Lack of Male Leadership Made Me Do It (And Other Good Excuses)
Well, I was going to put off writing about a certain post at certain lady's blog, but the itch is itching and I gotta' scratch. You guys have already been talking about it here in various comments. I have already dealt with one additional comment the lady in question has made on her post. Even so, the drama continues to unfold at her blog. Drop a few oversized pillows before the flat-screen, break out the popcorn, nachos and bean dip. The show has more explosions, twisted metal, and flying bricks than one of those disaster documentaries on the Weather Channel. I really can't add much to the melee at this moment. Triton, an occasional reader of my blog, has his own eyewitness account of what's happening, so I direct your attention to him.
I will touch upon two comments left at the certain lady's blog. First, read this:
I will touch upon two comments left at the certain lady's blog. First, read this:
I also think it would help if we realized that Mrs. Maken is laying the responsibility for feminism in the broad sense at the feet of men in general. That's not the same as claiming that individual women bear no guilt for their sins in this area, nor that any individual man is responsible for the whole homogenosexist mess in which our culture finds itself. But by saying that men should step up to the plate and turn this ship around (to mix my metaphors), it appears to me that Mrs. Maken is honoring the God-ordained role of male leadership.And now read this ...
I have a theory regarding this handful of Christian men and why they have such difficulty in attracting women. I think the Christian women they interact with very quickly discover that the fruit these men display is disturbing. Their disrespect of women – which even borders on misogyny at times – soon puts Christian women off them and so they are repeatedly rejected. Of course, given the nonsense teaching in the church regarding singleness and marriage, these men are never challenged as to why they haven’t found a wife, so they are not questioned about their attitude to women, or receive any accountability or pastoral care that would help them address their problems.Hmmm, that's a peculiar statement. Really, I think it's pretty misogynistic to imply that conservative women are too stupid and gullible to think for themselves and speak out against injustice. What other conclusion can we draw from claiming women are somehow unable to stand up to feminism without "male leadership"? Let me get this straight: Some Christian ladies want to be the "Esther" and "Deborah" when it comes to shaming men into marriage, but sit idly by the sidelines while feminism rolls over men? I ain't buying it. The old saw about feminism being caused by the lack of male leadership is not new. Certain conservative women have flung this lame turkey around more than enough times. Consider this article by Devvy Kidd, but also consider this incisive response to her. The fact of the matter is that men are beginning to exercise "male leadership" by calling misandrists out on their nonsense, whether these misandrists be feminist ... or otherwise.
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 8:49 PM
93 Comments:
Hey, Anakin. Thanks for the mention. I really appreciate your blog, by the way; your Herculean effort in demolishing Maken's book is nothing short of astounding.
Anyway, Farmer Tom had mentioned at my blog once that he was trying to engage Maken in a dialog or something, so I was on the lookout on the off chance that she published his comments.
This Marriage Mandate stuff just takes the cake. It has got to be the weirdest bit of heresy I've ever seen.
Keep up the good work, man.
Anakin wrote:
The fact of the matter is that men are beginning to exercise "male leadership" by calling misandrists out on their nonsense, whether they be feminist ... or otherwise.
That's not leadership Anakin, that's heresy!! =;-)
Triton - Maken has published Farmer Tom's response to her silliness. He takes her to task on her stupifying denial of the damage feminism has done to society. She, of course, disgrees that there has been any such lasting damage. She says that she will reply in detail re:feminism soon. That oughta be good.
Anakin..valid points, but maybe the wrong fight to be having (wrong in the tactical sense.) Or, then again, maybe not.
Men will discover their masculinity when they discover a) their weakness and b) their Strength. Pointing men to how to sink deep roots into their Life with Him will make talking with, or about, Makenites, a useless and silly exercise. Those women who seek Him too will recognize Him in those men who have found Him, and they will also have respect for them, either as friends and siblings in the body or as potential mates.
Notwithstanding all that, you're doing a great yeoman's job here; but it's starting to look like a holding action more than anything else. Of course, I'm just a foot soldier, not a general. Giving them a little push is helpful, sure, but the weight of these ideas may drag them down the way other bad ideas (KJV onlyism, "submission" doctrines, etc.) have sunk of their own accord.
Or, on the other hand, we might be in a position like the Romans were in as they saw the first Picts coming over the wall.
I've enlisted, though.
How about an original title Anakin? Or an original name for that matter!
Can you come up with your own thoughts or just bash those who do.
Anon 7:03,
Very cerebral comments, "Anonymouse".
You missed your call, by the way ... :)
HG
what does it matter, you are their all time best seller!
There is nothing original about Debbie Maken's presentation. Most of her writing is the same garbled rhetoric that's been recycled for years by the feminist in today's modern pop culture. The main difference is she has reinvented the wheel by trying to manipulate the single men in Church.
Anakin, just thought you'd like to know that The Male Samizdat has written a piece on the marriage mandate in one of his July entries. In his blog, he discusses women over 27. It's similar to Maken's rant about men over 30. Coincidentally, the Male Samizdat is not, to my knowledge at least, a confessed Christian, YET even he gets it right for the most part.
I find it amusing when women think they do all the rejecting. I guess they think rejection wields them some kind of psychological advantage. They wet all over themselves thinking they one-upped a man. What they do not seem to understand is that often times when men speak directly on a controversial issue regarding women, that it is the men who have verbally rejected these girls based on the evaluation of the their misandrist, extrabiblical, and legalist toxin, or worse.
In reality, these men haven't lost a prospect. Instead, they've gained a soul.
Debbie Maken assumes she knows everything about single Christian men. Yet, may I say, she knows nothing. Her blog would be funny if it were not so tragic.
Mrs. Maken has just provided us with a clear example of her attitude towards single men – and that attitude is a big part of the reason many of us react to her as we do.
Farmer Tom recently took issue with her denial of the lasting, negative impact of feminism on our culture. She was quick to dismiss him and offered him the following admonition:
Get off your bottom, be a "man," so that a woman will actually be attracted to you, and quit making excuses.
That was the end of the issue as far as she was concerned.
Unfortunately, she had stuck her foot in her mouth – Farmer Tom is married with children. Thus illuminated, Maken, to her credit, apologized to Farmer Tom.
Here’s the rub – she has now stated that she will reply to his substantive points regarding her denial of the impact of feminism. Now, why didn’t she simply do that in the first place? After all, her latest response implies that he did indeed make substantive points. Let Mrs. Maken tell us why:
I am afraid I thought you were just one of those rude and contentious bachelors that spend more time nitpicking over my book, than investing in securing a wife. I am glad to know that you are married and have brought fruit into this world, and that our disagreement is actually small in the scope of our assessment of the situation.
So Maken deemed Farmer Tom unworthy of a substantive response for two reasons: 1) she thought he was a ‘rude and contentious bachelor’ (is there any other kind?) and; 2) she thought that their disagreement was big ‘in the scope of our assessment of the situation’.
As soon as she found out otherwise, he suddenly became worthy of a substantive response. Let me get this straight: unless you’re married and largely agree with her, you’re questions (no matter how legitimate) are to be dismissed. Sorry Debbie, a substantive questions is a substantive question, regardless of motivation.
This is a perfect example of one of Maken’s central problems; she believes that bachelors past their early twenties deserve nothing more than shame and contempt and she’s quick to dispense it.
This incident also demonstrates that it is extraordinarily difficult for Maken to conceive of dissent coming from anyone other than a bachelor. Sorry again Debbie, one doesn’t have to be a bachelor to see through your flimsy arguments.
Here’s some unsolicited advice for Maken:
Get off your bottom, be an "adult," answer substantive questions about your book so more people will actually take you seriously, and quit making excuses.
Such narrow-minded, bigoted behavior is not at all attractive. In her quest to ‘attract flies’, Maken clearly prefers a pile of horse crap to a jar of honey.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Such narrow-minded, bigoted behavior is not at all attractive. In her quest to ‘attract flies’, Maken clearly prefers a pile of horse crap to a jar of honey.
Such fools we mortals be.
First, Debbie Maken slings sexual epithets, I see, and now she's applying segregation tactics to single men on her blog? This familiarity rings back to the days of the color barrier where black men and women in the 50's were forced to the back of the bus. (And one just knew this comparison was coming.)
In reality, Debbie Maken has all but called single men the (N) word. Actually, the (N)word has been replaced with the (E) word. With this whole additional attitude of division between marital and single status as Wombatty has demonstrated above, I can only conclude that Ms. Maken's upper class snobbery also includes gender segregation or separatism. This does not bode well for one who claims to be a Christian.
I would think Maken of all people should know better than to judge another person based solely on the color of their, sorry, I mean, based solely and exclusively on their marital or singular status.
Captain Sensible writes:
"Enough of all the anger recently, here is something to think about: perfect and constant peace, and confident hope in Him."
Sorry, Captain, you are wrong. There isn't any anger against Maken and her permanently single fans. Real Christian men are standing up to Maken and refusing to be named losers or eunuchs.
Here's a thought: Try reaching out to men and understanding them as men, not as you EXPECT them to be.
If you follow Maken's advice, you will never marry. If you drop all of her foolish nonsense and simply relate to men normally, you could probably find someone very quickly.
It's a simple choice: following Maken means lifelong spinsterhood.
Being realistic means meeting men on their own terms. Romance is something for men and women. If you put Maken or theology between you and the men you meet, you'll always have disappointment and heartbreak.
What you are doing isn't working. Try something else.
"Just to say a huge thank you for coming over to see us in the UK.... It is my belief that the men that attended will be married within six months to a year!"
- English blogger heaping praise on Debbie Maken for saving the church and single women.
Well, it's been six months on and no new marriages; no attitudes changed, and more men than ever are tired of being labelled "eunuchs, losers, or immature".
It doesn't matter how much women love Debbie Maken or her message. Men are very put off by it. Men aren't buying the bag of shame Debbie has for them.
If anything, things are worse. I personally know two single Christian men from the UK who recently left London for New York.
Those lonely English women should move out to Texas. There are a lot of single men who would love to meet them...
...Just a thought.
It is fascinating how much silliness Debbie's book has provoked. I have to admit I am concerned that things don't seem to be improving.
I expected more men to return to the Church and embrace marriage, but it seems things are worse now than before Debbie's book.
One thing is certain, the men who do not pursue marriage will have to answer for their actions!
Lack of male leadership, indeed!!
I sometimes almost have sympathy for the male points of view, but then I remember all the comments which aren't in 100% agreement with Debbie Maken are from ONE man!!! Frustrating!!!
Getting back to the recent discussion, what is wrong with women holding jobs? What is wrong with women having equality in social settings?
I think women who work and hold degrees deserve a man who holds a degree and a professional position. Why should an accomplished woman have to settle for a ditch digger or a salesman?
Debbie Maken brilliantly illustrates through her own marriage how women shouldn't have to settle for less than they deserve. Sadly, more and more men ARE "less than women deserve". That is really the key to this issue. With so many men being less than acceptable, and even fewer going to church, it leaves a lot of women out in the cold.
Why should women have to suffer simply because men are lazy and directionless in this generation?
I'm very disappointed that most universities are now 65%-75% women enrolled. Those numbers tell us that men are slacking off, not living up to their potential.
How does a pizza delivery boy support a female attorney or female doctor?
If women are becoming the educated and professional class, men are in much more trouble than I thought. Sadly, it is due to them not stepping up and doing what they are biblically ordained to do.
In an ideal world, we could have Christian men lawyers and Christian women lawyers marrying and having godly children in large houses in gated communities. Only the non-Christians would be poor and living with their minimum wage (and pathetic) existences.
If women are ordained to marry up, and men are ordained to marry and have children, the lack of worthy men is squarely the fault of men. They simply aren't trying.
I wish our Church community was like the thriving Muslim communities. Their men lead and behave in a masculine manner. Their families have traditional structures and lots of children. We have highly-paid professional women, loser effeminate men, and almost no children.
What's wrong? Men. Christian men failed Christian women. We aren't marrying and we aren't having babies because our men cannot keep up with fully educated and fully employed women. If they cannot, then our men are less than men.
I never thought I'd say this, but I envy our Muslim sisters. At least they have real men.
DD,
Sometimes it isn't always the men's fault. Our local county government has about 89% women employees. We turn away male applicants due to our affirmative action policies.
Lots of men have been displaced in good-paying, reliable careers in government or mid-level management in private companies. Even we (women) complain that very little gets done since we don't have any male leadership.
Government policies have taken a lot away from ordinary men and given big breaks to women who really should have stayed home and had children. I'm not complaining as those same policies gave me a great job and a nice life, but I come home to an empty house and I haven't been able to find a man who impresses me or beats my salary.
I don't know how one can "fix" this problem, but telling men they are losers because they now compete with women isn't fair. We all work now, perhaps more women need to accept we are all the same. Most of us wanted full equality and now we have it. Just because the side effects are lonely lives and few children doesn't mean it's all bad.
At least consider that the guys are speaking from the heart. This isn't 1960 when a man could support a family on one salary. Get with the times. We all have jobs and relationships are much tougher.
It's simply insane to think with all the working women that there will be loads of attractive rich men to marry us.
AUSTIN, TX SINGLES NEWS
If you are a Christian single, drop in on the Central Market in Austin this Sunday at 1:00pm. This is a spontaneous event, nothing official and no sign-up necessary. Meet other singles, talk, have a coffee together - nothing too serious, just a meetup.
How will you know who is who at a "barely organized" event??? We came up with a crazy idea:
Everyone in attendance must wear one item of yellow clothing, even shoes are OK, but all Christian singles must be wearing at least something yellow. This way, you'll only be meeting Christian singles. This meetup is only for saying hello and meeting other Christian singles. Don't give out your personal information or go home with anyone on the first meeting. Our goal is to help people meet, go to church together and get to know each other outside of the bar scene or dating services.
Our spontaneous event in Houston was a big hit. If this Sunday - July 22, is a success, then there will be random singles events every month in Austin. Don't forget: Central Market, 1:00pm, July 22nd.
What's wrong? Men. Christian men failed Christian women.
Perhaps men are waking up to the fact that they are not put on this earth to be Pack-Mules and Slaves to women's whims. Christian women as well as non-Christian alike continue to sap men of everything they have, and once the men stop being entertaining and delighting, those same women will flex their entitlement queen muscles and divorce him because "she no longer feels fulfilled".
I got news for you, honey...life isn't about what you think you're entitled to.
Maken and her cult are very good at castigating men and telling them what they cannot offer, but not so good at telling those same men what the women offer them. By her snide and insulting demeanor, and those being parroted by her acolytes, they sure as shootin' don't present themselves as any great prize.
DD's comments about women being "ordained" to marry up. Where in Christ's teachings does it say that she or any woman has the right to hold value judgements over any man?
Curiepoint -
I think (or at least I hope) the last couple of comments were satirical, though it comes fairly close to some of the bilge you hear from the 'marriage mandate' crowd.
you wrote:
Maken and her cult are very good at castigating men and telling them what they cannot offer, but not so good at telling those same men what the women offer them.
That's because Maken et al believe it's 'all his fault'. In Maken's world, there's very little, if any, 'work' or improvement that women need to do.
As to what women have to offer us men? Well, they're women aren't they? I guess that's supposed to be enough.
you wrote:
By her snide and insulting demeanor, and those being parroted by her acolytes, they sure as shootin' don't present themselves as any great prize.
Only a slovenly, immature pig - I mean a man - would say something like that ;-)
I really think Maken and her crowd are blind to this. If you take some time to read through past posts and comments at Maken's blog you'll see it. When guys have made similar points, her followers almost invariably resort to questioning the commenters motives.
In Maken's world, there is no such thing as legitimate and substantial disagreement. This can be seen in her reaction to Farmer Tom's recent comment over at her blog.
You might as well say that grass is orange as disagree with Mrs. Debbie.
Perhaps those posts were intended as satire, Wombatty. Clearly though, it is getting harder and harder to tell because as you point out, the language comes awfully close to the sincerest of invective hurled at men.
I would like to know where the myth got started that women are a prize intrinsic to their being female. It would seem that there's no accounting on their part with regards to their own conduct.
If they believe that men are driven without exception by their libidos to the point of being willing to crawl over broken glass, are they not perpetuating the very notions that they malign men over (all they think about is sex)?
In recent years, I believe that marriage has been on the decline because men are sick and tired of being reduced to this. No amount of enlightenment from secular or spiritual sources seems to shake women of their delusions as to what men truly are all about. The sexual power women once held over men is like a booster stage on a Saturn V rocket with engines failing one by one. Women are slowly becoming aware of the fact that they'll never acheive escape velocity or orbit relying upon those engines. Instead of going back to the drawing board and coming up with a better design, they would rather blame and condemn orbital space as being too far away. In the final analysis, it is what and where it is, and complaining about it will not improve their situation one iota.
Now it could be argued that if orbital space were closer, the mission would be easier to achieve. But why should nature be bent to their aim? Women in general need to realize that their value to a man's life must be measured and found worthy. In other words, in order to find love, one must first show that they are loveable.
The Maken Cult of Personality has done nothing at all to bring such evidence to bear.
For the record, I don't watch porn, don't drink, and don't have the slightest interest in video games. And, I have done my share of rejecting as having been rejected. I figure the playing field with regards to seeking companionship is just about level.
Show me your worth, and I will talk with you about what is possible. Otherwise, go hen-peck some other rooster.
Curiepoint said...
I would like to know where the myth got started that women are a prize intrinsic to their being female. It would seem that there's no accounting on their part with regards to their own conduct.
If you believe Maken, women are virtually innocent while those men not yet 'tamed' by marrige are the vilest of creatures; sorely in need of rehabilitation by a woman. Reading what they think of us makes you wonder why they want a man at all.
Here's a snippet of one of my comments from a few posts ago:
****
I recently finished Emerson Eggerichs' excellent (and very balanced) book Love & Respect. He makes an observation (based on his years of marriage-counseling and ministry) that brings Debbie Maken to mind. 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 need's correcting. Even if he is gently 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.
****
This is the kind of wife you'll likely end up with if you marry a Makenite. No thanks.
Curiepoint said...If they believe that men are driven without exception by their libidos to the point of being willing to crawl over broken glass, are they not perpetuating the very notions that they malign men over (all they think about is sex)?
This has occured to me as well. I've read several comments by women in the course of this 'discussion' which basically amount to, 'What about that strong male sex drive? Shouldn't these guys be driven by that into marriage?'
I have to laugh because, chances are, these same women are likely the ones who will be plagued by all manner of headaches and such after marriage; constantly complaining that their husbands always want sex.
It's kinda funny; all of a sudden the much-maligned male sex-drive isn't so bad...at least until vows are exchanged.
Well, you know what they say...the one substance that utterly kills a woman's sex drive is wedding cake.
I just get the impression that while taking men to task for not fulfilling traditional and biblical roles, but at the same time make no mention of women taking similar roles in the marriage, the Makenites are merely putting handcuffs on men and restricting the range of their perceptions. Though they vehemently deny it, there is a word that describes the sort of person promoting this sort of agenda:
Feminist.
I have nothing but pity for the Maken girls.
They put education, career, travel and service to the Church high above finding a mate. As they grew older, they realized time is not a friend and they suddenly wanted to marry.
But women made the churches into girls clubs; men went away.
Women joined the workforce in vast numbers; far less men could support a family on one income.
Suddenly we have lots of women arriving at age 40 with diminishing looks and sky-high expectations of men. They are angry, they are fearful, and ready to grasp anything that heaps blame on men.
It's like they are lost at sea, clinging to a life preserver. Many rescue boats came, but they always refused. Many good men came into, then went out of their lives. The more men they rejected, the higher their expectations became.
Now they are all sitting out there in the water with no rescue boats coming. No babies, no men, no happiness.
They made themselves unwanted and unloveable and now condemn the same men who refuse to pursue them.
Makenites, it's time to drop the rage. Enjoy your good jobs, all your friends and social groups, and stop worrying about marriage.
Women were created to help men and raise children. The problem is that most Western women feel they were created to fulfill their own desires and emotional needs independently. Men are seen as an accessory to life. Not important, just something nice to have - as long as it behaves itself.
interesting...it seems that the Church has some sort of schizophenia regarding their view of American Christian women. In regards to problems with dating/courtship whether it's the DTR, the situations that occur in the relationship or break-ups, women are portrayed as victims and guys are the source of drama. Think about it. Things seems to go wrong when the guy makes a mistake or something like. For example, a guy will get condenm rightly so for slapping a woman but that won't be much of the case when she slaps a man unless it's her own kids that she was slapping. That happens but that doesn't make it right nor it changes the fact that nobody have the right to hit somebody regardless of rather they deserve it or not.
However, when dealing with difficulty of upholding Christian virtues and values, it is the Christian women who ended getting bashed. I mean, women are often picked on and smacked when dealing with issues of modesty, the disregard of family and human life, and my favs the shortage of men in churches or the church being too feminine. Also, with a man, there's a tendency overall to believe there some sort of external cause to why a man's chacater becomes bad, which there is truth to that. However, many overall seem to either believe an woman is all good or all bad, no in betweeners, none. For example, when a boy didn't do well on a certain subject at school, they are often told it's because they haven't used their potential they really had or something like that even though that might not be the case. However, when a girl doesn't do well on a certain school suject, a lot of the time, they were told that it's because they aren't smart or gifted in that subject on the bat even if it wasn't said out loud whether it's true or not.
Also, I dislike the entitlement garbage. What makes single more entitle to freedom and less trials just because they are in the state of singleness. Why should they? I mean, singles are called to be in fellowship with their spiritual family just as married people are. Likwise, why should married people have less problems just because they are married. I mean, having a spouse doesn't solve all their problems or give anyone permission to have less responsibilities towards their spiritual family.
I know that's a big of a assertion but this is what's really going on. What does anyone think?
In many western societies nowaday, men are seen as a stepping stone for one's ambition. Guys being unfairly blamed whenever things went wrong the love department are just one of the examples. Regardless how it happened, the fault is the guy. While it is unfortunate that men rather be hermits than seeking marriage much less friendship with anyone, I don't necessary blame them. Why bother having relationships (not just marriage, other kinds as well as) and establish communities at all if men are going be scapegoats for everything that goes wrong in society? What men do will never be good enough for anyone. However, in a lot of non-western countries, women are mostly seen as not fully human or necessary evil. China's one child policy and India's increasing feticide are examples. While it is sick, I'm not surprise if it happens because why would anyone bring a girl into a society where she is just an extra or a necessary evil no matter how good, nice, loving that girl is toward her family and society? Doesn't matter if she brings lots of sons into the world, she will be just an extra but unwanted being or disposable tool
Humanity is utterly sick and insane.
Humanity is utterly sick and insane?
Well... clearly humans are fallen to a sinful nature, but all human flesh is good in the eyes of God.
It is evil ideas, evil systems and simple stupidity that takes us away from God and the right path.
The main issue men have with Maken's book is her very harsh treatment of men. Also, Mrs. Lawyer Maken knows divorce and feminism have destroyed marriage AND trust between men and women. Yet, she doesn't really address these topics.
Men are still motivated by marriage and being heads of families. It's just very difficult and very expensive these days, thanks to government which mostly women support - and attorneys which prey on marriage through the divorce courts.
I'm convinced Maken has friends who are divorce attorneys and she probably has no problem with those friends making millions off the suffering of men who face divorce for trivial reasons.
But sadly, most women already agree 100% with Maken and have closed their minds to the truth.
If you want to get married and be happy with a man, agreement with Maken isn't required. Getting along with a man is. If no men agree with Maken, you ladies better find another leader to follow.
"I'm convinced Maken has friends who are divorce attorneys and she probably has no problem with those friends making millions off the suffering of men who face divorce for trivial reasons."
Excellent obsevation anon 6:38.
In the UK the lawyers must be getting fed up with the falling marriage rates so now we have cohabitation laws coming in.
In the US, the biggest demographic living in poverty are white women. The biggest reason for that is divorce. Cut the crap!!
Most divorces are filed by women, and the primary reason is not because of infidelity or cruelty; the primary reason is because they are bored.
Ironic that these women flex their empowerment muscles by seeking to be loosed from a man who doesn't keep them in perpetual bliss, and then declare themselves the victims of some gross injustice. What are their husbands supposed to do, beg to not be fired by their wives? Should they learn to do stand-up comedy or learn to juggle chainsaws while tap dancing?
I call B.S.
So lady, you cut the crap. This thread is about the Cult of Maken and their derision of men who won't marry them. If women end up in a bad way after divorce, then they should be grateful that men in vast numbers are turning away from them and eschewing marriage.
No marriage, no divorce.
curiepoint said...
"No marriage, no divorce."
Part of me thinks that the divorce settlement is what they are really annoyed at missing out on.
I think some women very much want to marry, yet they still remain committed to the option of divorce if things aren't perfect.
I think Dr. Laura has much better advice for women than Maken. Dr. Laura says: don't have sex with every guy who buys you a drink, realize marriage is hard work for both men and women, and try and have sex with your husband outside of the times you want something expensive. Those few tips will work a lot better than pop-Christian feminism.
Debbie Maken says: Men must submit themselves to their wives and humble themselves to be led. It seems counterintuitive and completely negates the leadership or "husband" role of men, but Debbie believes she is right. If men don't get it, they will have to be led.
I think this is why we are seeing very few marriages. The ones that do happen are with very effeminate or gentle men and dominant wives.
There are so many very good and decent men out there that simply remain single. I work in an office where there are at least 10 single men (3 of whom are Christians) who cannot seem to find a non-feminist or divorce-prone woman.
It's really odd how Debbie Maken is ignoring everything women have done to screw up dating, marriage and families. But I guess it is true that women are "herd" creatures. If a few start behaving stupidly, the rest will follow in short order.
Can anyone imagine marrying a Maken fan? You would never have sex; your spending would be controlled; you would basically be a helper to a woman who held you in utter contempt, AND you would have to listen to endless (and mindless) praise of Debbie Maken.
I see why more men than ever are opting for eternal bachelorhood. Freedom and peace of mind are very desirable when compared to Maken's idea of what marriage should be.
Very good points, Anon.
I think that women in particular have gotten used to the idea of there being an escape hatch from marriage. Is it a product of feminist entitlement, or our churlish and contentious society as a whole? Who knows?
As a man, I don't regard marriage as really having any escape clause, nor in fact does any other man known to me personally. It's one of the reasons men take so long to make that commitment, because largely it's a tremendous leap of faith that being married and all that comes with it will on the whole be happy. A lifetime can either be an all-too-brief dream, or it can be a protracted sentence, given the circumstances that might play out. It's a gamble.
I have known quite a few brides to be that will, often jokingly, say that if the hubby steps out of line even once, they can can exercise the nuclear option and get alimony/CS for a long time.
Given divorce statistics today, it seems that many women enter into marriage fully mindful of that option; men as a whole do not. When the Makenites try to induce the point of men having no choice but to embrace an institution whereby the only options are held by her, it just seems like class warfare.
"Debbie Maken says: Men must submit themselves to their wives and humble themselves to be led."
Anakin - I know you disagree with Maken.
But why do you allow comments like this from B.L.Zebub to continue to be posted all over your blog?
Is this site really God-honouring?
A theological discussion, or even argument, is one thing.
But what you are allowing to continue on this site is really disgraceful.
(Oh yeah, seems B.L.Zebub lied when he said he would stop posting. Imagine that! The demonic stronghold that this man has allowed into his life, caused him to lie and continue to lie. What a surprise!)
I think all this stuff will work itself out. I won't ever marry and will be very content with random relationships.
I have two brothers, one twice divorced and financially destroyed. The other is stuck in a sexless marriage and lives on nagging and complaining.
Then there is me; single, happy and free. Most of the women out there don't want marriage. They really don't. I'm convinced Debbie Maken is speaking to a very tiny audience.
Someone said Muslim marriages seem to work out, and are generally happy. When did Christianity tell women they have no responsibility? When did Christian women fully embrace 1960s morality?
I'm very tired of hearing the endless attacks on men. The truth in this debate is that the folks at Boundless and the Maken/Capt. Sensible crowd are hopelessly wrong. Looking at a Western World that exists to serve women and asking men to "step up" is virtually insane.
The Feminist world is running out of slaves and divorce victims?
Funny that an attorney would write a book called "Getting Serious About Getting Married."
It wouldn't surprise me if she simultaneously released a legal brochure entitled: "Getting Serious About Making Money: Cashing in on The New Wave of Christian Divorces."
Follow the money and you'll find the answers. Government wants all women working so they have better tax revenues while diminishing the roles of familes and fathers. Lawyers want divorces so the money keeps flowing. Debbie writes a book of foolishness so bitter spinsters will send her money.
Pretty simple, really.
"The demonic stronghold that this man has allowed into his life, caused him to lie and continue to lie."
Wait, I'm not beelzebubb!
You know, there is a fine line between spiritual awareness and insanity. I think you may have taken a few steps over that line; say, like twenty five steps.
Anon 7/20/2006 6:33,
Men and women are equally fallen and to blame for a lot of the relationship problems. You and I are no less or more of a sinner and/or relatioship failure than anyone else. We all share the blame
Here an interesting article you guys might like
Glorying in Humiliation
eternally single said...
It's really odd how Debbie Maken is ignoring everything women have done to screw up dating, marriage and families. But I guess it is true that women are "herd" creatures.
Maken is certainly in denial here, but ‘herd mentality’ isn’t a female affliction, it is simply part of the human condition.
Songbird said...
Men and women are equally fallen and to blame for a lot of the relationship problems. You and I are no less or more of a sinner and/or relationship failure than anyone else. We all share the blame.
Amen to that Songbird.
At Boundless, there is an interesting interview with marriage expert Scott Stanley (http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001541.cfm) about men, women & marriage.
He discusses why some men delay marriage, how men seem to take marriage more seriously than women do, and a lot of the other issues involved in this ‘marriage mandate’ debate. His balance is refreshing; he talks about the virtues and faults of both men and women and how they affect the state of marriage. It’s nice to read someone on this subject who isn’t so blinded to the shortcomings of their own gender.
And here’s something Mrs. Maken and her acolytes might want to give some serious thought to:
Dr. Stanley:
[…]
Now, let me throw in the big warning on what I just said. Because everything we just said could get a young woman thinking that way. What you see increasingly are scenarios where many marriages begin by the woman eventually coercing, dragging and pulling the guy over the line. But the caution I want to throw in is everything we know suggests that a guy that you have to get across the line isn't probably the best guy to have across the line.
Candice: Okay. But is there a difference between helping him, nurturing him, if you will, toward an understanding of why the things he sees as negatives are actually positives, and having a man who responds to that nurture in a positive way with marriage? Is there a difference between that and a woman who "makes it happen" — that she pops the question or that she beats him over the head with this information?
Dr. Stanley: That is a great woman question. You must be a great woman.
Yes. I'm totally convinced there's a difference.
It comes down to whether the guy look s back later and feel s like events forced him over the line — including events maybe contrived or at least partly related to what she's done versus him thinking, "okay, we're partners and, yeah, you led on these discussions at times, but I really chose of my own freewill to cross this line." And that's the key.
This shouldn’t need to be pointed out, but it is something Maken and her crowd is completely oblivious to: guys aren’t amenable to being brow-beaten, coerced or shamed into marriage. If a women does manage to ‘drag a guy to the alter’, it’s likely to give rise to resentment on his part and that’s trouble for the marriage.
Such women might consider how they might feel if their husbands were to brow-beat, coerce or shame them into sex. After all, Scripture says that spouses shouldn’t deprive each other but for an agreed-upon short time. Thus, if a woman is depriving her husband illegitimately, she is not fulfilling her responsibility. Using Maken’s logic and approach, men would then be justified into badgering their wives into having sex.
"Thus, if a woman is depriving her husband illegitimately, she is not fulfilling her responsibility."
Yes, but we live in a world where men and women have to work. Women are often too tired to service a man's needs, so it's okay to deny him sex for weeks or months.
I think this does cause problems for men who express love through sex and general physical closeness, but they have to live with a woman's choices. I do understand a lot of men stay single because they actually have sex as single guys. When they marry, most women shut off sex or reduce it to "once in a while".
As for men needing to be submitted to their wives in love, and willing to be led into biblical responsibility, This is very wrong. Maken is teaching female superiority over men. Just because the churches are dominated by women doesn't mean women are always right and have to lead.
"..guys aren’t amenable to being brow-beaten, coerced or shamed into marriage."
That is why they MUST kneel before women and beg to be led back into biblical responsibility. Now that Church and most social institutions are pretty much controlled by women, now we have changed our minds and want men to lead.
What? The men are gone? The men don't care for us beyond a quick fling? We did this to relationships?
Oh, nevermind, just sit back and watch Sex & The City, like Debbie Maken does. She quotes this vile program repeatedly in her book. I guess it is a good source of love and sex teachings for her. The feminist attitudes on the program definitely show up in Maken's writings.
Captain Sensible writes:
"The Christian men use the Christian women for varying degrees of emotional and physical intimacy without being willing to commit to any one woman exclusively, or move any of these "friendships" towards marriage. Meanwhile the women are all going along with this, because they are otherwise starved of Christian male attention, and they keep "hoping" and "trusting" that he will eventually move the "friendship" towards marriage. In practice, this rarely happens."
Marriage rarely happens because most of these women want a wealthy attractive man who spends all of his time working and serving the church. How many men are going to work 80 hours per week and then spend all day Sunday in church or preaching on street corners?
Single men enjoy dating, but marriage means a huge commitment to a woman who generally has impossibly high expectations, spending needs, AND is part of a group of church ladies who will collectively decide what being a man really means.
Marriage to these entitlement princesses is downright dangerous. It's best to wait until their fertile years are past. Then they are in so much agony for companionship, they finally break down and simply embrace men for the decent guys they generally are. It does take until about age 50 for the feminism to be fully burned out of a woman. By that time, it's usually too late for love, marriage or family.
Am I right? Of course I am. The men in this debate are calm and rational. The women are angry. They judge men harshy and wonder why all men aren't exactly like Maken says they should be.
My advice? Avoid the feminists and the Christian perfectionist women. Just find a working class woman and avoid these hyper-intellectualized women. They cannot be happy, so don't even try to date them. Besides, it seems they enjoy constant complaining more than finding a resolution to their pain.
Why is it that the Makenites cannot simply step back and realize that most men are offended by Maken's approach?
If you are following someone whose approach is working against what you want, isn't it time to find another champion?
"Oh, nevermind, just sit back and watch Sex & The City, like Debbie Maken does. She quotes this vile program repeatedly in her book."
It was quoted ONCE. Liar.
That's "Prince of Liars" to you dear..
Love and Kisses,
Old Scratch
There is a very odd exchange going on here. It appears that some bitter Makenite is engaged in a hot passionate anger fest with the Devil himself!
Maybe a film will come out of this! A romantic comedy?
"Marriage to these entitlement princesses is downright dangerous. It's best to wait until their fertile years are past. Then they are in so much agony for companionship, they finally break down and simply embrace men for the decent guys they generally are. It does take until about age 50 for the feminism to be fully burned out of a woman. By that time, it's usually too late for love, marriage or family."
I've noticed this. I'm over 50 and it seems the single women of my age are finally relaxing and beginning to consider that it's fine for men just to be men.
>>>I've noticed this. I'm over 50 and it seems the single women of my age are finally relaxing and beginning to consider that it's fine for men just to be men.<<<
Yes, but by that time what are you really getting? I'd just as soon continue in singular status mode. I mean, when you miss the most blissful, the most youthful, the most healthy and passionate part of the mate selection process, I can't see the excitement in dating, or worse, marrying grayheads who have nothing to offer.
Hmm, I think I'll go fish for the bicycle ...
:)
Peace. Out.
HG
Re: Debbie Maken's denial of the persistent and negative influence of feminism in our society
In light of Mrs. Maken's forthcoming rebuttal to Farmer Tom's citation of the above, I thought I'd share a bit of Phyllis Schlafly's latest column Children's Rights Should Include Life With Both Parents (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21639):
***
An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind. The bill mentions "child support" 65 times, but not once does it mention parenting time, custody, visitation, or access denial.
[Stephen] Baskerville's new book, "Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House, $24.95), provides a copiously documented description of society's injustices to children who have been deprived of their fathers and of fathers who have been deprived of their children. This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children.
***
Schlafly is obviously being delusional here. After all, Mrs. Maken has told us that feminism is a 'bogey' invoked by immature bachelors who don't want to grow up. Somewhere, somehow, the 'immature bachelor lobby' has gotten to Schlafly.
Maybe Stephen Baskerville brainwashed Schlafly into helping to sell his book? Perhaps Baskerville is a bachelor trapped in 'adultesence'? Is he out to justify his immaturity? Perhaps he needs to heed Maken's misplaced admoinition to to Farmer Tom:
Get off your bottom, be a "man," so that a woman will actually be attracted to you, and quit making excuses.
After all, who but an immature bacehlor would think feminism a negative force still at work in society today?
Note also that the bill that Schlafly mentions in her column, which treats fathers as little more than an ATM machine, was authored by two men(sic).
Maken's followers love to 'disprove' the influence of feminism by pointing to the dominance of men in government - as if there aren't men who are in thrall to the feminist ideology/lobby.
Men aren't blind to this kind of thing - they take it into account, as they must, when considering marriage.
Perhaps the bill was introduced to rectify the injustice of divorced women who are routinely deprived of their children. Yeah...right.
This kind of thing is typical in our society - it is not rare or marginal, despite Maken's protestations to the contrary.
Her response to Farmer Tom will make for some interesting, if not entertaining, reading.
"...when you miss the most blissful, the most youthful, the most healthy and passionate part of the mate selection process, I can't see the excitement in dating, or worse, marrying grayheads who have nothing to offer."
Very true. That is why aging Makenites are so unattractive. I married at age 22 and had the most rapturous sex life for many years.
Why a woman would dramatically increase her standards when her choices have dropped to zero is beyond reason.
I'm sad for those women over 40 who put so much energy into defending Debbie Maken when they could simply allow themselves to be with a man and get on with life. Is it so much more fun to be single and complaining?
Is it so much more fun to spend years worshipping Maken's snarky comments?
Open your eyes Makenites! Before it's too late. You don't want Maken, you want marriage. Maken means bad attitudes and singleness. I can feel the anger of the Makenites rising up as they read this, then falling back on scriptures.
Meanwhile, ordinary women are dating, loving and marrying men.
What went wrong with the Makenites that they are permanently single?
Why is it that the only man they would consider marrying is Josh Harris?
This debate continues to entertain me because this Maken worship is looking more and more like a psychosis.
It also occurs to me that Maken's denial of the rotten and lingering fruits of feminism might well blind her to an underlying cause of her own favorite 'bogey': dysfunctional men. Little boys who grow up deprived - by their mothers, judges and legislators - of their fathers' influence are more likely to become adults dysfunctional in precisely the area of Maken’s concern: relationships with the opposite sex & marriage.
It seems to me that if Maken and her crowd are indeed concerned about this issue of dysfunctional adult males, they would do well to vocally and actively oppose legislation such as that mentioned in Schlafly’s column (as well as similar government policies). To the extent that divorced fathers are restored to their children, and vice versa, the more well-adjusted ‘relationship-competent’ men there will be in the future.
Of course, little girls need their fathers too. To the extent that they are deprived of their fathers, they, too, will face difficulties in forging relationships in the future. Needless to say, such difficulties will also follow them into marriage.
To the extent that divorced mothers actively participate with the government to keep their children from their fathers, they are guilty of hobbling their children’s chances of future relational/marital success. I guess it not all men’s fault after all…
Obligatory disclaimer: I am not implying that the above is true of all divorced mothers, nor that their aren’t some despicable divorced fathers worthy of our contempt.
Wombatty,
I think you are making some excellent points. When I was a child, my father and grandfather were considered lords of the house. They were respected and decent guys who were Christians; the women in the family were deferential and really lived the "helpmeet" role.
I think the social changes of the last 30 years have destroyed that dynamic. Men are seen as a joke in the media, expendable in the workforce, and YES sometimes unwelcome in church.
My question to the single women is: If you want what your mothers and grandmothers had, why did you so willingly embrace social policy and social trends which marginalized men, artificially empowered women and confused and disappointed everyone?
Many women have embraced their new independence and shared leadership role, yet many Christian women want to lead in the home while "encouraging" and "leading" their husbands to make copious amounts of money. Is that the way it is supposed to work?
Women must decide what they want. There is no huge supply of rich and attractive pastors to marry 40 year old Maken spinsters. There are a lot of ordinary guys who are told they aren't good enough, not religious enough, etc.
It's a shame, really, but women collectively decided they like their social advances even at the cost of marriage and family. They enjoy their status as "brahmins" who couldn't consider an ordinary good Christian man.
I think the debate is establishing some facts. First, when the Maken girls say they want marriage, they really want a rich, devout man. Second, any difficulty in relationships or marriage must be blamed on men - reflecting pop culture biases. Lastly, this debate is between a very small number of people. The Maken crowd is wrong and the Maken book is being virtually ignored.
My advice? Ladies, it ain't gonna happen. Drop the Maken book and go back to Carolyn McCulley. At least you can learn contentment instead of anger. Either way, you'll never marry.
Hey Everyone!
In light of Debbie Maken's recent dialogue with Farmer Tom, I have written a public challange to Debbie Maken:
http://puritancalvinist.blogspot.com/2007/07/debbie-maken-shows-her-true-colors-and.html
I think that, if Debbie Maken rejects my challange, it will show that she does not really have the courage of her convictions. However, I am going to need some help in arranging this. If any of you know how we can arrange this, just leave a comment on my blog.
As I pointed out in my Amazon review of her book, Maken has proven herself to be a bigot, and it's rather pointless debating a bigot. Why do I believe thusly? Because she drags out the same tired cliched stereotypes of men, and people who rely upon stereotypes are by definition bigots. I don't think that she will even respond to you, PC, but good luck.
Curiepoint,
The point is that a non-response says as much as a response. If she ignores my challange, then she is basically saying that she cannot handle this situation. This would be the perfect opportunity to show the entire Christian world how foolish the single men who oppose her are, and how stupid modern theologians are. If she ignores it, then she does not have the courage of her convictions.
Also, if she tries any of the bigotry that you have talked about, all of those Christian leaders are going to write off her credibility. Then, she will never have any way of convincing them of her position.
As I said, there is no reason for her to ignore my challange, and no reason for her to turn down my challange. Given what she believes about her critics that are single men, and given what she believes about the modern church, she should be happy to show how "stupid" we are. If she is not, then she really does not believe what she has said, and all of this is just anger because she is in way over her head.
According to PC, "If she ignores my challange, then she is basically saying that she cannot handle this situation. "
What an ego! Who knew who were the be all end all of debates? Also is your spell check broken.
I am, today, publically challenging JK Rowling to debate me on her positions on Witchcraft and Wizards. If she is silent, we all know she is a loser and cannot handle the situation or me. She is clearly in way over her head and by remaining silent to my challenge, she loses credibility.
I am waiting Ms. Rowling!!!!
God Bless,
Puritan Calvinist
Debbie Maken has no credibility left to lose.
The only people more pathetic are the Captain Sensible types who firmly believe Debbie Maken is much more important than Jesus Christ.
"This debate is between a very small number of people."
Yes, on this blog it is around five.
Although if you count multiple "personalities", you would of course be looking at a lot more. Probably nearer 50.
Anon 7/24 (both of you):
Your mocking of PC for what you take as his arrogance might have some punch IF Mrs. Maken had actually chosen to regularly engage the arguments of those who disagree with her. If she had, PC would then seem to be elevating himself above others whom Maken had engaged. As it stands, aside from the brief interchange with Kostenberger, she has not responded publically in any substantive way to disagreement with her thesis.
Maken has chosen instead to dodge, obfuscate and engage in ad hominem arguments. This is clearly illustrated by her recent exchange with Farmer Tom, which I have noted in earlier posts and that PC alludes to in his challenge to Maken.
As both I and PC have noted, Maken attacked Farmer Tom right out of the gate, having assumed he was
... just one of those rude and contentious bachelors that spend more time nitpicking over my book, than investing in securing a wife.
When she learned otherwise, she pledged to respond to his points. This is very revealing as it shows that Maken believes bachelors as worthy of little more than contempt. Farmer Tom's argument didn't change, so why does Maken now deem it worthy of response? Any woman who treats a man like that will either end up a dried-up old spinster or married to a doormat.
Incidentally, it should be noted that Maken's initial response to Farmer Tom was - how to put this - 'rude and contentious'. Maken doesn't like it, but she can sure dish it out.
Correction Wombatty, not all bachelors. Just the "rude and contentious bachelors that spend more time nitpicking over (her) book, than investing in securing a wife."
Yep, it's about time someone spoke up for Biblical manhood. The fact that it is a woman just pours more scorn and shame on you.
In her intial response to Farmer Tom, Maken responded thus:
Farmer Tom,
Did you even read the article???
Newsflash: Most women do not want careers, but to be wives and stay at home moms. This is even more true of Christian women.If you care to look at the research from the National Marriage Project, it is the men who are actually seeking "independent" women, so that they don't have to measure up as the family bread winner. The Popenoe/Whitehead surveys reveal that the men do not want that much "pressure," and that they view women who want to stay at home as "gold diggers." If you care to look at the writings of Danielle Crittenden, she advances another theory for females who maintain their careers after marriage-- it is because the liberal divorce laws ultimately inform them that their husbands may or may not be around, and that they need to keep up their competitive market "cred," almost like a divorce insurance policy. Most women have no choice today but to prepare themselves to be market producers because our climate is so anti-marriage and because most men cannot be counted on to bring relationships to a full orbed marriage.
This is just precious. When guys like me cite divorce statistics (i.e. divorce rates in the Church are not better than elswhere, women initiate the majority of divorces, etc.) and the meat-grinder men face in the guise of government divorce policy, we are said to be simply 'making excuses', 'refusing to grow up', 'fleeing responsibility', etc.
Yet, when women cite or theorize divorce as a reason for clinging to their careers or other marriage-endangering behavior, it is to be taken as gospel truth. Again, note Maken's 'men are to blame' approach.
Perhaps Maken would be interested in this litle 2005 article, Working women more likely to divorce (http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/07/11/30692/working-women-more-likely-to-divorce.html):
Women working full-time are 29% more likely to get divorced than those who stay at home and raise children, according to new research.
The research, to be published this week in the European Sociologiocal Review, finds the probability of divorce is in direct correlation to the number of hours a woman works, reports the Daily Telegraph.
According to divorce lawyer, Marilyn Stowe, working women have more economic freedom to consider a new life beyond marriage. She said they now also have a greater confidence in their ability to make new friends and find new partners.
With both partners increasingly going out to work, the findings go some way to explaining Britain’s rising divorce rate . The number of divorces rose 3.7% in 2003 to 166,700, the third annual increase in a row.
The researchers from Vrije University, in Amsterdam, based their findings on a database of more than 2,000 people, including 1,000 divorced women.
Maken would no doubt find a way to place the blame for this on men as well. But then we would be disappointed if she didn't. ;-)
Anon 3:47 PM wrote:
Correction Wombatty, not all bachelors. Just the "rude and contentious bachelors that spend more time nitpicking over (her) book, than investing in securing a wife."
There must be precious few bachelors who are not 'rude and contentious' then. I have followed Maken's blog since she opened it and she has nothing but contempt for anyone who does not agree with her. There have been several polite bachelors who have respectully stated their case only to be met with Maken's bile (if she responds at all).
Anon 3:47 PM wrote:
Yep, it's about time someone spoke up for Biblical manhood. The fact that it is a woman just pours more scorn and shame on you.
Ummm....yeah. Debbie Maken standing up for Biblical manhood - that's a good one. Maken's idea of a man is one who will shut up and do as he is told. No thanks.
I find it singularly arrogant and more than a little annoying that a woman attempts to define what a man is. The mere fact that she defines masculinity in such narrow terms (i.e.if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't true) only highlights her bigotry. In her denigration of men as eunuchs and perpetually arrested in their development, it completely escapes her and her cult that their opinions and insults aren't particularly supported by Scripture; they're decidedly non-Christian, in fact.
I have asked this question again and again both here and in other blogs that have paid lip service to Maken and her whiny diatribe masquerading as a book...what exactly do the Makenites promise to bring to a man's life besides prejudice, ridicule, and nagging? What makes them worthy of a man's love?
There has never been an answer to it. It would appear that the Gospel According To Debbie states that women are free to do and say as they please while the unfortunate men they ensnare have only the option of praying for a quick death.
There is nothing Biblical in her beliefs. It's all just a manifestation of The Chip on her shoulder, characteristic of women in Western society more interested in becoming competitors of men than supporters and help-mates of men.
Forty years of the bandsaw whine of anger from these types of women is enough for any man. It's time to change the song. When the Makenites can demonstrably prove that they are loveable, then men will begin looking at them as love prospects.
To the Anon who seems to not be able to think before he ridicules,
Did you happen to notice that Debbie Maken is making comments about single people, and their character? She has made similar comments about me as well. I am simply asking her to prove it. I am asking her to get into a situation in which she will have to demonstrate to some of the elite theologians and christian leaders in the world that Anakin and I are everything she says we are. If she refuses to demonstrate that to the churches [the very people she says she is trying to reach], then the only conclusion I can come to is that she does not have the courage of her convictions.
BTW, when J.K. Rowling ever says that anyone who disagrees with her position is an immature little child, and specifically directs that langauge at me, then I will challange her to a debate.
Again, the arrogance is coming from the other side. You guys are loosing badly, and have been reduced to nothing but a line of ad hominem arguments. Now, when that ad hominem is challanged, you resort to more ad hominem.
But, this time it won't work. That is because using more ridicule is only showing that you do not really believe the ridicule in the first place. If she refuses my challange she shows that she does not even have the courage of her convictions to defend her acid filled statements about her single male detractors.
Also, she was willing to dialogue with me before, so what reason would she have to not dialogue with me now? If I am sooooooo unimportant that I should just be ignored, then why did she stay in the ring with me as long as she did last time?
No, the reality is that Debbie Maken knows that her arguments have not changed, and that I refuted them. Go back and reread our dialogue. When I would respond to something she said, Debbie Maken would go off to a new topic. She never interacted with any of my responses. She knows she cannot do that in a dialogue like this when you have the theologians she is trying to influence right there reading her every word. That will be the reason Debbie will probably decline.
Again, I give her a challange. Show the world that folks like Anakin and myself are little children like you say, and show the church leaders how stupid they are. It should be easy if it is so obvious as the idea that "the emporor isn't wearing any clothes." If she declines this challange, I can only conclude that she does not believe this ridicule herself, and this whole thing is just a front to not have to deal with the fact that this stuff is totally unbiblical and a-historical, and that we are the ones who are pointing out that "the emporor has no clothes..." only the emporer is Debbie Maken's position.
I don't think Maken's message is biblical. She does do a good job of finding scriptures to wrap around her subjective points of view.
Having said that, I do have sympathy for the Captain Sensible types out there. They cannot be happy women. To be so desperate as to cling to Debbie Maken is BEYOND pathetic.
If the Makenites could grasp one simple concept from Maken's critics, it should be this one: Whether you love Maken's book or not, it is downright offensive to men.
It doesn't matter if there are a handful of men who agree with Maken at her church.
It doesn't matter if you agree with everything that "proceedeth" out of the mouth of Maken.
If men hate the message, her book will not help you get married.
Of course, I suspect lots of Christian women do not want to get married. The McCulley crowd want to cheer the marriages of others, while hiding from life and real experiences. The Maken crowd want to attack men and raise the expectations of men so high that no man will ever meet their needs.
Either way, these women are fighting for the sake of fighting. They aren't happy and I honestly don't think they want to be happy.
By the way, I know what I'm talking about. I almost made a very big commitment to a Makenite before I realized she was somewhat crazy. Without the Maken "toxins" in her head, she would have been a real sweetheart. Oh well...
"If men hate the message, her book will not help you get married."
YOU LOSERS WEREN'T GETTING MARRIED BEFORE MAKEN'S BOOK CAME ALONG!
"Yep, it's about time someone spoke up for Biblical manhood. The fact that it is a woman just pours more scorn and shame on you."
This perspective...this "more scorn, more shame" and "eunuch!"
This "immature" "refusing to grow up" nonsense...
If Christian men aren't in churches every Sunday, what makes you Maken girls think trash-talking guys in general will win the men back?
The discussion is fundamentally about men leaving the Church and not going back. Part of this is a big shortage of men for single Christian women to marry. Why then is there such a basic contempt for men and masculinity?
I can understand the McCulley perspective; she has a feminist university degree and does everything she can to keep herself single. But she is not honest about "wanting" a man in her life.
The Maken perspective has women coming to the discussion armed with nothing but shame, blame and invective. How is this supposed to win men back to the Church? How does this make you Maken girls attractive?
I continue to be amazed by these women who put all their strength into doing things and saying things that keep them single, angry and "on the attack". Isn't that what feminism does? Isn't that what the Makenites are doing?
Even when serious Christian men respectfully disagree with Maken, they are hit with silly attacks, their motives are questioned, and then the insults fly.
I believe we all understand why the Maken girls are single and will never marry. Working, living alone and serving the Church is enough for them. Their emotional needs are met by battling the few men who speak to them.
sorry about the length of this post ;-)
Anonymous 7/25/07 7:15 AM wrote:
"If men hate the message, her book will not help you get married."
YOU LOSERS WEREN'T GETTING MARRIED BEFORE MAKEN'S BOOK CAME ALONG!
I think that the 'you' in that quote refers to Maken's female disciples, not us 'losers'. The point is that if men are repelled by Maken's approach, that approach not going to help women attract them.
Curiepoint wrote:
I have asked this question again and again...what exactly do the Makenites promise to bring to a man's life besides prejudice, ridicule, and nagging? What makes them worthy of a man's love?
You’re missing the point entirely Curiepoint; this has nothing to do with ‘what’s in it for men’. This is all about these women and what they want/need/demand. The concerns of men are, at best, secondary. If men get stepped on, run-down, insulted, demeaned, etc. in the process, that’s ‘just the price of doing business.’ And it’s a price the Makenites are more than willing, in fact eager, to ‘pay’.
Curiepoint wrote:
There has never been an answer to it. It would appear that the Gospel According To Debbie states that women are free to do and say as they please while the unfortunate men they ensnare have only the option of praying for a quick death.
That they are female isn’t enough? As you’ve mentioned before, Maken’s implicit view of men here seems to be the stereotypical ‘testosterone-addled man-pig’ willing endure anything for a chance at sex, regardless of anything else. Such men would gladly submit to any number of indignities, of which Makenites have a marked surplus, to secure a wife and thus access to sex. Perhaps women are thus freed from considerations of character and conduct; after all, they have the ‘magic’ that men will stop at nothing to get.
Curiepoint said...
There is nothing Biblical in her beliefs.
I wouldn’t go that far; her arguments against the GOS are respectable. If she would have stopped there, she would have had a decent book.
Curiepoint said...
Forty years of the bandsaw whine of anger from these types of women is enough for any man. It's time to change the song. When the Makenites can demonstrably prove that they are loveable, then men will begin looking at them as love prospects.
You’re missing the point again. Remember, women are worthy of adoration and pursuit merely by virtue of their gender. They need not be lovable, respectful, humble, sweet, etc. In fact, it’s not a woman’s fault if she doesn’t have those qualities – it’s someone else’s responsibility to cultivate those virtues in them. Apparently, Paul’s admonitions to cultivate the Fruits of the Spirit only apply to men.
Lest you doubt this, ask yourself why Maken urges adult women to move home, if possible, and saddle their parents (primarily their fathers) with the responsibility of managing their personal lives. If this isn’t possible she urges that women find a suitable proxy to take on these duties.
Maken provided another example of this some time ago on her blog (01/31/07). In response to a guy who had mentioned finding a bride overseas, she wrote, in part:
Second, while I understand that the only thing a man may want is "an attractive girl who is sweet to them," wants need to be correlated with what we bring to the table ourselves. I am sure that there are plenty of "ordinary" women out there for the "ordinary" men; surely there is someone out there on the spectrum for everyone, right? Are most American men (because there is no gatekeeper on the woman's end) aiming too high, and leaving themselves frustrated in the process of serial rejection? Or alternatively, are the women (because they lack a parent figure to keep watch and counsel them) entertaining perhaps too puffed up am image about their accomplishments, and therefore, cannot spot an otherwise decent match?
(9:18 comment)
Here, we see that Maken doesn’t regard it as a woman’s responsibility to keep her feet on the ground and her head out of the clouds; that’s the responsibility of her ‘parent figures’. It seems that Paul’s command to think soberly of ourselves apply only to men.
I’ve asked several times why a man should assume a woman would make a good wife/mother if she is unwilling or unable to manage her own personal life. I never have gotten an answer.
Also, note that men are seen to be ‘aiming too high’ for the same reason – the woman’s ostensible lack of a parent figure to inform the men of their unworthiness (after all, women can’t be expected to do that).
It is also interesting that, though she states ‘…wants need to be correlated with what we bring to the table ourselves’, she spends precious little time talking about what she believes women should ‘bring to the table’. Again, I guess it’s supposed to be enough that they are females.
These women want financially well-off men of sterling character (no pizza delivery boys need apply). At a minimum, one would think that such women should be expected to bring a history of financial responsibility and solid character and an amiable personality to the table to qualify for such a man. No such considerations distract Maken et al. however.
It occurs to me that a misconception of men might be at the root of much of the bitterness and resentment seen in the Makenites. They seem to suppose that men are so blinded by their sex-drive that all other considerations fade into the mist and nothing else matters to them. Since many men are not so blinded, they do take things like character, personality, sweetness, etc. into account (it’s not that they don’t have a strong sex-drive, it’s just that they aren’t blinded by it). Unfortunately, many Makenites seem to fall quite short in this arena and are thus doomed to frustration.
Another portion of Maken’s above-quoted comment might be relevant here:
First, overseas bride shopping. I have known a few American men do this after repeated failures with relationships here. I have even known a friend of mine (who was not ordinary, but a lawyer from a fine school, very good looking, fit and from good stock), do this, not because the women he found were "climbing the corporate ladder," but because some poor social habits and not being able to muzzle some thoughts kept getting him rejected here. With some other men, I have noticed that it is a combination of perhaps being not particularly attractive combined with not being ambitious, and as you put, being so "ordinary," that very few women see the jewel that might be there. Often, what I see with the average candidate that goes overseas bride shopping is that they do not want to personally develop themselves or gain the requisite masculinity to attract women, so they simply choose to blame the American women. So, the question is-- doesn't this ordinary man have some personal responsibility to "put his best foot forward," so that a woman can decide to take a chance on him?
First, I have noted in the past how Maken’s critique of men who seek mates overseas fits herself like a glove. Her quip about ‘poor social habits and not being able to muzzle some thoughts kept getting him rejected here’ is especially apropos as it brings to mind Maken’s ‘eunuch question’. Sadly, Debbie couldn’t find a mate here – she had to go overseas. One can only wonder why…
Particularly relevant to our present discussion is her mention of men who ‘…do not want to personally develop themselves or gain the requisite masculinity to attract women, so they simply choose to blame the American women. So, the question is-- doesn't this ordinary man have some personal responsibility to "put his best foot forward," so that a woman can decide to take a chance on him?’
Again, we see how well this fits many Makenites. They go on an on about the shortcomings of men, but they seem not at all concerned with ‘personally developing themselves or gaining the requisite femininity to attract men, so they simply choose to blame the American men (or Western men in general).’
Given the pride she takes in her ‘eunuch question’, I seriously doubt that Maken believes a woman ‘has some personal responsibility to "put her best foot forward," so that a man can decide to take a chance on her.’ After all, that responsibility no doubt rests with a woman’s ‘parent figure’.
It fascinates me that these women expect so much from those for whom they have such low regard. It must also frustrate them to desire so intensely the companionship of those whom they hold in such contempt.
Anonymous said...
Yes, on this blog it is around five.
Although if you count multiple "personalities", you would of course be looking at a lot more. Probably nearer 50.
______
Those who "know" these things are 'usually' involved themselves. Consider yourself amongst the litter.
_______
YOU LOSERS WEREN'T GETTING MARRIED BEFORE MAKEN'S BOOK CAME ALONG!
_______
Gee ... this would've made a great caption in a Peanuts strip. I can imagine Lucy's mouth out-stretched and crying.
At any rate, Maken teaches women to blame. A person who does nothing but blame others is a very unhappy person. Maken is similar to Lord Sauron, and the ring represents man's capture in marriage.
"One woman to rule them all."
Bhwuha ha ha ha ha
HG
YOU LOSERS WEREN'T GETTING MARRIED BEFORE MAKEN'S BOOK CAME ALONG!
The point is that, even if true, the acid that steams out of this movement is not going to be appealing to the single guy. Thus, as is often the case, this movement is driving men away, and the women in this movement are left with very few guys to marry. It is aggravating the situation.
This movement is taking on the behavioral character of the feminist movement. Eventually, saying that you are associated the mandatory marriage movement is going to be as bad as saying that you are a feminist. That is the way society looks on people who are irrational, and rely on emotion to answer rather than substance. Eventually, people get tired of the complaining.
This site is a sad reflection of the lives of the very few men that use it to vent their personal frustrations (and one particular vendetta).
Christian women are finally beginning to expand their horizon beyond existing "church circles" and they are finding a harvest there.
Bye.
And what happens to fruit that gets harvested?
It's consumed voraciously, and the consumer eagerly awaits the next harvest.
Much like locusts do.
The very real thing is, if one wants to harvest, one has to put forth an effort to plant seeds. If they want an exceptional harvest, they have to plant exceptional seeds and put forth an exceptional amount of effort.
Makenites don't do this. They want the most excellent of fruit to fall into their laps and condemn the garden when it doesn't happen.
Nothing is free in life.
Oh...and 'Bye' to you too.
This site is a sad reflection of the lives of the very few men that use it to vent their personal frustrations (and one particular vendetta).
Christian women are finally beginning to expand their horizon beyond existing "church circles" and they are finding a harvest there.
Bye.
Oh, come on, this is too easy.
Let's see ...
Debbie Maken's site and her femipeutic book is a sad reflection of the lives of the very few women that use it to vent their personal frustrations (and one particular vendetta).
Christian men are finally beginning to expand their horizon beyond existing "church circles" and they are finding a harvest there.
Bye.
HG
Anon said ...
This site is a sad reflection of the lives of the very few men that use it to vent their personal frustrations (and one particular vendetta) ...
You speak like this issue has no women siding with our platform, Anon.
Here's a quote I've pasted below, for your perusal, from a recent message forum discussing, what else, but Why do we have so many unmarried women today?
On the forum, the poster states:
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure there are a lot more women in church. I'm not sure that there are more women that are Christians. I'm in the middle of raising three boys and when I see how they are treated at church, I wonder why any men ever show up at church. (that's another series of rants 8)
Does this quote above have the earmarks of a male loser? Oh ... and just to further peak your interest, Maken's name is brought up in one of the messages on the board.
HG
Let's get down to the basic issue!
Isaiah 004:001 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
Reproach. Shame. Disgrace.
Is is disgraceful for a woman to be unmarried throughout life, living independently as a man, keeping her own house and using her body for the pleasure of random men instead of loving a husband and having children.
In our time, in this season (as the Makenites say), lots of women are very independent and also demanding and selfish. They want marriage, but only to wealthy and devout men. This reduces the chances of their marrying to about 100 to 1.
How do they react? With rage against men. They hold up a nasty attitude woman as a champion and will not even discuss the issue rationally with decent men.
Christian single women are living disgracefully. Their reproach will not be taken away until they open their eyes and realize what they are doing wrong.
A feminist/matriarchal society is a society in rapid decline. That is why few people bother to marry. That is why women are raging at men.
Simply because women are living the lies of feminism and socialism. They have shackled men with laws and un-Christian social policy and expect a godly marriage. They cannot see clearly what men see.
If one cannot see the biblical truth, look at simple economics. Men are no longer social leaders or primary breadwinners. Women's marginal utility for men has fallen. Men are less in demand because they aren't necessary. Birth control makes children an option. Christianity is now soft; the starkness and terror of the Cross has been forgotten.
God's house is now a mix of Christianity and happy, touchy-feely women's clubs. Men are repulsed by it. They have to share leadership in every single area of life. Socially, professionally, at home, at Church.
Why do women suddenly want male leadership after 50 years of unrelenting war against male leadership? All our institutions and churches are now safe, feminine and weak environments. No leaders need apply. But with female consensus comes the lack of (male) leadership. With female political and social power comes the complete negation of leadership.
Men lose interest, men drop out; of church, of social institutions, of life.
Now the women suddenly want husbands? Now the many professional women who own their own homes and have their own careers are wondering why there are no men left for them?
Maybe it's because God tells us that it is disgraceful for women to behave as they are behaving. Perhaps women like Maken need to speak less and serve more. Perhaps the leadership of our institutions can be returned to men, instead of being shared with women. Possible?
Unlikely. Once women take from -or share power with men, the culture becomes unsustainable. That is why the UK is going Muslim/Polish and foreign. That is why vast areas in the USA are going Mexican, Cuban, Chinese, etc.
Where women know their role, the population expands. In the disgraceful West, women want to be men, want to lead and love the control they have over society. They are relishing their reproach. Their burning need for men is matched only by their contempt for men when said men are not wealthy or devout.
Oh well, what can you do? I'm off for gin and tonics with a very non-Christian girl. At least they know what being a woman is supposed to be.
Anon,
I think you are getting to the heart of the problem. My wife and I live in a new subdivision where all the homes are McMansions. At least 8 of the 12 homes on our street are owned by single professional women who haven't dated in years.
I wonder how those women's lives would have been different had they found husbands instead of working and going childless. They may not have an empty house of their own, but may have had a happy home with family and love.
I guess more women are making the choice to be lonely and barren. It isn't anyone's fault, but simply the result of choices taken. But of course, if you look at it biblically, these women are disgraceful. Why be born with a woman's body and not use it to have children? Why live like a man when it isn't fulfilling in the least?
I suspect the most vocal Maken supporters are all single, own their own homes and have a need to lead and control.
Perhaps "relishing" their reproach is too strong, but they aren't unhappy in their lives. They don't seem to want men; perhaps they are simply angry with their own feminine drives?
I don't know. I do know that we wouldn't be having this discussion if more women opted for early marriage and children instead of career and social activities.
I do know that we wouldn't be having this discussion if more women opted for early marriage and children instead of career and social activities.
Opting for early children is still possible, you know.
One only wonders how long before many of the younger professional Christian women will insist on deciding that the best solution around the 'barren problem' and 'lonely nights' is a trip to the nearest sperm bank?
I don't see anything wrong with women holding professional positions and owning their own homes. If men cannot keep up, many of them will be left behind. What matters is being a good Christian, not having dozens of babies.
By the way, I own my own home and didn't need a man to support me or pay bills. Maybe as women became more capable, men became pointless. Perhaps the real "disgrace" is single Christian men.
Anonymous 7/26/07 wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with women holding professional positions and owning their own homes.
Agreed. Just don’t come back later, if you regret this course of action, and take out your bitterness and resentment on guys who have nothing to do with it. I have no reason to believe that you would do this, I mention it only to point out that this seems to be the M.O. of some of the Makenites.
Anonymous 7/26/07 wrote:
If men cannot keep up, many of them will be left behind.
The problem with that statement, in light of the current discussion, is that it is the women who, despite their professional accomplishments and financial success, are feeling ‘left behind’ by the men. Meanwhile, to the endless frustration of the Makenites, many single men are not feeling ‘left behind’ at all.
To the extent that men (including myself) have raised the issue of women making more money than men, it has been to point out that it puts many women in a bind. Since women, in general, desire to ‘marry up the income scale’, the more they make, the less men there are that make more.
You have to sleep in the bed you made; and if that bed is empty...
Anonymous 7/26/07 wrote:
By the way, I own my own home and didn't need a man to support me or pay bills. Maybe as women became more capable, men became pointless. Perhaps the real "disgrace" is single Christian men.
Pointless, perhaps, from a woman’s point of view, but that presumes that a man’s usefulness is to be measured by his service to a woman. Of course, this is exactly the view of the Makenites – that a man is valuable only insofar as he caters to the expectations of a woman.
Interesting that you should assert that ‘perhaps the real "disgrace" is single Christian men’, on the assumption that they have lost their utility to women. Earlier you declared that ‘what matters is being a good Christian, not having dozens of babies.’
Are we to understand that a woman’s worth is to be determined by her service to Christ while a man’s worth is to be measured by his service to…women?
You might not agree with Maken’s goals, but you clearly share her utilitarian view of men.
Honest question. Do any of guys thinks that girls and guys should ever will be better off not being side by side as siblings under Christ? It seems that for many people that it will be better off if people are asexual and that males and female become just allies, nothing more and nothing less, although that would just beyond sad.
Anonymous 7/12/07 10:00 AM:
Thank you for your words. Nice to know I'm getting noticed in the blogosphere.
Anyway, I thought I'd point out a couple of things.
First, I had to move my blog to WordPress. The front page currently has a couple of...commentaries...on Ms. Maken's positions.
The entry you refer to is Magic Twenty-Seven, which is actually a lead-in for Marriage Mandate...or Mantrap?
Honest question. Do any of guys thinks that girls and guys should ever will be better off not being side by side as siblings under Christ? It seems that for many people that it will be better off if people are asexual and that males and female become just allies, nothing more and nothing less, although that would just beyond sad.
While living under an oppressive government such as the one we currently enjoy here in the U.S., my answer would be absolutely YES. Of course we are better off apart. We don't need each other for anything except sex and procreation, and if the future supplies us with sex robots, the artificial womb, and cloning, we won't even need each other for that much.
Romantic relationships in modern America are simply not worth the risk or effort.
However...
The problems between the sexes are caused by government - period. Many women and even some men may go along with it, but it is ultimately the government and its monopoly on violence that calls the shots.
It is for reasons of law that companies hire women they wouldn't hire in a free market. It is the law that requires a "non-hostile work environment" and other such nonsense. It is the law that allows women to enjoy all the rights of men plus some rights that men don't enjoy, while simultaneously allowing them to avoid as much responsibility as possible. It is the government that has established a gyno-aristocracy served by an andro-serf class.
The whole raison d'être of government is to protect life, limb and property. It is NOT to interfere in personal and business relationships in order to perform some social experiment or right some imagined wrong.
Get the government out of the picture completely, and I have no doubt that men and women would return to each other enthusiastically. Before we had VAWA, modern divorce laws, custody laws, affirmative action, welfare, etc., men and women enjoyed and appreciated each other very much, at least if the statistics are any indicator. We can have that again if we remove the government's stumbling blocks.
Triton,
When I said "Do any of guys thinks that girls and guys should ever will be better off not being side by side as siblings under Christ?", I don't just mean in terms of romance. Based on what you just said, you don't think that men and women should even be friends or working together in ministry either? No intend of insult, just wanting your opinion on men and women worshipping God together.
Songbird asked:
Honest question. Do any of guys thinks that girls and guys should ever will be better off not being side by side as siblings under Christ? It seems that for many people that it will be better off if people are asexual and that males and female become just allies, nothing more and nothing less, although that would just beyond sad.
No - I think are siblings under Christ and we should behave as such. I just don't think that that entails Maken's doctrine of a 'marriage mandate'. If you wanna get married, go for it. If you don't, more power to ya'. And if someone disagrees with you about it, that's no justification for smearing them as immature, irresponsible, etc., etc.
Check out Captain Sensible's latest rant.
She presses for more prayer to bring the "right" kind of Maken Men back to the churches, then concludes with an oh-so-not-funny anecdote about a bumbling fool of a man driving his car the wrong way down the highway.
Translation: Where are the men? and - aren't they all bumbling fools?
Speaking of responsibility, I wonder what Maken would say if she learned umarried men are the lowest contributers to debt?
Warren's data, based on Chapter 7 and 13 filings, make it scarily clear:
For unmarried men, the bankruptcy rate was 6.3 cases per thousand.
For unmarried women, it was 7.2 cases per thousand.
For married couples without children, it was 7.4 cases per thousand.
For married couples with kids, the rate about doubles to 15.3 per thousand.
And for single women with kids, the bankruptcy rate nearly triples to 21.3 cases per thousand.
Let me guess ... um ... Maken would say something like, "unmarried men live at home and that's the reason for why their debt is low. Unfortunately, it's their parents who will have to pay the tab."
This is HG ...
signing off
Wombatty,
"If you wanna get married, go for it. If you don't, more power to ya'. And if someone disagrees with you about it, that's no justification for smearing them as immature, irresponsible, etc., etc."
Very well said.
Wombatty,
Thanks for the input :). You are a true spiritual brother. The reason I asked that question is that I was comfronted by someone with that. I'm have been reading "On Marriage and Family" by St. John Chrysostom (the guy is from the 4th or 5th century). Although I haven't read Makens book yet, I get the feeling that John input is way better from a theological and practical standpoint despite of being a monk.
No, Songbird, my comments were pertaining to romantic relationships, not mere friendship. Since the whole context of this blog is about marriage, I assumed that's what you were talking about.
I don't have a problem with men and women worshipping together, so long as it is done Biblically and not Maken-ically.
Also, I would add that I don't think marriage in this country is permanently doomed. Our government will not last forever; in fact, I expect it to disintegrate in my lifetime due to rampant imperialism, fiat money, illegal immigration, Islam, etc. When that happens, there will no longer be an artificial overseer for personal and business relationships, and the state of marriage can return to its historical norm.
Post a Comment
<< Home