Society of Phineas – The Best of 2012

I’m not one to usually do round-up posts regularly (or at all), but with it being the end of 2012, it seemed fitting to dig into the vault that is the site stats and pull out what is the most viewed posts. While this blog hasn’t existed for all of 2012, it has existed in nine months of that time so it should be a good reflection. That said, here we go, along with some summaries and reflections:

1. Single Christian Men Don’t Seek Christian Wives (#2) (08-03-2012)

This post, along with #5 came on a week where I was itching to blog, but really didn’t have a topic on my mind, so I pulled out the most common search term at the time (as explained on post #5) and used it on Google myself. Then I pulled out some observations about relationships and what is pushing single Christian men away from marrying. They have continued with consistent views ever since.

This one focuses on the church environment and the fact that church officials can’t seem to get past their blaming of men to see the factors that are on them to deal with that push men away from dating in church.

2. So You Want To Become A Pastor? (08-15-2012)

It’s hard sometimes to gauge where interest comes from for views, but this one was obvious. Two days after posting my observations in research on what it takes to be a pastor, the post was linked from the Captain Capitalism blog. Subsequently there were a large number of referrals. I never got around on this one to thank him for the linkage in a decent amount of time before the post got buried, so consider this that thank you.

3. Why Young Men Don’t Marry (05-20-2012)

This one is older than #1 and #5, but consistently receives views for the same reason. In this one, I continue after dealing with Albert Mohler’s man-up rant to describe some of the real reasons that young men aren’t marrying within the church.

4. Single Christian Men Just Aren’t Buying What Is Sold (08-05-2012)

This was the first post after #1 and #5 which was the result of some thoughts to express, ultimately coming from that exercise and answering an article. It compares the conditions of the dating market in terms of an economic exchange, and points out that you have the unique condition of the sellers in the dating market blaming the buyers for not buying the product instead of working doing a better job of providing the product and selling it.

5. Single Christian Men Don’t Marry (#1) (08-02-2012)

The story behind this one was described in #1. This post describes some of the attitudes of the single women involved which were quoted in the articles that came up.

I conclude this post by thanking all of you who have read this blog and those of you who have supported this blog by linking to it in your blog rolls and link fest posts. I offer the prayer of the hope that 2013 will bring much glory to God and blessing to all of those involved.

It’s The End Of The Wor….Guess Not.

When these end of the world predictions come up, such as the ones involving Harold Camping, or this Mayan Doomsday Prophecy (December 21, 2012), there is always a paranoia that comes up even within Christian circles. It’s most notable in that no preacher has ever gotten into trouble for preaching end-time prophecy. It’s very popular, even to the point that unbelievers will pull up a chair and want to understand things like the book of Revelation. Men have even profited off this tendency, the most notable thing being the Left Behind Series. It always seems when someone brings up the end-times, people always listen, no matter how screwy the reasoning behind it.

This interest can even produce a stumbling block in the new or unregenerate Christian, even the ones I’ve encountered in the previous incarnation of this blog. While we are told much about what will happen in the time to come, it is easy for people to not be willing to prepare. It’s amazing how so many I’ve met would be interested in that, yet not be interested in the conditions behind it and being ready for it.

Jesus sounds a similar warning in Scripture, while answering this question:

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. (Matthew 24:3-7)

Many will deceive in many ways, and pretend to be knowledgeable about such things. Jesus describes a number of things and then towards the end of the chapter gives us the answer along with some things to look for:

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. (Matthew 24:37-42)

Jesus tells us to be watchful of the day. An interesting theme that comes out repeatedly is to be mindful of two events: The day that the Lord died on the cross and rose again in bodily form, and the day that the Lord will return again. Peter reminds us as well, echoing what the Lord tells us at the end of Matthew 27:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.(2 Peter 3:9-16)

Matthew 25 gives us more to analyze on what Jesus meant about being watchful. There is much that could be preached about in all of these passages in a much more specific way, but the main point is to be watchful and be ready. No one knows the day or the hour that The Day of the Lord be at hand, either by death or by the Lord’s coming. It’s just incumbent to be ready. We need not know the circumstances or what will happen to be ready, just that we need to treat what we are left to do with seriousness. Learning what is to come in the end-time (as well as any prophecy) can reinforce for us the need to be ready. However, it is more important to be ready when the time comes than it is to know what is written of the end-times.

REM seems to profit off this hysteria as well. Every time one of these things comes along, this song gets popular again (#80 on the Youtube popular music chart this week) and gets airplay all over the radio.

Men, You Are A Husband To All Women

As may be recalled from last time, the entrance into the debate of the feminine imperative started with a discussion of the comparison made between Husband and Wife, and Christ and Church. It described what Christ did in relationship to His Church. Specifically:

1. An act of love is never done out of an obligation, requirement, or a debt. It is done freely, not grudgingly and not out of necessity, and the presence of any of those things renders the act to be without love. Christ wasn’t made to go to the Cross, didn’t have to go and His Father didn’t have to allow Him to go.

2. An act of grace or mercy is done without any merit to come from the person involved. However, acts of grace and mercy does require a reciprocal recognition of them. This is true of Christ and His Church.

Applying Christ’s Love to Marriage 1.0
We find this to be equally true in a functional Marriage 1.0:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. (Ephesians 5:25-30)

We can see this to be a reciprocal relationship akin to Christ and His Church. The man makes the freewill choice without obligation of taking on a woman as his wife and provides for her sacrificially as he would provide for himself. She in turn recognize the grace that her husband has extended her as his wife and then submits to him in every way as the Church is to submit to Christ.

White-Knight Feminism (Chivalry) And The Feminine Imperative
It is not an abnormal thing that women have sought favoritism for themselves, consistent with the feminine imperative. As we recall from last time, the topic of chivalry or more properly white-knight feminism shows itself in multiple ways. SSM relates the story of the Boy Scouts being forced to wait while the AH girls got first dibs on the cookies. Dalrock mentions the story of a female commenter (and radical feminist in TradCon clothing) who is outraged that anyone would dare mention all the bad things that women do, pointing out that she perfectly illustrates the feminine imperative on how men are cowed into silence.

It is natural for a feminist such as this person to notice that men aren’t allowing themselves to be oppressed into the feminist practice known as chivalry any more. She is far from the only one. There are other examples abound. In the example I promised, we have a woman named Cathy Schutt writing in the college newspaper GlimmerGlass of the Olivet Nazarene University (that’s the original link but it’s 404’d, I’m sure because the subsequent comments showed what was written to be an embarrassment to the institution) the common refrain women have now about all the “good men” have gone away because a man wouldn’t come to open a door for her:

Now, I’m not saying holding doors is what defines a chivalrous man, but doing so can show what kind of attitude he has toward women. Some guys are ignorant of the fact that women are meant to be treated with respect.

In other words: “How dare he not recognize my inherent superiority as a woman and recognize he was put on this earth to serve ME? Can’t he see that I’m a woman, DAMMIT!” The rest of my response is on that comment. Heather Koerner writes in analysis of what happened on the Titanic something that recognizes how bold women are in response to white-knight feminism:

God tells me that I am an equal heir to His kingdom. But He also commands that my Christian brothers, my husband in particular, act to me as Christ acted toward the church. That he be willing to give himself up for me.

As I write in today’s Boundless article, “Nurturing Protection,” “the world’s masculinity either demands to be served or refuses to be bothered.” But biblical masculinity acknowledges both my worth and its mandate to serve sacrificially by laying down his life for mine.

She points out in an associated article she links to:

Those men should have helped that woman, I thought then, because we are all humans and we protect each other.

Partially, that is right. We do have a responsibility to love our neighbors as ourselves. But now I understand that they, as men, had a unique responsibility to her, as a woman.

We can refer to other numerous examples and commentary (see below for a link fest) to pull out a view of what chivalry is, but this should give us an adequate view of what is going on in the view of white-knight feminism. So if we take things to mean that each and every man is to serve all women to the point of death, then Biblically speaking we can see what is going on with white-knight feminism and how this tradition of man is being justified on the back-end by Scripture:

1. As a man, you have the responsibility of a husband laid onto you for every woman you are in contact with, whether you know her or not. You are to love every woman you are in contact with sacrificially to the point of death.
2. As a result of this tradition of men being laid into society unquestioned for hundreds of years, every man has had this laid onto him as an obligation and not a choice from being a very small child. And every woman has been raised with the view that she is entitled to this service at her whims and pleasure from a very small child. So any action a man might undertake towards a woman becomes obligation and not love, and anything a woman receives is entitlement and not grace.
3. The essence of masculinity (the definition of a “good man”) is defined in how well he satisfies the entitlement view of the women in his scope of existence.

This becomes obvious when it comes to how people try to Biblically justify this system of feminism. It is not surprising that the Scripture I quoted above (Ephesians 5:25-30) is most often used to justify white-knight feminism, though all the Scriptures they pull out in defense of chivalry have to do with the husband’s responsibility to his wife or family. Heather Koerner linked to it in the quote above along with 1 Peter 3:7. It’s the first Scripture mentioned in this forum thread. This Yahoo Answers question‘s “best answer” brings up this Scripture as well as 1 Timothy 5:8. This page references 1 Peter 3:7.

Bringing Reciprocation Into Play
Women naturally chafe at this loss of control when it comes to the feminine imperative, since it has always been the goal of women to use uxorious men (their husbands and others) to gain full control of every resource in contact of men and the essence and being of men. The Borg-like mentality of the feminine imperative is also obvious in the average woman’s response to such things (even witnessing SSM’s resistance to the concept is interesting, since it’s so ingrained into women). Women chafe at having to be responsible in return for any benefit or power they receive. It is no wonder there is such a group as the Network of Enlightened Women who want a return to traditional gender roles…but only for men. Seeing that anything and everything gets done that benefits women and hurts men is the essence of The Feminine Imperative. It’s all about getting something for nothing. But to get back to the question at hand:

So under chivalry, if I am to unconditionally be a husband to all women I am in contact with, what do women owe me?

The natural answer would be unconditional submission and respect given this demand, but the answer is always nothing! Anakin Niceguy points out that Ms. Koerner never gets around to that s-word with the description of her end of the bargain and only comes up with a load of wishy-washy tripe including her pronouncement of shared headship in the family. As he points out, the first comment on that thread is gold in that it points out the issue at hand:

I suggest that you read his remarks because he points out that the sacrifices men made in the past for women were conditioned on the societal expectation that a woman’s station in life would be beneath that of man’s. Protection = submission. It’s not a hard equation to grasp, boys and girls.

I don’t know how this Biblically-warped idea of chivalry came about originally or how men were sold into this particular form of society (it’d probably be interesting). When originally encountering this commentary on empathologism’s blog, I wondered at the time where the garbage that Russell Moore writes here comes from. But it makes perfect sense given this topic. The traditional bargain for chivalry, where a man was to be a husband to all women who submitted to him in return, was broken by the secular feminists at the barrel of a gun. Women cry and whine about not having chivalrous men serve their every whim and desire, yet whine and refuse about having to give due deference in response to it – this is what secular feminism fights against. Is it any wonder why men have ceased giving women any chivalrous deference at all, especially since they receive nothing in return for what they do but derision and disgust? If they want to be equal, let them have it in every way! Let’s remove the gender favoritism that women receive in society and let women stand exactly as men in this society!

Conclusion
White-knight feminism (or chivalry) is nothing different from the liberal feminism that we have in place now. It’s odd that what the secular feminists have fought against is another form of feminism The Imperative has instituted. It is not surprising that men have been shaken aware by secular feminism to see that chivalry is no different. Both serve to oppress and enslave men, in order to get as much as they can for women. Something for nothing is slavery! While chivalry may have served society well at one time (for some reason), it is not Biblical to place the husband’s willing act of love onto each and every man as an obligation towards all women! It also doesn’t serve a wife well in that her husband becomes responsible to all women and not just her! It’s high time to scrap it in society and move onto things that are better for all those involved, regardless of gender! True Biblical love shows no favoritism!

Link Fest (mainly stuff I didn’t use for the main article)
Let’s Give Chivalry Another Chance
Chivalry On The Titanic
Chivalry Only Comes From A Position of Strength
The Gift Transformed Into A Debt
Does Sheila Gregoire Think Her Own Life Is Worth More Than Yours?
Why Wasn’t It Women and Children First?

Turning Love Into Obligation And Grace Into Entitlement

In observing the continuing debate on the feminine imperative (or gynocentrism as I read it), I keep revisiting a concept we see play out in Scripture. As discussed before, the bond between a husband and wife in Marriage 1.0 is like the bond between Christ and His Church. Since this analogy has been made, we can observe in one item characteristics that can be instructional about the other.

I developed some of these ideas here and here, but given the number of times in reading the other posts above that I wanted to pop that text into the comment threads, I thought it worthy to draw the concept out to both illustrate the fruit of the feminine imperative, and the net effect of some of the feminist actions going on in traditional conservative and religious circles. This post will start with the Christ and Church side of things and the next one will apply it to the situations we have before us.

Love Into Obligation
We start with love. While the love that Christ commands can be developed in another direction relating to marriage, it is useful for our discussion to look at the love that Christ has given towards us:

And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:5-8)

We see in these verses that Christ’s sacrifice was something that was given to us through the love of God, as well as the continuing love of God through the Holy Ghost. This idea of love is even expressed to the Corinthians in this manner, when it comes to giving.

But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all-sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (2 Corinthians 9:6-8)

Anything that is done grudgingly or of necessity becomes an obligation or a debt. It becomes a work that is owed. We can look no further than Romans and see the results of our works before the Lord.

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:22-26)

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

If something is done out of obligation, then free-will is lost and it completely ceases to be love. As much as God would like to draw the entire world toward Jesus to be saved, free-will in those involved will necessitate the possibility of rejecting Him.

Grace Into Entitlement
The Lord is all-sufficient and doesn’t owe us anything. Debts or obligations are owed, and the Lord God owes us nothing, and we in fact deserve nothing from Him. All things are God’s and all things are for Him and His purpose:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6)

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:16-17)

Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. (Job 41:11)

We can also look at the other Scriptures posted above and see the element of grace played out. Grace is unmerited favor, or a blessing done absent an obligation. Mercy is the withholding of the curse that we do deserve at the hands of the Lord. We have nothing that the Lord can be enriched with, and He has done nothing to owe us anything. All things are His. We have no right to expect anything out of the Lord except condemnation. We are entitled to nothing, but we receive the grace from Him given freely. This is the pattern we are given, and a recognition of the grace and mercy we are given in faith is a requirement:

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:9-10)

We also have the parable given in Matthew 18:21-35, where the servant came before the king and begged forgiveness of his debt and got it, while not granting forgiveness for the much smaller debt of a fellow servant:

Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. (Matthew 18:32-35)

So what are we to learn of these things? As I wrote here, these conclusions are equally valid of both the Church and the average Westernized woman today:

If I were to be asked (and don’t read this as “I hate women” because I don’t, I do like extending genuine love and grace to them when the situation calls for it, but that’s for all too as a Christian) the thing I hate most about the average woman in her character, the answer would be that she doesn’t exhibit any sense of grace in her life when she receives it and more importantly any grace that she receives from men has no effect upon her.

This is definitely true of the Church today. So many think the Lord owes them something. They treat Him as the magic butler in prayer, feeling entitled to everything that they ask Him. God does not owe them anything. God is not obligated to them for anything other than His promises which are yes in Christ Jesus. Anything they receive from the Lord’s hand is purely out of mercy and grace alone. You, me, and everyone else deserves from Him only justice for what you have done. He doesn’t HAVE to do anything, because He is fully sovereign. I love how so many figures speak of the Lord’s actions in Scripture (KJV uses this phrase, others use things like maybe or perhaps):

And Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armour, Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the Lord will work for us: for there is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few. (1 Samuel 14:6)

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. (Exodus 32:30)

Enquire, I pray thee, of the Lord for us; for Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon maketh war against us; if so be that the Lord will deal with us according to all his wondrous works, that he may go up from us. (Jeremiah 21:2)

Next time will address the application of this today to the topics of the debate. Since the Scriptural dissertation ties so closely to The Gospel, that link will be provided.

Fifty Shades of Frivolous Divorce

Recently, this story is going around of the divorce that is claimed to be related to the 50 Shades of Grey books. There’s really nothing that novel about this occurrence of frivolous divorce because it’s a very common place one that is encouraged within Churchianity and without. However, it presents a perfect illustration of what repeats itself again and again within ALL marriages today, both “Christian” and not.

As has been covered in the past, the pornography that women favor is excused, accepted, and celebrated. This includes things such as Fifty Shades of Grey and Magic Mike, while it also includes things such as typical romance novels (even “Christian” ones), television geared to women, and no doubt books written for an audience of women intended to be a guide to spice up one’s love life (I’m not purchasing the specific example I’m aware of to answer the question below in a concrete way, but given the rest of Churchianity and its hatred of non-mangina men, I’m sure of what the answer would be to the question).

There will be ample opportunities to diagnose the state of this woman involved when it comes to her reasons for the frivolous divorce, but the point I want to explore is this: The expectation upon husbands to go along with what their wives’ every fantasy, whim, and desire, despite his inclinations and reservations. You see as a good loving husband who submits to his wife everything in Marriage 2.0, he is supposed to be open and willing to everything his wife wants to do within the bedroom. Her desires, including all of her sexually-inclined ones, are pure, wholesome, and chaste because she only wants to feel safe, cherished, and loved. However, men have those nasty physical desires which are base, vile, evil, and disgusting and should never be honored under any and all circumstances. Of course, it seems we only have more proof of sunshinemary’s comment:

Given the popularity of FSoG, many women apparently feel safe, cherished, and loved when being beaten with a belt.

Let’s see the results of how this particular woman in today’s case had to feel safe, cherished, and loved:

A high-powered City businesswoman is divorcing her husband after he refused to play along with the erotic themes in the raunchy blockbuster, Fifty Shades Of Grey.

The wife, a 41-year-old banker who earns more than £400,000 a year, bought the bestseller almost as soon as it was published last year, and decided to use it to pep up the couple’s staid sex life.

But when her husband failed to respond to the novel’s themes, which include bondage and S&M, she petitioned for divorce.

In the case, filed in the High Court this year, the wife refers to the book in her grounds for divorce, which blames the breakdown of the marriage on the husband’s lack of sexual adventure.

The obvious problem of such a thing comes out. When men complain of such things, they are out of hand, and are only considered to be showing just how evil and vile they are. When women complain of their sex lives, it’s perfectly justified in every instance, even to the point of divorce as we see here if he does not comply. Divorce would even be justified for his mere possession of such pornography. This justification of divorce for porn possession in the eyes of such people have been addressed previously, but it stands as normal in Marriage 2.0, as well as it being vile as a man for demanding a satisfying sex life in marriage. How dare a man would insist on such a thing towards a woman! Bringing in BDSM or other themes, or even suggesting it would make him the worst husband ever, a villain in the sight of all, and any divorce suit he would bring like this would be summarily dismissed as out of hand. How despicable would he be if he were to even think of divorcing his wife for such things!

However, instead of being dismissed for the farce that it is, this divorce case is being taken seriously as a for-cause divorce, indicated by the husband having to discuss his sexual desire in court. It is also telling that the husband would have to submit to the indignity of such a thing in public:

The woman’s husband is admitting ‘unreasonable behaviour’ so the divorce can be granted quickly without a contested hearing in which his low libido would be discussed in court.

It would never be okay for a husband to divorce his wife in today’s culture for a low sex drive, which is much more common, and commonly defended as normal for women. But it seems perfectly fine if a woman were to do so when consuming any kind of feminine porn (or even sexual self-help books like mentioned above) to expect anything she desires from those things to be immediately granted. Divorces because a husband wouldn’t put up a stripper pole and mime Magic Mike are sure to be out there, as well as divorces due to the husband’s non-compliance of most every sexual-oriented help text ever put out there written to an audience of women. I have to wonder with the supposed “Christian” resources whether there is a direct warning against divorcing the husband upon non-compliance with the text (like I said I’m not purchasing just to find this out), or if the divorce is supported either directly or tacitly.

But there is no doubt that this kind of divorce is approved both within Churchianity and without. Marriage 2.0 practitioners wouldn’t have it any other way. Husbands are abusive towards wives when they won’t satisfy their wives sexual desires to the letter. And husbands are abusive as well when they even dare to express their sexual desires, let alone desire that they be indulged on a regular basis. This is one area of many where husbands can’t ever win, because their wives pull away the football.

Wouldn’t it just be better for husbands and wives to admit that they have sexual desires in an honest and open way, be open and respectful about what you can and can’t do? The problem with wives is that it’s not can not, it’s will not on their part and they do not recognize can not out of their husbands. Wouldn’t it be better to be open about fulfilling them with each other unconditionally in a safe and sane manner, completely stopping the use of sex as a weapon by willful sexual denial?

Man-Up and Kick The Football, Charlie Brown

In reading this post and drafting a response, I happened upon this scene which is constant in the Peanuts comic franchise, this comment reminding me of it. It’s ultimately another man-up rant to join the countless others, but this illustration is so good it’s worth exploring.

So, I’ll hold the football, and you come running and kick it…

This is actually a pretty good illustration of what’s going on in the state of marriage as it exists today. The Peanuts comic has this scene, which repeats itself, where Lucy holds a football for Charlie Brown to place kick. He always points out that Lucy never manages to actually HOLD the football for him, but she always manufactures some excuse that she will hold it THIS TIME. She always manages to pull the football away as Charlie Brown reaches the ball, making him fall flat on his ass and she gets her jollies that she fooled him again.

It’s a perfect illustration of the fallacy many are operating under, and it’s something I’ve dealt with a couple of times here already. Most others have too, and there already hasn’t been anything said in the comments to that post that I wouldn’t have already said in directly responding to this.

In the comic illustration, Charlie Brown is the leader by kicking the football and moving it, while Lucy is the help-meet in her role of holding the football. He can attempt to kick the football repeatedly, but if Lucy doesn’t hold it there and instead pulls it away, he will fall flat on his ass every time. It is a great illustration of what is going on in the modern society. Men seem to instinctively know this, but women seem to not get this:

A lot of the men in the manosphere apparently expect a ready-made woman who will just submit to them and not be a bother. Their idea of a ‘submissive woman’ is sort of like a robot, or a pet rock, as one (male) commentator noted recently. Their complaints show that they don’t accept or understand the nature of women. Outside the manosphere there are more men than you might think who are essentially looking for a mother – someone to run the show and make their lives easy. Scoff all you like, but I’ve seen it too much to believe that it isn’t just a small minority of men who are like that.

If you expect women to shape up, I’m afraid the larger burden is on men to shape up and lead. A woman is not a leader. This is biblical, so if you don’t like it, take it up with God, not me.

I have already addressed the fallacy in the second paragraph, but it seems, given the nature of women, that it can be easy for the women to read the manosphere and believe what is in the first paragraph by what a lot of us write. The first paragraph is totally incorrect.

What we want is rather a woman that will be trustworthy and honest about her intentions to submit and actually show herself capable of submission. What we want is a woman that will actually hold the football there so we can kick it. What we want is rock-solid assurances that the woman will be held to account for pulling the football away as much as men are held to account for not trying to place kick the football. We’re tired of trying and falling flat on our asses. Falling on your ass hurts A LOT.

It’s no surprise men have stopped trying to kick the football entirely, as most all men have a lot more sense than Charlie Brown does. Women will notice that men aren’t trying more than they’ll notice the results of them pulling the football away. Where are the wrongs in the case, as it relates to the repeated Charlie Brown scene?

1. Lucy makes Charlie Brown think that she is going to submit by holding the football for him to place-kick. She fails in submission, not only failing to hold the football in place but pulls the football away.
2. Charlie Brown for falling for the stories that Lucy is actually going to hold the football this time and trying to place-kick the ball anyway. Believing the rationalizations and falling for the stories the women and their proctors are putting out is the biggest danger facing men at the moment.

Women complain about men never kicking the football, and in fact are refusing to submit until the man proves that he’s going to kick the football and can kick it like an NFL pro:

Nevertheless, it is true that a man has to show himself worthy of submitting to and that we women cannot submit to a marshmallow. Once we have deemed him trustworthy, we can relax and submission is much easier, even when it is difficult, so to speak.

To make it simple: When women start womaning-up by showing (not saying) their willingness to submit and actually hold the football there and are receiving consequences for pulling it away, then we can talk about men manning-up and kicking the football. Real manhood is not willingly submitting to a woman pulling the football away and being the butt of her laughter for it. Justice THEN reconciliation.

It took Charlie Brown being turned invisible and kicking the ball when Lucy didn’t realize it for him to actually kick the football and see what he could do. This says something to our marriage situation as well. CL and other women can deride men about being Peter Pans who don’t want to grow up, or looking for another mother and not a wife all they want, but since a lot of these men have never gotten to actually kick the football, how will we ever know?

Man-Up Rants Take No Season Off

Regardless of whatever one might think of the season, involved with Churchianity or not, a number of people get into the Christmas spirit, whatever that entails for the people involved. Instead of thinking about the usual things of life, they start thinking about Christmas decorations and bells and ornaments on trees. They also start thinking about being more giving, through gifts to their friends or to help the homeless. While it is true that it could be pointed out what Christmas really is in relationship to God, it is a blessing to notice the typical hard-heartedness and greed of men dissipate, if only but for a time.

We even can take a step into Churchianity and expect to hear stories about the baby Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and the Light coming into the world for the propitiation of sins, and hear more glory thrown to Christ than usual. But it wouldn’t be a surprise for the feminists in Churchianity to use it as an opportunity and it seems like one has been found. (H/T)

David McGee, founder of Cross the Bridge Ministries and the senior pastor of The Bridge Church in Kernersville, N.C., chooses to point out to us in his own way that Jesus was part of a “blended family” and that Joseph manned-up to the situation and didn’t divorce his wife and accepted her despite being born with a child that wasn’t his and obviously wasn’t conceived by him. It illustrates a perfect example of having one’s own agenda and then shopping Scripture and bending it to match the person’s agenda, which is common in feminist goals.

David McGee writes:

Christmas is an appealing time of the year, associated with holiday cards, cheerful parties, talk about Mary, Jesus and the wise men; but not many people talk about Joseph, Jesus’ worldly father. I’d like to tell the Christmas story we don’t often hear, that’s from Joseph’s perspective.

The emphasized part announces the intention. If we have not heard it before, or have not “often” heard it, it’s a good sign that it’s either neglected Scripture or a creative interpretation. An honest assessment of the Scriptural text involved will reveal the real intention, that it is a creative interpretation:

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:19-21)

By describing Joseph as a just man, it is saying that he was doing God’s will by having this in mind. He was willing to stand for God over this woman that he was bethrothed to, especially given this woman was pregnant and he knew he was not involved. The fact that he was willing to not make her a public example was a part of grace on his part, because by the law he could have had her brought out and killed and a search done for the man (Deut 22:23-24), but he chose to do it privately (Deut 24:1):

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. (Deuteronomy 24:1)

In fact, it took the vision in the dream (v20-21) to keep him from following out the Law of God in any way, pointing out what the child really was. This was indeed a unique situation, much like Hosea’s was.

Yet we have both applied as normative in this day and age in the culture to excuse the sinful behavior of women within Churchianity. This is a common example of misinterpretation of Scripture by taking unique situations and making them into the normal situations.

Now that we have the full truth of the story, let us see how Mr. McGee applies the story to further his goals:

You may have been married previously and be thinking about getting married again.

We see where his mind is on the matter. He is not looking to the story of Jesus’ birth, but on something else. While the next three paragraphs are a passable explanation of the Biblical story, he continues and fully reveals the intention of his article:

Jesus could have come into the world in a lot of ways, but He chose to come in and experience a blended family. Why? So He could minister to the thousands of us who are also from blended families. Jesus sat around that table knowing in His heart of hearts that Joseph was not His biological father. Could there also be people around your table this Christmas who are not biologically connected to you, but are now members of what you call your “family?”

Here, David McGee reveals his intentions. He mentions the blended family, in other words families where all the children do not have the same father. This is very specific in intent, as no doubt he has no other goal in mind to get men to accept the chaste, righteous, perfect and sinless single women of God sluts who were being perfectly chaste and virginal fornicating and somehow found themselves pregnant (*), because Joseph accepted the situation he was put in by the virgin birth. McGee continues:

The Bible shows us that fatherhood is much more than simply being the father of a child. Biblical fatherhood involves setting a godly example for our children and blessing them as our Heavenly Father has blessed us.

Like Joseph, God might be calling you to an untraditional path of Fatherhood. Maybe you and your spouse have created a blended family. Our idea of how we want life to go is not always God’s plan for our life. God’s plan is purposeful and perfect; during this Christmas season I encourage you to be the father your children need you to be, whether biological or other. Use Joseph as your example. God has called you to care for your family. Fulfilling His calling is the highest of achievements.

As we have seen in the past, the intentions of these proctors of Churchianity are almost always to bring men to the heel of the single women within the church, especially marriage. There is never a recognition of how these women become pregnant, no admonition on their behaviors, and especially recognition for their sins within Churchianity. These are just women who somehow “found themselves pregnant” and somehow became single mothers who are ultimate tragedies in the eyes of Churchianity. They are perfect and chaste women in the eyes of Churchianity and the evil evil menz are all to blame for leading them to such a path. Ultimately, these sins gets rewarded and pushed under the rug because they do not want to recognize women for who they are, just as sinful as the men.

As a result, they push on the men to accept what they should not accept. Our idea of how we want life to go is not always God’s plan for our life, true, but God’s plan for the life of a man is not to cater to a woman who has deliberately not followed God’s plan for her life, but to give God glory in everything. If he decides that he can extend his heart to grant grace to a woman for dealing with the fruit of her sin, it’s his business. But sins have worldly consequences. Whether someone has “accepted Christ” or not is irrelevant to this fact.

This includes what God has set out for how people should live their lives. The normative action for a man who is following God’s plan for his life is to do as Joseph was to do with Mary. There will only be one virgin birth and one begotten Son of God, EVER. God’s plan is not for fornication, and especially not for the REWARD of fornication within His body, but for the chastity of sexual relationships to be confined to marriage.

There will always be those pushing in Churchianity today for men to be deprived of a Godly choice when it comes to marriage. David McGee is no different.


(*) – lgrobins is money already on this phrasing within the blog post. For example, the author of the OP for that blog entry’s by-line on her own blog is:

At 19, Maggio found herself pregnant for the fourth time, living in government housing on food stamps and welfare.

How can someone not see cause and effect on this one to “find herself pregnant” instead of seeing that she did something to cause it, especially something that is against God’s plan for anybody’s life?

Defining White Knights and Manginas

(I don’t normally do posts of a direct secular MRA nature on this blog, since the goal of this blog is to both point out the errors in Churchianity, and provide the correct picture of Christianity as it has been handed down in Biblical doctrine by Christ and the apostles through the Holy Spirit. But as much of Churchianity has been influenced by feminism it is only logical to use the common terms in play from other arenas to describe the elements of what has been changed. Language warnings throughout so be warned.)

There might be general confusion on what is meant by the terms “white knight” and “mangina” as they appear in the androsphere with regards to men. While they certainly have common elements in them, there are important differences which make them separate and distinct. This post will make an attempt to define each one clearly and provide proper examples of each one.

The Common Elements
As mentioned, the white knight and mangina have common elements. Both white knights and manginas are feminist men. In other words, they support feminist ideals and feminist practices in whole or in part in full detriment to their own personal interests. Both believe that all women they encounter are either potential victims or helpless, and consequently need their assistance to “remedy” the situation. These definitions have, in the end, become synonymous with one another as feminism has normalized itself within society. This can serve to sow confusion on the difference between the two when it comes to identifying them, but they are both gynocentric creatures, fully supporting feminism in all its respects, including a view of themselves as disposable when it comes to serving the interests of women. Gynocentrism is:

“the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing female human beings or the feminine point of view at the center of one’s world view. The perceptions, needs, and desires of women have primacy in this system, where the female view is the reference point or lens through which matters are analysed.”

The White Knight (Masculinus Self-Destructus) aka “Captain Save-A-Ho”
As it implies, the White Knight comes from the key characteristic he holds. He is the knight in shining armour, chivalrous to the extreme. He constantly seeks out damsels in distress and desires to ride in to save them. As stated in the article, “Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood. It was originally conceived of as an aristocratic warrior code — the term derives from the French term for horseman — involving individual training and service to others.”

While wholly irrelevant today, chivalry has since been re-purposed by women in society, since it has proven very beneficial to them over the centuries, and many men have mostly held to those things since they were ingrained into society at large:

It was also in the Victorian era that chivalry came to be synonymous with everyday ‘gentlemanly’ behaviour and the modern, ‘door-opening’ sense of the word was popularised.

While there are those who claim chivalry to be dead at the hands of feminism, these old rules have served feminists well, both the secular and religious forms. It has enabled them to be successful in passing into wider society a number of things that have been both detrimental and destructive to men. How this has been done is clear on perusing the definition Wikipedia gives of chivalry’s rules:

3. Duties to women: this is probably the most familiar aspect of chivalry. This would contain what is often called courtly love, the idea that the knight is to serve a lady, and after her all other ladies. Most especially in this category is a general gentleness and graciousness to all women.

This attitude has frequently resulted in problems over time and into the present, which has become all too present today. Chivalry has given rise to the attitude that all women are pure, wholesome, sinless, and righteous and deserve treatment accordingly. Much injustice has occurred at the hands of chivalry:

Every report of this fails to address the problem at the base of this event. The gang affiliations of the antagonists are given as the reason for this violent episode. The assailants were indeed members of a gang, but focusing on that misses the point. The moron: Barabara Lee left the bar, recruited the help of her white knights, and came back to direct the knife assault on the two deaf men. Chivalry in defense of a stupid, violent cretin of a woman is the social pathology which directly caused this violence.

This is not uncommon in the modern justice system and society at large:

Chivalry, in the context of modern gender politics, refers to the protected status of women and the expectation that a man NEVER hit a woman. “A real man never hits a woman” “End violence against women”; these phrases are repeated endlessly in our society, despite the fact that men are the overwhelming majority of murder victims. In fact, in Canada, women are even less likely than children to be murdered. We feel that prioritizing the safety of the demographic that is already the safest is indefensible and tremendously harmful. People are so worked up about defending women from harm that a mere accusation of harming a woman will often be all the evidence that the law and the public need to mete out punishment to the accused, provided the accused is male. If a woman is accused of harming another woman, well, you know; that’s different.

I find this flavor of male feminist the most interesting, since he is most likely to appear in church settings. He is the one that has given women the benefit of the doubt despite anything she does and completely excuses and condones her behavior no matter how destructive her behavior is towards others, and defends the woman against any man who dares bring her to account. This feminist ultimately will destroy himself when the fruits of his labor come back to bite him. When he thinks he will find women supportive of him and willing to date and marry him for being there in this way at every opportunity and being her emotional tampon, he will instead find disrespect, hatred, and disgust from women to the point of the female feminists disavowing them. You will typically find this male feminist on the right-wing, politically.

I find music can be useful to help drive home examples of such things. This song will be very useful to see the modern “white knight” portrayed in a very clear way:

The Mangina (Masculinus Effeminata) aka collaborationist
This kind of feminist is generally labeled with perhaps a most unfortunate term. While the term is meant to be accurate in a derisive sort of way (it’s a contraction of the words “man” and “vagina”), it is probably not the best terminology to use. This feminist is more accurately a gender traitor, or a collaborationist:

More precisely, it signifies one who, by some combination of self-loathing and servility toward women, betrays men or maleness generally.

Gender, as it is defined, is not reflective of the physical characteristics of a person, but their psychological and social characteristics. Seen in the light of that definition, these feminists are self-hating, and self-loathing of themselves for being men. They look in the mirror and despise what they see. They pick this up from the education system or society where they are encouraged to “get in touch with their feminine side”. Regardless:

Feminism encourages women to become more militant and assertive and on the other side attacks men for showing masculine traits. This has the effect of making men more feminine and women more masculine. This destroys the natural attraction that is felt between the sexes.

Also it pushes women to become more dominant whilst men become more submissive, further reducing the sexual attraction.

The mangina’s outlook in this self-hatred of his manhood will result in his desire to be a woman or woman-like, and short of succeeding in that will look to ingratiate himself to, first, a specific woman in Marriage 2.0, and then to all women in general as a lesser being to women. This will result in his desire to add misandric bigotry paralleling his feminist sisters, and masochism to his self-hating and self-loathing:

The mangina, by contrast, feels guilty about his maleness — hence the gynonormativity and overall lack of self-respect. Both white knight and mangina harbor similar ideas about male disposability, but the mangina cravenly hopes that males other than himself (e.g. “MRAs”) will be disposed of, and he will favor proxy violence (by the state) to achieve this.

This flavor of male feminist most likely appears in secular settings. He is the one that has completely given himself over to women as their property. He is a woman-pleasing supplicant, out to emulate her and support her in every way possible. This is the end-goal for a feminist husband. He does not speak up when destructive behavior is done, because he has completely given up his own self-will, self-determination and self-respect. This feminist ultimately will ultimately find himself in a femDOM arrangement, consistent with the goals of his feminist wife, where she will be the master and he will be the slave. When he thinks he will find his proxy femininity in attaining to be like his wife (and other women), he will instead find himself discarded the moment he is not compliant enough, or she gets bored and unhaaaaapy with him. You will typically find this male feminist on the left-wing, politically.

The music, which illustrates this kind of feminist, is quite well known. At this point in time it is hard to settle upon just one as there are many examples:

(now back to your regularly scheduled program of specific religious commmentary)