April 30, 2007

A Biblical Critique of Debbie Maken's Book "Getting Serious about Getting Married" (part 16)

PART XVI: Conclusion

In the closing comments of Getting Serious about Getting Married, Debbie Maken notes: "If you have read this far, I assume your reaction will either be 'hate it' or 'love it.' No one walks away from my material lukewarm" (p. 189). Mrs. Maken is most certainly correct in that observation. Let me be candid and say that I hate her book. I may sound abrupt in stating that, but I am simply making an honest confession with no personal animosity towards Mrs. Maken herself. What diplomatic or conciliatory response can I give in my review of a work that takes a view of singleness, marriage, and manhood which is both misguided and disturbing? When a bull is turned loose in a china shop, someone is going to call the animal control professionals. I have therefore taken upon myself the burden of providing a much-needed corrective to Mrs. Maken's damaging message.

What's the Deal (Qui Bono)?

In the course of writing my review of Mrs. Maken's book, I came across an article in Christianity Today entitled "What Married Women Want." I found the following statements in the article to be noteworthy:
"My theory is that women are looking for, in general, husbands who provide them with emotional and financial support, and support to make the choices that they think are important for them and for their children. Women who have husbands who are good breadwinners have the freedom to decide what they want to do, whether that's to stay home with their kids, whether that's to work part time, or whether that's to pursue work that might be more meaningful but not particularly remunerative. Having a husband who is a good breadwinner gives a woman more options. It's not necessarily all about traditional roles, per se. It's about having the financial security as a wife and maybe mother to act in ways that you think are best for you and for your family ...

"I think we're going to see a continued growth of more egalitarian marriages in a large subset of the population. But we're going to also continue to see what I call a neo-traditional model of family life. What I mean by neo-traditional is that it's progressive in a sense that men, particularly religious men, are investing more and more—especially in the emotional arena—in their wives and children. But it's traditional in that there's still some kind of effort to, in a sense, mark off who is the primary breadwinner and who is the primary nurturer. That may mean that both the husband and wife are working in the outside labor force, but there's still some effort to give the lead for breadwinning to the husband and the lead for nurturing to the wife. This kind of neo-traditional family model is here to stay. I think that prediction is somewhat at odds with what many of my colleagues in the academy would predict."
(Stan Guthrie [interview with Brad Wilcox], "What Married Women Want," November 13, 2006, Accessed from www.christianitytoday.com)
We see from this article that women want to expand their "options" whereas the only thing that seems to be expanded for men is the expectations placed upon them. This article claims that some women still want to be the "primary nurturer" in the household. What does such a statement mean? Is it referring to domestic chores? Our technologies have made these chores easier, and women still often complain that men don't do their share of the housework. Are these women referring to spending more time with their children? Don't most loving fathers want more time with their children, too? Moreover, can women in one breath bemoan men making more money than them, but in another breath express a preference for a husband who earns the main income for his family? What happens to the paycheck that men bring home anyway? I ask these questions, but as you might guess, they are not addressed by the article.

Debbie Maken's book seems to have something in common with the piece I quoted, namely, a particular viewpoint. I previously noted that in Chapter 12 of Getting Serious about Getting Married, Mrs. Maken draws a comparison between male suitors and prospective employees in a job interview. Such a comparison reveals something, I believe, about Mrs. Maken's mindset and the mindset of many other women. Throughout the book, an emphasis is placed on the idea of men measuring up to the expectations of women. It's nothing new. Whether it be Debbie Maken, the article in Christianity Today, or some other discussion about relationships, our feminized culture at large has the same outlook: The worth of men is reckoned in terms of what they can or cannot do for the "fairer sex."

In contrast, there is a verse in the Bible that I wish to bring to the attention of my readers: "For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:8-9, NKJV). Your eyes may be tempted to skip past some of the elements of that passage, but notice what it says: "nor was man created for the woman." In light of this statement, it seems to me that Mrs. Maken and many others are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Contrary to the popular notions that many have, men are not put on this earth to fulfill the dreams and aspirations of women. The question is not, as many would have it, what use women have for men. It is very much the opposite.

The sobering truth is that women were created to help men. This is not to say that women are useless apart from men, for I clearly affirm the inherent worth of all women, married or single. It is also not to say that men have a right to ignore the needs and concerns of the women in their lives. It is to say, however, that if a single man does not desire female companionship, then he should not have to apologize for his refusal to marry.

Marriage is Not Necessarily Desirable

I can hear my critics citing verses like "marriage should be honored by all" (Heb. 13:4) and "whoever finds a wife finds a good thing" (Prov. 18:22). They miss the point when they do so. I am not against marriage. Marriage is indeed ordained by God. Having said that, I remind my readers that even though the Bible says some positive things about marriage in principle, it does not guarantee a happy marriage for everyone (Prov. 12:4b; Prov. 25:24). Otherwise, we would not hear of the numerous heartbreaks experienced by godly people who have chosen to marry. If something is neither commanded nor forbidden by God, then the rule of expediency applies. Sometimes marriage is not expedient (1 Cor. 6:12; 1 Cor. 7:28). In other words, it does no good to discourse at length about the nutritional benefits of oranges when the orchards have been sprayed with DDT.

If marriage is a slam-dunk conclusion, then why the strident, overbearing, paternalism that is too often found in the camp of the Marriage Mandate Movement? It smacks of desperation. There is an increasing number of men who are not taking the bait, and the status quo can no longer afford to ignore this fact. For many men, there is nothing compelling about an arrangement that seems to primarily benefit everybody and anybody except the fellow who was goaded into it.

Those pundits who extol marriage over singleness should remember the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: "What you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say." When people talk of "settling down," I see stressed-out and harried couples. When people talk of marriage "broadening one's horizons," I see people scaling back their hopes and dreams as the obligations of marriage crowd into their lives. When people talk about "marital bliss," I see couples who appear indifferent to each others company. When people talk about marriage bringing "growth," "selflessness," and "maturity," I see families embroiled in the most petty, puerile, and malicious squabbles. When people talk about a man "needing a helper," I see men who are belittled and taken advantage of by their wives. When people talk about "honoring marriage," and getting serious about "commitment," I see divorces left and right. We cannot pretend that these developments are anomalies. Otherwise, I wouldn't be writing this book and we wouldn't scratching our heads about why younger generations are hesitant to get married.

Is the Young Man Safe?

What does marriage have to offer to men these days? Men are finding many of the expectations placed upon them to be suspect. Trying to pawn off such expectations as "Biblical Manhood" is ludicrous when men can see that the Scriptures have been misused in that respect. If all things were equal, the normal desire that men have for women would be a sufficient reason for matrimony, but all things are not equal. Men live in a world much different from the one in which Adam lived or even the one in which their grandparents lived. The mainstream media can no longer marginalize the voices of men on gender issues. Men have access to other venues of information, and therefore they are beginning to realize that they have more choices in life. Like it or not, family is just one choice among many for men. Men don't have to marry. They don't even have to date. Their happiness and worth does not depend upon women. Consequently, an increasing number of principled men are saying "No" to tying the knot, and some are even engaged in what can be called a "marriage strike" (Wendy McElroy, "The Marriage Strike," August, 12, 2003, Accessed from www.foxnews.com). The steep social costs of pursuing marriage make many men rightfully hesitant. For these men, the promise of intimacy and belonging in a close-knit community is often overshadowed by the ugly specter of possible exploitation.

Even if a man finds a godly woman to marry, he is still vulnerable in a way that single men are not. He is one paycheck away from having his family live in poverty. He lives day to day at the mercy of the the public school teacher, the social worker, the police, the family judge, and the politician, who may or may not have any respect for his position as a husband and/or father. If he decides to form a family, he becomes obliged to outsiders to ensure the survival of his household. He depends on society to act in good faith. The problem is that society does not always do so.

Whenever ordinary people get involved in get-rich-quick schemes or make rash decisions with their money, we rightfully question how responsible they have been in the stewardship of what God has given to them. We apply the sound principle of prudence and erring on the side of caution in so many aspects of life, yet we fling these principles right out the window when we admonish young men to marry. Men are asked to throw caution to the wind (though no one will admit this) and expend an increasing amount of their time, livelihood, and emotional well-being to chase the rabbits of romance for the uncertain promise of love. This is nonsensical. Too many people fail to appreciate that there is a limit to what we can expect of men in terms of sacrifice and risk-taking in order to obtain intimacy and commitment from women. In a society that has become hostile to men, that limit has most certainly been exceeded.

Where I live, many people are familiar with the destructive power of tornadoes. Recently, somebody told me a story of some people that were asked to take shelter inside a building when a tornado warning was issued. Some individuals, however, did not want to stay in the building because they had made previous plans to leave town. The foolishness of these individuals caused me to reflect on the attitude of so many towards marriage these days. Like the careless individuals who thought they could take their chances in bad weather, some would have men take their chances in a climate of misandry.

When Sugar and Spice Isn't That Nice


Men have not been in a habit of asking themselves what they want from a relationship. They have not always been encouraged to articulate their feelings about this matter; instead, they have been mostly trained to put the needs of others before themselves. Whether out of some notion of "chivalry" or a need to address the "past wrongs" of a "patriarchal culture," men have found themselves deferring to women in defining what a male-female relationship should look like. But the noble inclinations of men to be selfless and respectful of women are not always appropriate. Justice, decency, and propriety demand a limit to what women can rightfully ask of men. In fact, Christian men do a disservice to godly women when they declare all women to be worthy of the same treatment. The honor we give to good women has no meaning unless we can boldly expose the deeds of those women who are dishonorable. We need more men like Elijah to stand up against the Jezebels of our day and against the spineless Ahabs that do their bidding (even those in our churches).

Often, people say that men and women alike are at fault for the way they have treated each other. However, for the last three decades or so, we have tended to lay down the law for only one gender. Now, I think it is time for women to undertake the unconformable task of facing up to their own shortcomings and peccadilloes.

Women said men were the oppressors and that men operated from a default position of privilege. In response, men gave women opportunities that for generations many men never had. Men supported initiatives that granted preferential treatment to women, all to "remedy past inequities". Men modified their behaviors. What did women do? They slandered men as lechers, aggressors, stupid brutes, or obsolete beasts of burden. Men were shouted down when they tried to raise their concerns about the charges made against them. In other cases, men were told to "be a man" in order to hush any protestations they might make against the callousness of others. While women gained an increasing amount of influence in society as a whole, they still held on to the perks and privileges of traditional sex roles. They were given options that men were not. In personal relationships, women gained a considerable degree of power. Men silently retreated. Now some have the temerity to demand that men come back to the table even though the others seated there have acted in bad faith.

Can a woman have a realistic attitude about men and relationships when academia, government, popular culture, and religious pundits routinely validate her choices and offer little or no criticism of her behavior toward men? By way of analogy, can a child have a healthy attitude about life when its parents dote on it excessively? To ask these questions is to answer them. Those who constantly defer to contemporary women stand on shaky ground. There is a consequence for the way women treat men. I suppose most men won't tell today's women that they are undesirable. Perhaps men just won't desire women enough to commit their lives to them. Debbie Maken may excoriate men for their withdrawal from society, but as I believe one man said, men get so used to disapproval over time that even approval doesn't matter.

The Loving Thing to Do?

I suspect some will counter that a man should lay aside whatever misgivings he might have about today's women, marriage, or about society's anti-male inclinations. They might say that men should "should just let go of their bitterness and fear" and "act out of love." Indeed, what would be the loving thing to do? Let us turn the question back on those who put it to men. Why don't the pundits become more loving and try to understand the problems men face instead of engaging in the kind of rhetoric that I find in Debbie Maken's book?

As it is, the word "love" may be used indiscriminately by our culture, but the Biblical notion of love does not necessary imply the willingness to marry. Otherwise, shall we accuse women of being "unloving" when they reject the advances of men? What kind of benevolence can men expect from women in this manner? I have read somewhere of a prostitute who feel she serves a good cause by helping lonely, undesirable men who cannot find affection elsewhere. I suspect my audience would reject her mindset, so why assume that men are obligated to offer something similar to women? Biblical love focuses on the physical needs and spiritual needs of people. It is not about saving women from the single life or saving institutions from certain demographic realities.

What about the notion of "tough love"? When a father punishes his child, does it mean that he has stopped being loving? When God repeatedly punished the Israelites for their rebellion, did he act in a way that was contrary to his loving nature? The last time I checked, Eph. 5:11 still said: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." Love doesn't mean enabling people in their wicked and destructive proclivities. In Debbie Maken's book, she notes that self-interest is not necessary selfishness. If that is the case, then religious men have a right to put biblical self-interest over enabling the selfishness of others. The loving thing that men can do is expose the misandry that has sadly crept into our churches. The loving thing that men can do is not compromise on their principles, even if it brings hardship on those who have failed to repent.

Who must repent? Besides many women, our churches and society as whole must repent. These agents have the broken the covenants they had with men. For each broken covenant, there is a respective curse. Our churches broke their covenant by failing to be places that encourage and edify men. They failed to be a spiritual family for not only married men, but single men as well. They became respecters of persons with regard to marital status and other matters. They haven't been too concerned about the loneliness and isolation of single men. The singleness of men seems to have now only become a "concern" in how it affects women and the bottom line of church treasuries. Churches have belittled men for the temptations that affect them in particular, but have offered no real solutions to the problems men face in seeking out positive alternatives. Churches most certainly have had little or nothing to say about how women mistreat men. The curse upon these churches is that men have left them in droves. These churches will suffer for lack of male leadership--and may even die.

Our society has broken its covenant with men by failing to protect the institution of marriage; by passing laws that undermine the position of men as husbands and fathers; by reducing men to an expendable commodity for the economic gain of others; and by marginalizing men at every turn in the public and private spheres of life. The curse upon society is that many men no longer obligate themselves to do anything beyond the bare minimum of what is required of them as citizens. They do not form families. They do not pursue excellence in workplaces that don't care about their input or welfare. They do not volunteer in communities that view them as a liability. Society will suffer as a result. Why should men care about a system that doesn't care about them? People who ignore this matter and yet pontificate all day long about men "refusing to take responsibility" are merely rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Some Closing Thoughts For My Critics

It would not surprise me in the least if, after reading what I have written, some accuse me of being unmerciful, unloving, unchristian, bitter, angry, anti-social, misogynistic, or having some emotional hang-ups. These baseless charges have been hurled at many good men that have gone before me. Even if these charges were true, my arguments demand an answer. I could have the most ungodly of motives in writing what I write and still what I say would have to be objectively weighed on the scales of truth. Simply put, cheap personal attacks accomplish nothing.

Debbie Maken and others indicate that the system is broken. True, but if we are going to fix it, then what I am saying needs to be considered. There are essentially two types of eligible men not getting married: those who don't want to marry and those who face obstacles in getting married. For the first group, we must prove that marriage can benefit them if we want to see them wedded. I have already made the case that they don't have a duty to marry, so the proverbial carrot will have to be used instead of the stick. Can we truly say there are benefits for men to marry these days? When some try to point out the benefits for men, they usually window-dress the responsibilities and the hardships of marriage as "opportunities for character building" or some other disingenuous psychobabble. Others, in an attempt to list some palpable benefits, confuse correlation with causality (e.g., they say married men are richer, healthier, and happier than single men without researching why this is the case). We have to do better than this, or at least people need to rethink their approach to marriage so that it truly does having some meaningful to offer to men.

For both groups of unmarried men, we must address the pitfalls and obstacles of getting married in the current cultural climate. If the perils of marriage dwarf the benefits of marriage, then we cannot expect men to embrace the institution. The issues that I touched upon in this review, and of which Debbie Maken and others seem to be so dismissive, are not going away anytime soon. We need to tackle the thorny issues of dwindling economic opportunities for men, the bitter fruit of feminism, women with unrealistic expectations, etc. Thinking men can redeem culture one marriage at a time is like thinking that if we plant enough roses in the desert sand, the soil will eventually become favorable to the flowers.

Women, in particular, have some things they need to do. They need to be more attuned to the challenges men face--and be more supportive of men. They need to stop taking their cues from feminists and even from supposedly "conservative" women who have an entitlement mindset. Women who want to get married should offer men praise (not blame), understanding (not accusations), and genuine interest (not cynical timetables). Women need to put Debbie Maken's book down on the table and instead listen to those good women who have a constructive understanding of how the sexes should relate to each other. Good women need to stand up for the honor of men who stand up for fairness in the face of hateful women and spineless men. We do not need to mention that men have mistreated women. Of course men have their responsibilities; that proverbial horse has been beaten to death. Rather, we need to encourage women to look in the mirror--to turn away from the dark path of gynocentrism and misandry that our worldly culture sets before them. We need to encourage women to turn to a better model of womanhood--not one pushed by sycophantic religious pundits, but one approved by God.

Let me also state that before pundits talk about "getting serious about getting married" they need to get serious about restoring marriage. How can they aim their cross-hairs at single men when there are so many loveless and joyless marriages in our society? Sermons are better lived than told. It's time for the apologists for marriage to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, in particular, have nothing of which to boast; the younger generations can look at their marriages and see one disaster after another. It's time for those who would lead the way to "put up or shut up."

To a great extent, what I have written is descriptive, not prescriptive. I do not really demand a course of action as much as I lay forth some options on the table with their respective rewards and consequences. Cultural reactionaries can ignore what I have said, circle the wagons, and catechize the "true believers" in their midst, but they will gain no ground with those sitting on the proverbial fence. Will people prayerfully consider what I have written and test my convictions in the light of God's revealed word? Or will people summarily reject my thoughts without a fair hearing? As the Bible says, "He who has ears, let him hear."

77 Comments:

Blogger Keith Winters said...

Hello: Fantastic insight and blog- I have been reading your analysis for several months and I agree with you. Some of the horrible remarks at sites such as Debbie Maken and The Gift Of Singleness directed at older sinlge men such as myself- make me wonder if any of these pro marriage mandate people have been born again or study scripture.

5/3/07, 5:26 PM  
Anonymous Martin said...

Others, in an attempt to list some palpable benefits, confuse correlation with causality (e.g., they say married men are richer, healthier, and happier than single men without researching why this is the case). We have to do better than this, or at least people need to rethink their approach to marriage so that it truly does having some meaningful to offer to men.

==I have been, and continue to be, of the view that the reason some married men are "richer, healthier, and happier" has nothing to do with marriage. Per say. There is a cause and effect relationship but it is not marriage only that determines this. Let's take the three one at a time:

Wealth

Many single men make less money than married men because they don't see the need to work high stress, high paying jobs when they are only supporting themselves (ie...they can focus more on working jobs they enjoy and are good at). For example, I am now working on my second MA degree. My first degree was in Religion, this degree will be in History. My goal is to teach History, and maybe Religion as well if the chance presents itself, at a community college. Since I am single, and probably will remain single for a while, I see no reason to earn a PhD so that I could teach at a University. One day I might pursue a PhD in American History, focusing on Colonial Church History, but I will only do that when I am ready. Earning a PhD is hard, stressful work and being a University professor is not as enjoyable as being a community college instructor. Why? At a community college I can focus on my calling and my academic love: teaching history (mainly Colonial Religious History). At a university, professors are required to teach, write academic papers, books (etc). None of that is my "cup of tea". Is this a benefit of remaining single? Yes! Is it a bad thing or a good thing? I think it depends upon the individual. Being single allows a person to focus on doing what God has called them to do. Sure, married people can and do have that focus as well. However, as Paul points out, it is easier for a single person to do this than a married person.

Health

Unhealthy people generally don't get married. Someone who is very over-weight, or who is very sicky, is generally not attractive to the opposite sex. Let's, however, put this group aside for a moment and focus on the majority of single men. Why are single men generally, though not always, less healthy than married men?

In the past the reason could be summed up in one word: Diet. At one time single men were fast food, take out, tv dinners, steaks, and the grill. This type of diet is bad for any person's general health. However this is changing. Nowadays there are many marrired men and women who have the exact same diet. Nobody cooks, unless it can be cooked in a microwave, and Pizza Hut is on the speed dial. So, in this area, a married man can be in just as much danger as a single man. Myself, as a single man, I eat healthy. I don't eat fast food (though I allow myself a plate of Chinese once every two months or so). I don't drink sodas and when I cook, and yes I can cook, I try to cook dishes with plenty of vegies. So there is no longer any connection between eating right and being married (etc). Married people are eating just as poorly as singles.

A second area concerning health is doctor visits. Many single men don't visit the doctor unless they are sick and even then it is usually the Urgent Care. They don't have a personal doctor and thus don't get regular check-ups. The result of this is serious issues such as their blood pressure (etc) goes unchecked. Married men are usually forced, by their wives, to have a doctor and to keep their appointments. Please notice that I said "many single men" and not "all". Even though I am a single man I have a doctor who I see every six months (or as needed) and I have a dentist. So there are exceptions to this area as well.

Happiness

Are singlemen really not as happy as married men? I don't know. I am single and I am perfectly happy. The only miserable singles I know are females. Maybe the men hide their misery better?

Martin.

5/5/07, 6:55 AM  
Blogger wombatty said...

Nice wrap-up Anakin, great job.

That Christianity Todayarticle you cite is kind of disturbing. It seems that some have come to view marriage as 'an obligation on the part of a man to provide opportunities for a woman to pursue her personal ambitions'. Maken et.al would be pleased at such a notion.

And I always thought that the idea of sacrifice was central to marriage for both the man and the woman. How quaint of me.

5/6/07, 10:03 AM  
Blogger wombatty said...

Captain Sensible just posted this over at http://www.thegiftofsingleness.blogspot.com/. It's an interview with Maken:

http://www.spiraluniverse.org/index.php?fcall=sffeature#debbie

Here's an interesting little bit. Watch as the prophet Maken peers into the hearts of others! :
--------------------------
SU: What has been the reaction to your book from Church Leaders?

Debbie: Mixed. There are some church leaders that think this book is overdue and this message should have been said sooner. They agree that there has been a theological minimalization of marriage in the church body. We are very comfortable with our platitudes of being “pro-family,” but ironically only for those actually in families. Many other Christian leaders are uncomfortable with my message because either they have gone on the record for publishing theologically erroneous material, or because they like the laziness that comes with giving flattery as opposed to meaningful counsel to help assist singles into marriage. I am sure that some of my dissenters might genuinely disagree with my positions, but sincerity and biblical correctness have never had to be bedfellows. We can’t have two contradictory viewpoints like this, and both sides be correct.
--------------------------
In other words, 'most of the people who disagree with me are insincere liars because they disagree with me'.

Score another one for Debbie Maken! It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

5/15/07, 4:44 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Wombatty,

I agree. This woman is out of control. The sad thing is that motives mean nothing when it comes to an argument.

For instance, let us say that I go to the store, and I pay for a prepaid basket of thirty-five apples. When I am informed that they just got a whole load in, I ask if I can by 25 more apples. However, when I get home, I find out I only have 55 apples. I am a really greedy man, and I want all of my apples. Hence, I go back to the store, and point out that the man did his addition wrong, and that he owes me another five apples.

In this instance, I am modivated by greed, which is a horrible modivation. However, would it be right for the produce seller to tell me that I am wrong because I am just greedy? No, of course not. Whether or not my addition is correct has nothing whatsoever to do with my modivation. In the same way, what modivation I, or anyone else has for their arguments against Debbie Maken has nothing to do with whether or not our arguments are correct. In fact, not only do Christian philosophers say that, but secular philosophers say that. It is a well known fact of logic that you cannot attack someone's modivations. That is totally irrational.

I think the reason Debbie Maken is doing this is because she is not able to answer her critics. She knows neither of the Biblical languages, and has been caught red handed in double standards, and selective citations. I hope Crossway will not republish her book. As far as scholarship goes, it is laughable. Crossway is only hurting themselves by keeping this book in print.

God Bless,
Puritancalvinist

5/15/07, 5:02 PM  
Blogger wombatty said...

PC:
I think it is revealing that she responds to her critics by questioning their motives as opposed to their arguments. Like you said, and as Anakin also pointed out, motives are beside the point.

It reveals one of two things about Maken:

1) she is, for some reason, unable to imagine honest, informed disagreement with her position, or

2) she knows her case is weak and diverts attention from that weakness by impugning the motives of her critics.

Neither possibility shoud inspire confidence in her arguments.

5/16/07, 3:20 AM  
Anonymous someone said...

Wombatty,

I agree that there is far too much impugning of motives and generally uncharitable attitudes emanating from Maken and her supporters. The part I find far more disturbing, however, than the material you highlighted is the sentence that precedes it in which Maken claims that all those who disagree with her are lazy, flatterers, and unrepentant (that is, they have published erroneous material and are too busy trying to save face).

The problem I see in general and have seen from the beginning is that Maken seems incapable of admitting that her interpretation of scripture is just that, an interpretation. The problem is that the Bible is far clearer on some issues than it is on others. What I find disturbing is that Maken seems unable to acknowledge that the Bible might not be as clear on this issue as she wants it to be and that therefore, other Christians may in good faith hold different views than hers and still be faithful to the scriptures as given. So, as soon as disagreement is expressed she becomes almost instantly defensive, disrespectful and hostile. This is especially true if the disenter is a single Christian man.

It is strange to me that someone who seems so concerned with being biblical seems content to completely ignore the many places where the New Testament admonishes us to treat one another with kindness, to be gentle, to not judge one another, etc. This doctrinaire attitude among her and her followers has done a lot to affirm my initial intuitive rejection of her views. It is also one of the reasons I have largely withdrawn from the debate over this issue, as I find it mostly unproductive and even spiritually destructive. Sometimes the best thing to do in response to people like Maken is to just live your life before God and not worry about their opinions. I also recommend reading Romans 14:1-13 to see that Paul affirms that we do not have to agree on every matter and that we are not to judge one another over our disagreements.

I personally find Maken's views completely uncompelling and theologically unsound. For this reason I find her statement about sincerity and theological correctness not being bedfellows to be rather ironic as it is a sword that can cut both ways.

5/16/07, 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anakin, thank you for your critique of Debbie Maken's book. I especially admire your courage in managing to get through the whole book without losing your sanity! I tried to read it but had to put it down because of the rage she directed at single men like myself.

It's a shame that there are well-known Christian leaders and websites who grant legitimacy to Ms. Maken's questionable arguments and interpretation of Scripture. It's also a shame that Christian scholars, with the notable exception of Dr. Andreas Kostenberger, have been unwilling to publicly challenge Ms. Maken's views.

I hope and pray that Debbie Maken, Albert Mohler, Steve and Candice Watters, Ted Slater, the so-called "Captain Sensible" and company don't succeed in further marginalzing Christian singles, especially single men, and perhaps drive them out of the church altogether.

5/16/07, 9:28 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Anon 9:28AM,

Not all Christian leaders are for this stuff, though. Dr. Andreas Kostenburger had a dialogue with Debbie Maken here:

http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?s=Debbie+Maken&submit=Go

Here are his concluding comments:

In conclusion, I am struck by the man-centered nature and emphasis in Maken’s work. She calls on the unmarried to “get serious about getting married.” Is reality really as simple as this? Is lack of serious pursuit of marriage really and ultimately the most pressing problem, and getting serious about getting married the solution? It seems that Maken’s emphasis is almost unilaterally on man’s (or woman’s) initiative, while God’s providence and the Holy Spirit’s leading are disparaged. Are we not to trust God as to his timing and his way of leading in this intensely personal area of our lives? In the end, one wonders just how Christian Maken’s thinking is and to what extent shallow theology masks a focus on people going out and trying to force the hand of a recalcitrant and ambivalent God who has largely left humans to their own devices.

Andreas Kostenburger is the editor for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Not only that, I wrote an e-mail to John Piper's ministry explaining what was going on and, well, lets just say that they are about as happy with this stuff as we are. In fact, John Piper said it was "helpful to know the virulence of what's there" [i.e. what was in my message]. Also, John Piper is on writing leave right now, writing a book about marriage. I can only hope that he will address this issue.

So, in actuality, Christian leadership is divided. There are some that support this stuff, and some that do not. Although, I wonder how fast the support would come down if Albert Mohler and James Dobson ever removed their support from this movement.

God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist

5/16/07, 11:40 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Hey Everyone!

I wanted to let everyone know that Debbie Maken is at it again, saying more absurd things. I know I shouldn't be making a plug for myself, but check out my blog, as I have an article all about it:

http://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com/2007/05/dont-marry-that-man-of-faith-today-i.html

Compare the life of George Müller to that of the comments of Debbie Maken. I think you will see a stark contrast.

God Bless,
PuritanCalvinist

5/17/07, 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, PuritanCalvinist. I checked out your blog and the various links.

I'm disgusted, though not surprised, with Debbie Maken's crass materialism. I hope and pray a well-known Christian with some clout has the guts to publicly rebuke her arguments and ideas.

Not all Christian men are cut out to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, mechanics, etc. Perhaps Ms. Maken should be grateful she didn't marry a preacher or a missionary.

5/17/07, 9:39 AM  
Anonymous someone said...

PC,

I checked out the blog entry. I think one thing that has to be realized is that Maken seems to deny up front that individuals can hear the voice of God or know his will for their lives in a specific and personal way. She continually refers to such a view as "subjective," as if it were the equivalent of moral relativism. In an interview with World magazine, when asked about the issue of God's will for our lives she replied, "God's will is reveal in his word." The clear implication of her statement was that His will is not revealed to indivduals. Since Maken clearly believes that scripture categorically commands all people, with very few exceptions, to marry and have children, then it follows from this that men must pursue marriage AND the means to support a family. It is unclear what she thinks counts as enough in this regard.

I would imagine that in response to Anonymous 9:39 she would say that it doesn't matter if a man thinks he is cut out to be a doctor, lawyer, etc. He is commanded by God to get married and as such he had better find a good paying job to support his family, because God isn't interested in what he's "cut out for."

I'm not saying I agree with this, but I think this is what she would say given the logic of her position. Of course, the entire thing hinges on whether or not she is right in her interpretation of scripture and whether or not all men are commanded to marry. If she's wrong about that, then this other stuff is, on one level at least, a non-issue.

5/17/07, 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not all Christian men are cut out to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, mechanics, etc.

AGREED.

But Maken is talking about parity in marriage.

Should a female doctor really marry a garbage man?

oh yeah....if the garbage man has a great heart...

Anyone on this site have any concept of reality..or you are all just angry about being challenged.

5/17/07, 11:42 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Anon 11:42AM,

I am going to be a university professor, and I a would not mind marrying a girl who only graduated from High School, and works at Target, McDonalds, or any place if she loved God, and cared about the things of God.

So, yes, I think a female doctor should marry a garbage man if he is a good man of God, and if she loves him. If a girl's love is based on a man's income, or if she has premptorally ruled him out because of his income, just as Debbie Maken has done, then she is simply showing that she is very worldly in her thinking.

The Bible never speaks about "parity" in marriage. That is something Debbie Maken invented. Hence, her comments were way out of line. They were materialistic, and very self-centered. Chalk it up to another example of how an idolatrious view of marriage leads to worldly thinking.

BTW, I am not the one who is upset about being challanged. I have even dialogued with Debbie Maken herself. I am currently writing a book on this topic. I have found that it is the other side that is unwilling to defend this stuff. They either go after motives [which have nothing to do with the argument themselves], or they engage in namecalling. To me, that only shows real desperation to actually deal with the arguments against their position.

Also, sometime in the near future, I am going to send those comments to Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler is always encouraging couples to get married, even though they may not be financially well off. I wonder what he will have to say in response?

5/17/07, 12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the "Wealth" topic, most of the Christian single women I've spoken with are very turned-off by my very average salary ($60,000US). They tell me they are really looking for a man who can pay all the bills for a wife and children.

The lack of "good men" is really the lack of men who can provide for a family on one salary alone.

Sorry, ladies. If you follow your feminist sisters into the workplace and make your own money, you won't be impressed by or attracted to a guy who earns the same as you do.

The social and financial elevation of women has displaced a huge proportion of men who simply don't have enough to offer women to keep them happy or dedicated to a marriage.

Women did this, not men. That is why Maken's message is all the more dishonest. Why didn't she give up her seat in law school so a Christian man could have the spot and marry a good woman earlier?

Why do all women have to work when most would really be happy staying home with children? Why do most women have to wait until they are 38 before they realize "career before family" is the biggest lie they were ever told?

Many women are alone and unhappy because they traded a traditional life for career and casual sex. They didn't want an old fashioned guy. When middle age rolls around, they suddenly feel they wanted the old traditional ways after all. At that point all they can do is grind their teeth and snarl at men. Debbie's message only fuels their rage.

5/17/07, 5:46 PM  
Blogger Jake said...

Anonymous of 5:46PM,

Along those same lines, Anakin previously made an important point that shocks our modern egalitarian ears but is undeniably true:

For every woman that takes a man's job, there is a man who is denied an income that he could have used to support a woman.

This hits close to home for me, as I will be starting medical school this year. Did you know that fully half of all U.S. medical students are now female? Furthermore, I would expect a modern, secular woman to try to become a doctor, but I have been shocked at the number of professing "conservative" Christian women attending medical school. Where is the love for traditional gender roles we are always being told Christian women have? How do they expect to find a husband who out-earns them if they're going to suck up the high-paying jobs? How do they expect to raise children while working as a doctor?

However, in the context of a Christian discussion, I think you're wrong to bring up the phenomenon of women living "liberated" and then deciding only when it's too late and their eggs have expired that they really wanted a traditional life. Yes, it happens, but mostly to non-believers--I'm not seeing it as a common phenomenon in the church. The problem with Christian women seems to be more that they are too picky, requiring a man who wants to be an overseas missionary, pastor, or the like, and rejecting the rest of us who are merely moderately involved in church as not spiritual enough.

wombatty, about your mention of obligations for men and opportunities for women: I was thinking the same thing when I read that Christianity Today article, especially since we have also seen that kind of thinking crop up before, also previously mentioned by Anakin:

He assumes the responsibility to house, feed, and clothe the family. If his income is insufficient to provide essential support, he resolves the problem by upgrading his skills to increase his salary. He does not work long hours, keeping himself from his wife and family, but is able to provide necessary support by working a forty to forty-five-hour week. While he encourages his wife to pursue a career, he does not depend on her salary for family living expenses." (Willard Harley, His Needs, Her Needs, (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell, 2001), 183)

So it seems, as you say, the current Christian thinking is that a man's role is to live a life of toil and drudgery so that his wife can fulfil her desires. He has an obligation to lock himself into some soul-draining Dilbertesque job if necessary while she's free to do whatever she wants, from staying home and keeping house to trying to open her own business. And if she chooses the latter, it doesn't matter how well or poorly she does with it, because the onus is on him to support the family.

I'm all for traditional gender roles, but these women don't seem to understand that they go both ways. They want all the benefits of traditional gender roles without any of the drawbacks (though how it's a drawback to stay at home instead of working boggles my mind.) I'm willing, even eager, to support the family, but in return I want my wife to stay home, keep the house clean, make dinner, and look after the kids. I'm not willing to fork over extra cash for day care and an illegal alien maid so that my wife has time to run an antique shop or flower stand that just barely breaks even. It sounds like Willard Harley would say that that makes me an unsuitable husband.

By the way, did anyone watch that Premier TV interview that Debbie Maken has linked from her March 5th blog post? The very first statement she makes in the interview is incredible: "I went to law school at 20, graduated at 23, and was shocked that I got a J.D. instead of an M.R.S." You tried to snag a husband under the pretense of attending an advanced professional degree program, and were "shocked" that you actually received the degree the granting of which is the very purpose of the school? That right there should be enough for anyone to see that there is something very wrong with these women's way of thinking. There's virtually nothing I want more in life right now than to find a traditional Christian wife, but if my only option is a Makenite, well, I'd rather play video games.

5/18/07, 6:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also saw the video of Maken's interview. She is completely dismissive of the destruction her legal profession has wrought on marriage.

She says feminism and the empowering of women is an irrelevant distraction and men need to grow up.

I personally know more than a few women who are single over age 40 and are really emotionally hurting. They are starved for love and marriage and probably have a lot to give to a man and children.

They simply didn't make love and marriage a priority. They were taught that their own satisfaction and their fulfillment of their needs and desires was paramount. It is the message of secular culture that these women bought into.

If these women knew the psychology of men, they would have made different decisions. I wonder if women such as Debbie Maken understand that a woman is supposed to be a helper for a man. Her approach seems to be that of teaching women to be very selective of the men they date. Are men simply "life accessories" as the feminists say? Maken suggests exactly this; that men should be strong providers and always yielding to the leadership of their wives.

If one can pass all the conditions of course; and propose within the iron-clad 3-month waiting period, and be extremely devout, etc.

5/18/07, 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, sometime in the near future, I am going to send those comments to Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler is always encouraging couples to get married, even though they may not be financially well off. I wonder what he will have to say in response?


PC, I don't know if you really are in idiot or you just play one on TV. I have not seen one comment from Maken saying you should only marry when you are rich. Her comments have to do with parity in all ways, education, financial, and spiritual.

5/18/07, 8:44 AM  
Blogger wombatty said...

Jake wrote:
---------------------
So it seems, as you say, the current Christian thinking is that a man's role is to live a life of toil and drudgery so that his wife can fulfil her desires. He has an obligation to lock himself into some soul-draining Dilbertesque job if necessary while she's free to do whatever she wants, from staying home and keeping house to trying to open her own business. And if she chooses the latter, it doesn't matter how well or poorly she does with it, because the onus is on him to support the family.
---------------------
I would tweak the bolded sentence thus: He has an obligation to lock himself into some soul-draining Dilbertesque job if necessary for the express purpose that [she can be] free to do whatever she wants...

A fine point, perhaps, but one that I think brings Maken's thinking into sharper relief.

Jake wrote:
---------------------
I'm all for traditional gender roles, but these women don't seem to understand that they go both ways. They want all the benefits of traditional gender roles without any of the drawbacks (though how it's a drawback to stay at home instead of working boggles my mind.)
---------------------
I suspect that Maken, for instance, understands this fully; it's just that she has double-standards. As Anakin has repeatedly pointed out, she constantly urges resurrecting past social norms for men, but is clearly unwilling to 'turn back the clock' for women as well.

Basically, Maken wants to have her cake and eat it too - and by God, that man better be baking cakes by the ton!

Jake wrote:
---------------------
There's virtually nothing I want more in life right now than to find a traditional Christian wife, but if my only option is a Makenite, well, I'd rather play video games.
---------------------
Jake, you clearly don't understand. This has nothing to do with what you want or need - it's all about 'her'. Now go find yourself that 'Dilbertesque job' and get cracking! ;-)

I do agree with your point though - I would prefer single life to life with a Makenite hands down.

Something that I have written a number of times is that, chances are, a Makenite wife would blame nearly everything wrong in their marriage on her husband. Such women blame men for nearly everything now - there's no reason to believe a wedding ring would change that.

I quoted earlier from Emerson Eggerichs' excellent book Love & Respect, here it is again. On pages 233-234, he writes:

What I see happening in some marriages is that the wife believes - or appears to believe - that she does not sin. In many other marriages the only sin that a wife will readily admit to is her negative reaction to her husbands failure to be loving or for losing patience with the children. beyond these areas, women do not see themselves as sinning, even though they readily admit bad habits and wrong attitudes. They write these off to chemical imbalance, hormonal problems, or dysfunction due to family of origin.
[...]
...it's easy for a wife to discount or disparage a husband's suggestion that she has some problem that needs correcting. Even if he is gentle and diplomatic in suggesting that she needs to make a correction to avoid hurting herself or others, he is quickly silenced. She is offended, wonded, and angered by his assessment. He is accused of being without understanding and compassion. He has no right to speak. And he will often wind up being shown contempt.
When I speak on this topic at a Love and Respect Conference, I often get feedback, not all of it positive.


The myopic arrogance of these women is simply mindboggling. It's impossible to say that these women are followers of Maken - most have probably not even heard of her. However, I think this is a very clear demonstration of what a 'Makenite mentality' would look like in marriage: It's all his fault.

Thus, by dating a Makenite, you might well be 'interviewing' for the job of a scapegoat as well as that of a husband

5/18/07, 9:32 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Hello, Anon.

Did it ever occur to you that it would be suicide to send the comments of Debbie Maken to Albert Mohler when I have misrepresented her? Obviously, such would be absurd, and your very postulating of such a senario shows that you have a ton of bias.

BTW, anon, read my comments that you yourself quoted. Does it look to you like I said Debbie Maken said that someone must be "rich?" No, I said that she said they must be financially "well off." Maken said that they must be able to take care of a family, which means that they have enough income to care for themselves as well as at least two extra people before they marry. If that is not financially well off, I don't know how you define the term.

Also, you refuse to deal with my earlier point that parity is not a biblical concept. That appears to be something Maken and her supporters are using to try to defend comments that are simply indefensible. Clothing indefensible comments under a euphomistic name does not make the comments any more defensible.

The tone of your comments speak for themselves. If the best you can offer is intimidation, then you should really be thinking about how strong the arguments for your position really are. If they were better, you would not have to resort to this kind of language.

PuritanCalvinist

5/18/07, 8:02 PM  
Anonymous ubg said...

Hello people.

Just to let you know I've nominated this blog for a bloggers choice award in the religion section.

And thank you Anakin for the work you've put in to this blog, I have found it very enlightening.

5/19/07, 4:39 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Congratulations Anakin!

PuritanCalvinist

5/19/07, 7:29 AM  
Anonymous ubg said...

Sorry, I should have made that previous post more clear.

Scripturally Single needs your votes after being nominated to stand a chance of winning. The link above will take you to the voting page but you have to sign up first.

5/19/07, 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well PC,

I wish you and your bride from McDonalds all the best. Maybe you can talk about how awesome you are at Greek and she at salting the fries just right.

Impuritan Baptist

5/19/07, 3:16 PM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Uggggh, I can't log in on the site to vote. I will try again later.

Anyway, as I am busy writing my book, I am researching dating and marriage customs in India. What I am finding is that, a whole lot of what Debbie Maken says is rooted much more in the culture of India, than in the Bible or the reformers.

I have been reading the relevant sections in Calvin's Institutes, and finding that a whole lot of what Debbie Maken says is being read through the lens of Indian Culture.

For instance, Calvin did allow for a personal decision as to whether or not you had the gift of celebacy, and maintained that God could give the gift of celebacy for a time, and then take it away later. His view of marriage as a "duty" was the idea that, outside of having this gift of controlling sexual desires, a person had a duty to marry. However, again, whether a person had that gift was up to them to decide.

Hence, while it has some elements of similarity to Maken's position, I think we can see that it would be a characture of Calvin's position to say that he agreed with Maken.

However, in Indian culture, things are much different. For instance, I was reading an article by one woman who said that, in Indian culture, marriage is the third word a baby learns after mommy and daddy. One article stated that "A girl who has had a dating relationship in the past would find it difficult to get a suitable match and may have to settle for a match from an economically weaker background." Also, I found that economics play a huge role in Indian culture. Girls almost always seek to marry someone who is more prosperious economically than herself. After meeting, the couple generally has only a few days to decide if they want to be wed. After this, the marriage is set. However, a boy could get dumped if they find out that he has not gotten his carrer in order.

One girl also talked about how women in India are overly picky about the men they choose. One article says that women generally use "head" in deciding who to date.

All of this sounds like many of the doctrines of the mandatory marriage movement. It also matches much of the behavior of the women in this movement. Hence, it appears to me that, rather than exegeting the scriptures and Indian culture, Maken is reading her own culture into the culture of the reformers and the Old Testament. Hence, I think I understand better where her mistakes are being made.

I have so much more to say about this topic, but I cannot say it now as I am saving it for my book. Suffice it to say that what is going on here is someone who is reading the reformers and the Bible through the lens of Indian culture.

PuritanCalvinist

5/19/07, 6:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PC,

is it possible that you are reading your male irresponsibility through the lens of the american culture?

5/19/07, 7:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting how the Indian (and Asian general)divorce rate is WAY WAY LOWER then any country in the west.

5/19/07, 7:35 PM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Anon,

That doesn't even make any sense. How can one read "irresponsability?"

PuritanCalvinist

5/19/07, 7:35 PM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Interesting how the Indian (and Asian general)divorce rate is WAY WAY LOWER then any country in the west.

But it should not be used as a standard. Not if we are practicing Sola Scriptura.

PuritanCalvinist

5/19/07, 7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PuritanCalvinist,

You are so right about Maken. Those of us who attended her lecture heard her go on and on about how things are so much better under the Indian system.

Of course, what is not mentioned is that many of those arranged marriages are very unhappy, but that the couples stay together out of a sense of duty to God and to family.

Most Western Christian women are as picky as secular women. They want a high-salaried, church going, and easily dominated man. If there aren't any? Well, then...there must be a shortage of good men.

Going back to old fashioned Hindu matchmaking practices is not going to bring men back to church.

The accusations of racism start in...3..2..1

5/20/07, 11:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 11:14,

You are a racist. Referring to anyone dismissively as a "hindu" is the highest form of racism. Clearly you hate black and brown people.

5/20/07, 12:50 PM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Interesting, anon 11:44. Do you know if the lecture is available online?

PuritanCalvinist

5/20/07, 7:54 PM  
Anonymous other said...

I think anonymous 12:50 is either having a laugh or trying to be provocative by pretending to be a hyper-sensitve, PC correct, anti-racist racist.

5/21/07, 1:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an older man, I've seen the progression from tradition to "women running the show".

It was about the mid-seventies when it seemed more and more women started telling men how they should feel, behave and relate to women. Part of this was an intolerance of men's feelings. If a man disagreed with women working a career through her fertile years, he was a misogynist. If he disagreed with women sleeping around before marriage, he was old fashioned.

Now, women are left alone, unmarried and emotionally hungry. Where are the men? It's a mystery, isn't it?

It wasn't a mystery for long. Debbie Maken came along and told us the single men were immature, playing video games, delivering pizzas instead of being executives, etc. In short, the women have always known everything about men and how they think. Now they are able to condemn them with scripture when the men aren't worshipping at the feet of their female masters.

Men aren't fighting back or trying to bring the masculinity back to Christianity because the slightest efforts in those directions will bring a wave of condemnation from women.

Women have changed the social reality for men. They have also changed their feelings of what the gospels "should" mean when they speak about men and women. One thing has stayed constant; when men bring up social change, feminism, divorce culture and an economy that marginalizes men in some respects, those topics are deemed off-limits.

Men aren't arguing anymore. They are simply and quietly going away from marriage. They still want sex and marriage, but they can put if off for a long time if it means putting up with women who never respect your feelings, don't want to live a godly marriage, and see you as a walking ATM.

Anakin is right when he says women have forgotten that they were made as a helper to a man, not the other way around. When women remember this, perhaps they will gain some perspective. If they don't, nature has a way of self-correcting. Women who follow a casual pop-Christian feminism usually don't have children - and thus won't be around to teach another generation to be Makenites. Meanwhile, in the fundamentalist communities, there are plenty of women who know what real masculinity and femininity are really about. Those women enjoy their men and have children willingly.

It's just so horribly tragic that Maken and her followers are wrong about so many things. They could be happy and getting on with life instead of marrying late or not at all.

5/21/07, 6:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 6:43 AM,

Thank you for your post. You made some excellent points.

I'm not all that young myself; I'll be 50 before the decade is over. The rules have definitiely changed since I started dating in the late 1970's. Things haven't gotten any easier, that's for sure.

5/21/07, 8:08 AM  
Blogger Songbird said...

Are you guys saying that we should go back to the good old days? I mean, each generation have problems of their own that are really horrid. Huamn nature is constant. The people in the previous generations aren't any more or less sinful than the current generation. Both gender are to blame equally for a lot of things that happened in today's generation as well as the previous generations. In fact, both of them have this sense of entitlement to one's affections and among other things. We are not entitled to anything. God is more generous than anyone can understand. Reading the blogs of both the Marriage Mandate supporters and dissenters as well as the commentors makes jumping over the bridge a very viable option.

I mean, my identity is defined by my relationship with Christ while everything else are things that just shapes me since they are like puzzle pieces of my humanity and being. No martial status, job, financial position or person can ever define who I am.

With that said, why is it that we need to make other Christians our enemies? Part of me is tempted to be resentful toward my femininity as well as our sexuality for all the trouble it brings in all of your lives.

5/21/07, 2:05 PM  
Anonymous someone said...

Songbird,

I largely agree with your comments. As I alluded earlier, I largely withdrew from this debate because I find the whole discussion all around to be so unedifying and I find myself uncomfortable in general with both sides of the debate. I do have to say, though, that I honestly feel that what the Mandatory Marriage movement teaches undermines the gospel and the church.

Also, regarding making enemies of other Christians, I have to say that I feel like Debbie Maken and the mandatory marriage movement chose to see me as the enemy first, by judging me based on my marital status, not the other way around. While this in no way justifies my own lack of love or excuses me from having to follow Christ in choosing to love my "enemies," I do think there is a difference between those who judge people they don't even know based on some legalistic standard of righteousness and those who are simply responding to be unfairly judged. I am not the one heaping scorn and condemnation on people I don't even know based solely on their marital status.

5/22/07, 6:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think men need to be emasculated, or get "in touch" with their feelings as women insisted throughout the 1970s and 1980s. I also don't think women should hate their femininity or the advances they've made on a social level.

Having said that, there is something really odd about the most vocal marriage-mandate leaders. Of the most prolific, only Debbie Maken is married - and I think all of us can imagine what a joyless union that is. The rest are pretending to desire marriage or simply attacking men for being the "sweet, gentle nice guys" the Church has programmed most Christian guys to be.

I am a devout Christian who will not attend any Church that is all about flowers and erotic love songs to Jesus. How does a real man walk into such an environment and feel welcome? How does he suggest change? Seems impossible to me.

For many years, women complained that men were too hard, too masculine. At the same time, more women joined the workforce and adopted male society as their own - while reserving the right to fall back into traditional roles whenever they felt like changing.

The most angry women of the Marriage Mandate movement have missed the impact their liberation and leading of the Church has had on men. It has driven the men out! Now they wonder where the men have gone? Sheesh!

Women complained for years about unfeeling and abusive men. They wanted good, meek, cooperative, diaper-changing, chore-sharing, girly men as partners in feminine Christianity. Those men do exist. They sit in the pews of your feminine churches but you have no interest in them. You want the real men, but almost none of them are in the churches anymore.

Women got what they wanted. They became more powerful than average men of days gone by. Now the West seems to be in a slow social decline while Islam is confident, masculine and rising fast.

Do most men want to go back to the "bad old days" where women saved themselves for marriage, treated men with respect and were loved and adored as a result? Sure, that would be nice, but women don't offer that anymore. Marriage to modern women either inside or outside the Church means being shackled to yet another master.

I thought Christ was head of the man and man was head of the woman. I really wish Jesus would make a personal appearance to the Makenites and the Marriage Mandaters and remind them that they aren't the leaders in families. Their subjective feelings on right and wrong often do not match the directives from Heaven.

5/22/07, 7:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I pity the marriage-mandate crowd. Sure things are different, but most women don't have to be controlled by bad husbands with no possibility of escape. Sure there were good and bad marriages in the old days, but the difference now is that you don't have to stay stuck with someone who is abusive. You don't have to be forced into marrying someone you don't love either.

I've had long talks with the marriage-mandate ladies. All of them are from wealthy families; all of them were feminist in their youth; all of them came back to the Church out of frustration with their lives; all of them have worked, travelled and enjoyed the single life. The ones who are complaining are the ones who didn't take men seriously anyway. The ones who preach contentment have certificates in feminist "women's studies".

Be aware of who these women are and what their real agenda is. I cannot imagine Debbie Maken being a "submitted" wife. Not in a million years. I think Carolyn McCulley has a degree in Feminism or Women's Studies from university. And Captain Sensible, well...she's off in London fighting imaginary demons of singleness.

Not a group I would trust with my life plans - especially when it came to romance or marriage.

BTW - the last post didn't need to insult Debbie's marriage. I'm sure it's happy, but her husband is in NO WAY in charge of that relationship. Poor guy.

5/22/07, 5:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The men who post here are showing their true colours.

Debbie is showing where men have failed us as partners. Why have they gone away? Women didn't change. Just because we can now work and have legal standing as human beings doesn't mean we are ruling the world!

Men are painfully immature and lacking in direction. Perhaps some churches have failed them, but it seems more like a complete refusal of men to grow up and become adults.

I don't care if men are disillusioned. They know what they SHOULD be doing. Perhaps they need to work two jobs to be a good provider. To be in line with God's will means sacrifice at times.

I'm simply so disappointed in men. They failed us. I pray they will be loosed from the demons of indifference and hatred of women. At the very least, men need to grow up and stop complaining about what their fathers and grandfathers did happily.

5/23/07, 12:25 PM  
Blogger wombatty said...

Anonymous wrote:
-------------------
Debbie is showing where men have failed us as partners. Why have they gone away? Women didn't change. Just because we can now work and have legal standing as human beings doesn't mean we are ruling the world!
-------------------
Women didn't change?!?!? Again with the 'it's all men's fault' bilge.

The fact that you can work and 'have legal standing as human beings' has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...
-------------------
Men are painfully immature and lacking in direction. Perhaps some churches have failed them, but it seems more like a complete refusal of men to grow up and become adults.
-------------------
All because we aren't pursuing marriage? Give me a break...

Anonymous said...
-------------------
I don't care if men are disillusioned.
-------------------
This is part of your problem - you don't care. Why, pray tell, should men fret and fuss over women who couldn't give a rip about their concerns? Why would a man want to marry such a woman?

Anonymous said...
-------------------
They know what they SHOULD be doing. Perhaps they need to work two jobs to be a good provider. To be in line with God's will means sacrifice at times.
-------------------
Yeah, and then you would just complain that we aren't home enough.

Marriage requires sacrifice of both men and women. Reading Maken, it's pretty clear that she wants to place the entire onus of sacrifce on men.

Anonymous said...
-------------------
I'm simply so disappointed in men. They failed us. I pray they will be loosed from the demons of indifference and hatred of women.
-------------------
This is precious. Wasn't it you who just wrote, 'I don't care if men are disillusioned'? Perhaps you need to be loosed from some demons of indifference yourself?

Anonymous said...
-------------------
At the very least, men need to grow up and stop complaining about what their fathers and grandfathers did happily.
-------------------
Ummm...it's women who are doing the complaining. Debbie Maken and her minions attack single men and we're supposed to just shut-up and 'take it like a man'? We have simply been responding to her book. But that's the problem isn't it? We're just supposed to 'shut up and do what we're told', aren't we?

Scroll up and read my post from 5/18/07 9:32 AM. I quoted Emerson Eggerichs' book Love and Respect on women who 'blame it all' on their husbands. This mirrors Maken, who blames nearly everything on single men. I think some women need to stop pointing fingers and take a look in the mirror.

5/24/07, 3:59 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

I agree with Wombatty. You can define maturity in any way you want. I can define maturity as someone who has been to Milwaukee, and therefore, anyone who has never been to Milwaukee is immature. Therefore, we should all just grow up, and do what I did gladly. Such a claim is totally arbitrary.

PuritanCalvinist

5/24/07, 8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most men on this blog are such whiny losers, it is STUNNING. Let's see, you have insulted Maken's race, marriage, husband, and everything else.

Since you have nothing to contribute to society you just bash someone who dares to challenge your crap.

How about getting a job and making a contribution to society. Grow some balls while you are at it. Clowns like you are better single.

5/24/07, 8:45 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Anon 8:45,

Most men on this blog are such whiny losers, it is STUNNING. Let's see, you have insulted Maken's race, marriage, husband, and everything else.

Ummm, I never insulted Maken's race. What I said was that she was interpreting the Bible through the lens of her Indian culture. That is not "insulting" her race. It is simply recognizing that she has cultural factors that are influencing her exegesis of the text of scripture.

I also have never said anything about Maken's marriage. That is totally irrelevant. And I likewise agree that we should refrain from making such comments.

Since you have nothing to contribute to society you just bash someone who dares to challenge your crap.

Lol, anon, anyone who has read Debbie Maken's book knows that it is *her* that cannot answer the objections levied against her, and it is her that resorts to "bashing," even to the point of thinking that she can know people's motives. Just read her dialogue with me, or her dialogue with Andreas Kostenburger.

As far as "not having jobs" and "not having anything to contribute to society," how do you know that? Do you know our personal lives? Have you ever met any of us? Or do you believe it just because Debbie Maken tells you so? If this is the case, then I would say you are relying on a discredited source.

How about getting a job and making a contribution to society. Grow some balls while you are at it. Clowns like you are better single.

Lol, who is the one who is "insulting" now? Apparently, we show utter hypocracy in not caring that you run off and do the very thing you accuse us of doing to Debbie Maken.

Even if you were right that we are the worst people in the world, and have nothing to contribute to society, if we are right, we are right and there is nothing you or Debbie Maken can do about it. I find it so amazing that the mandatory marriage movement can engage in this kind of intimidating rhetoric just to cover up the fact that they have been Biblically refuted.

If you can't answer our objections, don't write anything at all. I am still waiting for someone to deal with the things that we have said. However, I have a feeling I will be waiting a long wait, and will spend most of my waiting time reading rhetoric like this.

BTW, anyone find it odd that the majority of people who write these kinds of messages are "anonymous?"

PuritanCalvinist

5/24/07, 10:07 AM  
Blogger wombatty said...

Anonymous wrote:
-------------------------
Most men on this blog are such whiny losers, it is STUNNING. Let's see, you have insulted Maken's race, marriage, husband, and everything else.
-------------------------
Who's doing the insulting now?

Speaking for myself: I have questioned Maken's reasoning and her arguments, I have not insulted her race, marriage or husband.

Interesting, though, that those who have said such things bother you, but Maken's insult-filled book doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:
-------------------------
Since you have nothing to contribute to society you just bash someone who dares to challenge your crap.

How about getting a job and making a contribution to society. Grow some balls while you are at it.
Clowns like you are better single.
-------------------------
More insults....you're being rather presumptuous aren't you?

I don't at all mind being challenged, though Maken and you seem to think that you are beyond challenge yourselves. How is it that you 'want us to grow some balls', but then you turn around and, in effect, say 'Just shut up and do what you're told'?

It seems as if some women want us to 'grow balls' just long enough to get married, after which point they would lock them securely away in their purse. No thanks.

Furthermore: I have a good job, make decent money and got promoted at my last evaluation. I pay my own bills and don't burden anyone else with my own obligations. I go to church, keep myself informed, vote, etc. etc. Alas, it just isn't enough, I guess.

If 'clowns like us' are better single, why are you carping at us for not pursuing marriage? You should be happy that 'clowns' aren't pursuing you.

You take issue with those commenters on this blog who have taken cheap shots at Maken and then turn around and engage in that very behavior yourself. It doesn't make for a very convincing argument.

Instead of smearing all of us with the insipid comments of a few, it would be much more productive if you would engage the rational, scriptural and logical arguments that Anakin and others have offered here.

5/24/07, 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as "not having jobs" and "not having anything to contribute to society," how do you know that? Do you know our personal lives? Have you ever met any of us? Or do you believe it just because Debbie Maken tells you so?

NO, I believe this because you all you productive citizens seem to spend all your time whining on this blog.

5/24/07, 12:33 PM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

Anon 12:33PM,

NO, I believe this because you all you productive citizens seem to spend all your time whining on this blog.

Lol!!!!!!! Did you happen to notice that my last post on this blog before today was four days ago, and, even then, it was only two sentences?

PuritanCalvinist

5/24/07, 5:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to look past all this rhetoric and realize that women have taken leadership roles away from men as a natural evolution of our rights in the social sphere.

If women are equal in government and education, why shouldn't they be equal in the Church? This foolishness about women being created to help men is about as outdated as stoning someone for telling a lie.

I think there is a spiritual sickness in men these days. There are many more men in prisons than in years past. Many more men than women commit suicide. Perhaps men aren't up to accepting the concept that they are no longer the leaders of business and society. Perhaps men are going through their own changes as women take charge of more institutions.

I've met quite a few underemployed or displaced men who would have probably owned homes and had families in the ages when only men worked. Perhaps they need to work harder or grow up. If they won't make an effort, nobody should shed a tear if they end up in homeless shelters or decide to end their lives.

Men oppressed and abused women for centuries - especially Christian men. Perhaps the trouble men have these days is merely a case of the sins of their fathers being visited on them.

I don't hate men, but they have problems of their own making. It's simply sad that they cannot take the steps necessary to compete anymore.

5/25/07, 9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'I've met quite a few underemployed or displaced men who would have probably owned homes and had families in the ages when only men worked. Perhaps they need to work harder or grow up.' ...
What hypocracy! Women need to get back in the home and stop displacing men.

'If they won't make an effort, nobody should shed a tear if they end up in homeless shelters or decide to end their lives.'

How hateful! If even Christian women are like this I give up.

5/25/07, 10:52 AM  
Anonymous someone said...

What hypocracy! Women need to get back in the home and stop displacing men.

Anonymous 10:52 AM,

As much as I disagree with Debbie Maken and the mandatory marriage movement, I have to say that, as a man, I find this statement completely offensive. Nowhere is it engraved in stone that the only place where a woman belongs is "in the home." If this is the best the opponents of the mandatory marriage movement can come up with, then we're in pretty bad shape. Thankfully, I don't think it is the best we can do.

5/25/07, 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'If they won't make an effort, nobody should shed a tear if they end up in homeless shelters or decide to end their lives.'

How hateful!

5/25/07, 1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'as a man, I find this statement completely offensive.'

Did you find anything completely offensive in anon 5/25/07 9:10 AM ?

5/25/07, 1:59 PM  
Anonymous someone said...

Did you find anything completely offensive in anon 5/25/07 9:10 AM ?

Yes, as a matter of fact I did, in particular the suicide comments. These were rather harsh and unkind. I chose to respond to your comments, however, because for one your entry was much shorter and easier to respond to at the moment and your statement carried a far larger and more offensive assumption to me.

I do think men need to stop complaining and blaming all of their problems on feminism and the empowerment of women. As anonymous 9:10AM pointed out, correctly in my opinion, men have frequently mistreated and suppressed women throughout history, including in the church. Not every concern raised by feminists is completely illegitimate.

None of this has anything to do with the truth or falsity of the mandatory marriage teachings at all, as far as I'm concerned. I don't even consider Maken a feminist in any way and I think those who are against what she teaches do their cause a disservice by trying to label her with the feminist tag and by complaining about feminism. From my perspective, it just makes them look like people who don't know what they are talking about or who are looking for excuses.

None of this in any way means I don't think that women have their relational sins that they need to own up to. I just think these have less to do with feminism than they do with a general modern American entitlement mentality and silly, unrealistic notions of romance.

The question is rather or not Maken's view are really found in scripture and are really theologically sound. I say they are not and that they are ultimately a form of legalism. I think they fail to understand the nature of the new coventant community and the way it differs from the old covenant community. But there isn't time to go into all of this now.

Also, I've noticed a tendency by people on both sides of this debate to look longingly back towards the past as if somehow back in the good old days things were so much better. Maybe in some ways they were, but in other ways they definitely weren't. As Songbird pointed out, every generation has it's own failings and sins. There is no utopia in the past anymore than there is in the future, not until Jesus comes again to usher in the fullness of the kingdom in which they "neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Luke 20:35)

5/25/07, 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Martin said...

Reply To: Anonymous 5/24/07 8:45 AM

Most men on this blog are such whiny losers, it is STUNNING.

==I find it interesting that you know this about people you have never met. Personally I have a Masters degree, I am working on my second Masters degree (at night), and I work at a state University. I am also a Christian who loves the Lord, I am active in my Church, and I have many friends. Am I really a loser? I don't think so. I am also sure that many of the people who post on this board are not losers either. They, like myself, find Debbie Maken's "arguments" to be unScriptural and therefore dangerous. I have laid out, from Scripture, why I believe this is so on several occasions. Maybe you could find one of those posts and reply point by point?

___________________________

Since you have nothing to contribute to society you just bash someone who dares to challenge your crap.

==Let me commend you on your Christ-like attitude and your willingness to engage in intellectual debate. Of course that is sarcasm because you display neither of those qualities. Again go back and find one of my replies in which I lay out my Biblical arguments and reply to it point by point. I will keep checking this board to see if you will actually do that. It is really easy to call names, it is more difficult to Biblically prove your case. Which is what I am challenging you to do.

___________________________

How about getting a job and making a contribution to society. Grow some balls while you are at it. Clowns like you are better single.

==I have a very good job, how about you? I contribute much to society, how about you? How does your post contribute to society?

5/26/07, 5:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If they won't make an effort, nobody should shed a tear if they end up in homeless shelters or decide to end their lives."

I've seen supposedly devout Christian women make similar statements.

I know it is considered very bad form to mention than men have concerns in this debate, but there are differences between today and thirty years ago.

These days government is turning into a "housewives" job with many women holding high paying paper shuffling positions. Women have many government programs to help them either secure work or obtain benefits.

More and more men are being locked up or displaced. More men are opting for suicide. More men are dropping out of social institutions. More men are NOT pursuing degrees or technical professions. More men are avoiding marriage.

Sounds to me like a lot of men have been displaced by very competitive women in the workplace. Those very same women complain of not finding husband who earn more than they do. The very same women complain of not being able to find a man who wants children.

I'm glad women are finally waking up and starting to shout down the men. They should, they own the government and all our social institutions - including the Church. That is why men are tuning out, dropping out and just doing the minimum to get by. Their leadership roles have been denied, fatherhood has been taken away by government schools, and women feel they should have the last word on everything.

Who did this? Not men. Men were happy with the way things used to be. Women are very happy with the way things are; except for that small issue of there being too few rich attractive bachelors who are also devoutly Christian. Yeah, except for that, everything is just fine.

5/26/07, 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Deborah said...

I can't believe all the men who want a return to the bad old days where women were basically property of their wives.

If anything, women need much more empowerment and men really need to take a backseat in leadership. That means a lesser role in the workplace and a greater role taking care of children and doing household chores.

Men didn't learn anything over the last 40 years while women learned to do everything at home and at the workplace.

Perhaps God is calling women to lead in the Christian Church and Allah is calling men to lead in the Muslim world. This would be the clearest revelation that men are much more inclined toward evil, while women are much more receptive to truth and love.

5/29/07, 12:15 PM  
Blogger Songbird said...

Deborah, as a woman, most of your statements are really vemonous and faulty. While some of the guys here are questionable attitudes that in need of repenting, it doesn't does give you the right to speak evil to your brothers in Christ. What you just committed is slander, which is a sin, not a genuine rebuke. You are probably are really are fed up with men blaming women in generally everything wrong in their lives, which I don't blame you. It's true that men are messed up. However, women are humans too, so women are just as messed up as well as. Saying those blantantly sexist, unChristlike statements and letting your anger turn into self-righteous anger is unacceptable anywhere at anytime. You just broke the heart of Christ through sinning against your brothers with your statements, which is a serious offense. Some of the men here have committed the same offense through statements like from anon 5/26 5:03.

5/29/07, 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>> [...] while women are much more receptive to truth and love.<<<



It's true: women are showing their rage

5/29/07, 9:46 PM  
Anonymous steven said...

Deborah.

Assuming that you are a Christian, can you explain how you reconcile your feminist views with your religion?

As far as I can see, feminism and Christianity are at odds with each other.

5/30/07, 4:08 AM  
Anonymous Deborah said...

"It's true that men are messed up."

Doesn't this statement pretty much confirm everything Debbie Maken says?

Men need to rejoin society and do what they are commanded to do. Only men are breaking the heart of Christ by not marrying lonely and barren Christian women.

We deserve the right to lead and to hold careers. We deserve the right to be paid equally for equal work. Most of my company is staffed with women, but that doesn't mean we rule the business world. I think the true answer to the current inadequacy of men is their lack of initiative in the workplace. They should work three jobs if they have to. They are commanded by God to marry and have children.

If a man is too poor to support a woman and her children, then he is actively sinning against God everyday through his personal and financial failures.

It isn't righteous women who will pay the price. It is millions of slacker-type underemployed single men who will be cast into Hell. On that day, me and Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken will be there to laugh at them.

5/30/07, 6:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Songbird,

Just thinking ...

Since you are taking the moral high ground here by suggesting how "bad" many of the commenters are from both sides of this debate (not agreeing with either side, of course), shouldn't you be casting your eye AWAY from the very appearance of "wickedness"?

You, in fact, may not be choosing either side of the coin, but remember ... you're still holding the coin by participating here, especially since you've cast this place as something verboten by scripture.

Having nothing to do with either side, why are you here? To referee? To act as moderator or counselor? One can only wonder how you would have reacted during the sojourn of King David.

"Oh, David, you can't go into that city and ransack it! Oh, please, you are evil to do that"!

Yeah, I know. That's a tad little extreme. Nonetheless, I, on the other hand, see nothing wrong with disagreement. Furthermore, (and this is to the wider audience), I have yet to see any dissenters tear down piece by piece what Anakin has put forth in his entries.

Everytime I come here to read "Scripturally Single", two-thirds of the time the comments page is not even about the ENTRY at hand.

It's usually space filled with chastising other posters and/ or threadjacking.

So here is my challenge to the Debbie Maken hecklers of Anakin's blog ....

Forget about all the "so-called" {{{negative commenters}}} posting here, for a change, and try to focus on Anakin's message. Cut and paste the things you do not like and tell everyone why you disagree. After all, Anakin has put a lot of effort in articulating his intelligent, rational, and well constructed rebuttal to Mrs. Maken.

Can you NOT do the same? Alas, one would think Debbie Maken's crowd could deconstruct and challenge his argument piece by piece without the flame game.

I suppose not.

HG

5/30/07, 6:37 AM  
Anonymous steven said...

Oh, I get it now Deborah.

Your being satirical.

5/30/07, 6:38 AM  
Anonymous someone said...

Deborah,

Do you actually believe the stuff you're saying here or are you trying to offer a parody of Maken's views? I really hope it's the later because this stuff is seriously over the top. I don't even know how you can seriously say stuff like this and still call yourself a follower of Jesus Christ. Where is the grace? Where is the love? Where is the gentleness and kindness that is a fruit of the Spirit?

While you laugh at the thought of others being thrown into hell, God says he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and he doesn't desire that any should perish. Can you explain to me how your views are in any way commensurate with this? Also, do you seriously think any of us will be laughing on the day of judgment?

5/30/07, 6:39 AM  
Anonymous someone said...

HG,

I think you are being totally unfair to Songbird. All she has been trying to do is point out that commenters on both sides of the issue are saying things that are not in the Spirit of Christ and are refusing to accept that as men and women we all share in blame for the bad state of gender relationships in the world. I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out and I happen to agree with her stance. I read this blog because I disagree strongly with what Debbie Maken teaches and I find a lot of what Anakin writes to be helpful. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't find a lot of what the commenters on both sides say to be both unChristian and disturbing, or that I agree with everything Anakin says. If this means I am guilty of "taking the moral high ground" then so be it, I accept the charge.

5/30/07, 6:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>> If a man is too poor to support a woman and her children, then he is actively sinning against God everyday through his personal and financial failures. <<<<

Wow. I thought if one had the essential provisions of food, clothing, and shelter, then they were considered wealthy under God's watchful eye.

Um, what Bible are you reading, by the way, Deb? I need to know. I think I have some pages missing ...



>>>> It isn't righteous women who will pay the price. >>>

Um, Deb, repeat that line 50 times aloud.

[*waiting*]

Now don't you sound silly addressing yourself as righteous?

>>> It is millions of slacker-type underemployed single men who will be cast into Hell.<<<

Oh, here we go ... I found it ...

Deborah 5:13 - OT - Between Judges and Jury


>>>> On that day, me and Captain Sensible and Debbie Maken will be there to laugh at them. <<<<

Deborah 5:14

Ha Hahahahaha Hehehehee Are U for real girl? I thought the meek shall inherit the Earth? Humilty doesn't seem to be one of your strong points.

{{{ Newsflash: No-one will be laughing at anyone on THAT day. Even Maken would be ashamed of "her acolyte" (YOU) for posting this drivel. }}}

This is priceless, Deb. I sense so much anger in your tone. So, um, anyway, how high IS your pedestal? Are you sitting on the LEFT side of God?

You're contibution here is the reason Atheist laugh at us and why the Christian community is discredited. Thanks a lot, hon.

I think I'll go find my other three jobs now (tsk). As a trader in the open market, I must really be baaaad for not having to commute in traffic nor leave my seat at home.

Hmm ... I think I'll short your company. ;)


HG

PS - SOMEONE SAID: You're explanation is fair enough.

5/30/07, 7:55 AM  
Anonymous Deborah said...

Okay, okay.

It was going too far to say people would be laughing at the damned, but Debbie is right to say slacker men who work as pizza delivery boys are complete losers.

Debbie toned down her book a lot before publication so it would be friendly to both sexes. I think it is too reasonable when addressing the shortcomings of men (obviously).

The fact remains that men have precious little to add to the debate except for weak attempts at defending prolonged singleness.

5/30/07, 12:28 PM  
Anonymous someone said...

Deborah,

You've got to be a parody. It's the only way I can make any sense of the stuff you say.

5/30/07, 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deborah,

>>> It was going too far to say people would be laughing at the damned, but Debbie is right to say slacker men who work as pizza delivery boys are complete losers.<<<

I believe a lot of people are placed where God wants them. Someone has to work those jobs. There's not enough room at the top for everyone.

What if, for an example, I took the high road and said "everyone" is a "loser" who doesn't work for THEMSELVES; everyone is a loser who doesn't have a business of their own. Yes, anyone who does not work free from the drudgery of the wage slaves in office cubicles, including yourself, is a loser. Now, imagine the response I'd get.

Free enterprise is all in the Bible. I personally think it's cool that a fisherman could actually socialize with a doctor without feeling uncomfortable in his role.

It's sad that the "mask" of the public education system excludes teaching free enterprise to kids today. I could go on, but I see it would only be a waste of your time, and mine.

>>> Debbie toned down her book a lot before publication so it would be friendly to both sexes. I think it is too reasonable when addressing the shortcomings of men (obviously).<<<

Have you ever taken a class on the subject of narcissism, Deb? You're drenched in it.

>>> The fact remains that men have precious little to add to the debate except for weak attempts at defending prolonged singleness.<<<

The fact remains ... ? You are generalizing in logical fallacies that presume you're on the same side as most women when discussing the mandate issue.

On the contrary, the men have done an admirable job of defending themselves, and many, many women, I'm confident, agree to the position Anakin and others take.

You're a sad human being who can't see the forest for the trees.

Humble thyself, tigress.

HG

5/30/07, 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deborah does not speak for all women. However, Debbie Maken is completely right about men. Until men repent and come back to the churches; and on women's terms and conditions, things will only get worse.

5/31/07, 7:37 AM  
Blogger PuritanCalvinist said...

The fact remains that men have precious little to add to the debate except for weak attempts at defending prolonged singleness.

I love how these people just make these assertions without demonstrating it. When I say that something is weak, I can show why it is weak. Assertion is no substitute for argument. Maybe these people think that if they say our response is weak enough times they will deceive themselves and others into believing it. I don't know. However, I do know that it is one of the most unbelievable things I have ever seen.

It is remenicent of my dialogue with Debbie Maken where, out of the blue, she just asserted that I was speaking out of both sides of my mouth. When I challanged her on it to show that what I was saying was a self-contradiction, she fell apart. It seems to me like these folks are big on talk, but little on arguement.

PuritanCalvinist

5/31/07, 7:40 AM  
Anonymous someone said...

"Deborah does not speak for all women. However, Debbie Maken is completely right about men. Until men repent and come back to the churches; and on women's terms and conditions, things will only get worse."

Is this really "Deborah" writing this? Is this part of the whole parody too?

5/31/07, 8:00 AM  
Anonymous steven said...

Anonymous said...
"Until men repent and come back to the churches; and on women's terms and conditions, things will only get worse."

LOL! Worse for who?

5/31/07, 8:31 AM  
Anonymous Admiral Sensible said...

The poor man was created to toil and starve; finding disease and death early in life as he serves the needs of the doctors and lawyers digging their swimming pools and trimming their lawns.

The rich man was created to serve women; to give them warmth, love, and the option to stay home and watch television.

I'm glad we got this straight.

5/31/07, 12:23 PM  
Anonymous someone said...

Admiral Sensible,

Are you really Deborah/Anonymous? I'd almost bet money. Oh, and the satire/parody really isn't that funny anymore either, if it ever was in the first place.

5/31/07, 1:14 PM  
Anonymous steven said...

Admiral Sensible said...
"The rich man was created to serve women; to give them warmth, love, and the option to stay home and watch television.

I'm glad we got this straight."


I thought the rich man was created to provide women with a hefty divorce settlement so she can be strong, independent and empowered?

6/1/07, 2:19 AM  
Blogger wombatty said...

Anonymous 5/31/07 7:37 AM
wrote:
-------------------------
Until men repent and come back to the churches; and on women's terms and conditions, things will only get worse.
-------------------------
If these men aren't pursuing marriage in the first place, what makes you think they'll be interested in your 'terms and conditions'?

6/1/07, 3:43 AM  
Blogger lijialefw said...

Found two good games Dollar (wow gold) deal! (wow gold) Are cheap! Blue is very good, you may wish to enter the site to its own needs of the trading game coin! (wow gold) Is also available in Dailian game! (wow power leveling)This station is also available wow power levelingwow powerleveling wow power leveling buy rolexof World of Warcraft gold

8/27/08, 7:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home