Tags
Who is Dalrock, you might ask? Well, a red pill Christian blogger I began sounding the alarm about more than six years ago. Here is one such post, Calling Out Dalrock.
There are dozens more written over the years. I interacted with Dalrock and with some of his fans directly until they eventually banned and blocked me. I then wrote posts because I was not pleased with the red pills, their bitterness, hatred, and gaming of women converging on our faith, on the church. Many of those guys reading red pill blogs were lost, broken, wounded, they really needed Jesus, they needed good leadership, they needed sound doctrine, not a pseudo cultian perversion of what Jesus taught.
Rollo Tomassi complains about Dalrock’s blogging retirement and gives a descriptive not prescriptive explanation, “His blog has been the go-to place for discussing the Red Pill within a framework of Christian convictions for as long as I’ve been blogging.”
(That was always Tomassi’s go to excuse when I tried to speak to him about the consequences of his red pill ideology, “I’m descriptive not prescriptive.” I’m not prescriptive, I don’t tell people how to use my ideas.)
Let me be quite clear here, there really is no “red pill framework within Christian convictions.” Zip, zilch, nada. The red pill is about gaming women with heavy pornographic overtones around domination and sexual violence.
I’m a big fan of free speech, I’d never dream of doxing, harassing, or trying to shut people down as the red pills often do to others, but I am also a big fan of blowing the whistle on shady behavior and praying a whole lot.
So Lori Alexander, The Transformed Wife, Christian blogger, has a huge red pill fan base, primarily because she tells them what they want to hear, she tickles their ears, she validates their pornographic desires to dominate women and she helps to lend Christian credence or validity to what is outright vile. I encourage you to read this brief from Lori, “Godly Women are Today’s Rebel.”
She is all abuzz about having been contacted by one of the leaders of the 22 Convention and praised for all her good work. She makes it clear this is not a Christian conference, but than says, “It’s a sad state of affairs that a convention like this is teaching a type of biblical womanhood (a return to traditional values) by men when most churches won’t.”
Okay, I’m not judging any of these 22 Convention guys in a way that is condemning. We all got our issues. The thing is, Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux are pretty intense, pretty vile, shock jocks, and they are the tamest, the most mainstream speakers at the event. Then there is Texas Dom and his affection for BDSM. That’s bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism, for the uninitiated. And than there are the other speakers, many whose words on the internet I cannot quote because they are very sexually descriptive about what they have either inflicted on prostitutes or they fantasize about inflicting on prostitutes. All women by the way, are pretty much in this category of, “non human entity to be used for sexual purposes.” AWALT. All Women Are Like That.
Lori is correct when she says, “Godly Women are Today’s Rebel.” However, Godly women have a powerful responsibility to first of all represent Jesus properly, but second of all, to speak up and to speak out against things that actually do demean, degrade, and abuse women, things like sexual abuse and violent pornography. It’s not good for women, but it isn’t good for men either. These are not Christian values, this is our materialistic, pornographic culture, trying to legitimatize itself.
Speak out and speak up. Those ARE traditional values. That IS Biblical womanhood. Actually, it’s also Biblical manhood.
I wish Dalrock well. I hope he draws closer to the Lord. I hope he finds friends and mentors who help him discover who Jesus really is and what His heart for us is. I’m not sad to see him go, I’m exceedingly grateful. It’s an answer to prayer.
****A special thanks to Night Wind for always keeping me entertained, for the interesting writing, and for the diligence and persistence in researching some of these guys.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Insanitybytes you really need to study up on what the “red pill movement ” is all about. I categorically reject your insinuation that it’s a pornagraphic fuelled power trip over women.
Being Red Pilled has nothing to do with that at all, except maybe among a subset of its adherents who have been so brutally hurt by women that they turn inwards and become nasty and evil.
Being Red Pilled is to become aware of destructive female nature, and to warn men about the dangers of living in a gynocentric society, and to protect men from the inherent dangers of marriage and relationships.
In saying all that, I found Dalrock to be a fanatical zealot of the worse possible kind. Him and his pathetic followers are one of the main reasons I turned away from God. Dalrock’s brand of Christianity made me sick to the stomach and I for one am glad he’s gone. He was not only a gutless coward who blocked me and everyone else who disagreed with him, but his message, which mixed truth and error was extremely toxic and harmful.
There’s a lot of us men who consider ourselves “Red Pilled ” but it doesn’t mean we follow Dalrock’s views. He was an extremist and I’m glad he’s gone. I rejoiced to find out that he was gone, and to be honest, I hope to never encounter him again. I hope he deletes his entire blog so that others can’t find his toxic brand of Christianity.
I’m not as gracious as you, I can’t wish Dalrock well, I’ve got too much pain and hatred in my heart towards him at the moment
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m really sorry that Dalrock’s views, that his brand of Christianity has pushed so many people away from God. Or maybe I’m grateful for that? Maybe I’m grateful that people do have that internal voice that says, “whatever this is I want no part of it because it isn’t the Lord, it isn’t right?”
As for the red pills, I assure you I love many of them. I don’t intend to paint them all with a broad brush, like “red pill man bad” or something. I totally approve of men healing, of men’s rights, of exploring interpersonal relationships, sexuality, and culture. I got tons of grace for that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much for your gracious words IB. …..To be honest you’re about the only Christian I respect and read from. Your blog here has been an encouragement to me in so many ways
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your kind words, they are much appreciated. I assure you there are thousands of Christians far smarter than me, gracious and just wanting to love and encourage others in faith. They can be hard to find sometimes, but they are everywhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There probably are, but I tend to think of you as pretty unique 😊
You radiate warmth and compassion for others whilst not being wishy washy, it’s a hard balance to maintain but I think you’ve achieved it.
Take care IB, I’m going to grab some breakfast!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Learned something new! 🙏🏾 everyone do wrong and is not perfect so I wish nothing but positive and blessing for both of y’all!!! Dalrock had a very bumpy life to say the least all we can do is pray for those people
LikeLiked by 2 people
“everyone do wrong and is not perfect…”
Amen! That’s really well said, that’s very sweet, that’s the Lord’s grace in your words. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like CS Lewis and Ravi Zakarias because they speak the truth about the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I like Dalrock because he speaks the truth about women and gynocentric feminazism in the context of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The main reason I never married was because I perceived that the women I met were not prepared to submit to my authority as their husband, similar to the way I submit to the authority of God as my God. If I have to submit, so does she, and just as God can and should reject me if I don’t submit, so it is proper and fair and reasonable that I reject women if they don’t agree to submit according to the will of God.
Now, a women doesn’t have to submit to me if she doesn’t want to; she only needs to submit if she expects me to be her husband who lays down his life for her. But a woman can’t escape submitting to God, in any case, if she expects God to be her God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I cannot even imagine why a woman would not be eager to submit to you as if she were submitting to God Himself? Can you see me rolling my eyes? You cannot, nor can you see how absolutely ludicrous it is to expect another human being, one you actually fear, hate, and despise, to place themselves in your hands! “If I have to submit to God then she has to submit to me, it’s only fair,” is like the wail of two year old tyrant. How in the world did anyone fail to snatch you up??
Listen, God doesn’t reject us if we fail to submit. He leaves the whole flock, leaves the 99, to go find the one who is lost. He loves the Prodigal son who ran off. He saved the rebellious Jonah from certain drowning. He rewards the lady of the crumbs, the woman who challenged Him, the one who said even the dogs eat crumbs from the Master’s table. Submission is a gift we give ourselves, it is a blessing for us, not the demands of a tyrannical God.
CS Lewis and Ravi are two of my favorites also.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“I cannot even imagine why a woman would not be eager to submit to you as if she were submitting to God Himself? ”
That’s not what I said, and it most certainly is not what God meant. But you do express what is wrong with women nowadays.
When a woman submits to her own husband, she is obeying God. A Christian wife submits to her Christian husband because he is himself submitted to and accountable to God.
Yet, for some reason, a woman thinks that her husband should be willing to lay down his life for his wife, the way Christ laid down His life for His Church, without her showing him the respect God thinks is his due for doing so?
Women want a man’s life for nothing? Or even less than nothing? A woman thinks it fair to mock and insult and humiliate her husband and then demand that he give up his life for hers? If that’s the deal, what is the big mystery that many men, and more and more Christian men, are opting out?
I as a man cannot take responsibility for some loose cannon who will not submit. If I see that quality going in, I can’t tell God later on that I was ignorant of the fact. If I know that women are willful and out of control, I must accept the fact and move on and do something else with my life. Such is the world I live in, where Ephesian’s 5 is only hypothetical.
Ephesians 5:
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 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.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
I mean, for crying out loud, what would happen to me if my own body suddenly refused to do what I told it to do? What if, worse than being paralyzed, my body decided on its own to run off doing it’s own thing in the world, perhaps robbing banks and killing people and otherwise conducting itself in a disorderly fashion? Would I still love my own body then? Or, would I hate my recalcitrant and disobedient body?
The problem with you women is you are not serious and deep thinkers; your problem is you are silly and shallow and do not think things through.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church.…”
Hatred, resentment, and bitterness toward women drips from every word you offer. Here’s the really sad part, men who hate women are actually just projecting. They really just hate themselves.
LikeLike
“Hatred, resentment, and bitterness toward women drips from every word you offer. Here’s the really sad part, men who hate women are actually just projecting. They really just hate themselves.”
Really? Just because I do not behave obsequiously that means hatred, etc?
I get along fine with women, because I do not expect anything from them. I do not hate that which is irrelevant to my life.
The problem is, women are not irrelevant to the survival of the human race. The intransigence and rebellion of women against God and their own nature dooms the human race to extinction, except for the fact that God Himself has promised to cut the days short.
What you perceive is that I do not have respect for women, as women, because women have no respect for themselves or the God who made them. In general, in the West, that is.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It astounds me that anyone could be foolish enough to believe only women are in rebellion to God? But even sillier, women are supposedly so all powerful, the Blood of Christ could not break the curse?
What is red pill Christianity?? This logically incoherent, twisted mess of perversion that has no theological or doctrinal truth to it. It’s an entire ideology formed around blaming women and God for all the ills of the world. “Lord, this woman you gave me….”
LikeLike
““Lord, this woman you gave me….””
So, you’re so unintelligent that you miss the point about Adam blaming the women whom God gave to be with him?
Adam should not have hearkened unto the voice of his rebellious wife. He should have rejected her and her arrogant lust for power. He should have instead told her that she was wrong to think that she could be God and decide good and evil.
Eve was deceived, but Adam knew what what was happening and what he was doing but he did it anyway because he loved Eve more than he loved God. And that, my dear silly person, is the real problem between men and women. Men naturally love women, but, the universe is such that if and when men submit to women instead of doing what is right, humanity becomes doomed.
You keep saying that men are bitter, but the truth is it is women who are deeply and profoundly bitter, because you cannot be God; pretty much the same problem that Lucifer has. Lucifer became Satan because he is enraged out of his mind because he cannot be God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adam did not have a, “rebellious wife with an arrogant lust for power” because until they ate of the apple, sin had not yet entered the world.
LikeLike
“Adam did not have a, “rebellious wife with an arrogant lust for power” because until they ate of the apple, sin had not yet entered the world. ”
I do not think this is correct, in that the motivation for disobeying God’s clear and unmistakable commandment preceded the actual performance of the act that constituted the “sin.” Why did Eve want to eat of the tree in the midst of the garden, which God specifically told them not to eat? Because, she believed the devil who told her that God is a liar who doesn’t want competition. God tried to warn us that we would die, but, Even believed the devil who told her she would not surely die, but would instead be like God, knowing good and evil, and become capable of judging good and evil for herself. It was arrogant and rebellious for her to believe that and it was her lust for power and glory that drove her to do what she was told not to do.
LikeLike
God created a perfect garden with no sin in it and He said, it is good. Adam and Eve had no sin in them until after the fall, until after the apple was eaten. Also, the Bible is very careful to explain to us that Eve was deceived and she did eat, unknowingly, without guile. She had no arrogance, no lust for power, no lust for glory, no rebellion in her, because those sins had not yet entered the world.
LikeLike
” She had no arrogance, no lust for power, no lust for glory, no rebellion in her, because those sins had not yet entered the world.”
So, what you’re saying is, God was wrong to judge her for her sinful act, because she had no sinful motivation? Doesn’t that contradict what the Bible says about those who sin being drawn in to it by their own lust, and then when sin is finished it then brings forth death?
James 1:
12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
One of the manifold and manifest problems that women have is their insistence on evading responsibility.
LikeLike
Sin does not have to have a sinful motivation to be sin! We can totally sin unknowingly, which is what happened to Adam and Eve.
I absolutely did not say God was wrong to judge therm. However, a judgement is not necessarily a criminal condemnation. God did not condemn them, He cloaked them in animal skins, posted a guard, an angel at the other tree to keep them safe, and He promised them redemption, promised the woman she would give birth to our Savior who would ransom us, like a kinsman redeemer would buy someone out of slavery.
Jesus came to set us free, to save us, to break the curse, to being us back to right relationship with the Lord, much like the father of the Prodigal Son desperately wanted his errant child back. We are so incredibly loved by the Lord, not even our sin could separate us from Him. He is a good, good Father, not a harsh judge, holding us in condemnation. He gave His very life to save us, much like earthly fathers sometimes tragically die jumping into a mess to save their own children. That is the Father’s heart for us, for you.
LikeLike
“We can totally sin unknowingly, which is what happened to Adam and Eve. ”
They certainly knew they were doing what God told them not to do. After they did it, they hid themselves in shame.
I suppose you mean that we can sin in ignorance, but after the sinfulness is pointed out to us, we still have to confess and repent. Sin committed in ignorance still brings forth death, you know.
LikeLike
“One of the manifold and manifest problems that women have is their insistence on evading responsibility.”
Oh, that’s rich! I’m wondering if you have actually read Genesis 3. Eve was deceived into disobeying; and Adam, who knew the truth about the tree because God told him directly, just went along with it. And when they were caught out, what does Adam do? Blames the woman, blames God.
Seems to me that “woman” is not the only one who insists on evading responsibility. Perhaps she learned it from her husband?
Do you understand what that Tree was, what it represents?
The Bible calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and God tells them to stay away from that tree, lest they know evil and death. Up until they eat from it, they only know good, they have no knowledge of what it is like to experience evil or death. “Trust my word on this”, God says, “you don’t want to know evil and death.”
The Bible calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but I call it the tree of “faith alone”.
Our faith has ALWAYS been about “faith alone”, right from the beginning. And the moment we lost our state of faith alone, God enacted his plan to restore our original faith.
God does not seem to assign more or less blame to either party – he brings judgement on both after all – so perhaps we should not be seeking “who is more to blame here”.
Now, as far as evading responsibility, I’m only speculating here, but I wonder what would have happened if, instead of attempting to evade his own culpability in the matter, Adam had exercised his headship role and took responsibility for it all. What if he had offered himself up, in the place of his wife, as Scripture says he ought (Eph. 5)? I have a strong feeling that this would have been acceptable to God, pleasing even. “Greater love hath no man than this, than he lay down his life for friends.”
There’s plenty of “responsibility evading” to go around for everyone here. Evading responsibility, blaming, justifying – all forms of SELF-righteousness – is not a “gender” thing, it’s a “human” thing.
If you wanna insist that evading responsibility for our actions is innate to our nature, I won’t disagree, but it’s only half the story, it’s a problem for EVERYBODY and both the scriptural record and life itself bear this out. For every example of an irresponsible woman you show me I can show you an irresponsible man, but this isn’t a contest, a zero-sum game. All it proves is irresponsibility is not unique either gender. It’s a fallen-human trait that none of of escape, unless we are rescued from it through Christ, and even then the best we can usually do, when self-righteousness rears its ugly head, is fight back weakly.
You can have your own self-righteousness or you can have Christ’s righteousness, but you can’t have both. To choose one is to automatically forfeit the other.
I suggest you may want to examine in your heart which righteousness you are choosing to cling to. This is not meant to be a slam against you, okay? We probably agree on more than we disagree on, but you seem to have a blind-spot, you’re missing the bigger point.
You’re the man. You’re supposed to be COVERING woman, not bad-mouthing her.
Let me tell you a very personal story to illustrate this.
About 10 years ago, after 19 years of faithfulness in marriage, my husband had an affair. I had cancer, he didn’t react very well. I didn’t respond to his affair any better. We separated, and I sought out an affair of my own. (Stupid move, btw. Jumping into bed with someone else NEVER makes the situation better, it only complicates things.) In any case, we eventually reconciled and when it came to telling others (friends, family) about what happened between us, my husband insisted that we not reveal my unfaithfulness. He didn’t, forbid me – if it was something I wanted to reveal, I should do so, according to my conscience – but he would not reveal it, he would shield me from the judgement of others. In private, he and I owned our own parts of the debacle, but in public, he wanted to bear the ENTIRE burden.
A part of me was torn, you know? I love and admire my husband and a big part of me wanted to reveal the whole story, so that not all of the shame would fall on him. But this was something he WANTED to do, both as a gift to me and as a redemption of sorts for him.
This, I think, may have been the loveliest act he has ever performed as my husband.
Despite feeling some guilt, I accepted his gift in the spirit he meant it. It would be totally accurate to say that I, out of love – submitted to his wish.
This is what real biblical manhood looks like. I am blessed to have been given tiny glimpses of it in my man, in our marriage. He is as imperfect as they come, but in my eyes, he’s nothing but wonderful!
You see how that works? How there’s mutual respect and admiration for each other going on? How submission is not an onerous demand to be obeyed but rather a precious gift to receive? That’s the spirit that you appear to be lacking, and it will be until you come to terms with your own insistence on clinging to self-righteousness.
And less I be misunderstood, this is something we are ALL guilty of we all have our blind spots that come between us and the fulness of the gospel of grace, myself included. I don’t particularly like being called out on my position and will defend it when it seems appropriate, but I try to have enough humility to find at least *some* truth in what the other person is saying.
I hope the same is true for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” How there’s mutual respect and admiration for each other going on? How submission is not an onerous demand to be obeyed but rather a precious gift to receive?”
Submission is the way that accountability is established. If you want a man to be accountable for his role as head of the household, you have to submit to him, or else he is off scot free from any and all accountability. If you don’t submit to him, then, the fault for all that goes wrong is on the part of the rebellious renegade, not the man.
I think the main reason God established the man as the head of the wife is because it would be a waste of time to expect women to accept such responsibility. You may think my saying this is an expression of misogynistic hatred, but I don’t think it is, I think it is merely an apprehension of reality in the world as it is.
LikeLike
What is your basis for saying it would be a waste of time to expect women to accept such responsibility? Given that many women DO, in fact, take on such responsibility (where the man is absent, unable, or unwilling to take it on), with varying degrees of success (as is also true for men), your statement is merely an opinion not backed up with fact.
I personally think the main reason God established the man as the head of the household because it would be a waste of time to expect men to accept submission as THEIR role. And I too think it’s a pretty accurate description of how things are.
The difference is, I’m not ascribing any evil motive, inherent flaw in men for it being so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You think I’ve lived 6 decades in this world without observing the attitudes and habits of women?
LikeLike
Ditto.
Ergo, everything *I’ve* observed about men in my 6 decades is also true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ditto. Ergo, everything *I’ve* observed about men in my 6 decades is also true.”
So, then, as long as we don’t expect anything from each other we’ll get along swell.
LikeLike
And again, you are engaging in self justification. If wife refuses to submit, husband refuses to take responsibility.
You don’t get it. You’re expected to take responsibility, PERIOD. How it turns out is irrelevant. Marriage is not “I’ll do my part only if you do your part”.
You oughta read the book of Hosea, dude. God turns that whole idea in its head – you are gonna be a faithful husband to your faithless wife until. You’re gonna be humiliated by her, and suffer ostracism for it, but you’re gonna suck it up and do your duty, man.
This, of course parallels the description of our Saviour and his Bride, but that makes it no less a picture of the husband’s responsibility to shelter his wife.
But you want a loophole.
But it’s women who can’t be trusted with the responsibility.
Riiight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You don’t get it. You’re expected to take responsibility, PERIOD”
How can one person take responsibility for another person when that other person is doing their own thing? All adults are expected and required to take responsibility for themselves, as individuals, but, if you want one adult to take responsibility for another adult, then, that requires that one submit to the other who then can accept being functionally responsible.
IF a wife does not submit, THEN, it is nonsense to suppose that her husband can be responsible for her. So, we live in a gynocentric world of silly nonsense.
LikeLike
Again, do you have a biblical basis for saying so?
I’m sorry that you don’t LIKE the responsibility that God gave you when He ordered creation, but it doesn’t absolve you of it.
What part of “until death part us” are you not understanding here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What part of “until death part us” are you not understanding here?”
What part of “obey” do you not understand? It’s a 2 way street, not a 1 way street.
I Peter 3
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
What I’m saying is, I can’t agree to be married to a woman who tells me up front that she doesn’t intend to obey me according to the commandment of the Lord.
What if I told my prospective wife that I didn’t plan to love her because I didn’t find God’s commandment in that regard to my liking? Would she just shrug and agree to marry me anyway? Perhaps, if I was rich enough, but not unless.
LikeLike
“What I’m saying is, I can’t agree to be married to a woman who tells me up front that she doesn’t intend to obey me according to the commandment of the Lord.”
Nor should you – we are in agreement on that. Where we probably disagree is on what exactly constitutes “obedience”. I don’t know what your definition is, and I certainly can’t speak for others, but I definitely agree that partners should thoroughly understand each other’s expectations in this regard BEFORE committing to marriage.
LikeLike
“what exactly constitutes “obedience”.”
There is a way to submit obediently without violating the individual conscience. People do it every day. When children obey their parents, they can do so without violating conscience. When a citizen obeys the lawful commands of a police officer, they can do so without violating conscience. When an employee does what their supervisor tells them to do, they can do so without violating conscience.
See, there is a humongous difference between saying that obedience is limited by morality and personal conscience, and saying, eff you, shove your obedience up your @$$, I don’t obey nobody for nothing, I don’t care what God says.
Frankly, it seems so much easier to obey God by obeying a husband than it is for a husband to obey God by loving his wife the way the Lord Jesus Christ loves His Church and gives Himself and His life for it. Loving the unlovable is pure unadulterated torture, don’t you know?
LikeLike
I agree to everything here.
And yes, man got the harder part. But stick with me for a minute here and consider that in marriage, each party is taking a risk. In promising submission, a wife puts herself at risk of tyranny. She has to trust that her husband will not abuse her promise and use it as a shield for his selfishness. Husbands risk being trampled by wives who would abuse the sacrificial nature of her husband’s love and use it as a club to bludgeon her husband into submission. That’s tyranny too.
Everybody’s afraid of putting themselves in a position to be screwed here. There are genuine concerns on both sides.
I’m not interested in arguing over who has more at risk – that is about as useless as arguing over who is more to blame for the Fall, and oh boy, is it SO not the point. The point is, the risk cuts both ways. No one who marries escapes it, nor does it ever go away. Diminish, yes, but there’s always risk present and no guarantees, no matter how long the marriage.
LikeLike
It just so happens that my opinion is that men and women have not changed in the last 6000 years, but instead what has changed is the laws that surround men and women. The modern world required a certain amount of reform to the old traditions, but, thanks to the Marxists and other deranged demon infested deviant degenerate wackos, the “reforms” went way too far and now the law is perverted and Christian civilization is on a path to destruction if it does not repent. As we sow, so shall we also reap. If we plant a field of stupid, we will reap a harvest of stupid.
For all its faults, the previous system of men having most of the power and authority under the law worked because men naturally love their wives, and are naturally protective of women and children most of the time, at least of their own. Now that women have all the power, the natural social and psychological and emotional and legal balances are all thrown off, and all is chaos.
I have no idea how to fix society, all I know is I want to opt out. Thanks but no thanks. All I want from this sick depraved society is for it to leave me alone, and I will leave it alone and let it go to hell the way it wants in peace.
The law must reward those who do good, and punish those who do evil. Right now our law does it exactly ass backwards.
LikeLike
This was hard to read, but I thank you for your honesty. I’m sorry you are suffering and I understand your position a little better now.
One thing you say here really caught my attention: Power.
That word – power – is either empowering or terrifying, depending on where you are relative to that power.
Men, simply because of their physiology, have always had a natural power advantage over women, and that hasn’t really changed. Despite the fact that we have laws in place to protect each other, if a man really wants to overpower me physically, I will basically be at his mercy. I’m not saying all men are beasts, but *some* are, and I have good reason to be wary. And unless our species undergoes some radical change in physiology, men will always have that raw power advantage and women will be inclined to protect themselves from it. I think it’s reasonable to give the weak at least enough power to protect themselves from another’s abuse of their own power. That seems to me to be a good and honorable thing to do, and it is – but it brings its own risks along with it, the fruits of which are now spreading throughout our culture.
Because once you get a little power, you will cling to it for dear life. Very few people, once they’ve experienced having some power (where they once were powerless) are gonna give it up easily. I really don’t think there’s any “going back”.
The current power dynamic has swung towards women and other “oppressed” groups (where oppressed has come to mean “anybody who has less power than the perceived power elite”). You’re not the only one who thinks it’s nutty.
I have a sense that the power pendulum will eventually begin to equalize, but I don’t put any faith in who eventually ends up holding the power. It’s not like women are doing any better with their newfound power than men did with theirs – it’s the same oppressive power dynamic as it was before, except now women are in a position to be oppressors as well.
The solution is NOT in who holds the power, it is in how that power is wielded by those who hold it.
In God’s currency, those with the most power are to be servants of that power, using it benevolently to enrich the lives of those under that power.
The biblical picture of marriage, with the husband as head servant and the wife as help meet, is a beautiful refection of the created order, where all power and authority reside with Christ, who then bestows his authority upon husbands for the good of those under his care.
You didn’t say if you’ve ever been married. Hubby and I attended “pre-marital classes” with our pastor before we married, and we spent a long time discussing our upcoming vows to each other, what they meant, why they were important, what they were designed to protect us from (each other’s selfishness, basically). We went through the Scriptures in the original Greek so we would have a better sense of the meaning in English. This guy was fantastic, he could read joined Greek fluently and he would read from the Greek, translating directly into English as he went. And when we got to the word “obey” I learned a little something I never knew before: almost every time the Greek word rendered as “obey” in English appears in the NT, it can be better translated as “believe”. If you’re skeptical, I can give you the word, I just have to look it up though. I have know idea how it’s spelled, only how it’s pronounced!
In any case, understanding the word “obey” so that it takes on a sense of “believe” or “believe in” is an eye opener.
Try it yourself. Instead of “wives obey your husband’s”, hear it as “wives believe in your husband’s”. Better yet, “trust that your husband has your best interest at heart, as if it were the Lord Himself over you”.
That’s a whole different dynamic. Personally, I would prefer trust over obedience any day of the week. That seems to be how God prefers it, too.
When it came time to say my vows, I promised to obey my husband without reservations (well, maybe some reservations, lol) because I could trust him to not abuse my promise. And except for the time he cheated on me, which I definitely was not given a say in, my husband has never ever unilaterally imposed his will over me. That, to him, is incongruent with everything he understands a Godly husband to be.
We have an agreement that neither of us gets to make choices that would directly affect the other, or the marriage as a whole, unless we both agree.
That may not line up with your definition of submission, but I’ll tell you this much – I don’t think that it’s any coincidence that the one and only time he broke our agreement turned out to be a disaster. If he had asked me what I thought about him going off and having a love affair while I was undergoing cancer treatment, I would have definitely objected! I deserved to have a say in that matter, but my husband went ahead and unilaterally decided for me.
It’s an extreme example of course, but the point stands. If all the power resides with one party, the other party is powerless, and has no recourse. And there are always consequences to that.
This is how we have structured our marriage. We have been made One and we share a life, and each of us submits our ALL to the other, according to his abilities. And I mean ALL. All of our talents and abilities, all of our weakness and failures. No secrets, nothing held back We surrender it all to the other, and then reshape it into One vision, One future, One shared life.
I’m curious to know if you think what I have described would fall under the bounds of biblical marriage?
LikeLike
” “trust that your husband has your best interest at heart, as if it were the Lord Himself over you”. ”
I think it’s good that a husband is accountable not only to God but to the community in which he lives for how he treats his wife.
What’s missing nowadays is that wives are not at all accountable for how they treat their husbands. Wives are encouraged to screw their husbands over in every way, whilst still married and then in divorce court and then forever until they croak. It’s less women’s fault as such but rather it is the way that society and the lawyers and the politicians encourage the cruelty.
I’m not suffering, because I’m much smarter than the average man and I saw the writing on the wall before anything really horrible happened to me. I was able to learn from the mistakes of others.
LikeLike
Sorry, I forgot to directly address the word “power.”
Marriage is not established by might, nor by power, but by the spirit of love flowing from the Lord. I can’t say anything about non-Christian marriage, but I know that Christian marriage is about manifesting the love of God on earth, in the image of Christ and His bride. The problem with feminazis is they have lost their minds in their demonic lust for power, all they can think about is power power power.
I don’t need my wife to obey me because of power, I need her to obey me so that I can do my job as her husband. I need her to obey because she loves the Lord her God on her own, not because she lives in abject fear of me enforcing my power over her with violence.
So, let me say it this way: A Christian wife should obey her husband because she fears God, not because she fears her husband. If a wife believes that she should not obey her husband regarding any particular thing, she disobeys according to her conscience and her fear of God.
This is what being a Christian is about. Very few things are spelled out in detail ahead of time. A lot of what we do and don’t do is left up to us to figure out in the moment, considering what we think God would or would not have us do. This allows God’s grace and our faith in Him to be our grounding, not blind and rote and mindless “obedience.” God wants His law to be written in our hearts, and that means we have to be allowed to learn at our own pace and make mistakes as we go along.
LikeLike
See? We are actually much closer in position than we might have first thought.
I can get behind everything you’ve said here, with one amendment. When a wife objects according to her conscience and fear of God, she is not disobeying per se. She is being obedient to her Lord, and in turn to her husband.
If you don’t mind me asking, what is your job as a husband, as you see it?
LikeLike
Being a Christian husband is the hardest job imaginable in the world. No man has ever lived up to standard perfectly. For a man to love his wife the way Christ loves His Church is not meant to be taken literally in the sense that any mere mortal was capable of doing it. The standard is set for men as an aspiration, not an attainable goal. Who has ever actually achieved the level of love depicted in 1 Corinthians 13? Nobody, that’s who. We’re more like Paul in Philippians 3:
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
What I don’t like about women is they are worldly, and in love with the world. The Bible says, don’t love the world, neither the things in the world, because, if anyone loves the world, the love of God ain’t in ’em.
The worldly carnality of women was not as much of a problem when they did not possess absolute plenary totalitarian power, but now that they do, the wickedness of the world is overwhelming, and I my self as an individual have no sense at all of being able to bother with it. The only option I see is opting out completely, in terms of marriage and family and trying to keep society going. The only thing I see to do that makes sense is to save my self from this untoward generation.
LikeLike
You will get no argument from me, being a Christian husband IS the hardest job, it’s right up there with being a mother (and I don’t think that’s a coincidence either).
The love that is depicted in 1 Cor. 13 is first and foremost a depiction of the love of Christ. That is the ideal love, the aspiration as you say, we strive to live up to. In marriage, we let each other down all the time, in big ways and in little. We said our vows, and we meant ’em…but we cannot live up to them fully.
But CHRIST can, and does.
It’s not the strength of the promises that we made to each other that keeps us together. It is the promise that Christ made, and KEEPS that is the glue.
“What God has joined together, let man not tear apart”. I call this “the gospel for married folks”.
That’s not a just a command (though it’s how we often hear it – NO divorce!) but it is also a promise: What God has joined together, he promises to KEEP together, and He invites us to believe this, cling to it as our assurance.
In marriage, our assurance is not in how faithfully we keep our promises to each other, it is in Christ, and his promises that we find true assurance.
“What I don’t like about women…”. Oh boy, are we really gonna do this again? C’mon man, you can’t make sweeping generalities about women as a whole and not expect me to be offended by it. Yep, women ARE worldly, every bit as worldly as men are, and we are SO not going to pretend that men don’t share equally in this problem.
You say it’s not about “power” but you keep coming back to it. “Now that women hold all the power, life sucks.”
Well, we DON’T hold all the power, I mean, you’re still able to freely express your opinions here, aren’t you? If this was totalitarianism, you wouldn’t have that option.
Now, if you had said that in some areas, women hold disproportionate power vs. men, I would thoroughly agree, because it is true. (I live in Canada, dude, where 50% of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet are women, despite the fact that only 13% of our elected members of parliament are women. I could be wrong on the 13%, I have a shitty memory, but I think that’s it. Whatever it is, it’s quite disproportionate. Should women have 50% of the voice simply because it’s a women’s voice? I’m much more concerned about whether it’s a *qualified* voice than what gender it is.)
Have you considered that perhaps you are simply not called to the high office of husband, that God has given you the gift of singleness and celibacy?
If so, you should be content with with what God has given you instead of blaming “the carnality of women” for your current position.
Just sayin’.
LikeLike
“Have you considered that perhaps you are simply not called to the high office of husband, that God has given you the gift of singleness and celibacy?”
If I didn’t live in a gynocentric clown world, I would consider marriage and family. But I do live in a gynocentric clown world, so, I am forced to opt out.
Gynocentric Clown World is not worthy of me, it does not deserve to receive what men like me would provide by fulfilling the duties of the high office of husband. God has given me the option of singleness and celibacy and He has graciously and generously given me personal peace and contentment regarding it, but, that doesn’t mean I’m stupid and don’t know what is going on in the big picture scheme of things. I think it’s a fair point to make that my choice might have been different if people in general and women in particular were, different, shall we say.
I’ve read the Old Testament, and it says that one thing God hates is ingratitude. Life in gynocentric clown world has made me understand why God feels that way about it.
LikeLike
I hate to interrupt what I always hope will be a fruitful discussion, but I’m telling you, this red pill idea that “I am God’s gift to women” and “nobody deserves me” is simply arrogance, pride, sin. It is sin because it tries to hide one’s feelings of rejection behind a mask of blame. Who are we blaming? A gynocentric world of our own imagination. That’s really unhealthy because where ever there is blame, there is shame trying to give itself away to someone else. Jesus doesn’t want to leave anyone stuck there, He wants to heal the shame, the rejection, and bring people closer to him.
LikeLike
” A gynocentric world of our own imagination.”
Oh, yeah? I’m seeing things that aren’t there? Maybe you should listen to this woman:
There are other women who speak about the world as it really is, and not how it is in the gynocentric fantasies of the feminazis.
Karen Straughan.
Helen Smith.
Christina Hoff Summers.
Cassie Jaye
Just off the top of my head.
The worst thing you could possibly have done is to do what you just did, which is to dismiss my concerns out of hand and try to ridicule me. It doesn’t hurt my feelings, it only reinforces my conviction that I do in fact live in a gynocentric clown world and that God does not want me to go along to get along it it. The Apostles were ready to reject marriage for a lot less reasons than I have, so, I do not feel any need to apologize for believing that the current situation is something that a God fearing man is bound to reject.
Matthew 19:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
LikeLike
It’s not ridicule, it not dismissive, it’s flat out the truth of what the red pill teaches and the damage that kind of a mindset causes. It’s exceedingly unhealthy and it is based on perverse theology.
LikeLike
“It’s not ridicule, it not dismissive, it’s flat out the truth of what the red pill teaches and the damage that kind of a mindset causes. It’s exceedingly unhealthy and it is based on perverse theology.”
A perverse gynocentric clown world inspires what shallow people think is a perverse theology, but is not a separate theology at all, but instead all it is is a rational logical reasonable objective response to living in a gynocentric clown world. “Red Pill” is just a term that people use to express the idea that the mainstream does not want the victims of the gynocracy to see and understand what’s happening, and especially the mainstream doesn’t want men to figure out that they have other options besides capitulation.
You call it “damage.” It’s damage in the sense that when the slaves escape from the plantation, the plantation ceases to function because there ain’t nobody to pick da cotton no mo’. The so-called “Red Pill” is like an Underground Railroad which men use to escape up in to Canada to get away from mean ol’ massa.
Are you trying to tell me that God wanted dem darkies to stay on the plantation, livin’ and workin’ on massa’s terms? If so, I’m telling you dat dey is another way of lookin’ at it.
So, what I’m saying is, of course men rejecting society is causing “damage,” because we are not working so hard to pay society’s hefty bills any more. How is it we owe this sick society such support? How is it we owe women anything? Women are powerful, let women support themselves without the help of men. Men are not obligated to let women and the devil dictate terms to us. God, yes, women and the devil, no.
LikeLike
I called it “damage,” because the sole victim of such a mindset is actually you. You are the one being damaged.
Ironically your gynocracy is the same crap as the feminists and their patriarchy, as is the whole “me first” attitude, all heavily infused with, believe it or not, liberalism, and no awareness what so ever as to the nature of sacrificial love.
LikeLike
“as is the whole “me first” attitude,”
I think what you fail to understand is that men do now owe women and society a living. IF we see a reasonable trade off, THEN we make a commitment to support women and children and society. BUT, if society and women are sick in the head, arrogant, pig-headed, stubborn, greedy, stupid, full of themselves, and full of a spirit of self-entitlement, THEN, hey, what do you know, men are not so eager to make the extraordinary sacrifices of which you speak.
Men do not owe you and women and society just because you exist. It’s a deal, that has conditions. You and women and society changed the deal, so, men have begun to change their attitude.
You say men have the me first attitude, but it is women and society who have gone nuts with the me first last & always attitude.
You really can’t see how assuming that men owe women support no matter what the conditions might be problematic? Is there anything that men ought not to accept? If not here, then, where should men draw the line and say “no?”
LikeLike
You know what else God hates? Dishonesty.
You can’t just switch “woman bad” to “gyno-world” and expect me to not notice that it’s the same damn message. Give me a little credit would you? It’s insulting.
Tell the truth – you were not “forced” to opt out, you CHOSE to.
Look, it’s a free country – marry or not as you please. If you can’t find a woman who meets your criteria, I’m sorry about that, but don’t you blame me – for am I not included in ‘women’? – for YOUR choice. You admit that if women were, ahem, “different” you may have chosen differently, and that’s fair enough. But it’s one thing to say, “I can’t find a woman who meets my criteria, therefore I choose not to marry”, and another to say “I am unmarried, because women give me no other choice”. Nobody has taken your autonomy away.
I think your last sentence is probably closest to the truth. You feel unappreciated for the qualities you have that you believe would make you a good husband.
That’s totally fair.
I don’t think you are as content with your situation as you profess to be. Frankly, if you had come to terms with it, you would be able to simply speak the truth in love, without emotion, but you’re leaking your bitterness all over, I’m afraid.
Wicked, evil, carnal, worldly, stupid bitches who have nothing to offer. These are your words, not mine.
Dude. This is not all we are, but it’s ALL YOU SEE.
That’s your issue to deal with, not mine.
I’m going to bow out of this conversation now. You’re not being wholy honest with me, or to yourself, and I think I’ve said all I can under the circumstances.
God bless you.
LikeLike
So according to your logic, if the husband fails to be a Godly husband, them the wife is under no obligation to submit.
It goes both ways. A wife is not free to rebel when her husband isn’t “husbanding” her, because let’s face it, we’d have legit reason to rebel *all the time*. Again, that’s not a slam against men – this is a sinful, fallen world and on average, husbands are no better (or worse) than their wives when it comes to faithfully living out our spousal responsibilities.
I’m not sure where you picked up this tit for tat model of our responsibilities towards each other in marriage, but it certainly wasn’t from the Bible which exhorts us to a live a life of unending sacrifice and service for “the least of these”. How much more then, is our duty to the people that God has given to us as our spouses.
See, you’re Adam all over again. “This woman you gave me is defective! I can’t be held responsible for what she does, that wouldn’t be faaaair!”
If you want to know what God thinks is “fair”, I suggest you take a long hard look at the Cross. There is nothing “fair” about the sinless Man dying in place of wretched sinners, yet this is precisely where God’s justice – his “fairness” – is found.
There on the Cross, Jesus did not say, “Hey wait a minute! None of these guys lived up to THEIR end of the bargain – why do I have to die for them? Why do I have to be responsible for the sins of rebels?”
Instead, He said, “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.”
THAT’S our model.
See the difference?
LikeLike
“So according to your logic, if the husband fails to be a Godly husband, them the wife is under no obligation to submit.”
Fair is fair, and an ungodly husband ought to expect his godly obedient wife to resist, for conscience sake. A wife is not obligated to help her husband rob a bank.
But, it should be obvious by now to everyone that the problem is the opposite. The problem is that women strongly tend to “respect” the worst of men, and hold the kindest and gentlest and best of godly men in contempt. Bonnie loved her Clyde, you know.
I happen to be an extremely nice guy, and as such I abjectly refuse to change just to make some stupid bitch appear to “respect” me. A nice guy like me is much better off alone. If that makes you and others unhappy, that’s a crying shame.
LikeLike
Wow, I don’t know what to say.
Um, did you miss the whole part where I laid out God’s definition of fair? An ungodly husband ought to expect his godly wife to *forgive him*. And vice versa. It’s a big ask for *everybody*. In 31 years of marriage, I can attest that the *assurance of forgiveness* that exists between us (not the assurance of obedience, NOT the assurance of benevolent headship) is the glue in the relationship. It is a precious treasure to know that there is at least one person in this world who won’t give up on you and because we treasure this aspect of our relationship so much, we take great pains not to abuse the grace of the other. We know each other’s boundaries and we respect them, lest we abuse them and lose each other’s trust.
But dude. Thirty-one years of forgiving is what it took to get here. And I imagine we’ll be doing plenty more before death parts us. But in the beginning man, we knew shit. We made our promises to each other, but what did we know about keeping them? We had the best of intentions, but very little skill. A lot of grace for each other tho, and a willingness to better live up to our responsibilities to each other.
Where that spirit of co-operation and mutual forgiveness in absent though, all bets are off. I don’t know if it’s possible to have a long-lasting marriage on any other basis.
It sounds to me like you have encountered your fair share of women who lack this spirit, and in no way am I surprised by this – the spirit of entitlement is endemic in our culture.
But again, I would encourage you to examine *your own* spirit. You can’t do much about somebody else’s anyways. You admit you’re not willing to change into somebody else’s definition of respectable, and I admire that.
Only you can decide whether or not you are better off alone and I wouldn’t presume to tell you or anyone else how to feel about it. You are certainly entitled to make your own judgements in that regard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“the spirit of entitlement is endemic in our culture.”
I will admit that where I live it is much worse than anywhere else. Around here there is more like a spirit of rebellion and witchcraft. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, you know, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
1 Samuel 15:
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
Like I said, I’m an extremely nice guy, and as such I am perhaps overly sensitive to the hardness of heart that seems to have taken hold of the women in my neighborhood.
LikeLike
Perhaps you are sensitive about it (I trust that you’re able to make your own honest assesment) but you are willing to take an honest look at it, and own what you find. That is precisely the spirit of repentance and forgiveness I referred to earlier.
LikeLike
jsolbakken – I would also press you to take some time to pray and reflect on your attitude toward women. This quote from one of your replies tells me just how far you’ve strayed:
“I happen to be an extremely nice guy, and as such I abjectly refuse to change just to make some stupid bitch appear to “respect” me.”
Nice guys do not call women “stupid b*tches”. Biblical Christ-following men do not call women “stupid b*tches”. That is sinful.
As for the claims you make – I happen to be a Christian woman who is married to a legitimately nice Christian man. An extremely nice man, for that matter. My best friend is in a similar marriage. They do exist. It seems to me in your many posts that you blame women for the reason why you don’t have a similar relationship. I would suggest you turn around and do some searching inside yourself for the real reason and pray about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Nice guys do not call women “stupid b*tches”. Biblical Christ-following men do not call women “stupid b*tches”. That is sinful. ”
I was being sarcastic. As a Christian I use sarcasm sparingly, but in this case I believe it is justified. Women are acting worse than bitchy, and very stupid, so, I seek to be precise and accurate.
When women declared their liberation from men, men simultaneously gained their liberation from women.
Women make a big deal about not owing me anything as a man, so, I reciprocate by declaring my lack of obligation to women,
in principle.
If I do happen to treat women nicely and generously and kindly it is only because I am nice and generous and kind, not because I owe rebellious and sinful and demon infested women any good thing.
Christian Women are supposed to submit to their husbands because they are Christians and desire to obey God. When Christian women rebel against their husbands it is God whom they are rebelling against.
Women remind me of the terrorist revolutionaries who took over CHAZ/CHAD in Seattle. The warlord in charge, some dude named Raz, tried to demand that EMT ambulance workers enter his autonomous territory to help a victim of a shooting that occurred within his lawless autonomous area. Raz got all self righteous about it, telling the EMT’s they weren’t doing their job, that they had a duty to help the person who got shot within the jurisdiction of Raz.
Well, the EMT’s are not obligated to go in to a war zone which is under the control of a bat excrement crazy warlord. The EMT’s don’t owe crazy violent warlords the skin off a grape.
See the connection?
LikeLike
I commend you on showing some concern for a man who you apparently view as your enemy.
I can’t quite see how you could decide that Lori Alexander “validates their pornographic desires [and lends] validity to what is outright vile”, given that she encouraged women to remain debt-free virgins without tattoos. Remaining a virgin precludes fornication, which shows a very counter-cultural moral fibre.
I am starting a new blog, that I hope will be seen as clearly based on Scripture. Hoping to see former readers from Dalrock there.
JPF
https://joshuas-path.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish you well on your blogging ventures.
I’m not sure I’d label Dalrock my enemy? He doesn’t really rise to the level of enemy. He’s caused a lot of suffering, led many men deeper into bitterness and farther away from Christ. Of course, you can’t lead people where they aren’t already willing to go. I am grateful he’s decided to stop blogging.
Lori cannot distinquish the difference between BDSM, sexual abuse, violent pornography, and Biblical gender roles? A shepherd who cannot tell the difference between a wolf and a sheep is damn fool.
LikeLike
Taking the Red Pill is a term applied to the concept of deciding to deal with life as it is, rather than as we wish it were.
“Red Pill” as a concept can be applied anywhere in life, not just in dealing with the opposite sex.
Game is a term applied to the concept of dealing with women as they really are, rather than as we wish they were. Men have dealt with women since Adam and Eve. But it has not been until the internet that men could compare stories on the level they have over the last 10 to 15 years. Suddenly, it is easy to find out what the majority of men have discovered that women actually respond to. And what they actually respond to is quite a bit different than what television and movies and the sentimental card industry have told us they respond to. Players have always understood from experience what women actually respond to. Now the non-Players can know too, by reading about it on the internet. For some, that knowledge will undoubtedly improve their relationship with their wife or their girlfriend. For too many others, though, it won’t make any difference – because of personality issues.
It has been said that Dalrock’s daughter is now a teenager. That may have created a need for him to restructure his life and pay more attention to family and work matter.
LikeLike
I cannot even imagine how one could be Dalrock and have a daughter. It breaks my heart to even think of such things. To grow up with a father who has such utter contempt for women is an overwhelming burden for a young girl. I pray she’s never seen the blog and I pray she never encounters one of these men who gets off on demeaning women. It’s absolutely horrific.
LikeLike
What used to infuriate me about Dalrock was that he claimed to be a happily married man with kids.
But I used to ask myself I wonder what his wife thinks as the guy spends 24/7 railing on about the Red Pill and hating on women. I mean for goodness sake could any woman let alone his wife be comfortable around a man who spent his entire time writing blog after blog after blog running women down and telling all his readers how evil women are.
Look don’t get me wrong, I hate what feminism has done to the world and relationships in general, I mean my handle is “feministdestroyer” for goodness sake lol, but in the end all my heart wants is a woman to love me and for me to love and cherish her back. You read Dalrock long enough you begin to doubt whether there’s any good women left in the world, that’s why I think Dalrock is toxic
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of the things that made Dalrock so dangerous was that he lured a lot of men in by claiming that he was anti-feminist (in reality, the Red Pills are counterfeit anti-feminists). A lot of people today fall for the fallacy that one opposes extremist ideas by running to the other extreme. I’ve argued for a long time that the Red Pills are really just the Reactionary Left. If you rewrite Feminist rhetoric and make it sound androcentric, you’d have basically everything the Red Pills teach.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the link! Yes, the reaction to Dalrock’s Downfall has been very telling. It seems that many men either turned away from the Church in disgust because they identified his repugnant ideology with True Faith; or else they embraced his apostasy and left the Faith that way. Without the cultist reinforcement from Dalrock and his groupies, hopefully a lot of men will start to study Christianity on their own and wake up to the errors they’ve been taught.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Meh. Dalrock is OK as long as you don’t read the comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dalrock is NOT okay. The comments are appalling, but the comments are inspired by his words, by the way he tickles people’s ears and tells them what they want to hear.
LikeLike
What is so offensive? What he says, the way he says it, or the way he lets weirdos run wild in the comments?
I’m not a Dalrock expert but if I had to list his core ideas they would be:
1) Husbands have authority over their wives.
2) The U.S. has eliminated that authority in law.
3) Churches refuse in practice to support the authority of husbands.
Where exactly is the problem?
LikeLike
“2) The U.S. has eliminated that authority in law.”
It’s not only husbands who have been deposed. Here in California a landlord no longer has a right to even ask if a prospective tenant has a criminal record. Who is going to invest in property if that property cannot be protected? Only stupid people, and that’s what we have in this God-forsaken state that I call Gruberfornia, in dishonor of Professor Jonathan Gruber of MIT who said that it was the stupidity of the voters that allowed Obamacare to be foisted on the country.
LikeLike
IB, I’m surprised it took so long for you to post on this topic. While your and Nightwind’s posts were amusing in themselves, I do agree with Nightwind that the comments, both here and there, contribute to the amusement.
LikeLike
I am not amused. I am especially not amused by how the gospel of the red pills is perverted and distorted until it is rendered impotent and rather than healing people, it keeps them trapped in bitterness, fear, and hatred.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m not really amused either. But I’m not going to cry about many of the comments, either. As someone has said, “Stupid is as stupid does.” Thankfully, there are exceptions.
LikeLike