A Society of Phineas Glossary

I have added a series of pages which represents a glossary of terms used over the course of the blog, which you can find on the link above.  Please feel free to offer any comments on the main page (as the comments on each individual page are disabled).

Glossary

Advertisements

They Still Want You To Man Up and Marry Those Sluts.

Given that I haven’t located too many man-up rants lately, I’ve had to wonder if they’ve finally gotten the message that man-up rants don’t reach men. But in locating the commentary on the latest data about marriage from the conservative Media Research Center, it seems like the typical agenda continues on.

Caption
A man grows up into this.

Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future, says Janice Shaw Crouse, author of “Marriage Matters.”

“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,” Crouse, the former executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, wrote in a recent Washington Times oped.

Of course, they start right out with the typical Peter-Pan charge, that part of growing up involves mindlessly walking into a decision simply because others tell them to do so. Marital status or parental status is not a reflection of maturity and accountability, as numerous evidences of divorce, extramarital affairs and the like prove. Being an adult requires making decisions for your own life, taking responsibility for them, and being wise to see whether they are to benefit. Men are seeing what marriage represents, seeing that it holds no benefits for them (for numerous reasons), and are walking away from the plantation.

The high percentage of bachelors means bleak prospects for millions of young women who dream about a wedding day that may never come. “It’s very, very depressing,” Crouse told CNSNews.com. “They’re not understanding how important it is for the culture, for society, for the strength of the nation to have strong families.”

It’s all about what the women want. Women want the wedding day (literally), and the house slave there to provide and protect for them, and don’t want to bear any responsibility towards their husbands. It’s all about them and the Princess fantasy.

Marriage 2.0 Illustrated.
Marriage 2.0 Illustrated.

The evidence is clear all around by now, and especially evident in the comments of that article that men see what marriage is all about, and are understanding it perfectly. Yet these parties such as Janice Shaw Crouse fail to understand how important it is for those things to have strong families where everybody finds benefit for marriage. After all, in the minds of Janice Crouse and other traditional feminists, men don’t deserve anything other than to just fall in line and know their roles as house slaves – all those comments and linked posts there are just those uppity men back talking their mistresses and shouldn’t be considered. A man should just know his role and shut his mouth, right Mizz Crouse?

After decades of feminism, Crouse noted that young men are now the ones who set the parameters for intimate relationships, and those increasingly do not include a wedding ring.

“And I know the feminists just yell and scream if you say anything like this, but time was, girls set the cultural morays, the standards, the parameters for intimate activity. The girls were the ones that set those boundaries. And now it’s the guys who do,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.

Perish the thought that women aren’t calling the shots with men anymore. That men actually are finding that they have a say on the conditions of life that they will accept. But mind you, they aren’t “setting the parameters”, they are just seeing what a raw deal marriage is for them and just walking away. If that’s “setting the parameters”, then so be it, but this is still denial of what is really going on. To wit:

“And it’s doubly terrible because the colleges now are predominantly female. So you have some – up to 60 percent of the student bodies are female. And almost all of them are more than 50 percent female. And so the ratio [of] male/female is out of sync.

“And that means the girls have to live by the guys’ demands. And that means less romance. They don’t date. The girls, I have talked to numerous young women, lament the fact that they don’t have the opportunity to dress up and go out for an event.”

Doesn’t it seem that the women are getting what they want? “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” isn’t it? You set the laws to favor women in college admissions, and favor women in the college environment and you’ll get less men.

The modern marriage dynamic.
The feminist marriage dynamic.

Then add to that the unrealistic standards that women have for men, where 80% of the men are considered “unattractive” by women, and this thins out the men that women will consider. Then consider the big problem that’s netting the statistic Mizz Crouse is lamenting: Women are the ones delaying marriage to get their feminist merit badges – to get that college degree, to go travel, to ride the Carousel, to EPL. Yet somehow, it’s the men that’s at fault. Of course the men are always at fault.

Young women who adhere to a moral code and refuse to participate in the “hook up” culture are now considered social misfits, Crouse pointed out. And they face even more daunting odds of finding a husband than their promiscuous sisters.

And we have something else that men are blamed with – after all it’s men desiring that hook-up culture and not women, right? Really anyone with a moral code will have a problem with the hook-up culture, but blame where blame properly lies. Women are the ones demanding the hook-up culture, responding to the conditions of traditional marriage, and women are the ones delaying marriage. Yet it could never be any different than women are always good and men are always bad, right?

“It’s really interesting, because Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker wrote their book, “Premarital Sex in America,” what, three, four years ago. And even then, they were very concerned about the fact that young women today are not as likely to get married. And their prospects, if they are not sexually promiscuous, are really low because the guys, if they can sleep around, they’re not interested in going with the girls who don’t put out.

Again, when you put access to sex out there as a commodity for men to buy with their lifetime slavery, as has been done in traditional marriage, don’t be surprised when women will start competing for the attention of men by lowering their prices. But then again, it’s all about the bad that men are doing, and not that the men are responding to what the women are doing, isn’t it?

“The ones who are very serious get married early. And that leaves the majority of the girls, then, by the time they’re 25 and into their first jobs, the pickings are very, very slim for them. And Mark Regnerus was very, very clear that the quote ‘good girls’ are the ones who are at risk now in terms of not being able to get married.”

The importance of women making a priority of marriage over getting the feminist merit badges is indicated well, along with the artificial constriction that women apply to their choices in men is illustrated. Even the “good girls” still want those merit badges and delay marriage.

Crouse says the decline in marriage and a corresponding rise in cohabitation is happening despite at least a decade of research demonstrating the societal benefits of two-parent families.

But men are not entirely to blame for the steep decline in marriage, Crouse pointed out. “A lot of women fear marriage. While feminism is a spent force, the ultimate consequences of that philosophy is a whole generation of women who don’t want any man to tell them what to do, and don’t really understand the give and take that is necessary for a marriage relationship.”

The article continues on to talk about the cohabitation angle. Could it be given the conditions of modern feminism (women), coupled with the conditions of traditional feminism (men), that both sides are seeing the correct value of “getting a piece of paper”, especially given the consequences that have been witnessed in their lives and seeing what marriage represents? That both sides prefer a relationship with a different dynamic than what each commonly think of as “marriage”, and feel that actually getting that piece of paper won’t fulfill that?

As Crouse says, “there’s still a lot of anti-male stuff out there”. That includes this article, along with her remarks. When the welfare of men and the interests of men can never be considered in the calculus of marriage – where the woman must always get everything she wants at the expense of the man, and the man must always sacrifice everything he is and does to the woman and must always lose – don’t be surprised when men refuse to take any interest in it. Compared to a business deal, marriage is a rotten deal that no one with a right mind would ever consider.

If these traditionalists have any interest in continuing marriage, they would do well to shed their own feminist hatred of men and move to restore marriage to how God intended it (where both men and women can win and benefit), instead of continuing to perpetuate its destruction.

Crying For Abominations

And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. (Ezekiel 9:4, see Ezekiel 8 for context)

Commenter lozozlo writes:

Hey Ballista!

A bit of a general rant/question directed at you and the readers of your fine blog. I would love to know what you and your readers think of my thoughts/sentiments below. I imagine I am hardly alone in having them.

Although I remain a Christian, it can be very hard to maintain one’s faith in Christ in this day and age. The main driver behind these difficulties, for me at least, has been that it seems to me that a *huge* percent of the really advanced red-pillers [most notably on gender issues and related economic issues like being a tradcon pack mule sole provider beta male] out there are atheist and agnostic. (E.g. Esther Vilar and Fred Reed, among others). On the other hand, many of the most aggressive pushers of the blue-pill (at least for me growing up) came from the church and mainstream (usually religious) conservatism – the Mark Driscolls and Albert Mohlers of the world. For much of my life, a huge portion of those whom I trusted on matters of faith were lying to me almost wholesale about a large portion of reality. Even quite red-pill bloggers like Vox Day have bought into large portions of the blue-pill tradcon lies. Consider, for example, the following links here –

”http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/08/defending-west.html”

“http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/08/saving-civilization-is-not-manning-up.html”

“http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/05/nihilists-vs-civilizationists.html”

especially note how dishonest and deeply non-Christian many of the Christian commenters there are. I witnessed some seriously abusive and dishonest behavior from some of the posters most trumpeting their own holiness and always making sure we know how religious they are. When so many of the Christians so thoroughly buy into, and aggressively peddle, so many lies, while the secularists are preaching quite a lot of red pill truth, I will be honest, as a Christian it is really painful.

More generally speaking – a tree is known by its’ fruits, and the fruits of modern Churchianity are well and truly dreadful. Christianity has been nearly totally intellectually and culturally sterile for the past two hundred years. Christians used to make the best art and used to have a major role in the sciences and other endeavors of life. Now they stay ensconced in their own little ghettos, producing trashy ‘culture’ like ‘Fireproof’ and ‘Left Behind’ that makes soviet propaganda films look subtle and Sesame Street look like high art. They make Mr. Rogers look badass and Liberace like the epitome of masculinity.

At least Marxist liberals openly hate the Cross and openly hate men – the churchians/conservatives are worse since are far more subtle – they appear to be the height of religion and male-friendliness, whilst they wrap the Cross up in their drooling idiocy and downright evil. I suspect that many honest truth-seekers, who are genuinely open to red-pill reality and are seeking to escape our society’s ruthless Marxist indoctrination, have encountered what I am discussing here and react with powerful and visceral horror to the lies and poison peddled by the modern church. Sadly, this reaction inoculated them from ever considering Christianity’s truth claims. They don’t want to go within 1000 meters of a Cross or the church, and (I really wish I didn’t have to say this) in some respects it is hard to blame them. It’s like the Churchians have stolen the cross from Christianity and repurposed it for the counterfeit american-goddess-worshipping, man-shaming cult that so much of Churchianity has become.

Let’s face it, image yourself for a second as an outsider to the faith –a nonchristian who does not have much contact with non-churchian Christians. If you saw a belief system and attendant organization with the following traits, you would run screaming in the other direction and be totally justified for doing so:

1.) Lead by either limp-wristed nigh-homo effeminates or hilariously cartoonish macho exaggerations of manhood like Driscoll peddling ridiculous ‘man-up and be a good slave to your master…errr…wife’ snake-oil.

2.) Awfully effeminate hen-pecked stepford-husbands reduced to broken shells of men by a society, churchian religion, and culture that hates them and views them as nothing by cannon fodder and pack mules to serve the american womyn goddesses and the elites at the top. Some of them magnify their lack of manhood by comically adapting ‘alpha game’ and ‘PUA’ and trying to act like a bizarre mixture of clint eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and roosh.

3.) Ball-busting, consumeristic, Feminine-Imperative-riddled whores who are nonetheless praised to the skies as the pinnacle of all goodness, beauty, and even holiness in all creation.

4.) Culturally sterile and awful to the point of self-caricature. Remember that the modern church points to the Kendrick brothers and ‘praise music’ as it’s contributions to culture. Shakespeare they are not, to put it very mildly.

Oftentimes I find myself hoping and praying that God will take extra-special mercy on the non-believers of this generation. Never before has the church been such a ridiculous caricature, never before has the Cross been sullied by so many snake-oil salesman and liars, never before has the Church become so thoroughly feminine-imperitive-ized – many a truth seeker would generally be justified and running as fast from anything that even smells like modern Churchianity as fast as he could, and it is unfortunately very hard to not throw the Christian baby out with the Churchian bathwater. I pray that all those whose faith was destroyed (or never allowed to form) due to how singularly awful modern Churchianity is, will somehow still be able to find their way to the real Aslan, the real Savior who is revealed in Scripture and is seemingly nowhere to be found in the modern Church.

God bless and hope you found my little rant interesting!
— lozozlo

Great comment, bravo! I’ll add my more specific comments in the comment thread here.