Dear Dianna Anderson

You recently responded to some criticism we here in the Christian manosphere have pointed your way. There are a few points I would like to make.

First, the most important point:

In their eyes, I was a “slut,” a “whore,” and a “temple prostitute,” as well as a “liar,” and a “deceived, wicked jezebel,” all for having the gall to fool around with someone on a loveseat before I was married to them.

You are not a wicked Jezebel or a false teacher for having pre-marital sex. We all commit sins, which is why Christ died in the first place. Forgiveness can be had by all through repentance.

This leads to the actual reason you are a wicked Jezebel and a false teacher: you do not repent your sins. In fact you do not even state that you probably should repent but are struggling, instead you proudly proclaim no repentance for sin is necessary for you have not sinned, calling your sins holy. Not content even with this, you even go farther by declaring your sins a form of sacrament.

This is what makes you a false teacher. You lead the flock or rather, given that you have been writing these pieces for secular audiences, non-Christians into damnation. Not content to repent, or at least keep your sins private, you publicly flaunt them to draw others away from Christ and his message of salvation.

For the sake of your own soul, please repent your sins and declaim them as sins as publicly as you have previously lauded them.

****

With the most important matter out of the way, I’ll note a few other concerns.

Your article is little more than ‘those evil, white, sexist, cishets!’ I must admit I’m kinda disappointed you missed racist, homophobic, transphobic, and classist from the litany of crimethink we have committed. That being said, something more substantial, using reason and the Bible would have been preferable.

Second, we are (mostly) not MRA’s and, in fact, we mostly reject the MRA label. Although we do share some MRA concerns and goals, particularly in the area of family law, a degenerate pro-male liberal modernity is no more desirable than a degenerate pro-female liberal modernity.

Third:

If you are assigned female at birth, you must live with this burden of motherhood and servanthood.

All Christian are called to “the burden” of servanthood. The difference is only in whom they most immediately serve on this earth. As well, not all woman are assigned the burden of motherhood, some, those called to singleness, may be workers for the Lord in other ways, just as some men are not called to fatherhood.

Fourth:

One would think that such a view of women would be checked simply by the idea that identifying as Christian means that we are part of a Body, with one God. Moreover, the Bible explicitly calls Christian brothers to respect their sisters. That seems to be hugely overruled, however, by masculinists’ so-called distress that sisters aren’t doing the same for their brothers.

Christians are to respect their brothers and sisters, yes, but respect requires correcting people on their sin. Calling out sinning Christians on their sin is the respectful and loving thing to do, and sometimes harsh words are encessary to do so, especially in an age where less harsh words have been deprived of their meaning and/or emotional impact.

Fifth:

Conservative Christians need to confront the extremes to which their movement has been taken and the things that are being said in the name of their God. Conservative Christianity and the Christian manosphere have different intentions—supporters of the former ostensibly just want to put the world back on track, while those of the latter are using their theology to fuel explicit hate for women.

Our goal is to put the world back on track as well, we have just realized that the mealy-mouthed liberalism-of-30-years-ago we now call “conservatism” is the wrong way to go about doing so.

Also, it is not about hate. Women have been hurt just as much as men by feminism and progressivism and we wish for them to have godly, happy, healthy lives rather than the unsatisfying lives of loneliness, bitterness, and pill-popping unhappiness they have now.

You yourself missed out on a loving marriage to a man you cared about while following what feminism indoctrinated into you, causing you to feel “totally abandoned and misled by this God”. We would like other young women to not have to go through that as well.

13 comments

  1. And she completely misses any points made, while never showing any signs of reading a Bible, and insulting everyone she can find. Somehow I doubt that will work well for her in an eternal sense, and imagine it will gain her a great amount of ego boosting cheerleaders in the worldly sense. Sad, really, how such people can hinder souls from heaven.

    Btw FN, the link to her article has some bad html in it.

    Good article on your part though

  2. Wait, conservative Christians are “extreme” these days. I mean, I’m not looking to knock on my fellow Christians, but it seems to me the vast majority of conservative Evangelicals are nowhere near conservative enough.

  3. Thanks Chad, the links have been fixed.

    Nathan, if only Christians and conservatives were what our enemies though us to be, victory would be assured.

  4. Totally agree. I recently graduated from Liberty University, a hub of American Evangelical activity. I think some are slowly starting to wake up to the reality of our age. There seem to be two reactions to that, though: Either they double down and start moving in a reactionary direction or they adopt a progressive Evangelical approach of not engaging in politics and just totally surrendering on the “gender” issues, even in Church. Sadly, I think the progressive approach is triumphing right now.

    Places like this are where Reactionaries really need to organize, though. We’re losing even our redoubts. If we can shore those back up, we might be able to make advances in larger parts of society. Sadly, I hadn’t really woken up to much of this stuff quite yet until very late in my college experience.

  5. The hardcore prog ones that is definitely the case. Some of the garbage that passes for doctrine in the Evangellyfish world amounts more to cheap sloganeering than Creedal doctrine. Just throw in a reference to “the gospel” and some kind of veiled “what would Jesus do” statement and you have yourself a modern prog Evangellyfish opinion. For instance:

    “We shouldn’t be involved in political issues because the gospel is all about salvation, not government. Did Jesus ever tell Caesar what to do? I don’t think so. He never messed with politics.*”

    Is that an argument? Not really. You’re lucky if you can get a solid scripture out of these folks, let alone a real systematization of it in the form of a logical argument. Isn’t that basically what this Dianna Anderson does, as well? Throw in some vague guilt tripping and accuse your opponent of hypocrisy for not being perfect, and then tell them the solution is to forget about all of God’s demands anyway. Considering this kind of silly thinking makes its way into the arguments of some of Evangelicalism’s supposedly serious thinkers, it’s enough to make you cynical of all clergy and academics. I say that as someone who wants to be an academic clergyman eventually.

    *Unless, of course, politics is the redistribution of wealth, which is part of the gospel, isn’t it?

  6. I agree the internet causes group polarization, but I do not think we are at the point where that forces people into two extreme camps: Atheism vs. Orthodoxy. I’m not sure if we will ever be at that point, not least because today’s New Atheists are the smuggest, most arrogant people you will ever meet. However, it assuredly has caused the insane propagation of liberal memes because it is liberals who presently dominate the largest social gathering spots on the web, which makes sense as conservatives are traditionally more weary of newer technologies.

Leave a Reply