Feminism and Christian Man…

Over the last few days there have been a few bunfights going on. Mainly @ Dalrock, but elsewhere. The topic is best summed up thusly

Let me distill DG’s statement down just a bit.

1. There are women who make solemn, serious promises before witnesses.
2. Later on, sometimes a few years later, some women break those promises because they are no longer made “happy” by keeping their promises.
3. Men don’t like women who break promises for unserious reasons, and “not happy” is not a serious reason. And now, finally, groups of men are making their anger over promise-breaking known, in sometimes very blunt language.

That’s it. That’s what there is. So if there are wimmenz who want to defend promise-breakers they won’t find this site very pleasant.

Now, this is around Dalrock referrring to a thread on Christian Marriage and Christian forums. Some argue that this is rude: one should not quote forums. Um… No. It is fairly easy to make a forum private. Subscriber only. I can access the forum…this is a fun Calvinist thread there.

But their moderation policies are equally rude.

It is unbearable, and it will not be tolerated there. You cannot even mention divorce being a bad thing, lest you are said to want to enslave women in bloody abusive marriages, you cannot question ….QUESTION mind you, haaaaaapiness as the measure of a marriage, you cannot discuss modesty, lest you be avoiding responsibility for your male proclivity, you cannot mention pornography unless you spew angry venom, mention grace and you are a porn addict, you cannot question the absurd definitions of “abuse” or you are abusive, submission is so controversial its a disallowed topic and no matter where you come down on it, you are an ogre who demands obedience and fealty…

why am I writing this here, you all know all this because its the same tactics of feminism, just adapted to the church.

Now… at times some people (particularly in the thread that grows and grows) people have been personal. They have gone and trolled through other blogs and taken apart people because of their frailties. Now, I don’t tolerate this. I accept that we are all fallen: we all sin… even though at times I get emails asking me to ban this person or that person.

If I want to go play in a sewer, I can go wind up the feminists at the Hand Mirror, where the use of logic is seen as oppressive. Or Free Jinger.

But. as Deti says, if you say something publically you can expect it to be questioned. Christian men are starting (praise God) to argue back. Deti sums this up fairly well:

1. In case people are not seeing this, the point of the “Cornerstone to stepping stone” post was that leaving a marriage because you’re not haaaappy is not at all Christian. Leaving a marriage because that is easier than staying and working through the unhaaaaappiness or letting your unhaaaaappiness pass is not at all Christian. Leaving a marriage because you don’t love each other or no longer love each other or your love is of a different, less satisfying character than it was, is not at all Christian.

In fact, “I’m not haaappy” is not a biblically sanctioned reason for divorce. “I’m no longer in love” or “I love you but I’m not in love with you” are not biblically sanctioned reaons for divorce. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. One would expect professing Christians to have deep knowledge and understanding of this.

Seriously: These tenets are (or at least should be) beyond any debate for an orthodox Christian. How can there be any serious discussion or disagreement about them?

But also, I was personally surprised to see such secular ideas expressed and even overtly advocated on a Christian message board. More evidence to me of how feminism has thoroughly infected western Christendom.

2. It’s said that “I’m not haaappy” is just a symptom of a larger problem. But most of the time it is not what a wife thinks it is. Many times it’s hypergamy. She’s seeing what she believes are better men — nicer looking men, richer men, more interesting men. Or he’s let himself go and is not as physically attractive as he was. Or she tingles at them and thinks “these other men are more attractive. That means my husband doesn’t make me happy!” Or something is broken in her — maybe she can’t pair bond or never pair bonded or chose not to. Maybe she married her husband for the wrong reasons. Or he’s too beta, formed from years of trying to keep her pleased.

That said, none of these things — NOT ONE — are a biblically sanctioned ground for divorce.

Seriously: Why are Christians even entertaining such concepts? That’s the point of the Cornerstone thread.

3. The women at CF in the linked privacy alert thread were chastising the men for not defending them. Oy.

4. If you’re going to write something on a public forum in a public blog, especially something that might engender controversy, expect to be challenged on it, expect disagreement, and expect to be quoted. It’s no different than being out on a public forum and saying something to a broadcast journalist; or to a newspaper reporter.

Now, one of the things that Christian Women need to recall, particularly those that call themselves feminists, is that they may have injected their medicine into us, but like Stephen Daedulus, it has not taken.

There is a great quote by Orwell that perfectly summarizes this situation: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” The institutional left has so eroded the foundation of its house of cards over the past 50 years – too many takers vs. not enough makers, and the incentives for the makers to stay in the game are too few and far between. Why start a family if your “wife” can get up and smash it to pieces any time she likes through the family court system? Why work hard and become “marriage material” when most of the women around are totally unworthy, rather like little 5 year olds in women’s bodies who view men’s principal responsibilities as a husband revolving around keeping them entertained? Who have laid with too many men, and are thus chemically unable to pair bond or in many cases, so utterly spent that they no longer feel love? Better to sit back, live the best life you can, and help your family and friends rather than hope for winning the lottery. The problem of course is that as men start to realize this, and start to back out of the rat race, the tax base that the takers rely on becomes unsustainable – ergo the fiscal situation much of the west finds itself in. God willing, we are witnessing the last gasps of the ongoing attempt to destroy the greatest gift bestowed unto mankind ever known to human history. Illegitimi Non Carborundum!

Now, these discussions can cause people distress. True. The gentle, the idelealistic, those who take their vows seriously find the very fact that we have these conversations incomprehensible.

So a woman could say “I’m unhappy, I wish my husband cheated on me…” file for divorce, then get granted full custody? A judge would find her motive for divorce completely acceptable? [since it wouldn’t fall under the medical definition of crazy…]

No wonder MRA guys are so upset. Imagine being a normal, dedicated husband, only to be punished for your wife’s immature flighty selfishness…..

Yes it is crazy.

Yes, it is wrong.  But we are fighting powers and principalities that have entrenched themselves in the women’s networks that run across denomiations. The development of the Orthosphere is helping: our brothers and sisters are forming a more orthodox network, which is spiritually and psychologically healthier than the mainstream Christian forums.

But we need to work together — as women and men. Beleiving in Christianity — without qualifications (such as feminism, conservatism, or socialism). For Christ is our foundation, not any other ideology.



13 thoughts on “Feminism and Christian Man…

  1. I like this very much, and testing, 1-2-3….

    without qualifications (such as feminism, conservatism, or socialism

    Yes, this. It’s interesting how quickly we (I) stand on and fall back on our own personal religion, kind a first line defense, rather than Truth – I don’t totally understand the mechanism, sometimes it’s “I’ll get around to it eventually”, and sometimes it’s “I shouldn’t have to bring out the big guns for this round” if that makes sense – it’s pretty silly. I think there’s still some reluctance to be perceived as too Jesus-y, so we kind of wallow around in logic or ego or the socio-political whatever we’re vested in for a while ’til we warm up a bit. The filters are problematic.

    • To give you all an idea, there are 167 comments in the spam blocked thing now. I really don’t want captchas but I don’t want spam. I hope the current system works OK.

  2. Wow, awesome post. I found your site from over at Dalrock. I’ll have to add it to my list of daily reading 🙂

    Thanks for taking a stand. I looked around recently at Church and realized just how much divorce and wreckage was floating in the congregation 🙁 Now of the wrecking spouses who up and left were present, but there was a lot of pain and damage left behind.


  3. ” A judge would find her motive for divorce completely acceptable?”

    Obviously the person who wrote this has never been through a divorce proceeding. Don’t tat person realized the entire reason feminists successfully instituted no-fault divorce is so that a judge is not legally allowed to ask any questions on the motive for divorce? She very well could be divorcing him only for cash and prizes. The judge still wouldn’t have discretion to refuse to grant the divorce unless some kind of premeditated fraud could be proven. The usual stated reason on the paper work of “irreconcilable differences” (female legal-ese for, “he doesn’t give me the tingles like the guy at work”) is so sufficiently vague as to not be questionable.

  4. Obviously the person who wrote this has never been through a divorce proceeding.

    Nope. My family [immediate & extended] is rather boring. I’ve never personally experienced a divorce. Unless soap opera plotlines count. Ian and Jane on EastEnders was a drama-filled divorce proceeding. Jane tried to take Ian to the cleaners [after she cheated on him…], but it turned out, Ian wasn’t as wealthy as she originally thought.

    She very well could be divorcing him only for cash and prizes. The judge still wouldn’t have discretion to refuse to grant the divorce unless some kind of premeditated fraud could be proven.

    Back to my original question: how is that not considered crazy? Pretending to love a man, so you can divorce him after you get married and steal his money – how is that not sociopathic? Feigning love – such a complex premeditated lie. It’s more than just fraud, it’s evil.

    • BF.

      It is crazy.

      But it is legal.

      And most of our society have forgotten that things can be legal that are not moral. (Abortion, casinos… do I need to continue the list)?

  5. It is crazy.

    But it is legal.

    And most of our society have forgotten that things can be legal that are not moral. (Abortion, casinos… do I need to continue the list)?

    Concerning morality: do these situations continue to happen because of western society’s “women are more moral than men…” meme? [bleh, that last sentence was a tongue twister] In American society, especially – women are never called out on anything . Promiscuous girls are just being taken advantage of by bad, sinful men. [Hence, where the false-rape allegations come into play. A pure moral woman is incapable of consenting to sex; a man must have manipulated her into participating in said act…] This attitude permeates within American Christianity. I was actually taught it my Catholic school’s equivalent of sex-ed.

Comments are closed.