse and man came crawling back to a woman after 10 years, her girlfriends may say "don't take him back so easily, he needs to learn a lesson!". Women complain there are no "nice guys", but they are there, women just seem to loose interest in them. To cover my bases, I will grant that she could have also just been too scared to meet a guy who lived so far away and made a bad mistake.

On a previous post, King Alfred left this comment, which I feel is applicable:

"Some years ago, a leader of my church told young men to “rejoice when young women reject you.” I now understand why this is so. When a woman rejects me, she shows that she does not love or value me. Even if I truly loved her, she would not have reciprocated. It is therefore for the best that she rejected me. Her rejection saved me from a fate worse than death. I thank Heaven that I did not marry a woman who did not love me."

With that said, I'll defer to my male readers to handle this one.

Being Liked

2011-01-30T08:26:00.000-08:00

I have been thinking recently about the overwhelming human desire to "be liked". Some may think it is a Christian goal and that you can tell how good of a Christian you are based on how many people like you. The desire to be liked certainly motivates us to be kind and charitable, but the desire can be so strong that it can also lead us to stray off that "narrow path" and into sin. The desire to be liked is a double edged sword and I often think the Devil can hijack this desire and use it against us. What do I mean by all this? I found the below article that explains better than I ever could (my thoughts will be interspersed; emphasis mine).
What’s not to be liked about being liked? The perils of excess likability.

By Thanos Karasmanis
"We all love to be liked. It appears to be part of our DNA. It gives us a sense of belonging, purpose, and value. On many occasions it is what drives us to do things. On fewer occasions it even becomes the sole source of our self‐worth. Not long ago I was meditating on Luke 6:26, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way” and, as it is often the case when studying the word of God, my heart was pierced. In a split second my whole life flashed before my eyes pausing persistently on all the moments that I had strived to accomplish just that—to be spoken well of, and be liked by all. It was an unpleasant yet, in a strange way, satisfying moment. The Holy Spirit had once again illuminated God’s revealed truth in my life. But let’s start by seeing things in context. This “woe sequence” in Luke 6:24‐26 corresponds and forms a direct contrast to the “blessing sequence” in the immediately preceding verses (20‐23).

This is Luke’s version of the Beatitudes found in Matthew 5, however, unlike Matthew, Luke includes the negative type of the Beatitudes in the form of woes—perhaps to further stress the importance of choosing wisely. But what exactly is Jesus saying here? What would the harm be in desiring to be liked by all? Isn’t this the Christian thing to do and how are the false prophets involved in this? Perhaps some of the answers lie in the difference in orientations we observe between the false and true prophets.
In v. 26 Jesus is not trying to distort the basic concepts of honour and praise or undermine the above‐mentioned legitimate human needs. Instead he is using hyperbole (Woe to you when all men speak well of you) to direct our attention to the importance of our motives. After all, the likelihood of anyone actually being liked by all was, and is, a practical impossibility. If our primary objective is to be liked, we will shape the gospel we preach and teach (consciously or unconsciously) to reflect such objective. When our motive is to boost our self‐worth by intensely desiring “everyone” to like us, we will tend to predominately preach a gospel of love and a gospel of what people want to hear. These were precisely the principles the false prophets of the Old Testament (and New) operated on. They never prepared God’s people for the future day of accountability. They prophesied peace, no famine, no exile, and blatantly overlooked Israel’s sinfulness—everything in direct opposition to the message of the true prophets and to what actually took place (Jer 23:17; 14:15; 27:9‐10). The people wanted favorable answers and quick resolutions, and, in response, the false prophets formed a definite understanding of what God would or would not do. The true prophets, on the contrary, opposed any human restriction on his freedom, and instead were overwhelmed by the splendor and freedom of God, who may freely choose to judge and destroy but also to restore and create. The false prophets misled the people of God simply by supplying that which was demanded in exchange for being liked by “all.”
Many churches these days preach what people want to hear, because they are "seeker driven" and not "truth driven". They care more about being liked, than dispelling truth. The way they judge if they are liked is by how many people are in their pews each week. If they feel they are not liked enough, they revamp the "message" to get more in and more to like them. This often includes rewording and/or toning down a message so that it does not offend our delicate postmodern sensibilities. They aren't concerned about the "future day of accountability" or sometimes not even accountability while here on earth.

False friends or false people can easily mislead you as well, because they are not necessarily concerned with what is best for you, but how they can be liked and supply whatever it is to make you like them. If the culture is telling people that dressing or speaking in a certain way will make them cool and make people like them, they will surely take part of that culture no matter how immoral. Women get easily caught up in immodest dress, because they think other women and/or especially men will like them for such dress. As a more extreme example, others get involved in drugs or alcohol in attempts to be liked by their peers. In general, some just loose sight of what is right or any values/virtues they may hold, and cave to various vices in order to be liked. These are ways in which the desire of being liked can easily lead us to sin. Satan sees an opportunity to lead us off the narrow path by using our own natural desires against us.

As an aside, one of the things the male bloggers are very good at, is not caring about being liked. They unabashedly preach what they believe, with no shame, guilt, or worries about hurting woman's feelings or offending their sensibilities. They indirectly or directly tell women and our society what they need to hear. You can disagree all you want with their message, but they do a heck of a better job with staying on their own narrow path*, than some churches do. By this I mean, they don't get distracted with being liked. Holding true to one's beliefs is very difficult if you have to keep modifying those beliefs to appease those around you. It would do Christians well to preach their own message with the same steadfastness.
Being liked is a Christian virtue only if it is the product of our preaching and teaching the complete and uncompromised word of God. If being liked is the product of an ambition, it becomes a vice; and simply invalidates our seemingly Christian behavior. The true gospel is difficult to hear and even more so to practice. The good news of the gospel is that once we understand our sinfulness and depravity, we will begin being saved. The true gospel wants us to understand the faults and inadequacies of our fallen humanity. Unless our hearers (and ourselves) have a deep understanding of their need of reconciliation, they will never fully appreciate their Messiah.
It is a Christian virtue for those of us who teach the biblical concept of wifely submission, without any concern about being liked. When we write on such matters, we do not change our stance or views in order to get certain commenters to like us. As easy as it may be to keep the peace, we know that is not what we are called to do. In fact, if everyone agreed all the time with everything I said, that would make me think I am catering my message to what people want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. Sometimes I have been writing a post and end up rewording an entire paragraph in order to appease and cause less controversy, but I do NOT like the feeling I get when I start to modify my words for someone else. It is not me and it is not true. That is getting caught up in being liked. Satan would love it if I started to 'go light' on my biblical submission views as that would show I am wavering and not strong. If I cave on that, what else can he get me to cave on. Loosening our views for others opens the door for Satan. He thrives on those who waver, not on those who are solid as a rock.

Understanding our depravity and sinfulness is paramount in being saved. I can't stress that enough nor can I stress that enough for women (since that is my primary focus here). Women need to understand their own sinfulness; that they are imperfect, fallen beings who are capable of vice and evil. They have been raised in a culture that tells them girls are "sugar and spice and everything nice", that women are morally and spiritually superior to men, and that man is corrupted, but woman are innocent. The pedestaling of women has harmed women in that it made them believe they are ABOVE sin; that they are immune because they sit on a pedestal. No matter where we sit or how great we think we are, its still does not change the fact that we are all corrupted. The greater the ease and comfort one can admit this, the greater the chances are that person has been saved. Sin does not like being called out as sin. It is God's saving power that gives us the ability to discern and recognize our sinful traits and faults. Once we can recognize it we can do something about it and come out of denial. Accepting the problem is half the battle. Modern women also need to admit they have a problem and that problem is SIN. Such women will not change their ways or have a chance of becoming godly, until they can grasp their sinfulness and depravity. This all plays an important part in restoring women.

Unless they have a deep understanding of what exactly is being saved, they will never fully appreciate their salvation. Unless they have a solid understanding of the magnitude of their personal sin, they will never be able to truly forgive and be forgiven.

The true and irrepressible reality that it demanded expression in spite of opposition and personal attack. The agony of opposition may have been great but the agony of not preaching God’s truth was even greater (Jer 20:7‐13). It is often the case that following God’s agenda does not win many popularity contests for those who pursue it.

Here is the challenge I pose to you and myself. Let’s us check what drives our likeability and learn to feel comfortable when not liked by “all.” We are to communicate not what people want to hear, but what they need to hear. Being spoken well of by all was one of the marks of a false prophet, Jesus reminds us, and, by extending the analogy to our context, it is one of the marks of one who is proclaiming a distorted gospel. If we proclaim a distorted gospel—one that over emphasizes a certain aspect of God and ignores the totality of his character—then we are guilty of not truly knowing God. If we are not liked by all for the sake of Christ, let us rejoice; for we are preaching God’s true word and we are living for his glory, not ours. Let the word of God go forth and divide—it was meant to accomplish exactly that."
That's right; Jesus came to bring a sword (Matt. 10:34)--to "divide" those who will preach the truth and those who won't. When I mentioned "being liked" as a double edge sword, I wasn't kidding. It is another one of the human desires that can be used for good or evil. It is wise to stop and think about whether our motivations to be liked are Spirit lead. If they are tempting us to loosen or leave our values, chance are such motivations are NOT at the hands of God.
A PDF of the original article can be obtained here.

* I don't necessarily mean a Christian Narrow Path here, but their own version of a narrow path. They stay more faithful to to their beliefs (whatever they may be), than some Christians do.

'Humor' Imitating Life

2011-01-27T18:56:00.000-08:00

The below may be classified as humor, but my male readers know that this is often their life, where some women consciously or unconsciously impose their rules on them.

"1.The female makes the rules.

2.The rules are subject to change by the female at any time without prior notification.

3.No male can possibly know all the rules. Attempts to document the rules are not permitted.

4.If the female suspects that the male may know some or all of the rules,she must immediately change some or all of the rules.

5.The female is never wrong.

6.If the female is wrong, it is because of an egregarious misunderstanding which was the direct result of something the male did, said, did not do,or did not say.

7.If rule 6 is invoked, the male must apologize immediately for having been the cause of the misunderstanding without any clues from the female as to what he did to have caused the misunderstanding. See rule 13.

8.The female may change her mind at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

9.The male is never permitted to change his mind or under circumstances without the express written consent of the female which is given only in cases where the female wanted him to change his mind but gave no indication of that wish. See rules 6, 7, 12, and 13.

10.The female has the right to be angry or upset for any reason, real orimagined, at any time and under any circumstance which in her sole judgement she deems appropriate. The male is not to be given any sign of the root cause of the female's being angry or upset. The female may,however, give false or misleading reasons to see if the male is paying attention. See rule 13.

11.The male must remain calm at all times, unless the female wants him to be angry or upset.

12.Under no circumstances may the female give the male any clue or indication whether or why she wants him to be angry or upset.

13.The male is expected to read the mind of the female at all times.
Failure to do so will result in punishments and penalties imposed at the sole discretion of the female.

14.The female may, at any time and for any reason, resurrect any past incident without regard to temporal or spacial distance, and modify, enlarge, embellish, of wholly reconstruct it in order to demonstrate to the male that he is now or has in the past been wrong, insensitive,pig-headed, dense, deceitful, and/or oafish.

15.The female may use her interpretation of any past occurrence to illustrate the ways in which the male has failed to accord her the consideration, respect, devotion, or material possessions, he has bestowed on other females, domestic pets or barnyard animals, sports teams, automobiles, motorcycles, boats, aircraft, or coworkers. Such illustrations are non-rebuttable.

16.If the female is experiencing PMS, Post-PMS, or Pre-PMS, the female is permitted to exhibit any manner of behaviors she wishes without regard to logical consistency or accepted norms of human behavior.

17.Any act, deed, word, expression, statement, utterance, thought, opinion, or belief by the male is subject to the sole, subjective interpretation of the female, other external factors not-withstanding.Alibis, excuses, explanations, defenses, reasons, extenuations, or rationalizations will not be entertained. Abject please for mercy and forgiveness are acceptable under some circumstances, especially when accompanied by tangible evidence of contrition. :-))"

Restoring Women

2011-01-23T17:01:00.000-08:00

Commenter, A Light Shining in the Darkness, posed the following on a previous post:
"And Laura, you mentioned our society going back to the days of couples marrying at 20. While I agree that waiting to marry and start families is one major way society has shifted lately, I wonder how we propose to go about convincing young people to marry so young? With such a high divorce rate, especially among the young, what's to convince a young woman to make a mature decision to marry at such a young age? (Most teenage girls and 20-somethings I know are MUCH too immature to be wives and mothers.) And what of the rest of us who simply haven't met The One yet? I'm 25 years old, single, and have no prospects in the near future. Not of my own decisions (I would have loved to be married out of high school), but simply because God hasn't placed me with a man yet. Am I contributing to society's "buck wild"nature? I certainly hope not. I consider myself to be modest, hard-working, intelligent, sexually pure, and feminine. (Especially within the realms of current society, though I guess that can't really be saying much.) How can we start turning society around from its sex-crazed ways and begin creating good, modest, pure, holy citizens? I hope to do my part by one day having children of my own and teaching the Biblical values of God femininity and masculinity. But how can we turn around the lives of others?"
Good questions; to which I have no easy or cheery answers, but will attempt to do so by breaking her comment into three main questions.

1. How do we restore a virtuous society?

Short Answer--by restoring its women. Which, is why I put so much emphasis on calling women out for their sins and getting them to realize that they have the capacity for great evil, just like men. It may seem common sense, but I do believe a good deal of women live in some sort of bubble where they think they are immune to evil forces. It's not a fight against women that I engage in, but a fight against sin.I focus more on sin in women, because they hold the key in restoring the society. There is talk that men aren't doing their part in restoring society because they are refusing to marry ungodly women. One should not marry just the sake of marrying. You first need good stock; good wife material in the culture and that we do not have. Probably only 10% (and that is being generous) or so of women qualify. Women bear the burden of returning themselves to good stock and exhibiting qualities that men will find as an asset. For the 10% who are assets, they end up getting lost amongst all the liabilities. A man finding such a woman is like searching for a needle in a haystack; where the needle is the asset woman and the hay are the women who are liabilities. It's hard for a man to recognize a needle amongst all the hay. What we need is for all assets to become hay and for the needle to become the liability. The good qualities in the few will not be recognized until the good qualities are in the many. It used to be this way, before feminism spearheaded our cultural decay. In order for men to do their part, women need to first do their part. They can then select a quality women once women en masse make it desirable to do. They will make the waters safe to swim in again.

The women who are assets also bear the burden of getting the other women to shape-up. Why should we care about the other women? Because, for one, they are potential sisters in Christ, and two, what they do directly or indirectly affects us. They are like the one bad kid in class whose actions end up punishing the whole class by having recess canceled. The modern women today ruins it for traditional women, because their actions eventually cause men to be turned off to all women. Due to our sex starting the the whole disconnect between the sexes, I believe we have the power to finish it. It is not required for men to help, we are big girls, right? Further, modern women will no longer listen or do anything for men, but they are more likely to listen to a fellow sister.
I found the following from Susan Fenimore Cooper as an example of how bad women can bring down good women:
"Let us suppose that to-day the proposed revolution were effected; all women, without restriction, even the most vile, would be summoned to vote in accordance with their favorite theory of inalienable right. That class of women, and other degraded classes of the ignorant and unprincipled, will always be ready to sell their votes many times over--to either party, to both parties, to the highest bidder, in short. They will sell their vote much more readily than the lowest classes of men now do. They will hold it with greater levity. They will trifle with it. They will sell their vote any day for a yard of ribbon or a tinsel brooch--unless they are offered two yards of ribbon or two brooches. They will vote over again every hour of every election day, by cunning disguises and trickery. And thus, so far as women are concerned, the most degraded element in society will, in fact, represent the whole sex."
If I didn't know she was talking about the vote, I could easily read this as a modern woman's ~~dating~~ hook-up life and how her poor choices and actions affect women as a whole, including the virtuous women.

With a few word changes we get:
That class of women, and other degraded classes of the ignorant and unprincipled, will always be ready to sell themselves many times over--to either man, to both men, to the highest bidder, in short. They will sell themselves much more readily than the lowest classes of men now do. They will hold it with greater levity. They will trifle with it. They will sell their soul/body any day for a yard of ribbon or a tinsel brooch--unless they are offered two yards of ribbon or two brooches. They will fool men over again every hour of every election day, by cunning disguises and trickery. And thus, so far as women are concerned, the most degraded element in society will, in fact, represent the whole sex.
This is what is happening today; the most degraded women are ending up representing the entire sex.

So, if women bear the brunt of restoring society, this all leads to how do we convince a culture of amoral women that society needs saving and that they are part of the problem. Largely these women can't see outside their bubble and their immediate life to recognize there is something larger at stake. In their own personal lives, they may be getting by just fine and naturally are happy with a hedonistic lifestyle. A sign of a mature woman is one who can see the bigger picture and that a loss of a hedonistic life will eventually be not only best for society, but her as well. Rejecting such a lifestyle is like quitting any sort of drug cold turkey. There will be some serious withdrawal pains. A world of careers, materialism, sleeping around, and doing whatever she wants when she wants does not end quietly.

I have no quick answers. I think all we can do for now is to continue to write and speak our views. If out amongst some women we disagree with, politely call them out. If they are bashing men, let them know you do not approve. The negative energy that comes by negatively talking about men is radiated out to men. They pick up on that, whether you are actively participating or just standing by listening. It is like dealing with a bully; not speaking up against the bully makes you no different than the bully and part of the problem.I guarantee you won't be making many friends, but at least you are standing up for something more important. A woman who stands on principles and convictions, despite popular opinion, is rare and refreshing. All I know for sure, is the culture is going to get worse, before it gets better.

2. How do we convince an amoral society to marry young?

See above. First we have to restore women to get back to a moral society. This will take generations. Once morals are firmly back in place, marrying young will come naturally. The reason why so many are ill-equipped to marry young nowadays, is because our society does not prepare them. By age 20, you should have acquired all the skills to run a home, educate children, and love and support a husband. It's not the age that matters, but how that person is brought up in our culture. "Too young" is a common exclamation upon hearing about a 20 year old marrying. Well, who made he/she "too young"? In linear time they are old enough. A society that claims people are old enough to vote, drink, and go off to war, ironically says one is too young to marry. The longer society lures us to push off marriage, the more independent and set in our ways we become, which later makes it difficult to merge two lives together. For more on this topics see the following posts:

The Importance of Marrying Young (Part 1)

The Importance of Marrying Young (Part 2)

I wish I had a better answer, but I firmly believe it all comes back to the quality of women and getting them back on track first. Even if you think you are a quality women, it does not matter, because the modern women are holding you back, they are hindering you in your search for a spouse, and hence is what makes modern women liabilities. These women turn men off to all women, to the point where they no longer care how virtuous you are, you are still a women. Is it logical? Of course not; but what about sin-filled human nature ever is?

3. What about those who are prepared for marriage, but cannot find a spouse?

This is a problem that greatly affects the women who are willing to take on marriage at a young age. For those women, with their hearts set on wifehood, motherhood, and homemaking, they are often trapped. Unlike the career women, they cannot easily go to school and enroll in courses to accomplish their dreams. They can't even go to college to get their MRS degree, because most guys there are too busy going through all the hay and then rolling in it. And who can blame them? Why should they get serious about marriage, when they can get the milk for free? Men have embraced feminism just as much as women have because it lets them have all the benefits of marriage without the commitment (just like it does for women). It all comes down to a loss of interdependence. Nobody needs anybody anymore (at least modern women like to think so).

It might be said that a woman with asset qualities will shine through all the other women, she will stand out as being unique and different and will be able to attract a man who are seeking those qualities. So why aren't men noticing her amongst all they hay? I think because there is no real incentive for men to notice her or because after awhile they all start to look the same. The hay dust clouds their vision.

So, what's a girl to do? All I can suggest is what worked for me. Look for a man older than yourself (seven years plus). The older the more likely he will have grown tired of all the hay gals and be able to see asset qualities more easily; but on the other hand, he also may be more likely to have given up on marriage all together, because of those hay gals. It can still be a pickle, but I think it at least gives you a better shot. I also suggest looking online (as unorthodox as it may be). List flat out and very bluntly what you can offer a man; what your asset qualities are. State your views and opinions on everything, no matter how non-PC or 'offensive' they may be. No listing favorite foods, movies, etc. All that is meaningless. By being up front, at least you know any man who responds will be in step with your views.
Of course all of the above is based on the premise that you believe society is worth saving in the first place. In my more pessimistic moods, I tend to think not. Negative? Perhaps. Ye of little faith? Perhaps. Humans cannot reverse a society on their own. They need it to be God's Will. All our efforts to bring back society will be futile, if it is also not God's Will. All we can do, whether it is saving society or trying to find a spouse is to continually say, " Thy Will be done".

Caveat: I don't think this was my strongest piece. It involves complicated issues with some kinks to work out, but I wanted to give it an honest shot.

How Satan Wins

2011-01-22T18:41:00.000-08:00

Go Visit Elusive Wapiti....

2011-01-20T16:16:00.000-08:00

....for what will hopefully be a fascinating debate/discussion on feminism. He is doing a three part series and is already off to a great start! Comments will be closed on this post so that I can direct traffic his way. See you over there.

Sends Husband to Jail to Aid Suffrage Cause

2011-01-16T12:44:00.000-08:00

Lesson 34

From The Milwaukee Journal-1912:

"Mrs. Mark Wilks, whose husband is in jail because she refuses to pay her taxes, is credited with discovering a new and formidable weapon for the suffragettes. The suffragettes are generally women of property and they will follow Mrs. Wilks example immediately, it is said.

The plan will work only in cases of husbands whose wives have individual income. Nor will it work in cases where the husband pays taxes on their wives' income. Some husbands, like Wilks, haven't enough money to pay their wives' taxes. Suffragette husbands who can pay are counted on to refuse to do so. Thus will a large proportion of the Englishmen with suffragette wives be in jail shortly.

Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife's property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income taxes--$185--and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless the wife pays or the laws are changed. When at liberty he is a teacher in Clapton."
Further down the rabbit hole we go. Silly me to have made the assumption that if a woman was owning property that she alone was also directly responsible for that property. The income tax law implications are a whole other can of worms and how those work in relation to women property laws is where it really gets interesting. When a woman is mad at her husband or is demanding something, how easy it is for her to threaten him or to directly go ahead and not pay the taxes on her property, if he won't comply with her wishes. What does she have to loose? Nothing.

I suspect letting women own property but not holding her responsible for associated taxes (and probably even maintenance) was a result of chivalry. The men, knowing that owning property is not always what's its cracked up to be, thought they would make it easier on women. Give women the title of being property owners to make them feel better, but don't burden her with the actual responsibilities. That just isn't going to work. If women want to hold property solely in their name, then they also need to be solely responsible for taxes and upkeep. Mrs. Wilks should go to jail for not paying taxes on her property; that sounds like equality with men. Must be pretty sweet to own property when a man is the one paying the taxes and maintaining the property.

So, here is the beginning of the crafty way women discovered weapons against men. Laws were beginning to be set up and continue to grow in size everyday for women to easily extort of intimidate their husband into getting what they want. This is one way feminism harms society. It turns wife against husband and husband against wife. The two can no longer work together in a complementary and beneficial way for themselves and society. Feminists learned early on that equality only has to be surface deep for their cause to catch on. Woo women with the idea they will be property owners and equal with men, all the while sticking men with the grunt work (of course the chivalrous men who created the income tax laws bare blame as well).

As an aside, I found it curious that the wife was always referred to as "Mrs. Wilks" and the husband as just "Wilks". He does not get the title of "Mr.". Perhaps an innocent typo, but you can never be to sure.

MVM Video: Feminism (Part 2)

2011-01-15T19:05:00.000-08:00

Man, Woman & Myth

MWM Video: Feminism (Part 1-2)

2011-01-14T20:23:00.000-08:00

Respect Men!

2011-01-11T18:01:00.000-08:00

This image is making it's way around the blogs and just like others, I have to comment.

It's part of a campaign to engage boys/men in the fight against domestic violence.
"As a father, coach, mentor or a male friend, men have the opportunity – and responsibility – to teach boys to respect girls and women. They’re watching; they’re waiting; they’ll listen."
That is all very nice, but a few things need to be pointed out:

1. There is this assumption that respect is something women are entitled to by simply being a woman. They don't have to earn it through good behavior or by being a lady. Men are to respect women no matter what. If one wants to use such a blanket definition, then men too should be respected no matter what. Men should be respected when they behave badly and when they don't act like gentlemen. But of course, we all know that will never happen, because a man "has to earn a woman's respect"; we hear that often enough, but women never have to earn a man's respect.

Plus, if we are applying respect equally, who is out there teaching girls/women to respect boys/men? Insert crickets playing here......

2. Imagine the same image with a girl wearing a shirt that said, "awaiting instructions" and on the side there was a list that said:
Be a good wife
Stay at home with your children
Cook me dinner
Respect men
We all know this would be an outrage! It would be deemed sexist and oppressive amongst many other things. Yet here we are telling men that it is OK for them to take orders/instructions from women. "But, but, but, that's because men gave women instructions for hundreds of years. It's our turn now to for men to take instruction from us". Will that ever get old? How long do women have to be 'free', before things become truly equal; with the same definition of respect applied to men as it is for women. This shows that its not about applying standards equally, but about women having 'power'. If it's about equality, women, then stop the "men did it first game", and if someone were to create a similar "Respect Men" image, let them have their say.

3. Why exactly do we think boys/men are watching, waiting, and listening? I guess because they should have it drilled into them by now that women rule them. I think that assumption says a lot about the social conditioning our boys/men have been through. Such socially conditioned boys and men will now blindly follow any feminist or progressive cause.

On a related note, we know that if girls/women were told to respect men, they would NOT be watching, waiting, and listening, because that too has been drilled into them. "Don't watch, wait, or listen for men to do or tell you anything."

H/T: Rex Patriarch

She's No Lady.....

2011-01-09T07:18:00.000-08:00

.....and that's a compliment to the commenter who left the following on this post:
"The term lady has fallen in usage since the 19th century, I do not know why you would want to revive it. It is used to connote privilege, and also gentility which is also a term that is an anachronism. To me it connotes subservience and weakness. I am offended by the term lady... I would much rather be called a woman or a human."
The reason it has fallen from usage is because very few women fit the definition and naturally they seem very proud of this.

In my post, I used the following definitions for lady:
A well-mannered and considerate woman with high standards of proper behavior.
A woman regarded as proper and virtuous.
A well-behaved young girl.
A woman who is the head of a household.
A woman, especially when spoken of or to in a polite way.
A woman to whom a man is romantically attached.
Informal. A wife.

Apparently, some women find such honor offensive. They don't want to be "spoken of or to in a polite way" or be considered as having good manners and behavior. No worries, human, I don't think I ever much thought of your sort as having such in the first place. Don't be offended by that post as I was not calling you a lady.

You fit in with the definition of woman, being simply "an adult female human". You would much rather be called a woman, but coincidentally another definition for such was "a female servant or subordinate" (see original post), your worst nightmare. Being a lady does not mean "subservience or weakness" as you imply, it means just what the definition above says it means. My guess is that you inferred that being proper and virtuous is stifling and weak and that under such constraints for a civilized society, a woman is oppressed to express her true self.

Men--this is a prime example of what you are up against and is a great case of why you are no longer chivalrous to women. I'm sure many of you have tried to be, but time and time again you were told, "don't call me a lady, that is offensive", so you then end up with the popular term, "modern woman", because not only do you feel that few women deserve the title of lady, but some also just don't want the honor. Such women/humans should be grateful that you at least now are honoring their wishes.

Ladies--this is why men are no longer chivalrous. They have come across women like this commenter often enough in daily life, therefore they have learned to not hold a woman up and suggest that she has proper manners, behaviors, and virtues. Your plight is not against men who refuse to call you what you may rightly deserve, but against the women/humans who call 'lady' offensive. Our fellow sisters are our own worst enemy.

By the way, I don't mean to suggest that the term lady should be brought back for all women, just those that rightly deserve the honor. In my humble opinion, a few include:

True Femininity

Terry@BreathingGrace

Hestia

Video: Equality

2011-01-07T21:14:00.000-08:00

I don't know why I have not discovered these videos earlier! They are succinct and well done. I plan to feature more from Man Woman & Myth in the future and will make this a new category.

"He Doesn't Love me Like in the Movies"

2011-01-07T17:38:00.000-08:00

I have referenced before the unrealistic expectations women can get from watching romance movies.

Below is a perfect example about The Notebook:
"The movie may have hit theaters back in 2004, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t still fans out there that watch it over and over. And the boyfriends are the ones suffering in relationships because of it.
Ryan Gosling has said that a guy told him his engagement ended because he said he wouldn’t build his fiancée a house like Gosling’s character Noah did for Allie (Rachel McAdams) in The Notebook. Apparently the guy’s fiancée’s response to “it doesn’t mean I don’t love you” was “yeah, it does,” and that was the end of that relationship.
Ouch! It seems like some people are taking this a little too far. Yes, it was romantic that Noah built the house just as Allie had wanted, but to then compare your own boyfriend to a fictional character is taking things a bit too far."
I realize this is an extreme example and most women probably don't get that carried away; however, it still highlights how easily women look to movies for how a relationship is supposed to be. The majority of women will still get caught up in little things they see in movies. For example, maybe he doesn't bring her flowers every Friday night, like the character from her favorite movie. This will cause her to instead swoon after the movie character and wish, "if I only had a man like him". Not healthy. In an effort to avoid this trap, I suggest watching "guy movies" (if one must watch movies at all); not only does it keep one's mind on track, but it also creates for good bonding and discussion time with your man.