Links in no particular order of stuff that interested me
Older but a constructive illustration on what unchecked hypergamy has done in dating: OKCupid found out that women rate 80% of men as “below average” in terms of attractiveness. Related: Worldly women are much more gracious than Christian women. Christian women seem to signal interest in Harley McBadboy or Rocky Rockbanddrummer just fine – Christian women don’t want any part of Gary GoodChristian. Consequently, a good reminder for good Christian Men to think twice about manning up and marrying those sluts. And when women try to be attractive, they have no idea how to do it.
(What Women Find Attractive – clue: Looks, money, power, not being “nice” or “good”)
(Picking Up Girls After Insulting Them, a little NSFW – more proof of what really attracts women)
No news: Pastors regularly preach and teach their listeners things that they don’t believe in themselves. Typical Churchianity takes hold in these situations – anything to keep their Empires of Idolatry going.
Bob Wallace is interesting in pondering what love is, even though I can’t agree with any of the conclusions therein past his definition of love. The problem that prompts the manosphere is indeed love, but that is that women aren’t “wanting and doing what is best for the other person at all times.” The divisions you find in the manosphere are as a result of the responses to this fact (resignation to femDOM marriage/PUA/MRA/MGTOW).
Electric Angel provides a toe-dip into the topic of civil religion – definitely another sign of the US (and I’m sure the world does it too) going downhill. Placing anything as an alternative to God is an abomination – the thing that has saddened me since about 2000 is that the “Christians” are the ones primarily perpetrating this transition to the nation as the avatar of God through the Republican Party, resulting in advocacy efforts to form a Christian theocracy out of the United States (e.g. The US is a “Christian nation” like Iran is a “Muslim nation”) that you will catch a number of Churchian pastors partaking in. Something to give Will S even more shivers: Jon McNaughton’s painting (the image in the post) hangs in at least one church that I’m aware of. One can see the political partisanship in McNaughton’s other works. Suffice it to say, most “Christians” in the US today aren’t in the company of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but are in the company of the multitudes.
An example of moving the goal posts common to traditional feminism. What the post author calls “pre-state marriage” or “Biblical marriage” is Marriage 1.0, the rest is Marriage 2.0, including what is called “Marriage 1.0” in that post. Again, an important illustration of why feminism must be clearly defined, since there’s a lot of “anti-feminists” out there who are just against Marxist feminism, but like traditional feminism just fine.
Dalrock writes on Dr. Helen Smith’s question on whether it really should be called a strike. I didn’t fault Dr. Helen for that, since IMO there were bigger problems. But the problem is indeed one of recognizing incentives and rational choice, which the Churchians will not do, persisting with their bleats to man-up and marry those sluts.
From the comments: Badpainter adds to the testimony of Dr. Smith’s book, describing the state of Marxist feminism, that men can’t win. It shouldn’t be a surprise that they aren’t playing.
There’s no such thing as a Red Pill Woman, as they all are. But they do need to take the Pink Pill, which basically is growing up and taking responsibility for her own actions.
Another illustration that the Churchian heresy which states that “Effective Male Leadership Initiates Female Submission.” is wrong and that “Effective Female Submission Initiates Male Leadership.” is correct:
What has brought about this whole change in him? Later at dinner I asked. He said “You submitted.”
What we have found out is that when I started allowing him to be the decision maker (my new phrase is “ask your father”) he feels more involved and I feel less stressed.
Can you believe that because I said “I will shut up and let you be a leader” that my husband is seeking the Lord? That he went to Mass alone when the rest if the family was out of town?! That he bought a Bible? When I finally shut up, he could hear God (and that is amazing).
Amazing how many men can actually lead in their families when their wives finally stop pulling the football away, isn’t it? And again:
During the class, he mentioned that in all of his 45 years of ministry and counseling, with a dominant wife/passive husband situation, he NEVER saw a husband rise up and take authority from his wife and begin leading spiritually. Not once.
The inverted relationship will NOT be made right until the WIFE willingly and voluntarily yields the leadership and control. She must make the first move.
There’s a reason why the affirmative command in Scripture is for wives to submit to their husbands, not husbands lead your wives.
I’ve wisely stayed away from all this Red Pill Women drama (yes, it’s coercion and co-option, for example Suzanne Venker and ROQ), but will note that train wrecks always have their morbid entertainment value. Matt Forney. Glorius Bastard. LGRobins1. LGRobins2.
The history of Aunt Giggles’ blog. A warning for other female bloggers, especially since I know of a few blogs that have been repeating Aunt Giggles’ path.
Rollo Tomassi on the Christian kosher dynamic, the tendency of Christians to dress up something of the world that’s unholy and vile and make it somehow right. Music is a prime example, where wickedness abounds. Female pornography is another. CCM is nothing different than the world, so I judge it against the world’s music and find it to be garbage. Very little talent shown.
In reference to a blog discussed here, here, and here (no direct links, it’s very NSFW), the only thing I have to say is this: Why U Mad Bro? When I read the thing, it reminded me of the modern state of marriage, especially a lot of words are echoed from marriage advice material such as Sheila Wray Gregoire’s. There’s a reason I used the term “femDOM” in reference to marriage in general, and that site illustrates it. Why is it disgusting when someone wants to formalize Marriage 2.0, but Marriage 2.0 itself isn’t disgusting?
Until next time, which I hope is very soon as I have a regular Scripture post in the works. Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere has been blogrolled.