Category Archives: Family

Mutual Submission

I tweeted at Rachel Held Evans (a liberal Christian) who was going against patriarchy and complementarianism.

In one of the side threads, the topic of mutual submission came up.

So I am going to quickly comment on it

Mutual submission comes up in Ephesians 5, preceding the part dealing with marital roles:

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

(Ephesians 5:18-33 ESV)

Some translations, such as the liberal NIV, make it the mutual submission clause part of the marital roles section. (The KJV includes it in the previous sentence of verse 20). I don’t know Greek, but commenters believe it to be properly linked to the preceding verses.

But even if we go apart from the Greek, it is clear from the immediate context that that submit to one another is an exposition to the church, not the husband. The use of “wives,” shows a clear transition from one thought to another. As well, the duty of wives to submit is explicitly instructed, the duty of husbands is stated to be love.

As well, the exact same commandment, of wives submit to your husbands is also found in Colossians and 1 Peter, there is no mutual submission commandment near either of those.

Traditional teachings have always been wives submitting to husbands, not mutual submission. It is only since feminists of the radical left took over the culture that any one even thought mutual submission might be a theology of marriage. There is no way one can argue that generally anti-church, anti-family, anti-God, anti-child, atheistic, communist feminists are better at interpreting the Bible than 2000 years of Christian saints, scholars, and priests.

Throughout the Bible and church teachings, wifely submission (and the corresponding duty of husbands to love) is taught. You can not overturn these clear teachings through the selective interpretation of a single verse taken out of its immediate context. Mutual submission is an errant teaching that can only be gained through malicious interpretation of scripture. It is the rejection of Christian marriage for feminism.

Natalism and Status

Natalism has been going around lately. TRS has linked the problem to affluence, Yuray has made the fairly obvious observation that minor tax incentives are not enough to raise the baby-making rate, while Spandrell has linked the the fertility crisis to kids costing lots and recommends making it profitable with major tax incentives.

I’m actually rather surprised by Spandrell’s answer. He’s the one who’s been pushing Status Points theory the hardest around here and has noted that any kind of insanity can be accomplished when status is on the line. As we’ve seen, people will go to almost any length for status.

It’s obvious that women want to work rather than procreate, but this is not because (most*) women particularly like working or because they prefer work to marriage and family. It’s not because housework is drudgery, most women who work do something similar to housework in their jobs.

The reason women want to work is because working is high status.** The reason women don’t have children is because having children is low status, and the more children the lower the status.

Examples of this abound: When you read about the Duggars or another large family, you will almost assuredly find criticisms along the line of ‘use a condom’ or ‘brood mare’. Women who stay home to care for their family are ‘stepford wives’. Women who spend their lives on home and family are ‘wasting their lives‘. Relationships show a lack of ambition and too much traditionalism (which is negative). Young marriage is discouraged. Etcetera, etcetera. Feminists have been working very hard to destroy any status attached to motherhood.

You’ve no doubt heard the blatant lie that motherhood is the toughest job in the world? Nobody could honestly believe taking care of a child is tougher than working in a coal mine or as an infantryman in Afghanistan, but everybody spreads that lie because it bolsters the low and declining status of women with children.

Having children is low status, but even beyond that status games pervade all of motherhood. The mommy wars aren’t about whether children are better off being raised by their parents or by daycare workers, it’s about who gets good mother status points: stay-at homes or working mothers.

Before you thinks that good mother status contradicts my thesis, know that low status is still some status, while having no children is no status. Have you ever read an article by childfree women? I can almost guarantee you it was complaining about how others expect them to have kids, think them odd that they don’t, or using the status of having kids to one-up them.  In other words, their primary complaints are about the status hits they are taking for not having children. These status hits gnaw away at them despite having an ‘exciting, meaningful’ life of travel, work, and leisure. (Notice how they will always status signal other areas in their life to make up for this lack of status).

Having children is lower status than eduction, working, travel, or having status-giving interests. Being a stay-at-home mother is low status compared to being a working mother. Having many children is lower status than having one or two children. Having children young is lower status than having them once infertility hits.

This, more than anything, is why he have such low birth rates.

So, the answer to the fertility crisis is not tax changes, natalism benefits, or motherhood welfare. The way to get women to want to reproduce is to make children the ultimate status symbol.

Read the story of Leah and Rachel in Genesis 29 and 30. Having children was high status, so they did everything they could possibly to produce more children so they could win the status competition against each other.

We need to make it so that instead of the culture lauding whorish celebrities and woman CEO’s, mothers are celebrated. We need news reports to make glowing reports on women having their 6th child, rather than shows idolizing women who adopt foreign children or slutty daring dresses. When Mrs. Duggar has more status than Hillary Clinton, that’s when we will turn this ship around.

Sadly, we don’t control the levers of the culture-industry, so there’s not much we can do for society as a whole, but there are things you can do in your own little circles.

Make a point of praising women who have kids and their mothering skills. If a family is thinking of having another kid, make a positive comment. Praise young men and women you know who are thinking of young marriage, and otherwise encourage young people aroudn you to marry early. Let some disappointment slip out if people say ‘two’s enough for us’. Register some thinly concealed disapproval or contempt if someone says, ‘we don’t want children’. If you can smoothly do backhanded compliments or negs for the self-sterilizing, that would work too. And so on.

You’re working against the combined forces of the media, academy, bureaucracy, and culture, but you might be able to have some influence. Status is mainly an abstraction of a multitude of positive and negative social interactions. If you add to the interactions around you, elevating motherhood and deriding self-sterilization, you might indirectly change a few minds in your local communities. If enough people do it, maybe the trend could be reversed.

One warning, try to keep it subtle enough. Push too hard or too blatantly and you it might backfire if they get defensive or if you look like a jerk. You want to subtly influence their general perception of status, not come off as someone pushing a low status opinion.

****

* Before some idiot brings it up: yes, not all women are alike, yes, there are some women that like their jobs, and yes, some women just don’t like children. A generalization is not an absolute, spare me.

** And yes, because they need cash, but the need for cash came after the desire for status. The drive of women into the workplace was due to status, but once women entered, it drove wages down and costs up, forcing more women into the workplace for monetary reasons.

Sparing the Rod

Recently the Liberal Party of Canada have floated the idea of banning spanking, so I’m going to write a bit on spanking.

The anti-spanking crowd is superficially right in that most studies of spanking find that spanking correlates with  a number of negative traits, particularly increased aggression.

I’ve read many of these studies over time, and the primary problem with these studies is that they are always observational. Nobody sets up controlled, randomized studies of spanking (getting parental consent and cooperation would likely be prohibitively difficult). A superficial examination of the problem, ignores other more likely factors for increased aggression among those children who are spanked.

Another problem with most of these studies is that they look at physical punishment, and do not distinguish between spanking and abuse. Most “spanking” studies would lump together breaking your kids nose in a fit of rage and smacking our child’s bottom with your hand in a controlled manner after a ‘this hurts me more than this hurts you’ talk as both being corporal punishment. The studies would then find out that, very obviously, there were negative effects from “physical punishment” (ie. beating the shit out of your kid) which was then translated as spanking harms children. When the form of physical punishment is controlled for, controlled spanking ranges from harmless to beneficial.

Back to the primary problem, the correlational approach misses two related explanatory factors that I think would be more likely explanations than ‘lovingly-enacted disciplinary swats on the bottom permanently scar children’.

The first is that aggressive and impulsive kids get spanked more often and more harshly. Lots of these studies find that those children who are spanked more are more aggressive (and maybe even less cognitively able) and assume that they are aggressive because they are spanked. But wouldn’t the reverse causation be more likely. Wouldn’t you be more likely to physically discipline a more aggressive child? One study on the causation question found that it was both, aggressive kids were physically disciplined more and physically disciplined kids were more aggressive. They say early childhood spanking starts the cycle, but I can not access the study to check. (Note, the data for this study do not distinguish between forms of spanking).

The second is that those parents who engage in physical correction, particularly the more violent forms thereof, are likely those parents who are less self-controlled and more aggressive themselves. Aggression and self-control are largely heritable. It stands to reason that the kind of parents who physically discipline children are the kind of parents who would have more aggressive and more impulsive children.

I find it doubtful that moderate spanking is in itself harmful. I think it likely that aggressive children were born that way due to naturally aggressive parents who use aggressive parenting to control them. (Note: I am using aggressive as a continuum here, not a dichotomy).

Like many things though, the people controlling the discussion are liberal elites. The children of self-controlled puritans and Jews at Harvard and Yale likely don’t need physical discipline. These children are likely naturally non-aggressive, self-controlled, and intelligent, and need only minimal discipline. So banning spanking will work fine for them, it is a luxury they can indulge in.

On the other hand, when upper class sentiments meet the lower classes of naturally aggressive and impulsive Scots-Irish and blacks, a ban on spanking probably will not work out as planned. Time-outs and lectures probably won’t work as well at controlling, directing, and teaching morality to the aggressive, impulsive children of aggressive, high-time preference people.

I would hypothesize that applying cultural elite values on spanking to lower classes will be harmful to the lower classes. The parents probably know their children and their temperments better than disconnected elites and will be more apt to properly punishment their children. Forcing an unnatural ban on spanking on populations where spanking may be necessary could be counter-productive.

Of course, to say for certain some proper studies would need to be conducted and that is unlikely to happen.

Until then though, instead of assuming lower-class parents are abusive for their, to-us, violent methods of parenting, maybe we should consider that they know how to properly raise their own children. Maybe for those children with less natural self-controlled, the application of violence is necessary to teach lessons that more naturally self-controlled children would learn after a firm lecture.

****

One side note: I find it somewhat amusing that the sorts of people who are strongest against spanking are also the sorts of people that are happy to put their children on mind-altering drugs. I would think that latter would be more abusive than the former, n’est-ce pas?

The Wages of Aspiration

Trawling the advice columnists again, I found this gem, which I’ll quote in full:

Dear Amy: My sister lives across the country. She has been married for 33 years. They’ve raised two daughters who are now adults, but she’s been living the most boring life ever!

I don’t know how she could be happy doing nothing but cooking and cleaning for all these years. And then she has the nerve to criticize me for not having enough time in my day, when she has no clue what it’s like to work full time.

Well, OK, she did work full time once — years ago before her daughters were born. She also had a little job when her kids were in school, but it wasn’t a “real job,” just a little part-time lunch-lady position.

I can’t understand why she doesn’t want to work more and help her poor husband with their finances. Then they could travel and see the world! They hardly ever go anywhere. I want so much more for her!

She has never had to live through things like illness, job loss or divorce, as I have. She has been supportive sometimes, but not all the time. I guess I’m a bit jealous because she has so much free time.

I’ve asked her to write me a list of what she does all day. I’ve sent her lists of what I manage to accomplish in the three hours I have in my home, but she has declined to provide her list.

It’s so sad that she has never had any aspirations!

It makes me so sad to feel like she’s wasted her life; she’s only in her 50s! I told her all this in an e-mail, but now she’s mad at me for just being honest. She expects an apology, but I’m hurt now, too. How do we get past this? Do you have any advice on getting her to see my view? — Frustrated Sister in PA

Amy rightfully smacks her down.

The ressentiment here is hidden worse than a toddler’s lies. This women is alone, hurting, and busy-working herself to death, and you can tell she hates it, however much she protests otherwise. She has so little going on in her life, she spends the”three hours I have in my home” on hectoring her contented sister who lives on the other side of the country. She’s looking for validation for her misery, but her sister refuses to provide it by buying into her lies, so instead she tries to destroy her sister’s life because she wants “so much more for her!”

She has refused to tend her own garden, she has leaned in, and now she seethes with resentment towards her sister who is “wasting her life” on creating a loving family. Instead of a family, she chose divorce and a job, and you can feel the pain and betrayal she experienced with her job loss. You can also feel it from her mention of illness; I do not think many people were there to care for her.

Notice how in her miserable ressentiment, she frames her choices as compared to her sisters. “Aspirations!” “So much more!” “Boring”

Having a quiet, happy family life is not an aspiration, but working for a job which would abandon you any time the profit margins were right is? Working your ass off, so you only have 3 hours of free time a day, so that you can go on a vacation once a year is more? Having a contented home life is less? Having a happy family is boring, but working in a cubicle for 13 hours a day is not?

What kind of mutilated soul thinks that way?

This women is in her 50’s, or thereabouts. Retirement looms in a decade. What will her life be when she doesn’t even have her job to distract her from her loneliness? How much of this rage towards her sister is because she knows that horror awaits her soon and she needs to justify the dear she feels to herself?

Dear young lady who may read this, reread that letter and decide carefully which of these sisters you want to be.

Guest Post From Europe: Historical Divorces

Today, we have another guest post from our European reader, with some musings on history, divorce, and mythology:

1.Victory is sweet, even though it tends to take a long time. I SUSPECT that my my self-estranged & self-separated wife will find herself in the Maria Callas’ Mother situation quite soon. Maria Callas, the OPERA singer, was born in 1923 in New York of Greek immigrant parents. When Maria was about 11 the Mother humped off back to Greece with “HER” children while telling the father to keep the dollars’ tsumanai flowing. The Mother told EVERYBODY else (including the children) that the father was an abusive drunk. When Maria Callas found out why she (Maria Callas) had NO Father, she, (Maria Callas) NEVER EVER spoke to the Mother again. Granted, the parents were somewhat reconciled on the Mother’s death-bed, but Maria Callas STILL refused to speak to her Mother.

2. The most famous divorce ever, as you know, is the divorce by Henry VIII of England, of his wife Catherine of Aragon. When Catherine, in 1527, first heard that Henry, planned to divorce her, she went to Confession. Henry, as you know said that his marriage to Catherine was invalid, as Catherine had previously been married to his brother Arthur, two years Henry’s senior, and three years Catherine’s junior. It is true that the above situation, had been a law of the early Church, as Henry always claimed, but it had been modified, as the Church expanded to say that provided the wife and brother A had done nothing inside the bedroom, she could marry brother B. She claimed to the priest in Confession in 1527, that on their wedding night, in 1501, Arthur was legless drunk, and had to be almost physically carried upstairs. She then said that once the bedroom door closed, Arthur collapsed on the bed to sleep it off. She then sat on the bed beside him. She said that she later fell on top of Arthur and dozed off, but she adamantly maintained that they got no further. Arthur left the next morning for Wales, and died soon after. During the Divorce Court hearing in 1529, Catherine repeated, the exact same story as she knelt in front Henry. As Catherine lay dying in 1536, aged fifty, quite old for that time, she again went to Confession, having sent for a priest, and repeated the exact same story. She had the priest write down her Confession in 1527 and 1536. She then had it sent to her nephew King Charles 1 (Carlos Primero) of Spain. Both statements, with absolutely no difference in what Catherine had said, turned up years later. In view of the fact that Catherine’s story NEVER wavered, and Henry varied his story to suit different circumstances and audiences, I think that we can now say that Catherine was telling the truth and Henry was not.

3. Similarly, in 1520, the then twenty year old Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V was persuaded to allow a totally unknown German monk called Martin Luther address the Diet or Parliament in Worms, the following year, 1521, on Luther’s religious views. Charles was a devout Catholic. He was Emperor of what we would now call Holland, Belgium Luxemburg, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Western Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia Northern and Eastern France, plus the far north of Italy, roughly ‘the hammer’ of Italy connecting the far SE of France and Slovenia. When his political advisors heard about this plan, they were outraged, and wanted him to kill Luther, problem solved. But Charles refused, saying that he could not break his word, once given. So in May 1521, he sent one of his knights to meet Luther at a pre-arranged spot, just as he had promised. The knight then escorted Luther on the two weeks’ journey to Worms, where the Diet was held. This in modern terms would have been the equivalent of allowing him address the European Parliament, or putting him on the Euro News today. Luther said his piece, and while the knight was escorting him back to the pre-arranged spot, Luther’s supporters, not trusting Charles, kidnapped him. No evidence has ever emerged to suggest that Luther knew of the kidnapping, or that Charles planned to break his word, or was planning to allow anybody else do so. Charles, who was also Charles 1, King of Spain, Carlos Primero, retired from his different royal duties between 1554 and 1556, and died in a monastery outside Salamanca in 1558, aged 58. To the end of his days, nobody, but absolutely nobody could accuse him of dishonesty. Conclusion: Keep YOUR end of the bargain. Let the other chap break his end of the bargain. History will vindicate you.

4. There is a story, along the same lines from America. When the American Constitution was being written, some of the Founding Fathers wanted the US Senators to be appointed for life to enable them to put the national interest first, and resist populist pressure. Eventually the compromise reached was that the Senators were almost like Ambassadors, appointed to represent their State in Washington, to the Federal Government. Senators were popularly elected after 1912, I think. After the US Civil War, the Northern twenty seven States were dominated by the Republican Party. The Republican Party was divided into the ‘Lincolnites’ who wanted reconciliation with the defeated twelve Southern States, and the ‘Radicals’ who wanted to exploit the defeated South until it was bled dry, and then start again. In 1866 Kansas recalled one of its Senators, a Lincolnite and replaced him with Edmund G. Ross. Ross was a Radical. No matter how harsh the exploitation of the defeated South was, it was never enough for Ross. He was the most belligerent, extremist, hardline, unreasonable politician of the belligerent, extremist hardline, unreasonable politicians of the Radical Republicans. No matter what was done he was not satisfied that it was tough enough on the South. President Johnston, nothing to LBJ was a Lincolnite. He was the only Southern Senator who had stood with the Union/Northern side. He had been a Democratic Senator from Tennessee. He was on Lincoln’s ticket in the 1864 Presidential election, and became President after Lincoln was murdered. In 1867, the Radical Republican leaders decided that they would impeach the President, as he had constantly used his veto to stop their plans. To do that they needed a simple majority in the House of Representatives, after which the President was tried before the Senate, and had to be found guilty by a two-thirds majority of the full Senate, not just those there on the day. They got their House majority, no problem. At that time there were fifty four Senators, two from each State. There were forty two Republicans and twelve Democrats. It was assumed that the Democrats would back the President in the Senate vote and this happened. Quite soon into the proceedings in the House, six long-serving Republican Senators announced that as the reckoned that the whole thing was a joke, they were going to vote to acquit the President. This meant that the Radical Republicans could not afford to lose any more votes. By all the rules Ross should have been Impeachment Vote No. 1. However his remark ‘Now that we have him in the dock, we must give him a fair trial’ to Senator Sprague of New Jersey was merely the start of his problems. The Radical leaders threatened him with loss of his Senate seat, and the end of his political career, bankruptcy and jail, on false charges. All this happened. A few days after his vote to acquit the President, the Kansas State Assembly recalled him. He ended up a jailed, bankrupt fraudster, soon afterwards. When he was released from jail, he was sleeping on the streets. But in 1872 the US Supreme Court stated that he had been correct. Conclusion: History ALWAYS vindicates those who do the right thing.

5. I have no doubt but you have heard of Cronos, a mythical King in Ancient Greece. He overthrew and killed his father. After learning that he, Cronus, was destined to be overcome by his own sons, just as he had overthrown his father, he devoured all of his children as soon as they were born, to pre-empt the prophecy. When the sixth child, Zeus, was born, Zeus was hidden and later fulfilled the prophecy. Conclusion; No matter how ALL-POWERFUL a Tyranny may appear to be it will EVENTUALLY be overthrown.

6. I have NO DOUBT but you heard of Icarus, the bird-man of Greek legend. His father, Daedalus made two pairs of wings out of wax and feathers for himself and his son Icarus so they could escape from Crete where they were held prisoner. Daedalus tried his wings first, but before taking off from the island, warned his son not to fly too close to the sun, nor too close to the sea, but to follow his (Daddy’s) path of flight. Overcome by the giddiness that flying lent him, Icarus soared through the sky curiously, but in the process he came too close to the sun, which melted the wax. Icarus kept flapping his wings but soon realized that he had no feathers left and that he was only flapping his bare arms, and so Icarus fell into the sea and drowned. Conclusion: ALL Ponzi Schemes crash in the end, the bigger the Ponzi Scheme, the bigger the Crash Mess.

7. I have NO DOUBT but you heard of Procrustes, a rogue smith and bandit of Greek myth. Procrustes physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed. Conclusion: Facts CANNOT be changed to suit a pre-existing theory.

8. Before he invaded Russia, Napoleon said “Apres trois mois, la Russie me demandera la paix/After three months, Russia will ask me for peace” to one of his generals. In June 1941, as Germany prepared to invade Russia, German officers on the ground (as opposed to the Nazi leadership) told the troops that the serious fighting would last 6 weeks, that the Germans would be at the Urals in 14 weeks and that they would all be back home in Germany for Christmas. As a matter of FACT the Germans destroyed the ENTIRE Soviet Air Force in a week.

9. In 1941, as Hitler’s armies were racing towards Moscow, Stalin summoned Ivan Stamenev, the Bulgarian Ambassador to Moscow to the Kremlin, and asked him to mediate with the Germans, as Bulgaria was neutral. Stamenev refused saying ‘Even if you have to retreat to the Urals, you will beat them in the end’,in reply to Stalin a prediction, that Time, proved correct. Men and families are now back at the Urals. However, do NOT worry as this toxic tsumanais called ‘Family Law’ & ‘Feminism’ in Western countries WILL come to an end. If you had said ‘This is the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union’ on December 24, 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, you would have been the butt of EVERY joke as people rolled around the streets laughing at you. We all now KNOW that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan WAS the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire. Slowly, men and families are moving westward. We are NOT QUITE YET in the position of the Soviet trooper Sgt. Alyosha Kovalyov who on May 02, 1945, hoisted the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in the famous photograph from our History books, but we are getting there.

10. The day WILL come when Families hoist the Flag of Freedom over the TOXIC MT EVERSTS called ‘Family’ Law’ & ‘Feminism’ in Western countries. Within twenty years in Western countries, we will see some of the cheerleaders for the Feminist/Liberal/Child Abuse Agenda doing the General Deboi & Julius Streicher Act.

Julius Streicher

Julius Streicher 1885 – 1946 was a Nazi newspaper owner in post WW1 Germany. His racist newspaper even by Nazi standards spewed forth the most vile virulent hatred of Jews. He incited Germans to the persecution and to the extermination Jews. For “the persecution and the extermination Jews” you may read “the persecution and the extermination of the family & fathers” in Western countries including modern Ireland. Hitler was NOT tough enough on the Jews for him. After WW2 he claimed to know NOTHING of any anti-Semitic campaigns NEVER MIND any Death Camps. He was tried at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and executed by hanging.

General Deboi

After Stalingrad, the Russians captured 22 four-star German generals. One of these generals, General Deboi was appointed group spokesman as he could speak French, Europe’s international language of that time. Deboi was born in 1893 in Vienna and in 1912 he joioned the GERMAN Army. During the Russian-organized press conference Deboi stressed ‘Je suis autrichien, je ne suis pas allemand’ constantly, to anybody who would listen.

Why Young People Leave the Church

Heartiste has posted a chart of where couples meet their spouses and romantic partners:

Follow the yellow line, it represents the church. In 1940, the church was the third likeliest method of meeting your spouse, after family and friends. Now it is the lowest, practically non-existent, while family is the second lowest.

Some of this could possibly be chalked up to declining church attendence rates, especially among the young, but, church attendence has remained near 40% since 1940.

Church leaders are always asking why young people leave the church. The first graph is all that needs to be said.

Young people are looking to find love. This is natural, this is healthy. If they can not find love in the church, they will find it elsewhere.

The church should be supporting young people in finding love, so healthy, productive marriages will result. Instead, the church has entirely abandoned its responsbility to promote family formation, and has left the process to peers, clubs, and online dating.

Why is the church letting this happen? Why is the church forcing their young people to rely on friends, the club, and online dating to find a family? Are godly marriages going to result from restaurants and bars? Are peers the best means of finding a marriage partner?

If young Christians are forced to look elsewhere to find love and marriage, they will be enticed by the secular world. If a man can’t get a wife at church, that cute non-Christian smiling at him at work may have a stronger pull than his developing faith. If a young woman isn’t being courted at church, resisting the temptation of the attention of dozens of men at the club will be difficult.

If the church doesn’t capture its young people through marriage and love, the secular world will through sex and pleasure, and the church will continue to collapse.

Is the church really going to allow the depersonalized meat market that is online dating to be the most effective way to find a Christian spouse?

Of course, church’s aren’t entirely to blame: where are the parents? Look at that blue line? Why has this generation completely abandoned their children to fend for themselves?

If you want to see the church renewed, if you don’t want your young people to continue abandoning the church, fix this. Bring your young people together and get them married. Don’t abandon them to their own devices and allow the secular world to devour them.

****

Here’s some ideas for churches of where to start fix this:

1) Christian parents need to start talking with other Christian parents and start meeting with each other as families. Bring your children together in casual situations so they can get to know each other.

2) Christian families and churches should work on positive courtship. Courtship should be about bringing compatible Christian young men and young women together. It should not be a negative sorting mechanism to prevent young men from courting young women.

3) Churches need to create a culture where going for casual first dates are not a big deal. Being serious about finding a spouse does not mean that every interaction must be deathly serious. Church culture should accept that early interactions can be both and purposeful; casual dates should not be treated as major decision points equal to buying a wedding ring, because how many men are going to court enough girls to find the right one when young when a date is treated as the equivalent of an engagement.

4) Similarly, casual interactions should not be held against men or women. Men who ask a lot of women in their church out for casual dates for the purposes of getting to know each other, should not be worried about being shamed as players, likewise, women who accept many such casual dates should not be shamed as sluts. (For both 3 & 4, this, obviously, does not mean tge acceptance of casual sex).

5) Don’t discourage young dating, encourage it. There needs to be an elimination of ‘sex is bad’ talks in youth groups, more ‘sex is good, get married as soon as possible so you can have it’. Instead of discouraging dating, start getting your teenagers to take it seriously and setting them up together. If the church doesn’t start getting young people together in marriage, the secular world will bring them together in fornication. In the war between young hormones and chastity, Paul was exceedingly clear on what is to be done. Modern teachings on abstinence need to be destroyed as the near-satanism they are and replaced with the wholesome promotion of marriage. Two teenagers marrying in the church and starting a family should be celebrated as a triumph of the church, then young couples should be supported by the church as they set up their family lives.

6) Large churches should be running regular, casual events for their young adults (including teenagers) so they can get to know each other and pair off. Small churches should be networking together with other churches to create regular casual events so young adults can meet each other and pair off.

Nobody Cares About You

I’ve written on this before, but here’s a little reminder, what you as a man think, feel, and desire don’t matter. Society doesn’t give a shit about you and expects you to take its shit happily.

A recent letter to an advice columnist (h/t: RPR) is from a slut who got alpha widowed hard. After getting alpha widowed she swore off sex outside of marriage. She meets a nice beta, who she lies to about her past through omission. On their wedding night, I’ll repeat: their wedding night, she calls out the name of the alpha who widowed her. Understandably, and thankfully for himself, Rick acted like a man and dropped her hard, setting up a divorce lawyer, calling her parents, abandoning her at the hotel to go to Europe alone, and cutting off contact (if you’re Rick and happen to stumble across this, good for you BTW, allow me to be the one voice of encouragement). So, the the lying slut wrote a woe-is-me letter about how to salvage her relationship as her lies caught up to her.

The story itself is not overly important. The ending was as happy an ending as could have occurred given the situation the lying slut created. The man can annul before the marriage is consummated and he probably won’t be divorced raped given that the marriage didn’t even last the night.

The practical take away there is to make sure you understand your wife-to-be’s sexual history. Do not assume she’s a virgin because she tells you she’s waiting until marriage, get her to explicitly say she is one. If she’s not a virgin, get her number, and weigh the odds. She may lie, but at least then she’s the one deceiving you rather than you deceiving yourself.

The other practical take away is to make sure that one of her previous relations was not “intense” or anything else similar. That’s in indicator of an alpha widow. You do not want to marry a woman who’s relationship with another guy was more intense than your own.

Beyond that fairly obvious advice, the part that matters is the response from Carolyn Hax, syndicated advice columnist published in 200+ papers. So know that she’s not some lone voice, she’s the mainstream of how modern relationship’s are supposed to work. Here’s what she wrote:

Your honeymoon and marriage are in tatters because Tom reacted with absolutely stunning hostility to a quirk of the human brain.

Lying to your husband(-to-be) and calling out another man’s name on the wedding night are “a quirk” and reacting poorly to it is stunning. But she gets worse from here.

But. For this to obliterate all of his supposed love and trust, plus any inner mandate to be kind? His commitment to you — as a human being, vs. as a bride or presumed virgin — can’t have been deep.

What love and trust? She lied to him for their whole relationship and used him. Where was her kindness as she was deceiving him and abusing his trust? Where was her kindness as she called another man’s name on their wedding night(!)?

She could hardly have shivved his soul and humiliated him worse had she spent months planning it. But when you think about it, she did spend months planning it, she just hoped he’d never find out.

Here’s the kicker:

He didn’t just get sad or angry, or yell, or cancel the honeymoon — he went for your emotional jugular and hasn’t let go. He called your parents to shame you. Making mistakes, that’s life. Living in fear of his reaction to your next mistake, that’s Hell.

This glimpse of his true character is a gift. Accept it and annul the marriage.

Out of all this the man is evil. The man is deceived, used, and betrayed on his wedding night by the woman who (deceitfully) professed to love him and reacts by annulling the non-consummated marriage and Hax calls him the evil one.

She doesn’t call out out the slut on her absolutely despicable behaviour other than to mention it was a mistake, not evil, just a mistake, which she immediately apologized for, but she’s fast to condemn the man as evil for reacting naturally and logically to this betrayal.

The commenters agree, but go even farther (at least until the red piller’s brigaded the comments). Here’s a collection of how much normal people hate men and sympathize with lying whores:

you got rid of someone who was going to do this to you somewhere down the line anyway. So much better to know he was a mean, abuser now than two years form now when you are more committed with maybe a mortgage and maybe kids.

What an arrogant *** this (hopefully soon to be ex husband) is. I guess he has never made a mistake in his life.

Run! Run as fast as you can AWAY from this probable abuser!

Yeah Tom’s a whiny little baby that doesn’t deserve a single look back from the LW. The immaturity of his reaction is only reinforced by his calling mommy and daddy to set up a divorce attorney for him. Set up your own stupid attorney! What a tool.

Your life, and the lives of any children you may have had with this person, would have been sheer Hell. Down the road, he would have found many other things about which to throw tantrums. You are very lucky to bid rid of him. If he changes his mind and wants to renew things, run as fast as you can.

yer better off without such an immature reactionary… imagine what kind of hell you’re going to have to put up with if something big happens… move on with your life… without mr. immature…

Get the marriage annulled, report hubby to the police for stealing your passport, next time be honest with your beau about how you don’t want a premarital sexual relationship now but have had one in the past, and learn to use the term “darling” when you’re in the throws of passion.

The commenters called him a (potential) abuser, an arrogant ass, immature,  and even said she should call the cops on him for “stealing” (ie. taking his own luggage, which happened to have) her passport. Barely any of the (pre-RP brigade) comments had even the tiniest amount of sympathy for the man or the slightest hint of criticism for the duplicitous slut.

This may be outrage porn, but I’m going to continue ramming modernity and progressivism down your throat until you vomit it out, because this is important for you as a man to understand.

In our society you don’t matter, your preferences don’t matter, your emotions don’t matter, your well-being doesn’t matter. Healthy marriage and healthy family doesn’t matter. Everybody believes you should be forced to eat shit so that the present dildocracy can roll on and if you object or protest to the shit-eating, you will be painted as the devil incarnate.

Don’t eat their shit. Don’t believe that are obligated to eat their shit. Don’t believe that it is moral to eat their shit.

If you can, find a good girl to marry and raise a prosperous, productive family with. If you can’t find a good girl, don’t marry a slut, or it might be you being pilloried for objecting to your wife calling out someone else’s name on your wedding night.