One of the axioms of the Manosphere is,
Why is this important?
For a man, this is a confirmation that a woman trusts him, submits to him, and is under his domain of authority.
….
OTOH, if a woman does NOT care to kiss or have her breast grabbed on the first date, it does not necessarily indicate a lack of attraction. She may be a modest and chaste woman who is wisely drawing a boundary, biding her time, and doing her own vetting for a husband. Just because this type of woman is rare does NOT mean they don’t exist.
But as Sir Red Pill Apostle said, a man has to press those boundaries in order to know her reaction.
According to Christian Patriarchy, an unmarried woman is under the domain of her father. Under this frame, she must obey her father in everything (where “everything” means “EVERYTHING”). For as long as she remains unmarried, no other man has any claim of authority on her.
For another man to demand that such an unmarried woman submit to him—to break the rules for him and him alone—he must usurp the authority of her father without marrying her.
The biblical rules no longer apply to him. Christian Patriarchy is abandoned.
In “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” the man was instructed not to take from her that which was reserved for the husband and wife. He was not to take from her until she was his, right and properly. In light of the Manosphere’s rejection of Joshua Harris’ book, I find it deeply ironic that it is the Manosphere leading the charge against Christian patriarchy.
What do you think? Should a man throw off and discard the boundaries that God has established in order to demonstrate to his potential future wife the value of boundaries? I guess we should all follow Sigma Frame and PRESS THOSE BOUNDARIES HARD.
This isn’t unique to Sigma Frame.
Remember when Dalrock disrespected a man’s patriarchal right to make a wife out of whoever he chooses? This is the same Dalrock who obediently yielded his authority (and credibility) to a group of leftist men and women rather than risk the consequences of doing the right thing. So much for “father rule.”
Remember when Sharkly, champion of Patriarchy, tried to usurp another man’s authority over his own wife? This is the same Sharkly who asserted the necessity of striking one’s wayward wife, but wouldn’t do it himself out of obedience to the feminist State (or else wouldn’t admit that he did). So much for “father rule.”
Remember when the cheering section…
…all agreed with Deti that Patriarchy is only valid if you get permission from the women and other men, from the State?
Bullshit. That requires men to assert authority when they cannot. It’s not men’s fault that women are empowered to sic the state on them. Men are now to the point that the only recourse they have for a wife’s intractability is divorce and forking over half of everything they’ve worked for.
God forbid a Patriarchal man take full responsibility over his own domain without constantly making excuses and shedding agency. As we all know, a man’s authority before God is derived from—and conditional on—whatever human governments—including female rulers—say. Right? So much for “father rule.”
As all of the Christian Patriarchs are apparently hypocrites who don’t practice what they preach, I suggest we follow their example and join them in abandoning Patriarchy. So much for father rule, adieu, adieu!
On the other hand, if your only recourse to human sufferings and trials is to abandon God’s teaching “On Divorce,” then it will be logically consistent to abandon Christian Patriarchy as well. So, perhaps not a hypocrite after all, but simply not a member of the body of Christ instead. I don’t have enough information to tell which it is.
If you have an explanation for the apparent hypocrisy, weigh in below. Until then, I’m going to continue pointing out that the proponents of Christian Patriarchy think that the rules of Christian Patriarchy don’t apply to them.
“As all of the Christian Patriarchs are apparently hypocrites who don’t practice what they preach, I suggest we follow their example and join them in abandoning Patriarchy. So much for father rule, adieu, adieu!”
“On the other hand, if your only recourse to human sufferings and trials is to abandon God’s teaching “On Divorce,” then it will be logically consistent to abandon Christian Patriarchy as well. So, perhaps not a hypocrite after all, but simply not a member of the body of Christ instead. I don’t have enough information to tell which it is.”
“If you have an explanation for the apparent hypocrisy, weigh in below. Until then, I’m going to continue pointing out that the proponents of Christian Patriarchy think that the rules of Christian Patriarchy don’t apply to them.”
WHY IS THIS SO?
These guys started out as self-admitted bluepilled ”duped” feminists and only took on the label of Patriarchy to be seen as against what they really believe as Sharkly’s Father(as i was told) used to say ”A MENZ convinced against his will is of the same mind still.”
“I don’t have enough information to tell which it is.”
Sharkly himself has said Jack is a libertine( Fedpill and Bluepill ”nice guy” code word for a feminist) like bgr=matt perkins.
IOW?
Go to AskFeminists
r/AskFeminists
12 yr. ago
ithoughtwewerecool
I’m a PUA and a feminist, but here’s what I don’t understand.
I don’t think many feminists see the reasons behind why guys like me become PUAs. This is not born out of an objectification of women. This is born out of frustration and a misunderstanding of sexual politics.
I was reading most of the replies to TofuTofu’s book, specifically what you’re all calling “rape.” I think you’re taking it a bit out of context, because of a willful ignorance towards r/seduction.
This is a community that tried to do everything right when we were teenagers and got shut down cold. Maybe we weren’t confident enough, physically attractive, and “just being ourselves” wasn’t opening any doors.
Theoretically*, everybody has a right to decide who can and will touch their body. But frankly, when you’re doing everything “right,” just being you, asking permission to do everything within reason, it doesn’t just get mundane, but you open yourself up to becoming a giant doormat.
I would think that with such an introspective community, r/feminism would at least attempt to deconstruct why we do the things we do, instead of condemning us as demons. We’re not. We’re people. We just really want to have sex. Badly.
Anyway. This will probably get downvoted or deleted. In any case, I needed to get this out before I exploded.
Keep fighting the good fight.
*A further explanation. http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1gpu04/im_a_pua_and_a_feminist_but_heres_what_i_dont/canpjc8
scartol
12y ago
Stuff and nonsense.
I’m not the best-looking guy in the world. You cannot possibly tell me anything about getting rejected, feeling alone, crushing self-doubt, or a crippling sense of inadequacy. I was the poster child for striking out in my teens and 20s. I’ve got tales of being rejected that you wouldn’t believe, and my stories of desperation would make you blush.
But somehow I refused to accept that I had some inalienable right to take control of women, assert myself over their social interactions, or rent their bodies. I kept to my belief in humanity, mutual respect, and patience. I refused to let my frustrations and sadness violate my true beliefs. Today I am happily married to the most amazing woman on the planet dudes.
There are three reasons for my success, neither of which are related to the hideous pathology that is the “pick-up artist” phenomenon:
1. I have been a duped feminist for decades. By reading and hearing the stories of women (and men) who have been affected by violence — specifically rape, battery, and harassment — I have come to understand the true nature of pseudo-masculine pathology. This has helped me to avoid it in my own life, which has resulted in stronger authentic friendships with women, better romantic relationships, and a successful marriage now entering its seventh year.
2. I have had lots of actual confidence. Not the artificial rush of adrenaline that comes from successfully manipulating another person into the boudoir, but honest self-esteem sculpted from worthwhile accomplishments and positive, mutually-beneficial interactions with other people. I was able to look at a woman who rejected me and think: “Well, her loss” without giving in to the kinds of thinking I so frequently see on r/TBP and r/PUA.
3. I kissed the last remaining remnants of Patriarchy in me goodbye once I found the lawless and amoral hypocritical red pill genius leaders of the ”Christian Patriarchy” Manosphere.
I don’t think you’re a demon, and I don’t see anyone else making such a claim either. (cf. JaySmooth on who you are vs. what you did
) But I despise the mindset and recommended activities of the PUA approach, because it belittles women and (this is crucial) makes men into troglodyte simpletons.
I refuse to accept that’s all men can be. I refuse to accept that the painful yearnings of sexual frustration — and, again, I know all about those — should reduce us into hucksters and frauds or tragicomic tradcons. I refuse to accept that there’s no way to be open, honest, compassionate, and happy. (I’m living proof.)
I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things, and I’m happy to answer questions or converse further. Good luck and stay human
u/xxjosephchristxx avatar
xxjosephchristxx
12y ago
Edited 12y ago
Theoretically, everybody has a right to decide who can and will touch their body(as they do themselves). But frankly, when you’re doing everything “right,” just being you, asking permission to do everything within reason, it doesn’t just get mundane, but you open yourself up to becoming a giant doormat(as that Dalrock fellow would say feminists say).
Are you seriously suggesting that being honest and taking a little time to ask “Do you wanna fux homegirl or boi?” before you try and fux someone is too heavy a burden to afford people their ‘theoretical’ right to decided who touches their body(as they themselves do) and how?
I don’t know where you’re coming from, but asking folks I’ve dated if they’re in the mood has made my sex life neither mundane, or me a doormat.
”3. I kissed the last remaining remnants of Patriarchy in me goodbye once I found the lawless and amoral hypocritical red pill genius leaders of the ”Christian Patriarchy” Manosphere.”
No wonder Sharkly says he and the lawless and hypocritical ” holy order of Patriarchy” are making an impact.
I guess nothing has changed in 12 years.
“I kissed the last remaining remnants of Patriarchy in me goodbye once I found the lawless and amoral hypocritical red pill genius leaders of the ”Christian Patriarchy” Manosphere.”
Lawlessness and hypocrisy is precisely what they are advocating:
“I don’t know where you’re coming from, but asking folks I’ve dated if they’re in the mood”
So many in the Manosphere are disproportionately INTJ. Rather than communicate like a neurotypical socially normal person, they’d suggest doing this instead…
…in order to figure out if she is in the mood. It’s utter lunacy.
Its also a little odd that all these men are highly successful, have an IQ in the regions of Einstein, are jacked, perfect human specimens, have no problem getting IOIs, they are “better than you…..at everything” (eat your heart out Martha Stewart) and frankly if they were “just listened to” there would be no problems in the world.
In their world, the “re-education” camp guards instead of swastikas will have a picture of Trump and The Bible will be only that verse about women submitting to men.
As long as they get attention, they will keep spewing what at one time was “okay” advice, Compared to now………..
In the end, its surprising…..but really no, its not surprising, if indeed a man is being honest with himself. Especially the young “christian” man they are imploring that they love and want to help….
You see, I fell into this “red pill” manosphere when “church” was not giving answers or very little help. We can all “agree” in theory that this is a true statement for many men.
The rub in the end is, that these men dont want to help you. They love seeing other men driving sideways. Spinning their wheels. Stuck in the proverbial ditch. “oh, what we suggested isnt working? You have not tried it hard enough, long enough. Did you know that Job suffered? How come you cant live with that? You like being a weak man.”
The complex words, the psychobabble. The Axioms, the subset upon subset of situations. The if / only and then statements. The complex charts, treaties, stats made to fit their narrative. I have done enough stats in my professional career. You can make any situation “in your favor” by moving a decimal point or applying the ten thousand deviations they use (made up or otherwise) to make your stance “infallible”
The incel man, or the guy who just was never lucky-at-love gets more frustrated, he lashes out or leaves….and then is accused of “not loving Jesus enough” or “not accepting all the amazing gifts Christ gave you and is greedy” or “just didnt want to put the work in”
(coming from men who never had an issue with girls liking them, or dating)
And the clincher “this is a faith of suffering!”
YOUR suffering not theirs. And if “suffering” has ever happened to them, it was always the fault of a woman / women. Women who have no agency, cant be held accountable, cant help what they do, are under full dominion of their father, or satan or their girlfriends, or social media. Women who they vetted but she “tricked” him (of course, but women are not smart or capable of this).
Truth be told, all these men who claim “purity” and “virtue” and “morals” are the ones who cannot keep their jeans buttoned up. They then blame the woman for being “too easy” or “corryupted” but they justify their actions by being “tricked” or “Jesus gave men a sex drive”
Jesus was wholly God and wholly man. He kept himself out f that situation easily. How? Prayer. Trust in the Father. Understanding that the world to come would not care one iota about this.
Even Jesus said “there is no marriage in heaven”
I dont think the rewards of the eternal life will be “how many women you bedded / how many gave you IOIs and how good your game was at age 20 v 35” In fact, I am confident that those things will not be rewarded.
My mother once said to me in high school…..I was getting ready to go back to the academy…..Tie askew, full head of hair, blazer on, and shirt untucked…..I didnt want to go back. I was bullied ferociously. This was probably early 1988
“Dear” My mother said gently putting down her needlepoint on her lap, “Promise me you wont kill yourself until you are at least 25. By then you will understand that that this isnt the end all of life. You’ll be surprised of what you thought was important now at 17 and how at even the age of nineteen. It isnt. Besides. These ruffians. Stand up to them, avoid them if you can. What are their names?”
I rambled off a few names….
“Never heard of any of them. They cant be that importatnt in this world.” She then got up, walked to me, kissed me on the cheek, told me to “stop this grumbling and carry on” and “I dont think any of these other boys you go to school with have stopped the world yet. Call home when you arrive back in your dorm to let me know you got there safely. Dad and I will drop some money in your account in the next few days.”
She was right. As hard as it is for a 17 year old mind to comprehend.
Same with the Red Pill. All these grown men thinking they are still in high school or college or on the make, when most just need a space to make themselves feel better than the 99% of men who happen to stumble in.
Same with the Red Pill. All these grown men thinking they are still in high school or college or on the make, when most just need a space to make themselves feel better than the 99% of men who happen to stumble in.
It’s true. Scott even admitted back in April/May ’21 that if it weren’t for him being married with children, he would be ”on the make.”
IOW?
All these ”Christian Patriarchy” ”RP Genius leader” -types want to be seen as the GrandFatherly image that Doug Wilson has while in actuality being the loud mouth ”beat up ALL the EVILS MENZ WHO ABUSED MY WIFE BY FORNICATION BEFORE I FORNICATED WITH HER” Mark Driscoll-{BUT he was already well-known mainly by ANAKIN NICEGUY’S November’09 https://biblicalmanhood.blogspot.com/2009/11/amir-alerts-yours-truly-to-stupid-post.html post about him-”Amir gets the hat tip for this: Motte Brown has posted a video of “cussing pastor” Mark Driscoll talking about manhood. I wanted to make a response to the post but Boundless’ website would not accept my comments. Motte obliquely mentions “niceguys” in his post. I wonder who he had in mind.
A couple of problems with Driscoll’s rant:
1. Driscoll needs to stop using “Lord” and OMG as interjections. Such indifferent uses of the designations for Deity are irreverent and possibly a violation of the prohibition against taking the Lord’s name in vain.
2. The realmannspracht, anti-male cheap shots, shaming language, and extrabiblical, cultural understandings of manhood. Sorry, but contrary to Driscoll’s functionalism and misuse of 1 Cor. 11:7, manhood is not dependent on “producing” (just as God’s deity is not dependent on Creation).
3. Throwing the bit in about being married. Getting married is not necessary to be an adult. Did you see anything in the Bible about John the Baptist getting married? I rest my case.
4. Belittling the serious issues men have with the modern church. Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. Keep it up, and men will be sure to stay even further away from church.
5. Belittling Christian men. See #4, buddy.
Granted, Driscoll had a lot of good points (myth of adolescence, men to need to be responsible, men need to be resolute and bold for Christ, etc.). Even my readers from the Roissysphere will love his mention of “Game.” Sadly, his good points were derailed by his overall lack of insight not only into lives of men but into other truths in the Word of God.”-YEAH SAME with the tragicomic tradcon trolling horde of ”Christian Patriarchy” ”RP Genius leader”-types who have been trolling GBFM & THE TRUE washed in the blood of JESUS & MEN who followed HIM & ONLY HIM above their feministic bodily cravings(these ”Christian Patriarchy” ”RP Genius leader”-types think the Song of Solomon plus King David’s adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah the Hittite is the real gospel,the pennacle of MANhood & live their lawless lives in accordance with them and the philosophy of Sodom,Gamorrhah and the Adamite denomination of gnostic thought as does their Father Satan & Mother Feminism ) Patriarchy, for nearly 15 years.}
) in the sphere before DALS ”trolling” of him in late 2011-13.
i also have some mainly too-late advice for ”Jack”.
1. When God does you a huge favor and Miracle and sends MOSES, JESUS, AND GBFM to your site, don’t be an a-hole dic(k)tator like you were (obviously)with NovaSeeker and ArchAngel.
2. You shouldn’t have gotten Sparkly to Photoshop(like he did by censoring that nude female pic at your site in early 2021-yeah go back and delete it, i have the copies troll) that K9 Spawny alert from November 2020(i noticed you haven’t had any guest posts at Spawnys since then hmmm…maybe the above number 1. applies heavily here?-i know FB, Cill & Spawny check their page hit stats-they know the GREAT times fully ended there when i stopped being there like you and Sparkly do too from 2021 onwards- just as much as you ”Christian Patriarchy” ”RP Genius leader”-types do, while scrambling to latch onto the latest trend )
3. You wouldn’t have to pretend ”lots of anonymous ”happily married” women agree with us” to your audience now if you hadn’t run off Ame, Liz, and Elspeth from SF and Spawnys with your troll patrol of Sparkly and Deti.
If MOSES, JESUS, and GBFM have an explanation for the apparent hypocrisy, they should weigh in below. Until then, I’m going to continue pointing out that the proponents of Christian Patriarchy think that the rules of Christian Patriarchy don’t apply to them.
The nonsensical, verbose, and confusing while making voluminous comments and posts from…
Wayne
Brian Forbes
biblicalgenderroles
Matt Perkins
Derek’s does not require user info, but judging by the nonsensical and CHRIST-hating quality and style of the writing, I would say “Jack ” is the same person who writes nonsensical, verbose, and confusing long screed word salad trolling posts and comments such as the following(from today)…
Useless(until you see my 140 i.q. brilliance that is!SHINING THE WAY FOR YOU IN A LEFTY NON-”Patriarchal” WORLD & SOCIETY) Word salad Foreword
The MAJORITY of women DO want to marry “someday”. They are looking for a husband, but ONLY AFTER they have “experimented” a bit. This is even true with supposedly Christian girls, unfortunately. Those girls are not god-fearing women. They’re just worldly chickadees who claim to be Christians for whatever reason like for ”Christian” g@y porn or the BDSM like MOI used to that got my site’s success destroyed.
But here, I am talking about young, pure, marriage-worthy women- who before this past summer with the Oscar & Radix Fidem takeover of SF-I said didn’t exist as Deti still says at Spawnys: AWALT-ALLWOMENNARELIKETHAT, NOT NAWALT-NOTALLWOMENARELIKETHAT as I preach now mainly cuz of John Providence, CatacombResident and Oscar’s bullying of MOI saying ”THOU WILL GET HUSBANDS FOR OUR DAUGHTERS LEFTY OR WE WILL LEAVE YOU FOR ANOTHER STRONGER TRADCON(STRONGLY HINTING IT WAS VOX=TED, MY DUDES!!)”,“experimenting experience seekers”, NOT Post-Wall repentant s1uts. The assumption here is that the woman is young, chaste, modest, and self-controlled(which pre-August I constantly said didn’t exist and AWALT was TRUE. Again, just because this type of woman is rare does not mean she does not exist as I used to say & testify. And this is exactly the type of woman men want for marriage.
Good Women’s View of Men
There is a difference between women who are looking for a One-Night-Stand or a One-Year-Stand, women who want to “experiment” or gain “experiences” (or have in the past), and chaste Christian women looking for a husband. A Christian woman wants to see if the man is faithful and responsible before anything sexual happens. And BTW, ‘confidence’ is often mentioned as an indication of ‘faithful’ — there is a correlation.
There are many Christian women who are frustrated with so called Christian men, NOT because these men are NOT 6-6-6 studs, but because most men in the The Beta Factory church are Simps like her ”Patriarchal” Father who owes his alligence to MOI his RP pope. They are desperate beyond measure {as I was for some p@on instead of my h@nd(as usual SMH FCOL, NO WONDER I WAS CALLED A PERVERT THROUGHOUT MY TEENS AND 20S AND WANTED MARRIAGE, JUST TO PURIFY MY PERVERT IMAGE Among the peeps I knew) by even telling her ”Patriarchal” Father to go fux himself as I’m his daughter’s TRUE owner as I would tell them in their ”Patriarchal” Castle=Home every time:
”He fails to recognize the contrasting contextual nuances between modern society and a patriarchal community (which is largely theoretical to most readers and ”Patriarchal” Fathers whose daughters belong to MOI-YES I TELL THEM THAT every time).
He is assuming that the larger society is or should be Christian or patriarchal. (The larger secular society is NOT Christian or patriarchal. Christian communities should be patriarchal, but few are.So as long as that’s true I can fux as many women as I Puh-puh-Please as I tell their ”Patriarchal” Fathers to go fux themselves as WE live in a hedonistic Feminist paradise )
He’s assuming that single women live under the authority of their fathers when most do not SMH as most are simply simps unworthy of their 140 i.q. RP Pope.
He’s assuming that these same women who do not submit to the authority of their fathers are above scrutiny, and that their moral rectitude is not to be questioned or tested, and that it is shameful for men to do so. He doesn’t offer an alternate method other than me not Fuxing HIS daughter or MOI marrying HIS daughter?WTF????”WHY NO LUV FOR YOUR 140 I.Q. RP POPE}and they don’t have enough confidence / faith to break away from the faux-masculine mold and make a relationship work long term.
Continuing the ideas from my previous post, men who are weak in faith are not able to discern that her refusal MAY NOT be an indicator of frigidity. She just may be the self-controlled CHRISTIAN woman that a man is looking to marry — a woman who is acting on her boundaries to KEEP her chastity and NOT acting out her sexual attraction. This is a green flag for a man, but ONLY IF he can read her accurately. If he cannot, then it is a red flag for women.
Also, men too are also looking to “experiment” and are unsettled about whether they really want or are ready to commit. This is true for both Ch@d types and non-Ch@d types, as well as Christian men too, unfortunately. Christian women can sense this and they rightly withdraw from such men.
The way that men express the strength of faith that Christian women are looking for in a man is when he demonstrates masculine dominance by pushing the boundaries (both secular and Christian) to test a woman’s character and to build trust. There is also a sense of self-awareness that plays into this — that the man is discerning, that he is careful that he is not being strung along by a woman who is NOT sexually attracted to him or who is using him, and that he is both conscious of his sphere of influence and conscientious of those within it. Women can sense these things and it feeds into her equations for attraction and Heart Trust. (These things MUST be in place for arousal to occur.)
All this is to say that a woman wants a man who “just gets it”(IF YOU HAD A 140I.Q. U WOULD ”GET IT”SMH SERIOUSLY THESE UNWASHED AND UNWORTHY PEONS WHO GET TO BASK IN A TRUE RP GENIUS LEADER’S PRESENCE.LOL(AS GAMMAS & Sparkly write), THEY are D@MN LUXXY I be doing my freestyles for them still YO OR WORD TO YOUR MOTHER!!!), as it is often said in the Manosphere. Being ‘Good’ is NOT good enough to pass a good woman’s filters.
Bad Women’s View of Men Who Tell Their ”Patriarchal” Fathers to go fux Themselves
Women who are NOT so good won’t care about these things because they’re NOT looking for an LTR leading to marriage or they couldn’t care less about whether the man is marriage material. These women are looking for other things in a man, e.g. having an agreeable cooperative orbiter / pedestalizer, an anesthetic diversion, a sympathetic ear, affirmation, attention, emotional support, fun, security, sex, validation, $$$, or just someone to fix and carry stuff for her, etc. These women will USE the undiscerning man — the man who doesn’t “get it” — and then toss him aside after she obtains what she wants out of him. As much as the man might hope and want and wish and try, there is no intention of marriage in her mind. The very idea is ridiculous to her because he doesn’t “get it”.
Worse, an evil woman who doesn’t like MOI telling her chump and simping ”Patriarchal” dad to fux himself might intentionally lure such an undiscerning man into a relationship or marriage because he doesn’t “get it”(even with my 140 i.q.HELP!!!???SMH) — for the very reason that she can dominate the relationship and control him for her own nefarious purposes such as non-headship g@y porn or BY ALL THAT IS GLORIOUS, BDSM!?-NO SUCH IS TOO SACRED TO MOI. A marriage of this type will inevitably destroy the man (and the children too) and will never glorify ”God”(who gives me personal messages that make me your RP pope-THATS RIGHT SUXXA, YOU BETTER RECOGNIZE!) through filming g@y porn or perhaps even more concerning and alarming to my natural baser instincts, BDSM.
Conclusions
To dumb this down for the average male reader who doesn’t have my 140 i.q. nor ability to understand my LEFTY NUANCED BUT HIGHLY nonsensical, verbose, and confusing while making voluminous comments and posts , if you are expecting self-control and chastity and sexual monogamy from a woman who is open-mouthed kissing on the first date just because you spent a few dollars on a coffee for her, then sure! She IS sexually attracted to you and she is ACTING on it. But is she really a good MARRIAGE option? NOT a One-Night-Stand option, but a MARRIAGE option W/O first ”test -driving”LOL(Thanks Sparkly) AT HER ”Patriarchal” Father-SMH?HUH??? DID SOMEONE SAY THIS WORD SALAD POST IS nonsensical, verbose, and confusing?? WTF WITH MY 140 I.Q GUIDING YOU THROUGH THIS NON- ”Patriarchal” feminist world I LUV!??
The answer to this question is not so cut and dried, because some virtuous women will push and pull on the boundaries of decency just to test the man’s reaction and see how discerning and responsive he is. (This is NOT the same as Comfort Testing or Fitness Testing or watching you do a bowel movement test and has different tactics aimed to invite or test his dominance.) Undiscerning men will naturally find this annoying and confusing and may think it is not very virtuous of a woman to be testing him like that, but actually, that is part of the $#itty test I & other lefty feminists tell women to pull on you. That is how virtuous women behave. She needs to know that he is faithful and trustworthy before she will go any further. OTOH, the non-virtuous woman will have other things on her mind and won’t care whether he is discerning or trustworthy or not.
When reviewing confusing and verbose word salad comments or posts, I would urge the distinguished host of Derek’s and our readers to consider the quality and apparent sincerity of what is being said. Granted, not every comment will be stellar, but if it is of excessively poor quality such that you can’t catch their drift, can’t understand the context, nor even read the English, then that’s a red flag for bgr=matt perkins pretending to be a ”concerned Christian”& trying to combine DAL’ with GBFMS Legendary Patriarchy that is 100% feminist and perv free unlike the ”Patriarchy” offered by .
BTW, I was embarrassed to see some nonsensical word salads and in the past (various ” lefty g@y porn is” Christian” as well as headship bois”as well as countless and nonsensical hellfire and brimstone long verbose screeds) posts being posted at SF today (as usual) this is the same type of ”I h@te CHRIST, HIS Church, and Marriage BUT LOVE G@Y PORN & BDSM”posts that have been at biblicalgenderroles by matt perkins under the pseudonym Larry Solomon since 2014 and before that?-Facebook as matt perkins a renowned lefty Anti-CHRIST & Biblical Marriage ”researcher-scholar.”
At the GREATBOOKSFORMEN blog back-in the -day, anyone posting that kind of anti-CHRIST content would be blocked immediately, no questions asked as it NOT be Patriarchal but g@y like lefties like it.
Have some standards, Derek! Thou hast the honor of carrying the torch of truth for the remnant with MOSES, JESUS, GBFM & MOD!
Before mine and youre’s Sinner Friend usually known since 2020 as ”Jack” tries to say the following paragraph below is” Quoted text is taken out of context and is misleading.”
But here, I am talking about young, pure, marriage-worthy women- who before this past summer with the Oscar & Radix Fidem takeover of SF-I said didn’t exist as Deti still says at Spawnys: AWALT-ALLWOMENNARELIKETHAT, NOT NAWALT-NOTALLWOMENARELIKETHAT as I preach now mainly cuz of John Providence, CatacombResident and Oscar’s bullying of MOI saying ”THOU WILL GET HUSBANDS FOR OUR DAUGHTERS LEFTY OR WE WILL LEAVE YOU FOR ANOTHER STRONGER TRADCON(STRONGLY HINTING IT WAS VOX=TED, MY DUDES!!)”,“experimenting experience seekers”, NOT Post-Wall repentant s1uts. The assumption here is that the woman is young, chaste, modest, and self-controlled(which pre-August I constantly said didn’t exist and AWALT was TRUE. Again, just because this type of woman is rare does not mean she does not exist as I used to say & testify. And this is exactly the type of woman men want for marriage.
Is the following text (from a typical nonsensical, verbose, and confusing post of ”Jack” from 2023-09-23, taken out of context and/or misleading?:
Ideal Women Don’t Exist
Posted on 2023-09-23 by Jack
It’s up to men to mold them into Unicorns.
Readership: All
Theme: IOIs and Vetting
Length: 1,700 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes
Hyperattribution of Women’s Agentic Capacity
Men’s Altruistic Idealism in an Age of Apostasy (2023/7/28) turned out as the most popular post this summer. Much of the discussion in the comments was about whether altruism is a natural trait of men, and how men have been taught and conditioned by Western social traditions to chivalrously expect women to be ideal. There wasn’t much consensus, but there was plenty of evidence on all sides.
One outstanding earmark of men’s expectations of women is how men are in the habit of preemptively assigning a level of agentic capacity to a woman that just isn’t there. Men are willing to ascribe more virtue — chastity, good will, intelligence, moral agency, and so on — to a woman of average or better attractiveness than what she actually possesses — a Feminine Halo Effect, if you will. When men believe they’re dealing with a Lady™, then it does seem appropriate to adopt Chivalrous and Nice Guy™ behaviors, even though we are well aware that doing so is an evolutionary mistake. Even though men may cognitively recognize at some level that this impression is not true, this notion still remains deeply embedded in men’s subconscious. I don’t think we are fully aware of how much Men have bought into this.
It is absurd to think that this expectation is inborn. It is easier to believe that decades of Fempowerment narratives and Strong Independent Woman™ posturing have led us to accept that women really do have the moral initiative and strength of will that men do, or at least more than they actually exhibit. Having a proud strong mother will do that too.
This isn’t just a faux pas lapse of reason common to the Blue Pilled mentality of the wider culture, it’s also a central assumption of the Christian Church (“Women are God’s precious angels”), as well as Men’s online channels and communities that carry the ongoing legacy of ye olde Manosphere.
Daddy’s little angel!
Case Study 1 — Churchianity
In recent years, starring examples of hyperattribution of female agency can be found in Complementarianism and Egalitarianism, which both carry a double standard when it comes to female agency.
Complementarianism and Egalitarianism carry the presumption that women possess a certain level of agency that is at least commensurate with that of men’s, in order to give credence to their status as “equals”. But it also assumes that women do NOT possess enough agency in order to justify chivalry (male feminism) and the “servant leadership” argument. The former is a veiled grasp for female authority and the latter is presented as a demand for men to bear the brunt of responsibility in the relationship. In practice, when men forfeit their authority and assume women to be their better equals, the result is that men end up walking on eggshells in the home and are put under social pressure to pedestalize women in public.
But the double minded math doesn’t add up. Although it might be admitted that women are less agentic than men, the truth of this is quickly shot down as “toxic hyper Patriarchy”. This is a convenient way to avoid addressing the core issue of who wears the pants in the house. It is taboo to question the authority structure in a gynocracy.
Moreover, this all carries the underlying assumption that men should regard women as more agentic than they really are, while the reality is that they have less than they should.
Complementarianism and Egalitarianism are similar to Feminism in this regard, as they both seek to elevate the status of women — not by encouraging them to develop more agency, but by conditioning them to have less. The logic goes that if men believe that women lack agency and are therefore not able (nor willing) to take responsibility for their own decisions then this can be used as a justification for why men should be hyperagentic water boys taking orders from their enlightened but helpless female superiors, according to a Gentile authority structure. This is heathen, not Christian. The Christian structure is for women to submit to their male heads and develop moral agency under their loving guidance.
The most embarrassing problem with this double-minded approach, as regular readers already know, is that it transforms the church into a Beta Factory and church going gals are opting out for more masculine men outside the church.
Case Study 2 — Dalrock
This may be surprising to some readers, but Dalrock is another example of the hyperattribution of female agency. Dalrock always assumed females are fully agentic, often with comedic effect, and by reviewing instances in which they were not, he laid bare the inconsistencies within Complementarianism and built a convincing argument that men place too much hope and trust in both the church and women. His underlying assumption of female agency, also known as “The Dalrock Route”, was the main source of contention with his gynocentric detractors who insisted that Chivalry etc. continued to be appropriate because women are less agentic and therefore need to be White Knighted, even though these same hypocrites subscribed to Complementarianism and Egalitarianism which presumably assign a higher level of agency to women, as described in Case Study 1 above.
Case Study 3 — Roosh Valizadeh
Roosh wrote a noteworthy post last year entitled, 33 Things Christian Men Should Know About Women (2022/10/17), listing red flags for men to watch out for. (DeepStrength wrote a couple posts about this article, and Oscar covered it in his post, You Can’t Vet This.) Although Roosh’s post is a classic worthy of bookmarking, the weakness of Roosh’s argument is that it paints an abstract ideal. In reality, Roosh’s list could be used to disqualify every single woman on earth. Roosh is entirely correct in saying that a unicorn should NOT have any of those 33 traits, but from the readers’ perspective, there is a tendency to read this with the assumption that women in general should NOT have those traits, and that a man might actually find a unicorn if he is aware of these things and vets diligently enough. The more practical value of Roosh’s list is that it provides an inventory of concrete traits that men can be wary of in female acquaintances and coworkers, and a checklist for holding women in their domain accountable.
Case Study 4 — Rollo Tomassi
One contrapositive example in this sea of gynoreverence is Rollo Tomassi.* In an earlier assessment of his stances regarding the assignation of female agency I wrote,
“All in all, Rollo is comprehensively saying that women essentially do NOT have moral agency, but… it’s complicated… which is a roundabout way of extenuating that men are the responsible agents, not women, and that men must master women’s hypergamous, sh!t testing, solipsistic imperatives…”
Rollo rightfully concluded that men will only make progress in establishing moral agency in women if men will assume some responsibility for women’s behaviors. However, it needs to be emphasized that the way men should take responsibility for women’s behaviors is NOT by defending them, nor White Knighting™, nor by becoming more hyperagentic, but rather by shepherding them — allowing them to fail, holding them accountable, letting them learn from their mistakes, and guiding and helping them along the way. Some Nuevo-Manospherians, like Fresh & Fit, have identified the action on the part of the male that makes the most difference in females — men holding women accountable — and are making diligent efforts to do so with the women within their sphere of influence.
* BTW, much of Rollo’s advice is misleading or is a bad example for Christian Men. The Godfather undermines Fatherhood. (2023/7/10) looked at how Rollo endorses getting a vasectomy as a way for a man to safeguard himself against women’s worst nature.
Conclusions
Similar to Dalrock’s Complementarian critics, there continues to be an underlying assumption that women should be doing better in being more loving and caring, that women should be more agentic — more like Men. The overall theme in ~95+% of the current Red Pill media content is men lamenting over the brokenness of women and the sore lack of credible sexual and marital opportunities. This is most commonly demonstrated as a sublimation of grief into cynical amusement. It is routinely assumed that men are justified in thinking that women should NOT have the typical weaknesses inherent in femininity that are covered in Red Pill lore, and that women should care more about Men. This sentiment is never made explicit, but it always remains simmering in the background.
The problem with this approach is that these assumptions and expectations inevitably result in the frustration Men feel towards women, and this undergirds a prevailing attitude of Men feeling hopeless and sorry for themselves.
It is NOT women who are dropping the ball here (although they are, ironically, so they do not get a “Get Out of Jail” card). The culprit is Men attributing a level of moral agency to women that they do not actually have. This frustrated idealism is a primary source of Men’s Self-Pity which is an expression of unrighteous pride.
Those few voices that are recognizing that women lack agency are either succumbing to hopelessness and self-pity (MGTOW, The Black Pill, etc.) or viewing it as opportunism (Hook Up culture, PUAs, Rollo Tomassi, et al.). There are NO voices (other than a close association of bloggers who regularly interact with Σ Frame, i.e. Catacomb Resident, DeepStrength, and Ed Hurst) saying that, “Women lack agency, so men need to impose loving Headship Authority.”
Yes, it is easier to love women if we ignore their errors and deny their weaknesses, but the easy feeelz good love is not real love — it’s pedestalization.
The proper way for men to assume responsibility for women is in holding them accountable. Therefore, the way out of this mess is for Men to recognize women as being the weaker vessel, come to terms with their deeper assumptions and expectations of women, get their inner game together, and assume the mantle of a Head (1 Corinthians 11:3,7-9; 1 Peter 3:1-7).
The next step is in sizing up individual women as being either under our Headship authority, or outside of it — taking responsibility for those who are by shepherding them and holding them accountable, and NOT taking responsibility for those who are NOT.
This month’s theme of IOIs and Vetting is intended to contribute to our knowledge of this.
How did ”Jack” the Frame -King go from ”Ideal Women Don’t Exist-It’s up to men to mold them into Unicorns.” to ”Again, just because this type of woman is rare does not mean she does not exist as I used to say & testify. And this is exactly the type of woman men want for marriage.”
To this?:” But here, I am talking about young, pure, marriage-worthy women- who before this past summer with the Oscar & Radix Fidem takeover of SF-I said didn’t exist as Deti still says at Spawnys: AWALT-ALLWOMENNARELIKETHAT, NOT NAWALT-NOTALLWOMENARELIKETHAT as I preach now mainly cuz of John Providence, CatacombResident and Oscar’s bullying of MOI saying ”THOU WILL GET HUSBANDS FOR OUR DAUGHTERS LEFTY OR WE WILL LEAVE YOU FOR ANOTHER STRONGER TRADCON(STRONGLY HINTING IT WAS VOX=TED, MY DUDES!!)””
As i quoted ”Jack” saying 2 days ago in the above comment!
As well as this for Purpose!”When reviewing confusing and verbose word salad comments or posts, I would urge the distinguished host of Derek’s and our readers to consider the quality and apparent sincerity of what is being said”
Also, I and Sane@SaneGuyTakes want to Applaud “Jack”, Oscar, RPA, VOX, Info, and others (Tradcons SMH)like them for their (as the kids used to say) Mad Math skills.
Sane
@SaneGuyTakes
Tradcons solution is that 100% of men marry 1% of women.
Tradcon math.
3:51 PM · Feb 22, 2024
·
17.5K
Views
Zlolzzzlollzzzzz
Merry Christmas Derek, MOD, Liz, and the rest of the Readership here and to our trolling and ever problematic to the RP=Manosphere Public Image, Sinner and Langly trolling Friends like ”Jack” & ”Sparkly” too!
MOSES, JESUS & GBFM are over & out for now.
Zlolzzzlollzzzzz
Merry Christmas to all. I’ll see you all after the New Year.
Merry Christmas! Gonna be a quiet day of me and the cat. He’ll probably get a piece of turkey!
Working Christmas Eve and then straight through til New Years Eve (going out that night, gonna ring in the New Year on Sunset Strip!)
Please have a safe and happy New Year!