Et Tu, Josh Harris?
By way of Captain Singleness (the good captain), I came across this whopper by Josh Harris. Wonders never cease to amaze. So, Josh has decided to blame men for the way things are between the sexes today, eh? This revelation has inspired me to fish up one of the picture generators on the Internet and come up with this ...
posted by Anakin Niceguy at 10:19 PM
149 Comments:
I had to reread Harris' comments twice before I realized he had crossed over to the Dark Side. He really goes beyond Maken's strange ideas and seems to validate the legitimacy of feminism. He does include the caution that he doesn't agree with all of feminism's fruit, but it's very existence seems to validate his beliefs that feminism is here because of men and men's failure to lead.
Absolute rubbish. Feminism started as a political social movement which has greatly impacted popular culture and most denominations of Christianity. Harris needs to do his research before going off to praise radical movements.
This is complete rubbish. I posted a response over at Harris' site - still waiting for it to be approved. Harris apparently beleives that feminism, as it is currently comprised, is a reaction against cultural and legal mistreatment. This was true of the original feminsts, most of whom were cultural traditionalists. The movement was then highjacked by the radical 'gender-feminists', who have comprised post 60s feminism. Harris needs to read Christian Hoff-Sommers' book Who Stole Feminism.
Today's feminists (among others) are very much guilty of the break-down of the family. To believe, as Harris (and Ganz) seems to, that contemporary feminism has a common roots with original feminism is historically ignorant.
Do these people really believe that contemporary feminists would be content to settle into traditional gender roles if only men would start excercising proper biblical leadership. How absurd. It is precisely the rejection of these traditional roles that animates these women.
Last, Harris (and Ganz) implicitly buy into the 'it's all men's fault' line of bull. Men have their faults and sins in this arena, for which they should be held accountable. But so do women. Some seem intent on forgetting that God did not hold Adam accountable for Eve's transgression; He punished Eve for her own sins.
I blame the current church leadership. More and more, contemporary Christian messages sound like women's television; full of supporting fluff mixed with broad condemnation of bad, bad men.
Methinks Harris views men as perpetual firefighters.
tJosh Harris is a weak little man who has subjected himself to the rule of women. A man with no masculine authority bowing down to his female dominated audience speaking to itching ears. He's pathetic. He also will be left standing alone as conditions worsen for the West as a result of feminism.
Can we say an effeminate spirit has taken over Mr. Harris? Pray for this man. He needs it.
I have family members who went through seminary. One went on to become a preacher, the other didn't. Both of them complained that the vast majority of young pastors were (and are) very effeminate girly-men types who aren't masculine and don't really understand what it is to be a man.
Most of them grew up in households full of women. They have no life experience, but they know how to talk the talk that pleases female congregations. It is very frustrating to see these weak, dogmatic she-males lead major congregations. The fall very easily into pop culture trends, ignore profoundly serious problems, and most see themselves more as social workers or performers; rarely as servants of God.
Before we condemn folks such as Slater or Harris, we need to remember that these men are not men of deep thought or compassion. They are soft men with soft jobs, who have never known the real ups and downs of life.
While they cheer feminism and moral idiots such as Debbie Maken, we need to remember the source. These folks are bringing Christianity down. Eventually, real men with true faith will return to restore the majesty and seriousness of Christianity. Until then, real men aren't wanted or needed in the church. It is a girl's club - and for now and the foreseeable future, a girl's club it will remain.
wow, there is so much bitterness just as much as I see in Maken's site (which is really a crapshoot). In case if anyone doesn't know, Slater had suffered cancer in his 20s, which is a painful thing. I know this because my grandfather from lung cancer several years back. My Bible professor is suffering cancer as of this moment. He is still able to teach. However, I can also tell he is drained out at times during lectures. He is trying to be humorous but I can see that it is not pleasant situation no matter how hard you try to not make people worry.
I know American culture can suck to the point of having a migraine but this is beyond ridiculous. I read this blog for over a year and I'm disapointed how it went from a good site that finally expose faulty thinking and false ideas in a honest, objective way and with concern into another mean-spirited, venomous hooplah and a stumbling block. Scripture is much more clear on how to treat our breathern (1 John 4:7-19, Romans 12:9-21) than on the whole marriage mandatory issue.
This blog has such good potential in a lot of things but it seems to went down to the drain especially with all this constant spiritual friendly fire I am seeing for the past four to five months. If you guys don't think there are traditional girls out there are some links to go to:
http://ccostello.blogspot.com/
http://www.biblicalwomanhoodonline.com/blog.htm
I agree mj. All the insulting language, calling other Christian men names like effeminate and girly, the painting huge groups of people with a broad brush, the total lack of Christian charity. All of this is a total violation of the way the New Testament tells Christians we should interact with each other and treat one another. It's sickening. I find myself unable to support either side of the debate and wondering if this is the sad state that conservative American evangelicalism has been reduced to.
If you see woundedness, consider why that happens in churches, and where men learn by example that this is what happens when believers assemble. It is better that we all learn to bear troubles with grace -- but it is also good to recognize the signs and symptoms of a disease.
Make the assembled bodies places of healing for men (instead of shame) and you will see men begin to return.
CS wrote:
Before we condemn folks such as Slater or Harris, we need to remember that these men are not men of deep thought or compassion. They are soft men with soft jobs, who have never known the real ups and downs of life.
As much as I disagree with Slater and Harris at points, I cannot go here. I don't think we can conclude that they are 'she-males' based on this disagreement. Such creatures surely exist, I just cannot put Slater or Harris in that category.
I know many people are big fans of Harris, Slater and other mainline ministers, I've just seen too much of the behaviors from them that drive men away from churches.
Life as part of the clergy is not difficult. The only thing you have to get right is staying true to the Gospels and keeping your message right.
Sadly, too many ministers and Christian authors are of the elitist class of mandarins who generally adapt their messages to current social conditions.
I don't like going to churches where a recurring theme is bashing men for a myriad of personal failings. Women unhappy? Men aren't stepping up. Women unhappy? Men are failing in leadership.
Do women ever sin? No, never, unless they sometimes forget to nag their husbands into compliance.
This is a Christian message? You'd think it was if you listen to a lot of mainstream preachers.
Perhaps I am way off base, but there is a reason men are dropping away from Christian churches - and why there are almost ZERO men in UK churches. An elitist group of very socially conscious pastors are in charge. They are much more focused on pleasing a predominately female audience.
This is good for Christianity? A pastor that gives feminism a pass because men are often tyrannical abusers?
If all mainstream Christianity has to offer men is an emasculating experience and regular condemnation, I think I can see why church attendance is going down in many areas. I do hold contemporary pastors responsible for this. Women may dominate in Christianity, but it does not mean preaching to their feelings is the right course of action.
Ditto for me, mj.
This site has become every bit as whiny and blaming as anything Maken has ever come up with.
I mean, do you guys REALLY believe that there's no justification for ANY aspect of feminism? Don't you think that Harris might have a point in admitting that things were pretty bad for women up until the last few decades? In 1970, a woman who wanted a mortgage had to have a man co-sign for her, at least at most banks-- my widowed aunt who had worked all her life had to get her 18 year old son to sign for her! We take these things for granted nowadays.
So the pendulum swings a bit too far to the other side, and the omega men lose out? What else is new?!
You can't blame the lack of men in churches on women, or girly men, for that matter. There's a lack of men joining any kind of organization centred on causes bigger than themselves. Lions Clubs and Jaycees, once great service organizations are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. This applies whether the club remains all-male or not. These days, men just aren't joining up.
You can't play the "F" card on everything, you know.
Mainstream feminism is premised on the notion that an apple equals an orange and that gender equality is a moral good. I beg to differ. One does not have to be a Christian to figure that one out.
Further, macroscopic inequality does not imply macroscopic inferiority/superiority in much the same way that an apple is not inferior/superior to an orange even though the two of them might be unequal.
Lyons Clubs and Jaycees used to be 100% men. Then they integrated and began dealing with social issues. Rotary stopped supporting local causes and started doing social work and helping women start businesses.
Churches adopted the pop culture perspective that women have been ruthlessly oppressed - and that men need to change dramatically.
All these organizations have seen men running for the exits. There are no institutions which are all male. No spaces where men lead or predominate. Women integrate, the institution slowly dies.
Society and the Church are making war on masculinity. Men cannot change the leftward, feminine direction of their world or the Church, so they simply withdraw.
If the distinctiveness of men, their masculinity is considered threatening or abusive by the Church, men will simply walk away. And they have been walking away.
Soon, the UK churches will have no men. This is not an indictment of stupid, faithless men; it is an indictment of a long line of church leaders who firmly believe that Church is for girls - their message, their approach and their personal beliefs all validate this perspective.
When there is a lack of men, women and their pastors blame men.
When Christian single women cannot find husbands, the pastors blame men.
When the problem becomes worse and worse, the pastors celebrate feminism and do more outreach to women.
Seems obvious to me who is doing all the damage to the Church.
anon wrote:
I mean, do you guys REALLY believe that there's no justification for ANY aspect of feminism? Don't you think that Harris might have a point in admitting that things were pretty bad for women up until the last few decades? In 1970, a woman who wanted a mortgage had to have a man co-sign for her, at least at most banks-- my widowed aunt who had worked all her life had to get her 18 year old son to sign for her! We take these things for granted nowadays.
Speaking for myself, no. I've never written any such thing here or elsewhere. Further, I don’t think I have seen any posts condemning the feminist movement in toto. You write as though such posts are a regular feature of this site. Please point to the posts to which you are referring.
No one here has any problem with culturally and legally equitable & fair treatment. This is what the original feminists were about (Sommers calls them 'equity feminists'). The post-60s femininsts (aka gender feminists) are a completely different breed. They are out to turn gender-roles and human nature, and thus the structure of the family, on its head. It is these modern-day feminists we take issue with. To deny that modern-day feminism does not share the blame for the decline of the family is to be deep in denial.
Do you deny the destructive impact of modern ‘family/divorce’ policies? How about the shoddy treatment of boys in public schools (see Sommers’ The War Against Boys).These policies and more are largely the fruits of the efforts of radical gender feminists. Yes, the feminist movement bore much good fruit, but it has also borne much rotten fruit. Maken and her crowd want to deny this reality.
One of my main problems with Maken (especially as evidenced by her latest post) and her acolytes, and with Harris’ recent post (the subject of this present discussion), is that there seems to be a push by these people to excuse women from accountability, particularly in the arena of personal relationships. If a woman misbehaves, men must be held accountable for it. If a woman sins or has a personal flaw, a man is to blame.
These people often try to justify this notion by appealing to the account of the fall. What they apparently forget is that, as I mentioned above, God DID NOT hold Adam accountable for Eve’s transgression. Eve was punished for her own sin. In other words, it was her own fault that she listened to and heeded the serpent, it was her own fault that she ate the forbidden fruit and, in turn, tempted her husband. It was not a lack of leadership on Adam’s part. God punished Adam for listening to his wife. Now, if these people want to equate Adam listening to (and heeding) Eve with him abdicating leadership, are they prepared to insist that husbands cease listening to (and heeding) their wives? Of course not; Adam’s problem was that his priorities were upside-down; he put Eve’s word above that of God.
One of the areas I agree with Maken et al. is that there are a lot of male politicians who are guilty for the state of our culture (e.g. divorce). Like Adam, they are guilty of ‘listening to Eve’, so to speak. Of course, their motivations are of a political nature, but they are guilty nonetheless. However, contra Maken, this in no way excuses the women who are equally complicit in this mess.
I also happen to think that this demeans women. Are women simply puppets responding to male behavior? Have women no free will? Are women incapable of responding in a godly fashion to the misbehavior of men? This is nothing more than a modern reincarnation of ‘the devil made me do it’ excuse. It was crap in the past and it’s crap today.
Finally, I think this effort to excuse women from accountability is destructive for both women and families. Do these people really believe that a woman standing before the judgment seat of God will be able to point to a man and say, ‘It was his fault that I [fill in the blank]? If women believe that they are not accountable, their motivation for holy living is diminished, perhaps, in the end, diminishing their rewards in heaven.
As to this notion’s destructive impact on families, I will cite, as I have many times before, Emerson Eggerichs' book Love & Respect:
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.
Eggerichs makes no mention of Maken, but the connection is clear for anyone to see. If a woman carries a ‘it’s all a man’s fault’ attitude into marriage, it will have a negative impact. Such an attitude will blind someone to their own sin and cause then blame others for it. This, obviously, leads to a lack of humility. This cannot be but destructive to a marriage. This is contrary to the Sermon on the Mount and Paul’s admonition to ‘not think of ourselves more highly that we ought, but to think of ourselves with sober judgment.’
To hear Maken and others tell it, one of the chief roles of a husband is that of ‘scapegoat’. Is it any surprise that men, rightly, react negatively to this?
"I don’t think I have seen any posts condemning the feminist movement in toto. You write as though such posts are a regular feature of this site. Please point to the posts to which you are referring."
How about anon's post today at 12:20, that ends off with:
"Seems obvious to me who is doing all the damage to the Church". If that post isn't blaming women and feminism, I don't know what is.
"To hear Maken and others tell it, one of the chief roles of a husband is that of ‘scapegoat’. Is it any surprise that men, rightly, react negatively to this?"
Well, I don't want to get sidetracked onto Maken, since this thread is about Harris and whether or not he has a point in acknowledging feminism as a justifiable response to men's misuse (or disuse) of power. No, not ever-- according to the guys posting here. To that end, I would say that if Maken is guilty of gender-bashing polemic, then so is this blog, which may even be guilt of exceeding it by now.
It has been and always will be a "man's world", as James Brown put it. As such, men will always bear the greater burden of culpability in the battle of the sexes. For that reason, Wombatty, no acknowledgement of the "unique part that women play" will ever quite be enough for you, except that you find on sour grapes sites for omega men, like this one.
Martyr mamas, like the one described by Eggerich existed long before Gloria Steinem sported a bunny tail. It's the product of the underdog role, much like the long suffering private to the lieutenant. Remember "Saving Private Ryan"-- complaints go up, not down. This is widely understood.
You lost, despite playing on the winning team. Boo-hoo. Your insistence upon whinge equity is pathetic. Give it up.
Wow,
Now any man who isn't Debbie Maken's husband is an "Omega" man, meaning the least of the least.
Let's review what we've learned...
First, there is no gender imbalance in the Church. If there ever was, it is because of loser, slacker men who can't commit to anything outside of video games.
Second, men rule society and women rarely have a voice. The men who lead the churches are strong, burly, masculine types with so much testosterone, the women in the front rows of church get pregnant from sitting too close to them.
There are far too many men in the churches for single Christian women to choose from. My goodness, women have so many to choose from!
I'm glad all of these important questions got resolved.
For that reason, Wombatty, no acknowledgement of the "unique part that women play" will ever quite be enough for you, except that you find on sour grapes sites for omega men, like this one.
However, what if this time the grapes ARE sour? What then, anon? Seems to me your solution is to bind anyone's hands who disagrees with your position and let it go at that, no? Any confrontation is met with "bitter, whining men". I believe you're defense for argument puts you dangerously close to a typical pattern of shaming tactics and logical fallacies.
Anon wrote:
Well, I don't want to get sidetracked onto Maken, since this thread is about Harris and whether or not he has a point in acknowledging feminism as a justifiable response to men's misuse (or disuse) of power. No, not ever-- according to the guys posting here. To that end, I would say that if Maken is guilty of gender-bashing polemic, then so is this blog, which may even be guilt of exceeding it by now.
Well, Harris apparently has in common with Maken the belief that women need not be held accountable. Harris writes:
The fight to uphold a complementarian, or what I would call a biblical, view of gender doesn't start with attacking feminists. It should begin with Christian men--single and married--heeding the call of scripture to be humble, masculine, self-sacrificing servant-leaders.
First, no one said it has to start by 'attacking feminists'. Second, while it need not start at such a place, at some point, the damage feminists have done must be acknowledged. Pinning the blame where it don't belong doesn't address the issue. It simply diverts attention from the problem and lets it fester.
When Jesus confronted the woman at the well, he DID NOT blame her plight on the five men she had in the past, nor on her then current boyfriend. He held HER accountable for her own sin and told HER to 'Go and sin no more'. Though this is not dealing with the issue of feminism, it does deal with the issue of female accountability (as does God's judging Eve). Jesus dealt with HER sin straight-away; He didn't deal with the men first.
Anon wrote:
It has been and always will be a "man's world", as James Brown put it. As such, men will always bear the greater burden of culpability in the battle of the sexes.
Perhaps so. That, however, DOES NOT mean that men bear the culpability that belongs to women.
Anon wrote:
For that reason, Wombatty, no acknowledgement of the "unique part that women play" will ever quite be enough for you, except that you find on sour grapes sites for omega men, like this one.
Hardly, I expect no more than for anyone (man or woman) to humbly acknowledge their own sin and not try to pin it on others. That doesn't seem like too much to expect.
Sour grapes? It seems that some think that men should just 'shut up and take it like a man' when bitter women and their allies are throwing smears around. If responding to such smears is sour grapes, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.
Anon wrote:
Martyr mamas, like the one described by Eggerich existed long before Gloria Steinem sported a bunny tail. It's the product of the underdog role, much like the long suffering private to the lieutenant. Remember "Saving Private Ryan"-- complaints go up, not down. This is widely understood.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Regardless, Eggerichs has seen more than 'one' of these 'matyr mamas' in his ministry and at his conferences. These women are not complaining - they are BLAMING. They are blaming their husbands for everything wrong in their marriages. That is myopic, arrogant and destructive.
Eggerichs' accounts of wives who have come to be sorry for the shabby way in which they have treated their husbands (e.g. contempt, disrespect, etc) provides a nice constrast to the likes of Maken. These women have seen and acknowledged their sins and have repented of them. Interestingly, many of these women have written of how they have done much to heal their marriages by living up to their responsibilites as wives. Who would have thought?
Nor is Eggerichs' book one sided. He writes of many men who have acknowledged their sins towards their wives and repented of them. If only others would be as balanced and realistic.
Anon wrote:
You lost, despite playing on the winning team. Boo-hoo. Your insistence upon whinge equity is pathetic. Give it up.
Not sure what I am supposed to have lost. The argument perhaps? I don't think so. All I am arguing is that women share the blame for whatever mess we are in. Unless you think that women are blameless little lambs, my point stands.
I think it's ironic that one of the chief complaints against men is our supposed imaturity. Yet, here we have various people (Maken, Harris, Ganz) who want to exempt women from responsiblity. Avoidance of responsibility is a sure sign of immaturity, and these people seem to be encouraging it.
I'm not sure why men are supposed to find such women attractive. I sure don't. Thankfully, most of the women I know don't buy into this load of bilge.
Wombatty, you said:
"First, no one said it has to start by 'attacking feminists'." Oh really? Well, what have you guys been doing here for the past year?
"Second, while it need not start at such a place, at some point, the damage feminists have done must be acknowledged. Pinning the blame where it don't belong doesn't address the issue. It simply diverts attention from the problem and lets it fester."
And what is the issue? There's a shortage of young, single, marriagable men in the church. Yes, good guys are there, but in short supply, while weak and/or wounded guys are over-represented. And I'm sorry but you cannot blame any of this on women. And despite the surplus of women at every age group, the church leadership is still overwhelmingly male (fair enough, but it's all the more reason you can't blame the women for simply showing up like they're supposed to).
And speaking of pinning the blame where it doesn't belong, why does the discussion here always come around to non-issues like promiscuous women (especially painful when they are attractive, right?), harsh feminist career women (a rarity in the conservative church), and nagging, divorce-minded wives (not an issue for the single, but boy do we hear about it from guys like Jake who have never even been married! As if women don't also have to deal with the possibility of being disappointed in love)???
For young, never-married, occupationally functioning, attractive enough church-going women there aren't enough male peers. Period.
If you haven't benefitted from this surplus (as most Christian men do-- most single Christian men do manage to find wives without much difficulty, despite what Capt. Trickster would have you believe), then what else would you call that BUT SOUR GRAPES??
Regarding feminism, I wouldn't be so quick to embrace any "good" from the pre-1960's variant of the movement. Let's not forget Margaret Sanger and her ideological sisters were joined at the hip with the eugenics movement of the '20's which all the leftist intelligentsia of the day were so gung ho about. The early abortion rights movement was motivated in part by a desire to reduce the number of black babies being born so as to summarily improve the American gene pool. The early feminist movement, just like the later one in the '60's, was about gaining privileges for white upper-middle class women. It had (has) nothing to do with equality.
Then there is the issue of women's suffrage, which has been a disaster for individual liberty. There is no better way to reduce freedom and empower the state than to let the women vote. Hitler and Mussolini knew this and used it to their respective advantages. Switzerland, on the other hand, didn't allow women the vote until the 1970's, which is why the Swiss are freer than both us and their European neighbours. I believe it was James Madison who called this sort of thing the "tyranny of the petticoat".
Vox Day has blogged extensively on this topic, for anyone who's interested.
As for women entering into contracts, there is a Biblical precedent for this:
Nu:30:2: If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
Nu:30:3: If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth;
Nu:30:4: And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
Nu:30:5: But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
Nu:30:6: And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;
Nu:30:7: And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
Nu:30:8: But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.
(None of this applies to divorced or widowed women, who are treated like men in this regard.)
This goes back to the whole issue of "covering", which is reinforced in the New Testament in 1 Cor. 11. It is God's obvious will that men and women are to have unequal rights and responsibilities.
Men are given greater rights because men endure greater responsibilities. If it is the man's responsibility to take care of his wife and kids, and it is, then he must enjoy some rights to make the endurance of that responsibility worthwhile.
Likewise, if a woman is allowed to avoid some of the responsibility that her husband bears, and she is, then she must give up some rights, too. The husband, as head of the family, is held responsible for the care and well-being of the family, so it only makes sense that any contracts with other parties should meet his approval. After all, how can any man fulfill his duties if he doesn't have the means to do so?
I look forward to the day when those who think the whole "covering" issue is so wrong try to explain to the Lord His mistake. I'm sure He'll be amused.
As if women don't also have to deal with the possibility of being disappointed in love)???
Men have much more to risk. Half of all marriages end in divorce, and the vast majority of those divorces are initiated by women and are of the "no-fault" variety. The divorce courts are notoriously tougher on men than women, and the child custody racket is even worse.
Throw in false rape accusations, fraudulent sexual harassment accusations, and all the rest of the nonsense that women use to punish innocent men and you produce a pretty hostile atmosphere.
If you want a real world example of why men are hesitant to marry, try this. Poor Tucker had no clue he was about to be abandoned.
For young, never-married, occupationally functioning, attractive enough church-going women there aren't enough male peers.
Getting men back in church is easy. Just make it a place they would want to go. This goes for any other organization, too. You don't find more men on the golf course than in the yarn shop because of a "lack of male leadership". Men simply prefer golf to yarn.
Anyway, back to feminism...
It is imperative to remember that feminism is really just a manifestation of Marxism. The goal is to replace the nuclear family with the Total State by replacing a patriarchal arrangement with a matriarchal one. If you want to see the endgame of the feminist movement, look no further than the ghetto.
Better bloggers than I have dissected this subject much more thoroughly if anyone is interested in further study. Seek and ye shall find.
Anon:
The issue regarding feminism and its impact on culture is that normal guys (as opposed to the weak wimps) are justifiably 'not rushing' to get married. Divorce is just as common in the Church as it is in the real world and women initiate the vast majority of divorces. With the system rigged against men as it is, men are understandably hesitant. If you cannot understand that, then I don't know what to tell you. Guys don't exactly like the idea that their wives could up and divorce them for little reason, deprive them of their children and much of their livlihood. All the while dragging them back into court every now and again to squeeze a little more money out of them.
Speaking for myself, I would be more eager to consider marriage if I lived in a state that had a 'Covenant Marriage law' (I think Louisiana has one). This, of course, also depends on whether some renegage judge might strike such a law down as 'unconsititutional. As it is, I don't live in such a state, and I'm don't want marriage bad enough to move. I'm quite content as a bachelor. That, of course, sends the likes of Maken into orbit. In her world, guys don't have the right to be content outside of marriage. Thus, she advocates a church-wide policy of shaming single men in service so as to motivate them to pursue marriage. Yeah....that'll work.
Anon wrote:
And speaking of pinning the blame where it doesn't belong, why does the discussion here always come around to non-issues like promiscuous women (especially painful when they are attractive, right?), harsh feminist career women (a rarity in the conservative church), and nagging, divorce-minded wives (not an issue for the single, but boy do we hear about it from guys like Jake who have never even been married! As if women don't also have to deal with the possibility of being disappointed in love)???
LOL. How many people do you think walk down the aisle planning divorce? People become 'nagging and divorce-minded' AFTER marriage. And, again, divorce is common in the church and most often initiated by women.
Of course women have to deal with the risk of a broken heart. But men, after marriage, have an additional risk: being thrown into the meat-grinder of the government family/divorce bureaucracy. And that fact that such a decision doesn't financially enrich women doesn't stop them from doing it.
Anon wrote:
For young, never-married, occupationally functioning, attractive enough church-going women there aren't enough male peers. Period.
And that's our fault how? If all of us men 'got our minds right' and found a wife, there would still be alot of single women in the church looking for husbands. And then what? That, no doubt, would be blamed on men as well.
Anon wrote:
If you haven't benefitted from this surplus (as most Christian men do-- most single Christian men do manage to find wives without much difficulty, despite what Capt. Trickster would have you believe), then what else would you call that BUT SOUR GRAPES??
Personally, I don't believe I have any business dating if I'm not pursuing marriage. Thus, I don't date. So, no, I haven't 'benefitted' from the surplus of women in the church. Secondly, I agree that most Christian men have no trouble finding wives. So what is Maken caterwauling about? To hear her tell it, most Christian men are immature (defined as 'not pursusing marriage), and spend their time playing video games.
I discovered this debate because I had been reconsidering my decision to stay single and was browsing books in Borders. I came across Maken's screed and thought I'd search around on the 'net to see what others were saying. Since I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy, I jumped into the fray. Not sure why that makes sour grapes.
Triton wrote:
Then there is the issue of women's suffrage, which has been a disaster for individual liberty.
John Lott, in his new book Freedomnomics, has a section about this. Apparently, around the world, without fail, with a decade or so of women being given the right to vote, government expands exponentially. And this is a result of women in general (and especially single women) favoring more liberal social policy. Of course, as government grows, individual liberty shrinks. And one of the habits of government has been to proactively displace men from the home with various welfare programs that 'play husband' to the woman and discourage saving and marriage.
I haven't yet read the book, but I'm looking forward to it. I'm not really looking to repeal the 19th amendment, but I think women (in general) have something to answer for here.
"First, no one said it has to start by 'attacking feminists'."
*******
Oh really? Well, what have you guys been doing here for the past year?
*******
Anon, are you seriously painting everyone here with the same brushstroke? Remember, this is the internet where folks get a thrill from sabotaging any discussion. As for attacking feminists? Really, anon, what would you have men do?
Feminism is an extension of the philosophy of cultural marxism. As a result, I distance myself from anything associable to an evil which would replace liberty and individual incentive with the redistribution of wealth and the implementation of meddling social policies. Tell me feminism hasn't done its part to do just that.
No society EVER built from the foundations of socialism or the Matriarchy have propered and survived for long. I have no idea why socialism and entitlements appeal to so many women (this based, of course, on their past voting history), but they do.
One more thing I want to address: How many times are we going to hear how men on this site are bitter? Is this how we shut down debate? Would you rather hear the logical fallacy of false compromise instead? Seriously though, do women have a problem with men who simply want to be left alone in their choice to pursue happiness, even if that happiness includes protracted bachelorhood?
But you are right in one regard: Feminism has nothing to do with whether scripture demands a mandate to marry.
And what is the issue? There's a shortage of young, single, marriagable men in the church. Yes, good guys are there, but in short supply, while weak and/or wounded guys are over-represented.
Um, is it safe to assume here that, in your opinion, there are no weak and/ or wounded women over-represented in church attendance?
And I'm sorry but you cannot blame any of this on women.
I'm not.
Remember, Mrs. Maken served the first volley with her book in front of an audience filled with many respectable church leaders who endorsed said book. Here on this board, like so many others, I'm just defending (not justifying) my lifestyle to come and go as I please without fear, obligation, or guilt. And, if I may, just like the game of tennis, when anyone serves across my net, I believe in answering back with a serve of my own. I never thought I'd see the day when defending one's self from attack equaled "bitterness".
And despite the surplus of women at every age group, the church leadership is still overwhelmingly male (fair enough, but it's all the more reason you can't blame the women for simply showing up like they're supposed to).
Once again, I'm not blaming anyone. Both genders are responsible and accountable for pursuing one another. If anyone wants something bad enough (this being marriage) then they'll do whatever it takes (within the law) to achieve it.
For young, never-married, occupationally functioning, attractive enough church-going women there aren't enough male peers. Period.
Can't say my church has that problem. I'm not sure there is a shortage, if so, what are the stats? Links? Sources? In all, I just believe there are a lot of picky, selective individuals out there. You can't complain if your grocery lists exceed your own marketability. Both genders have done this. I can guarantee that those folks with higher mating values do not have this problem.
If you haven't benefitted from this surplus (as most Christian men do-- most single Christian men do manage to find wives without much difficulty, despite what Capt. Trickster would have you believe), then what else would you call that BUT SOUR GRAPES??
I see your point. However, that goes back to my question: In your opinion, are there no weak and/ or wounded women over-represented in church attendance, along with your calling of the men?
Let's isolate the issue:
The church of today is a feminine domain. The workers and employees are women, the congregation are women. The modern church reeks of estrogen. There is a small niche for quiet introspective men but they are more tolerated than embraced.
The men are saying: This isn't what God intends for His church. Men see the problems between the sexes as mostly women's issues; divorce, independence, love of money over God.
The women are saying: Men need to grow up and do what we say. We have double the advantages our mothers had, the men should be worshipping us and they should be rich, wonderful husbands. Instead, they are single, slackers, losers.
Summary: This situation is hopeless. Popular culture and social trends will kill the Church in Europe and the UK. There isn't much time before the feminine revolution emasculates US churches as well.
knightwatch said: Can't say my church has that problem. I'm not sure there is a shortage, if so, what are the stats? Links? Sources?
I agree with you, knightwatch. My home church in NY and the one I attend here in Ohio don't have any "gender disparity" problems. In fact, the churches I visit on occasion don't have that problem either. So I'd like to know where people are coming up with this 60-40 female/male ratio.
That being said, there's been a great deal of rudeness in the comments section for the past handful of posts. Rudeness detracts from argument. It would be nice for people to calm down when commenting or for comment moderation to be initiated.
knightwatch said: Can't say my church has that problem. I'm not sure there is a shortage, if so, what are the stats? Links? Sources?
Churchformen.com has all kinds of stats on the shortage of men in church, noting that young men are the least likely group to attend. Besides, it's been established here that churches are overrun with women-- it's the guys on this site making that complaint.
Well, well, so this goes back a little further for you guys than Gloria Steinem going undercover in a bunny costume...Of course, it's the fault of those early 20th century suffragettes!! If only women weren't given the vote, the world would have been a much, much, better place. Not that the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of big business could have had ANYTHING to do with the expansion of government and the decrease of individual freedom. Besides, in what way has this "loss of freedom" has truly affected YOUR lives, anyways?
I should abandon the discussion right here, because anyone who'd oppose women having the vote (or make allies with those of that mindset), is definitely out to lunch. I was being ironic earlier, but I guess it's true that you guys really don't want women to have any rights. What's next? Literal interpretation of Paul's teachings about head coverings? Welcome to Christianistan.
It's interesting that Triton brought up the notion that men should have more rights because they have more responsibilities. To that, I ask: what responsibilitieS?? Traditionally, men have only had one: to be the breadwinners.
Now that women can earn their own money (and often do better than men at it), men can no longer get away with being one-trick ponies, female dependency guaranteeing that they'll always have a wife, regardless of what they do or don't do. And there's your trouble: you guys resent the fact that the bar has been raised, however low it may have been (and what that must have been like for the women who for so many years had to go along with whatever).
But I'm not going to rehash the whole "divorce is so much more horrible for men" thing, we know why women initate the majority of divorces, we know who's likely to get divorced and who's not, and how to prevent divorce from www.gottman.com. It's not rocket science.
Besides, I don't buy it that you guys are single because you fear divorce (most of you admit to never having married, except SCM)-- you're single because you've sought marriage and failed, you get to be among the men who benefit from the deck being stacked in your favor, and that must hurt. And I could sympathize with that if there was some honesty about how exactly you are challenged. SCM admits on his blog that he's 5'2", so of course that's going to amount to a significant amount of rejection, just as some women don't get asked out because of their physical characteristics. Them's the brakes.
Now, you're all gonna pile on me and say "well, if women pursue careers and get too old to attract choice suitors, them's the brakes", and there's some truth to that. But even if eliminate the few hard-core careerists and keep the mind-mannered June Cleaver wannabes, THERE ARE STILL AREN'T ENOUGH SINGLE MEN IN THE CHURCH FOR THE SINGLE WOMEN. And it always comes back to that.
Even if you push the "husband supply" issue aside, and care about the lack of men in the church simply out of a missional concern for the future of the church, you won't find any solutions in blaming the women for the "feminized" climate of the church. Men have been leaving the church for decades for reasons that have nothing to do with the women there. And the more that leave, naturally, the more the climate becomes more female -- what are the remaining women supposed to do? Just sit there? No! They fill in the gaps, which is what anyone would do, and church leaders (still mostly male) simply give credit where credit is due.
EVERYONE wants to see more men in church. It's not like women WANT pretty pink and mauve banners at the expense of men who might attend. Maken and co. do not oppose Murrow's aspirations to make the church more masculine, with more male leadership-- they support it. But it's a male problem requiring male solutions. And you don't get them by blaming women.
The above nagging is an example of why I will never marry in this country.
Well, well, so this goes back a little further for you guys than Gloria Steinem going undercover in a bunny costume...Of course, it's the fault of those early 20th century suffragettes!! If only women weren't given the vote, the world would have been a much, much, better place. Not that the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of big business could have had ANYTHING to do with the expansion of government and the decrease of individual freedom.
No need to blow a gasket, gortexgrrl. I can tell by your use of exclamation points, hi-caps, and the tone in which you write that this must upset you terribly so. I believe it was already made clear from the beginning that no one is looking to repeal a woman's right to vote. That, of course, still doesn't change the historical trends that women prefer to vote for entitlements and are more inclined toward social policies. It's a noteworthy trend, an observation that is not just in America, but has also been the case in other parts of the world.
Research it for yourself.
Besides, in what way has this "loss of freedom" has truly affected YOUR lives, anyways?
You're not serious, are you? Gortexgrrl, what kind of society would you prefer -- capitalism? -- socialism? -- statism? -- just throwing some "isms" around. I'm trying get a guage of what it is you believe, what exactly is your paradigm?
I should abandon the discussion right here, because anyone who'd oppose women having the vote (or make allies with those of that mindset), is definitely out to lunch. I was being ironic earlier, but I guess it's true that you guys really don't want women to have any rights. What's next? Literal interpretation of Paul's teachings about head coverings? Welcome to Christianistan.
You're going off on a passive-aggressive tangent here, yet I expected that.
Now that women can earn their own money (and often do better than men at it), men can no longer get away with being one-trick ponies, female dependency guaranteeing that they'll always have a wife, regardless of what they do or don't do. And there's your trouble: you guys resent the fact that the bar has been raised, however low it may have been (and what that must have been like for the women who for so many years had to go along with whatever).
Gortexgrrl, you still don't get it. I don't think the men here have a problem with the economic progress women have made. You can be wealthy and have it all -- just be prepared for any repercussions or societal consequences/ changes that come with all that "progress". This includes finding choice men to marry. It's that simple. Debbie Maken's book was written for women who were "complaining" that there were fewer choices of Christian men. What the men resent from that book, the main thing they resent, I think, is the blame and shame tactics as a result of not stepping up and pursuing marriage, claims that suggest through scripture that marriage is mandatory.
... and how to prevent divorce from www.gottman.com.
As one poster put it (referring to John Gottman):
******
In 1976 John Gottman published A Couple's Guide to Communication. Like the present book, that book was based on clinical research involving hundreds of couples. Today, however, Gottman calls the premise that communication is the key to a happy marriage a "myth." That approach, he says, doesn't work. In many ways, John Gottman's career recapitulates the career of many psychologists. The relationship cure we were selling a decade ago and two decades ago doesn't work. But the cure we are selling this year really does.
*******
Besides, I don't buy it that you guys are single because you fear divorce (most of you admit to never having married, except SCM)-- you're single because you've sought marriage and failed, you get to be among the men who benefit from the deck being stacked in your favor, and that must hurt. And I could sympathize with that if there was some honesty about how exactly you are challenged. SCM admits on his blog that he's 5'2", so of course that's going to amount to a significant amount of rejection, just as some women don't get asked out because of their physical characteristics. Them's the brakes.
Er, actually, I was going to say I was too selective and proud of it, but I suppose ya don't buy that one, either. Them's the brakes. ;)
Now, you're all gonna pile on me and say "well, if women pursue careers and get too old to attract choice suitors, them's the brakes", and there's some truth to that. But even if eliminate the few hard-core careerists and keep the mind-mannered June Cleaver wannabes, THERE ARE STILL AREN'T ENOUGH SINGLE MEN IN THE CHURCH FOR THE SINGLE WOMEN. And it always comes back to that.
Ooookaaay ... the gavels yours.
Of course, it's the fault of those early 20th century suffragettes!!
Actually, it goes back to the 19th century. One mustn't forget Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
If only women weren't given the vote, the world would have been a much, much, better place. Not that the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of big business could have had ANYTHING to do with the expansion of government and the decrease of individual freedom.
No one is saying that there aren't men that vote away freedoms in favour of big government. Women are simply much more likely to do it and history bears this out.
For the record, I don't think most men should vote either. In fact, I'd prefer something other than the pseudo-democracy we have now.
You're actually close when you mention big business, but still no cigar. What you should have brought up instead as a contributing factor to the expansion of government power was mercantilism, or, as it's sometimes called today, corporatism.
Besides, in what way has this "loss of freedom" has truly affected YOUR lives, anyways?
You must be joking. Almost every facet of human existence in this country has been regulated by some government, either local or federal.
I was being ironic earlier, but I guess it's true that you guys really don't want women to have any rights.
Nonsense. I simply believe that a person's rights should reflect that person's responsibility. Children don't enjoy the same rights as adults; does this outrage you? It doesn't bother me, since children don't have to bear the same responsibilities as adults.
Suppose children could do anything adults could do - drive cars, drink alcohol, take out a mortgage, etc., but they still were exempted from adult responsibilities. So if a kid screwed up, his parents would pay the price. Does this sound fair to you? It doesn't to me. It sounds like feudalism with children as the aristocracy and adults as the serfs.
It is the same with men and women. Men have greater Biblical responsibilities than women, and they are granted greater rights accordingly.
What's next? Literal interpretation of Paul's teachings about head coverings?
Why not? For most of history, Christian women have covered their heads. Amish and Mennonite women still do. It is only relatively recently that women decided to ignore the Bible:
1Co:11:4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Co:11:5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Co:11:6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Co:11:7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co:11:8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co:11:9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Co:11:10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
I would note that men still obey these verses by removing their hats when they pray. But apparently this bit of "male leadership" that the Makenites seem to crave so desperately is lost on modern Christian women.
To that, I ask: what responsibilitieS?? Traditionally, men have only had one: to be the breadwinners.
Excellent question. I wouldn't say "breadwinners" per se, but rather providing for one's family's needs. Close, but not exactly the same thing.
I would also add that a man is responsible for the spiritual and secular education of his children, as well as discipline. A man must bear responsibility for the family's finances.
Basically, a man is the CEO of the family. A CEO may delegate some duties, but if things go bad, he's the one that gets canned regardless of his actual involvement with the screwup because the buck stops with the CEO.
Now that women can earn their own money (and often do better than men at it), men can no longer get away with being one-trick ponies, female dependency guaranteeing that they'll always have a wife, regardless of what they do or don't do.
This is just silly. I could just as easily say that once sex robots and the artificial womb are perfected, women won't be able to get away with being one-trick ponies. Except I would be more right, since men are demonstrably better at almost everything than women. The feminist movement of recent decades was supposed to open the doors of science, architecture, engineering, etc. to women. Finally, the poor girls could prove that they could invent, design, and build just as good as men.
And what did they do with this opportunity? The enrolled in women's studies, and creative writing, and English Lit., and a host of other equally useless fields. Women, in general, simply don't care to apply themselves to anything truly rigourous.
Also, let's remember that the law requires companies to hire women. In a free market, how many of them would actually be employed on their own merit?
But I'm not going to rehash the whole "divorce is so much more horrible for men" thing, we know why women initate the majority of divorces, we know who's likely to get divorced and who's not, and how to prevent divorce from www.gottman.com. It's not rocket science.
Women initiate divorce for a variety of reasons. Many of those reasons are trivial, like "boredom". And anybody can get divorced; I certainly don't claim omniscience with regards to who will get divorced and who won't.
Did you click on the link I provided earlier? Tucker had no idea his 11-month marriage was about to end. His wife simply got bored and moved on. You're right that it's not rocket science; it's more like roulette.
Besides, I don't buy it that you guys are single because you fear divorce (most of you admit to never having married, except SCM)-- you're single because you've sought marriage and failed, you get to be among the men who benefit from the deck being stacked in your favor, and that must hurt.
I have never proposed to a woman. I haven't even asked a girl out in years. It is simply not worth it to me.
And the deck is hardly stacked in our favour. In my experience, virtuous men far outnumber virtuous women. It is American men, after all, who are more likely to search for a marriage parter in another country.
But even if eliminate the few hard-core careerists and keep the mind-mannered June Cleaver wannabes, THERE ARE STILL AREN'T ENOUGH SINGLE MEN IN THE CHURCH FOR THE SINGLE WOMEN.
This varies widely depending on denomination, but I'll agree in general. It begs the question, though; are the single women in church worth marrying to begin with? Not just on their own merits, but also in light of the various laws and courts being what they are?
Even if you push the "husband supply" issue aside, and care about the lack of men in the church simply out of a missional concern for the future of the church, you won't find any solutions in blaming the women for the "feminized" climate of the church.
I agree. The best solution is not endless arguing, but rather for men to simply go their own way.
EVERYONE wants to see more men in church. It's not like women WANT pretty pink and mauve banners at the expense of men who might attend. Maken and co. do not oppose Murrow's aspirations to make the church more masculine, with more male leadership-- they support it.
Hogwash. They may say they want more men in church, but they want them there on women's terms. If all the men got together and said they would return to church if the women promised to cover their heads when they prayed, how long do you think the longing for more men in church would last? I'm guessing not very long. And covering one's head is a pretty simple and easy thing for women to do. What if it was something more difficult, like obeying one's husband? Christian women are supposed to do this, and many even promise to on the wedding day, yet few take it seriously.
When women get serious about the Bible, then perhaps more men will get serious about Christian women.
But it's a male problem requiring male solutions.
Agreed. And the best solution I've seen is the Marriage Strike.
For the foreseeable future, though, I think an Isaiah 4:1 environment is on the horizon.
Isa:4:1: 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.
wow, this is getting too ugly to even read anymore... it seems like everyone is waiting for everything to go all rainbows and bunnies just to have everything on their terms when life will never wait for you to adjust *sigh*. It also seems like celibate singleness is something that only guys are worthy of participating. This blog is going on into a deep end of no return where this is becoming almost all harangue, which will give anyone a migraine within a day, and hardly theological, scriptural or even cultural rhetoric that is edifying.
Anon wrote:
I should abandon the discussion right here, because anyone who'd oppose women having the vote (or make allies with those of that mindset), is definitely out to lunch. I was being ironic earlier, but I guess it's true that you guys really don't want women to have any rights.
Hardly. It's just that we recognize, as most people do, that rights come with responsibilities.
No one is talking about repealing the 19th amendment. It's simply a fact of history that when women have been given the right to vote, government grows into a liberty-destroying behemoth - due, in large part, to female votes. If you have a problem with that, talk to your fellow females about it. Women should be willing to 'step up to the plate' and 'own' this problem.
Anon wrote
It's interesting that Triton brought up the notion that men should have more rights because they have more responsibilities. To that, I ask: what responsibilities?? Traditionally, men have only had one: to be the breadwinners.
As Triton points out, there is much more than that. No wonder you seem to have no respect for men; you simply see them as a paycheck.
Anon wrote
female dependency guaranteeing that they'll always have a wife, regardless of what they do or don't do.
And there's your trouble: you guys resent the fact that the bar has been raised, however low it may have been (and what that must have been like for the women who for so many years had to go along with whatever).
Guys can play that game to:
women have always had 'what men want', guaranteeing that they'll always have a man who's willing to bend over backward to get a little of that 'magic', no matter how poorly they get treated otherwise.
And there's your trouble: you women resent the fact that the bar has been raised, however low it may have been.
Once men get past their early 20's they realize something: sex isn't the end all, be all. Especially considering the price-tag attached to it. Having 'what men want' simply isn't enough anymore. It's not enough to be a 'one-trick pony.
See how easy that is?
Anon wrote
But I'm not going to rehash the whole "divorce is so much more horrible for men" thing, we know why women initate the majority of divorces, we know who's likely to get divorced and who's not, and how to prevent divorce from www.gottman.com. It's not rocket science.
Yeah. I seem to recall among Gottman's findings was that women are 8 x more likely to divorce out of boredom. Perhaps you think men have a responsibility to provide their wives with a soap opera/romance novel type of life to keep their little hearts all aflutter. Wouldn't want to the poor dears to get bored, now would we?
Anon wrote
Besides, I don't buy it that you guys are single because you fear divorce (most of you admit to never having married, except SCM)--you're single because you've sought marriage and failed, you get to be among the men who benefit from the deck being stacked in your favor, and that must hurt.
Againi, guys can play this game to:
I don't believe you really want to get married because they want to be a helper, wife and mother. You simply want to have some man around to blame your problems on and to nag and complain at until you divorce him, take his children and half of what he has.
You get to be among the 'princesses in waiting' who simply need to worry about being decent enough looking and friendly enough to attract a man, and you cannot even manage that. That really must hurt.
It's so easy to simply smear someone's motives in order to avoide engaging the issues. If you were to take what guys have to say seriously, it would mean that women 'have some work to do'. (That's not to deny that guys do to as well).
Thankfully, not everybody is in denial about this. Authors, including women, like Shaunti Feldhahn, Emmerson Eggerichs, Dr. Laura and more have recongnized that many women don't have their act any more 'together' than men do.
Nor do women, contrary to modern mythology, have men 'all figured out'; they are nearly as, if not as. clueless about the opposite sex as men are.
This makes a huge difference because such recognition brings with it humility - and that's a very attractive trait in anybody. The contrast between female authors like Feldhahn & Dr. Laura and those like Maken is painfully obvious: humility and respect on the one had - contempt, arrogance and scorn on the other.
mj wrote...
"wow, this is getting too ugly to even read anymore..."
How sad that the real issues that desperately need looking at cannot even get started.
The fact that so many women absolutely refuse to even acknowledge, let alone discuss, the corrosive effects of "second wave feminism" on society just forces me to trust them (as a group) even less.
The mainstream media owns their minds and souls.
And who is it that owns the MSM I wonder?
Anon said: (most of you admit to never having married, except SCM)"
"admit" is a tone word -- like an "admission" of guilt. Get over this -- women do not have moral standing by "virtue" of the fact that they are women. and shame tactics are less than useless against real men. They may border on a sinful use of the tongue.
While being divorced was a source of pain to me, it was useful in that it revealed to me more clearly what passes for evangelical thought about men really is.
MJ said:
wow, this is getting too ugly to even read anymore...
What do you mean? Could you give us some exposition on this?
it seems like everyone is waiting for everything to go all rainbows and bunnies just to have everything on their terms when life will never wait for you to adjust *sigh*.
Waiting? Not at all, MJ. Life is too short for waiting. Even though we're living in a dysfunctional society where most folks are hardly marriage material, where black and white no longer exists (and used to be embraced by the church), where gray areas and laws have been created for the emotionally weak, believe it or not, there are a lot of alternatives out there. You have to be optimistic and look for them.
It also seems like celibate singleness is something that only guys are worthy of participating.
Where did that come from? Women can take part in celibate singleness if they so choose.
This blog is going on into a deep end of no return where this is becoming almost all harangue, which will give anyone a migraine within a day, and hardly theological, scriptural or even cultural rhetoric that is edifying.
I don't get this at all. Sounds to me like you're trying to place circuit breakers on this thread. What you're searching for is the logical fallacy of false compromise.
The communication breaks down on this blog and others because women simply don't get it. For the last 40 years our churches and societies have made pleasing women Job Number One.
If women are unhappy, men are to blame. If you can't see that, you men are worse than we thought!
There haven't been any social changes over the last few decades, men are just more wimpy and underperforming these days.
You sorry losers need to come back to church on our terms, grow some b***s (as Capt Sensible says) and put the hair back on the chest of Christianity.
Of course you'll all need to get facials (per Debbie Maken), put up with us watching Sex & The City, and volunteer for flower-arrangement and therapeutic crying classes at the local church.
If only men were more like women. Then the world and the church would be a better place.
tarqil said...
The fact that so many women absolutely refuse to even acknowledge, let alone discuss, the corrosive effects of "second wave feminism" on society just forces me to trust them (as a group) even less.
It's not as bad as all that. Just avoid women, like Maken, who are allergic to accountability and personal responsibility. Otherwise, you'll just end up as a scapegoat.
There are women who don't buy into Makenesque bilge. I have two little sisters who, knowing women as they do, think Maken is full of it.
If there is a marriage mandate, as Maken claims, then women need to marry down to please God.
Wombatty, I just checked Joshua Harris' site. It looks like your comment was not approved. I guess Mr. Harris tolerates dissenting opinions about as much as "Captain Sensible."
singleman said...
Wombatty, I just checked Joshua Harris' site. It looks like your comment was not approved. I guess Mr. Harris tolerates dissenting opinions about as much as "Captain Sensible."
Yeah. I saw that. Though, to be fair, poster 'Dave' dissented and got his published. No matter though. There are plenty of other places to post my thoughts and rants.
I haven't listened to his linked sermon on the topic, but if it's just a long version of his post, it will be about worth as much. I'm curious to know if he has ever engaged the arguments of those who disgree with him on this.
I think this compulsion some seem to have to 'let women off the hook' is kinda weird (especially when men do it).
These people seem to regard taking the blame (illegimately, IMHO) for a woman's personal faults, short-comings and sins as a critical component of leadership. Never mind that misplacing the blame will ensure the problem is never fixed (nor will the blame stop flowing), as long as a guy can show 'leadership', everything will be fine. Myself? I'm just not interested in being a doormat.
SCM,
You said: "Anon said: (most of you admit to never having married, except SCM)"..."admit" is a tone word -- like an "admission" of guilt."
When I said "admit", I meant it as the single guys here admitting that they have never married (and therefore are not experts on marriage/divorce). I wasn't trying to shame you for being divorced. OK?
anon 10:39AM,
You're thick as a brick.
If you know FOR A FACT that fire burns you one out of every two times you play with it, would you then say that only pyromaniacs and burn victims know whether burns are good or bad?
Further, would you recommend that the average person play with fire?
Would you say that no one other than astronauts can comment on outer space because they are the only ones who have been there?
Would you say that Bill Gates had no business running Microsoft cos he never earned a degree?
Anyone can be an expert on marriage and divorce if they use factual data on the subject accurately.
Anon: I accept your clarification, but ask you to ask yourself: Do you think that church culture, or in some instances teaching, presupposes a degree of virtue in females that is not males? And I wonder, as well, if you are married/divorced or not ... if you are not, does that not put you on the same footing as the unmarried males here?
Anon said: >>When I said "admit", I meant it as the single guys here admitting that they have never married (and therefore are not experts on marriage/divorce).<<
Hmm, I guess by that logic I can completely ignore all those people who married just out of school since they are obviously not experts on being a single adult and yet feel they have constuctive information to share with me about living their life.
Please lets use some common sense, just because someone hasn't lived your life does not mean they cannot contribute useful information.
I married right out of school and couldn't be happier. I cannot imagine being out there in the dating world with 45 year old women thinking they are as desirable as 19 year old college girls.
My wife and I married when we were young, when sex was extremely important and we could grow together with love and passion.
So many women who wait until age 35 are missing out on one of the most important relationships in life. If you don't marry relatively young, you might as well follow Carolyn McCulleys' advice and just "be content".
"You get to be among the 'princesses in waiting' who simply need to worry about being decent enough looking and friendly enough to attract a man, and you cannot even manage that."
OK, let's just say for the sake of argument that this is a correct statement about me...
...you still have a surplus of "decent enough looking and friendly enough" single women in the church within that surplus of women in general, as compared to their male peers (peers, in terms of occupational, psychological and social functioning).
And none of these long winded rants about marxism, statism, mercantilism, etc. do anything to explain that. Why, if women were all such raving, socialist-voting, government program-loving, gun-hating feminists, you'd think that the conservative evangelical church would be the last place they'd want to be! On the contrary, those churches have an abundance of single conservative women-- which makes the church a better place than any free-market free-for-all to find a mate for socialist-hating, gun-lovin' guys like y'all. BTW- I'm still waiting for an answer as to "what way has this "loss of freedom" has truly affected YOUR lives", as far as it standing in the way of being able to win the heart of one of these many government program-avoiding gals.
I suppose the women could go back to wearing headgear, as Triton suggests (and believes that men are already doing, lol!) in order to bring men back to church. But we'd be accused of being repressed and overly-pious (either we're sluts or prudes, right?), or even competing with the men on religiosity. If women "get more serious about the Bible", as you suggest, Triton, I shudder to the think where will that leave the guys! As I said in my last post, the shortage of men in our churches is a male problem requiring male solutions, not just for the sake of single women who can't find husbands but for the future of the church in general. But much like someone else's drinking problem, we didn't cause it, and we can't cure it.
Oh, a bit of clarification to the "breadwinner, man's only responsibility". I would agree that a man is responsible for the spiritual and secular education of his children, as well as discipline, etc. But the traditional responsibility of breadwinner was what allowed him the luxury of being able to pick and choose those additional responsibilities. Any that he would abdicate would then default to the wife-- and there was nothing she could do about it, since she was required to be financially dependent upon him. This "accountable-to-God-only" kind of system was doomed to fail eventually.
And sorry, Wombatty, but your "women have always had 'what men want'" actually reveals your own negative attitude towards the opposite sex, and ignorance as well, because it's common knowledge that a woman's sexual cache offers no guarantee that a man will stick around (let alone "bend over backwards" lol!), as we all know, when men get what they want, the masculine pursuit mechanism kicks in, and the impulse to see where else they can find that "magic" can be very strong.
Am I saying that men are less virtuous? No. More innately aggressive, which plays out through sexuality, creativity and violence and destruction (which is why you see more men who succeed in "hard" fields, like science, architecture, etc., but also why you see more who are serial killers-- and it's why women, I'll agree, are more "middling"). But it does justify some measure of caution and expectation that trust and worthiness be earned. Men have historically understood this, and expect to be held accountable, and hold each other accountable (expecting that a young woman's father would want to check you out before you date her-- and wanting to do the same when your own daughter starts to date).
No doubt about it, who marries, how well, and who gets divorced is neither rocket science nor roulette. I'm not sure why anyone would want to discredit Gottman's findings by suggesting anything as far fetched as "women are 8 x more likely to divorce out of boredom"?? If any of you can discuss his work as if you've actually read it, then I might be willing to discuss it here...
...but really, I don't think I'm up to wasting my time hacking it out over nonsense about headcoverings and whether or not women or men should be allowed to vote. I think we should all wonder what kind of company we're keeping here.
I'm still waiting for an answer as to "what way has this "loss of freedom" has truly affected YOUR lives", as far as it standing in the way of being able to win the heart of one of these many government program-avoiding gals.
That's a nice attempt at misdirection, but I'm not biting. Your original statement had nothing to do with "as far as it standing in the way of being able to win the heart of one of these many government program-avoiding gals" and you know it.
You simply asked, "Besides, in what way has this "loss of freedom" has truly affected YOUR lives, anyways?" The context was politics, not marriage.
Almost everything is taxed, outlawed, or regulated, whether it's the food you eat, the water you drink, the clothes you wear, the employees you hire, the land you own, or the things you say. I would challenge YOU to name something that is NOT taxed, outlawed, or regulated anywhere in America.
Why, if women were all such raving, socialist-voting, government program-loving, gun-hating feminists, you'd think that the conservative evangelical church would be the last place they'd want to be!
Not necessarily. If it's the only religious game in town, then at least some women will show up regardless of politics. Women are more religious than men in general, especially when you include para-religious stuff like astrology, fortune-telling, horoscopes, the occult, miracle medicines, etc. Women are simply more likely than men to go looking for that supernatural fix. Even Charles Manson's cult had its share of women.
I suppose the women could go back to wearing headgear, as Triton suggests (and believes that men are already doing, lol!)
I never said men wear religious "headgear". I thought this was simple and obvious: When a man happens to be wearing a hat, such as a baseball cap, and someone decides to have a prayer, then that man removes his hat. This is not only the custom for Christian men during prayer, but also for secular men for events like the playing of the national anthem. I can't believe you've never seen this happen before.
But we'd be accused of being repressed and overly-pious (either we're sluts or prudes, right?)
No, you'd either be slutty or virtuous. Prudishness ≠ virtue.
But the traditional responsibility of breadwinner was what allowed him the luxury of being able to pick and choose those additional responsibilities.
I have no idea what you're saying here. When a man has children, he doesn't get to pick and choose anything - he is responsible for those kids whether he likes it or not. A man can shirk his responsibilities, but that doesn't mean those responsibilities cease to exist.
Any that he would abdicate would then default to the wife-- and there was nothing she could do about it, since she was required to be financially dependent upon him.
Apparently my CEO description flew right over your head. I'll try again.
A man cannot abdicate his responsibilities to his wife. He can delegate some duties to her, but the responsibility is still his.
This "accountable-to-God-only" kind of system was doomed to fail eventually.
Believe me, I'm all for a civil code that reflects the Ten Commandments and some other basic Biblical doctrines.
Even so, God will hold us all accountable whether we live under such a code or not. This life is just the blink of an eye compared to the bigger picture.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to discredit Gottman's findings by suggesting anything as far fetched as "women are 8 x more likely to divorce out of boredom"?? If any of you can discuss his work as if you've actually read it, then I might be willing to discuss it here...
If you really want to talk about it, why don't you inform us of some of his findings? If it seems logical, I'll agree with it.
Anon wrote:
...you still have a surplus of "decent enough looking and friendly enough" single women in the church within that surplus of women in general, as compared to their male peers (peers, in terms of occupational, psychological and social functioning).
[...]
BTW- I'm still waiting for an answer as to "what way has this "loss of freedom" has truly affected YOUR lives", as far as it standing in the way of being able to win the heart of one of these many government program-avoiding gals.
You're still operating on the false assumption you stated in an eariler post:
...you're single because you've sought marriage and failed...
As much as you don't want to believe it, I am single, not because I have 'sought marriage and failed', but because I have elected not to seek marriage.
Just because you cannot imagine traveling such a path doesn't make it any less a reality.
Anon wrote:
You get to be among the 'princesses in waiting' who simply need to worry about being decent enough looking and friendly enough to attract a man, and you cannot even manage that."
OK, let's just say for the sake of argument that this is a correct statement about me...
...you still have a surplus of "decent enough looking and friendly enough" single women in the church within that surplus of women in general, as compared to their male peers (peers, in terms of occupational, psychological and social functioning).
As others have pointed out, this is not the situation everywhere. At the church I attend, there are maybe 2-3 single women my age. There are fair number of women my age, but nearly all of them are married with children.
If I wanted find a girlfriend/potential wife, I would have to look elsewhere. Thus, this 'surplus women in the church' argument does not apply as widely as you would believe.
Anon wrote:
And sorry, Wombatty, but your "women have always had 'what men want'" actually reveals your own negative attitude towards the opposite sex...
LOL Anon, I was simply reflecting back to you your own argument:
It's interesting that Triton brought up the notion that men should have more rights because they have more responsibilities. To that, I ask: what responsibilities?? Traditionally, men have only had one: to be the breadwinners.
[...]
female dependency guaranteeing that they'll always have a wife, regardless of what they do or don't do.
And there's your trouble: you guys resent the fact that the bar has been raised, however low it may have been (and what that must have been like for the women who for so many years had to go along with whatever).
Whatever 'negative attitude towards to opposite sex' you saw in that statement is simply a reflection of the one you displayed. Again, it seems you see men as little more than a paycheck (and, I suppose, a sperm donor).
Anon wrote:
...and ignorance as well, because it's common knowledge that a woman's sexual cache offers no guarantee that a man will stick around (let alone "bend over backwards" lol!)
It's also common knowledge that, in our modern era, no cache that a man offers can guarantee that a woman will stick around. I refer you to Triton's linked article above.
Provided is a link about a happily married man of 30 years, and his opinion of the highly revered John Gottman. Excerpt:
*************
The trick to my version of active listening is no matter what she says you actively do it. If my wife says jump I get it the air, I don't ask her any stupid questions about, "How high?" I just leap and hope that it is high enough. We have a very good relationship so if it is not high enough my wife will tell me to jump again.
I do want to expand on Professor Gottman's statement "... men who are accepting of influence from their wives are winding up in happy, stable marriages..." I don't want to put words in his mouth but I have found that the phrase, "accepting of influence" can be rephrased as, "Do whatever she tell you to do." His way of saying it sounds a lot more scientific than my way, but I think my way is a little more accurate. I'm sure he wanted to phrase it so a guy can feel like he still has some control in the relationship.
*******************
The husband here is correct, in my opinion, when he says, "accepting of influence" can be rephrased as, "Do whatever she tells you to do." There's nothing new here that researchers haven't already surveyed:
**********************
John Gottman, an American psychologist, recently published a study
that tracked 130 newlyweds, observing how the couples interacted and
then following them up for six years. The outcome was a
surprise: "Men should forget all that psycho-babble about active
listening and validation. If you want your marriage to last for a
long time ... just do what your wife says. Go ahead, give in to
her ... The marriages that did work all had one thing in common the
husband was willing to give in to the wife. We found that only those
newlywed men who are accepting of influence from their wives are
ending up in happy, stable marriages." The researchers suggest [read carefully] this
is a recent development in marriage dynamics, coinciding with "the
loss of power [in marriage] that men have experienced in the last 40
years".
**********************
Gottman's approach, while successful (I'm well aware of Gottman's success rate of 90% & 81% in predictability of whether a marriage will last or not ... yadda, yadda, yadda.), is just more soft science wrapped in a new stealthy package.
I’ve been browsing Gottman’s site to see what he has to say. Unfortunately, the links to the research are either bad or require subscriptions, but the links to the press releases. I found something in the first link that calls Maken to mind:
From A Lot of Love in the Lovemaking: Avoiding Chaos, Relationshipwise:
At his "love lab" near the UW, Dr. Gottman videotapes married couples as they go about a lazy day "at home" and monitors physiological signs like heart rate and blood pressure as they discuss areas of conflict. By toting up the "positive" and "negative" interactions, checking "repair attempts" during fights, watching for incidents of contemptuous behavior, etc., Gottman is able to predict the ultimate fate of the pair with over 90 percent accuracy, he says.
However, as a single guy, I wanted to know how I can keep from getting into a bad marriage in the first place. Wouldn't that save us all a lot of trouble? Warm and affable, the professor met me at the Grateful Bread bakery near his home to discuss the issue.
Seattle Weekly: You study a lot of couples that are on the rocks. And you talk about the four behaviors that foretell divorce—criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling. But I'm sure that, at one time, most of these couples were in love and gushing about each other. How can I know if my current relationship is going to end up like that?
Dr. Gottman: People used to think, "Well, you're in love, you're blissed out, you're not going to be doing a lot of real nasty sh*t, not going to be contemptuous toward your partner, not going to be disrespectful."
Not true. If you keep going back and looking at relationships earlier and earlier, to the newlywed phase, the same variability [in behavior] exists for couples there as for later on. Even in the dating relationship—researchers have looked—the same signs are predictive. If you've been going together for six months, you can take a look at what's going on and decide if you want to be in that relationship or not. ...
I am not the only one who has noticed that Maken and many of her followers treat single men (at least those who don’t ‘toe the line’) with naked contempt. Maken provided a shining example of this in the ‘Farmer Tom’ episode. Here, she treated a man with contempt because she assumed he was ‘one of those contentious bachelors’. Upon finding out that he was married with children, her attitude completely changed. Even worse, she urges the church in toto to adopt this same attitude towards bachelors.
It’s important that Gottman points out that, if you’re significant other treats you with contempt during courtship, that is not going to change after marriage.
Given that some of these women treat guys that they are not even dating with contempt, it’s should come as no surprise that they are still single.
...[Seattle Weekly:] What about fighting? From what you've written, it seems like fighting in itself isn't bad, right?
Right. Conflict does exist in the very beginnings of romantic relationships; it comes out. [But] what's the balance in terms of destructive vs. constructive? Constructive conflict is about accepting influence from your partner, compromising. Destructive conflict is about insulting, being domineering, being defensive, denying any responsibility, withdrawing. Those predict a bad end to the relationship.
Here we see two more trademarks of the Maken crowd pop up: insults and denial of personal responsibility. Not only are Maken et al. full of insults for single men, they strenuously deny virtually any responsibility for their own situations as well as female accountability in general. The emotional pressures of relational conflict would no doubt exacerbate such behavior.
So, we have Maken promoting and encouraging three behaviors that are predictive of a marital failure – all in the guise of promoting marriage. Gottman would probably counsel against continuing a relationship with such a woman, assuming such behavior continued into the courtship phase (and there is no reason to doubt that it would).
Now, while Gottman says that it is harder for men already prone to such behavior to change, it certainly doesn’t make approaching such a woman a very winsome prospect.
I infer heuristically from language style and logic paradigm that more than of the anon posts here is, with more than moderate probability, from a fellow believer over at boundless; and I call on the moderator to examine IP records to examine them in respect to this.
Can someone please give me some tips on how to find a wife ???
Being single is a living Hell !!!
Being single is indeed a "living Hell".
It is horribly difficult to go through life without a husband who earns millions of dollars a day - and who can obviously afford "many luxury vacations".
Recently, a few women at our church suggested marrying a man who earned an ordinary salary, but who was good and decent. The pastor quickly silenced this Satanic discussion and everyone went back to working on single contentedness.
Remember, if you cannot marry a rich man, you really shouldn't marry at all.
This is the message of Debbie "many-luxury-vacations" Maken. Learn it, live it, stay single.
You guys,
Thank you for looking into Gottman!!!!
Now we're cookin'...
OK, about contempt...it's not enough to simply not express contempt-- it's also about not EVOKING contempt.
What Gottman found is that in some traditional marriages where the men presumed on the obedience of their wives (ie. resisted their influence, making decisions unilaterally without their involvement, did as they please without mind to the wife's preferences, becoming defensive or stonewalling in response to her complaints, etc.), over time the husbands would inevitably evoke their wives' contempt, putting the marriage (and the health of those in it) at risk. To be fair, it's also true that "critizing wife/distancing husband" marriages are also at risk (however, criticizing must be distinguished from simply complaining, ratio of positive to negative is also key).
Which goes back to my comment about how past financial dependency of wives afforded the husband a certain amount of indulgence. Even if according to "civil codes" he had certain rights and responsibilities, in reality a man could exercise his fancy or not, without the consequence of losing his marriage. So of course, this cultivated some imperviousness to the wife's experience, to the point where truth is his to define-- "2 plus 2 equals 5", if you will (something that would evoke contempt among those how are not dependent and subject to your power). Just like in a union shop where people are guaranteed a job regardless of what they do or don't do (even if there are good intentions behind much of those hapless actions/inactions), you will get the same "work to rule" mentality...and we all know where that goes.
After years of having this privilege, it has taken men a bit of adjusting to the idea of marriage being more of a partnership. But the ones that are doing it are the ones who are having the highest rates of success in marriage. The ones who don't get it only evoke contempt-- 2 plus 2 equals 5 just doesn't cut it anymore. The modern incentive to not sabotage your marriage requires that everyone in it act justly, even if that doesn't always happen.
And I think that's what Harris was trying to acknowledge in his blog post: that much of what is called feminism inevitably happened in response to men's unchecked behavior, but of course, any such observation only evokes contempt here, regardless of how it gets discussed...anyways, carry on with your exceptional tales about the "poor Tuckers" of the world. I will admit that it is a lot harder for the omega men to find a wife and keep one these days (God's culling the herd, perhaps?). As it's been said to both sexes here, no one owes anyone else a relationship. (btw- I've NEVER said marriage was mandatory).
Anon said:
OK, about contempt...it's not enough to simply not express contempt-- it's also about not EVOKING contempt.
True, but again this applies equally to the wife. Also, note that the other two 'warning signs' that many women throw off are the insults and the avoidance of personal responsibility.
I refer you, again, to Eggerichs. He has heard from many wives who, after reading his books, now realize they now realize how disrespectful and contemptuous of their husbands they have been. I would encourage you to read his books Love and Respect & Cracking the Code.
Many wives don't realize the disrespect with which they treat their husbands because contempt for men and anything masculine is so ingrained in our culture (see Legalizing Misandt & Spreading Misandry)
Anon said:
After years of having this privilege, it has taken men a bit of adjusting to the idea of marriage being more of a partnership. But the ones that are doing it are the ones who are having the highest rates of success in marriage. The ones who don't get it only evoke contempt-- 2 plus 2 equals 5 just doesn't cut it anymore. The modern incentive to not sabotage your marriage requires that everyone in it act justly, even if that doesn't always happen.
Yeah, except that a woman has nearly full legal sanction to 'act unjustly' towards her husband (i.e. screw him) with no consequence. But to mention this is to evoke the contempt of people like Harris, Ganz and yourself. I guess we should only be concerned with injustice when it is directed toward women.
Anon said:
And I think that's what Harris was trying to acknowledge in his blog post: that much of what is called feminism inevitably happened in response to men's unchecked behavior, but of course, any such observation only evokes contempt here, regardless of how it gets discussed...
Nonsense. To conflate modern feminism with a response to 'men's unchecked behavior' is to be ignorant or misleading. Such a conflation is worthy of contempt because it ignores the damage that modern feminism has done. You have to acknoweldge a problem before you can address it. Harris and others are simply putting their heads in the sand.
Anon said:
anyways, carry on with your exceptional tales about the "poor Tuckers" of the world. I will admit that it is a lot harder for the omega men to find a wife and keep one these days (God's culling the herd, perhaps?). As it's been said to both sexes here, no one owes anyone else a relationship. (btw- I've NEVER said marriage was mandatory).
LOL - you just cannot let go of the 'it's all men's fault' meme.
It's equally obvious that it's harder for a modern woman (whatever label you might attach) to attract a good man. As I've said, nearly all of the young women at my church are married with children. They didn't seem to have problems attracting a husband in a 'timely fashion'. Makes you wonder if there is something 'wrong' with the women who can't.
You can prattle on all you want about 'omega men' and their unworthiness but that doesn't change one important reality:
It's easier for men to forgo relationships than it is for women to do so. And many men are choosing to do just that for very good reasons - regardless of what you want to tell yourself.
LOL - you just cannot let go of the 'it's all men's fault' meme.
It's equally obvious that it's harder for a modern woman (whatever label you might attach) to attract a good man. As I've said, nearly all of the young women at my church are married with children. They didn't seem to have problems attracting a husband in a 'timely fashion'. Makes you wonder if there is something 'wrong' with the women who can't.
You can prattle on all you want about 'omega men' and their unworthiness but that doesn't change one important reality:
It's easier for men to forgo relationships than it is for women to do so. And many men are choosing to do just that for very good reasons - regardless of what you want to tell yourself.
And that's what bugs many women, right there. Gortexgrrl has spent this whole time manipulating the debate trying to steer it somewhere and now we're back to full circle with her sleight-of-hand cardstacking.
Gortexgrrl said:
This site has become every bit as whiny and blaming as anything Maken has ever come up with.
Seems you are doing the very same thing you've accused everyone else of doing. So the pendulum swings a bit too far to the other side, and the omega women, such as yourself, lose out? What else is new?!
You and the gynocentrists can't play the "M" card on everything, you know. Sound familiar?
More wah-wah from Wombatty:
"Also, note that the other two 'warning signs' that many women throw off are the insults and the avoidance of personal responsibility."
If "insults" you mean complaints, well, it is true that the woman brings up the issues 70% of the time (Gottman reports that this serves an important function of making sure problems are dealt with before getting out of hand, as did one of the Boundless articles attributing married men's better health and well-being as a benefit of wifely nagging to exercise, eat healthy, etc. Of course, how complaints are brought up are key-- criticism leads to contempt, for both sides). As for the personal responsibility part, do you really want to do a gender comparison, here? All the research points towards men as the greater offenders when it comes to blaming and defensiveness. One of the responsibility deflecting devices is to insist on a 50-50 split, even when it's not 50-50, and refusing to accept any responsibility until the other person takes their 50. That's what you're doing here, Wombatty.
"Yeah, except that a woman has nearly full legal sanction to 'act unjustly' towards her husband (i.e. screw him) with no consequence."
You have failed to show how divorce is any worse for men than for women. By your own admission, women don't benefit financially from it (the man's standard of living is more likely to rise than hers, mostly because men are more likely to remarry). And I would take with a grain of salt those child access horror stories, some are true (people of both sexes get screwed in divorce), but most of the time, you really need to hear the other side. It concerns me that so many single men who are feeling frustrated in their failed attempts to find wives are consoling themselves by commiserating with bitter divorced guys, whose full stories you'll never know. It's no different than never-married college girls reading Andrea Dworkin-- yechhh!
As for as Harris' blog not acknowledging "the damage that modern feminism" has done, of course he didn't because he knew that if he wrote about the secondary gains that were made economically by both women and men of the older baby boomer generation as a result of feminism, you guys would have just zeroed in on that, and his message about behavior of men having a predicating and sustaining effect on feminism would have been ignored. Unfortunately, I have found that delivering even slightly on your demands for blame equity only ends up more rants from you about exceptions and extremes. Word for word, there's been far more criticism levelled at women than men on this thread. I do try to be fair.
"It's easier for men to forgo relationships than it is for women to do so."
In youth perhaps, but not as time goes on, with single and divorced men reporting lower levels of life satisfaction and good health than their single female counterparts, who have each other, and feel no obligation to do waste their time with emotional caretaking some aging guy with whom its too late to have a family, unless he's got something going for him. Even then, a lot of these older divorcees, spinsters and widows who used to fight over the dwindling pool of old men are now more likely to say "no thanks, I'd rather hang out with my ladies walking group and work in the garden". Sounds good to me!
The discussion is going well...
I like the Orwellian imagery by the feminist. Horrid Christian husbands abusing and controlling their wives until she relies on him for her very conceptualization of reality.
Then there are the old spinsters who waited too long to think about marriage and are condemning the happy and contented bachelors..."unless they have something to offer". Good point, girl, until you dropped the hint that you are only looking for money.
Drop out of all this nonsense and simply start dating the heathens. I have, and I'll never go back. :-)
Anon wrote:
More wah-wah from Wombatty:
Ah, yes.. that must be the contempt Gottman was talking about. I think I'm falling in love ;-)
Anon wrote:
If "insults" you mean complaints, well, it is true that the woman brings up the issues 70% of the time...
No - by insults I mean insults. Look at the quote from Gottman again; he mentioned insults. Both Feldhahn and Eggerichs' deal with how wives, often without thinking and without malice, insult their husbands in public and how damaging it is to marriage.
This is simply a transparent attempt at redefining what I (actually Gottman) said to fit your personal prejudices.
Anon wrote:
As for the personal responsibility part, do you really want to do a gender comparison, here? All the research points towards men as the greater offenders when it comes to blaming and defensiveness.
And this excuses women from their responsibilites how?
I bring up the personal responsibilty issue because Maken 1) refuses to acknowledge that women have virtually any responsibility for the 'marriage mess' (something you continue to do as well), 2) she advocates grown women moving home to saddle their families with the duties of managing their personal lives; 3) believes that if women have too-inflated a view of themselves, it's not their fault but that of their 'authority-figure', and on and on and on.
I've asked this question several times in the past and no one have ever answered it. Perhaps you can. If a woman is unwilling or unable to take responsibility for 1) her own personal life, 2) a sober assesssment of herself (humility), 3) her own sins and faults - why should any man have confidence that she is fit to fulfil the responsibilities of a wife and mother?
Anon wrote:
One of the responsibility deflecting devices is to insist on a 50-50 split, even when it's not 50-50, and refusing to accept any responsibility until the other person takes their 50. That's what you're doing here, Wombatty.
Wrong again. First, as you yourself believe, I have no responsibility to pursue marriage. So, if I have no such responsibility, how can I deflect it?
Second, let's say for the sake of argument that I did have such a responsibility and that I took it up promptly. I'm STILL not going to pursue a woman who won't take up hers.
Last, in any case a 50-50 split (which I don't necessarily subscribe to) is alot more realistic than the one Maken, and apparently you, believe in 100-0 (or, perhaps, 99-1).
My issue is not the proper apportionment of responsibility, per se, but with the fact that so many of you women refuse any responsibility. Books like those by Feldhahn, Eggerichs and Dr. Laura are refreshing, not because they split blame and responsibility 50-50, but because they humbly acknowledge that both men and women need to clean up their act.
There's no 'but men [fill in the blank]' or 'but men are worse at [fill in the blank] than women are' or pretending that pointing out faults in women is somehow 'deflecting' male responsibility. If I was so averse to the slightest attempt at 'blame equity', I probably wouldn't like those books.
Anon wrote:
And I would take with a grain of salt those child access horror stories...
Of course you would - they're inconvienent for you. I have seen more than one case myself, as have others I know. One woman accused her ex of child-molestation to get sole custody. One (my landlord's ex) cheated on him almost from day 1, was a negligent mother and STILL got main custody. I personally of know of at least one other case.
Government policy is to blame as much as the women who abuse it. Give any aggreived party a weapon, and they're likely to wield it. Government policy so often appeals to the worst in human nature and this plays itself out in spades in family/divorce policy.
Anon wrote:
It concerns me that so many single men who are feeling frustrated in their failed attempts to find wives are consoling themselves by commiserating with bitter divorced guys...
This is starting to get amusing. You are simply unwilling to believe that a man might be content outside of marriage. The only possible reason you can imagine that a man my age (34) isn't married is because I am '...feeling frustrated in my failed attempt to find a wife.' Wrong again - I haven't been looking for one; I haven't even been on a date (nor asked a woman out) in years. And yet, somehow, I still manage to get on with life.
Anon wrote:
As for as Harris' blog not acknowledging "the damage that modern feminism" has done, of course he didn't...
Granting your dubious premise here: If Harris knew he was going to get flack either way, then why not just tell the truth instead of sugar-coating it. Sorry, your lame explanation doesn't cut it.
Anon wrote:
Unfortunately, I have found that delivering even slightly on your demands for blame equity only ends up more rants from you about exceptions and extremes. Word for word, there's been far more criticism levelled at women than men on this thread. I do try to be fair.
You, 'delivering on blame equity'? Give me a break. You simply cite Gottman in support of your 'blame the man' theme. When I cite him in regard to 'contempt, insults & personal responsibility' (which Maken and yourself indulge in), you deflect.
Contempt? Don't EVOKE it! (i.e. you deserve it)
Insults? You must have meant complaints!
Personal responsibility? Well, what about you? Guys are worse anyways!
Any suggestion that women have their part in this is quickly met by appeals to past injustices to women and denials about the goals of and damage done by the modern feminist movement.
Anon wrote:
"It's easier for men to forgo relationships than it is for women to do so."
In youth perhaps, but not as time goes on...
Then we have a deal! You can pine away for a spouse today, and I'll do it tomorrow.
Anon wrote:
...with single and divorced men reporting lower levels of life satisfaction and good health than their single female counterparts, who have each other, and feel no obligation to do waste their time with emotional caretaking some aging guy with whom its too late to have a family, unless he's got something going for him.
You mean if we actually wait long enough, you will stop whining about guys not pursuing you for marriage? Why should we have to wait so long?
Anon wrote:
Even then, a lot of these older divorcees, spinsters and widows who used to fight over the dwindling pool of old men are now more likely to say "no thanks, I'd rather hang out with my ladies walking group and work in the garden". Sounds good to me!
Why wait? If it 'sounds good to you', stop complaining and get on with your life.
So, from what I've read of the comments here, Gottman's advice seems to be for husbands to obey their wives. Got it.
This is not a Christian marriage. In fact, one could call it a Satanic marriage.
The Bible is quite clear: wives are to obey their husbands. Those that don't are sinning just as surely as a man who refuses to love his wife.
A man obeying his wife is what got us into this mess to begin with:
Ge:3:17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Adam's sins were two-fold: he obeyed his wife, and he ate the fruit.
There is a hierarchy for all things, and it is Satan's desire to alter that hierarchy for his own benefit. Eve should have rebuked Satan and waited for the Lord to show up and judge him, with the two humans as the necessary two witnesses. (The two witnesses requirement is spelled out later in the Bible.) Instead, she joined Satan and challenged the hierarchy.
After Eve's actions, Adam should have rebuked her and waited for the Lord to show up and render judgment on her; instead, he became complicit and challenged the hierarchy.
*There's another interesting little tidbit about the garden scene, too: Eve tells the serpent that they are not to touch the Tree of Knowledge. This is not, however, what God said; He only said not to eat the fruit. Either Eve, or Adam in his instructions to her, was committing the first example of "adding to the Word of God" for which the Pharisees would later become so infamous.
Wombotty quotes:
"..Both Feldhahn and Eggerichs' deal with how wives, often without thinking and without malice, insult their husbands in public and how damaging it is to marriage..."
I offer the work of Laura Doyle, author of "surrendered wife," and the experience of a man, myself, who was married 18 + years. The title of the book is scary sounding, because it sounds like spouse as doormat or something, but it's about surrendering to the idea that you can't nag him into changing, and if you can, you'll be sorry.
Anyway she devotes a whole chapter -- the best in the book -- to not correcting your husband as to what he means when he says something in public. That is, discussion and disagreement is ok, but when you tell what it is that he thinking or meaning (and I see some of that happening on this board) you are pouring acid on your relationship. However men suck it up because they've been conditioned to accept this kind of verbal abuse. The author relates accounts of many marriages turned around by the simple expediency and right behavior of letting him speak for himself . A simpler way of putting it would be to treat him like an adult instead of a child. My "ex" telling me what I "really" meant was one of the most damaging things to our friendship It's not my problem, now; it's someone else's. But I'll be sure to watch for clues in a woman's behavior that show a "red flag" for this kind of manipulation.
In the book she recounts how she even corrected her husband as to what he meant in front of a marriage counselor, who then called it to her attention. She hadn't even realized she was doing it. That anecdote is precious to me because it happened to me, as well, twice. The first time, with a male, theologically trained counselor, he made sure that I was the one speaking for myself. Later in the story (both these times happening during her affair and our separation) in front of a female counselor (a charismaniac type) (though I am charismatic, as well) she also presumed to speak for me. The "she" didn't even notice what had happened.
Ladies: read the book. Men: Follow your gut. If it feels like you are being dissed sideways like that on a date, just break it off if you can't work it out.
PS: Twice I've even had a women on a date correct me as to what I was "really" thinking about.something.
If "insults" you mean complaints, well, it is true that the woman brings up the issues 70% of the time (Gottman reports that this serves an important function of making sure problems are dealt with before getting out of hand, as did one of the Boundless articles attributing married men's better health and well-being as a benefit of wifely nagging to exercise, eat healthy, etc. Of course, how complaints are brought up are key-- criticism leads to contempt, for both sides).
Sounds like Gottman legitimizes mothering a man. Now, maybe there are men out there who want to be 'mothered' by their wives. I'd resent it.
Although it's healthy in a relationship that a spouse show concern for their mate, what these 'complaints' usually evolve into is something more sinister resulting in 'control freak' behavior or the 'Mother Hen'.
In youth perhaps, but not as time goes on, with single and divorced men reporting lower levels of life satisfaction and good health than their single female counterparts, who have each other, and feel no obligation to do waste their time with emotional caretaking some aging guy with whom its too late to have a family, unless he's got something going for him. Even then, a lot of these older divorcees, spinsters and widows who used to fight over the dwindling pool of old men are now more likely to say "no thanks, I'd rather hang out with my ladies walking group and work in the garden". Sounds good to me!
By your confrontational tone and exclamation mark at the end, I'm assuming a man shortage in your view 'should' be a good thing then, so then, why are you complaining? It's great that we die off early, isn't it? Gee, wouldn't it be even better if women could determine the Alpha Male gene so that the rest of us male species could be aborted?
I've yet the find out what your paradigm is, what your motive and purpose for being here is (except to defend feminism), and with your latest postings I'm certain more than ever now that I don't care to know.
singlechristianman writes:
"However men suck it up because they've been conditioned to accept this kind of verbal abuse. The author relates accounts of many marriages turned around by the simple expediency and right behavior of letting him speak for himself."
This is one of the key problems men have with Maken. Maken doesn't put responsibility for delayed marriage or marital problems on women at all. If anything, she says, women have been lax in "encouraging" men to biblical leadership. In other words, women haven't nagged and pushed enough.
Maken's advice is poison for marriages and will short-circuit a normal dating relationship with its emphasis on changing men to what women expect.
I've had spirited discussion with two "Maken" women now, both of which I would have considered a relationship with. However, when that "encourage your man" attitude came up, I backed away.
There is a very real difference between encouragement and nagging. Maken's version of encouragement is nagging, domination and control. Men don't want that, so they won't even consider a relationship with women who believe this rubbish.
An example of how wives have been ‘enlightened’ by Eggerichs work popped to mind:
A wife (who, as I recall, admitted that she didn’t have much respect for her husband) showed up at his place of work unannounced (I forget why). Since he was busy, she had to wait. While she was waiting, she saw how all of his co-workers treated him with respect and admiration. Particularly distressing was witnessing his attractive secretary treat him the same way. She became so convicted of her shabby, disrespectful treatment of her husband that she left the office in tears.
Eggerichs also relates something he has seen in his marriage counseling. He will ask the wife if she loves her husband and she will say ‘of course’. He then asks here if she respects her husband. It’s not uncommon for the wife to say ‘no’ – right in front of her husband. Eggerichs then asks her to imagine the ‘flip side’: how would she react if her husband said that, though her respects his wife, he doesn’t love her. Reactions range from outrage to devastation. Thus, he brings home to the wife the impact of the disrespect she has for her husband.
Eggerichs’ point is the crux of his book: A wife’s primary need from her husband is love; a husbands primary need from his wife is respect. Further, based on Ephesians 5:[22-]33, a husbands love for his wife is to be unconditional and a wife’s respect for her husband is to be likewise unconditional. Verse 33:
However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband..
Not the imperative – this is not optional. Part of the reason for this is given in 1 Peter 3:1-2
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
This last point goes to your point about not evoking contempt. I completely agree that a husband should do his best not to evoke contempt; however, that does not relieve his wife from her responsibility of showing him unconditional respect.
Now, many wives blanch at this suggestion, demanding that he must earn her respect by being respectful. To this Eggerichs replies ‘How would you feel if your husband decided to love you only when you were lovable?’ In other words, how would she feel if his love her, like her respect for him, was conditional. Again, the reactions range from outrage to devastation.
I’m curious Anon – do you believe a woman has a responsibility to respect her husband unconditionally just as he has a responsibility to love her unconditionally?
wombatty,
A husband is commanded to love his wife. This is scriptural as we all know. However, a man has to earn respect every day. If a woman feels he has earned respect, she will compromise her own natural suspicion of his nature and give him a commensurate amount of respect.
It is not something to be given, but to be earned. Debbie Maken is right that men need to be encouraged to show biblical leadership. They deserve no respect until they do. Maybe this is why so many women file for divorce. Men need to be good Christian husbands, but they so often fail at simply being decent men.
Think about it.
Anakin,
Kim Gandy of NOW (the very feminist National Organization of Women), has released an opinion piece which pretty much mirrors the attitudes of the Christian women who post here.
She argues that there are greater differences between individuals and that there are very few innate differences between the sexes.
Also, that boys are doing fine, and that schools have not been feminized to help girls at the expense of boys.
She carefully manages to insert the lie that most men are harassers and abusers (something Josh Harris claimed recently).
Check it out. http://www.now.org/news/note/091907.html
I think it is more than fair to say that many of the more vocal Marriage Mandate ladies are equally as feminist as the self-described variety.
"I’m curious Anon – do you believe a woman has a responsibility to respect her husband unconditionally just as he has a responsibility to love her unconditionally?"
There is no such thing as "unconditional respect" (except the basic respect that all human beings are due, just for being human beings), and the term "unconditional love" is dubious new-age speak, as far as I'm concerned. A woman would be a fool to respect (ie. submit, defer, etc.) to her husband to a greater degree than that which he loves her (ie. , to stay with an abuser or to move away from her family to another state with a workaholic who never talks to her-- if you don't show love, and in a way that's meaningful to the other person, it doesn't count). Besides, wouldn't you rather have earned someone's love and respect, than be given token gestures of it simply because it goes along with a role? Those who would say no to this question are no better than the male omega dung beetles who have to use their "rape arm".
Likewise, I don't buy the generalization that women need love, and men need respect. Both need love AND respect. A relationship is where you both find out what that means to the other person (since there tend to be sex differences), and do what you can to deliver on it.
The problem with Eggerich's stuff is that he gives the impression that the woman must first grant a special kind respect to the man (something she herself would not get from him), in order to deserve his love. VERY DANGEROUS. This reinforces stereotypes and much of the male entitlement that goes with it, keeping men who are inclined that way stuck in roles, ruts and communication habits that are more likely to put them at risk for divorce than the stuff you guys keep ranting about.
As someone with a PhD in "Child and Family Ecology" (whatever that is, he's not a clinical research psychologist, and nowhere near Gottman's stature), Eggerich has his ideas about what are the most common problems in marriage (women don't respect husbands so husbands aren't loving with wives), but the magnitude of the problem as he reports it doesn't jive with the vast amount of research that shows that the "wife criticize/husband withdraw" pattern (decried here so much) is only one of many problematic patterns. Of the thousands and thousands of couples Gottman has researched, he has come away with the conclusion that men really do have a long way to go as far as catching up with women in terms of relationship skills (which are not just communication skills). Sorry guys, but that's just how it is-- Gottman is a Conservative Jew who has no personal investment in defending any kind of feminist order. He's just callin' 'em as he sees 'em.
Sure, there are guys out there who have had bad experiences with bad women, but really, everyone should get informed about the most likely causes of divorce (and how it's prevented), before they go off half-cocked on worst case scenarios. Aside from the fact that it's wimpy to worry about worst case scenarios, you don't need them to justify not marrying.
One other thing that Gottman has said is that men are more likely to rehearse "distress-maintaining thoughts" (google it) when upset-- and boy, have we seen a whole lot of that on this thread. And you know, that's what visiting all those bitter divorced guys' blogs will give you. And I think it's really unfortunate, especially to see so many single never married men go there when there's far more better, unbiased information out there.
But anyways, suit yourselves.
I'm off to the cottage for the next few days. Ta, ta...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked, the submission of Eph. 5:22 and 1 Peter 3:1 was not based on how much you liked your husband or how well a job you think he is doing. As long as the submission does not cause one to sin, a wife is to submit.
Of the thousands and thousands of couples Gottman has researched, he has come away with the conclusion that men really do have a long way to go as far as catching up with women in terms of relationship skills (which are not just communication skills)
Well, naturally, that's the greatest selling point with you. You think if he'd said otherwise, you'd be his follower and devotee? Of course not. You would've dissed him long ago because it wouldn't have conveniently fit your paradigm. Tell me how long you think Gottman's book and theories would survive on the open market without writing for female approval and validation? Imagine the reaction had Gottman suggested "that women have a long way to go as far as catching up with men in terms of relationship skills."
Anakin said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked, the submission of Eph. 5:22 and 1 Peter 3:1 was not based on how much you liked your husband or how well a job you think he is doing. As long as the submission does not cause one to sin, a wife is to submit.
Trust me, Anakin, there's no doubt she will correct you. If you play by her rules, and allow her to steer the debate where she wants it to go, then there's no getting off her verbal merry-go-round.
I'm dizzy already.
With that said, it would appear that our 'objective without an agenda' gal Friday puts more stock on phd's, unicorns and rainbows than biblical application.
Anon wrote:
"I’m curious Anon – do you believe a woman has a responsibility to respect her husband unconditionally just as he has a responsibility to love her unconditionally?"
There is no such thing as "unconditional respect" (except the basic respect that all human beings are due, just for being human beings)...
In other words, the answer to my question is 'no'.
Anon wrote:
...and the term "unconditional love" is dubious new-age speak, as far as I'm concerned.
Then explain the word 'must' in Ephesians 5:33. You are denying a direct command of God.
The rest of your post is filled with completely ignorant pronouncements and mischaracterizations about Eggerichs work, appeals to authority (Gottman is better than Eggerichs), insults and contempt.
Anon wrote:
One other thing that Gottman has said is that men are more likely to rehearse "distress-maintaining thoughts" (google it) when upset-- and boy, have we seen a whole lot of that on this thread. And you know, that's what visiting all those bitter divorced guys' blogs will give you.
I'm not upset, so I guess this doesn't apply to me.
Anon wrote:
And I think it's really unfortunate, especially to see so many single never married men go there when there's far more better, unbiased information out there.
Please, you're only interested in information that will prop up your beleif that 'it's all men's fault'. When unbiased information comes along (Feldhahn, Eggerichs. ect) that speaks of any degree of female culpability/responsibility you simply cast if aside by chanting 'but Gottman says' over and over again. You even seem blind to the fact that, though Gottman says 'men are worse', he does not let women off the hook.
Btw, I was disappointed, but not surprised, that you didn't answer my long-standing question.
Ísn't Josh Harris the same man who wrote the famous book on courtship vs dating? What do you all think of the modern courtship movement? Don't you think sometimes they go too far? May be Anakin could post on it.
Ísn't Josh Harris the same man who wrote the famous book on courtship vs dating?
Yes he is. And one needs to consider his background in order to view his writings in the appropriate context.
Joshua Harris was homeschooled and didn't leave home until he moved cross-country to be discipled and trained by C.J. Mahaney, who at the time was senior pastor of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD. Covenant Life is the mother church of the Sovereign Grace denomination.
Mr. Harris eventually joined the church staff and rose quickly through the ranks. He became Covenant Life's executive pastor at the age of 26. At the age of 29, he succeeded Mr. Mahaney as Covenant Life's senior pastor.
It's not unusual for someone in their 20's to become pastor of a small church, but it's highly unusual for someone to become senior pastor of such a large and influential church before the age of 30.
Joshua Harris has not had the same life experiences as most of the rest of us. That's why I have to take his views with a grain of salt. OK, make that a can of salt.
Check out #7 on the list on the following link:
http://dating.personals.yahoo.com/singles/datingtips/33451/14-fatal-online-dating-errors;_ylc=X3oDMTIxMnVwNGhjBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEc2VjA2ZwX3RvZGF5BHNsawMxNC1mYXRhbC1vbmxpbmUtZGF0aW5nLWVycm9ycwR6egNhYmNk
Sorry guys, but that's just how it is-- Gottman is a Conservative Jew who has no personal investment in defending any kind of feminist order. He's just callin' 'em as he sees 'em.
You are aware, I hope, that the title of this blog is "Scripturally Single"? As in "Scripture", a.k.a. the Bible. Christians are supposed to follow the Biblical formula; anything that is at odds with that formula is not acceptable for Christians.
Gottman being a conservative Jew doesn't impress me; modern Judaism is based on Pharisee doctrine, of which Jesus was famously critical, and Christians should be leery of it.
But anyways, suit yourselves.
We are. We're going our own way and letting women go theirs. It is Debbie Maken and her ilk that are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Anon wrote:
...I think it's really unfortunate, especially to see so many single never married men go there when there's far more better, unbiased information out there.
And I think it's unfortunate that you've managed to convince yourself that you and your fellow women are faultless when it comes to relationships. The sad thing about that is one dosen't even need 'unbaised information' to know better; common sense should do.
The whole reason that I've been reading up on this kinda stuff (relationship stuff) lately is precisely because I know I fall short in this arena. I would like to be prepared, as best I can, should I choose to pursue marriage. Any woman who finds herself in a relationship with me will at least have the comfort of knowing that I have the humility to acknowledge this. From the way you write, the only things a man with you need worry about is 1) what am I going to be blamed for next, and 2) what chapter & verse of Gottman will you cite to make your point.
Another question Anon: given that you hold men in such low regard (e.g. husbands are, by nature, too 'dangerous' to be accorded the respect biblically due them), why do you even want to be married?
Wombatty,
The point I think is that she wants to marry a man that is defined as ideal in the terms of the Makenites. They don't want to marry any man who has a brain and soul of his own. The push-back that this blog and others like it receive is that the women don't want to marry half as much as they want to tear men down and re-build them in the image and likeness of their deluded fantasies. The marriage is really secondary and only a means by which women can claim historical victory over brutish men. I sometimes think the scenario runs along the lines of a woman showing before and after photos of her pet male, marvelling and being marvelled by others of her ilk to show just how much power she wielded in taming a wild animal.
I have become convinced that this was the aim of the Makenites all along. It's not about loneliness, nor a desire to love and be loved, nor even about the supposed holy mandate they glean from scripture. The only lust these women hold is for power, and the only way that they can collectively affirm that they have it is to somehow get men to step into the snare trap of marriage. Once those steel jaws are sprung shut, a man only has two choices: Submit and shut up, or rebel and be utterly ruined and have his dignity stripped from him, with the aid of the courts. Personally, this is akin to choosing between death by hanging or death by being burned alive.
Curiepoint:
Your point about the 'wild animal' got me thinking about Anon's claim that it is 'VERY DANGEROUS' for a woman to extend unconditional respect to her husband as the bible commands.
What do you do with wild animals if you want to 'keep them around'? You cage them or put them on a leash. When you do let them out, you keep them at bay with whips or tranquilizers (the analogies are obvious). Not exactly the picture of a healthy, much less biblical, marriage.
To be fair to Anon, she doesn't subscribe to the idea of a 'Marriage Mandate', but she seems to share Maken's contempt for men.
Okay, fair enough. Perhaps I mixed metaphors a little in attributing Makenite attitudes to anon, but the contempt of these women is the most transparent of emotions. My entire point is that whether or not someone subscribes to Debbie Maken's philosophies, those that ascribe contemptuous tones on men because they aren't falling all over themselves to be with any particular woman are airing their frustration that Mr. Ideal has not come along; most probably never will. All that's left to pick from is a group of men who dare to think about their own preservation first. Clearly, that isn't in any way acceptable to these women.
It just seems to me that to be a man and make a clear and conscious decision about one's life is somehow grown to be intolerable to many women. It's during these times that men finally realize that they have been played for a long time, and they finally conclude that the game is rigged against them. Of course, for any man to decide for themselves how they wish to live, it is necessary to cultivate a healthy sense of high alertness of their surroundings. While it could be argued that this isn't the way God intended things to be, it is equally clear that it's just the way things are in the world today. God didn't intend for six million people to be shipped to efficient death factories either, but it happened. In either case, it takes more than an effort of the will to change things. There must be some kind of rapprochement from both sides of the divide in order for things to change. Being snide and insulting does nothing to further that end.
I've grown accustomed to the rhetoric of those that bemoan their own unattractiveness. That's all that it amounts to: rhetoric and rampant emotionalism. Attempts to conjure up the word of God to further their own ends while still offering nothing in return are just pathetic.
Wombatty wrote...
"Another question Anon: given that you hold men in such low regard (e.g. husbands are, by nature, too 'dangerous' to be accorded the respect biblically due them), why do you even want to be married?"
I would have thought the answer to that one was obvious. Without the help of a hefty divorce settlement, how will she ever become strong, empowered and independent?
It's her RIGHT!
Back from the cottage, la-ti-da!
Knightwatch asked: "Tell me how long you think Gottman's book and theories would survive on the open market without writing for female approval and validation?" Gottman writes not for the validation of women, but for his scientific peers, most of whom are men: Four National Institute of Mental Health Research Scientist Awards, The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Distinguished Research Scientist Award, The American Family Therapy Academy Award for Most Distinguished Contributor to Family Systems Research, The American Psychological Association Division of Family Psychology, Presidential Citation for Outstanding Lifetime Research Contribution
So much for "unicorns and rainbows"!
On the other hand, Eggerich has won some awards from the Christian self-help bookseller industry (which I don't think very many people here hold in high regard now!).
So it's ridiculous to say to me that I'm "only interested in information that will prop up your beleif that 'it's all men's fault'", especially after I've mentioned the "wife criticize/husband withdraw" pattern THREE TIMES, as one of many problematic patterns identified by Gottman in marriage-- the idea is to get a comprehensive perspective on what patterns are common and relevant across literally THOUSANDS of marriages, which is what Gottman has genuinely tried to do, as opposed to Eggerich, who panders to "hot issues" in Christianland based mostly on his own personal theories and "pastoring lore" (if he was a certified counsellor I would say "clinical lore", which must be balanced with well-rounded, objective RESEARCH, and sorry to keep hammering the point home, but Gottman's work on marriage is about as objective as it gets-- see for yourself).
Another perjorative claim: given that you hold men in such low regard (e.g. husbands are, by nature, too 'dangerous' to be accorded the respect biblically due them), why do you even want to be married? First of all, I never said that "husbands are dangerous", I said that the kind of teachings espoused by Eggerich are dangerous, not because I think they turn men into "wild animals" (did someone mention "emotionalism"? lol), but because they reinforce attitudes in men that have been shown by research to put them at risk for divorce. Here's an example from Anakin:
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked, the submission of Eph. 5:22 and 1 Peter 3:1 was not based on how much you liked your husband or how well a job you think he is doing. As long as the submission does not cause one to sin, a wife is to submit."
So based on this interpretation, a man can expect to persist in being himself, if that is inept, goofy, unfazed, intrusive, cloddish, unidimensional, repititious, pedantic, pious, etc., WITHOUT incurring the usual progression of complaint, criticism and contempt that would ordinarily be his consequence anywhere else...and if women don't like it, or behave in a similarly uncomely fashion, they are "unsubmissive".
In any situation, if others have to submit to you, regardless of how likeable you are or how well a job they think you are doing, what does that REALLY do to the quality of your performance? You're not going to learn and grow in how well you do your job if there's not much immediate consequence to doing as you please. It's human nature. Over time, it's quite predicable that you'll incur the contempt of any observer, not just your subordinates.
This presumption of feminine submission under any "non-sinful" circumstance is exactly what sets men up to remain oblivious to female influence, so that they don't learn how to have relationships (thus setting them up for the divorce risk factors Gottman talks about-- if they even get make it to the altar in the first place!)
Consider instead a more "Gottman-esque" way of teaching women about being "subject" to men:
He found that after hooking guys up to galvanic skin response detectors and heart rate monitors that men "flood" emotionally more quickly that women under situations of conflict (so much for women being the "more emotional sex"!). For this reason, he recommended that women deal with one issue at a time and as briefly and as matter-of-factly as possible (as opposed to "kitchen-sinking" and "harsh start-ups"). But he doesn't present this out of some blind tradition to submit to the all-deserving man, but to accommodate a double-edged sword that's both a strength (fight or flight) and a weakness (reactivity that's often irrational). BTW- he found that women are already accommodating this feature in the men they know-- we are subject to men, whether we are married or not.
To previous anonymous: the desire to always have the last word is really not a very feminine trait. If some women can't find decent husbands, it is probably because they scare all men away with their very unfeminine attitudes and behaviour.
Anon wrote:
...as opposed to Eggerich, who panders to "hot issues" in Christianland based mostly on his own personal theories and "pastoring lore" (if he was a certified counsellor I would say "clinical lore", which must be balanced with well-rounded, objective RESEARCH, and sorry to keep hammering the point home, but Gottman's work on marriage is about as objective as it gets-- see for yourself).
More ignorant statements about Eggerichs' work. I suppose we shoudl contact all of the wives who have seen their marriages transformed through his work and tell them 'you've been fooled! Your marriage still sucks because your husband still sucks! See? Gottman says so. Don't believe your lying eyes!'
Anon wrote:
Another perjorative claim: given that you hold men in such low regard (e.g. husbands are, by nature, too 'dangerous' to be accorded the respect biblically due them), why do you even want to be married? First of all, I never said that "husbands are dangerous", I said that the kind of teachings espoused by Eggerich are dangerous, not because I think they turn men into "wild animals" (did someone mention "emotionalism"? lol), but because they reinforce attitudes in men that have been shown by research to put them at risk for divorce.
Fair enough (husbands vs. Eggerichs teaching being dangerous), but here's a perfect example of your ignorance of Eggerichs work. I doubt you have even read his books. You claimed in your earlier post:
The problem with Eggerich's stuff is that he gives the impression that the woman must first grant a special kind respect to the man (something she herself would not get from him), in order to deserve his love. VERY DANGEROUS. This reinforces stereotypes and much of the male entitlement that goes with it, keeping men who are inclined that way stuck in roles, ruts and communication habits that are more likely to put them at risk for divorce than the stuff you guys keep ranting about.
Eggerichs never says any such thing; he doesn't even impy it. In fact, he goes out of his way to say that a man's love for his wife ('as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her') MUST BE UNCONDITIONAL. In other words, it DOES NOT MATTER whether his wife is behaving properly or not (submission, respect, etc.), he is commanded to love her as Christ loved the Church. Nor does he speak of any kind of 'special respect' that is denied the wife.
Eggerichs simply has the gall to point out that women fall short in marriage, just as men do (though perhaps not as often); he even has the nerve to show HOW women fall short. Eggerichs demonstrates that both men and women do things that increase the chances of divorce and that there are changes they can make to reduce those chances.
This is apparently a 'bridge to far' for you, though. You just cannot bear the thought that women might be part of the problem.
Anon wrote:
This presumption of feminine submission under any "non-sinful" circumstance is exactly what sets men up to remain oblivious to female influence, so that they don't learn how to have relationships (thus setting them up for the divorce risk factors Gottman talks about-- if they even get make it to the altar in the first place!)
And your presumption of virtual female faultlessness sets you up to assume that your husband would be at fault whenever a conflict arises, thereby blinding you to your own part in the whole mess. I suspect such blindness is one reason why many women have yet to make it to the alter. Talk about oblivious...
Here's Paul Coughlin, speaking to some of this:
What’s being done to Christian men today is similar to what was done to Christian women years ago, when they were told, “Just submit, and your marriage will get better.” Now we’re telling men, “Sacrifice your identify for your wife, and your marriage will be strong.” Exactly what a culture obsessed with quick fixes wants to hear, but life doesn’t work that way…”
I wonder if a woman who thinks wives have a free hand to withold due respect would think that a wife is free to indefinitely withold physical intimacy? Scripture is plain they are not to defraud each other this way.. how about it, anon?
On the other hand, Eggerich has won some awards from the Christian self-help bookseller industry (which I don't think very many people here hold in high regard now!).
Ah, high regard. So that's it. It's__all__about__status and elitism and who has more education. The major fault I see is your constant "appeal to authority" (outside scripture) and your "poisoning the well" by suggesting that if a person doesn't have as high of credentials as the other person, then the one with the lower credentials should be discounted and ignored. No one can possibly understand relationships without a diploma because that's what makes these people "experts". Is this an accurate assessment, because it's the same kind of debate put forth by the evolutionists. No one can understand evolution unless they have a degree in microbiology (or one of its kissing cousins). No one can understand how to have a successful relationship unless they listen to a professor or doctor in psychology (yadda, yadd, yadda).
Btw, I never questioned Gottman's degrees nor his credentials. I only added that you put more stock in PhD's than you do in biblical scripture.
I suppose it's unkind of me to state that someone with an educated background, such as yourself, would say, "Them's the brakes."
Regardless, the marriage rates were doing fine without Gottman up until midway through the 20th century. Although it is tempting, I refuse to beat a dead horse with why that is.
Anon wrote:
Gottman writes not for the validation of women, but for his scientific peers, most of whom are men: Four National Institute of Mental Health Research Scientist Awards, The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Distinguished Research Scientist Award, The American Family Therapy Academy Award for Most Distinguished Contributor to Family Systems Research, The American Psychological Association Division of Family Psychology, Presidential Citation for Outstanding Lifetime Research Contribution
[…]
So it's ridiculous to say to me that I'm "only interested in information that will prop up your beleif that 'it's all men's fault'", especially after I've mentioned the "wife criticize/husband withdraw" pattern THREE TIMES, as one of many problematic patterns identified by Gottman in marriage-- the idea is to get a comprehensive perspective on what patterns are common and relevant across literally THOUSANDS of marriages, which is what Gottman has genuinely tried to do, as opposed to Eggerich, who panders to "hot issues" in Christianland based mostly on his own personal theories and "pastoring lore" (if he was a certified counsellor I would say "clinical lore", which must be balanced with well-rounded, objective RESEARCH, and sorry to keep hammering the point home, but Gottman's work on marriage is about as objective as it gets-- see for yourself).
You say this as though ‘writing for one’s scientific [primarily male] peers’ ensures objectivity. This is naïve. Peer review/publishing for one’s scientific colleagues, more often than not, actually serves to prevent new & innovative ideas from being published. Not only that, sometimes it helps complete crap to get published, so long as it serves the existing paradigm.
Not too long ago, South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk announced, in the peer-reviewed paper in the prestigious journal Science that he had successfully cloned human stem-cells. Later, he was exposed as a fraud. Why did the paper pass muster? The fact that the virtues of stem-cell research is politically correct likely contributed to its publication.
In their paper, Microparadigms: Chains of collective reasoning in publications about molecular interactions, Rzhetsky et al. discuss how previous research, regardless of its validity ‘interferes’ with the interpretation of subsequent research:
We analyzed a very large set of molecular interactions that had been derived automatically from biological texts. We found that published statements, regardless of their verity, tend to interfere with interpretation of the subsequent experiments and, therefore, can act as scientific “microparadigms,” similar to dominant scientific theories [Kuhn, T. S. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago)]. Using statistical tools, we measured the strength of the influence of a single published statement on subsequent interpretations. We call these measured values the momentums of the published statements and treat separately the majority and minority of conflicting statements about the same molecular event. Our results indicate that, when building biological models based on published experimental data, we may have to treat the data as highly dependent-ordered sequences of statements (i.e., chains of collective reasoning) rather than unordered and independent experimental observations. Furthermore, our computations indicate that our data set can be interpreted in two very different ways (two “alternative universes”): one is an “optimists’ universe” with a very low incidence of false results (<5%), and another is a “pessimists’ universe” with an extraordinarily high rate of false results (>90%). Our computations deem highly unlikely any milder intermediate explanation between these two extremes.
[…]
We explicitly modeled both the generation of experimental results and the experimenters’ interpretation of their results and found that previously published statements, regardless of whether they are subsequently shown to be true or false, can have a profound effect on interpretations of further experiments and the probability that a scientific community would converge to a correct conclusion.
[…]
An evaluation of the optimum parameters under our model (see Model Box) indicated that the momentums of published statements estimated from real data are too high to maximize the probability of reaching the correct result at the end of a chain. This finding suggests that the scientific process may not maximize the overall probability that the result published at the end of a chain of reasoning will be correct.
Physicist Frank Tipler has written in a similar vein. The title of his paper is self-explanatory: Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy
In other words, it is usually aimed at, in Tiplers words, enforcing orthodoxy – and the ‘woman good; man bad’ paradigm is about as orthodox as it gets (the majority of scientists being male notwithstanding). It might well be that Gottman, to paraphrase you, is pandering to "hot issues" in ‘PC social scienceland’.
These papers do not deal with social science research per se, but they are applicable to the whole scientific enterprise as a whole.
All of this is not to say that Gottman’s research is no good; it’s just to say that the fact that he has successfully published ‘for his scientific peers’ and received a bunch of fancy awards doesn't mean very much.
Anon wrote:
…as opposed to Eggerich, who panders to "hot issues" in Christianland based mostly on his own personal theories and "pastoring lore"...
On the contrary, he bases his theories squarely on Scripture and his direct experience as a marriage counselor and his success at helping couples transform their marriages. As for the ‘hot issues’, he addresses many of the same issues Gottman does, so if Eggerichs is thus guilty, so is Gottman.
As for their relative academic credentials, I put more stock in someone who is explicity working from Biblical premises and finding ways to apply Scripture to real lives, regardless of the letters appended to their name.
Oh, waitress... waitress.. WAITRESS... a tall Killian's for Wombatty, there, please, and put it on my tab.
SCM,
You've been married and divorced haven't you? So then, wouldn't remarriage be ADULTERY for you...and your dating whoas in vain? Remember, people on this blog are living by "biblical premises", such as wifely submission and remarriage = sin.
Waitress? Another Killian's, please, for this guy to cry in!
anaemanicegurl...
Huh? No, she's the one who had the affair and left for him. I'm biblically free, if you accept conventional thinking about this. A few sects hold that even then, though, I would not be free to remarry, basing their thinking on contorted eisegesis of a few NT passages and some of the early church fathers.
Can I buy you a Killians?
anaemanicegurl, you do recognize that gurls can sin, too, don't you? If you are not a member of one of those sects, are you guilty of some kind of bias, here, by assuming something?
That business about there being no male or female in Christ wasn't about equal opportunity. Contextually the passage in Galations 3 is dealing with who the body of Christ is -- No jew or greek, no slave or free man, etc. if you have been "baptised into Christ", then you are... you get the point. I'm trying to remind you, here, that women have old natures just like men do. I don't know if you needed reminding of that, or not, but it can't hurt to remind you if your first assumption was that I was the injuring party rather than the injured one.
Let me know if you want that beer or not. I think a merry heart could spur interesting conversation.
I should have known you were the wounded party. Your righteous indignation gave you away.
Man, whatta bunch of sore losers here!
Why don't you just admit that she delivered the goods, as far as researching the topic, and all you guys could come up with was a bunch of hoky self-help books and a big red herring on a totally unrelated topic by Wombatty.
Vox Day has a post out today on men's happiness as reported by "two researchers" (I thought I'd emphasize that one for anon.) :-))
I'd rather describe as losers a bunch of old maids unable to find a husband because they are so unattractive (not necessarily physically, but rather in their attitudes), yet they keep blaming men for their misfortunes, instead of trying to change those attitudes.
Man, whatta bunch of sore losers here!
Down, girl, down. What have you here but contempt and hate in your heart.
Why don't you just admit that she delivered the goods, as far as researching the topic, and all you guys could come up with was a bunch of hoky self-help books and a big red herring on a totally unrelated topic by Wombatty.
Instead of playing cheerleader with nothing else to add, nicegurl (surely a contradiction of terms), I challenge you to summarize in a couple of paragraphs what it is she said that has you all warm.
Ironically, I think what has many unmarried women upset is the fact that not only have they failed to flag down their Alpha Male, but that to their surprise (wha ..?), they can't even turn the head of an Omega Man. Now, that is funny.
Gee, she seemed like a nice girl. Reminds me, though, of someone I knew once. Oh well. Saturday I have dinner with L., but it will be in a filipino place, so I'll have to have a San Miquel. .. and in two weeks a road trip with P. I don't know what they have in Virginia. But don't let anyone from a certain ministry know i'm going out with L., since there is no romance afoot, but still we go out now and then. This would be "un" biblical dating.
Seriously, guys, we need to remember that sisters in the Lord who are wounded are sisters, still; which is both less and more than "friends."
How's that for ambiquity?
anaema nicegurl said...
Man, whatta bunch of sore losers here!
Why don't you just admit that she delivered the goods, as far as researching the topic, and all you guys could come up with was a bunch of hoky self-help books and a big red herring on a totally unrelated topic by Wombatty.
First, please offer me some solid reasons that the books by Eggerichs & Feldhahn are 'hoky; especially as these authors are explicitly working from biblical premises. Assertions are cheap, 'deliver the goods'.
As for the 'red herring', I assume you are referring to my references to the subject of peer-review. Anon appealed to Gottman's 'writing for his scientific colleagues' and the many awards showered upon him as evidence of his credibility; and the purported lack thereof to discredit Eggerichs' work. All of this necessarily involves peer-review and otherwise gaining the the approval of one's scientific community. I was merely pointing out that such approval (particulary of a secular community) doesn't mean squat. Thus, it was no red herring - I was specifically addressing the support Anon invoked for Gottman's veracity.
As for Anon 'delivering the goods' - I'm not so sure. This whole discussion started as a reaction to Harris' silly blameshifting - i.e. feminism is men's fault. IMHO, Anon has done very little to bolster his case
As for the rest: I have no reason to doubt that Gottman has done some solid work and I will probably pick up some of his books. But that fact in no way detracts from the fact that 1) feminism has had a profoundly negative impact on our culture, and 2) part of this aftermath is the 'meatgrinder' that men face in the guise of government policy/court rulings in the arena of family/divorce law, and 3) men are not the driving force behind feminism, particularly in its modern incarnation.
The fact that men might 'cause' more divorces than women does not change the fact that women (in general) are part of the problem. On his blog, Triton recently pointed out that anyone can get married, it's staying married that takes commitment. Since most divorces are initiated by women, women seem to have a 'comittment problem'.
Feldhahn make's an interesting point about divorce in one of her books. She cites a longitudinal study (there's some research for you Anon) of couples who were on the verge of divorce who were given an in-depth survey to fill out regarding the 'state of their marriage'. Some years later (I forget how many at the moment), they did a follow up survey. Some of the couples had divorced, some hadn't. Most of the couples who hadn't divorced were, at that point, very happy in their marriages and were glad they 'stuck it out'. Those who divorced were not at all happy, though they had expected their divorce to 'free them from misery'.
I say all of that is to ask this: How many of those who sought divorce did so out of a lack of commitment? How many of those couples would have been happy had they stuck to it? How many divorce out of shortsightedness and impatience? This number would necessarily include a larger proportion of women than men. Since more women than men seek divorce, what are the proportion of men who do not seek divorce because they take their commitment more seriously?
I don't want to minimize the misery many find themselves in; I've seen both men and women made miserable at the hands of lousy spouses. But these questions need to be asked.
Thanks for the Killian's CSM ;-)
There was so much hysteria in response to my 09/26 post, despite my validation of women being subject to men and advice to them against "kitchen sinking" and "harsh start-ups", since of course, I'm just operating under the "presumption of virtual female faultlessness", so this will probably be my last post, because what's the point in interacting with people who assume the worst of you?
More of the same from Wombatty: "More ignorant statements about Eggerichs' work. I suppose we shoudl contact all of the wives who have seen their marriages transformed through his work and tell them 'you've been fooled! Your marriage still sucks because your husband still sucks!" I don't doubt that some people find some of Eggerich's advice helpful in some ways, especially since some of it does parallel the Gottman stuff mentioned in previous posts. However good or bad, Christian self-help books always have their followings, look how people devoured those stupid "GoS" books which are now in the discount bins! I just think that as someone who mostly imagines what people's problems are and what they need from his own experience, Eggerich makes too many generalizations and reinforces a lot of unhelpful assumptions, which leads me to my next point...
...you brought up Eggerich's biblical mention "as Christ loved the church", which only works as far as each man's interpretation of it. Look at Anakin's not uncommon interpretation of wifely submission (which is that it must happen regardless of the husbands's likeability or quality of performance). The problem with starting from this place is that it defaults to the husband's authority to define what love means (unconditional or otherwise). Think about it: it's not as if the Bible gives many examples of how the husband must express this love in marriage (other than being a good provider and "tender"). Fine, it wasn't meant to be a comprehensive guide to preventing divorce. But one of the consequences of a husband presuming unconditional submissive respect (rather than more of a negotiated partnership), is that he can deliver on all kinds of things that he believes are loving, meanwhile having the luxury to remain oblivious to his wife's influence (after all, I did this and this and that for her-- things that may be well-intended, but meaningless to her).
Lest anyone think I'm against all Christian books or non-research wisdom, I think Gary Chapman's "Love's Languages" approach is a better than Eggerich's because it's about the individual finding out what's meaningful to the other individual, rather than generalizing it to "wife needs love, husband needs respect". But even then, Chapman's work needs an added layer about respect. When you're not feeling loved by your mate, sometimes it's the case that they've lost respect for you, or because you haven't treated them with respect (which can in turn cause them to lose respect for you-- probably more than love, respect relies on mutuality).
Make no mistake: marriage is a partnership with both spouses needing to give and receive both love and respect, neither of which are ultimately unconditional at the emotional level-- and this you can ignore at your peril. Yes, we are to act lovingly and respectfully in a range of circumstances, but there's no guarantee that if you keep messing that up that the other person won't emotionally or physically check out of the marriage. We need to be mindful of sex differences, but they aren't quite as vast as Eggerich assumes them to be.
And Wombatty... how you take:
This presumption of feminine submission under any "non-sinful" circumstance is exactly what sets men up to remain oblivious to female influence, so that they don't learn how to have relationships (thus setting them up for the divorce risk factors Gottman talks about-- if they even get make it to the altar in the first place!)
...And come up with:
"your presumption of virtual female faultlessness sets you up to assume that your husband would be at fault whenever a conflict arises, thereby blinding you to your own part in the whole mess. I suspect such blindness is one reason why many women have yet to make it to the alter"
...Is beyond me. Was I making a generalization about all men? No. I was talking about the consequences that await those who subscribe to this way of thinking.
If you can't see how the "unconditional submission" of wives artificially spared husbands the consequences regardless of "how well they did their jobs", leading to an inevitable revolt, then I don't know what else can be said.
Anyways, I will leave you with an excerpt from Gottman that explains the problem of "imagining what people need" (even according to our best interpretations of good principles, biblical ones included), instead of finding out how exactly God has designed human beings to operate:
“When I was an assistant professor 25 years ago, I decided I would help children without friends to make a friend. There was already a program designed by a famous behavior therapist so I called him up and asked him how he designed his intervention program. He said that he and a few of his graduate students sat in his office and tried to remember how they made friends at age 4. Their program had kids going up to other kids and saying things like, ‘Hi! My name is Harold. What’s your name? Isn’t this a great day? I would like to play with you.’ Later, when I went to the library, I was surprised to find out that developmental psychologists didn’t know how children made friends. So I started making tapes of children making friends and children talking to their best friends. I thought I would find out how children actually made friends and talked to their friends, and that this would take me a year or so, and then I would get back to the intervention. We wound up studying children from age 3 up through the college years, and I had to design some observational coding systems, and it all took me 13 years to find out how children make friends, and how that changes developmentally, and why. It turned out that the way this psychologist was suggesting that young children make friends was EXACTLY the way to get rejected if you are a preschool child. Young children do not start a play session with strangers by introducing themselves. Calling attention to yourself is also guaranteed to get you rejected….My point in this story is that we cannot know how to design intervention programs for target populations in trouble by IMAGINING what they need, or even imagining it according to some abstract theoretical position. We ought to give descriptive science a chance, and what I mean by that is we have to the hard work of description and prediction to find out how people who are doing well with the same problems manage to do these tasks competently. It’s not a very hard concept. It is just giving science a chance.”
So that means looking at good marriages and finding out what makes them work -- and what doesn't work. Same thing with going from being single to marrying well. One thing science tells us that does not work for either: dinosaur attitudes.
Anon wrote:
......Is beyond me. Was I making a generalization about all men? No. I was talking about the consequences that await those who subscribe to this way of thinking.
Nor was I making a generalization, but simply pointing out that if you cannot see your own fault (a specific circumstance), you're going to put the whole blame on your spouse.
It seems I've been a little remiss and recognizing where you point out Gottman's 'advice for women' and for that I apologize. I must point out, though, that you have been just as remiss. For instance, a couple of posts ago, you wrote:
All the research points towards men as the greater offenders when it comes to blaming and defensiveness. One of the responsibility deflecting devices is to insist on a 50-50 split, even when it's not 50-50, and refusing to accept any responsibility until the other person takes their 50. That's what you're doing here, Wombatty.
Of course, I was doing no such thing. I have repeatedly stated that I think men have plenty of the blame here. Nor was I claiming that 'I didn't have to do my part until she did hers'. I was merely pointing out that both men and women have alot of work to do to fix things (and that includes women making more of an effort to understand men).
Anon wrote:
We need to be mindful of sex differences, but they aren't quite as vast as Eggerich assumes them to be.
This is rich. You're the one, citing Gottman, saying that men are so much worse than women at this or that. If that doesn't qualify as a 'vast sex difference', I don't know what does.
Anon wrote:
If you can't see how the "unconditional submission" of wives artificially spared husbands the consequences regardless of "how well they did their jobs", leading to an inevitable revolt, then I don't know what else can be said.
And you continue to miss the point. If you think that post-60's feminism is about 'revolting past injustice', you have your head in the sand. And if you cannot see that such feminism has done enormous cultural damage, well, I don't know what to say.
Anon wrote:
Eggerich makes too many generalizations and reinforces a lot of unhelpful assumptions, which leads me to my next point...
Talk about more of the same. I suspect the most you have read of his work is probably what you might have gleaned from Amazon. If you haven't read his stuff, you shouldn't presume to comment on it.
Anon wrote:
...you brought up Eggerich's biblical mention "as Christ loved the church", which only works as far as each man's interpretation of it. Look at Anakin's not uncommon interpretation of wifely submission (which is that it must happen regardless of the husbands's likeability or quality of performance).
It's not exactly hard to get a good idea of what that mean; and to correct a man if he is wrong. Christ loved the church enough to give himself up for her. Couple that with the material from the rest of the NT, especially the chapter on love in 1 Cor. Or this from 1st Tim 3:
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
[...]
Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience.
Or consider the Fruits of the Spirit. If a man is not exhibiting these, chances are he's not going to be a good husband. However, if he does bear such fruit, he couldn't help but be a good husband. The same goes for a wife.
The bible has plenty of solid guidance that applies in any relationship, especially marriage. If you cannot see it, you're not reading the bible enough.
I'm curious, how do you interpret the following:
1) A husband must love his wife
2) a wife must respect her husband
Anon wrote:
The problem with starting from this place is that it defaults to the husband's authority to define what love means (unconditional or otherwise). Think about it: it's not as if the Bible gives many examples of how the husband must express this love in marriage (other than being a good provider and "tender"). Fine, it wasn't meant to be a comprehensive guide to preventing divorce.
You're forgetting that the husband is under the authority of the church. The wife can, if she must, take her concerns to the pastor/leadership and, if you attend a biblical church, they will call him to account.
Like many 'enlightened Christians', you seem to think that God's Word is nice an all, but it just doesn't cut it when the rubber meets the road.
This is contrary to Scripture. 2 Tim 3:16-17:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I'm fairly sure that 'every good work' includes properly loving one's wife.
I don't doubt that some people find some of Eggerich's advice helpful in some ways, especially since some of it does parallel the Gottman stuff mentioned in previous posts.
You have this backward, in a manner of speaking. Eggerichs shouldn't be measured against Gottman, they both should be measured against Scripture. Gottman's work is valid only insofar as it confirms Scripture. At least Eggerichs starts at the right place.
...and let's not forget 1 Peter 3:7:
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
This taken with what I mentioned in my last post, plus much more, simply does not allow a man to interpret 'love your wife as Christ loved the Church' any way he sees fit.
Again, Scripture is very practical when it comes to lving life, including marriage. If you cannot learn from the Bible how do conduct yourself within marriage, Gottman isn't going to be able to help you either.
"It seems I've been a little remiss and recognizing where you point out Gottman's 'advice for women' and for that I apologize. I must point out, though, that you have been just as remiss. For instance, a couple of posts ago, you wrote... 50-50 split...Of course, I was doing no such thing. I have repeatedly stated that I think men have plenty of the blame here. Nor was I claiming that 'I didn't have to do my part until she did hers'. I was merely pointing out that both men and women have alot of work to do to fix things"
"Just as remiss?"...well, there goes your denial of the 50-50 demand, lol .... just kidding! OK, let me revise what I said...
the problem I have with your posts, Wombatty, and so many of the others here has to do with **proportion**.
It's fair to discuss your complaints about the opposite sex as you see fit, especially those politically incorrect ones that don't get a lot of airtime. But you and some pretty questionable company you're keeping here have made a HUGE number of highly negative statements towards women, and a very, very small proportion truly acknowledging the details of the male role in so many of the issues you bring up. Sooner or later, you've gotta look at what it adds up to. (now guys, please don't pile on me about Maken. This thread wasn't about her, it was about HARRIS).
I agree that both sexes benefit from making an effort to understand each other better, but it contradicts your self-attributions of humility when you claim that women need to make more of an effort to understand men without acknowledging that they have had to make a greater effort in this regard because of the power imbalance that has always existed between the sexes (and still does), which gets reinforced in turn when men are let off the hook in that regard, because well, they men, and they just can't get it (Dr. Phil's words). It reminds me of a saying that a successful marriage requires that a man understand her a little and love her a lot, and a wife understand him a lot and love him a little.
It sounds downright cheeky for those who still have more of the privilege of being understood to demand even more of it, especially when it's not recognized or reciprocated. When men of lesser status cannot relate to having the privilege of being let off the hook, and react as if women have all the power and they should buck up and understand my/our plight, it just sounds soooo myopic and solipsystic.
"You're the one, citing Gottman, saying that men are so much worse than women at this or that. If that doesn't qualify as a 'vast sex difference', I don't know what does." Uhhh, I was referring to the need for love AND respect.
If you think that post-60's feminism is about 'revolting past injustice', you have your head in the sand" Way to avoid my point about the "unconditional submission" of wives artificially sparing husbands the consequences regardless of "how well they did their jobs", leading to an inevitable revolt, which even Harris now sees. His point was about the origins of feminism, not the consequences of its off-shoots or their sustaining factors.
I appreciate your efforts to look to the scriptures, but a man can aspire to know about these characteristics from the bible such as "above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money" and still have no idea how to cultivate love and respect in marriage, because he's learning from rote (and his interpretation of what he reads), rather than culivating important qualities through the negotiative process of the relationship. For example, A man can aspire to be all those things and still have no idea that his idea of his wife as a weaker vessel might be patronizing to her, or contemptibly tiresome.
"It's not exactly hard to get a good idea of what that mean; and to correct a man if he is wrong." But who does the correcting? According to Anakin, not the wife. Is it practical, wise or even valid that a wife must go through the church to have a voice with her husband? As I mentioned before, science has shown us that a man can ignore his wife's influence at his peril.
All Scripture is indeed God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, but the Bible is not a comprehensive manual on how to conduct yourself in every situation. It does not advise you on how to take care of every specific problem, such as an autistic child, a alcoholic relative, or how to attract the opposite sex. We have amassed some really valuable information in the past 2000 years, to the credit of biblical foundations. As such, I see how Gottman's work confirms scripture, I mean, he's a lifetime student of the Old Testament, for heaven sakes! But I think you underestimate how much of the interpretations of passages on wifely submission ascribed to here are actually about Christian culture, more so than Christ.
Anon wrote:
the problem I have with your posts, Wombatty, and so many of the others here has to do with **proportion**.
It's fair to discuss your complaints about the opposite sex as you see fit, especially those politically incorrect ones that don't get a lot of airtime. But you and some pretty questionable company you're keeping here have made a HUGE number of highly negative statements towards women, and a very, very small proportion truly acknowledging the details of the male role in so many of the issues you bring up. Sooner or later, you've gotta look at what it adds up to. (now guys, please don't pile on me about Maken. This thread wasn't about her, it was about HARRIS).
I've specifically pointed out that my concern has not been about proprotion, but that so many want to make it 'all the man's fault'; and I would put Harris' post in that category. As for the negative complaints about women, they (at least on my part) have applie specifically to those women who don't want to take up their own responsibility. Maken is a classic example (and, no, I don't put you in her camp as far as that goes).
Anon wrote:
I agree that both sexes benefit from making an effort to understand each other better, but it contradicts your self-attributions of humility when you claim that women need to make more of an effort to understand men without acknowledging that they have had to make a greater effort in this regard because of the power imbalance that has always existed between the sexes (and still does), which gets reinforced in turn when men are let off the hook in that regard, because well, they men, and they just can't get it (Dr. Phil's words).
I have no problem with acknowledging (and have in the past) that women have had to make a greater effort, at least at compromise. Thing is, I think this involved alot more of women 'resigning themselves to the inevitable' than to actually understanding the opposite sex. There is a big difference and I think women (and certainly men) have a better chance at happiness together if they make more of an effort to understand, as opposed to simply 'put up with', each other.
Anon wrote:
It sounds downright cheeky for those who still have more of the privilege of being understood to demand even more of it, especially when it's not recognized or reciprocated. When men of lesser status cannot relate to having the privilege of being let off the hook, and react as if women have all the power and they should buck up and understand my/our plight, it just sounds soooo myopic and solipsystic.
Sorry, but it doesn't cut much mustard to make this argument with guys who 'cannot relate to having the privilege of being let off the hook', whether you think it's solipsystic or not. It's like Jesse Jackson preaching to an audience of middle-class or poor white kids about 'white privelege'; it just doesn't click.
Anon wrote:
Uhhh, I was referring to the need for love AND respect.
Eggerichs' never even implied that anyone doesn't need both. He just pointed out the primary needs of the resepective sexes. Feldhahn mentions the same thing, citing informal and extensive formal surveys (there's some research for you). It can be summed up with a question asked of husbands and wives at a retreat; Upon being asked 'Would you prefer to go through life respected but unloved and alone, or vice-versa. Men, nearly to a man, voted for 'respected but unloved', women voted the opposite.
Anon wrote:
If you think that post-60's feminism is about 'revolting past injustice', you have your head in the sand" Way to avoid my point about the "unconditional submission" of wives artificially sparing husbands the consequences regardless of "how well they did their jobs", leading to an inevitable revolt, which even Harris now sees. His point was about the origins of feminism, not the consequences of its off-shoots or their sustaining factors.
LOL, I wasn't 'avoiding your point. If Harris' point was about the origins of feminism, then he was talking apples and oranges. Post-60's feminism is guilty of inflicting damage on our culture and family. It was Harris, citing Ganz, blaming this on men that I have an issue with.
To cite men as responsible for the origins of [original/equity feminism] and then use that point to insist that men are thus responsible for modern feminism's machinations is, at best, conflation of two very different things. It also let's all those unpleasant shrews (especially the 'gender-feminists') off the hook.
Anon wrote:
I appreciate your efforts to look to the scriptures, but a man can aspire to know about these characteristics from the bible...and still have no idea how to cultivate love and respect in marriage, because he's learning from rote (and his interpretation of what he reads)...
And a man who doesn't want to change can aspire to read the almighty Gottman and have these same problems.
Anon wrote:
"It's not exactly hard to get a good idea of what that mean; and to correct a man if he is wrong." But who does the correcting? According to Anakin, not the wife. Is it practical, wise or even valid that a wife must go through the church to have a voice with her husband?
I agree that a man should listen to his wife and not ignore her. If a man isn't willing to seriously listen to his wife, or church leadership, I doubt he's going to perk up at the mention of Gottman.
Anon wrote:
As I mentioned before, science has shown us that a man can ignore his wife's influence at his peril.
And Scripture has shown that a man can heed his wife's influence to his great peril. See Genesis 1-3, for instance.
Anon wrote:
All Scripture is indeed God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, but the Bible is not a comprehensive manual on how to conduct yourself in every situation. It does not advise you on how to take care of every specific problem, such as an autistic child, a alcoholic relative, or how to attract the opposite sex. We have amassed some really valuable information in the past 2000 years, to the credit of biblical foundations. As such, I see how Gottman's work confirms scripture, I mean, he's a lifetime student of the Old Testament, for heaven sakes! But I think you underestimate how much of the interpretations of passages on wifely submission ascribed to here are actually about Christian culture, more so than Christ.
First, many of the passages comprising the 'Christian' understanding of marriage are culled from the NT, not the OT.
Again, how do you read Ephesians 5:33 and similar passages such as those in 1 Peter? I suggest that the traditional understanding of submission and such is entirely biblical; the Church subject to Christ, people to their government, men to the Church, women to their husbands, children to their parents, etc. All of this is reflective of the authority structure within the Trinity. Any problems you have with the traditional understanding of 'wifely submission' would extend to all of these other areas as well.
I don't think the problem is so much that the bible can 'mean whatever you want it to mean', it's that too many people don't like what they read there; both men and women.
"I've specifically pointed out that my concern has not been about proprotion" If the proportion of your negative posts about women doesn't concern you, then perhaps it should. Step back and compare your negatives and positives on men and women on the issues that you've raised. Regardless of any token responsibility taking statements, the overall picture you present still presents an unwarranted bias towards men. Is this really a responsible approach to complementarianism?
And what kind of witness is it to the younger men that visit here to see your rants about women and divorce? Because there are SOME women out there who are cheaters and gold diggers, as good reasons to avoid marriage? As if it's some kind of uncalculated risk! Here I go again about Gottman, but when you look at his stuff, you find that divorce is quite predictable and preventable. Wouldn't you rather be a purveyor of hope rather than fear?
As for Harris, do you really think that his post was all "making it all the man's fault"? I recall that he said "that a complementarian, biblical view of gender doesn't start with attacking feminists" so I don't see how that's "making it all the man's fault" or not leaving the possibility of looking at the darker aspects of feminism on another occasion, rather than letting the discussion get derailed with worst case scenarios about "some women" and that dying beast "radical feminism".
"I have no problem with acknowledging (and have in the past) that women have had to make a greater effort, at least at compromise. Thing is, I think this involved alot more of women 'resigning themselves to the inevitable' than to actually understanding the opposite sex."
So not only must women compromise more, they should be even more understanding about it? Aside from being a contemptibly audacious plea, this has got to be the LAMEST kind of rationalization there is. Besides, if you don't think that those who are "resigned to the inevitable" aren't as a consequence of that situation already making more of an effort in understanding those to whom they must compromise, in the way of observing, noting their preferences, and anticipating their needs, etc., etc., then you do not have the empathy to deserve anyone's submission.
Which brings me to your example:
"it doesn't cut much mustard to make this argument with guys who 'cannot relate to having the privilege of being let off the hook', whether you think it's solipsystic or not. It's like Jesse Jackson preaching to an audience of middle-class or poor white kids about 'white privelege'; it just doesn't click." Do you realize that your complaints are akin to those poor white kids complaining to their black cohorts, who not only have poverty to deal with but racism as well?
You make it sound as if feminism not only made women equal, but more than equal. You have no clue about how much sexism and discrimination women still face. We've got a long way to go. But of course I'll be piled on here for saying that.
Anyways, the week is over-- I'm outta here.
Anonymous,
You talk of proportionality and I'm afraid I am going to have to call you out on that one. I and other guys here are under no obligation to rehearse the sins of men in bygone years or entertain the deluded, gynocentrist fantasies of "power differentials" when it is clear that women enjoy many privileges in law, academia, popular culture, the workplace, and yes even church that men do not. You want proportionally? Where is it in the mainstream media (religious and secular)?!!
Moroever, you put words in my mouth when you suggested that Christian women can't correct their Christian husbands. That's like saying the congregation can never correct an elder. Women are not obligated to submit in matters that are sinful nor are they obligated to sit like Stepford dolls and not voice any contrary opinions. But neither are they to be controlling, overbearing harpies that belittle and shame their husbands (a point that seems to be lost on too many women).
You write:
You make it sound as if feminism not only made women equal, but more than equal. You have no clue about how much sexism and discrimination women still face. We've got a long way to go. But of course I'll be piled on here for saying that.
Sigh. I've seen this tiresome commercial too many times. Modern feminism has its roots in the Communist movement. It is Marxist to the core, which means it has no qualms about running roughshod over the civil liberties of men in order to prop up a bureaucratic Nanny state and an "ekwalitee" of outcomes. You have tilted your cards in making the statement you did. If you are a Christian woman (and not just a feminist who has stumbled upon my blog), you serve as Exhibit A of how successful the Lace Curtain has been in misleading even religious people. It would be wrong to say that feminists are like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. No, the feminists are even worse. Why? Because when many experts point out that women control a majority of the wealth in this country, comparing women to blacks is nothing short of profoundly stupid. White women have never had to experience the type of discrimination that black men have had -- not even close. For the gender-baiters to compare the so-called "plight of women" to problems experienced by TRUE minorities is a joke. Popular culture for the most part is extremely blind to the very real advantages women have over men in our post-feminist dystopia. Books like "The Myth of Male Power" "Spreading Misandry" "Legalizing Misandry" and others might serve to disabuse you of your assertions.
Anon wrote:
If the proportion of your negative posts about women doesn't concern you, then perhaps it should. Step back and compare your negatives and positives on men and women on the issues that you've raised. Regardless of any token responsibility taking statements, the overall picture you present still presents an unwarranted bias towards men. Is this really a responsible approach to complementarianism?
The reason that this blog focuses on the ‘negatives of women’ to the extent that it does is because it is primarily a response to Maken’s book (and posts like Harris’) that seek to make scapegoats of men in the arena of relationships. There is plenty of focus on the ‘negatives of men’ on Maken’s blog and elsewhere; we have no obligation to rehash them here.
Anon wrote:
And what kind of witness is it to the younger men that visit here to see your rants about women and divorce? Because there are SOME women out there who are cheaters and gold diggers, as good reasons to avoid marriage? As if it's some kind of uncalculated risk! Here I go again about Gottman, but when you look at his stuff, you find that divorce is quite predictable and preventable. Wouldn't you rather be a purveyor of hope rather than fear?
As you say, marriage a calculated risk. That is no reason, however, to ‘shut up’ about the risks that men do face or simply pretend they don’t exist. I suppose we should just say ‘Hey young guys, listen up! Because you’re more likely to be the cause divorce, you should not bother to consider the risks that men do face.’
Anon wrote:
As for Harris, do you really think that his post was all "making it all the man's fault"? I recall that he said "that a complementarian, biblical view of gender doesn't start with attacking feminists" so I don't see how that's "making it all the man's fault" or not leaving the possibility of looking at the darker aspects of feminism on another occasion, rather than letting the discussion get derailed with worst case scenarios about "some women" and that dying beast "radical feminism".
Indeed, I do. Go back and read Harris’ post again. After citing Ganz, who explictily blames the breakdown of the family entirely on men (…I am tired of hearing that feminists are responsible for the breakdown of the family. We need to put the responsibility where it belongs--on the heads of homes.), he says ‘I like what he says here. And I think this kind of tone and emphasis is needed among those of us who hold a complementarian view of male/female roles.’ In other words, ‘those of us who hold a complementarian view of male/female roles need to put the entire blame for family dissolution on men and blind ourselves to the role women in general, and feminism in particular, have played.
And for someone lamenting the habit of dwelling on worst case scenrios, you seem awfully fond of doing that yourself in regard to men.
Anon wrote:
So not only must women compromise more, they should be even more understanding about it? Aside from being a contemptibly audacious plea, this has got to be the LAMEST kind of rationalization there is. Besides, if you don't think that those who are "resigned to the inevitable" aren't as a consequence of that situation already making more of an effort in understanding those to whom they must compromise, in the way of observing, noting their preferences, and anticipating their needs, etc., etc., then you do not have the empathy to deserve anyone's submission.
Your mischaracterization of what I wrote is what is lame. I was simply pointing out that, in my experience (which is backed up by the research/books by Feldhahn and others), the idea that women have this ‘deep understanding of men’ is little more than a myth. To put up with something or to resign oneself to it in no way necessitates understanding of what is being put up with (except to the extent that one concludes that ‘it’s no use trying’). I’ll give women credit for ‘making more of an effort’ to understand, but that doesn’t mean that they succeeded in that effort.
If women understood men as well as you seem to believe, Feldhahn wouldn’t have been mobbed by women at church as she was discussing her then-forthcoming book on the subject with friends. The book wouldn’t have sold as well as it did. Wives wouldn’t have been as surprised at what they read as they were, often-times turning to their husbands and asking ‘is this true?’ Go and browse the reader-reviews at Amazon; many of the female reviewers express surprise (positive and negative) at Feldhahn’s book.
I only ask that women have a more realistic estimation of their own understanding of the opposite sex.
Anon wrote:
Which brings me to your example:
Do you realize that your complaints are akin to those poor white kids complaining to their black cohorts, who not only have poverty to deal with but racism as well?
No really. My example simply points out the obvious; just because ‘Bob’ has it worse than ‘Joe’ does not mean that Joe is on easy street.
Your metaphor is like poor black kids (single women) whining at poor white kids (‘men of lesser status who cannot relate to having the privilege of being let off the hook’) about how easy they have it. The poor white kids are just gonna laugh and shake their heads.
Anon wrote:
You make it sound as if feminism not only made women equal, but more than equal. You have no clue about how much sexism and discrimination women still face. We've got a long way to go. But of course I'll be piled on here for saying that.
See Anakin’s response.
The statement that women still face sexism and discrimination has certainly raised some hackles here! Yup, just as I thought.
But before I get into all that, let me first deal with Wombatty, who says:
"The reason that this blog focuses on the ‘negatives of women’ to the extent that it does is because it is primarily a response to Maken’s book (and posts like Harris’) that seek to make scapegoats of men in the arena of relationships." Fine. Respond then, but in a more balanced manner. Otherwise, you're just creating a more pathetic version of the polemic you criticize. Do you know that most men do not share your "man-as-victim" outlook? Why? Because they accept it's a man's world and complaints go up, not down. Me, I'm quite happy to hear male complaints in the arena of relationships, as long as they are made in humble awareness of the female predicament (see my comment below about white women complaining to black women about discrimination).
"As you say, marriage a calculated risk. That is no reason, however, to ‘shut up’ about the risks that men do face or simply pretend they don’t exist. I suppose we should just say ‘Hey young guys, listen up! Because you’re more likely to be the cause divorce, you should not bother to consider the risks that men do face.’" Well then, show some regard for accuracy in calculating the risks: most first marriages do not end in divorce, and when they do, the causes are usually quite predictable, as well as the outcomes (most men who get divorced don't get "screwed" in terms of either finances or access).
"To put up with something or to resign oneself to it in no way necessitates understanding of what is being put up with (except to the extent that one concludes that ‘it’s no use trying’). I’ll give women credit for ‘making more of an effort’ to understand, but that doesn’t mean that they succeeded in that effort." To suggest that I said that the idea that women have this ‘deep understanding of men’ is a mischaracterization of what I actually wrote. You cannot concede that women make more of an effort to understand the opposite sex without also coming to the conclusion that they will, as a group, in that extra effort be more successful (not nec. perfect) at understanding the opposite sex than men. C'mon, give it up.
"I only ask that women have a more realistic estimation of their own understanding of the opposite sex." Excuse me? Are you suggesting that men are more likely to humbly admit that their lack of understanding of women than the other way around? Those were WOMEN rushing up to Feldhahn at church about her book and running home to check it out with their husbands! Your example only proves my point, one I've made before, which is that women are the greater consumers of wisdom for understanding the opposite sex.
"Your metaphor is like poor black kids (single women) whining at poor white kids (‘men of lesser status who cannot relate to having the privilege of being let off the hook’) about how easy they have it. The poor white kids are just gonna laugh and shake their heads" Right. Because they're children. I would expect more from ADULTS.
segue to Anakin, who said: "White women have never had to experience the type of discrimination that black men have had...Because when many experts point out that women control a majority of the wealth in this country, comparing women to blacks is nothing short of profoundly stupid." First of all, women DO NOT "control a majority of the wealth in this country"-- where do you get that?? They may make the majority of consumer purchases, but the majority of the country's wealth is controlled by old money families and corporations, most of which are headed by men (and no, that's not a complaint, so don't pile on me). Black men and white women have experienced different types of discrimination-- it's an apples and oranges comparison and I'm not even gonna go there. But I will say that I have yet to hear a black male leader dismiss women's issues the way you guys do. Along the same line of comparisons, let me offer this one: as a white woman, I would NEVER presume to complain about any discrimination experience to a black woman, in a way that presumes that mine were as bad as hers (or the other way around, for that matter).
While women "enjoy many privileges in law, academia, popular culture, the workplace, and church that men do not", do those privileges truly represent significant vestiges of power over men? I think not. As much as I support the work of Farrell's much-needed critique of feminism, you have to admit that most what he describes as discrimination against men is actually committed by men against other men!
Proportionally? Yes. Be prepared to talk about the logs in your own eyes, guys, if you're going to talk about the splinters in ours. Which means dropping the madonna/whore, stepford doll/controlling harpie yo-yo! Or the big "commie plot" complaint, when in fact feminism these days is far more libertarian than Marxist. Haven't you heard of Camille Paglia??
But it's so much agonizing over extremes with you guys. So much, that even when a conservative complementarian such as myself raises the fact that there are still areas whereby women endure sexism and discrimination (a claim supported by your hero, Farrell, who says about his book on his website, "I will be saddened if this book is misused to attack the legitimate issues of the women's movement")... well then they are "deluded, gynocentrist fantasies", of course.
Farrell at least knows that the only way for anything to improve for men, men must change the conditions amongst themselves. Which is essentially what I have been saying along. Good luck.
First of all, women DO NOT "control a majority of the wealth in this country"-- where do you get that??
Sigh ... Read here and here. Of course, one could easily Google "women control percent wealth" and come up with so many more.
While women "enjoy many privileges in law, academia, popular culture, the workplace, and church that men do not", do those privileges truly represent significant vestiges of power over men?
Yes, they most certainly do. Family law is biased against men. Boys are falling behind in schools. Popular culture routinely portrays men as incompetent, evil, etc. Jobs are shrinking for men as they expand for women. Even tonight, I had to come face to face with reading about legislated bigotry against men who want to marry foreign women (IMBRA). Somehow, we can run over people's right to association and equal protection under the law because some androphobic extremists cooked up some EXAGGERATED information/statistics about abuse in marriages to foreign women. Every man needs to educate himself about the systematic discrimination that occurs against men.
Finally, that train wreck in slow motion that we call "Getting About Getting Married" was published by a well-known religious publisher. It serves as proof of the degree of bile directed against men in our culture (even among "Christian" women). They would have never published that book if they felt there wasn't a market, now would they???
Finally, second wave/third wave feminism's roots are most certainly communism as this academic work attests.
Now would you care to tell us how women still face sexism and discrimination in our society in any meaningful way?
To quote the columnist Mike Adams:
American feminists generally do not become feminists because of some well-defined political goal. For example, in your email you enumerate several important political objectives. You want to vote. You want to be free to hold elective office. You want rape to be illegal. You want to be able to work. You don’t want to be forced to get and stay pregnant at all times. You want genital mutilation (of females) to be illegal.
I have an important newsflash, Daisy: You have already achieved all six of these political objectives. But, nonetheless, you continue to rant. And you continue to live in the past. That makes it difficult to take you seriously.
Anon wrote:
You cannot concede that women make more of an effort to understand the opposite sex without also coming to the conclusion that they will, as a group, in that extra effort be more successful (not nec. perfect) at understanding the opposite sex than men. C'mon, give it up.
I never said that women don't understand men more than men understand women. I'm merely pointing out that womne don't understand men as well as most of them seem to think.
Anon wrote:
Excuse me? Are you suggesting that men are more likely to humbly admit that their lack of understanding of women than the other way around? Those were WOMEN rushing up to Feldhahn at church about her book and running home to check it out with their husbands! Your example only proves my point, one I've made before, which is that women are the greater consumers of wisdom for understanding the opposite sex.
No, my example proves my point that women don't understand men as well as is commonly thought. If they did, they wouldn't have been mobbing Feldhahn at church. That fact that they were, and were surpised at what Feldhahn had to share, was an indication that they don't understand.
You make it sound as if feminism not only made women equal, but more than equal. You have no clue about how much sexism and discrimination women still face. We've got a long way to go. But of course I'll be piled on here for saying that.
......
The statement that women still face sexism and discrimination has certainly raised some hackles here! Yup, just as I thought.
Stop flattering yourself, girl. The only hackles I see raised here is through your crafty context. There's nothing here in your unending, vacillating debates but self-serving speculation and self-inflicted parody. Your personal points of view are grounded on one false dichotomy: Men here have to be either in agreement with you, or else we're whining, irresponsible losers trying to deflect blame onto women. There's only one truth: Yours.
Obviously, dictated by your above statements of sexism and discrimination, you're a woman who believes in entitlements in order to make up for all the hardships women endured in the past. If that's not a whinefest you are advocating, then I do not know what is. Personally, I'm tired of the predictable victim card from other races and women (mostly leftists) who ask that the white male never forget all the oppressions and transgressions of the past (wah, wah, wah). "Never forget our plight," we're constantly assailed by the media. Thus, men should live under scrutiny and under white male guilt for the rest of our lives, always reminded of the past? This white male guilt also includes living under feminine emasculation and understanding (repetitively) the hardships of women and slavery. And now you, Anon, you who claim to be conservative (which I really find hard to believe) have fallen for the same hype.
You think the men here get their jollies blaming women, don't you? This has to be why you're jacking everyone around by pushing hot buttons. You flatter your own ego with self-congratulatory remarks about how "objective and unbiased" you are which is very debatable. (By the way, no one is without some familiar bias. You should know better).
Do you know that most men do not share your "man-as-victim" outlook?
No victim here.
Why? Because they accept it's a man's world and complaints go up, not down.
Wrong. The reason many men do not stand up for themselves is because they fear confrontation. They lack the confidence and moral clarity to stand up to intimidation, especially when it concerns minority or women's issues. Any confrontation will be be an excercise in racism or sexism. Besides, there's no man here that I'm aware of that's crying for victmhood (unless it's anonymous trolls and cybernuts looking to jack people around). Although, I might add, it seems you're doing fine all by yourself though (hence, the women have a long way to go 'tude).
Another explanation for why many men don't speak out to women and minorities in our society is because men have been inculcated by a culture that believes they should apologize for being white, that we should apologize for all the transgressions of the past, that we should apologize for everything, hence the precedence of "white male guilt" [1] [2]. It's not all about skin tone, either, it includes the female gender's attitude toward entitlements and the men who give it to them because of their own feelings of 'guilt'. It's all about guilt, thus unfair advantages are distributed to the fairer sex and minorities because many white men see them as helpless, weak, and oppressed victims.
If you think defending myself from this atrocity of manipulation makes me negative, well then, stereotype me as negative. I don't have anything to apologize for except the forgiveness of my sins to my resurrected Savior. I can no more help what happened in the past to women, slavery, etc., etc., than what happened at the Garden Of Eden. So, let's stop this nonsense.
Furthermore, not all women would agree with your vast use of sweeping generalizations about 'how women still have a long way to go' regarding sexism and discrimination. Not all women believe that garbage. But you can always take this up with conservative female bloggers, like LaShawn Barber
[1]
[2] or Dr. Helen? Why don't you write lengthy posts on these sites telling them how wrong they are about feminism, instead of coming here?
I suppose your answer will be that these women I speak of are male sympathizers who have been brainwashed/ or seduced by the Patriarchy. Give me a break. Your argument is in meltdown.
"Obviously, dictated by your above statements of sexism and discrimination, you're a woman who believes in entitlements in order to make up for all the hardships women endured in the past."
WHAT???? What entitlements for women have I EVER advocated for here?
"The reason many men do not stand up for themselves is because they fear confrontation....Men here have to be either in agreement with you, or else we're whining, irresponsible losers trying to deflect blame onto women....white male guilt, etc. etc." .
Please don't complain to me about any kind of "white guilt", okay? I am white too, and I don't feel like I have to tippy-toe around people of color. It's simply a matter of basic Christian respect and consideration--do unto others. Which means having some understanding of what their experience has been and not recapitulating it. When you do that, you can actually find middle ground. Not everyone struggles with this stuff, you know!
Anakin:
"one could easily Google "women control percent wealth" and come up with so many more." Your link took me to this: "By 2010, women are expected to control 60 percent of all wealth in the world’s richest country, according to a study from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America" That a PROJECTION, from an insurance company at that! This isn't exactly quality research.
"Now would you care to tell us how women still face sexism and discrimination in our society in any meaningful way?"
You have identified as meaningful that "popular culture routinely portrays men as incompetent, evil, etc.", which means that you must also consider "meaningful" the sexist depiction of women and its impact, not only in pop culture, but in pornography, overwhelmingly consumed by men, the impact of which Farrell gives conspicuously little treatment in his books.
Pornography is mostly about degrading women, so please don't compare it to "romance novels"-- there's no comparison to the kind of defiling stuff featured in the bulk of porn proliferating today, thanks to the accessibility and anonymity of the internet. And you can't harp on me about post-60's feminism here, since feminism along with the Christian right (interesting bedfellows) made up its biggest opponents (with the exception of the libertarian factions of both of those entities).
But I'll probably hear that some women today objectify themselves by being porn stars or pop tarts, as if all women (particularly the attractive ones, who of course, "cause you" to feel attracted) are part of some "look but don't touch" conspiracy that they must be punished for (not just single guys but even happily married men with good sex lives often have this "sour grapes" response). And that's what sad about it, it just reinforces so many myths about women, stuff that creates obstacles in dealing with women as human beings. Further reinforced by locker room talk, which predates feminism and mass produced porn. All women encounter these attitudes, so please don't suggest that you can escape them by being a "nice girl". Here's a thought: a woman has always been the worst thing a man can be compared to by his peers, and still is.
I do think most men are sincere in their own struggle to resist the peer contagion towards denigrating attitudes about women, or at least feel conflicted. But because their thinking is "I'm a nice guy, I'm doing my best" they don't think about the extent to which it exists and how that impacts their female peers, until of course, they have daughters.
Anon wrote:
Pornography is mostly about degrading women, so please don't compare it to "romance novels"-- there's no comparison to the kind of defiling stuff featured in the bulk of porn proliferating today, thanks to the accessibility and anonymity of the internet.
Pornography is actually mostly about catering to male sexual and emotional fantasies via that which is most stimulating to men, images. If you really believe that 'porn is mostly about degrading women', then you must believe that the reason it has such a pull on men in general is that men have a inate, deep-rooted desire to degrade women.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that porn is terribly degrading to women, but that is not, for the most part, its purpose.
In addition to its degradation of women, one of the most damaging aspects of porn is its cultivation on unrealistic expectations of women on the part of men. And this is where your romance novels come in. They do exactly that for women. Women who wallow in such material develop a warped sense of expectations of men. The reason is simple, most romance novels are written by women for women (just as most porn is made by men for men). The 'men' in those novels cater to women's emotional and sexual fantasies (just as the 'women' in porn do for men).
Now let me be clear, I do not think porn and romance novels are exactly morally equivalant, but romance novels are not innocent literature. More than one author has referred to romance novels as 'female porn' or 'emotional porn' (for instance Hayley DiMarco). Either way, such material fits the definition of pornography.
I remember some years ago listening to Paul Harvey speaking of a survey of internet traffic. No surprise, porn sites turned out to be the most popular - among both men and women. The difference reflected the differences in the sexes; men frequented sites with pictures and movies, women favored those with either erotic stories/literature or sexually-themed chat rooms. No surprise there - men are visual, women are verbal.
While 'male porn' certainly can be (and, I'm sure, usually is) more disgusting than 'female porn', both are sinful and do damage to relationships.
WHAT???? What entitlements for women have I EVER advocated for here?
Usually when someone cries out about sexism or discrimination, you can bet the next thing they're looking for is some kind of fiat. Perhaps you're the exception.
Please don't complain to me about any kind of "white guilt", okay? I am white too, and I don't feel like I have to tippy-toe around people of color. It's simply a matter of basic Christian respect and consideration--do unto others. Which means having some understanding of what their experience has been and not recapitulating it. When you do that, you can actually find middle ground. Not everyone struggles with this stuff, you know!
Hah. Tell that to congress and the entertainment business that promotes it.
I don't "struggle" from this, and if you'd had read the links supplied, the problem created is simply that women and minorities have benefited from the fiat of the white male (usually liberal) as a result of all the "evil" the white man has done in the past.
It's not about guilt "feelings" per se but lacking moral authority due to being stigmatized. Many white males (especially those in higher authority) have accepted this stigma as a burden to bear, so therefore, they feel it's up to them to rescue these "victims of the oppressed". They really believe that white males should pay for the sins of humanity, and as a consequence, laws are passed and used against the white male (affirmative action, for one) to make up for all past injustices.
By the way, Anakin's right, women control over 51% of the wealth in the United States [1][2]. These are claims made by women, so I figured it was a no-brainer (hint, hint). And why not? Consider that women intiate most of the divorces and are able to financially rape wealthy men, and well ... can anyone say 'Jackpot'? Deal or No Deal. :-))
Anakin feels a presence he's not felt since ...
Anonymous,
I have every reason to believe that you are a feminist. You use the same language, same talking points, and show an anticipation of arguments that might be raised against feminism in a discussion.
I asked you for an example of sexism and discrimination and the best you could come up with is pornography? What is involved in pornography? Men becoming sexually excited by beautiful women. It is no wonder that the feminists (not all of them, by the way - how do you explain the pro-porn feminists?) who campaigned so hard against porn also had a lot to say about oppressive heterosexual sex was as well. The Religious Right jumped aboard the "Denigrates Women" bandwagon without thinking through the flawed and dangerous assumptions behind such statements - statements rooted in an animus against male sexuality.
Let me up front that porn is sinful, but the problem with porn is not that it degrades women but that it IDOLIZES them. The man who looks at porn has made an idol out of sex and out of beautiful women. Porn is simply an extension of our modern cultures idolatry of all things feminine. When a man finally comes to terms with the brutal reality of what women really are - MERE human beings .. NOT BETTER THAN MEN ... but plagued with with the same nasty sins of pride, greed, envy, malice, hatred, unmercifulness, selfish ambition, etc. as men, then the mystique of the Mother/Goddess wears off. It is no wonder that the Early Church Fathers who were so ascetic also had a low view of women and marriage. While I reject misogyny, enforced celibacy, and asceticism, I do believe that a sober-minded assessment of women's limitations as mere, fallen creatures (like us men) does wonders for killing whatever fantasy a Hooter's billboard might engender. Of course, though, such a sober-minded assessment may also cause one to be hesitant about marriage, as well.
Knightwatch:
Why is it that the claim that women "control" 51% of the wealth in the United States never accompanied by any actual data that includes how "control" is defined? Your first link is a chirpy article about philanthropy and the second one about consumer marketing, both deal with women (mostly married) controlling decisions about those kinds of expenditures in their families. So what? Isn't that what we're supposed to do? (see Proverbs 31:13-16,18,20, 24)
"lacking moral authority due to being stigmatized. Many white males (especially those in higher authority) have accepted this stigma as a burden to bear, so therefore, they feel it's up to them to rescue these "victims of the oppressed". I don't know quite what you mean by "lacking moral authority", but I really don't believe that most white males feel like they are "stigmatized" or think they "should pay for the sins of humanity". However many bad hirings took place because of affirmative action, it has hardly been a force that affected white males (whereas black males were excluded in favor of black women, a "two-fer" for their employers).
"Consider that women intiate most of the divorces and are able to financially rape wealthy men, and well ... can anyone say 'Jackpot'? Deal or No Deal. :-))" Comparing bad alimony settlements of the wealthy of any gender to rape is just plain disgusting. Not even gonna go there.
And now on to the more civilized points of Wombatty...
"If you really believe that 'porn is mostly about degrading women', then you must believe that the reason it has such a pull on men in general is that men have a inate, deep-rooted desire to degrade women...Don't get me wrong. I agree that porn is terribly degrading to women, but that is not, for the most part, its purpose."
Porn is more than just visual images catering to harmless fantasies, Wombatty. Even if you set aside the really mean and disgusting stuff, there's always been distinct catering to male resentment about women having 'what men want', and cutting them down to size, or making them objects to possess. Whether or not it's the conscious purpose of all pornography or every man that consumes it on every occasion, you cannot divorce intention from effect.
You know how boys in school can be really mean to girls they like, as if they somehow deserve it because of how they make them feel? It doesn't occur to them that the teasing still hurts. And it's no comfort to the girl to know that they do it because they like her, it's just humiliating. Various forms of this continue into adulthood (pornography and crude jokes about women) that serve purpose of mitigating what seems to men to be female sexual power. But as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's not power, when it's unwanted attention.
As for today pulp romance fiction, I'm definitely not a fan. Although romance is a valid genre, whose writers were originally men, providing inspiration for both sexes. It would seem inerudite to just dismiss it altogether. Equating modern romantic fiction with porn (unless it is porn) is misleading, since the research supporting the notion of "unrealistic expectations" really isn't there. Still, would I recommend a steady diet of this trash? No!
"porn sites turned out to be the most popular - among both men and women...men frequented sites with pictures and movies, women favored those with either erotic stories/literature or sexually-themed chat rooms." It's sex in general (including legit info about it) that's most popular with both sexes, not nec. porn sites. Women who favor erotic sites will prefer chat rooms over visual images, but chat rooms make up a much smaller segment of online erotic content than the visual stuff. Either way, female involvement is growing and that concerns me, too.
Speaking of high expectations, here's some good news from Boundless:
Breadwinning Not Enough
An article in Newsweek reports men are spending more time with their children than they did 20 years ago. University of Maryland sociologist Suzanne Bianchi conducted a study of families and found that between 1985 and 2003 the number of hours men spent on child care rose from 2.6 hours to 7 hours per week.
You may think it has to do with more moms in the workforce, but the results said otherwise. Bianchi says:
We expected that the dads who were really involved were going to be the dads who had working spouses. In fact, dads are more involved over time whether their spouse is working outside the home or not. And that would suggest that it's not just about more women working, it's about the dads themselves and how they feel that they're supposed to parent.
Bianchi says the paradigm for fatherhood has changed. Men sense that more is expected of them than providing for the family:
Dads had a clearer message in the 1960s about how they were supposed to behave: they were supposed to earn a living. Maybe now it's less clear that breadwinning is enough. We still expect dads to be good breadwinners, but it's not sufficient: you're also supposed to be caring and nurturing to your children.
I think of the old TV shows that depicted the emotionally distant father who came home from work and read his newspaper. Nurturing was the duty of the mother. And then in the 80s came Charles Ingalls and Cliff Huxtable, compassionate fathers who took an active role in their children's lives. It's encouraging to see dads having even higher expectations of themselves. It's a trend we can hope will continue.
---
I hope that the "breadwinning is not enough" direction in fathering is also a reflection of men rising to challenges of higher expectations of them in marriage, as well. Just when you thought you'd escaped Gottman for a post (!), here's a quote from his book "The Seven Principles of Making Marriage Work":
Some marriage "experts" claim that a significant cause of unhappiness in marriage is that husbands and wives just have overblown expectations of each other. By lowering your expectations, the argument goes, you become less likely to feel disappointment. But Donald Baucom, PhD., of the University of North Carolina has debunked this idea thoroughly by studying couples' standards and expectations of each other. He has found that people with the highest expectations for their marriage usually wind up with the highest quality marriages....our research on newlyweds confirms what Baucom found. The couples who adjusted to high levels of negativity (irritability, emotional distance) in their marriage ended up less happy or satisfied years later. Those who REFUSED to put up with lots of negativity-- who insisted on gently confronting each other when say, contempt or defensiveness threatened to become pervasive, wound up happy and satified years later.
Some specifics:
*Women inherit over 65% of all real estate assets.
*Women own over 50% of all stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange
(source: source)
*Women entrepreneurs accounted for 70% of all new business start-ups 1990-2000. 65% of women owned businesses have made it past their 5 year anniversary compared to 58% of their male counterparts. (source)
See also this link.
And this
You see: when it comes to CONTROL, it's more than dear 'ol Mum making a decision to buy Hormel bacon at Wal-Mart with Dad's money. And no, Proverbs 31 doesn't give Mum the right to spend Dad's money any way she pleases.
Why is it that the claim that women "control" 51% of the wealth in the United States never accompanied by any actual data that includes how "control" is defined? Your first link is a chirpy article about philanthropy and the second one about consumer marketing, both deal with women (mostly married) controlling decisions about those kinds of expenditures in their families. So what? Isn't that what we're supposed to do? (see Proverbs 31:13-16,18,20, 24)
I'm not getting into a peeing contest here since it's considered inarguable general knowledge amongst women themselves. If not, then where are the disputes coming from? Where? I hear none. Wherever I go, the women appear elated to announce this, all except you (and possibly "Amanda" over at Pandagon). Somehow, you seem rather disappointed by this "unexpected" revelation. Don't tell me you're one of those feminist who try to keep women oppressed, so they can achieve more rights and entitlements? Seriously, the only person I've heard, thus far, dispute these claims is you, so where is your information coming from ... women's courses -- where?
Comparing bad alimony settlements of the wealthy of any gender to rape is just plain disgusting.
It is what it is:
* to seize, take, or carry off by force.
* an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse
I have every reason to believe that you are a feminist. You use the same language, same talking points, and show an anticipation of arguments that might be raised against feminism in a discussion.
Nice manuever, btw, to ignore Anakin's claim noted above:
*************
I don't know quite what you mean by "lacking moral authority", but I really don't believe that most white males feel like they are "stigmatized" or think they "should pay for the sins of humanity".
I did not say "most", but since you're living in a cave, read Lawerence Auster's "Guilty Whites".
**********
I think of the old TV shows that depicted the emotionally distant father who came home from work and read his newspaper. Nurturing was the duty of the mother. And then in the 80s came Charles Ingalls and Cliff Huxtable, compassionate fathers who took an active role in their children's lives. It's encouraging to see dads having even higher expectations of themselves. It's a trend we can hope will continue.
Hahaha ... talking about an unrealistic example -- the Huxtable's. Now here we have Cliff (a 24/7 doctor) and his wife (a full time lawyer) with lots and lots of time on their hands -- "quality time" together for themselves, as well as, for their kids -- as shown on fictional television. Tell me how they do it? Well, it's in the script ... (duh).
C'mon, you've gotta be kiddin'?
"Cliff, Mrs. Johnson's in labor! We need you ... now!"
"Chill out. I'm talking to Rudy right now about her misconduct in school with her teacher."
And "Little House"? I love how they added 20th Century postmodernism into the 19th Century. I can't imagine you, of all people, wanting to go back to "dem days". Pack yer bags, Ma Ingalls, we're headin' fer the prairie. Yehaw. And Nels Oelson, my gosh, the poor man was listening to Gottman's advice before Gottman was around. He accepted the "influence" of his wife to the point of being "mothered" to death. Talk about the typical henpecked husband.
I'm not trying to take the positives out of what was said, but ... these examples are absolutely horrid. I place them in the same category as the folks who laugh about the corniness of "Leave It To Beaver" or "The Brady Bunch".
As far the women owning more than 50% of the US wealth, those are interesting marketing sites, but they don't source where they get that statistic. Same with the one about the stocks, which I couldn't find anywhere else on the internet. But I think you're right about the real estate inheritance breakdown, since wives are more likely to outlive their husbands, and families have slightly more daughters because of "trying for a son", still, that's mostly older women. btw- "Women-owned" businesses account for about 25% of all businesses.
But as I said earlier, the overwhelming majority of wealth is controlled by the top tiers, which is comprised of rich FAMILIES. So much of those assets are conjoint with their HUSBANDS.
Women have certainly increased their financial power in the past few decades, and of course the gap has narrowed-- not that I'm pushing for that or saying that any economic gap between men and women is "discrimination". I'm talking more about sexism, negative attitudes towards women, which in turn can still create prejudice and discrimination (even if not on the larger economic scale of the past). Even Warren Farrell, who might be accused of minimizing it, still acknowledges its existence and its potential.
So, when it does happen, are we just not supposed to talk about it? Or we can talk about it, but we can't use words like "sexist" or use "talking points" like "denigrates women", lest we be labelled as **shudder**, FEMINIST!!!!
Feminism or no feminism, maybe some things are sexist!
Even the most conservative churches know that when you preach a message of submission to wives, there's a potential not only for husbands to misuse that message, but for discrimination (or at least the overlooking of women's issues) to occur on many fronts within the church. So they are mindful to discuss those issues, does that make them "feminist"??
With the stoicism required of "love your wives as Christ loved the church" , men's issues can be overlooked, too, hence the proliferation of books such as "Wild At Heart", which directly deals with the mishandling of male sexuality in the church -- men's issues are BIG right now in the church. And I sincerely hope that it continues.
But part of that spiritual process of reclaiming men's sexuality, as per "Wild at Heart" means treating it as a great force, like fire. Its combustible nature creates light, heat, power, life. But it can also destroy. Freud (that dead white male that real feminists hate, but I quite admire) gave us an understanding of how sex and aggression are essential drives that overlap in many areas. Rather than aggression being something that's "socialized" into or out of a man, it's something to be understood and channelled-- ethical societies aspire to instill that in young men, hopefully without shaming them.
But for you to take a sunny "pornography isn't degrading women, it's idolizing them", actually puts you closer to the "benevolent nature" peacenik feminists, who deny the aggressive hunter element in the human soul-- and that's not good for anyone's "animus", or anima for that matter.
Indeed there is definitely an aggressive element in sexuality, especially male sexuality. And I would say that its aggressive, possessive, objectifying components are better mitigated by sober-minded assessment that women are merely human beings, as you say, but not by denying that those components exist, because that's when the assessment comes out sideways, in even more "cutting down to size" porn and humor. Please understand, I'm not taking the Andrea Dworkin "all men are potential rapists" stance here, but rather giving male sexuality its full credit.
Anon wrote:
Porn is more than just visual images catering to harmless fantasies, Wombatty. Even if you set aside the really mean and disgusting stuff, there's always been distinct catering to male resentment about women having 'what men want', and cutting them down to size, or making them objects to possess.
In my earlier years, I saw my share of porn, as did my buddies. When we talked about this or that, we never spoke in these terms. It was always. 'Wow, did you see her, she's so hot' or 'I wish I could have a night alone with here'. There was never venting of resentment that 'women had what we wanted'. I seriously doubt that most men have resentment in their hearts when they watch porn; lust is more like it.
Personally, I think all that talk about 'catering to male resentment', 'and cutting women down to size, or making them objects to possess' is feminist hogwash. I think Anakin's has a point when he talks about the religous right (which is how I would broadly classify myself) making a mistake by throwing in with the feminists on this characterization of porn.
To suggest that porn, aside from the stuff that is specifically for the purpose, is characterized by these 'attitudes' is to, as Anakin points out, misunderstand and denigrate male sexuality.
I suspect that the root of this misconception among women is that this is how porn makes them feel (degraded, 'put in their place', resented, etc.) and they conclude that the evoking of such feelings could have only ben 'on purpose' (Why else would I feel that way after watching it, a woman might ask?). Of course, as porn doesn't cater to women's 'wiring', it's no surprise most of them have this misconception.
Anon wrote:
Whether or not it's the conscious purpose of all pornography or every man that consumes it on every occasion, you cannot divorce intention from effect.
No, you can't. But you were specifically talking about what you believe to be the impetus, or motivation behind porn. As such, that is what I addressed my comments to.
Along these same lines, do you believe that women are attracted to the modern romance novel out of some resentment that 'men have what they want' or 'to put then in their place'? After all, such materials remake men into parodies of themselves based upon female fantasies of how they wish men were.
I think we can all agree that men, unlike women, are generally visually oriented – it’s just the way God wired us. Even a healthy, Godly Christian husband is going to get jazzed about seeing his wife in sexy lingerie (I think we’ll also agree that there’s nothing wrong with that).
Given the above and the fact that we are sinful creatures, is it a surprise that men are drawn to images of other attractive women naked and/or engaging in sexual activity? The root of this ‘male urge’ is God’s design, not a desire to degraded women. Pornography, like most sin, is an abuse of God’s legitimate design (note that I am not blaming God and his design for sin, but man’s abuse of that design).
Do you really think porn would be a problem if God hadn’t designed men this way? Do you think most women aren’t drawn to ‘male porn’ out of some inherent virtue? Of course not; men and women, in general, are vulnerable to different sins because God wired us differently.
I recall Feldhahn citing that a certain percentage of women (I forget the number) are more visually oriented than women in general. This fact might be reflected in the shocking percentage (20%) of professing Christian women confessing that they struggle with habitually viewing on-line porn:
One in five church-going women responding to a self-selected poll conducted by the Christian Web site ChristiaNet.com said they struggled
with looking at pornography on an ongoing basis.
[...]
But people who study the culture of pornography are discovering what the $13 billion porn industry has already found: more and more women are porn consumers.
Women joining men in porn-addiction ranks, Christian groups say. (Unfortunately, this link is no longer good. Go here for a survey, with references, of the problem of porn in the Church, including some alarming statistics about the clergy and women).
I do not mention this to somehow ‘spread the blame’ or deflect from male dysfunction, but to make the point that indulgence in porn is not generally motivated by a desire to degrade women.
Anon wrote:
As for today pulp romance fiction, I'm definitely not a fan. Although romance is a valid genre, whose writers were originally men, providing inspiration for both sexes. It would seem inerudite to just dismiss it altogether. Equating modern romantic fiction with porn (unless it is porn) is misleading, since the research supporting the notion of "unrealistic expectations" really isn't there. Still, would I recommend a steady diet of this trash? No!
I'm speaking only of the modern pulp variety of romance. You shouldn't need any research to understand that if anybody wallows in unrealistic portrayals of [fill in the blank] (in this case, men and romance) their expectations will eventually come to reflect that with which they have filled their minds. Unless you think that women are immune to such delusion?
As far the women owning more than 50% of the US wealth, those are interesting marketing sites, but they don't source where they get that statistic.
Anon,
The sources are from the Center For Women's Research. On the left side of their site is a menu breaking it down by National, Regional, State, and Metro. Resources and links and Research studies are also included. Thus far, they appear to have done their homework without challenge or dispute. They must be doing something right. I'm sure if you wanted to investigate this matter further, they'd be more than happy to answer your questions.
So, when it does happen, are we just not supposed to talk about it? Or we can talk about it, but we can't use words like "sexist" or use "talking points" like "denigrates women", lest we be labelled as **shudder**, FEMINIST!!!!
Just so long as you understand the use of "talking points" like "denigrates men", lest we be labeled as **shudder**, whiners, then I see no problem.
Anonymous writes:
But for you to take a sunny "pornography isn't degrading women, it's idolizing them", actually puts you closer to the "benevolent nature" peacenik feminists, who deny the aggressive hunter element in the human soul-- and that's not good for anyone's "animus", or anima for that matter.
Aggressive or not, it's still idolatry and there is nothing "sunny" or "benevolent" about that fact.
Let's cut to the chase. I suspect the main reasons women oppose pornography are as follows:
1. Some of them have hang-ups about sex in general and thus need therapy.
2. Some of them are woefully lacking in understanding about male sexuality. Case in point: Men are visually oriented--just as women are often attracted to men with certain qualities. Politically correct gynocentrists cannot change a reality that is attested by both scriptures and science.
3. Feminists have a bad track record of taking androphobic positions. It does not surprise me when they attack anything enjoyed by men (in fact, it doesn't surprise me when popular culture does the same. Ever wonder why men playing video games are considered losers, but women wasting countless hours in stores selling useless items are not?)
4. I suspect that women are just jealous of any beautiful woman who wrecks the sex cartel by offering to men something that men have to go through a great deal of nonsense to get otherwise.
5. Women have imbibed an androphobic view of men as predators from the hysteria of feminists, leftists, and popular culture. Your latest comments about male sexuality hint at such androphobia. You know, they used to say the same things about BLACK men - "those wild, uncontrollable, savage beasts that cannot be trusted around our women." Do you think your negative stereotypes of male sexuality sound all that much more acceptable to my ears?
6. Everybody talks about the husband that drove his wife into an affair ("If only he met her emotional NEEEEEEDS!!!) but no one talks about the wife that drives her husband into porn. ("You degrade me!!!") sounds much more acceptable than ("I treated you like a tool but I don't want to show a little insight into why you went to find sexual fulfillment elsewhere.")
7. Society views women as precious little wallflowers that need to be sheltered from the slightest hint of discomfort (especially the psychological discomfort caused by perceived competition). Hence, the great fuss about "body image issues" (as if men don't have to struggle with similar problems). Ironically, we are to turn around and believe that women are gutsy enough to stand toe-to-toe with men in leadership positions. The new have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too gender roles are just peachy for women.
8. Women think men "only value them for one thing" ... as if this doesn't go on in other parts of human commerce. I like to know if employers often value employees for "one thing" when they lay claim to the employees' hours of their lives, their mental and physical exertions (but don't concern themselves with hopes, dreams, feelings, etc. that employees have). It is presumptuous to think that someone viewing porn only values women "for one thing." Are we obligated to have a personal and respectful relationship with the artist of every music CD we buy? When the anti-porn folks scream "objectification" they show themselves to be hypocritical. Objectification is everywhere (we objectify sport stars, actors, children, spouses, etc.) and I daresay a lot of religious pundits practice it themselves when they reduce men to studs who are supposed to breed new pew-wamers. I have no problem opposing objectification ... but the ones who scream it the loudest seem to be most guilty of letting the objectification of men go on uncriticized.
Your use of porn as an Exhibit A of sexism against women is laughable at best. It is a convenient scapegoat meant to elicit sympathy for the imagined hardships of today's women. It conveniently feeds into the perennial feminist articles of faith ("Women always have it worse" "Whatever is wrong is the problem of men"). It falls flat in the face of the fact that many feminists SUPPORT porn, many women use it, sex therapists employ it, and finally ...
There are enough peer-reviewed studies that call into doubt the idea that porn causes men to harbor negative feelings towards men. On this last point, I must express some annoyance with the way you have comported yourself. You have nitpicked me on the sources of my statements, but how many independent sources have you used to back up your assertions in your exchanges with me? ----- zer000000.
I oppose pornography. It is a work of the flesh (lascivious) and therefore sinful. It is idolatry of the feminine (just like saying most men are spiritually incomplete without women is sinful idolatry of the feminine). But I am also wise enough to know that there are godly motives for opposing a thing and UNgodly motives for opposing a thing. I oppose pornography because I am pro-male; I suspect most oppose it because they are anti-male or anti-masculinity.
You have a point about porn when you said:
"It is idolatry of the feminine (just like saying most men are spiritually incomplete without women is sinful idolatry of the feminine)"
I like to say that too many soap operas and too many romance novels only degrading men but it also idolizes them on a petestool (spelling?). Masculinity and Femininity are created by good, not idols. Women are not spiritually incomplete without men just as men are not spiritually incomplete without a women. I have questions for everyone: is it possible for a male and a female to have a friendship that is God honoring? and do you think a woman's worth is being married and being a mother?
Knightwatch,
The "Centre for Women's Research" that you cited does not say that women own 50% of the country's wealth. The 50% figure it keeps repeating is about businesses that are "at least 50% women owned". It says "Women-owned firms, 50% or more owned by women, account for 41% of all privately held firms", which is consistent with my earlier number that Women-only owned businesses account for about 25% of all businesses.
"Just so long as you understand the use of "talking points" like "denigrates men", lest we be labeled as **shudder**, whiners, then I see no problem." If you keep the issues in porportionate perspective, you'll have no problem.
Now, to address a few of Anakin's calm and collected, completely unbiased statements, that are, of course, in no way generalizations:
"Women have imbibed an androphobic view of men as predators from the hysteria of feminists, leftists, and popular culture. Your latest comments about male sexuality hint at such androphobia. You know, they used to say the same things about BLACK men - "those wild, uncontrollable, savage beasts that cannot be trusted around our women." Do you think your negative stereotypes of male sexuality sound all that much more acceptable to my ears?"
Funny how you spend so much more time bemoaning the anguish of stereotypes than I do-- and I'm supposed to be the hysterical genderist here?! Did it not occur to you that most of those stereotypes about men (particularly young men) originate with men themselves? Sounding like "those wild, uncontrollable, savage beasts that cannot be trusted around my daughter!"
If pornography and other aspects of culture have failed to produce any negative stereotypes of women that may contribute to sexism or discrimination, as the "gynocentrists" otherwise claimed, you must say the same thing about the stereotypes of men. You're taking the same screechy tone as the feminists you slag, as did Warren Farrell, and you're emulating his other mistake, which is not giving proportionate attribution to the source of those things that oppress and objectify men: other men! Especially those with more power.
Nevertheless, I'm glad you reiterated your "porn as idolatry of the female" thesis, since it gives me the opportunity to address some of the points brought up by you and Wombatty, who asks "is it a surprise that men (married men, in his example) are drawn to images of other attractive women naked and/or engaging in sexual activity?"
OK. You both point out that men are "visually oriented", and that this is "God's design", and I agree with that without complaint. It serves a survival of the species function that men would be most attracted to that which indicates youthful fertility. And, as Wombatty's example about married men being attracted to other women, there seems to be an orientation towards VOLUME that ensures our survival as well. So rather than there being simply a female "sex cartel" that protects the interests of jealous shrews, it's more of a monogamy imperative, a kind of "gentleman's agreement" pushed by civilizing entities like the church that protects not only women and children, but men too (particularly "non-alphas") so that almost everyone can have a mate, not just those at the top.
So pornography corrupts God's design of male sexual vigor through its technology that enables a kind of suped-up high volume consumption without having to "go through a great deal of nonsense" (ie. having to get to know a woman as a human being and win her respect to have her as a sexual partner in marriage). It's inevitable that viewing images in this fashion will amplify the male potential for depersonalization (like hand-to-mouth gourging of fast food today), in addition to reinforcing the unrealistic ambitions of those longing to enjoy something that they are not legitimately obtaining. Am I saying that all men depersonalize all women? No. Even polygamists will have their favored confidante wives, and others who are merely "tools".
So the Bible doesn't just condemn idolatry because it's "sinful" and "God said so". There are consequences to messing with His design. There are extremes in the human soul that we probably aren't even fully aware of yet, but that "progress" may well fully flesh out. Does this mean that I think men are less virtuous than women? No. As I've said before, male aggression (the most pronounced of all sex differences) is what gives us the larger proportion of men who are great scientists and artists, but also serial sex killers and obsessive xbox players. If you don't like it, take it up with the men who have constructed our institutions both utilizing these potentials and protecting us from them at the same time.
And while you're at it, you can take a closer look at your "peer-reviewed studies", many of which actually do support the idea that porn causes men to harbor negative feelings towards women. I'm not sure why you thought that link would help your argument.
Anon,
When you start citing reliable sources that defend your position, then we'll be proportionate. The burden of proof is on you ...
As you please, including some from Anakin's link:
An empirical investigation of the role of pornography in the verbal and physical abuse of women. Sommers,E.K. and Check,J.V. Violence and Victims 1987 2: 189-209. Abstract: Studied the presence of pornography and both sexual and nonsexual violence in the lives of 44 battered women drawn from shelters and counseling groups, and a comparison group of 32 women from a mature university population. It was found that the partners of the battered subjects (Ss) read or viewed significantly greater amounts of pornographic materials than did the partners of the comparison group. In addition, 39% of the battered Ss (in contrast to 3% of the comparison group) responded in the affirmative to the question, "Has you partner ever upset you by trying to get you to do what he'd seen in pornographic pictures, movies or books?" It was also found that battered Ss experienced significantly more sexual aggression at the hands of their partners than did the Ss in the comparison group.
Violent pornography and self-reported likelihood of sexual aggression. Demare,D. et. al J. Res. Personality 1988 22: 140-153.
Abstract: 222 undergraduate males were administered an attitudes survey examining pornography use, attitudes, and self-reported likelihood of rape (LR) or using sexual force (LF). Nonviolent pornography was used by 81% of subjects (Ss) within the previous year, whereas 41% and 35% had used violent and sexually violent pornography, respectively. 27% of Ss indicated some hypothetical LR or LF. Discriminant function analysis revealed that use of sexually violent pornography and acceptance of interpersonal violence against women were uniquely associated with LF and LR. It is hypothesized that the specific fusion of sex and violence in some pornographic stimuli and in certain belief systems may produce a propensity to engage in sexually aggressive behavior.
A review study in 1994, based on 81 original peer-reviewed research studies (35 using
aggressive stimuli and 46 using non-aggressive stimuli), concluded that the empirical
research on the effects of aggressive pornography shows, with fairly impressive
consistency, that exposure to these materials has a negative effect on attitudes toward
women and the perceived likelihood to rape. The study also noted that 70 percent of
the 46 non-aggressive studies reported clear evidence of negative effects of exposure.23
A meta-analysis in 1995, using the results of 24 original experimental studies, found that
violence within the pornography is not necessary to increase the acceptance of rape
myths (i.e. the myth that women secretly desire to be raped). The study noted that the
link between acceptance of rape myths and exposure to pornography stems from a simple
premise that most pornography commodifies sex, that women become objects used
for male pleasure, and that as objects of desire, they are to be acted on. The study also
noted that such attitudinal changes are of concern because several recent meta-analyses
demonstrate a high correlation (about r = .80) between attitude and behavior. 24
A separate meta-analysis in 1995, using a set of 33 studies, found that violent content,
although possibly magnifying the impact of the pornography, is unnecessary to
producing aggressive behavior.25
Another line of research into non-violent pornography makes the distinction between nonviolent
erotica and non-violent dehumanizing pornography, where dehumanizing
pornography is characterized by depictions which degrade and debase women. Dehumanizing
pornography is also referred to as standard-fare or common hard-core pornography by some
academic researchers the characteristic portrayal of women in pornography as socially nondiscriminating,
as hysterically euphoric in response to just about any sexual or pseudosexual
stimulation, and as eager to accommodate any and every sexual request.26
Examples from this line of research include:
♦ A study in 1989 for the Canadian Department of Justice found that high-frequency
pornography consumers who were exposed to the nonviolent, dehumanizing pornography
(relative to those in the no-exposure condition) were particularly likely to report that they
might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual
aggression. These effects were not apparent for men who reported a very low frequency
of habitual pornography consumption.27 The authors noted that the effects of exposure
were strongest and most pervasive in the case of exposure to nonviolent dehumanizing
pornography, the type of material that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream
commercial entertainment videos.
A 1989 review of a series of studies of common pornography found that its
consumption led to insensitivity towards victims of sexual violence, trivialization of rape
as a criminal offense, trivialization of sexual child abuse as a criminal offense, increased
belief that lack of sexual activity leads to health risks and increased acceptance of preand
extra-marital sexuality The study noted that habitual male consumers of common
pornography appear to be at greater risk of becoming sexually callous towards female
sexuality and concerns.28
A review of the literature and research in 1994 discusses the sexual callousness effect
associated with standard-fare pornography, noting that: Enhanced perceptual and
behavioral callousness toward women is most apparent following consumption of
materials that unambiguously portray women as sexually promiscuous and
indiscriminating a depiction that dominates modern pornography.29
23 Lyons, J.S., Anderson, R.L. and Larsen, D., .A Systematic Review of the Effects of Aggressive and
Nonaggressive Pornography,. in Zillman, Bryant & Huston (Ed.), Media, Children & the Family: Social Scientific,
Psychodynamic, and Clinical Perpectives, Hillsdale, N.J., J. Erlbaum Associates, p.305
24 Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery M. A. (1995). .Exposure to Pornography and Acceptance of Rape
Myths.. Journal of Communication, Winter, p.19 and pp.7-8.
25 Allen, M., D.Alessio, D., & Brezgel, K. (1995). A Meta-analysis Summarizing the Effects of Pornography II.
Human Communication Research, 22, p.271.
26 Zillman & Bryant . see note 10 above.
27 Check, J. V. P., & Guloien, T. H. (1989). .Reported Proclivity for Coercive Sex Following Repeated Exposure to
Sexually Violent Pornography, Nonviolent Dehumanizing Pornography, and Erotica,. Pornography: Research
Advances and Policy Considerations, p.160.
28 Zillmann, D. (1989). .Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography,. In Zillman & Bryant (Ed.),
Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations, p.155.
Weaver, J. B. (1994). Pornography and Sexual Callousness: The Perceptual and Behavioral Consequences of
Exposure to Pornography, in Zillman, Bryant & Huston (Eds), Media, Children and the Family: Social Scientific,
Psychodynamic, and Clinical Perspectives, p.224.
Lit review: Pornography and sexual aggression: Are there reliable effects and can we understand them?
Barak et al. (1999) recently found that pornography exposure, which was measured by exposure to various types of sexually explicit materials in differing media, was significantly correlated with a measure of reported Likelihood of Sexually Harassing (r = .42). Crossman (1994) reported that LR was significantly correlated with a relatively comprehensive assessment of the use of various types of pornography (r = .28). Check and Guloin (1989) reported that "there were significant differences between highfrequency pornography consumers and low-frequency consumers on ... reported likelihood of rape
There is also some indication that the associations found between pornography use and sexual aggression may be due to differences at the more extreme ends of the distributions, both in terms of the content of the stimuli and the participants involved. In terms of content, there is much consistency for an association between exposure to violent pornography and aggressive responses. For nonviolent pornography, the effects are not as strong or consistent, but they also emerge quite reliably. Here, the differences may primarily be between those with relatively "heavy use" and others (e.g., see Frank, 1990).
No complex discussion tonight from me...I'm off to the pub with me mates. : )
And while you're at it, you can take a closer look at your "peer-reviewed studies", many of which actually do support the idea that porn causes men to harbor negative feelings towards women. I'm not sure why you thought that link would help your argument.
I said:
"There are enough peer-reviewed studies that call into doubt the idea that porn causes men to harbor negative feelings towards men."
You conveniently overlook the studies on that site that go against your position. You see, the idea that pornography harms women in some tangible way is a matter that is, at best, disputed in academic circles. Given this fact, we are not under any obligation to accept your ipse dixits. The burden of proof is much steeper for you, your cherry-picked studies in support of your position notwithstanding. All of this is not to put porn in a favorable light, but to call into question the feminist victimology that undergirds so much opposition to porn.
Funny how you spend so much more time bemoaning the anguish of stereotypes than I do-- and I'm supposed to be the hysterical genderist here?! Did it not occur to you that most of those stereotypes about men (particularly young men) originate with men themselves? Sounding like "those wild, uncontrollable, savage beasts that cannot be trusted around my daughter!"
If pornography and other aspects of culture have failed to produce any negative stereotypes of women that may contribute to sexism or discrimination, as the "gynocentrists" otherwise claimed, you must say the same thing about the stereotypes of men. You're taking the same screechy tone as the feminists you slag, as did Warren Farrell, and you're emulating his other mistake, which is not giving proportionate attribution to the source of those things that oppress and objectify men: other men! Especially those with more power.
A typical feminist tactic: If men are suffering from sexism, then claim that it comes from other men. You expect sensible men to believe that women have nothing to do with the anti-male sexism that faces them? To ask the question is to answer it.
OK. You both point out that men are "visually oriented", and that this is "God's design", and I agree with that without complaint. It serves a survival of the species function that men would be most attracted to that which indicates youthful fertility. And, as Wombatty's example about married men being attracted to other women, there seems to be an orientation towards VOLUME that ensures our survival as well. So rather than there being simply a female "sex cartel" that protects the interests of jealous shrews, it's more of a monogamy imperative, a kind of "gentleman's agreement" pushed by civilizing entities like the church that protects not only women and children, but men too (particularly "non-alphas") so that almost everyone can have a mate, not just those at the top.
You are tearing down the polygamy straw-man. We are talking about pornography. How does pornography decrease the supply of available women? It doesn't. If anything, it does the exact opposite and that's one reason why I think women hate it.
So pornography corrupts God's design of male sexual vigor through its technology that enables a kind of suped-up high volume consumption without having to "go through a great deal of nonsense" (ie. having to get to know a woman as a human being and win her respect to have her as a sexual partner in marriage).
Your implication that I am attacking marriage and am indifferent to valuing women as human beings is not going to get passed over. At best, it is a misrepresentation of my beliefs and I am calling your hand on it. No, I had in mind men having to put up with the self-centered demands of contemporary women who demean men as walking ATMs, and engage in the hypocrisy of gender politics (she has choices/he has responsibilities, what's hers is hers, what's his is "ours"). Whether or not you agree with me, please show a modicum of courtesy and represent my position properly.
It's inevitable that viewing images in this fashion will amplify the male potential for depersonalization (like hand-to-mouth gourging of fast food today), in addition to reinforcing the unrealistic ambitions of those longing to enjoy something that they are not legitimately obtaining. Am I saying that all men depersonalize all women? No. Even polygamists will have their favored confidante wives, and others who are merely "tools".
As if women don't do the same thing--and that with societal approval. Your last comments, of course, completely ignore what I said about objectification. The fact is that depersonalization is not a male problem. It's a human problem. It disgusts me when some to point to the depersonalizing effects of pornography even as so much more depersonalization is ignored or even approved of. Romans 2:1-3 anyone?
I do not excuse drug users, but I certainly have more sympathy for them than the drug pushers. In the same way, I have more sympathy for men caught up in the sin of pornography than those who make their living off the strong drives and addictions of men (which includes women). Luke 17:1-2 comes to mind here.
"You conveniently overlook the studies on that site that go against your position. You see, the idea that pornography harms women in some tangible way is a matter that is, at best, disputed in academic circles." lol! Your research link is a pro-porn website, and you accuse me of cherry-picking? The results are mixed--so the idea that porn harms women is far from ruled out, especially in academic circles.
But hey, why limit yourself to academe, why not go to the source of pornography itself? Even those who profit from it readily admit to the sour grapes "cut her down to size" motives inherent in porn. Check out this excerpt from one of the industry's legends:
Bill Margold, one of the industry's longest-serving film performers, was interviewed in 1991 by psychoanalyst Robert Stoller for his book Porn: Myths For The Twentieth Century. Margold made no attempt to gloss over the realities. "My whole reason for being in this industry is to satisfy the desire of the men in the world who basically don't care much for women and want to see the men in my industry getting even with the women they couldn't have when they were growing up. So we come on a woman's face or brutalise her sexually: we're getting even for lost dreams."
At least he's honest about it.
And so you say:
"A typical feminist tactic: If men are suffering from sexism, then claim that it comes from other men. You expect sensible men to believe that women have nothing to do with the anti-male sexism that faces them?" You expect either sensible women or men to take seriously what amounts to your polemic on "anti-male sexism", without some kind of "proportionate attribution" that starts first with the male contribution where it is bigger?
There's a reason why the fight against "male sexism" never really picks up much steam beyond the omega fringe. Intelligent men's movement voices know there are bigger fish to fry than the "self-centered demands of contemporary women", and that change must start with how men treat each other, as well as how they treat women. They don't react to claims that sexism still exists with perjoratives about feminism. Feminism may be critiqued where it's fitting, but that's not even their main focus. Churchformen.com does not bellyache about the bogeys of feminism the way you do.
"You are tearing down the polygamy straw-man. We are talking about pornography. How does pornography decrease the supply of available women? It doesn't. If anything, it does the exact opposite". Speaking of discourteously misrepresented positions! I wasn't saying that porn decreases the supply of available women. I was saying that it gives the ILLUSION of increased supply or access....
...and here's where your women objectify men too with society's approval argument falls apart...
...you cannot equate "sex object" with "success object", as Farrell tried to do with his contrarian schtick. And this is for one reason: objectification of the female is intrinsically, indisputably tied to the male polygamous impulse for VOLUME of sexual partners (as experienced virtually via the multiple images of internet porn), the impetus to impersonally spread the seed, which civilization strives to curb (although polyamorous tendencies can be found in women, they are usually driven more by relational needs than sexual, therefore usually much less volume of partners). And where women's marital motives lean towards financial gain, there's still an expectation that there will be a deeper relationship formed with their "success object", which makes him not an object at all.
Are there "gold-diggers" out there impersonally marrying only for money, fully intending to divorce as soon as they've got it? I'm sure there are, but they don't make up the bulk of divorce cases, which are mostly comprised of two people who simply failed in the rather daunting task of creating enough of a relationship to last a lifetime.
If you really believe that depersonalization is a human problem, then why not treat it as such, giving each piece its proportional weight, rather than fashioning, like bad drag, a "pro-male" rhetoric from the language of "feminist victimology" that you so claim to hate?
Bill Margold, one of the industry's longest-serving film performers, was interviewed in 1991 by psychoanalyst Robert Stoller for his book Porn: Myths For The Twentieth Century. Margold made no attempt to gloss over the realities. "My whole reason for being in this industry is to satisfy the desire of the men in the world who basically don't care much for women and want to see the men in my industry getting even with the women they couldn't have when they were growing up. So we come on a woman's face or brutalise her sexually: we're getting even for lost dreams."
For every anecdotal piece you find, I can find this. Yep, what do you do with those mags like Playboy and other porn venues, which are run by WOMEN? Let me repeat that porn is sinful, but I challenge the myth that women are essentially victimized by it. That's like saying adultery is a form of sexism against women. No, it's takes two to tango in most sexual sins--and that includes porn.
You expect either sensible women or men to take seriously what amounts to your polemic on "anti-male sexism", without some kind of "proportionate attribution" that starts first with the male contribution where it is bigger?
There's a reason why the fight against "male sexism" never really picks up much steam beyond the omega fringe.
Yes, it's called the Lace Curtain of gynocentrism. Moving right on ...
Intelligent men's movement voices know there are bigger fish to fry than the "self-centered demands of contemporary women", and that change must start with how men treat each other, as well as how they treat women. They don't react to claims that sexism still exists with perjoratives about feminism. Feminism may be critiqued where it's fitting, but that's not even their main focus. Churchformen.com does not bellyache about the bogeys of feminism the way you do.
This reminds me of a politician who said "Sir, you are no John F. Kennedy." Ma'am, with all due respect, you are no reliable gauge of what the men's movement should be focusing on.
Obviously, you've not been on Church for Men (yes, they talk about feminism, gynocentrism, and women with entitlement mentalities--we do know how to use search engines on forums, after all). You have not read Paul Coughlin, the author of No More Christian Nice Guy. You have not read what the two professors who wrote "Legalizing Misandry" have to say about feminism. Nor have you been to these sites:
www.glennsacks.com
www.ncfm.com
By the way, I heard Warren Farrell back in college. I remember what he said about men not only have to earn more money, but have to look good on top of that.
I wasn't saying that porn decreases the supply of available women. I was saying that it gives the ILLUSION of increased supply or access....
... but you compared apples to oranges when you compared it to something that did (polygamy).
...you cannot equate "sex object" with "success object", as Farrell tried to do with his contrarian schtick. And this is for one reason: objectification of the female is intrinsically, indisputably tied to the male polygamous impulse for VOLUME of sexual partners (as experienced virtually via the multiple images of internet porn), the impetus to impersonally spread the seed, which civilization strives to curb (although polyamorous tendencies can be found in women, they are usually driven more by relational needs than sexual, therefore usually much less volume of partners). And where women's marital motives lean towards financial gain, there's still an expectation that there will be a deeper relationship formed with their "success object", which makes him not an object at all.
You are absolutely right that we cannot equate the two forms of objectification. The objectification that men engage in is basically up front, whereas the kind that women engage in is done under the respectable guise of a "deeper relationship formed" in what is called the modern marriage. Thank you for making my point. You see, the true test of whether there is a "deeper relationship formed" is whether or not women are willing to stick by their men in tough times (when he can no longer play Ken doll), but the statistics of NO-FAULT divorces initiated by women kind of blows the lid off of that one, don't they?
Are there "gold-diggers" out there impersonally marrying only for money, fully intending to divorce as soon as they've got it? I'm sure there are, but they don't make up the bulk of divorce cases, which are mostly comprised of two people who simply failed in the rather daunting task of creating enough of a relationship to last a lifetime.
Oh, I don't doubt that few women go into marriage fully intending to divorce men, but the question is this: Do they go into marriage anymore fully intending to honor their vows when their husbands commit the unspeakable act of showing their humanity?
If you really believe that depersonalization is a human problem, then why not treat it as such, giving each piece its proportional weight, rather than fashioning, like bad drag, a "pro-male" rhetoric from the language of "feminist victimology" that you so claim to hate?
Unfortunately for you, I am doing just that. Do you know what it is like to have your property confiscated, be hauled off to jail, fired from your job, have your kids taken away from you,etc. because society takes the opposite sex's word over yours? Do you know what it is like that have your sex demeaned as "the problem" "obsolete evil, stupid, etc. in mass media, in the schools you attend, and in your churches? Do you know what is like to judged not only by your looks by the opposite sex, but also by how much MORE money you make? And what have you complained about? Being seen as a sex object. Yes, indeed ... let's talk about "proportionality".
"Yep, what do you do with those mags like Playboy and other porn venues, which are run by WOMEN? Let me repeat that porn is sinful, but I challenge the myth that women are essentially victimized by it. That's like saying adultery is a form of sexism against women. No, it's takes two to tango in most sexual sins--and that includes porn." All you do when you indulge in this kind of 50-50 fallacy is prove my point that you have no concept of proportionality. When you look at the small proportion of screwed up women (disapproved of by the vast majority of other women) peddling porn compared to the large number of men who buy it, it's more of a gang bang than a tango. And no, I'm not excusing those women on the basis of their messed up backgrounds, but I do wonder how men could enjoy the products of those backgrounds (which almost always include early sexual abuse).
"Obviously, you've not been on Church for Men (yes, they talk about feminism, gynocentrism, and women with entitlement mentalities--we do know how to use search engines on forums, after all)." Not only have I thoroughly checked out CfM, for years I have heartily endorsed it and other works by David Murrow himself, who offers some critique of feminism, but doesn't make it the main focus as the "root of all evil" the way your do. Why? Because he has a sense of proportionality, as far as evaluating gender issues are concerned.
As for the forums on CfM, so what? Anyone can post there, you get all kinds of views. And Paul Coughlin, he's got some good points, even if his style is a bit bombastic (which probably explains why the increasingly irrelevant Dr. Laura is such a fan). But I really don't care about the anonymous bloggers you keep tossing out these links for-- they just prove my point that it's a kooky fringe that shoots the men's movement in the foot. Remember the "Father's Manifesto" debacle? Sad thing is there may well be some legitimate men's movement issues that have been raised, (particularly around adjusting child custody law in states where it's still needed) but get discredited by these nutjobs, who curiously like to use angry rhetoric such as "lace curtain" and "gynocentrism".
"The objectification that men engage in is basically up front, whereas the kind that women engage in is done under the respectable guise of a "deeper relationship formed" in what is called the modern marriage." I'm sorry, but this is REALLY grasping at straws in trying to make your "objectification" analogy work.
"The true test of whether there is a "deeper relationship formed" is whether or not women are willing to stick by their men in tough times (when he can no longer play Ken doll), but the statistics of NO-FAULT divorces initiated by women kind of blows the lid off of that one, don't they?...Do they go into marriage anymore fully intending to honor their vows when their husbands commit the unspeakable act of showing their humanity?" Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "showing their humanity", now doesn't it? As I have said before, divorce research shows few surprises, if you've even bothered to look at Gottman's work. So, where's your research to back up your claim that the two thirds (NOT 75% as you originally claimed) of women who do file for divorce are doing so on the basis that "he can no longer play Ken-doll"?
"Do you know what it is like to have your property confiscated, be hauled off to jail, fired from your job, have your kids taken away from you,etc. because society takes the opposite sex's word over yours? Do you know what it is like that have your sex demeaned as "the problem" "obsolete evil, stupid, etc. in mass media, in the schools you attend, and in your churches? Do you know what is like to judged not only by your looks by the opposite sex, but also by how much MORE money you make? Warren Farrell says... men not only have to earn more money, but have to look good on top of that."
"Do you know what it's like?"... "Do you know what it's like?" You deny and minimize the effects of pornography and objectification on women, so why should I even care?? You make the Farrellesque claim that women are so demanding, judging not only looks but financial equity or better (few women insist that the guy makes MORE money, though it's definitely an advantage, which guys expect will get them better looking women), as if men judging for looks only is some kind of claim to a more reasonable kind of moral superiority. Look, there's nothing stopping men from adding more items to THEIR shopping lists, such as financial responsibility and character (see Proverbs 31). Did it ever occur to you that some of those divorces could have been averted if the guys had put less emphasis on looks and more on character?
Anonymous,
Throwing around cheap shots like "kooky fringe" and "omega men" is not going to win you any points here. Trying to paint men's rights activists out as mentally unhinged extremists is a tired shaming tactic and no substitute for reasoned argumentation.
You fling around insults like holy water but you failed to ...
1. Challenge my point that your gospel about pornography victimizing women is disputed by academia.
2. Failed to explain away the existence of feminists who support pornography.
3. Failed to explain away academics who point to the harms of feminism (e.g. the authors of Legalizing Misandry) (how can these supposed "kooks" get published by a university press is beyond me). Oh by the way, let's add Nobel Laureate Doris Lessing's take on feminism (they tried to claim her but she blew them off for what they really are).
My conviction is that whatever "gains" feminism has gotten for women, it is come at the price of mainstreaming the voices of some rather arrogant and sick women who are clearly dead set on the destruction of men. You can rant and rave about MRA "kooks" but no man could get away spewing the vile these sorry specimens of humanity have done.
Oh yeah, about the Fathers Manifesto, that was a HOAX:
As Glenn Sack says:
A section of Family Court Report 2002 attacks the fathers' movement which, we are told, is a cabal of misogynists and wife-beaters who seek to restore patriarchy. The core of the NOW report's evidence is the "Fathers' Manifesto," an Internet document signed by many fathers' rights activists, which calls for stripping women of the right to vote.
In reality, the "Fathers' Manifesto" was a hoax employed by an anti-Semitic, racist, woman-hater on the fringe of the men's movement. NOW's report identifies this individual as "John Knight." An Internet petition called the "Fathers' Manifesto" was circulated which proclaimed equal rights for fathers and the importance of fathers in the life of a child. Over one hundred fathers' rights activists signed this Internet petition, including many Jewish and African-American activists.
Signatories were horrified when the petition reappeared on a white supremacist website in a radically altered form--a form which included a call to repeal the 19th amendment. Dozens of signatories demanded that their names be removed, and many activists made clear statements disassociating themselves from it.
However, Trish Wilson and Liz Kates, two web-based opponents of the fathers' rights movement, posted brief biographies of many of the Father's Manifesto signatories, and mischaracterized them as misogynists based largely on the altered, illegitimate document. NOW cites Wilson and Kates as its sources for much of its most serious charges against the fathers' movement. As one fathers' rights activist remarked, "If the Fathers' Manifesto's author had been an active opponent of equal rights for fathers, he could not have done anything more effective and more devastating than what he did."
What can I say? It seems a lot of feminists love to perpetuate lies.
And no, I'm not excusing those women on the basis of their messed up backgrounds, but I do wonder how men could enjoy the products of those backgrounds (which almost always include early sexual abuse).
Well, I wonder how women can be essentially Hybristophiliacs, but hey ...
"The objectification that men engage in is basically up front, whereas the kind that women engage in is done under the respectable guise of a "deeper relationship formed" in what is called the modern marriage." I'm sorry, but this is REALLY grasping at straws in trying to make your "objectification" analogy work.
Oh, and those two chapters in Mrs. Maken's book attacking men who are not married don't exist. C'mon and get real. People don't spew that kind of nonsense unless they stand GAIN from something.
So, where's your research to back up your claim that the two thirds (NOT 75% as you originally claimed) of women who do file for divorce are doing so on the basis that "he can no longer play Ken-doll"?
M. F. Brining and D. W. Allen, "'These Boots Are Made for Walking': Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women," American Law and Economics Review 2, no. 1 (2000): 126-169.
Do you know what it's like?"... "Do you know what it's like?" You deny and minimize the effects of pornography and objectification on women, so why should I even care??
Well, thank you, for admitting to your lack of concern for the issues that effect men. You said: "Why should I even care??" I admire you for being honest--many women aren't in that regard. And you thought my comment about the respectable guise of a "deeper relationship formed" was "grasping". When women don't care--then it is a guise. Nothing personal but how can you be caring towards a man and yet not care about that things that face him?
You make the Farrellesque claim that women are so demanding, judging not only looks but financial equity or better (few women insist that the guy makes MORE money, though it's definitely an advantage, which guys expect will get them better looking women), as if men judging for looks only is some kind of claim to a more reasonable kind of moral superiority.
LOL. Google "women" and "hypergamy"
There is nothing Farrelesque about this piece ...
Do single women in possession of a top-of-the-line education have a hard time finding a husband? So some believe, and there is evidence to support the idea. As a new study by a University of Washington economics professor points out, female "hypergamy" (the tendency to marry upward with respect to social status, education, and income) is the norm in many societies, and widespread hypergamy inevitably disadvantages well-educated women, who have nowhere to marry up to. But as women's overall education levels have risen in the United States, marriage prospects for educated women have also markedly improved. In 1980 a woman in her early forties with nineteen years of education had just a 66 percent chance of being married, compared with 83 percent for one with twelve years of education; today that gap has disappeared. The real losers in the modern marriage market are not career women but poorly educated men, and particularly black men. Though hypergamy may be declining among the professional classes, less-educated women still tend to reach up the social ladder when they marry, leaving a host of unmarriageable males stuck below.
—"Education and Hypergamy in Marriage Markets," Elaina Rose, University of Washington
Anyway, you write ...
Look, there's nothing stopping men from adding more items to THEIR shopping lists, such as financial responsibility and character (see Proverbs 31). Did it ever occur to you that some of those divorces could have been averted if the guys had put less emphasis on looks and more on character?
LOL, you meet your self coming and going in your effort to defend women (that's common for feminists). That's a good one. First these women had legitimate excuses for their bailing (ala Gottman) ... but wait they were really shallow bimbos all along and it's the men's fault for not realizing that! Nice try.
Can you get your story straight? You keeping peddling the Gottman line about inept husbands--and yet you want me to believe that women are more consumer savvy about picking mates than men. How do women keep consenting to marrying such total duds, then? Time to apply Occam's razor. I think the more credible explanation is that demanding women stay demanding ... and when hubby can no longer meet their high-maintenance expectations, the women bail.
"Throwing around cheap shots like "kooky fringe" and "omega men" is not going to win you any points here. Trying to paint men's rights activists out as mentally unhinged extremists is a tired shaming tactic and no substitute for reasoned argumentation."
Your accusation that I'm trying to paint all MRA's with the same brush is a total mischaracterization, especially since I've actually expressed a lot of support towards them on this thread. Whereas, you struggle even to empathize with what it's like for women to be treated as sex objects.
Nevertheless, you state your conviction "that whatever 'gains' feminism has gotten for women, it is come at the price of mainstreaming the voices of some rather arrogant and sick women who are clearly dead set on the destruction of men", but the "arrogant and sick" people in those links (many of whom I've denounced here, such as Dworkin) pretty much derailed feminism, as they became exposed as fringy kooks. The men's movement runs the same risk, as evidenced by the Father's Manifesto "hoax", as you call it, problem is that there were MRA people who actually signed it! By evoking the same extremist "omega" language, you're inadvertently sowing the same seeds of demise for even the better parts of your movement. But go ahead. Ignore the grey areas. Eschew the moderate voice. You'll wind up at the same dead end.
I will acknowledge that academia has produced mixed research as far as being able to demonstrate that pornography victimizes women (as it does with any linking any individual behavioral element to societal attitudes), but it's still a fact that few academics themselves dispute personally. Even Azy Barak, whose results were pretty much negligible, said that "the finding that past exposure to sexually explicit materials contributed a significant and
unique–if small–amount to the prediction of attitudes toward women suggests that exposure to sexually explicit material may contribute over time to misogynist attitudes. Further, longitudinal research, in which men’s personality dispositions, use of Internet pornography, and misogynist attitudes are tracked over relatively lengthy periods of time could provide additional evidence that is relevant to this question." He continues to research sexual harrassment on the internet.
As far as failing "to explain away academics who point to the harms of feminism", it has never been my intention to explain away the harms of feminism. But it's a discussion that cannot take place without also looking at the proportionate male contribution to problems that are get attributed solely to feminism (which often put the female contribution into the pale, ie. promiscuity, emphasis on looks). But you're just not willing to go there, because it takes you straight to the ultimate sour grapes territory: men's oppression of men.
As far as feminists who support pornography, hybristophiliacs, and other oddities, all anyone can say is that exceptional extremes will always exist. But that's all they are: exceptions. I'm not demanding that you account for every stalker and rapist as representatives of your sex, you should return the same courtesy.
BTW- when I asked: "So, where's your research to back up your claim that the two thirds (NOT 75% as you originally claimed) of women who do file for divorce are doing so on the basis that "he can no longer play Ken-doll"?" You said, "M. F. Brining and D. W. Allen, "'These Boots Are Made for Walking': Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women," American Law and Economics Review 2, no. 1 (2000): 126-169." But they are the ones that state that "women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US", not 75%, and no, they don't say anything about "Ken-dolls".
YOU SAID: "The objectification that men engage in is basically up front, whereas the kind that women engage in is done under the respectable guise of a "deeper relationship formed" in what is called the modern marriage." AND I SAID: I'm sorry, but this is REALLY grasping at straws in trying to make your "objectification" analogy work. But rather than give it up, you bring up unmarried men in Maken's book. As I said before, this thread is about Harris' book, not Maken's. So I'm leaving that red herring out to dry. Fish jerky anyone?
I asked what seemed like a reasonable hypothetical question: "You deny and minimize the effects of pornography and objectification on women, so why should I even care??" Rather than an answer, I get a diagnosis: "Well, thank you, for admitting to your lack of concern for the issues that effect men." So here's mine: I think that's exactly what your whole agenda is here, to prove to the world (and yourself) that nobody cares. But because you don't care (to be proportionate with the issues you discuss, at least), you don't get much care in return-- see how that self-fulfilling prophesy works??
"First these women had legitimate excuses for their bailing (ala Gottman) ... but wait they were really shallow bimbos all along and it's the men's fault for not realizing that!...You keeping peddling the Gottman line about inept husbands--and yet you want me to believe that women are more consumer savvy about picking mates than men. How do women keep consenting to marrying such total duds, then?"
I don't know how you got the idea that I said that women are more "consumer savvy" at picking mates than men. But the question of why women consent to marrying "total duds" must also be answered alongside why so many men pick "shallow bimbos": MEN DO THE PICKING, on the criteria we discussed earlier. And women can either accept or reject those who pick or pursue them. So you wind up with more women than men in the dilemma of "do I give it a chance, even though he's not my first choice, or do I wait for another offer than may not materialize?"
What I've noticed about "demanding women" is that they usually emerge as such long before the wedding ever takes place (was anyone surprised about Mills vs. McCartney??). And when a guy who's dating a demanding girl chooses to propose to her, what's the most common variable?? It's usually because she's more attractive than the kind of woman he'd ordinarily get to date. I think that most of these guys know what they're getting themselves into, like the challenge of trying to meet their high-maintenance expectations, and figure that the chance of the women bailing is worth the risk.
As long as man is the pursuer, and is driven to do so on the basis of physical characteristics, you'll always have this greater likelihood of female dissatisfaction with the union. C'est la vie.
Since we're going round in circle and this discussion is moving in the direction of looks, money, hypergamy, let's move on over to the "anti-male sexism with a halo" thread....
Your accusation that I'm trying to paint all MRA's with the same brush is a total mischaracterization, especially since I've actually expressed a lot of support towards them on this thread. Whereas, you struggle even to empathize with what it's like for women to be treated as sex objects.
Yes I do struggle, considering that the inconvenience of receiving sexual attention from undesirable men or not receiving it from desirable men pales in comparison to the horrible treatment men receive at the hands of women. I am scratching my head trying figure out how seeing someone as a hottie is worse then seeing someone as inept, stupid, or evil. As bad as sexual objectification is (and yes, it is a sin), I rather be sexually objectified than seen as stupid or a menacing scourge (the way people have seen blacks or the Jews). Consider what our culture says about men, then substitute the word "black people" for men. Please tell me how be viewed in a sexual manner is so devastating, because if women are such psychologically fragile creatures, then I have to ask why they think they are up to the task of competing against men in a dog-eat-dog world. Such are the contradictions of Dworkinite feminism.
I am not an "omega man" simply because I don't subscribe to your Dworkinite hysteria about pornography or "proportionality." You have some wonderful theories; too bad you have not substantiated any of them, though.
The men's movement runs the same risk, as evidenced by the Father's Manifesto "hoax", as you call it, problem is that there were MRA people who actually signed it!
Go back and read that quote I gave. The men indeed signed the document, but then it was radically altered and put on a white supremacist site. By the way, I have to wonder how you could know so much about the FM being such a supposed "disaster." I certainly was not aware of this matter until you brought it up. It sounds like something Trish Wilson or one her sisters-in-arms would invoke. You seem to be of the same stripe as some feminist bloggers and their readers.
As far as failing "to explain away academics who point to the harms of feminism", it has never been my intention to explain away the harms of feminism. But it's a discussion that cannot take place without also looking at the proportionate male contribution to problems that are get attributed solely to feminism (which often put the female contribution into the pale, ie. promiscuity, emphasis on looks).
Don't get me wrong. I believe the actions of gynocentrist men are pretty destructive, too.
As far as feminists who support pornography, hybristophiliacs, and other oddities, all anyone can say is that exceptional extremes will always exist. But that's all they are: exceptions. I'm not demanding that you account for every stalker and rapist as representatives of your sex, you should return the same courtesy.
Excuse me, but I don't think pro-porn feminists represent some sort of exceptional extreme when there are quite a few high profile ones like Nadine Strossen, Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia. If feminists who support porn were such a negligible fringe, then how do you explain this or this. I do not know how many take that view, but let's be honest and concede that the school of thought is prevalent enough for informed people to have noticed.
I will acknowledge that academia has produced mixed research as far as being able to demonstrate that pornography victimizes women (as it does with any linking any individual behavioral element to societal attitudes), but it's still a fact that few academics themselves dispute personally.
Sorry, I'm still not buying it. You are tap-dancing around the research that goes against your position.
But they are the ones that state that "women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US", not 75%, and no, they don't say anything about "Ken-dolls".
Wow. You have devastated me by showing that 75% is not the same as the ever-so-slight, statistically negligible two-thirds .. and to think I thought the article literally mentioned something about "Ken dolls". But seriously, you arecaviling here. And come to think of it, I don't remember claiming 75%. Where are you getting that?
YOU SAID: "The objectification that men engage in is basically up front, whereas the kind that women engage in is done under the respectable guise of a "deeper relationship formed" in what is called the modern marriage." AND I SAID: I'm sorry, but this is REALLY grasping at straws in trying to make your "objectification" analogy work. But rather than give it up, you bring up unmarried men in Maken's book. As I said before, this thread is about Harris' book, not Maken's. So I'm leaving that red herring out to dry. Fish jerky anyone?
Get real. We left the discussion of Josh Harris long ago. More caviling on your part. I mentioned Maken to illustrate that women shaming men into marriage points to something more than warm fuzzies. It's obvious that women want something from men in marriage besides just lovey-dovey. The desperation reeks of it; apparently not a few women feel that men OWE them something in that regard. But, like it or not, men are wising up to the fact that they are being used like tools in so-called "relationships" with these women.
I asked what seemed like a reasonable hypothetical question: "You deny and minimize the effects of pornography and objectification on women, so why should I even care??" Rather than an answer, I get a diagnosis: "Well, thank you, for admitting to your lack of concern for the issues that effect men." So here's mine: I think that's exactly what your whole agenda is here, to prove to the world (and yourself) that nobody cares. But because you don't care (to be proportionate with the issues you discuss, at least), you don't get much care in return-- see how that self-fulfilling prophesy works??
Hey, you asked a rhetorical question, implying that you didn't care. Don't blame me for making a reasonable inference. For someone who admits to not caring about me, you seem quit intent on staying on a blog where most of the readers are not favorably inclined towards your ideology (and not likely to find your arguments persuasive). Tell me, how many minds have you changed in your stay here?
I don't know how you got the idea that I said that women are more "consumer savvy" at picking mates than men.
From this:
Look, there's nothing stopping men from adding more items to THEIR shopping lists, such as financial responsibility and character (see Proverbs 31).
... clearly implying that men are not discerning enough like women.
But the question of why women consent to marrying "total duds" must also be answered alongside why so many men pick "shallow bimbos": MEN DO THE PICKING, on the criteria we discussed earlier. And women can either accept or reject those who pick or pursue them.
So why don't women do more rejecting, then? But wait ...
So you wind up with more women than men in the dilemma of "do I give it a chance, even though he's not my first choice, or do I wait for another offer than may not materialize?"
My oh my, for all the talk about men need to honest about their intentions, we see a little deception on the part of women about how they feel about the men they marry.
So let me get this straight .. all of this is due to women settling for men beneath their station because the men they should marry are chasing other women out of the league of these men. Yet, you don't explain how many women tend to marry up (so it can't be men are marrying women financially out of their league). Did you mean women who are out of men's league character-wise? But you told me that men should judge women on the basis of their character! Or did you mean looks? But if women think they are above the men they marry on the basis of looks, wouldn't that support my assertion that women are hitting men with the double-whammy of judging on looks and money? In short, you need to explain how men are beneath the station of these women because this argument (made by Maken and her followers like Gortexgrrl [sp?]) is unraveling.
What I've noticed about "demanding women" is that they usually emerge as such long before the wedding ever takes place (was anyone surprised about Mills vs. McCartney??). And when a guy who's dating a demanding girl chooses to propose to her, what's the most common variable?? It's usually because she's more attractive than the kind of woman he'd ordinarily get to date. I think that most of these guys know what they're getting themselves into, like the challenge of trying to meet their high-maintenance expectations, and figure that the chance of the women bailing is worth the risk.
That a pretty damning assessment of your gender: That the only women out there are either high-maintenance women or unattractive women (your thesis assumes there are no good attractive women for men to pursue). If you think most guys set out to marry a physically attractive harpie, then I have a big bridge in New York to sell you.
Let me clear up a few things:
So, where's your research to back up your claim that the two thirds (NOT 75% as you originally claimed) of women who do file for divorce are doing so on the basis that "he can no longer play Ken-doll"?"
Er, anon, 75% IS generally considered two-thirds!!! LOL. Just like everthing else, though, I'm sure you'll try to wiggle out of this one.
Now, to address a few of Anakin's calm and collected, completely unbiased statements, that are, of course, in no way generalizations:
Generalizations? Oh, puh-lease, get off your moral high horse, smart-ass. When I asked you a couple of weeks back to cite reliable sources that defend your position, I wasn't referring to porn. I was referring to your emphatic response that "women DO NOT "control a majority of the wealth in this country". Those were your words, and they were spoken with a tone more familiarly associated with arrogance and surety. Since you have stubbornly brushed off every link that has been provided to the contrary, I have to ask where are your sources, links, citations that would suggest otherwise?
I'm not saying that the majority is correct, but there ARE a lot of claims and folks who would disagree with you. Now granted, those claims are just that: Claims. These sites may not have the rock solid evidence you're looking for, yet the claims appear to be have a starting point to incite further investigation, which is more than anything you've given us here, thus far.
As for your man, Gottman, he may or may not have an agenda, but he does cave into politically correct ideology. In other words, he has implied (what else?) that heterosexual relationships are 200 years behind same sex relationships. This is irresponsible garbage. But, hey, at least Gottman has won over the gay community from blog to shining blog with his comments:
"Gay and lesbian couples are a lot more mature, more considerate in trying to improve a relationship and have a greater awareness of equality in a relationship than straight couples," said John Gottman, a University of Washington emeritus professor of psychology who directed the research along with Robert Levenson, a University of California, Berkeley, psychology professor.
"I think that in 200 years heterosexual relationships will be where gay and lesbian relationships are today," said Gottman, who now heads the Relationship Research Institute in Seattle.
This is another illustrious example of why psychology will never become anything more than a soft science geared toward the weak, and the PC establishment (and not taken seriously by people who recognize snake oil). I gather, anon, from a few clues that you have a strong bias for the social sciences. You have yet to say so, however I imagine from your pattern of rehearsed debating that this field is your expertise, along with the "evolutionary psychology" and the "biology is destiny" crowd. Am I wrong? What I want to know is where is all this observable evidence, except within Gottman's controlled environment (ie love lab), do gays have better communicative/ understanding relationships with their partners over heterosexuals? Here we have Gottman comparing apples and oranges to apples and apples and promoting ideas that heterosexual men and women have a lot to learn from the gays. He's asserting we should be more like gays, because gays and lesbians are better in expressing their feeeelings and are sexually open. What cruel kindness. (Of course, no one in the APA would dare stand up and say anything negative about the gay community, now would they?)
But he's wrong, because alternative lifestyles of same sex relations break up more often than straights:
Gottman's findings are also overshadowed by more sobering research. Studies consistently find that gay and lesbian relationships tend not to last as long as heterosexual ones—even in places where gay and lesbian marriage exists. A groundbreaking new study by four researchers in Scandinavia compared the divorce rates among gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals in Norway and Sweden, both of which allow gays and lesbians to form "registered partnerships" that are almost identical legally to marriage. Presented this spring at the annual conference of the Population Association of America, the study by Gunnar Andersson and colleagues found that gay men were 50 percent more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples in Sweden. Even more interesting, it showed that lesbians were not only more prone to divorce than straight couples but were twice as likely to split up as gay men. In Norway, the researchers found a similar dynamic.
From Family Scholars:
One problem with this story is that the best, most recent studies indicate that same-sex couples–especially lesbians–are more likely to break up. For instance, a study published in Demography found markedly higher breakup rates among same-sex couples–50% higher for gay couples and 167% higher for lesbian couples. And a UCLA study released last month on American couples comes up with similar findings for gay and lesbian couples here in the United States.
Furthermore, Gottman’s divorce statistics are overdone. The Census is now estimating that less than 50% of Americans who marry will divorce.
15 years from now, there'll come along another dabbler of the pseudo sciences who will claim authorship of the title "relationship guru". And predictably, we'll all be told how husband's should be "mothered" - I mean - "influenced" by their wives.
Next, I suppose you felt my comment didn't deserve an answer when I said:
Furthermore, not all women would agree with your vast use of sweeping generalizations about 'how women still have a long way to go' regarding sexism and discrimination. Not all women believe that garbage. But you can always take this up with conservative female bloggers, like LaShawn Barber or Dr. Helen? Why don't you write lengthy posts on these sites telling them how wrong they are about feminism, instead of coming here?
I suppose your answer will be that these women I speak of are male sympathizers who have been brainwashed/ or seduced by the Patriarchy.
Oh, well, have it your way.
Knightwatch,
I believe 75% is 3/4, not 2/3 or 66% (which is still a noticeable majority). But your main points are well taken. What I find frustrating about Anon is that she seems to think that she can dictate the terms of the discussion of this blog. I have tried to cite references and links, well in excess of Anon furnished in support of her own conjectural ideas. Yet she acts as if I am only one who has to substantiate my claims.
Somehow in the name of "proportionality" I am supposed to devote equal space to the peccadilloes of men. I am supposed to do this even our mainstream popular culture has engaged in overkill on that matter and has said nary a word about the sexism men experience at the hands of women and those who defend such women. I am supposed to take the mantra of women having it the hardest at gospel truth. I am supposed to take the line that pornography victimizes women in some egregious and widespread way as gospel truth. If I dare raise any good-faith questions about either of these pieces of conventional wisdom, then I am an "omega man" and a "kook". I further fear that some will twist my words to make it look as if I support pornography when, in reality, I find pornography to be a sinful and disgusting attempt to manipulate the sexuality of men. If porn is an addiction, then Anon would have me to have more sympathy for the drug dealer that the drug user.
But the bottom line is this: This is MY blog and I will address those issues that I want to address. I don't have to answer to the dictates of any Gynocentrist Review Board that tries to push its PC version of reality. For too long, gynocentrists have tried to control the terms of debate about gender issues and have tried to shout down and shame men into compliance with the party line. I'm not standing for it. If Anon feels she can strong arm men here into goose-stepping to the gynocentrist party line, then she is in for a big disappointment.
I believe 75% is 3/4, not 2/3 or 66% (which is still a noticeable majority).
Yeah, I know. It was too late to change it. @*&^#$%^$#@ Unfortunately, to save face, it WAS early morn, I don't drink java, and I'm thinkin' college football on the brain. Down south, college football on Saturday is IT. I owe anon an apology, though. I guess that's what I get for not proofing and/ or not having a blogger account. Oy vey!
I have tried to cite references and links, well in excess of Anon furnished in support of her own conjectural ideas. Yet she acts as if I am only one who has to substantiate my claims.
I've said this exact thing from the very beginning. I don't mind criticism from the opposition at all, as long as the opposition understands that the men here are contesting opinion articles, columns, and books that are not altogether proportionate in THEIR views and attitudes toward men, and hence, deserve a rebuttal. This, to my notion, balances the scales. This blog serves in contrast to the estrogen express that has become a runaway train and one, I might add, with no brakes - thanks to many men, yes, who find it necessary to play rescuer because of their chivalrous cultural perceptions and matriarchal upbringing that the man is supposed to be the carpet to the woman's high heel shoe - (at any cost). I believe a lot of these men like Josh Harris say the things they say because they're looking to gain female approval - (at any cost).
"Yes I do struggle, considering that the inconvenience of receiving sexual attention from undesirable men or not receiving it from desirable men pales in comparison to the horrible treatment men receive at the hands of women." It's all in how it gets expressed. There's a whole continuum from mildly annoying to uncomfortably creepy to downright abusive. But why am I bothering to discuss anything as grey as a continuum with you? As far as you're concerned, there's only black and white.
"I am scratching my head trying figure out how seeing someone as a hottie is worse then seeing someone as inept, stupid, or evil. As bad as sexual objectification is (and yes, it is a sin), I rather be sexually objectified than seen as stupid or a menacing scourge (the way people have seen blacks or the Jews). Consider what our culture says about men, then substitute the word "black people" for men."
If you're suffering so much from "gynocentric" male oppression and think being "the second sex" is such a cake walk, then why don't you have a sex change?? You've got the whole whiny victim thing, so essential you think, to the female persona, all you'd need is a bit of practice walking in heels.
"Please tell me how be viewed in a sexual manner is so devastating, because if women are such psychologically fragile creatures, then I have to ask why they think they are up to the task of competing against men in a dog-eat-dog world." When it comes to workplace situations, they somehow manage to deal with it, just as most men deal with their own achilles heels of anger and aggression.
"I don't know how you got the idea that I said that women are more "consumer savvy" at picking mates than men." From this: "Look, there's nothing stopping men from adding more items to THEIR shopping lists, such as financial responsibility and character (see Proverbs 31)".... clearly implying that men are not discerning enough like women.
That's not what I was implying. Just because a woman has a long shopping list, doesn't mean she's got her priorities straight, such as "he acts like a priggish milquetoast much of the time, but he's employed, and a CHRRRRRISTIAN!" For the most part, women have to make do with what's offered to them, especially when there's a shortage of men in the church.
I SAID: "But the question of why women consent to marrying "total duds" must also be answered alongside why so many men pick "shallow bimbos": MEN DO THE PICKING, on the criteria we discussed earlier. And women can either accept or reject those who pick or pursue them."
SO YOU ASKED: "So why don't women do more rejecting, then?"
And to that I say, they do. Especially now that women no longer have to marry men for financial needs, whether they are attracted to the guy or not. And I think that's why you have this blog. Your real complaint isn't divorce. I doubt very much that you've ever been divorced. It's sour grapes for not having had a kick at the can in the first place. Isn't it?
So I concluded: "So you wind up with more women than men in the dilemma of "do I give it a chance, even though he's not my first choice, or do I wait for another offer than may not materialize?"
And you said: "My oh my, for all the talk about men need to honest about their intentions, we see a little deception on the part of women about how they feel about the men they marry." But the thing is that most of those marriages will probably work out. As I said, women, for the most part, make the best of things, and hopefully growing to love the guy over time. Whereas, men don't pop the question to those they don't already love.
"So let me get this straight .. all of this is due to women settling for men beneath their station because the men they should marry are chasing other women out of the league of these men. Yet, you don't explain how many women tend to marry up (so it can't be men are marrying women financially out of their league). Did you mean women who are out of men's league character-wise? But you told me that men should judge women on the basis of their character! Or did you mean looks? But if women think they are above the men they marry on the basis of looks, wouldn't that support my assertion that women are hitting men with the double-whammy of judging on looks and money?"
You're not getting it, Anakin, because you won't see the grey area, only the single moms on welfare and the golddiggers married to millionaires, foot on banana peel.
Let me explain it this way: Remember how I said that most women aren't physically attracted to most men, right from the get-go, the way that most men are to most women? Part of that is because most men just aren't that attractive on the basis of looks alone (remember Elaine on Seinfeld saying "a woman's body is a work of art, a man's is simian, it's utilitarian, like a jeep, it's for getting around!). Often, a woman will have to find other reasons to fall in love with a man, usually based on a cluster of traits, often based on "good provider" characteristics. And in that process over time, she may aquire an attraction for him that exceeds any "love at first sight" experiences that she's had before (esp. many of the good looking guys are as "high maintainance" as good looking women, or have other character flaws. So with maturity, most women stop having LAFS reactions to "hunks" until they have some idea of whether or not he's a decent guy).
I don't deny that women today want their partners to be both good enough providers and physically attractive enough-- but usually it's a trade off in one direction or another, usually in the looks department, for one, there just aren't enough good looking guys to go around. Add to the mix the hypergamy of men (who want to "marry up" in terms of looks, as high as they can go), and you will find that women do compromise in the looks department-- they have to.
But as far as women being financially hypergamous, up to a point, a woman marrying a good provider (within her socio-economic station) is an act of good character on her part (and both her parents would agree). Do you think it would be better for women to put looks first? No. But as far as significantly "marrying up" financially, socially, that's something afforded to women who are either the most attractive or the most accomplished (usually both). Ultimately, I believe that most people who do marry end up marrying more or less their equals, in terms of looks and intelligence (and thus income potential). However, in church circles, where there are severe shortages of single men, the dilemma of settle vs. stay single is heightened.
I said: What I've noticed about "demanding women" is that they usually emerge as such long before the wedding ever takes place (was anyone surprised about Mills vs. McCartney??). And when a guy who's dating a demanding girl chooses to propose to her, what's the most common variable?? It's usually because she's more attractive than the kind of woman he'd ordinarily get to date. I think that most of these guys know what they're getting themselves into, like the challenge of trying to meet their high-maintenance expectations, and figure that the chance of the women bailing is worth the risk."
And you said: "That a pretty damning assessment of your gender: That the only women out there are either high-maintenance women or unattractive women (your thesis assumes there are no good attractive women for men to pursue). If you think most guys set out to marry a physically attractive harpie, then I have a big bridge in New York to sell you."
Actually, it's not a damning assessment of my gender, it's a damning assessment of yours! Just kidding...not your entire gender, just those who need to be with a "really, really" attractive woman, regardless of how high maintainance she might be. And no, I'm not saying that all attractive women are high maintainance, or that all high maintainance ones are attractive. Just that the overwhelming majority of the guys who end up in that situation know exactly what they're getting themselves into. The only ones I feel sorry for are the real omegas, the guy with the 85 IQ and no teeth who married the obese rolling pin thrower because no one else would have him (just as I'd feel sorry for disabled women who stay in abusive relationships, although women in that situation are more likely to leave now).
It's all in how it gets expressed. There's a whole continuum from mildly annoying to uncomfortably creepy to downright abusive. But why am I bothering to discuss anything as grey as a continuum with you? As far as you're concerned, there's only black and white.
Well, yes, inasmuch as you want to read back into the male gaze some grand conspiracy of sexism, there has to be some objective proof of such beyond the nebulous statement of "it's all in how it gets expressed." The feelings of a "reasonable woman" are still her feelings, nothing more.
If you're suffering so much from "gynocentric" male oppression and think being "the second sex" is such a cake walk, then why don't you have a sex change?? You've got the whole whiny victim thing, so essential you think, to the female persona, all you'd need is a bit of practice walking in heels.
Actually, someone did that in reverse and came to the conclusion that being a man wasn't a cakewalk and women aren't "all that and a bag of chips."
When it comes to workplace situations, they somehow manage to deal with it, just as most men deal with their own achilles heels of anger and aggression.
No, women are not dealing with it. They are running to the Nanny State to pass all sorts of laws limiting a man's freedom of speech and association.
And to that I say, they do. Especially now that women no longer have to marry men for financial needs, whether they are attracted to the guy or not. And I think that's why you have this blog. Your real complaint isn't divorce. I doubt very much that you've ever been divorced. It's sour grapes for not having had a kick at the can in the first place. Isn't it?
Sigh. Please look up the phrase "circumstantial ad hominem." I am not the one writing books complaining about how the opposite sex is "failing to lead" by not marrying members of my sex. Sour grapes, indeed, lady. This blog would have never existed if some folks didn't buy into the insane idea that men need to marry women in order to be pleasing to God. The stench of desperation is too much.
Your flip-flopping is noted. First you say that women have no choice. Then, when I call you out on it, you admit that women do have a choice today and then engage in a personal attack on me.
First you write:
For the most part, women have to make do with what's offered to them, especially when there's a shortage of men in the church.
Then you write:
And you said: "My oh my, for all the talk about men need to honest about their intentions, we see a little deception on the part of women about how they feel about the men they marry." But the thing is that most of those marriages will probably work out. As I said, women, for the most part, make the best of things, and hopefully growing to love the guy over time. Whereas, men don't pop the question to those they don't already love.
Which still doesn't deal with the question of honesty and forthrightness that I raise. And furthermore, you sound as if women are just "settling" -- just tolerating the men they marry. All the men they meet are just sooooo beneath them! What a wonderful, attractive attitude! And you want us men to value such women for their internal beauty?
Let me explain it this way: Remember how I said that most women aren't physically attracted to most men, right from the get-go, the way that most men are to most women? Part of that is because most men just aren't that attractive on the basis of looks alone (remember Elaine on Seinfeld saying "a woman's body is a work of art, a man's is simian, it's utilitarian, like a jeep, it's for getting around!). Often, a woman will have to find other reasons to fall in love with a man, usually based on a cluster of traits, often based on "good provider" characteristics. And in that process over time, she may aquire an attraction for him that exceeds any "love at first sight" experiences that she's had before (esp. many of the good looking guys are as "high maintainance" as good looking women, or have other character flaws. So with maturity, most women stop having LAFS reactions to "hunks" until they have some idea of whether or not he's a decent guy).
Well, after age 40, not many people of either sex are attractive on the basis of looks alone. Something to think about.
Ultimately, I believe that most people who do marry end up marrying more or less their equals, in terms of looks and intelligence (and thus income potential). However, in church circles, where there are severe shortages of single men, the dilemma of settle vs. stay single is heightened.
Hey, you said: "Especially now that women no longer have to marry men for financial needs, whether they are attracted to the guy or not."
If women want to boast about not needing men, then they need to STOP WHINING AND BLAMING MEN when Prince Charming doesn't arrive.
"inasmuch as you want to read back into the male gaze some grand conspiracy of sexism, there has to be some objective proof of such beyond the nebulous statement of "it's all in how it gets expressed." The feelings of a "reasonable woman" are still her feelings, nothing more."
Again, the same thing could be said about how YOU feel about "boys suck throw rocks at them" t-shirts and other peeves of yours that you take as "horrible treatment men receive at the hands of women.", as if men haven't made even more nasty sexist jokes about women.
"No, women are not dealing with it. They are running to the Nanny State to pass all sorts of laws limiting a man's freedom of speech and association." Totally ridiculous and unfair generalization.
"Sigh. Please look up the phrase 'circumstantial ad hominem.' I am not the one writing books complaining about how the opposite sex is 'failing to lead' by not marrying members of my sex. This blog would have never existed if some folks didn't buy into the insane idea that men need to marry women in order to be pleasing to God."
Sigh. Please look up the phrase "changing the subject". I have NEVER suggested that men are someone obligated to marry women in order to please God. Only that if they don't, they're in no position to complain when no one wants to take care of them when they're old-- when you really see the difference between single men and women.
"Your flip-flopping is noted. First you say that women have no choice. Then, when I call you out on it, you admit that women do have a choice today"
No flip-flopping here. Women may not have a choice in who pursues them, but they have a choice in who they turn down. You and others here have implied that the "reek of desperation" is about money, but it's more about the biological clock, which applies as much to women today as it did 30 years ago before the new reproductive technology (which, justly, has done nothing to turn back the clock, contrary to what some might believe).
So if a woman wants to have a family, she may be faced with some hard choices if her only appropriate suitors are those whom she feels little attraction (as is often the case that most women don't feel much attraction for most men). I know that sounds awful, as if women are "settling" for those "beneath them", but again, most do grow in their love and devotion to their husbands, valuing THEM for their "internal beauty", even if they had little attraction to them at the outset, which is in itself a kind of "internal beauty".
If given the choice between a man who she's attracted to but has as much or a bit less money than her, vs. a man who she's not attracted to but has more money, most women will choose the former over the latter, especially now that women are no longer as financially dependent on men. I will agree that it is a double whammy for men, but not one that's terribly new. It's just that the scales have tipped a bit more in the direction of looks.
"If women want to boast about not needing men, then they need to STOP WHINING AND BLAMING MEN when Prince Charming doesn't arrive."
Or better yet, perhaps men who whine and blame women for not NEEDING them anymore would do better to work on becoming someone the opposite sex would WANT. Men have been going after what they want (rather than simply need) for eons, so you're hardly in a position to judge.
Besides, wouldn't rather have someone who truly WANTS you, rather than simply NEEDS you out of material necessity?
So if a woman wants to have a family, she may be faced with some hard choices if her only appropriate suitors are those whom she feels little attraction (as is often the case that most women don't feel much attraction for most men). I know that sounds awful, as if women are "settling" for those "beneath them", but again, most do grow in their love and devotion to their husbands, valuing THEM for their "internal beauty", even if they had little attraction to them at the outset, which is in itself a kind of "internal beauty".
If given the choice between a man who she's attracted to but has as much or a bit less money than her, vs. a man who she's not attracted to but has more money, most women will choose the former over the latter, especially now that women are no longer as financially dependent on men. I will agree that it is a double whammy for men, but not one that's terribly new. It's just that the scales have tipped a bit more in the direction of looks.
Anon, you have this jaded idealized perception of men that is a result of either limited personal experience and/ or self-imposed ignorance. Anyone within an earshot can recognize it.
Or better yet, perhaps men who whine and blame women for not NEEDING them anymore would do better to work on becoming someone the opposite sex would WANT.
Let's rearrange this, please. It works both ways, y'know? How about {Or better yet, perhaps WOMEN who whine and blame men for not NEEDING them anymore would do better to work on becoming someone the opposite sex would WANT}.
By the way, men have "settled for" in the past, also, as a result of social pressure to marry or else be thought of as not "normal" or "he must be queer". Women do not have a monoploy on "settling for".
Again, the same thing could be said about how YOU feel about "boys suck throw rocks at them" t-shirts and other peeves of yours that you take as "horrible treatment men receive at the hands of women.", as if men haven't made even more nasty sexist jokes about women.
Two wrongs don't make a right, HOWEVER, the major and political difference here is that it's commercially AND culturally acceptable today to throw mud at men and watch movies where it's funny for women to kick men in the b*lls. Women love this stuff. See how far one gets with, "women suck, throw rocks at them".
If given the choice between a man who she's attracted to but has as much or a bit less money than her, vs. a man who she's not attracted to but has more money, most women will choose the former over the latter, especially now that women are no longer as financially dependent on men. I will agree that it is a double whammy for men, but not one that's terribly new. It's just that the scales have tipped a bit more in the direction of looks.
Wow. How exciting, this perception you have. You make relationships sound like a drag. No wonder men delay marriage. Additionally, I don't think there's enough attractive women out there worth becoming motivated for. Seeing as how love never enters into this grand picture of yours, what does a female have to offer in marriage that a man cannot find outside of marriage?
For the most part, women have to make do with what's offered to them, especially when there's a shortage of men in the church.
For centuries there's been a shortage of men in the church. So what? Everytime, someone comes along and thinks that this is a big issue. Nowadays, when men see this "settle for" attitude in women, I think the men have decided it's high time to push her away and become selective, also. Simply put, let the women get on Oprah and Dr. Phil and cry about how there are no good men out left to choose from. Boo hoo.
"I don't think there's enough attractive women out there worth becoming motivated for."
There's your trouble.
Gotcha.
At least you finally came clean with it.
Single Christian men who, despite a surplus of single women, claim that they can't find anyone decent, only implicate themselves as either omega men or just plain hung up on looks.
It's like admitting that you can't even shoot fish in a barrel.
Tsk.
Sigh. Please look up the phrase "changing the subject". I have NEVER suggested that men are someone obligated to marry women in order to please God. Only that if they don't, they're in no position to complain when no one wants to take care of them when they're old-- when you really see the difference between single men and women.
"If women want to boast about not needing men, then they need to STOP WHINING AND BLAMING MEN when Prince Charming doesn't arrive."
Or better yet, perhaps men who whine and blame women for not NEEDING them anymore would do better to work on becoming someone the opposite sex would WANT. Men have been going after what they want (rather than simply need) for eons, so you're hardly in a position to judge.
You are missing the point. If you think the purpose of this blog is about men whining about not getting a date, you came to the WRONG BLOG. Read the title: Scripturally Single. Capiche? I solemnly affirm the right of all women everywhere to pay attention to every single man on the planet except for me. Or if they want, they can reject men all together. Their choice. Does that make you feel better? No? What do you want from me or my regular male readers? I ask nothing from women such as yourself (I don't care how physically attractive you may be). So, what's the problem? Is the problem that I don't think women are necessarily sugar and spice and everything nice like your sisters in arms do? And even if women were that, are men obligated to want them? You conceded that men didn't need to feel obligated to women. So, again, what's the problem? Let's suppose all Christian men are nothing but omegas or Shallow Hals. You conceded that women don't need men anyway to be happy. So why are men required to change? In short, why are you wasting time trolling on my blog?
There's your trouble.
Gotcha.
At least you finally came clean with it.
You haven't got me on anything, babe. Your reading comprehension is impeccable. Did I complain about not FINDING anyone? I confessed to being as "motivated and selective" as the females with the attitude of "settling", and there's trouble? You're the one complaining about women not having enough choices in attractive men. Just because there's a surplus of women, by the way, doesn't excuse bad behavior, the dishonesty of "settling for less" without telling their mate, and neither does a surplus result in a higher percentage of quality females.
ROTFLMAO!!!
The gentlemen doth protest too much, me thinkest!!
The gentlemen doth protest too much, me thinkest!!
Ah, the old inverse proportion trick. Is this the best you can do? Am I to take this uncouth behavior as more psychological generalisations to add support to your case (whatever that is)? By this measure, I gather that someone who makes a big point of denying he is gay, for example, is probably gay himself, no? In other words, the more someone tries to defend themselves, the more they lose their credibility, thus the fallacy of poisoning the well. I'm not surprised by this coming from a self-righteous prig.
Of course, this fallacious manuever may shut the other person up, which is the intention, right? --but it probably won't change anyone's mind, nor should it. Then again, based on your poisoning the well approach, I'll take your arrogance for some deeply hidden insecurity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Nevertheless, try to keep in mind that often when people protest that something is true, it's because they really think it is true, and the truth in this instance matters to them. Speculation as to someone's intentions may bring a good hardy laugh, but it is both futile and irrelevant in judging the soundness of their sincerity. This type of ad hominem fallacy in which you give a dismissive psychological explanation for your opponents' arguments is what one would expect from a troll. Come to think of it, maybe I should be the one who is ROTFLMAO!!
Oy. This discussion merely reaffirms why I LEFT Christianity. Like many other MANLY men, I was disgusted with
the fact that the overwhelming majority of men I knew in the church were weak, whipped married men. Their women ran their homes, and the churches.
I find this nauseating.
Christianity has been completely undermined by Feminism, and don't believe for a minute that most Christian women don't embrace feminism. They do, and wholeheartedly. They're simply a bit more sneaky than their lesbian sisters. They say they aren't feminists, but....or they say they aren't feminists, all the while plotting to destroy their husbands in the divorce court.
I've known too many Christian men who have been devastated in the divorce courts by their wives, and too many Christian men who have found their Christian wives to be guilty of adultery.
No, I suggest you all read Ecclesiastes chapter seven, verse 28. KJV is okay, but NIV leaves no doubt as to what the verse is saying. But, I doubt it would help. as sadly, most Chrstian men have been so neutered they dare not question the nature of women.
Before us men go off putting all blame on feminism (I'm assuming most people here defending the men and condemning feminism are indeed men; otherwise-well you get the idea!), we do need to consider several things.
For one, I am siding with Josh Harris on this issue. It seems to me most of you (including the post, no offense) have totally misunderstood Josh, but not only that but seem to be denying male involvement and responsibility.
You must consider the context out of which feminism arouse. It was brutal, overbearing men that made woman subordinate to them (do you want that?) that drove woman to just "give up" on us irresponsible men. Yes, feminism is wrong, but it is no more wrong than a man being overbearing, or a man sitting back and taking no responsibility. Responsibility = authority. Likewise, feminism is wrong, and it is also wrong for woman to sit back and do nothing!
Harris has done his research: he has researched the heart, and this is what he found: no man leading.
Josh simply cannot just go about condemning feminism without addressing the heart and motives behind it.
Thank you :)
i would agree with the previous poster and add this to his comments: no one side is to blame for the feminist movement. both men & women bear the responsibility. i think harris was merely pointing out one side (the man's) to encourage men to be servant leaders (which the Bible teaches). he was not, in my opinion, exonerating women.
if you look in Genesis 2 (the fall of mankind) you will see a clear example of men's tragic flaw & women's. in verse 6, we see that adam was with eve when she was being tempted, but did not do anything . . . he wasn't deceived like eve. in other words, he failed to do his duty . . . to lead & protect her by serving her -- pointing out to her the lie. why? because the tendency of man is to be apathetic.
on the other hand, women tend toward struggling with submission (eve didn't wait to see what adam would do or say and then follow him. she went off and did her own thing.) they want security and for everything to be taken care of. so, one can see how these two weakness can create a vicious circle when one or both sides are not vigilant against these weaknesses.
this is no more true than it is today. women want security and feel they may lack it, so they go over the head of their husbands, which in turn makes their husbands say, "well, if she's going to do it, i'll just let her do it." so, the woman feels less secure (because what she really wants is for him to lead), and so she continues to take over a position that wasn't designed for her. and, the husband follows suit.
are feminists to blame for much of the problems in our culture today? you betcha. but men bear responsibility for that as well. i believe that was the point harris was endeavoring to make.
Post a Comment
<< Home