Marriage Is A Feminist Tool Used Against Men

In response to my previous post responding to this one, blogger Derek Ramsey continued and tripled-down on his feminist man-shaming and has made himself completely clear in doing so. The only thing I can say it’s absolutely astounding to find myself arguing Red Pill 101 on a manosphere site, especially stuff Dalrock and others have covered ad-infinitum.

While it’s become obvious that blue-pill won’t ever turn into red-pill in Ramsey’s ridiculous assertions regarding my positions, I thought it might be enlightening to others to attempt to explain the role that marriage plays within feminism.

Defining the Feminist Marriage
Ramsey writes:

Marriage and family are not feminist concepts. They are the foundations of functioning society and must be embraced. They need to be taken back from the feminists, so to speak.

I never argued that marriage and family are feminist concepts in total. As I have always argued, marriage and family are concepts created by God as a building block of society. What I do argue, however, is that those things have been subverted into tools by the feminists in order to facilitate their control of men and perpetuate the view of female superiority that swims in the mind of every woman from birth. To that end, all women are feminists and a large degree of men that follow into the pattern taught them and function as enablers of the will of women into society.

To that end, marriage and family has been redefined from something that brings glory to God into something that brings glory to the woman. Besides leading men into committing the sin of Adam and forfeiting the grace of their salvation before Jesus, the idea of marriage has been changed to support these basic feminist concepts. I denote this change by using the appellation of version numbers. Marriage 1.0 is marriage and family as God intended it. Marriage 2.0 is the feminist redefinition. I posted a chart reflecting the differences here.

Part of the function of marriage is to secure the enslavement of men to women. This is reflected by the base definition of marriage to be the prostitutes deal of conditional sexual access for lifetime enslavement to the woman. Children further reinforce the shackles the man has been placed under, as the sole reason for the woman to have sex with him dries up after she’s obtained the number of children she desires. She has her hooks into her prey.

Now if we take Ramsey’s suggestion that men just need to man up and marry those thots to fight feminism, it becomes ludicrous on the face of it. I or any other man can’t make marriage into what they want or what God wants, even if one finds the rare unicorn that is both actually fit for marriage and doesn’t believe the world revolves around her. The legal system has set itself up to unilaterally define the parameters of marriage and put the full force of itself against those who would violate those parameters. Anything reflecting God’s word is automatically considered “abusive” in the eyes of society and of the divorce courts. There is no amount of game or “keeping frame” or otherwise that will change or stop this. Notably, this leads to the issues of no-fault divorce, the Duluth Model, child support, alimony, and the like when the woman finds her man unfit or she gets bored or “unhaaaaappy” in the marriage. Ramsey or anyone else has no answers for the men they bid to walk into the meat grinder when these men get served with their divorce papers. They will be long gone when that happens, just like others will for those that think they can avoid feminist control and yet be married.

Then we look at the period within the marriage. Say we find the perfectly marriageable woman who hasn’t been indoctrinated into the goddess, who doesn’t believe that the world should revolve around her and her desires (Satan generally takes care of that not happening anyway through the children). The rest of society is there to council her in feminist ways, including all the women in her social circles. His money is really yours, the sirens whisper in her ears. How dare that man of yours tell you “No”! These people, including those preaching in the churches, sway the woman into a feminist position. The men are not immune either, constantly being reminded of how lesser they are compared to their wives in society, and reminded they need to man-up and marry and then in the marriages “step-up and lead the family” – or in other words, submit to his wife and fulfill her will. This redefinition has been rationalized into the Scripture via tradition to the point that almost nobody sees this, including Ramsey.

There Is No Good Marriage
This leads into the next thing Ramsey wrote:

But make no mistake: if we don’t increase good marriages and the number of children in those marriages, feminism will win.

Feminists might breed themselves out of existence by refusing to reproduce, but who is going to replace them if the anti-feminists also refuse to reproduce? Where are the future anti-feminists going to come from? Feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children. Our counter is marriage and family. It’s the only one we have. We must find ways to do it and stop making excuses for not doing it.‡

As I just illustrated, there’s no such thing as a “good marriage”. Just a feminist one that continues to feed men into the fire while putting their resources in the hands of women, creating children to perpetuate the process. The marriage ultimately just produces children to feed right into the process, starting with the mother’s own feminist indoctrination from infancy. As aptly stated, feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children, which is done well within the home, schools, and wider society. This indoctrination is an inevitability with feminism in place – there is no place that anyone can go without being exposed to feminist messaging and consequences for not heeding that programming. Marriage is not a counter to feminism, but the vehicle in which feminism is effectuated and grows.

A lot of men have looked at the issue with wisdom and have determined that as long as feminism exists, marriage is a counter-productive activity which only perpetuates feminism instead of ends it. There can be no other answer until feminism is dealt with. Deal with feminism, then we’ll talk about marriage and children.

Solipsistic Fallacy
Ramsey writes:

When the Brothers scoff at having more children, their anti-feminist stances become meaningless.† Words and actions must go together. When they recommend against a proper marriage, they fight against the very tool required to solve the problem. Avoiding marriage and family is counterproductive, no matter how well-intentioned.

In looking at Ramsey’s parting shot, it shows just how illogical both posts have been. As shown, the tool required to solve the problem of feminism is not marriage, as lack of marrying is not what is creating the feminism problem. The problem is a systemic failure of wider society that has infested marriage, causing women to reject marriage for their goddess delusion and men to reject marriage for the factors mentioned above. As long as Marriage 2.0 remains the default and only expression, marriage is poisonous for men. I respect the choice of men to marry or not, unlike Ramsey and the other advocates of feminism that make their man-up rants. The more that men don’t enter into marriage, the more that feminism doesn’t work. This alone scares supporters of Marriage 2.0 into making these man-up rants, since married men are needed to make feminism work and when marriage is gone, feminism ceases to function. Add to this the effects that Marriage 2.0 have on society like the economic ones Ramsey points out and it scares them even more. The house of cards is toppling, deservedly so:

Jack makes a great point, describing most of the advocates of Marriage 2.0 in this day and age:

Brother Derek has had the luxury of having married a decent woman early in life. From this perspective, his viewpoints are pretty solid. The problem is that the vast majority of men (and women) can’t enjoy the same luxuries as Ramsey (and his wife), and we know this is because of the bastage of feminism.

After reading all the horror stories and general facts of life, it’s hard to not believe there’s an incredible amount of solipsism and deception out there. “Since marriage works for me, it works for everybody”. They do not heed the horror stories as a wise man would (Proverbs 22:3) and avoid them. They rationalize that they just didn’t do it right or some other such thing. Yet the facts on the ground are what they are, and can not be changed by those that would wish it all away.

As for men that have red-pilled themselves, the words and the actions are going together. In addition to speaking out, they are avoiding entanglements with women that will lead them onto the plantation. They see feminism for what it is and how it affects society, and especially marriage. Sadly so few men do, and still function to uphold and perpetuate feminism.

That said, barring anything fantastic, this is the last thing I’m going to write on this particular issue.

Man Up, Marry Those Thots, and Save Western Civilization

I had occasion to come across something I was seeing when the SoP blog closed, the feminist man-up rant to the men that don’t know their proper place with the excuse that men need to do it to save Western Civilization. In “Does Marriage Keep Society Afloat?”, we have the very correct observation made by Derek Ramsey that birth rates are going down and that it’s going to effect the economy. However, his conclusion leads us right into another typical feminist man-up rant: The men just aren’t playing along because they aren’t marrying and having children.

To borrow the only line I ever quoted from Davis Aurini on my blog, Ramsey is seeing the appearance of the problem and not the essence of it. The essence of the problem is feminism, which created the economic conditions (among other things) that were pointed out.

Chart Describing The Nature of Feminism

Unfortunately, it was not enough for Ramsey to point this out, but to double-down:

>Look at Japan, it’s there for everyone to see. Their decline is here, but they are just the first in line.

Let’s look at Japan further. There’s a movement there with men called “grass-eaters” or “herbivore men” who have rejected traditional marriage because of the feminist overtones. The men were expected to be “Salary Man”, working as much as possible. Then as the facets of traditional marriage go, they were expected to present their pay checks to the wife for use and live off of whatever she deemed fit to give him not unlike how marriage works in Western Civilization. It is well known in marketing circles that women control the purse strings and contribute to a vast super-majority of all the spending in the economy. Simply put, in Japan as here, feminism created incentives against marriage and family.

>The only way out of this, without significant side effects, is to support marriage and increase family sizes.

Now here is where Ramsey really goes in the rough with his arguments.

>This requires abolishing abortion and defeating feminism.

The only agreeable thing he wrote. The existence of abortion is a condition created by feminism, so the only requirement is defeating feminism.

>The refusal to marry and have children (e.g. MGTOW) is actively harmful and contributes to the self-feeding destructive downward cycle.

This is wholly incorrect. Either Ramsey has a incorrect perception of feminism, or is a traditional feminist apologist (don’t know which).

>I don’t care what the excuses are for not marrying and having children. Make it work. Otherwise wave the white flag and embrace feminism.

In other words, Ramsey wants men to embrace feminism by getting married and having children. Therein lies the problem as Ramsey sees it – the weak men just aren’t playing along to make feminism work. Traditional marriage represents the locus of control of feminism, and to that end marriage is poisonous to men. They see all the evils of marriage as represented through the divorce courts, alimony, child support, and the like. They see the expectations upon them to serve their wives and be walking ATMs, to absolutely no benefit to men. Then they see the cramped job market and the increasing cost of living, and realize marrying will only increase that to the point of making it unsustainable. Then they see the poor moral quality of the women available, which has made them un-marriagable. Larger numbers of men have figured this out and are avoiding it and more will continue to so. They all definitely see the only function of marriage in this day is to bring men under the control of women, impoverishing men and enriching women in the process.

The answer to the problem Ramsey rightfully points out is to defeat feminism, making it a disgusting way of thought. Unfortunately, feminism is so ill-defined in the minds of most that opposing “feminism” ultimately does no good because they don’t define the problem well nor have the will to do what it takes to solve it. All manning up and marrying the thots will do is perpetuate the problem.

Most MGTOW will recognize that it will take massive societal pain to break the control that women have gained in this society via marriage and other means. If one looks through history (reading “The Fate of Empires” by Glubb will be very educational), they will find that there are cycles of empires and certain characteristics of those. The USA is at the end of its cycle as well as Western Civilization and will experience some pain in the end to “correct” things, as there’s no political will towards true morality. Often, there will be those like Ramsey that want to reverse the state of things instead of correct them – rather rebuild feminism instead of eliminating it. This is as many men, who chafe before the consequences of their actions and will seek to remove them, but will not seek true repentance before the Lord. Repent and correct the conditions that make marriage poisonous to the point that feminism is a “never again” entity and you will get increased marriage and child birth within two or three generations.

As long as women are in control as they have been the last 400-500 years things will stay the same as they have always been, and there will be the typical societal downfall that comes with judgment before the Lord. After all, a society that has systematically cannibalized half of its members will inevitably fall, and more importantly deserves to fall. Nature always seeks equilibrium.

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. (Isa 4:1)

The Godless Goddess Woman On Full Display

In doing these things, it’s funny how certain things tend to drop into your lap right at the right time. After talking about a sterling example of the supplicating beta worm that’s the worthless worshipper of woman, we have one that comes around of the goddess woman.

I explained the dynamic that traditionalists have placed upon men, women, and marriage last time, so I’ll refer you there for the basic idea. As pointed out earlier, society including the churches have been deifying women and bidding men to submit to their wishes. This extends not to just marriage but all society.

Now to move to our current example out of many many women, we have 43-year old actress Charlize Theron. We are given the message as men that she’s “shockingly available” and “been single for 10 years”, and that men need to “grow a pair and step up”. Now this is language we’re used to hearing from women and their enablers, as there’s been legions of women crying this very thing. But it’s fascinating to see a man-up rant from a Hollyweird movie star.

The Goddess Proclaims Truth
The graphic to the left explains the general operation of feminism. This view of women as goddesses, created from the advent of Mary worship, kicks off things. Since we have female supremacy in operation, the average woman has absolute female moral authority.  This means any pronouncement that she makes automatically becomes true and right.  If she’s hyper-obese, she better be the best looking woman out there, for instance.  And if your her husband, you better provide the right answer back to her.  If you don’t, then you just aren’t providing proper devotion that she deserves.

The base expectation out of traditional feminism is that women deserve husbands as their birthright.  I’ve made the reverse statement in a supposedly Christian environment to howls and the blog owner consoling the poor wimminz.   They want what they want no matter how unrealistic it might be. After all, we’re reminded that 80% of men are below average according to women. She’s got to have the exact man she wants and the princess fantasy to go along with it. This effect is worse in churches and has been called the Evangelical American Princess (or EAP) by several bloggers. These women just aren’t finding men, so the howls of “Where have all the good men gone?” After all, men are supposed to fulfill every whim and desire of the women around them!

The Worthless Male Responds
So we have Mizz Theron, this entitled princess, howling like many other women about not finding her perfect man that fits all of her 463 requirements. For 10 years, even! And then bidding the men that are supposed to fall all over her and worship her. But it’s not happening! Maybe it’d be useful to look at the back of her baseball card:

  • Single mom of 2 with her first partner.
  • Later dated Sean Penn for a while.
  • Ardent abortion advocate
  • Ardent supporter of PETA
  • Ardent advocate of same-sex marriage
  • “not having much respect for marriage in the first place”

I could keep going on, but as our article states:

Unfortunately, for her, the only men in her social circle are probably pro-choice left-wing activists, given her history of abortion advocacy, which spans all the way back to the late 1990s.

So rightfully, any man that Mizz Theron would be attracted would likely reject some or all of this. So all that are left are the simpering soyboys for her to choose legitimately. But wait a minute! Men aren’t worth enough to have a choice! They need to be falling all over her trying to gain her approval. Don’t they know this is a Glorious Woman?!? This is what all “good men” should be doing to any woman that dare might consider letting him into Her Glorious Presence!

Remember too, what happens to men that complain like this. They are often reminded that they don’t deserve to have wives, or even standards for women and should take what they get. Remember that a man would (as many men already have!) get shouted down as a pathetic excuse and a waste of flesh if he made a similar pronouncement to Mizz Theron.

The Biggest Teenager In The House
We keep looking at Mizz Theron, as we do most women who fit the feminist bill. The traditional responsibility and burden of the man is to serve the woman and give her everything she wants without any responsibility falling on her head. But how do we convince men of that? The key is to feign weakness so that women may be thought of as children. Women can’t be responsible, so men must undertake this burden. This is the source of a lot of the diversion of blame you see out there in the churches and society. That adultery wasn’t her fault, that pathetic excuse of a husband pushed her into it! That divorce wasn’t her doing, it’s all she could do to get away from her terrible husband that wouldn’t “make her feel loved”!

This leads us to Mizz Theron. Like many women, the fact they are single is always a poor situation out of her control that the men put on her. It’s not that she’s a terrible relationship prospect that chose a life to put herself into that place by acquiring the feminist merit badges, it’s just that the men just won’t man up and marry her or even have a relationship with her. After all, she didn’t do anything that warrants that kind of treatment. She just can’t!

The Prototypical Entitled Woman
As we see, Mizz Theron is simply a prototype of what we see every day in the dating market as men. Many of us do realize that we have a choice in the women we marry or date. Simply put, Charlize Theron, as most women, are simply not worth it. Not necessarily because of the looks, but because of the person. We don’t hear figures such as Albert Mohler or numerous others tell women that they need to shape up. However, we get bellows to man-up or grow-up and marry these women and protests about video games or a number of other non-issues. A woman can never be blamed for anything she does, especially when it comes to relationships.

As for Mizz Theron, why don’t you step up, Seth Rogen? Then there’s always Glenn Beck and Chad Prather and his boys out there that could man up and marry this woman. Oh wait…thought so.

Pastor Opposes MGTOW. MGTOW Embraces Pastor.

In light of the last two posts, I thought I’d focus on something encouraging, and something that was in my “to be posted” list fits right into the current trend of discussion. While this guy opposes MGTOW, it elicits an interesting response compared to the others within and without the manosphere.

Notice something different and unique about him compared to the average way men are dealt with in the church? He’s showing respect towards the men in his audience as human beings and actually shows he is listening. He hits most all (if not all) points I hit back here regarding why women aren’t finding marriage. While I can find much disagreement with him on this and other matters, I can respect him and how he deals with men regarding this issue. He sees men not as chattel to be cudgeled into submission, but men with choices before God. More importantly, he actually acknowledges the reality on the ground men are facing with respect to women and quite obviously sees men as equal participants on the walk with God. He actually acknowledges women as just as sinful as men and actually rebukes women. He doesn’t shout down at men, doesn’t seek to break men at every turn. He actually treats the men in his audience as men and not as chattel that won’t know their roles and shut their mouths. He doesn’t accept the base tenets of feminist doctrine.

(2013-10-23) feminist-theory

Let’s hear the response he got:

Funny how that works, huh?

A Church For Men? Is It Really?

On a blog written by David Murrow, a man who wrote “Why Men Hate Going To Church”, I found an interesting post. For one who I would presume should know better, I found a post that constitutes a typical man-up rant.

In “Why Christian Men Are Playing The Field”, he presents the shop-worn arguments that we’ve all become familiar with:

Men are the ones cutting out on seeking marriage.

While he uses much less harsh language than the typical man-up rant, it still illustrates a false perspective colored by feminism inherent to the church: It could never be what everybody else is doing. Murrow begins by showing us the female-centric nature of this post:

Ask any young woman what the Christian dating scene is like these days.

So why are all the single Christian ladies having trouble finding single Christian guys for companionship and romance?

Before quoting Mark Regenerus and Gina Dalfonzo, he gives us the answer:

Christian men can play the field – and they know it. The numbers are in their favor.

In other words, Murrow claims that MEN are the ones delaying marriage because they can “play the field”, and hence men are the problem! Murrow goes on to explain:

Therefore, many Christian guys are postponing marriage into their 30s, confident they’ll be able to snag a compatible, attractive wife when they’re ready to settle down.

Then the misandry of this post really comes out, in going back to one of his general premises:

So what caused this imbalance? Why is there such a shortage of godly young men?

Simple. We screened them out of church as boys.

Replying to such a post seems incumbent, as such a post is emblematic of what David Murrow claims to be out against in his book and much of the rest of his blog. It offers a female-centric view of the issue and assumes the problem is wholly men. Such things as this post is a major contributor to driving men out of the church, especially when voiced in the chorus of misandrist pastors that exist in the churches such as Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, and Albert Mohler. Such rants from those figures and others are so ubiquitous that they have earned a meme title in a lot of circles: “Man up and marry those sluts”. Men definitely do not have a desire to show up to a church service and be blamed incessantly for not measuring up to a masculinity that demands he be shamed and blamed at every opportunity.

In fact, if one wants to observe the real causes of this, they need to get away from secular and feminist sources (like was quoted in this post), and start talking to men. The problems are readily known and dealt with in legion on this blog and in other places.

1. Poor character of women. It may be shocking that “those sluts” gets used, but it is emblematic of what is generally facing men when it comes to dealing with the women in the church. Christian women are arrogant, prideful, and sinful Jezebels, and yet the churches have nothing to say or do about it – after all they raised these women this way. Men are looking at these women and just deciding it isn’t worth it – the single and never going to marry ever crowd (MGTOW). This group is only increasing in size each year.

2. Unrealistic expectations. Given the prideful arrogance, coupled with the equation of Jesus as husband with the expectation of the husband being her perfect Personal Jesus, women go into things with a 642 point list of what they expect out of men. They expect the perfect combination of Brad Pitt’s body, George Clooney’s charm, Warren Buffett’s money, Billy Graham’s spirituality, and Chris Tomlin’s musical ability. Yet no one corrects them.

3. Lack of commitment by women. It could be argued more forthrightly that women are the ones delaying marriage. This is encouraged by the “True Love Waits” movement, and other like movements such as the courtship movement. Add to that the influence of modern feminism, and a woman must never seek marriage until she’s attained the Feminist Merit Badges. With her parent’s support, she must attain college, a career, travel, missionary or volunteer work, and ride the Carousel before she ever considers marriage. When the time comes that she is ready (in her 30’s, funny huh?), all the “good men” are either married or have given up. The “true love waits” message is for us men, not the women. Wait until she gets done with her adventures and then be ready and waiting for her. When this doesn’t work out they complain that the “good men” just aren’t there waiting at their beck and call. Perish the thought!

4. Unsupportive church environment. The general environment of the churches is anti-marriage formation. Misandrist man-up rants have been dealt with, already. Murrow himself points out in his book the issues of segregation and other factors that keep men apart from women. Then, the general way that mating is treated by others in the churches (gossip), just push men away from it.

5. Poor testimony of marriage. Much of this has to do with Marriage 2.0 and its nature, but also has to do with the marriages around them and the examples that are set. The single men are watching to see what marriage is and what it represents. They see it for what it is and have enough self-interest to not go through with it.

In conclusion, while it’s expected for man-up rants to come from most of the church and secular crowd, I find it disappointing to read a “blame the men” style post from David Murrow, who I would think would know better and would take steps to research things a lot better than what is demonstrated in that post. Unfortunately, his post is a good example of what drives men out of the church. Given his platform, he could call for things that would deal with these problems, but unfortunately he missed that opportunity with this post.

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.

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 “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

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.

A Man’s Quest – Rescue The Beauty

Previously the idea that a man must possess beauty in order to make his life passable was discussed. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6)


To fit in with the traditional narrative, this means the Brave Knight must go on a quest. Recall that a man’s virtue is in his action, while a woman’s virtue is in her person. As with any kind of action, the typical response is “What have you done for me lately?” When the poor Beauty becomes bored and unhaaaaaapy she puts herself in the keep, requiring that she be rescued again.

He must continue rescuing the beauty and fighting for the beauty in order to have her and keep her.

You love her because that’s what you are made to do, that’s what a real man does. (1)

If a man is the image of the Lion of Judah, how come there are so many lonely women, so many fatherless children, so few men around? Why is it that the world seems filled with “caricatures” of masculinity? (2)

This even becomes the definition of “masculinity”, and effectively creates that “caricature” of masculinity. The “caricature” is typified in all the poetry, all the songs, all the fairy-tale romance stories. It is not enough to fight for a cause, a woman must be involved. This seems to be a universal, even into the modern action films, to the point that a “romance” plot has to be tacked on. He fights not for glory, honor, or country, but for woman.

A man wants to be the hero to the beauty. Young men going off to war carry a photo of their sweetheart in their wallet. Men who fly combat missions will paint a beauty on the side of their aircraft . . . The battle itself is never enough, a man yearns for romance. It’s not enough to be a hero, it’s that he is a hero to someone in particular, to the woman he loves.

Not every woman wants a battle to fight, but every woman yearns to be fought for. Listen to the longing of a woman’s heart: she wants to be more than noticed — she wants to be wanted. She wants to be pursued. (3)

This is traditionalism at the heart of it, as Eldredge can not fathom that these desires must have been generated from somewhere (4), like the Disney fairy tales and the typical childhood stories, and are not innate.

Eldredge gives us the example of God in saying that “a beauty to fight for” is a requirement, attributing a “romantic heart” to God. (5) “That theologians have missed this says more about theologians than it does about God.” (5) Perhaps they miss this because it’s something that doesn’t exist. Eldredge continues in using the example of the Song of Solomon, which illustrates beauty and desire emanating from both the male and female. The Song does not fit either the traditional definition of romance or Eldredge’s definition, that beauty is the exclusive province of the woman and desire is the exclusive province of man. Moreover, the Song does not deify woman, nor indicate that she saves him in any way. Eldredge continues on:

God is a romantic at heart, and he has his own bride to fight for. He is a jealous lover, and his jealousy is for the hearts of his people and for their freedom. (6)

Eldredge goes on to quote Isaiah 62:1, 5 and Isaiah 63:1-4, which relate to the end-times. Note though how he puts that. His jealousy is for the hearts of his people, but in quite another way. This truth comes out very often in the Bible, as it proves that God just doesn’t do a very good job in fighting for Israel (at least in the romantic mind). All those times they suffered for departing from Him. The nation of Samaria destroyed and carried away by Assyria. The nation of Judah destroyed and carried away by Babylon. The endless rebellion of Israel against the occupying force of Rome. Could it be that instead of fighting for them, that they should be faithful towards Him instead? Could it be that instead of man fighting for woman, that woman be faithful to man instead? Note how Eldredge brings out fault for Adam in Eve’s sin (using the typical feminist argument), because he didn’t “fight for the beauty”:

Needless to say, the story doesn’t go well. Adam fails, he fails Eve, and the rest of humanity. Let me ask you a question: Where is Adam, while the serpent is tempting Eve? He’s standing right there: “She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too” (Gen. 3:6 NLT). The Hebrew for “with her” means right there, elbow to elbow. Adam isn’t away in another part of the forest; he has no alibi. He is standing right there, watching the whole thing unravel. What does he do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He says not a word, doesn’t lift a finger. He won’t risk, he won’t fight, and he won’t rescue Eve. Our first father–the first real man–gave in to paralysis. He denied his very nature and went passive. And every man after him, every son of Adam, carries in his heart now the same failure. Every man repeats the sin of Adam, every day. We won’t risk, we won’t fight, and we won’t rescue Eve. We truly are a chip off the old block. (7)

Men are supposed to hover over their wives. They’re supposed to “fight” for them in keeping them from every thing harmful, everything that would make her feel less loved, less the Princess, less the Queen. The interesting part of Eldredge’s commentary on the Creation is that he gives this rationalization, then gives the correct answers (albeit in light of his incorrect ones). Eve was deceived (Genesis 3:13) and failed Adam as his ezer kenegdo (8). But we are told much later that Adam chose Eve over God (Genesis 3:17), because he feared the loss of his “ezer kenegdo, my soul mate” (9) – in other words, Adam lost the beauty. Amidst all the double-talk (which one is it, John?), the whole soul mate/savior thing comes into full light.

So what happens when man won’t fight for the beauty? An interesting observation that comes out of these things is how lust and outer beauty is confused with the concept of beauty required for romance. Some traditional feminist commentators like to add the word “inner” for this reason. One thing that happens is pornography. As Eldredge tells us:

Why is pornography the number one snare for men? He longs for the beauty, but without his fierce and passionate heart he cannot find her or win her or keep her. Though he is powerfully drawn to the woman, he does not know how to fight for her. Rather, he finds her mostly a mystery that he knows he cannot solve so at a soul level he keeps his distance. And privately, secretly, he turns to the imitation. What makes pornography so addictive is that more than anything in a lost man’s life, it makes him feel like a man without ever requiring a thing of him. The less a guy feels like a real man in the presence of a real woman, the more vulnerable he is to porn. (10)

He is drawn by the lust of the eyes and his libido (pornography is one of many things the traditionalists vilify because men won’t go “rescue the beauty”, others come out in the man-up rants), but somehow it is this “inner beauty” that he is seeking. He just won’t go out and fight to possess the beauty, so he finds an imitation. He is a “lost man” because he has not gone out and rescued the beauty, instead looking at pornography, playing video games, or a number of other activities. He is a “lost man” because he isn’t living out his purpose. After all:

You love her because that’s what you are made to do, that’s what a real man does. (1)

Such finishes the fairy tale – the story of what a woman is, and what a man is supposed to do. The woman is the beauty, the perfect embodiment of the glory and beauty of God. The man is not, and therefore must possess woman in order to find his absolution. He does this by finding his Beauty or his savior, rescuing her and then fighting for her, and listen to and heed her heart-cry as they go throughout life. Such is the pattern of traditional marriage, only amplified by Marxist principles.

(1) Wild At Heart by John Eldredge p 192. (2) (3) ibid p 15-16. (4) ibid p50. (5) ibid p 33. (6) ibid p 34. (7) ibid p52-53. (8) ibid p 53-54. (9) ibid p117-118. (10) ibid p46.