There is a great—and revealing—discussion of patriarchy happening over at Sigma Frame. Let’s take a short break from the ongoing series on justification to discuss it.

Over the last few months, I pointed out to Sharkly—time and time and again—that Christian patriarchy, by excusing male responsibility, doesn’t respect a man’s authority within his domain.

If a man doesn’t take responsibility for the good and bad that happen within his domain, then he’s not a patriarch. There can be no patriarchy without responsibility, regardless of the rights that do or don’t come with it. Making responsibility conditional upon rights received emasculates patriarchy.

In light of this, let’s see what Deti has to say:

Comment by thedeti
When your wife rebels, it’s your fault.

Well, this is something patriarchy advocates say.

“If you’re the family patriarch, you’re responsible for everything that happens in your household. You’re responsible for your wife’s disruptive behavior, your son’s criminal behavior, and your daughter’s s1utty behavior. If they’re misbehaving, that’s on you, patriarch, because you either didn’t instruct them well enough or control them tightly enough.”

This is something opponents of patriarchy like to throw out there, too.

Citation: thedeti, “The Absence of Actionable Knowledge is a Goad to Faith.” Comment #58467.

When advocates and opponents of patriarchy can agree on something, that is especially notable.

Where does the patriarch’s responsibility end?

Deti asks the critical question. Let’s see what he thinks:

I think that what patriarchy advocates have to respond with is that their responsibilities to protect and provide do not extend to insulation from consequences in the wider world for individual behavior, nor to absolution from accountability to God. Eve was morally responsible for her sin, directly answerable to God, without reference to anything Adam did or did not do.

First, no real-life implementation of patriarchy has ever in the course of history worked this way. No patriarchal male ever said “she had her own agency given by God, so I am absolved of my patriarchal responsibility.” For patriarchal authority to be anything other than a fake caricature of leadership, a patriarch must be responsible for his underlings even if his underlings also have moral agency. Consider how a murderer’s accomplices and crime boss may be legitimately punished the same way as the murderer who pulled the trigger. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.

Second, as I’ve pointed out before, if you require the wider world to give you permission to be in charge—especially if women are your rulers—then you don’t have patriarchal authority: you’re a cuckolded follower, not a leader or patriarch. The corollary is this: if God put husbands in charge of their wives, then they are charge of their wives regardless of what the wider world says or does.

The patriarchy on offer is logically incoherent. Deti continues (emphasis added):

The patriarch protects and provides, teaches and trains. Those under his authority are accountable to him for their conduct and he’s authorized to impose consequences. But they’re also individually accountable to society and individually accountable to God. So, no, the patriarch isn’t responsible to society or God for wives’ conduct or for adult children’s conduct.

Deti is arguing for multiple, simultaneous sources of accountability for a wife: her husband, society, and God. But notice how this notion of accountability works. A man’s wife is accountable—or responsible—to him. He has no direct responsibility over her whatsoever: it is all indirect. No matter what she does, he is completely absolved of any and all responsibility to her, including before God.

This is a very important observation! Deti cannot both claim that the patriarch isn’t responsible for his wife’s conduct while simultaneously claiming that he has responsibility for her conduct. And, thankfully, he doesn’t contradict himself. But, this so-called “patriarchy”—being completely devoid of responsibility—is completely devoid of any actual leadership or meaningful authority.

In the past, I’ve called this the soberly descriptive “weak patriarchy,” but “fake patriarchy” is probably more accurate. What Deti describes isn’t patriarchy at all.

But, notice that the “patriarch” can impose consequences. A “patriarch” has no personal responsibility at all for the behavior of his wife, but he can still punish her for it! This reveals what we’ve known all along: Christian patriarchy is about power and control, not about responsibility or leadership.

Proponents of patriarchy like to talk about protecting, providing, teaching and training, but at the end of the day they demonstrate no personal responsibility for the people they desire to wield authority over. Wives have responsibility to husbands, not the other way around. Deti’s own words make this completely clear: “the patriarch isn’t responsible to society or God for wives’ conduct.” With respect to his wife, the “patriarch” answers to no one, not even God.

This is equivalent to being a law enforcement officer. Despite clever marketing, the Supreme Court has ruled that LEOs have no legal responsibility to protect and serve. They have power over you, but have no duties at all to serve you, protect you, or have any responsibility at all towards you. But you have a lot of responsibility towards them in your interactions. You better obey their commands and not resist, even if their commands are unlawful. This is how these men view Christian patriarchy: patriarchs as family cops. But, unlike these proponents of patriarchy, even cops hang up their guns and badges and go home to their families. Most anyway. Cops are among the most likely men to physically abuse their wives or children.

Now Feeriker weighs in:

Comment by feeriker
Part of the problem is that Westerners have a very p!ss poor pusillanimous concept of Patriarchy that isn’t even Patriarchy. Western Patriarchy is sooo far gone and removed that it will need to be constructed from scratch.

One of the things that society (more specifically, The Law) will have to do is give Patriarchs MUCH more discretion and authority than any man today has. To put it bluntly, Patriarchs will have to be granted something very close to the ancient Roman Pater Familias in order to be effective in any way.

Citation: feeriker, “The Absence of Actionable Knowledge is a Goad to Faith.” Comment #58470.

What do patriarchs need? Do they need more responsibility? Nope. They need more power.

Not the full range of authority that this ancient position carried (they shouldn’t be permitted to kill wives or children, for example), but will otherwise their authority over their families will have to be pretty near absolute.

Why not? If you believe in patriarchal rule, by what rational basis should patriarchs not be given the right to kill their wives and children if they disobey? The Pater Familias had this right because the Romans understood that without the ultimate power of the sword you have no meaningful authority. The Romans didn’t give that power to the Pater Familias by accident!

Sharkly certainly thinks men should have the power to execute their children and wives:

Comment by Sharkly
I’d personally focus on getting men their power back, including that power. The compromising ones will always p!ss that power away later. But initially that sort of power would be incredibly helpful to quickly establish society’s obedience to husbands / fathers. Abraham had the authority to sacrifice Isaac, and Sarah called Abraham, “Lord”. I’m not sure why folks only want to go halfway back to God’s way. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Every human power structure can be abused. But if nobody has the power to execute the unruly then you get lawlessness and people who stubbornly defy the rules and yet continue to exist to spread their rebellion. Who is better to trust with the power to decide when to execute children, than the children’s own father? Would you rather yield that capital punishment power over your children to the church or to the state?

I can guarantee you that my wife wouldn’t have pulled a fraction of the crap she pulled if I had then been entrusted with the authority to put her to death for it. Why prefer lawlessness to empowered husbands? Who better to empower over a wife than her own husband?

Citation: Sharkly, “The Absence of Actionable Knowledge is a Goad to Faith.” Comment #58479.

The irony is that Feeriker rejects the very patriarchal cultural framework that the New Testament was written to (supposedly) match. How can you claim to follow Biblical Christian Patriarchy while rejecting the very framework that supports it? In what meaningful sense can you have laws that give near absolute authority to the patriarch without also giving them the power of enforcement? Do you recall this  earlier comment?

Comment by Sharkly
“For me “authority” has enforcement power.”

Citation: Spawny’s Space, “Man Up.” Comment #251624 by Sharkly

Without violence to enforce your will, you must rely on others to give you power voluntarily. But this is—allegedly—impossible.

Comment by feeriker
The problem is women – they certainly won’t voluntarily live under a patriarchy. It will have to be imposed on everyone by agreement or by force, more likely the latter, with everyone dragged into it kicking and screaming.

Then so be it. By the time the “cataclysmic societal collapse” runs its course, women will be all but begging for the protection Patriarchy offers. The biggest question mark right now is “how will the ‘cataclysm societal collapse’ prepare the men who survive it to be effective Patriarchs?”

Citation: feeriker, “The Absence of Actionable Knowledge is a Goad to Faith.” Comment #58471.

Feeriker argued for an ideologically impossible stance.When someone pointed out its impossibility, that force would be required, Ferriker then argued that “cataclysmic societal collapse” would leave women begging for patriarchy.

You might as well say that Patriarchy isn’t possible: husbands have no authority, husbands can’t get authority without force, husbands are not advocating force, and the only way that husbands will ever get authority is if society completely collapses and somehow, by some magical formula, patriarchal men and women come out on top.

Feeriker knows what men need—more power—but has no means to accomplish it. When someone challenged his proposal—that force was actually required—he had no meaningful response. This helps nobody and it isn’t a solution. Feeriker’s patriarchy is a nonstarter. It provides no hope at all to any man who wants a good marriage now.

Comment by Bardelys the Magnificent
I think the better question will be “why would men bother saving these heauxs?” If society collapses, chances are I won’t be doing very well, either. Surviving. Why would I take on dead weight when I’m barely staying afloat myself? Or if I manage to thrive, why would I share it with a sex that did everything it could to tear me down? Even if the men are able, they must first be made willing. I don’t see how women are going to be able to rebuild trust or sweeten the pot.

I’m not the only one who noticed that societal collapse is not a solution. If you were a single man who wanted to marry, would you trust Feeriker’s predictive abilities?

Comments by thedeti
See, this is just another reason men increasingly avoid women. All the responsibility, none of the authority and none of the benefits.

otherwise their authority over their families will have to be pretty near absolute.

“If I have to hang on a cross for you, you have to do what I say.”

What do patriarchal men want in marriage? Is it, as Deti claims, for both authority/power and other benefits? Or is it just the power? As I’ve demonstrated above, for those pushing patriarchy without responsibility the authority is the benefit. It’s like bad cops who abuse power because the excercise of power gives them a rush. This is why the purported answer to the bad marriage situation is more power to husbands. By implication, the more power husbands have restored to them, the better their marriages will be.

This is notably not the case.

Sure, there is one other benefit they want, ahem, but without increased power most can’t get it. If they can get that benefit without marriage and without power, they’ll do it:

Comment by Red Pill Apostle
If you can pull it off, why sign up for the responsibility if you can get the benefits for free?

Citation: Red Pill Apostle, “The Absence of Actionable Knowledge is a Goad to Faith.” Comment #58481.

Since those other benefits can be easily had—by some men—without the application of power (or being married at all), the only reason to get married at all would be to have more power over women. Thus we can divide patriarchal men into two categories: (1) those that can easily get the benefits of marriage without actually being married, those who only care about power; and (2) those who can’t—or couldn’t—get the benefits of marriage, even if married, and think that having power will solve their problem. Either way, power is their preferred solution.

The discussion of other benefits is just a smokescreen. My frequent readers here are well aware of this.

Now let’s see what Sharkly has to say:

Comment by Sharkly
Take the ‘Christ Pill’ — Accept your burden of suffering and bear it with faith and patience. Let the rest of the world go to hell.

Take the ‘God Pill’ — Restore a Patriarchal structure of society in which Men are masculine Heads and Women are feminine and submissive to their Heads.

Unfortunately, the churches are all fighting on the side of Feminism. They can’t speak of a husband’s “leadership” without putting the word “servant” in front of it. They teach men to allow their wives to defraud them.

Citation: Sharkly, “The Absence of Actionable Knowledge is a Goad to Faith.” Comment #58474

Jesus himself made it clear that being a leader (“first”) requires one to be a servant. It is the very reason why he washed the feet of his disciples. The above comment indicates that one cannot lead by anything other than an exercise in raw enforcement power.

One problem with some proponents of patriarchy is illustrated here: that of suffering and perseverance. In 1 Peter, the book of the New Testament most concerned with suffering, it talks of suffering (1:6,11; 2:19-23; 3:14,17-18; 4:1,13,15-16,19; 5:1,9,10), trials (1:6), test (4:14), anxiety (5:7), submission (2:13-24,3:1-7), insults (2:23, 4:14), rejection (2:4,7), harm (3:13), fiery ordeal (4:14), and end (4:7). Perseverance—in a Christian and marital sense—is enduring suffering and persecution for the sake of Christ.

But when many proponents of Christian patriarchy read 1 Peter, they only see male leadership and authority and female subjection. The quoted comment here indicates the same: men are victims and patriarchy fixes it. But Peter talked of future glorification after death as the solution to earthly suffering. Do you find it curious that the proponents of Christian patriarchy above are not talking about how death and resurrection as the solution?

They teach men to “turn the other” cheek to their wife’s rebellious attacks. And those deluded fools who say, “my church isn’t like that”, are lying to cover for their greatly whoring churches.

No patriarchy has ever been established or maintained by “turning the other cheek”. Power/Authority is seized and maintained through the threat of punishment/violence. When churches go along with the world’s opinion that wives should not be disciplined by their husband’s they make the wife’s rebellion ultimately uncorrectable. (they work lawlessness) Because she cannot be forced to submit without force. And if she cannot be made to submit, then you live at her mercy. You no longer have any authority, only trickery, psychological manipulation, withholding, verbal cruelty, threats and bluffing are left as a husband’s tools.

The Bible never instructs husbands to hit or otherwise punish their wives. It never gives an imperative to women that they obey their husbands. Yet, Jesus explicitly told us to “turn the other cheek.” Sharkly finds the explicit words of scripture untenable and instead relies on inferences to words that the Bible never says.

The reason some say that women should voluntarily submit is because that’s more-or-less what the Bible actually says: it’s not a command. Sharkly finds this to be completely unacceptable, so he invents a theology and forces scripture to conform to his personal opinion. It’s a Christian patriarchy based on making stuff up and putting words in God’s mouth.

The church gradually killed patriarchy within Christendom by disclaiming the man’s categorical superiority (his likeness to God: Father & Son) and thus his natural/divine right to rule over his wife, who was created categorically inferior to all men. And also, by completely disarming the husband to defend himself and his headship.

First, headship isn’t a biblical concept. It’s an historical anachronism. The Greek word kephale doesn’t mean leader or authority, but changing language led people to read that back into the original. Though I’ve pointed this out to Sharkly, and he’s never been able to refute it, he maintains the fiction that Paul pushed Christian patriarchy and that this rightful patriarchy was removed at a later date. This is historical fiction. Once Sharkly told me a tall tale about the development of women’s rights in the Roman Empire. I proved him wrong by citing the historical evidence and he had no response.

Second, Sharkly believes that only men were made in the image of God and that Jesus didn’t restore the image of God to men. He holds an extremely fringe viewpoint with minimal scriptural support: by no deductive reasoning and only limited inductive reasoning.

Third, as I’ve pointed out in “It’s a military term” and “Eve is trying to subvert her curse,” men do not have a natural/divine right to rule over their wives. This is an untenable position based on subjective inference rather than deduction or sound exegetical reasoning.

My father was able to bitchslap my mom’s rebellion out of her, and that rare occurrence kept their marriage working. If my father had not been able to give that course correction, things would have grown far worse, and they would have divorced.

Sharkly thinks that men should hit women if they are displeased with them. A (former?) Anabaptist man who is willing to strike his wife is being disobedient to Christ. Keep in mind that a completely average man in the 50th percentile is stronger than 90% of all women. Striking a woman, especially in anger, is a terrible idea and likely to do serious damage. Most men and women do not appreciate the inherent strength differences between the sexes.

In my entire marriage, and my parent’s marriages, and my grandparent’s marriages, my uncle’s marriages, and my cousin’s marriages there has not been a single time when a husband has needed to strike his wife. Not a single instance. They’ve nearly all managed to not only avoid divorce, but to thrive in their marriages.

It took women less than a generation to apply the fact that law-abiding men are no longer permitted to discipline them. You marry an undisciplined girl, and then you’re not allowed to discipline her either. The recipe for complete human lawlessness is: Let only him who is without sin conduct the discipline. and enforce the laws.

It remains the case that the millions of non-patriarchal happily married couples somehow manage to have long, happy marriages without resorting to husbands punishing their wives. The problem with patriarchy is that it doesn’t match observed reality: it’s claims are falsified by the actual evidence.

Islam is patriarchy-compatible, Christianity 2.0 is not. If you want to live under God’s holy order of patriarchy you either need to convert to another religion that allows patriarchy, or you will have to completely reform a religion that currently teaches against patriarchy’s fundamental foundation. Or you can come out from within the whoring churches and be separate.

Or none of the above. For example, one could have a marriage based on mutual unity, love, respect, affection, friendship, etc. There is no reason to base a marriage on authority and division, nor does the Bible ever suggest that it would be a good idea.

Sharkly continues:

As Boxer said: As long as you sheep keep giving those churches your money, they’ll keep preaching the same Feminism. Their tune won’t change until all the money dries up for preaching it. For as long as a church simps can get paid to spout husbandly servanthood and appeasing womankind, they’ll keep doing it.

It’s funny that Sharkly cites Boxer on this issue. It is Boxer himself who—on this very blog—mocked the manosphere’s absurd stance on Patriarchy:

Without the right of paterfamilias to take into marriage anyone he wants, then there is no paterfamilias. There is no patriarchy without the paterfamilias.

The minute a man decides to marry a skank-ho single mom, she is no longer a skank-ho single mom. She becomes the honorable affianced of the paterfamilias, and one can not occupy both of those roles at the same time.

A public declaration of the “sin” of the wife would be an insult to the man who marries this woman, aside from being ridiculous. One might evade shame with a wedding, but s/he doesn’t evade “sin” this way. If sin is a private matter, and repentance is possible without an earthly mediator, then there’s no way of knowing who has or hasn’t really repented anyhow.

The bottom line is that by doing what Dalrock suggests, one negates the whole concept of patriarchy. I know his heart might be in the right place, but ask yourself if any such thing (announcing all the past misdeeds at a wedding celebration) ever was customary in classical antiquity (either among the Jews, Greeks, Romans or anyone else). No authentic patriarchal culture ever had that as a more, and for obvious reasons.

When Boxer talked of church simps, he was referring to manospherian men like the revered Saint Dalrock. So too, when Feeriker talks of paterfamilias without the power of the sword, he’s putting himself into Boxer’s box. When Sharkly spit on my patriarchal authority by telling me how to raise my children and how to interact with my wife, he did the very thing that Boxer criticized. You can’t insult the paterfamilias—as Sharkly did to me—for his patriarchal right to run his family as he pleases, while simultaneously professing faith in patriarchal rights.

What Deti, Feeriker, and Sharkly describe isn’t found in classical antiquity precisely because their “biblical” concepts of patriarchy are laughably illogical and anachronistic.

Why does Jack come over to my blog to tell me what I must write about? Why does Deti try to put words into my mouth by telling me what words I must use in my rebuttals? Because they don’t care about patriarchal rights, they care about power and control. That includes wielding power over not just women, but men as well. In doing so, they undermine the very patriarchy they claim to support.

Why do I have no respect for Christian patriarchy? Because the people who promote it have no respect for it.

Comment by Naturally Aspirated
The patriarchy originated because women needed men to provide and care for them. until that scenario returns, the patriarchy is dead.

Citation: Naturally Aspirated, “The Absence of Actionable Knowledge is a Goad to Faith.” Comment #58486

Here one commentator inadvertently admitting that economic prosperity and low crime renders patriarchy obsolete. In order for patriarchy to be relevant again, we need a return to no economic prosperity and frequent violence against women. That “cultural collapse?” Apparently the manosphere only dislikes suffering when it happens to (favored) men.

After I wrote the article above, an anonymous Sigma Frame reader said this:

If a husband / parent has a responsibility FOR someone, then the corresponding truth is that the wife / child has a responsibility TO the husband / parent.

In other words, if a husband has to be responsible for providing, protecting, and loving his wife with understanding, which is his responsibility FOR her; it is her responsibility TO him to respect him and submit to him.

If a parent has to be responsible FOR training a child in the way he must go; it is the child’s responsibility TO the parent to obey the parent.

That is why the Bible gives instructions for BOTH sides of the relationship.

Also if a person is responsible FOR someone, that person automatically becomes the AUTHORITY for that someone.

And if you are responsible TO a person, you have to treat that person as YOUR AUTHORITY.

Jack responded:

It’s so far out of the ballpark of reasonability, but if you point this out, people will think you’re trying to excuse men from their responsibility. More gaslighting.

To which we will repeat the words of Deti spoken two days earlier in the same comment section:

the patriarch isn’t responsible to society or God for wives’ conduct

So, objectively and deductively? Not gaslighting. Try again, Jack.


  1. My entire divorce is a matter of public record. For a fee you can have all five years of it transcribed for yourself. And if you choose to do that, I’d love to get a copy, I might even pay a portion of the expenses so that we both could have a copy. I want a copy but can’t afford it right now. They claimed it would be thousands of dollars even just for the two days of the “final” divorce hearing.(there were yet other hearings regarding my inheritance held after that) They don’t want me to have a copy because they know I’ll boldly publish excerpts of their wickedness.

    I was bereft of my children first via false accusations and then later the cunt-court claimed that me publishing my testimony telling the truth of what really happened, served as evidence that I wasn’t acting in the best interest of the children, who should presumably be left to believe all the lies of an unrepentant whore against their father. Although I still don’t believe either of my sons have read either of my sites to this day. Their mother and her church have instructed them not to read their own father’s testimony.

    However, I never laid a finger on my wife. I was almost as blue-pilled as you, a real upstanding churchian, before she moved out. She’d have called the police on me if I had even threatened to strike her. And she did in fact beat on me in an apparent attempt to get me to strike her. She even wrote to a friend around that same time that she was wishing I’d hit her so that everyone would be on her side.

    Anyhow I don’t care to waste my time debating with you, Derek. I’ve learned that it is a waste of my time and that you just resort to lying when you’re losing.

    On a different note, I’d welcome you to make a backup of my two websites, in case they should ever get taken down.

    Also, Jack is only letting a portion of my comments through at his site right now, and somehow most of my formatting is removed in that process. In one of the comment screen shots above, part of that is me quoting the OP, but that isn’t entirely clear since my formatting indicating that got removed.

    And you do realize that you’re a hypocrite, don’t you? You quote me and others, but then when I quote Boxer you act like I shouldn’t be quoting him since we’re not in agreement on everything. I detect that some of your rhetoric is inflammatory just to try to get me to tangle with the tar-baby some more.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “I’d welcome you to make a backup of my two websites, in case they should ever get taken down.”

      I can try to do that. I’ve been working on backing up another site over the last couple of months, but I can add that to the list. If you have an export of the data that you can email me, that would dramatically speed up the process.

      “In one of the comment screen shots above, part of that is me quoting the OP, but that isn’t entirely clear since my formatting indicating that got removed.”

      That’s my mistake. I should have checked the reference. Give me a few days and I’ll update this post to address this and some of the other information that you’ve provided.

      “when I quote Boxer you act like I shouldn’t be quoting him since we’re not in agreement on everything.”

      You can quote Boxer. I find it amusing that you quoted him the way you did, without intending to be ironic, not that you quoted him at all.

      ” I detect that some of your rhetoric is inflammatory just to try to get me to tangle with the tar-baby some more.”

      Nah. The reason I addressed Deti’s and Feeriker’s comments first is because they were more relevant. I actually considered leaving yours out, but ultimately left it in because it was on-topic and relevant. I find your views on marital punishment to be abhorrent and unbiblical, but you don’t have to debate me on it. In fact, I’d recommend that you not attempt it.

  2. “Most men and women do not appreciate the inherent strength differences between the sexes.”

    LOL It sounds more like you’re just plagiarizing the strength-differential setup for “victim Vs. oppressor” from a critical-gender-theory textbook. Does that apply to fathers spanking their sons too, or only to your goddesses?

    You spout too much silliness for anyone to ever really correct it all, and you’re too stubborn to learn any lessons perceived as contrary to your goddesses.

    Are you still mad that I said I wouldn’t let my kid bounce an eraser off my head and be treated like a clown in my own home? That seems to have stung you. But if you’re truly pacifist and believe you’re without any real enforcement power, then that’s where you’ll live.

    “… Jesus explicitly told us to “turn the other cheek.” Sharkly finds the explicit words of scripture untenable …”

    I find those words to be hyperbole in a larger section of hyperboles. I’ve actually decided I’m going to break down and write at least two posts on the most common misunderstandings in Matthew 5. This weekend I’m hoping I can put out the first part regarding, “looking is 100% of actually adultery, so rip out your right eye and cut off your tool of masturbation (your right hand).”

    But lord willing later I’ll cover Jesus telling the Pharisees, “do not resist evil” and to assist people in defacing themselves,(“turn the other cheek”) and to help thieves to rob them completely naked, if they want to be as holy as God. Jesus wasn’t literally requiring us to be as holy as God.(an impossibility) Like His Father’s law, Jesus was pointing out that we cannot be as holy as God and earn a place in heaven. Thus, even the law-abiding Pharisees would need a spotless human sacrifice to be slain on their behalf.

    Matthew 5 points out that God showers His blessings on both the good and the bad, the deserving and those who in nowise should be given those blessings, so if you want to try to outdo God’s standard, you’d have to help both thieves and abusers to take advantage of your mercy. Yet you’re too stubborn to admit Jesus’ use of sarcasm, even as you sit there reading this with your right eyeball and preparing to type out more foolishness with your right hand.

    Can you not see that the Mother of Harlots is spiritually retarded and that she taught you lies? One of those being to contradict Jesus’ command to buy a sword.
    FWIW I see the “sword” as meaning to arm yourself with arms to use when fighting is necessary. I’m well-armed, albeit not with swords. But I do have a 15.5″ Bowie knife that might be considered a short sword, which I only mention for the sake of defusing further theological accusations of hypocrisy. Oh never mind, I just remembered I’ve got a machete too. Wikipedia considers a machete a type of sword.(single edged) So, I’m good. 🙂

    1. Derek L. Ramsey


      “LOL It sounds more like you’re just plagiarizing the strength-differential setup for “victim Vs. oppressor” from a critical-gender-theory textbook. Does that apply to fathers spanking their sons too, or only to your goddesses?”

      That’s quite the inferential leap you are making.

      It’s really quite straightforward. The physical differential between men and women is so extreme that it is laughably difficult for a woman to actually seriously hurt a man using only her body. It’s why multiple female cops are so frequently unable to physicall subdue single men who resist arrest (and so have to resort to deadly violence). Until modern times, no one would ever have considered making women into cops or soldiers, roles where physical violence is frequently required.

      You simply do not know me. My reasons for discussing this topic have to do with evopsych and HBD. I’ve even started writing about these topics on this blog, but you seem to be unaware of it. Just the other day I saw this posted:

      Adult women of peak physical fitness can’t even compete physically with 14 year old boys. It’s why you’ll never see a female play in MLB, NFL, NBA, or NHL. It’s why boys teams frequently crush women’s soccer teams and why when men’s teams play women’s teams they noticeably reduce how hard they play so they won’t hurt the women (or embarrass them worse).

      Did you know that the bone density of females is notably less than males? It’s why, despite logging significantly fewer hours, females have more automobile injuries than males, regardless of who is the driver. Women are significantly more fragile than men.

      For thousands of years humanity has acknowledged these basic biological facts, but you seem to find way more cultural and theological significance in this than I do. That’s entirely on you.

      Since everything I wrote above above is Kryptonite to critical-gender-theory, I must conclude that you don’t know anything about that topic. You appear to be just as under-informed about this topic as you are under-informed (see here and here) about the early writers and the image of God. But of course that doesn’t fit the false narrative that you’ve constructed about me, so I guess you can just keep making stuff up to keep you from having to actually address what I write.

      “You spout too much silliness for anyone to ever really correct it all”

      Yeah, you’ve made that claim here before, and this just as silly as the first time you said it. The reality is that you can’t refute even small parts of what I write, so you are forced to claim that the reason that you can’t refute what I write is because there is too much to refute.

      Mostly what you bring to the table is inferential reasoning—educated guesses and opinions—rather than address my arguments deductively. Your approach means you can’t meaningfully address what I wrote, and since I write a lot, you just fall farther behind.

      If you want to see how to handle someone who makes too many claims to be addresses, see how I handled FishEaters here. I found a way to respond that didn’t involve making excuses. Moreover, had I wanted to, I could have addressed her wider points anyway. I still am able to do so.

      Propagandists are people for whom more—information, evidence, citations—is a threat. Truth-seekers have nothing to fear from volume, but see only opportunity. The normal heuristic for telling if something is propaganda (or someone is pushing propaganda) is if exploring more evidence or acquiring more knowledge is considered a threat.

      “That seems to have stung you.”

      Your comment to me re: that experience is the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this blog. I like to snip and highlight funny bits. There is a very good chance that I will be quoting that years from now. You’re probably the only one reading this blog who doesn’t see the joke. Remember this?

      “After I read your words, I decided that I would take your admonition to Man-Up!™ and insist that my daughter call me “Sir!” moving forward. So I headed to her room. As I opened her door, she looks up at me and says, “Yes sir?” Well played, daughter, well played.”

      Do your kids call you “sir?”

      You are sooooo smug, you actually think you scored a point by calling me a clown in my own home, but the reality is that you made a clown of yourself—not only by self-refuting patriarchy, but also by leaping to a ridiculous unfounded inference—and it’s so funny that it’s become a mini-meme in our family conversation. Unlike your hilariously absurd caricature of the actual reality, my kids are great: well-behaved and respectful, but also funny and sarcastic. To wit:

      “Yet you’re too stubborn…”

      Since you are unable to engage in ideas without attacking the person, I’m not going to address your Sermon on the Mount exegesis. My responses to you will stay mostly polemical until you clean up your behavior. If you want a response, write a comment that avoids all ad homimem, if you think you can.

      You are free to post here, but don’t expect me to engage with your ideas as I did in the past. You had your chance and you flushed it down the toilet by arguing in bad faith by refusing to address only my ideas. Go elsewhere if you want engagement with your abuse of others and your false accusations. I’m sure you can find willing listeners at Sigma Frame or Spawny’s Space who are willing to listen to whatever things you’ve convinced yourself are true.

      “Can you not see that the Mother of Harlots is spiritually retarded and that she taught you lies?”

      Your statement makes no sense. I’m not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and no one would mistake me for one. You can read this lengthy thread regarding the Whore of Babylon.


      1. I’ve never claimed that women aren’t generally weaker, so you’re not arguing with me there. I was saying that the existence of a strength disparity doesn’t automatically make men wrong or abusive (as per critical gender theory) for using that advantage that God gave them, to facilitate the ruling role that God also gave men. The fact that you consider women as practically “untouchable” by men, shows your worship. We’re not worthy! /S

        However, when the Bible calls the wife the “weaker vessel” there is no clarification that it is making some generalization which is usually the case, but not always the case. So, I personally believe it is referring to some categorical inferiority or weakness of being. Just FYI.

        I’m not generally writing here to get a response; I’m usually responding directly to your attacks against what I’ve written elsewhere, for the benefit of others who might otherwise just believe you. I never wanted an argument with you, you chose that. If my chance to argue with you has been “flushed down the toilet”, I’m not sad to see it gone.

        If the Catholic (universal) Church is the “Great Whore” (of Rome), then it is also the “Mother of Harlots”. And her daughters, born out of her, are also harlots. Committing immoralities with the ruler(s) of this world. They share in propagating her lies. e.g. the apocryphal Pericope Adulterae, (making Jesus the father of God-ordained-cuckoldry) and literally teaching people to “resist not evil”, even though Jesus Christ Himself was shown (resisting evil) making a whip and flipping over the tables of the money changers to drive the merchants out of the temple and hurting their livelihood. And we are told to “resist the devil”. Is he not evil?

        After you repeatedly said I should be following the steps of church discipline with you, when I asked for the contact information for your church elders, you suddenly reversed course, didn’t provide their contact information, and called them cucks for bending over for the rulers of our nation, regarding the Covid flu church shutdown. So, it would seem that you shouldn’t have trouble even spotting your own church’s prostitution (immorality for hire), if you can call it out, when it suits your purposes.

    2. Derek L. Ramsey

      “You spout too much silliness for anyone to ever really correct it all, and you’re too stubborn to learn any lessons perceived as contrary to your goddesses.”

      You don’t get to make those kinds of false accusations. Six months ago you brought forth the following argument which is directly applicable to the OP topic:

      “Rome arose built on paterfamilias, and cum manu style marriages. Later wives and women were emancipated and given legal independence from their husband’s control. And eventually Rome fell.”

      But this is a tall tale of the development of women’s rights in the Roman Empire leading to the fall of the Empire. I proved you wrong by citing the historical evidence and you had no response.

      It isn’t that I’m overwhelming you with silly arguments or complexity, it’s that you come here, make bold statements, and then when I prove them wrong you abandon the field of discussion.

      You blame me for writing “too much” when you can’t even be bothered to respond to my arguments to your own statements. Remember how I hounded you for months before you finally admitted your mistake regarding the Hebrew of Genesis 1:27?

      Getting you to admit your mistakes is an arduous process taking months of badgering. Meanwhile, I’ve already edited the OP to fix the errors that you pointed out in your first comment above. That’s the way an honest person admits that they made a mistake: acknowledges it and does something about it.

      You don’t get to casually dismiss my presentation as if it were refuted without actually refuting it. Stop trying to gaslight the readers here.

  3. professorGBFMtm

    ”Why does Jack come over to my blog to tell me what I must write about? Why does Deti try to put words into my mouth by telling me what words I must use in my rebuttals? Because they don’t care about patriarchal rights, they care about power and control. That includes wielding power over not just women, but men as well. In doing so, they undermine the very patriarchy they claim to support.”

    Why do I agree with this statement so much?

    Mainly things like the following said by someone who comes here.

    ”Sharkly says:
    7 November, 2023 at 6:54 am
    I might also add that after the Professor had first contacted me and we were emailing back and forth, it was often hard to reach him due to how fast he was cycling through different burner email accounts. Sometimes he’d start up and then ditch new email accounts twice a week. I’ve used my current email account for well over a decade. His online evasion tactics don’t seem like normal behavior for a retard. At the time I just gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was perhaps paranoid and delusional, imagining people would want to track him down. However, in hindsight it seems more like something a troll or an investigative agent would be doing to cover their tracks and stay ahead of being found out. ”

    I only changed my e-mail once the whole time I talked with him(because I got locked out of it ) Then he stated in public ” Sometimes he’d start up and then ditch new email accounts twice a week.”

    That’s a low blow(as he said to me while falsely accusing me of getting a site reclassified as a porn site that was known for posting what most would call porn(i.e. topless pics)when I wasn’t even there, for someone who is supposedly pro-MEN & growing ”respect for all MEN?” and ” celebrating MEN-the image and glory of GOD”.”

    Also hyperbole and sarcasm. i have said many obvious hyperbolic and sarcastic things and was called a liar and deceiver.

    Also, remember I don’t argue/debate i only make statements-especially at this stage of the ‘sphere.

  4. professorGBFMtm

    Also, i will say this on behalf of my former brother.

    ”Sharkly’s views on violence in marriage makes me question the veracity of him being the self-proclaimed hero/victim in his own divorce story. I’d, frankly, like to see those court filings to see if he ever hit his wife. If he lost custody of the kids because he hit his wife, that’s certainly not the story he’s telling everyone else.”

    I don’t believe Sharkly ever hit his wife or any woman for that matter- nor do I think most in the ‘sphere or outside it either.

    i stood up for Sharkly at Spawnys in 2021 when someone questioned him for saying his ex-wife’s name in public, which could endanger his son’s safety is why I couldn’t believe he would turn on me as no one else stood up to defend him, Jack nor his other true red friends.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “I don’t believe Sharkly ever hit his wife or any woman for that matter- nor do I think most in the ‘sphere or outside it either.”

      What does one gain by promoting striking a woman? Why would any man in the ‘sphere promote this if he isn’t willing to actually go through with it (and likely do prison time for it)? Doesn’t that just make that person a hypocrite?

      This is just weak patriarchy: “the feminist government told me that I can’t be a patriarch, so I’m just going to whine and complain, but ultimately comply.”

      1. You seem to lack imagination. Obviously my marriage is over and done. So, I’m not crusading for myself. I’m arguing for what is right, for my sons and possible further descendants and for the rights of other men. My father was able to maintain his marriage using tools that I was then later denied the use of.

        If you want to make a male analogy, use the discipline of a son. If things go the way they seem, pretty soon we’ll lose the right to spank our children as the Bible instructs. Should we not argue to keep that right, and to have the right returned if it is taken away? If I obey the laws to stay out of prison, yet argue for the Bible’s position, does that make me a hypocrite, for keeping myself out of prison. Folks like you would slander me either way, whether I chose to follow my conviction and go to jail, or to stay out of jail and campaign for the restoration of fathers’ rights.

        What makes you declare women untouchable? The Bible says “a rod for the fool’s back”. Are there no foolish women? You worship women above men, and the words of God, and that is why you can’t imagine your goddesses ever rightly receiving discipline from their husbands. The fact that you find it unthinkable shows your worship of them based upon their sex. Nothing you can say in praise of women, and making men out to be abusers changes any of that. It is just propaganda for women to not be held accountable through immediate physical discipline. But ultimately your side’s Duluth Wheel of power and control, rules that a husband having any sort of control over his wife is an abuse of the goddess.

  5. Derek L. Ramsey

    After Sharkly’s response, I’ve removed the questionable paragraph from the OP. In my experience, people with things to hide are afraid of new evidence coming to light. But people who are innocent embrace new evidence. Sharkly has done the latter here, so he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

  6. Derek L. Ramsey

    Posted earlier today:

    This is a common politician’s tactic to deflect (usually well-deserved) criticism. It is an ad hominem.

    Rather, it is sufficient merely to expose falsehoods and bad ideas. No one is obligated to propose alternatives, especially because there might not be any known or viable solution. The Red Pill does not have solutions. It has a few tactics and strategies that might be helpful in certain temporal situations, but it does not (and can not) be a general solution to suffering.

    Outside of Christ, there is no solution to suffering. Seeking (or offering) a solution when none can exist is an error that cannot be fixed by offering an alternative solution (which doesn’t exist). To wit:

    Here is an opportunity for a good object lesson. Rather than saying “OMG! HE’S A LIAR AND A DECEIVER, SEE HOW HE PUTS WORDS IN MY MOUTH!” I will merely note that my (supposed) belief that a solution exists is clearly wrong: there exists no formula for which one can—by causation—guarantee a successful marriage. But successful marriages can and do happen with significant regularity and that these marriages are, in fact, strongly correlated with mutual affection. One might describe that affection as love, friendship, duty, or (more broadly and biblically) chesed. Moreover, successful marriages are not correlated with patriarchy.

    In any case, the general call for solutions that the manosphere makes isn’t genuine. Were I to propose solutions, the Manospherian Sages would just shoot down my ideas anyway. It’s happened every single time in the past, so why would I expect anything different? This is in large part why I don’t bother trying to propose any such solutions. Almost nobody wants them.

    Some mock the idea that “Christ is the answer.” And in some ways they are right. If you follow Christ, you will be persecuted. Your suffering will increase. Fundamentally, there is no reason that this persecution and suffering cannot come from your spouse. This is the point of 1 Peter 3: finding ways to live with the oppression you receive from the unbelievers and sinners in your midst.

    As I point out time and time again, the solution Christ provides is received after death.

  7. Derek L. Ramsey

    [NOTE: This is a collected response to this comment, this comment, and this comment]


    “After you repeatedly said I should be following the steps of church discipline with you, when I asked for the contact information for your church elders…”

    Did you disclose that you were not asking in good faith? Did you also disclose that asking for the contact information of the church elders was itself a direct violation of the process of church discipline given by Christ?

    Let’s review.

    By your own actions, you invalidated the applicability of the process and engaged in bad faith in a badly designed scheme that would only please a Pharisee. At no point did I ever tell you that you must follow the steps of church discipline to completion. In fact, I told you that you should drop the issue, forgive, and stick to the ideas. But, absent that, you were still obligated—by Jesus, not me—to follow Christ’s words regardless. Moreover, your stance on judgment is not biblical. In particular, you can’t demand that I go back and follow the process of church discipline with you after you’ve already completed the process by passing judgment.

    So, I’d appreciate it if you’d acknowledge to the readers that—of the four step process described in Matthew 18—you started with the final step 4, then tried to get me to next do the penultimate step 3, all while skipping the first two steps and rejecting the alternative process, forgiveness.

    Next, can you remind everyone that you justified your disobedience by citing Christ—the very Son of God—who judged people by a different process than he chose for his followers, as if you were Christ himself?

    From the moment you—by your words and actions—rejected me as a brother in Christ and you threw me out of fellowship with you, you showed to the world that you are not interested in restoring our relationship. You have continually rebuffed every effort I have made to alter that state. For all intents and purposes, you declared us enemies and no longer brothers in Christ. I must, in obedience with Christ, treat you as a tax collector and a pagan: I have no debt or obligation to you.

    You cannot restore our relationship until you repent of your disobedience, and I won’t participate in a loaded process that does not and can not lead to you being restored to Christ’s church or to me. When you are ready to truly seek restoration, you can find me here waiting.

    “literally teaching people to “resist not evil”, even though Jesus Christ Himself was shown (resisting evil) making a whip and flipping over the tables of the money changers to drive the merchants out of the temple and hurting their livelihood. And we are told to “resist the devil”. Is he not evil?”

    You seem confused about the Anabaptist heritage regarding Christ’s prohibition on violence. Please review the evidence.

    “The fact that you consider women as practically “untouchable” by men, shows your worship.”

    Your logic is obviously invalid, and you know it. I can’t believe you’d even make this suggestion, which just goes to show how far you’ve sunk into bad faith ad hominem.

    For Christians, as the link above shows, Christ forbid all violence, whether man-to-man, woman-to-woman, woman-to-man, or man-to-woman. The word you used, “untouchable,” implies that the problem is who is (or isn’t) receiving violence, rather than who is (or isn’t) doing the violence. Indeed, by using the loaded term “untouchable” you fallaciously beg-the-question that there exists an acceptable use of such violence (e.g. against men).

    That you would take your fallacious reasoning and use it to attack me—one who is obedient to Christ’s explicit commands to do no violence and to turn the other cheek—as an idolater just shows how far you have fallen from truthseeking.

    Christ forbid Christians from doing violence, he did not forbid Christians from being the recipient of violence. Indeed, it is expected that Christians—male and female—will be the recipients of violence, but not from other Christians.

    I’m concerned that you keep trying to take the rights due only to Christ and acting as if you have a right to copy them as if you were Christ himself. As you know, Christ was permitted to do violence, just as God is permitted to do violence, because violence is God’s domain. Vengeance is reserved for God and his representatives in government. It is explicitly forbidden to Christians. You have no right to do violence just because Christ did, just as you have no right to ignore the Matthew 18 protocol just because Christ followed a different path. You are not Christ.

    “If you want to make a male analogy, use the discipline of a son. [..] And if you say that a husband cannot be trusted to discipline his wife, then you’re also making the case that he isn’t really qualified to discipline kids either.”

    The Bible talks of the restraining and benevolent discipline of a parent to their child. It never speaks of the husbands disciplining their wives, just as it never commands husbands to rule. There is no analogy to make here, no logical inference that can be drawn between the wives and children.

    I know you wish the Paul had told wives to obey their husbands, just as he told children to obey their parents, but he didn’t. So you just put those words onto his lips anyway. I’m not worshiping women just because you don’t like what Paul said. The error is entirely yours, not mine.

    We can all read that you approve of striking a woman for the purpose of humiliation, contempt, disrespect, anger, and abuse:

    Nothing about that is biblical. If you were to reason by analogy, as you suggest, we’d be forced to conclude that both you and your father are categorically unqualified to physically discipline both wives and children. If you ever actually did that to your wife or son, you’d be considered an abuser and a moral monster and have earned whatever prison time you received.

    “Folks like you would slander me either way”

    We can all see, in your own words, precisely what kind of person you really are. There isn’t any reason to make stuff up about you, what is true is quite enough.

    Slander is a false statement. But it is not just any false statement, but one in which the person making the statement knows that it is false and knowingly does so in a way that damages another’s reputation. Your problems with me are entirely of the normal type: you simply don’t agree with me on some point or another. If slander were mere disagreements, it would be slander every time you said anything about me, including accusing me of slander, of which I am obviously not guilty. In point of fact, you’ve demonstrably slandered yourself by your own words. That’s what those links and comments above show: you condemning yourself in actual fact.

    For example, when you called me a clown publicly for the way I raise my children, you self-refuted your own view of “father rule” patriarchy, and so damaged your own reputation and credibility. I didn’t have to say anything, your words speak for themselves.

    For example, when you called disciplining a wife “bitchslapping,” when you called wives “the help“, and when you said that wives are categorically inferior to their husbands, you demonstrated that you meant every inflammatory word of it and thus destroyed your own credibility, even alienating those who believe in sober-minded physical discipline as a form of proper correction.

    On a number of occasions, I’ve asked you to provide citations of some of these supposed slanderous offenses, and you’ve been unable to do so. Your accusations against me are vacuous. I’ve demonstrated by reason and evidence exactly why they were false. You keep coming back to them, and I keep refuting them, which is why I can quote so many citations and you can’t provide any. It’s a one-sided debate.

    “If the Catholic (universal) Church is the “Great Whore” (of Rome)”

    The Catholic (universal) Church isn’t the “Great Whore.” The Roman Catholic Church is.

    “Also, Jack is only letting a portion of my comments through at his site right now”

    Is it viewpoint censorship or are you being censored because you go off-topic and make irrelevant personal attacks? If the latter, then you brought it onto yourself. If the former, bring the evidence and I’ll join you in condemning it.


  8. “Jack is only letting a portion of my comments through at his site right now”

    Sharkly is on moderation because he continually invokes the Biblical injunction of the de@th penalty for sexually promiscuous women. He is free to write about that on his own blog, but he won’t, probably because he knows he’ll be kicked off WordPress.

    Whether that is censorship or not is up for debate.

    1. Jack,
      I do call for the restoration of God’s holy death penalty against adultery by either sex at my site. A quick word search popped up a couple posts directly mentioning that:
      Another post of mine also advocated for the Biblical death sentence against false prophets. I’m sure I’m not the only person who doesn’t avoid teaching God’s published law on WordPress.

      And thanks for finally explaining that reason. I had thought it was because I argued with a couple of your favorite’s. (Scott and Oscar) And that you, as proprietor, were putting your finger on the scale by letting them run their mouths against men like me, while not letting me respond to them in kind.

      I can try to remember to avoid sharing that particular truth at your site if that is your main fear regarding my comments. I had also assumed that you were probably also opposed to the fact that I consider all organized religion and established churches to be unfaithful to God, and advocate leaving them behind, to worship in spirit and in truth. Whereas some others seem to imagine that their particular brand of straying church is the answer to all the mess that the USA, the most churched nation in the world, now finds itself in, on all these current capitulated church’s watch. If our Father’s law is odious to them, are they really of Him?

    1. Liz

      “What do you think?”

      I think Deti made an excellent example of moving the goalposts in his subsequent response.

      “Almost no one can stay together that long”

      Well here is a direct example….

      “They probably aren’t happy! And also even if they say they are most people wear masks…”


      It has been my experience over the years of reading the sphere that some of the big names wore the thickest and most deceiving masks of all. Can’t think of a sphere charone at this point who was anything he claimed to be. But those are the voices his entire paradigm revolves around.

      Liz out

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        “The divorce rate is low because I’m sure divorce is strongly discouraged and would probably result in excommunication. But again – staying married doesn’t equate to happiness, contentment, or satisfaction. It certainly doesn’t equate to “man is getting most things he wants from his marriage”.”

        For sake of argument, let’s accept Deti’s claims.

        This is indistinguishable from patriarchy, where women are forbidden from choosing divorce. If what happens behind closed doors is the only thing that matters, then whether the state, church, and/or local community enforces the divorce prohibition is irrelevant.

        If the manosphere got patriarchy codified in law, I suspect they would remain unhappy, discontent, and unsatisfied (if already so). Adding enforcement power—violence and force—to a bad marriage isn’t likely to produce happiness, contentment, nor satisfaction.

        “The beatings will continue until morale improves”

        Since men and women have not changed their nature in two thousand years, if Deti is correct, then monogamous lifelong patriarchal marriages in scripture were also secretly unhappy, discontent, dissatisfied, and, most importantly, celibate. Why else would Paul have said not to deprive one another if it wasn’t a common problem?

        So much for patriarchy!

        But, as Oscar notes, Deti’s argument is flawed:

        Oscar describes what should be obvious.

        Five years ago I was telling men to move. It’s one of the few pieces of advice I’ve actually repeatedly suggested. Apparently, I’m a true visionary! (Not really)

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          Deti noticed that I more-or-less agreed with Oscar. I think he meant this as some sort of trap or gotcha admission, so let’s talk about it briefly.

          “My wife had been improving on her own, but being around a bunch of women who submit to their husbands has made a big difference.”

          This is so obvious that I am surprised that anyone would or could disagree with it. Humans are social creatures who often base their behaviors on what the “mob” does, to some extent or another. Wives are certainly included in this. Surrounding your marriage with a lot of other good marriages is just good sense.

          This is why I tell people to move.

          “So, women are to submit to their husbands. Why? Because it helps marriages. (And God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, communicating through Paul, commands it. But we don’t need to mention that little “unimportant” thing.)”

          Paul told husbands and wives “[be] submitting” oneself to the other, so if wives are submitting this will result in improved marital outcomes. This, also, should be rather obvious.

          Anyone who has read any of my rather extensive work on the subject realizes that all Christian spouses should display proper submission towards each other. I would never say that a wife should not, categorically, be submitting (in the sense Paul meant it) to her husband.

          Moreover, my agreement with Oscar does not invalidate the fact that Paul’s use of the participle “submitting” is in the middle voice and that the “command” is unambiguously not, grammatically, an imperative. I would prefer, for a change, to just focus on our common ground. Frankly, if Paul’s instructions are being followed, abstract theological or doctrinal reasons become secondary anyway.

          Furthermore, in light of the above, it will surprise no one that I disagree with Deti’s subsequent reasoning (here and here):

          “These are not suggestions. These are commandments. These are directives. Wives and husbands are commanded, required, impelled, compelled, to do these things. Their failure to do so is disobedience and rebellion to God.”

          Deti has shown no interest in addressing the substance of my previously presented arguments on that topic, so unless someone doesn’t understand why Deti’s argument fails and needs another explicit refutation, I’ll just leave this where it is and people can read and decide for themselves.

        2. Liz

          Bad company corrupts good character’ (1 Corinthians 15:33).

          It is inevitable the people one surrounds oneself with are influential over time.
          If it is true of friends it is even more true of the family one lives with.
          I’ve mentioned this many times throughout the years…my advice to women is to try to be a positive example in the home…every family has troubles and it matters a great deal how one handles those troubles.
          Some things, once said or done, can’t be unsaid or done.
          I noticed a change in me when I was online too much and surrounded myself with negative people…and I am a really, really positive person by nature.
          If I woke up to a person who resented me every day, I can’t imagine what that would be like.
          It would also kill me inside if Mike spoke of our marriage (and our children) as a mistake…which is what a person who advises their children never to marry or have children is doing.
          Anyway, I explained to Mike some of the stuff that has been said recently and he advised me to stay out of these blogs entirely, so this is my goodbye.
          Wish you all well.

          1. In 1 Corinthians 7:26-28 Paul advises against marriage, and thereby against having any children as well. Although I haven’t advised my children that way, I would not presume ill parenting upon those men who have.

            It is entirely possible to admit your own relationship mistakes without making your kids feel unloved and unaccepted. It just takes a bit of careful explaining, and evidence of your love. My father felt it was best never to discuss any marital mistakes with his children, as if there were none, and as a result I feel we kids were far more prone to making marital mistakes. And of course, he still had the patriarchal leeway to correct his wife’s rebellion, when it reared its ugly head. I only had the options to go to jail, endure it all, or get divorced.

            My ex-wife CONSTANTLY returned me evil for my good, starting on the way out of the wedding reception. I chose to endure it while appealing to churches for help. The church was usually generally too emasculated to rebuke my ex-wife. I ended up getting divorce-raped, in spite of having lived an upright life of righteousness. And had my sons taken from me, alienated from me, and even had her church coaching my sons to turn against their own father, for my published condemnation of that church’s wickedness.

            Obviously, my testimony isn’t a positive one, but a cautionary tale. You may not be the person who needs to hear it, but I’d be doing a disservice to the young by not sharing it honestly. Gilding that fiasco helps nobody except the wicked ones who abused me, using my own religious beliefs, that I held at that time.

            You haven’t walked in those men’s shoes. So, while it may be easy to label them as “bad company”, and they might not be the right company for you, there are young men who might be spared the trouble (that the Apostle Paul also wanted to spare folks) who definitely can benefit from their warnings, even if not every comment is theologically sound. The churches are full of BS, and yet people think kids should go hear from them. I myself try to correct a lot of things voiced within the Christian Manosphere. But ultimately it is a place intended for men. Vaya con Dios.

  9. Surfdumb

    I think it’s harder than it’s ever been in my life to be married, so there is truth and learning available to what they both said. I’m not looking for disagreement and hope both guys would pray for my perseverance and my wife’s hard heart.

    My church has stats very similar to Oscar’s, yet they encourage and strengthen my wife’s strongholds.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey


      I appreciate your comment, especially its nuance. You show wisdom. All I’ll say is that I am mediating on it and don’t wish to say anything else, because you know how abrasive I can be and I don’t want to wreck it. I do have one question though.

      “My church has stats very similar to Oscar’s, yet they encourage and strengthen my wife’s strongholds.”

      What do you think is behind the low divorce rate? Oscar attributed a submissive attitude in his case, so I presume in your case it is something else?


  10. Although you’re quite a smart fellow, Derek, sometimes in print, you seem to respond with lengthy screeds over things others don’t really believe.
    You had to know or suspect that I felt zero duty to ever obey your church’s elders when I asked you for their contact information, and that I was only asking in case you felt some. If you’d have listened to them, then it was worth a shot, ‘eh. But I suspected that the process you were trying to hold me to, was a process that even you didn’t honor, and that turned out to be the case when I pressed the matter. So as far as I’m concerned, I proved my point about your hypocrisy.

    My position from the beginning is that you can’t portray me as a false teacher publicly and then expect me to spend months arguing with you about it privately and not defend my ministry publicly against your public attacks. You wanted to post that I teach fallacies in public and then require that I argue with you vainly via private emails in my own defense. Regardless of how smart you are, that’s flat out dumb!

    But since you seem to insist that is the way of God, from here on out I request that any word you might think to say against me or against my teaching should be done by private email to me, so that I may be schooled by your wisdom without offense. Meanwhile, I’ll still contend publicly, since I’m still not convinced of your belief. Sound fair?

    Hopefully you are commenting for the benefit of others, because even when I see a comment is about me, I sometimes only skim your lengthy comments and certainly don’t visit all your links. Although you may not believe it, I really don’t have the time to battle everything you say regarding me.

    I have zero shame about saying that husbands should be allowed to discipline their wives if they need it, much like their children, who are even more defenseless and less able to stick up for themselves. If a father can be trusted to discipline a young child, who really has no recourse, being unable to argue in their own defense, then the risk of him abusing a full-grown woman and having it go unreported and unnoticed, is far less. Wouldn’t you agree?

    If he’s not even fit to discipline a woman, how could you be foolish enough to trust him to discipline children? But If God not only trusts fathers to discipline young children, but instructs fathers to not spare the rod, then you can see that it is God’s will that men be given the authority to discipline those in their care, even the most vulnerable.

    You can ramp up your colorful words and your “righteous” indignation, and all I see is a guy protecting the honor of his goddesses. LOL How dare you, a mere man, lay a finger on my goddess! /S

    I’m off the Feminist plantation and way beyond the point where you can shame me that I’m somehow unworthy to punish wayward women. They’re not goddesses to me, they’re nature’s defilers of men. (Revelation 14:4)

    And your whole doctrine of complete nonresistance is misbegotten from the misunderstood words of Christ. I did open your link about nonviolence, and it cites the oft completely misunderstood Matthew 5 in the first sentence. and not much else in the way of scripture. besides the “live by the sword / die by the sword” general proverb. Thats a whole lot of suffering and lawlessness permitted by some misunderstood sarcasm. And responding to you here is only delaying me from posting to set that misunderstanding straight.

    Remember, Jesus did tell His disciples to make sure they bought a sword. (Luke 22:36)

    John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? 12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

    The amazing thing for you pacifists must be what Jesus didn’t say. “Peter! Where on earth did you get such an evil weapon! I swear to y’all, by my own omniscience, I had no idea Peter had that sword on him! Where have you been the last three years, Peter? Don’t you know we teach total nonresistance?” /S LOL

    The Bible mentions swords over 400 times and never mentions that we shouldn’t own them for our own defense, and even our Lord Jesus told His disciples to sell their garment to buy one.

    Sad to break it to y’all but Matthew 5 is full of hyperbole and y’all took the sarcasm as literal.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          Huh, you’re right. I’ll have to fix the users. Keep in mind that this is a work in progress and won’t ever be a 100% mirror without access to a corresponding wordpress site dump. But that issue can be fixed easily enough. I just wanted to get the articles over as soon as possible, while this issue can be fixed any time after the fact.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *