A recent commenter suggested that my posts have missed the mark, that they are not addressing the problems that real men are really facing in reality. And I agreed. Over the last few days I’ve repeated a single theme:
Keep in mind that a couple months back, Bruce Charlton stated this…
But it is now too late to expect any significant benefit from evangelism of any kind. It just does not work any more, even in terms of church membership. In terms of making strong and resilient Christians, it is counterproductive; since the churches now lead their flocks astray.
…and he’s not wrong. So why do I suggest that the Manosphere focus on evangelism? The reason is fairly simple.
Modern evangelism is largely ineffective because there is no audience who can and will receive it. Mankind just does not respond to evangelism in any meaningful way. And of course, trying to evangelize people in order to convert them into the apostasy of the Modern Church is hardly going to be effective.
But, the Manosphere has some small individual influence in the lives of specific men, and to the extent that they can form direct relationships with those men and reach them, evangelism can be effective. So long as the “mission” stays narrowly individually focused and does not attempt to make sweeping changes in the culture or the wider church, this could actually change a few lives for Christ.
The reason that this could work is because the men in the sphere are suffering, and suffering is effective.
It has become a commonplace observation that Modern people tend to lose faith when they experience pain, suffering – in a word evil. Nowadays in the West it is quite normal for previously devout churchgoing Christians to experience that their faith is At Least strongly challenged by extreme adversity; by personal experience of the evils of this mortal life.
Yet, there really is very little evidence of this happening in the first 3/4 of Christianity – it is recorded, but exceptional – despite at-least equally great (perhaps greater) human suffering. Indeed the opposite was more usual: the assumption that the more humans suffered, the more devoutly Christian they became.
It was indeed a commonplace that peace, prosperity, and comfort were the main enemies of Christianity.
The very concept of suffering itself has been inverted. The Manosphere does not take advantage of how suffering opens up the soul to be receptive to Christ. Rather, it focuses on removing that suffering and replacing it with marital success and overflowing prosperity.
By why should we try to fix suffering? As the New Testament teaches, is not suffering the expected result of following Christ? Isn’t suffering explicitly called a blessing? Isn’t the reward for suffering something that occurs in the form of resurrection and eternal life?
But the prosperity gospel in a “Lite” version is actually very common among Christians; I mean the belief that those who lead their lives in accordance with Christian beliefs and practices will survive and thrive in socio-economic ways.
For instance; proponents of PGL may state or imply that being Christian will help you to have a successful business, get the girl/s, be a “real” man, attract admiration from “real” men etc.
You can see how this might apply.
At root, all this is false, because it is a roundabout way of asserting that Christianity is expedient.
Or, to put it another way, it is utilitarianism. This is why I concluded:
What they read [in 1 Peter] is only marital authority and hierarchy, that is, a solution to their suffering in the here-and-now.
In doing so, they’ve found salvation to be incomplete and unnecessary. [Peter’s solution] simply isn’t important or relevant.
Modern man does not desire or see a need for salvation.
…and…
Modern man seeks reduced suffering as its highest ideal.
This isn’t a Christian ethic. It is utilitarianism.
When I focused on removing false faith on the Sigma Frame blog, I was told instead to focus on solving the suffering of men. Inherent in that very claim is that removing false faith and replacing it with real faith was not a valid solution to suffering.
This illustrates Charlton’s point precisely. Modern man does not view the promise of salvation and glory as the solution to suffering, for modern man views suffering as an impediment to a properly functioning Christian life; an indication that his walk with Christ is somehow inferior. He cannot understand what 1 Peter is saying because he does not have the mind for it. It is an alien concept that he has rejected.
I don’t have a solution in the here-and-now for the suffering of the men in the Manosphere. Outside of the grace of God, I’m not even trying to provide one. Instead, I’m insisting that we must first all focus on what actually matters:
Optimism about success in this world is one thing; being-Christian is another.
Christians need to be clear about what their religion actually is about, primarily and essentially; and that is our positive desire and intent to attain salvation: resurrected eternal life in Heaven.
Implications about this mortal existence flow backwards from this post-mortal intent.
There is no general reason why “being a Christian” would necessarily lead towards a “successful” (high status, wealthy, comfortable, pleasurable, healthy, pain-free) mortal life; and indeed there are plenty of reasons why it would not.
Thoughts?
NOTE: You can read more about why I think the Manosphere is ineffective here. Related comments are found here, here, and especially here and here.
Derel L. Ramsey
On Suffering
What they read [in 1 Peter] is only marital authority and hierarchy, that is, a solution to their suffering in the here-and-now.
In doing so, they’ve found salvation to be incomplete and unnecessary. [Peter’s solution] simply isn’t important or relevant.
Modern man does not desire or see a need for salvation.
…and…
Modern man seeks reduced suffering as its highest ideal.
This isn’t a Christian ethic. It is utilitarianism.
When I focused on removing false faith on the Sigma Frame blog, I was told instead to focus on solving the suffering of men. Inherent in that very claim is that removing false faith and replacing it with real faith was not a valid solution to suffering.
This illustrates Charlton’s point precisely. Modern man does not view the promise of salvation and glory as the solution to suffering, for modern man views suffering as an impediment to a properly functioning Christian life; an indication that his walk with Christ is somehow inferior. He cannot understand what 1 Peter is saying because he does not have the mind for it. It is an alien concept that he has rejected.
I don’t have a solution in the here-and-now for the suffering of the men in the Manosphere. Outside of the grace of God, I’m not even trying to provide one. Instead, I’m insisting that we must first all focus on what actually matters:
Derel L. Ramsey
On Suffering
What they read [in 1 Peter] is only marital authority and hierarchy, that is, a solution to their suffering in the here-and-now.
In doing so, they’ve found salvation to be incomplete and unnecessary. [Peter’s solution] simply isn’t important or relevant.
Modern man does not desire or see a need for salvation.
…and…
Modern man seeks reduced suffering as its highest ideal.
This isn’t a Christian ethic. It is utilitarianism.
When I focused on removing false faith on the Sigma Frame blog, I was told instead to focus on solving the suffering of men. Inherent in that very claim is that removing false faith and replacing it with real faith was not a valid solution to suffering.
This illustrates Charlton’s point precisely. Modern man does not view the promise of salvation and glory as the solution to suffering, for modern man views suffering as an impediment to a properly functioning Christian life; an indication that his walk with Christ is somehow inferior. He cannot understand what 1 Peter is saying because he does not have the mind for it. It is an alien concept that he has rejected.
I don’t have a solution in the here-and-now for the suffering of the men in the Manosphere. Outside of the grace of God, I’m not even trying to provide one. Instead, I’m insisting that we must first all focus on what actually matters:
Thoughts?
THE MAIN problem of the ”Christian” manosphere(when it speaks of ”suffering MEN” it is solipsistic I.E. ALL about them-miserably divorced and unhappily married men who care NOT a whit about non-related to them sluts, players, and incel singles who are suffering to BUT without marriages nor LTRS nor proper divorces as the ”suffering MEN” in the ‘sphere got to have and do ”amid all their voluminous & confusing comments & posts the stronger is my impression that this lacing of truths and lies in a web of philosophicalized confusion,the more of which i read the more i see that it is evil ; like the wicked w!tch handing you a poisoned thought apple and saying with a sly grin, “Who said there’s a w!tch here? That’s silly! There’s no w!tch here!” as even one of their own said recently in a as usual wordy turdy long screed post ) is explained below by Dalrock
Dalrock writes’
https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional.12187
We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan
Posted on November 18, 2011 by Dalrock
I know for many of you this really isn’t a bad place. If you are a feminist or a player, this is pretty close to paradise. But if you are like me you very much want to leave. Everyone always asks, why don’t we just build a boat and sail away from here? We could make it to the land of sanity. But it isn’t that simple I’m afraid. Every time it looks like we are about to make it home, one of the Gilligans manages to screw it up.
Keep in mind that Gilligans aren’t malicious by nature. They also want to leave the island. But unfortunately they are rather simple and easily distracted. It wouldn’t be such a problem if there weren’t so many of them.
Take for example the issue of out of wedlock births. Gilligans are especially susceptible to what I call the it takes two fallacy. In the proper context it isn’t a fallacy at all. If an individual woman has a child out of wedlock, it is a fact that there is somewhere a man who is also responsible for the problem. So far, no problem. But the Gilligans want to use this to form social policy. They mistakenly apply at the macro level what is only true at the micro level. They assume this means if you have 100 baby mamas, that there must also be an equal number of baby daddies. They took this logical error and combined it with their natural sympathy for sluts, and decided to create a social order where only men are punished for out of wedlock births. What they didn’t understand is that it only takes a small number of irresponsible men to sire all the bastards the baby mamas could ever want. No matter how draconian our child support laws become, there will always be a small number of irresponsible men who are willing to play their part.
We’ve tried the Gilligan way for over fifty years now, and even though it has brought us from single digit illegitimacy rates to 40% and climbing, no one can talk any sense into them (chart source).
You explain it to them slowly and carefully, and they nod at all the right moments indicating they understand. Then a feminist comes by and whispers “double standard” or “it takes two” in their ear, and the Gilligan instantly forgets everything you just explained to him.
The same thing applies to slut shaming. Gilligans love their rule of it takes two, and they apply it there as well. Again at the micro level if we are considering the issue of individual sin this would make sense. But Gilligans live in fear of the dreaded double standard. It keeps them awake at night with visions of unhappy sluts crying out to them. Why do we have to shame sluts? they plead, Lets shame the players instead. They are the really bad ones anyway. We know from the history of civilization that slut shaming is what works. But the Gilligans are haunted by the faces of the unhappy sluts which fill their dreams. They are desperate for another solution, any solution, so long as it doesn’t mean unhappy sluts.
The tried and true approach: Slut shaming.
Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players. The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel. Now we introduce slut shaming. It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all. This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage. This directly translates into fewer fatherless children. This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier. Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her. After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on. This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel. You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.
The Gilligan approach: Shame players.
Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players. Now apply shame to the players. Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them. No problem! says the Gilligan, at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts! But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts. They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation. Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.
But it gets worse yet. Now that the ratio of sluts to players is even less in the sluts favor, the sluts actually get sluttier! They now have to compete even harder for each player’s attention. Now we have 100 even sluttier sluts!
But what if we could shame all of the players? the Gilligan asks. That way we could still achieve our objective and I wouldn’t have to be haunted by unhappy sluts! In theory of course the Gilligan is right. If you could shame all of the players into hanging up their smirk, you would then be able to stamp out sluthood forever. However, the Gilligan is once again barking up the wrong tree. Shame only works on those who are susceptible to it. Unfortunately players tend to possess the dark triad personality traits. It is actually a large part of what makes them attractive to the sluts in the first place. Our little buddy won’t hear of it though, and presses on with his plan to shame a group of narcissistic psychopaths to forgo their own pleasure for the good of society.
The hybrid Gilligan approach: Shame them both equally!
While the Gilligan would prefer not to have to shame sluts at all, his mortal terror of the double standard compels him to hold out for player shaming, even when agreeing to shame sluts (at least in theory). The problem is shaming players has the side effect of reducing the impact of slut shaming. This is rationalization hamster steroids. The moment concern for the double standard is introduced into the mix, even a little bit, sluts, their moms, and white knights will all rationalize that it wasn’t really the sluts’ fault. We’ve seen this with Jennifer Moses, the mother who wrote the Wall Street Journal article on the damage promiscuity is doing to young girls. Even after acknowledging the great harm this is causing young women she wrote:
I wouldn’t want us to return to the age of the corset or even of the double standard, because a double standard that lets the promiscuous male off the hook while condemning his female counterpart is both stupid and destructive. If you’re the campus mattress, chances are that you need therapy more than you need condemnation.
Better your daughter need therapy than commit the dreaded sin of the double standard! Anything but that! We see the same rationalization in pop music as well. I could go on, but you see it simply doesn’t matter. I could show charts and stats and tell them about the millions of innocent children and even the sluts themselves who are harmed by not shaming sluts. I could have every Gilligan on the island fully convinced. But after all of that it would only take one slut or feminist to walk by and whisper “double standard” and it all would wash away.
Welcome to my hell.
As Bruce & Derek say too many in the ”manosphere” think they should be on Lifestyles of the RP® Rich and Famous with posthumous Rovin Leach
And for what?
Mainly just for existing and believing that by writing voluminous, contradictory on hypergamy(among most other core ”manosphere” subjects as well) and turdish(thanks pseudonym commenter Feeriker-you really know you’re manosphere idols writing style) long word salad screeds ”anti-feminist” polemics and letters to their congressman.
But Dalrock already knew all that as he wrote here
We’ve tried the Gilligan way for over fifty years now, and even though it has brought us from single digit illegitimacy rates to 40% and climbing, no one can talk any sense into them (chart source).
no one can talk any sense into them
Thank you DAL’ for reminding us of that (again) & YES even the combined powers and might of Bruce, Derek, MOSES, JESUS, & GBFM have made little leeway in talking any sense into them” as DAL’ himself told us nearly 14 years ago.
The hybrid Gilligan approach: Shame them both equally!
That’s what the proud ex-players in the ”Christian manosphere” do with ALL their rules, axioms, regulations, and maxims.-has any of it worked with at least 98% of them doing it?
Then why don’t they preach the following?(that they claim to believe brought the western world to GREATNESS )
The Great Commission
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted [that it was really He]. 18 Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority (all power of absolute rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [help the people to learn of Me, believe in Me, and obey My words], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always [remaining with you perpetually—regardless of circumstance, and on every occasion], even to the end of the age.”-
Matthew 28:16-20-Amplified Bible (AMP)
They haven’t failed with that yet as they haven’t tried it yet only the tradconnic and Gilliganic ways of ”The hybrid Gilligan approach: Shame them both equally!”
So how about it ”Christian manosphere” maybe it is time to stop failing and start prevailing for the Kingdom of Heaven by actually living up to the ”Christian ” part of the ”Christian manosphere” moniker huh?
huh?
(again) huh?
Id anyone but i see this blatant contradiction from DAL’ here?:
Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her. After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on. This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel. You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.
He doesn’t qualify why these women are ” happily married women”, Are their husbands like Dalrock and Dave from Hawaii/Keoni Galt and their reading Roissy=Heartiste?
By the way, Derek here’s where Keoni Galt admits to being Dave from Hawaii on his own site:http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/12/pua-in-ltr.html
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
PUA for LTR
First and foremost, commenter Patrissimo invited me to co-author on a new blog, PUA for LTR. I have politely declined, as I have a hard enough time writing here on my own blog as well as regularly contributing to the Spearhead. This was the first time I heard of this blog…and was somewhat amused to see a post dedicated to my own commentary I had contributed to Roissy’s blog in the past.
You can read it here – as well as see the commentary of a bunch of people that criticized me, had no clue what they were talking about, and had made judgments of me, my wife and our life, of which they really know nothing about.
I’ve written a rather extensive response broken up into 4 different comments (that are currently awaiting moderation).
I’m going to re-post them here, as my FINAL say on this topic. I’m sick of people making judgments about my wife and I based on the little snippets of my life that I decided to share in an attempt to help other men who were in a similar situation as myself.
Before I get to my responses to the commentary on that blog, I want to make a few things real simple and clear:
I AM NOT AN “ALPHA.”
I have never claimed to be one. Rather, my entire point in contributing to Roissy’s blog at that time was to relate my experiences in identifying my own behaviors and mindsets that were, for lack of a better term I was aware of at the time, “beta.” By focusing on “beta” behaviors and how to avoid or correct them, perhaps many people have mistakenly thought I was claiming the mantle-hood of “Alpha.”
For lack of a better term, studying “game” (which is what I referred to previously as “taking the red pill”), gave me insight into what behaviors and attitudes were attractive to a woman’s hypergamous instincts and what behaviors and actions were repellent to that same instinct. Once I stopped the repellent behaviors and incorporated the attractive behaviors, I guess you could say I DID become an “alpha” — for my wife, within the bounds of our marriage.
But other than that, my previous use of the term “beta” and “beta-ization” has nothing to do with claiming to be some kind of “Alpha” or a “PUA” that could have women eating out of the palm of my hand.
I AM NOT A PUA.
I’ve been married 12 years now. I love my wife more than my own life. We have made a family together, and I am determined to raise my own children to benefit from the knowledge that I had gained from making all of the mistakes I hope to help them avoid when they grow up. If I am any label, I would proudly wear that of PATRIARCH. That is what I aspire to, and what I believe I now fully live up to.
I DO NOT “CONTROL” OR “INTIMIDATE” OR “MANIPULATE” MY WIFE.
On the contrary, the only real difference studying “GAME” has given me, was to learn the most important lesson of all: Do not let your wife’s emotional state control, manipulate or intimidate YOU. I no longer live my life as if my wife were my authority figure. I am my own authority figure. She accepts my authority because she wants to be a part of my life. That is how a complementary relationship between a man and a woman should work. That’s what Patriarchy USED to be, but has now been socially engineered nearly into oblivion.
I DO NOT PUT UP AN ACT OR A FRONT. I DID NOT ADOPT A FAKE PERSONA THAT I CONSTANTLY STRIVE TO MAINTAIN.
No, I learned to see my own behaviors and actions and how they interacted in dealing with hers. I learned what worked and what didn’t. I also learned that the things I did that were causing her to be upset with me WHERE CONTEMPTIBLE, WEAK and UN-MASCULINE. I learned from my mistakes and have changed my entire outlook on life and the way I interact with ALL people, not just my wife.
At this point in time, I am NOBODY’s bitch. I live MY LIFE how I want to. I AM going my own way. It just so happens I have a wife who is going that way along with me.
All that being said, here were my various responses I gave to the critical commenters there. I hope this clarifies things:
First and foremost, I have to respond to this:
Personally, *I* would be living a lie if I was married to Dave’s wife and felt I needed to treat her the way he does all the time in order to maintain the marriage… but then, I’m not him.
Oh really? And just what do I do “all the time” in order to “maintain” my marriage? Just how do I “treat” her that you find so hard, difficult or objectionable? Some of you guys are talking out of your asses in trying to assess my reality based on what limited, subjective and contextual scenarios I’ve described for you all.
To tell you all the truth…once Roissy assembled everything I’d written into one long post, I decided to simply step back from his blog and let others contribute their own stories similar to mine. I had written enough, and I had gotten to the point where I was starting to reveal a little too much personal info on the internet. Hawaii is a small place, and the last thing I really want to do is have my writings on the internet somehow be used against me in real life. I have taken the red pill…and nothing makes blue pill takers angrier than confronting a person who tells them everything they believe and do is based on lies, propaganda and indoctrination. I’ve had this discussion one too many times in real life with friends and family members and seen too many people desperately determined to cling to their version of blue pill truth and won’t even contemplate a contrary viewpoint.
My study of “GAME” was NOT my attempts at becoming a “PUA,” nor was it simply “faking” a personality to “become” attractive to my wife.
It was an awakening to the truth.
I finally was able to see through the illusions and lies propagated by a lifetime of indoctrination by the mainstream media, and educational institutions I’ve spent most of my life attending.
Also, the biggest thing I had to overcome was seeing the truth of my own parents relationship with each other and how it set me up with a blueprint for failure when I myself grew up and got married.
Where it not for their devout faith and devotion to their church, my parents would have been divorced many many years ago. I do not doubt this in the least.
See that whole post for more -in case anyone didn’t realize it from the other day, where Dave/Keoni said this in the Roissy-Heartist post
https://heartiste.org/2009/08/14/relationship-game-week-a-readers-journey/
”Yes, she put on a good 40 lbs. a couple of years after we got married.”
is the origin of the later more customized GBFM saying of
”YOUNGER, HOTTER, TIGHTER AND FREE AND FORTY POUNDS LIGHTER”
as Dave from Hawaii/Keoni Galt & GBFM were friends at the CHATEAU & the Dalrock blog so it was essentially a tribute or remembrance to him and (heavily unsaid to his wife)-SEE what one can learn if one ”wants” too?
Or do those ” happily married women” have naturally charismatic/Sigma-like husbands that Liz, Elspeth, MRS. DEREK & MRS. GBFM do?
Dalrock leaves the answer to those ” happily married women” source of happiness unsaid as you can see in that ”We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan” post above in my first comment.
Why didn’t Galt call Roissy a lying deceiver for misrepresenting him as an alpha? Curious how that works.
Why didn’t Galt call Roissy a lying deceiver for misrepresenting him as an alpha? Curious how that works.
It works like this mostly :
Most of Roissy’s(who by just saying Dave had game would alone make them think that meant ”alpha”-when all it really meant was player which could be beta=bad at getting women or alpha =good at getting women) readers(especially the know better than God”Christian” and ”conservative” married ones were just enamored with the ”extreme” aspects of the PUA gamer image(women supposedly being ”locked down
on chains and they must OBEY DaMAN” and according to general ”conservative” lefty Satanic feminist society & government women are ”delicate little butterflies” & ”BIG BAD MENS MUST BE DELICATE WITH THEM, LEST THEY BREAK THEM WITH TOO MUCH MANLINESS”), NOT the reality of it which was mostly bored players sitting around, drinking drinks while drunk girls vomited from too much dancing while intoxicated at the nightclub-see why they prefer the ”extreme” aspects of the PUA gamer image now?
IOW?
It was essentially pornography to them,”so how could a husband do any of that( in public or with family around”
Sort of like the popular image of ”Patriarchy”(women supposedly being ”locked down in chains and they must OBEY DaMAN”and according to general ”conservative” lefty Satanic feminist culture, society & government, women are ”delicate little butterflies” & ”BIG BAD MENS MUST BE DELICATE WITH THEM, LEST THEY BREAK THEM WITH TOO MUCH MANLINESS”), now see why so many ex-players claim ”Patriarchy” after failing at game/” red pill”?
It reminds me of this:https://www.vox.com/politics/366601/the-rights-plan-to-fix-america-patriarchy-2-0
When you look at what the right’s rising leaders are saying, it’s clear that conservatives have become increasingly obsessed with the fate of the American family. From Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance assailing “childless cat ladies” to Elon Musk fretting about a birth rate apocalypse, there is a deep and abiding sense that the family is in dire need of defense.
Recently, a loose group of conservatives has emerged with a solution: that the family can be defended by boldly reasserting the importance of old-school gender roles. The movement tells men to be strong and women to have babies without overtly insisting that women must submit to their husbands or stay at home. It’s an effort to revive an older model of gender relations without the explicitly sexist baggage (though it often resurfaces in a more subtle form).
I call this loose movement “neopatriarchy,” and have come to believe that it is at the root of both some of the modern right’s biggest ideas and its most interesting internal conflicts.
Concerns about the family’s health are hardly new on the right. Speaking in 1977, influential conservative writer Russell Kirk claimed that a nearly enacted universal daycare bill threatened to disintegrate the family and substitute the state.
“We would be foolish to ignore a drift in what we call ‘the West’ toward the supplanting of the family by the Universal Orphanage,” Kirk said, warning that the daycare bill specifically “would have encouraged even affluent mothers to consign their little children to the baby-bin and spend their days at bridge-clubs.”
Kirk’s fears reflected the central conservative preoccupation of the time: the threat from communism and the ever-growing powers of the modern state. It was “compulsory collectivism,” for Kirk, that threatened to tear familial bonds apart.
Modern neopatriarchy begins from the opposite fear; the concern is not communist collectivism, but liberal individualism.
The neopatriarchs believe we live in an age where people prioritize self-actualization and fulfillment above all else. Young adults, they argue, live in extended adolescence, lost in some combination of video games, drugs, and casual sex; as they age, raw hedonism is replaced by single-minded foci on money and career. According to neopatriarchs, this liberal social model fails men and women alike, funneling them toward a spiritually empty existence that all but guarantees disappointment and depression, and it fails society by discouraging the production of children who are quite literally required if the country is to have a future. (Immigration, needless to say, is not seen as an acceptable solution.)
Even if Trump, Vance, and Musk wanted “neopatriarchy,” the Gilligans known as the GOP & RP® Genius Leaders would be the first ones having a problem with it(its NOT ”extreme”enuffsz for a relz ”MAN” like myself brah”,” its NOT Bull$#ity Republican enuffsz as DAT is how I roll” or ”its NOT done to my liking e.g.”Bold n Biblical &” conservative” butt buddy ” gay porn enuffsz for I & matt perkins my best butt buddy friend dude”)
IOW?
They(the GOP & RP® Genius Leaders ) go full-tradtard ”conservative” (as one of them recently put it)with max lust on anything they think is pornographic in the least.
I thank Thee Father, for granting me this small splinter from the cross of thy beloved Son Jesus Christ.
Once I asked at Sigma Frame if any of the men there would hypothetically accept a marriage where the wife could not engage in proper physical intimacy (for whatever reason, such as a physical problem or psychological problem like a history of abuse). There was only one man who admitted that, in theory, he could do such a thing if God asked him to.
I believe that was you, wasn’t it?
I could confidently say “I could” if indeed I was in that situation. But the men today of the ‘sphere. They’ll be like Newt Gingrich bringing his bedridden wife papers for “granting him a divorce” so he can get a “younger / hotter / tighter” wife or spin plates or whatever and besides….the wife must have unrepentant sin if she is dying of cancer, or was made paralyzed by a stroke. That’s their logic.
I don’t remember that but it’s possible it was me. It isn’t a hypothetical for me – in a couple of months here I will be at 3 years of being celibate. In my faith, divorce even without remarriage is gravely sinful. I told RedPillApostle this – the ‘sphere’s “you can divorce your wife over lack of intimacy” is a heretical reaction to Churchianity’s “a wife can divorce her husband over pornography use.” Both are false teachings. Coitus is not a biological need and mastery of the body is a good thing.
Cameron,
Oh, truly, I didn’t know. I had actually predicted this exact thing in a draft for tomorrow’s post, but I removed it because I did’t want to speculate on such things in public, even theoretically. It’s all a bit horrific.
I appreciate your candor and your self-mastery. And I agree with you 100% regarding divorce and remarriage. I sincerely appreciate how faithful you are to that. Few men are.
Peace,
DR
In the end, its a simple solution, but of course the work and time it would take? Most of our esteemed “leaders” in the faith and in the ‘sphere dont have time for that / its someone else’s job / dont accept everything “I” tell you? Well, you’re a cuck / blue pilled / weak man
And the usual slew of insults, pat downs and of course……not their responsibility
Modern American Evangelical Christianity doesnt have time for discipleship. It has only time for the “building program” and “the praise team” (we have to have a praise team….with modern music or the young-people-wont-come”)
The modern protestant church in the USA has plenty of room for the Mark Driscolls, the Matt Chandlers but it has little or no time for a man whose heart will indeed break for Christ.
The modern protestant church says “we need leaders! the young generation is screaming for leadership”
Step up to lead? “No, no, no….we have workshops and workbooks and boxes everyone is put into and in order to lead you have to be married, your wife has to be hot, you have to have gone to our retreat, training, have a STEM degree and know everything”
I once mentioned to our mens group in The Salvation Army “you know the teen boys should be here with us ….listening to men talk, and not just their father about difficult subjects in a Holy way and Godly fashion. It could benefit them, make them a bit inspired in their faith seeing men of the church doing this”
I was told “they have the teen group” and they can join the mens fellowship when after they finish the “young adult fellowship” and their “teen fellowship”
I mentioned the Jews had their sons in discussion of God with the men of the local village so they caould indeed “taste and see” and the early church did this. Even in the NAZI death camps, the men met with the younger boys to teach them Hebrew and the Torah and talk about topics……like their impending death.
I was told “we have programs for the youth, this is for the men”
I am sure many other protestant churches operate this way (Denim and non denom)
It was just a suggestion, something to talk about. Look into. Discuss. It was shot down and stopped immediately.
Hence why we have no community outside Sunday, and why teens bolt for the door the second they go to college or joing the military (and every young man should have his head examined if he does indeed want to join that organization)
Step up to lead? “No, no, no….we have workshops and workbooks and boxes everyone is put into and in order to lead you have to be married, your wife has to be hot, you have to have gone to our retreat, training, have a STEM degree and know everything”
I wonder what would have happened if my denomination hadn’t put up that massive 100-credit-hour roadblock to me becoming a pastor. How would my life have been different?
Christ says “I have ordained you” now I dont think or believe everyone is able to be a Pastor or “leader” in that sense. Paul mentions “the body” and today, the body means
or the body that matters is:
The Pastor. he “deacons” or “self appointed” leaders and “everyone else” who are supposed to run the weekly functions at the church.
Boxes. Only women are allowed to work with young children. I was looked down by everyone in the Army when I took over the Scouting program, including the Cubs Scouts “thats womens work” and I was FLATLY denied to help with toddlers and little children in Sunday School “thats womens work” (despite most children dont have a father in the house today, or he is made ut to be a bum…true or not) despite being trained as a elementary / special ed teacher.
Probably because I was a drug addict in my past (the world will never forgive addicts. Never)
A duty of a real leader is to find, and scope out in the church of discipleship…..who has potential? Who can do this work? Who am I to decide what Gifts He bestows and why? Testing of the spirits, watching for the fruit.
It just seems the pastor and few elders have all the Gifts, and everyone else ONLY has “helps” and dont you dare step out of your BOX
“Do you know god?” is a question I have heard frequently in my life….and and I know perhaps of “the things of God” but personally? No. I hear so many “Well, I know Greek, I studied Hebrew….” doesnt mean they know God either.
I mean……how did the early church find leaders? There wasnt “seminary” there wasn t “traditions passed down through the Saints and the like” yet. There is no mention of the word in The Bible of “pope” or “deacon” or “bishop” or “elder”
the early church was full of prayed up men who turned the world upside down. Who actually believed and most were hardly men of stuature and actually would be deemed “hopelessly beta” by todays metrics.
Sad actually. Huge opportunity for Christ but per usual…Ego gets in the way
I wonder what would have happened if my denomination hadn’t put up that massive 100-credit-hour roadblock to me becoming a pastor. How would my life have been different?
You would have been fill-time preaching in the pulpet, by this time perhaps instead of singing “Alpha and Omega” with MRS.DEREK,MRS. GBFM & GBFM in the 2009 CCS Mixed Quartet(as shown in the video)?😉:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWBPOC_LBEs&list=PLDz3w84TBxyBzEzXuCDUIAezA8kJwVAty&index=2
Derek,
Go nag some other group of men. Since you finally acknowledge that the churches are apostate, if you are any good at “removing false faith” then go attack the whoring churches. (like the two you claim to attend) There is a whole sector of churches that claim to be “evangelical” in their mission. If you want somebody to take on the task of evangelizing, why not direct your endless turd-flinging in their direction? They a far bigger group, more established, have more resources, why must you attack the only group of men dedicated to fighting satanic Feminism?
It sure looks to me like you’re trying to defend feminism, not evangelize men. And your disingenuous call for the Christian Manosphere to convert itself into the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, seems intended to divert the only tiny group of dedicated men who are combating Feminism and working to restore God’s holy order of patriarchy.
Like I’ve said before, you’re a liar. Specifically you accused me of using circular reasoning for stating, “The image of God is the foundation of why men have a divine right to rule.”
Then a bit later you admitted, “If you’d prefer to call it an axiom of belief or a tautological assertion instead of circular reasoning, I won’t quibble over semantics, as it is your belief that decides which of the three it is and I can’t read your mind.”
Yet later still you went right back to claiming that I had used circular reasoning in that instance, here on your site, and that my teaching must be false because, as you claimed, it was built on “logical fallacy”.
Anyhow I wasted many hours of my life here, arguing with a stubborn liar.
You claimed I should be following Jesus’ steps of church discipline, and only confronting your public lies about me, privately through emails with you. (something you never attempted to do, when you felt I was wrong) But then later when I asked for the contact information for the elders of your church, you made it clear that you had no intention of ever submitting to those apostates if they had agreed with me that you were lying by saying that I had used circular reasoning in that one instance and that my citing early church documents was the “fallacy” of “survivorship bias” as you wrongly claimed.
See the linked screenshot of our conversation:
https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/derek-ramsey.jpg
Eventually you went so far as to say that a person saying “I believe X” is an example of circular reasoning. LOL As a stubborn liar you apparently feel that you should get to change the definitions of all words and terms into things even your own church wouldn’t agree with just to claim your lies are somehow still true. Anyhow, since then, you have piled more lies upon your lies, and I just don’t have the time to waste grappling with Satan’s trolling tar-babies here. And in case I haven’t said it recently you’re also a hypocrite. Like demanding that I use church discipline on you, when you have zero intention of submitting to any church that might say I’m right, even if it were “your” church.
I’ll consider we’ve reached an impasse where you just keep lying about me and my beliefs and teaching, and I’ll keep warning people that you’re a wicked and stubborn liar who serves the will of the devil. You refused the opportunity to let your own church elders try to settle the matter, because you feared they would not support your stubborn lies even though they’d naturally be opposed to my views and desire to be on your side.
Satan’s first attack against men was accomplished by getting Adam to hearken unto the voice of his wife. And that is not only Satan’s first line of attack against men, but also his most successful.
Tertullian wrote: And do you not know that you are [each] Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that [forbidden] tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, Adam. Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die.
Your goal is to restore women to the unfounded pedestal that the apostate church placed them on, and that is why you fight and lie against the servants of God who are pulling the image of womankind down from that place of worship. Your quest to divert the Christian manosphere from our calling to the task of evangelism is another one of your characteristic efforts to stubbornly defend and protect the most effective lies of your father the devil.
If you think evangelism is a worthy cause, then go do it, you hypocrite, and leave the men of the Christian manosphere to our calling. Get thee behind us, Derek. I see your subtlety.
In a way you trolls are like Job’s friends. You take the men of the Christian manosphere who have suffered greatly, and you run your fool mouth against them blaming them for all the satanic torment they’ve been through. If you had any wisdom, you’d be asking us to pray that God would not deal with you according to all your foolishness and libel.
You should not torment those whom God Himself has allowed to be wounded by Feminism.
Psalm 69:26 For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded. 27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. 28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Have you admitted your error yet? If not, then you probably shouldn’t be lecturing people on what is right or wrong.
No error, Liar.
I wrote: FWIW James Strong’s 1890 Hebrew dictionary says that the conjunctive preposition used in Genesis 3:16 can be translated as “against” and his definitions are derived from even earlier German lexicons.
James Strong indeed published his exhaustive concordance in 1890, and in its Hebrew dictionary, the definition for the word in question states that it can mean “against”.
Your pages and pages of verbal diarrhea and links and screenshots don’t make your ignorant lies true.
You’re just dodging the fact that with one simple reference I disproved the simp argument that it wasn’t until the 1970’s that Feminists said the word could mean “against”.
You shat all those pointless pages at me to no avail, Liar.
You seem to enjoy embodying the following W. C. Fields quote:
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
For somebody who like to lecture on intelligence, you sure go “full retard” in defense of Feminism.
Old man Derek had a farm, E I E I O.
Here a Simp, There a Simp, Everywhere a Simpy Simp!
Maybe pull your head out of your wife’s behind and just admit that I disproved your wishful Feminist declaration of a 1970’s origin for that definition of “against”, with that 1890 reference that the word could be properly translated as “against”, and that “against” was indeed chosen in 162 places as the translation for that same conjunctive preposition.
Quit with the Aspergers or whatever it is that makes you double down on your errors.
Shouldn’t you be out evangelizing, you hypocrite?
I cited Strong’s Concordance.
Can you find the word “against” in the Strong’s definition in these links?
https://openbible.com/strongs/hebrew/413.htm
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h413/kjv/wlc/0-1/
Word 413
https://archive.org/details/exhaustiveconcor0000jame/page/274/mode/2up
I happen to own a hardbound copy of Mr. Strong’s exhaustive concordance, BTW.
The potential for word 413 to mean “against” was clearly there already prior to 1890.
The c. 3rd century BC Septuagint uses the Ancient Greek word, “apostrophē” (ἀπόστροφή) which means “a turning away”. It is derived from the verb “apostréphō,” which means “to turn away.” Jesus quoted from the Septuagint.
The last part of the Genesis 3:16 from the LXX says:
πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου καὶ αὐτός σου κυριεύσει
When I put that into an online translator it renders it as:
“Your aversion to your husband will overwhelm you, and he will overwhelm you.”
So, when I put just those words into an unbiased translator, that’s how it rendered it. Unfortunately, When I entered the whole verse in, the translator’s AI seemingly recognized it and then quoted the Brenton’s Septuagint version’s English translation verbatim.
Are you serious? I mean, seriously? Really?
This is embarassing.
The only thing I’m concerned with is fixing your error.
It’s not about whether or not you can find the word there. My own citations of Strong originally showed this to be the case. Did you even read them?
You don’t know how a Concordance is supposed to be used and the implications of what it says. Your are ignorant and lack knowledge. Consequently, you shouldn’t be speaking so confidently of what you don’t know. Humility, submission, and learning in silence would suit you better.
In order to show how foolish you were, I cited Strong four times in my original to demonstrate what others—besides the two of us—think about it. In two of the four citations (here and here), the meaning and usage were clearly separated. In one of them (here), the meaning against only pertained to one verse in the entire Old Testament. Only in the one here was the word included in the “definition,” and guess what? It was an exact quotation of the original that you provided.
Do you know why the online sources have separated the meaning from the use? Well, obviously you don’t or you never would have brought it up in the first place, let alone beclowned yourself by calling me a liar and so declaring yourself to be ignorant of what you speak.
If you knew how to properly use a concordance and lexicon, you’d know the answer. But you don’t, so you misinterpret a tool of the trade because you are a novice who doesn’t know what he is doing.
Recall my suggestion and warning to you?
Here is what that link shows:
Now compare it to the original:
Notice how the modern one takes each component of Strong’s entry and divides it up into the categories of Source, Meaning, and Usage.
That’s the format all the entries take. For example, here is another one:
Notice how Biblehub’s entry here does the same thing?
No, it is the potential for word 413 to be translated or used as “against.” The meaning—or denotation—of a word can not be directly inferred from its connotation and context (which cannot be separated). When my son and I were discussing your point, he pointed out that had he learned about this in middle school and wondered why you didn’t know it.
Even ChatGPT knows how to use it, and the AI engine is typically wrong as often as the average feminist (if not more so):
However, unlike a dictionary, which provides detailed meanings, etymology, and nuances of words, Strong’s Concordance primarily focuses on word occurrences and basic definitions. It is more of a concordance and a lexicon tool, not a comprehensive dictionary of the languages of the Bible.
If you have eyes, see. If you have hears, listen. If you have wisdom, be wise.
If you knew how to properly use a concordance and lexicon, you’d know the answer. But you don’t, so you misinterpret a tool of the trade because you are a novice who doesn’t know what he is doing.
His whole POV/”worldview” on God, Scripture & theology is ALL riding/counting/based on what he believes after his divorce, so i understand why he goes
”All In: Betting everything that you have in front of you.”
as they say in Poker as i just found out recently exactly what it meant
-even though i had heard the phrase on ”Las Vegas/Atlantic City” episodes of TV shows like The Jeffersons, MR. Bellevadere(which i was watching closely for a while on ”AntennaTV” around 2017/’18) and ”married with children” over the last couple of decades.
Save your breath, Derek.
When you start arguing that various dictionaries are wrong, and that those who produced them are ignorant and wrong, so that you alone can become the sole arbiter of the meanings and uses of words, it just shows why people tire of contending with your voluminous screeds of autistic nonsense here on your blog. You really seem to believe that you get to throw out any dictionary definitions that you don’t like and to fabricate stretched definitions for terms you’ve used improperly. (e.g. “circular reasoning” and “survivorship bias”)
You have no love for the truth, only a stubbornness in defending your own Feminist arguments.
And that stubbornness in your refusal to concede anything, no matter how small, that stands against your view, is why folks get tired of dealing with you, because it is fundamentally dishonest.
Even if you want to claim that “against” is a “usage”, that still makes zero difference regarding what I originally wrote.
The internet tells me that: “Usage examples help illustrate the word’s application in real-life situations.”
Websters dictionary says “usage” means: the way in which words and phrases are actually used (as in a particular form or sense) in a language community
Once again, I wrote: FWIW James Strong’s 1890 Hebrew dictionary says that the conjunctive preposition used in Genesis 3:16 can be translated as “against” and his definitions are derived from even earlier German lexicons.
Not a single word of that statement is wrong. And that word (Strong’s 413) has in fact been translated as “against” in 162 places in the NASB.
I didn’t come back here to argue with implacable neurodivergent Feminist retards, I just dropped in to point out that yet again you trolls were lying about my beliefs. And then you claimed that your lie was a joke, and blah blah blah.
I just would like to tell any other people who might read here that if they actually want to investigate what I believe. They should come to my site and read what I actually write, rather than trust the Feminists here to truthfully relay my content and meaning. Because Derek and ProfessorLGBTQ regularly lie about me, because they spurn my boldly pro-patriarchy anti-Feminist message.
Come and read what ties their tailfeathers in such a knot. Don’t rely on these silly birds to do your analysis (thinking) for you.
Bruce Charlton the other day said Deti was either stupid or dishonest for misrepresenting his clearly stated view. I very clearly stated that your handling was wrong, not the dictionary. Which means you are either stupid or dishonest. Which is it?
You paint me as hostile towards the truth because any other explanation would be to admit that your own worldview is anti-truth. You’ve painted us into a corner where you insist only one of us can be pro-truth. Well, so be it: by your own logic, you hate truth and everything you say is an attempt to deceive. Per black-and-white you, there is no other option!
I’ve very carefully and precisely argued my position, established it with multiple pieces of corroborating external evidence.
Meanwhile, you don’t even understand middle school concepts like denotation and connotation. You struggle with higher-order reasoning, despite having a higher IQ than I have. The gifts God has given you are being squandered like the Prodigal Son.
You don’t understand basic concepts about how translations work. For example, how translators do not blindly replace words in a 1:1 manner (as in an interlinear), but rather translate words into the target language so as to convey the meaning of phrases in context, even when the target word does not “back port” into the word in the original language (as with “against”). You don’t even understand what that last bolded sentence even means, just as you didn’t understand Matt Lynch’s explanation. That’s why you don’t know what a Concordance and Lexicon are and how to use them.
Each of your responses just doubles down on your ignorance. Like this:
Even this absolutely refutes your position, but you are too blind to understand why. This explains exactly why against isn’t the definition or meaning of H413, but is merely its use: how the translators use it.
You are an ignorant fool, a novice who thinks he knows more than he actually does. You should be submitting to the authority of the men who know what they are talking about. You should not usurp their authority, but rather learn in subjection and silence.
No, you didn’t. You are incapable of having an intellectual conversation on the same level, because you have demonstrated by your own words that you are far too deficient and ignorant. The only thing you can do is make irrelevant personal attacks and run to other blogs where no one will question your irrational rants. Instead of logic and reason, you seek social supports. Like a woman.
I’m not neurodivergent or on the autism spectrum. I’m what the sphere calls a Sigma, which means I’m not a beta pushover like you are used to dealing with.
You just look like an idiot when you say obviously false statements like that. Why don’t you continue imitating women by calling me an incel creep and declaring that you’ll never sleep with me.
Go then. When you are ready to grow up and join the adult men in conversation, I will be here waiting.
I just would like to tell any other people who might read here that if they actually want to investigate what I believe. They should come to my site and read what I actually write, rather than trust the Feminists here to truthfully relay my content and meaning. Because Derek and ProfessorLGBTQ regularly lie about me, because they spurn my bold butt buddy
feminist pro-matriarchy advances on them as I’m obsessed with them being such superior MEN & able to get the spotlight that I don’t, even with my most inflammatory over-the-top messages this side of biologically LGBTQ GOP (supposedly )biblical gender roles=BLGFBTQGOP(s)bgr=larry solomon=matt Perkins.
Come and read what creeps these superior MEN (that scareth mesz with their intellectual might and & prowess ) who know me from my voluminous and confusing comments, posts & modern ”Conservative” looney tunes messages from the manosphere’s number# 2 troll at Bellevue as I’m known to them as Jack is a distant third, with his heavily lacking in street cred cad dad game that misses with miserably divorced & unhappily married & single MEN equally as well as epically fails with wives. Don’t rely on these silly birds to do your analysis (thinking) for you.
Tell them about how ED Kennedy(who was more like coach Corey Jack Wayne than you will admit to Corey(who is blind to ”Patriarchy” mainly cuz of his two RP princess daughters-funny how you NEVER ”correct” him on that -is he part of the LGBTQ GOP-you must cuck & kneel too?), but you claim to be loving as you do it to Scott, JASON, TON, ED K, Derek, MOSES, JESUS & GBFM and sometimes behind the backs of your LGBTQ GOP, who always ”correct” you with threats of Duluth and you fail your forefathers who did the right thing that you refuse to do in fear of the LGBTQ GOP & their Satanic Duluth laws that Trump & Musk don’t dare touch or dismantle )-
Since his non-belief in/of your ”only MEN made in God’s image” was shouted down by you and your LGBTQ GOP lobbying mob(who also don’t believe it as they don’t preach it) too Sparkly(like the MRAS from the 1850s in NY to today’s failourous ones in the ‘sphere, y’all can’t even get one law passed by the government to help restore even a tiny bit of ”Patriarchy” back.
Derek,
You’re arguing with yourself, and your imaginary strawman that you call by my screen name.
You said:
Only in the one [online dictionary] here was the word [“against”] included in the “definition,” and guess what? It was an exact quotation of the original that you provided.
Were you not trying to contend that one online dictionary was wrong to include “against” in the definition section when some others had instead included it as a “usage”? If not, what was that sperg-out all about? (I really don’t care to know though, I made my point whether you acknowledge it or not)
Either way, I disproved the easily falsifiable belief that nobody before 1970 could have ever contemplated that there may possibly have been a “turning away” or a “turning against” in the text of Genesis 3:16.
You’re just dodging any admission of anything I have presented as if nothing contrary to your views should ever be acknowledged.
Separately, if you actually think the Christian Manosphere is largely made up of INT(X) men, then those INTJ (Mastermind/Architect) and INTP (Logician/Thinker) men should not be waylaid from their spiritual calling of analyzing and figuring out a better course for humanity and Christianity, than where the apostate churches have led us. Why not instead call on the “Teachers” and “Promoters” to exercise their natural gift of evangelism? You really seem to just be trying to throw a stick in the spokes of the Christian Manosphere for your father the devil, and you’ll stoop to any method including deceit, lying, and baffling with [endless] bullshit.
“I’m not neurodivergent or on the autism spectrum.”
Well, whatever compulsion makes you so stubborn in your lies and unable to acknowledge when others make a point, does you no favor.
Is that what you think the argument is about?
The debate before the 1970s was whether tshuwqah meant “turning” or “desire.” There wasn’t any debate over what the preposition “el” meant: toward. Thus the debate was between “turning toward” or “desire toward,” but for the last 500 years, there really hasn’t been much of a debate…. until 1975.
In Genesis 4:8, where “el” is translated as “against” it just means “towards”:
That’s the meaning of “against” here: towards. It indicates direction, not antagonism. What indicates antagonism is that he went towards him to kill him.
A translator decided that “against” would convey the meaning of the passage better than merely using the directional preposition “towards” so that is why they used that word. But even Strong understood that the word meant motion or directionality (either literally or figuratively):
Strong wrote a concordance and lexicon. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive.
By treating Strong’s work as a prescriptive text, you are interpreting the original Hebrew and Greek by using the English translation as your source. It’s eisegesis or circular reasoning (take your pick).
You are projecting.
I have a compulsion to stubbornly resist lies and corruptions. This is just one more area where you are ignorant. I quite often take corrections from people who are right, as on multiple occasions over the past week when Cameron “scored a point.” I have on many other occasions as well.
If you can find an error, I’ll correct it. You have yet to do so.
In a way you trolls are like Job’s friends. You take the men of the Christian manosphere who have suffered greatly, and you run your fool mouth against them blaming them for all the satanic torment they’ve been through. If you had any wisdom, you’d be asking us to pray that God would not deal with you according to all your foolishness and libel.
Still pretending bgr=Biblicalgenderroles=larry solomon=matt perkins isn’t yours & coach Corey jack Wayne’s boi & isn’t the ”Christian” manosphere’ number#1 troll & gay porn supplier to its fool failing for over 7+years now ”leaders” Sparkly & coach Corey jack wayne?
https://web.archive.org/web/20151030221738/https://unsettledchristianity.com/a-word-of-caution-on-biblical-gender-roles/
a word of caution on Biblical Gender Roles
Joel L. Watts October 28, 2015 31
Across facebook and social media there is a furor — a hatred — a chagrin.
But people are angry over nothing.
Nothing but a troll account.
It began a few years ago with the publication of a new website, biblicalgenderroles.com. This site is littered with promotion of spousal rape, spiritual and physical abuse, and the caricatures of Christian masculinity.
But, it is fake. It is run by a non-Christian who is a biblical studies scholar.
A few weeks ago, a long-standing presence on Facebook (Matt Perkins), was outed as this scholar.
i told you the next time i heard ”trolls” talk i was going to say why you said that(you perhaps thought I’d simp-cuck out like you did for 15 years by NOT slapping your wife yet your Father did{(& kept his marriage and family going) decades before the matrix films were released and Dalrock first heard how game works from Roissy =Heartiste & that ” game is the red pill ”(NOT the Bible as you falsely claim as the main false teacher claiming that) from Keoni/Dave} the right thing to do and didn’t do it)?
NO, I’ll gladly & red pillly put up a small reminder comment (this is the first one)every time you say it sparkly!FWIW
You take the men of the Christian manosphere who have suffered greatly, and you run your fool mouth against them blaming them for all the satanic torment they’ve been through.
Also read this as it was funded by your beloved ”small government” run by the GOP!LOL:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/09/230905124922.htm
Study confirms it: Opposites don’t actually attract
A sweeping new analysis including data from millions of couples shows that birds of a feather flock together
Date:
September 5, 2023
Source:
University of Colorado at Boulder
Summary:
A new study looked at more than 130 traits and involved millions of couples over more than a century. It found little evidence that opposites attract. Instead, for 82% to 89% of traits, partners tended to be similar.
Share:
FULL STORY
Opposites don’t actually attract.
That’s the takeaway from a sweeping CU Boulder analysis of more than 130 traits and including millions of couples over more than a century.
“Our findings demonstrate that birds of a feather are indeed more likely to flock together,” said first author Tanya Horwitz, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the Institute for Behavioral Genetics (IBG).
The study, published Aug. 31 in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, confirms what individual studies have hinted at for decades, defying the age-old adage that “opposites attract.”
It found that for between 82% and 89% of traits analyzed — ranging from political leanings to age of first intercourse to substance use habits — partners were more likely than not to be similar.
For only 3% of traits, and only in one part of their analysis, did individuals tend to partner with those who were different than them.
Aside from shedding light on unseen forces that may shape human relationships, the research has important implications for the field of genetic research.
“A lot of models in genetics assume that human mating is random. This study shows this assumption is probably wrong,” said senior author and IBG Director Matt Keller, noting that what is known as “assortative mating” — when individuals with similar traits couple up — can skew findings of genetic studies.
Looking back more than a century
For the new paper, the authors conducted both a review, or meta-analysis, of previous research and their own original data analysis.
For the meta-analysis, they looked at 22 traits across 199 studies including millions of male-female co-parents, engaged pairs, married pairs or cohabitating pairs. The oldest study was conducted in 1903.
In addition, they used a dataset called the UK Biobank to study 133 traits, including many that are seldom studied, across almost 80,000 opposite-sex pairs in the United Kingdom.
Same sex couples were not included in the research. Because the patterns there may differ significantly, the authors are now exploring those separately.
Across both analyses, traits like political and religious attitudes, level of education, and certain measures of IQ showed particularly high correlations. For instance, on a scale in which zero means there is no correlation and 1 means couples always share the trait, the correlation for political values was .58.
Traits around substance use also showed high correlations, with heavy smokers, heavy drinkers and teetotalers tending strongly to partner up with those with similar habits.
and involved millions of couples over more than a century.
That beats the thousands of men that used to be in the manosphere before they fled from its fool-failling ”leaders” Sparkly & coach Corey Jack Wayne huh?
So would you say you and you’re defiler were about 82% alike or up to 89% similar Sparkly?SMH
Your 7-year-old girlfriend from MKUltra says, to call back to Langley, she’s got some bad news about future funding of your trolling operations, and she apologizes in advance that all the stuff she taught you about marriage might start seeming a bit sketchy as your LSD supply peters out.
Remember that time you goofed up and accidentally pasted a gay porn link you had previously copied into your comment at Spawny’s Space? Good times, ProfessorLGBTQ.
Does that little girl know about your butt-hexing fixation? ZLOLOLZLOLZLOLZ!
Your 7-year-old girlfriend from MKUltra says, to call back to Langley, she’s got some bad news about future funding of your trolling operations, and she apologizes in advance that all the stuff she taught you about marriage might start seeming a bit sketchy as your LSD supply peters out.
Remember that time you goofed up and accidentally pasted a gay porn link you had previously copied into your comment at Spawny’s Space? Good times, ProfessorLGBTQ.
Does that little girl know about your butt-hexing fixation? ZLOLOLZLOLZLOLZ!
Your 7-year-old girlfriend
i NEVER said i had a 7-year-old girlfriend{that is something he feministically(being the same age which is most proper for feminists like him)implied by what i did say-which is below}
i said i was 7yo-where did i ever mention the girl’s age in that statement-(then y’all wonder if he has a reading comprehension problem?)
But the above is why you don’t speak to fedpillers in the first place(its nothing personal with the above one-as their all about 89% similar in behavior,writing & hatred of God’s favored prophets and leaders)
SEE the above?
Now see what i mean by whatever Republican-approved at the time garbage that is trendy fools like Sparkly obediently follow(which is NOT his personal fault as it’s just his natural instinct to REBEL & to try to overthrow law and order)? If this was 15 or 20 years ago he would tell me something like below:
”I bet you don’t salute ‘ole glory nor stand when the national anthem is played at a GOP beloved NFL game”
-which was popular with dittoheads back then.-BUT NOW THEY YELL ” DOWN WIT DA EVILZ GOVERNMENT AND UP WIT A PUA GAMER-STYLE WWF VINCENT KENNEDY MCMAHON LIKE THE DON GOVERNMENT WHO ALSO CAN’T KEEP HIS WIFE UNDER CONTROL”
”He such a fool he acts like I’m talking present day like his Republican Satanic feminist langly MKULTRA masters taught him as he is(obviously) a fedpiller(fed funded ”redpiller” designed to make the sphere look bad even though 99.9% of the sphere doesn’t agree with one bit of what he writes) that preaches inflammatory stuff to make the manosphere look bad intentionally hence why he was banned at Dalrock as DAL’ himself stated:
NATHAN: I’ve seen more than one commenter in your archives say that a woman needs a good old fashioned spanking (or words to that effect). I see in your “comments policy” you ask people to refrain from discussing marital corporal punishment. I have several questions about that. First (just to get it out of the way): do you or any of your more serious followers support marital corporal punishment? Why or why not?
DALROCK: I don’t support marital corporal punishment. I don’t think it is needed, and I also don’t see it as consistent with the instructions to husbands in the NT. I’m not sure exactly who my “serious followers” are, but I think the vast majority of my readers would be horrified if you told them they had an obligation to practice marital corporal punishment.
I added the comment rule because while the number of commenters who brought up the topic was small, when they did so it tended to derail all other discussion. This makes it both off topic and highly disruptive. Also, if I were going to troll the Christian men’s sphere this is exactly how I would troll it.
Also, if I were going to troll the Christian men’s sphere this is exactly how I would troll it.
Then a few months later Dalrock told him thusly :
D: I binned it. I can’t tell if you are an intentional troll or just don’t understand what you are doing. Either
way, it saves me work to move you from the moderation list to the blacklist, so I’ll take you up on your suggestion.]
I can’t tell if you are an intentional troll
So what did Dalrock really think of that guy,the above isn’t clear enough?
If Dalrock thought that, then you know it’s true of any pill-taking fools like Sparkly & coach Corey Jack Wayne.
LSD supply peters out.
Sparkly has been butt hurt ever since I’ve talked about elrushbo at Spawny’s Space being an opioid criminal which isn’t to be done as he was the first one that gave Sparkly hope for a future America without non – tradtardcon-GOP feminazis.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rush-limbaugh-arrested-on-drug-charges/
Rush Limbaugh and prosecutors in the long-running prescription fraud case against him have reached a deal calling for the only charge against the conservative commentator to be dropped without a guilty plea if he continues treatment, his attorney said Friday.
Limbaugh turned himself in to authorities on a warrant filed Friday charging him with fraud to conceal information to obtain prescriptions, said Teri Barbera, a spokeswoman for the Palm Beach County Jail. He and his attorney Roy Black left about an hour later, after Limbaugh was photographed and fingerprinted and he posted $3,000 bail, Barbera said.
Prosecutors’ three-year investigation of Limbaugh began after he publicly acknowledged being addicted to pain medication and entered a rehabilitation program. They accused Limbaugh of “doctor shopping,” or illegally deceiving multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions, after learning that he received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion.
Sparkly cognitively dissonance and double-mindedness denies the above is TRUE and still believes in a GOP, NOT God -backed ”Patriarchy”, even while Trump’s rebellious wife says women should be able to murder babies on demand like ALL unholy ”Patriarchies” have preached since even before the Roman Empire.
Your 7-year-old girlfriend
Now see why You are NOT suppose to say the following Scripture to the ”innocent”miserably divorced Republican unManly ”MEN” in the sphere that are allowed to spit on a little boys love for a little girl(BUT their ”adult” love is so very very clean like a wimminz by God!) but you better NOT in the very least say they might be an(obvious) God and MAN (& boy)-hating fedpiller:
To the pure [in heart and conscience] all things are pure, but to the defiled and corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are defiled and polluted.-
Titus 1:15-Amplified Bible (AMP)
Now see why one isn’t suppose to say that to the ”innocent”miserably divorced Republican unmanly ”MEN” in the sphere that ”they might be an(obvious) God and MAN (& boy)-hating fedpiller?”
ProfessorLGBTQ, are you saying that because you’re “pure in heart”, when you post a gay porn link that it is pure, and that the rest of us are corrupt for not appreciating it? Derek says I “struggle with higher-order reasoning”, so I’m not making the connection.
Hey, Sparkly what was ”pure in heart” about bringing in strapons into marriage by your BFF Jack?
https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2021/09/20/lessons-on-life-and-marriage-from-matthew-10/
As you should have asked your BFF Jack,” When you post a gay porn link that it is pure ”headship strapon”, are the rest of us corrupt for not appreciating it?”
WHY didn’t Sparkly who complains that Jack ” moderates him against the wishes of God’s Holy Patriarchy” , NOT take Jack to the woodshed on that one?
Cuz Sparkly and Jack are both Clinton-esque LGBTQ GOP checker-pants Rockefeller Republicans who opened the floodgates of Satanic Feminism by even creating the well-known Satanic, unamerican & ungodly federal reserve in 1913, then they themselves got swept away by it and complained about it and demanded socialized ”Patriarchy” to protect them from themselves and their ”wants”.
It was from these same Clinton-esque pure ”headship strapon” LGBTQ GOP checker-pants Rockefeller Republicans that WE got to the total collapse of ”Conservative” & puritan America as described here:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023120908472
Abstract
Recent studies have found that state-level religious and political conservatism is positively associated with various aggregate indicators of interest in pornography. Such studies have been limited, however, in that they either did not include data measuring actual consumption patterns and/or did not include data on individuals (risking the ecological fallacy). This study overcomes both limitations by incorporating state-level data with individual-level data and a measure of pornography consumption from a large nationally representative survey. Hierarchical linear regression analyses show that, in the main, state-level religious and political characteristics do not predict individual-level pornography consumption, and individual-level religiosity and political conservatism predict less recent pornography consumption. However, interactions between individual-level evangelical identity and state-level political conservatism indicate that evangelicals who live in more politically conservative states report the highest rates of pornography consumption. These findings thus provide more nuanced support for previous research linking religious and political conservatism with greater pornography consumption.
Within the past few decades scholars have sought to understand how broader community norms and cultures, generally measured at the state level, might correlate with the presence of pornography in those communities. A rather counterintuitive, yet remarkably consistent, finding in such studies is that indicators of interest in pornography tend to be higher in states characterized by greater religiosity as well as religious and political conservatism. In their early study examining how sex magazine circulation across states correlated with sexual liberalism in those states, Jaffee and Straus (1987) observed that although liberal sexual attitudes were predictably most prominent in northeastern states and lowest in southern states, the South and the Northeast were indistinguishable in terms of their sex magazine circulation. This suggested an attraction to pornographic magazines in southern states that persisted despite its climate of religious and political conservatism and the attendant sanctions against such materials in the 1980s.1 Twenty years later, analyzing state-level correlates of credit card subscriptions to an adult entertainment Web site from 2006 to 2008, Edelman (2009) found that subscriptions were more prevalent in states characterized by conservative religious and family values. Similarly, Daines and Shumway (2011) reported that Playboy magazine sales at the state level strongly predicted divorce rates, which tend to be higher in states with more conservative Protestants and Republicans (Glass and Levchak 2014).
More recent research has taken advantage of Google Trends data, finding that Google searches for sexually explicit terms (e.g., “porn,” “lesbian porn,” “free porn,” “sex,” “sex tape”) tend to be higher in states with higher percentages of religious and political conservatives. Looking at Google searches in 2011 and 2012, MacInnis and Hodson (2015) found that states with higher percentages of Americans who self-identified as “very religious” or who affirmed that their political views were “conservative” showed comparatively higher search rates for the term “sex” on the Web and through Google Images. Decomposing religious distinctions even further, Whitehead and Perry (2018) reported that states with higher percentages of evangelical Protestants, theists, persons who believe the Bible should be interpreted literally, and frequent churchgoers showed more searches for the term “porn” (along with other terms like “lesbian porn,” “sex tape,” and “free porn” in ancillary analyses). These authors explain their findings through different theoretical frameworks like the preoccupation hypothesis (MacInnis and Hodson 2015) or moral communities theory, and the possibility that the persons doing the searches for sexually-explicit content are children in the homes of religious conservatives (Whitehead and Perry 2018).
Despite the consistency of these findings, previous research on this topic is beset by one of two issues that limit how much each study can help us understand the link between state-level religious or political climate and pornography. First, in the case of recent studies focusing on Google searches for sexually explicit terms aggregated at the state level, such studies did not have data measuring actual consumption patterns. That is to say, we are unable to discern the context in which the search term was used, which might not have been for the purpose of arousal or masturbation. Second, none of the above studies had data on individuals, and consequently, risk the ecological inference fallacy in which conclusions about individual behavior are drawn from group-level observations (Kingston and Malamuth 2011).2
The aim of the present study is to remedy both these limitations in order to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential connection between state-level religious and political conservatism and pornography use. Specifically, we use data from a large, representative survey of American adults that contains a measure of intentional pornography consumption, and we analyze these data alongside various state-level characteristics in hierarchical linear regression models. Consequently, we are able to account for individual- and state-level religious and political characteristics (along with other controls) with actual pornography use as our outcome.
Our expectations about how individual- and state-level religious and political characteristics might predict pornography consumption when both are taken into account also uses a moral communities framework applied by Whitehead and Perry (2018; see Stark 1996 for the formulation of this perspective). The key assumption of the moral communities approach is that groups are more than the sum of individual constituents but have independent qualities, and thus, group-level measures may show different outcomes than individual-level measures. Glass and Levchak (2014), for example, pointed out the paradoxical situation that conservative Protestants as individuals have lower divorce rates than other Americans, but states with more conservative Protestants have higher divorce rates. Eliminating other ecological factors, the authors showed that the conservative Protestant subculture encourages early marriage and lower educational attainment for women, which thus contributes to higher divorce rates, even for those who are not conservative Protestants (see other applications of this approach in Lee and Bartkowski 2004; Regnerus 2003; Stroope and Baker 2018; Ulmer, Bader, and Gault 2008).
Applying this perspective to pornography use, following previous research (Grubbs et al. 2019; Hardy et al. 2013; Perry 2016), we would expect persons who are more religiously or politically conservative at the individual level to report lower pornography consumption patterns than those who are more religiously and politically liberal. However, we would also expect the broader religious and political context to moderate this trend. Whitehead and Perry (2018) proposed that communities characterized by more pervasive traditionalist values and stronger mechanisms of social control might inhibit the possibility of interpersonal sexual exploration and activity for individuals. This might drive individual men and women to consume pornography more regularly as opposed to those who live in contexts in which persons are less constrained. This also might create a paradoxical situation in which individuals who identify with religious or political conservatism do indeed on average tend to consume less pornography than others, but those cultural conservatives who happen to live in conservative states might experience more comprehensive social control that drives them toward the most surreptitious activities for sexual exploration, like pornography. That is to say, we expect a moderating effect between individual-level and state-level conservatism on pornography use. More specifically, persons who are more religiously or politically conservative personally (and thus more concerned with community reputation and sanctions; see Grubbs et al. 2019; Perry 2019) will be more likely to regularly consume pornography if they live in more conservative states where there are more pervasive norms sanctioning overt sexual “deviance.” Conversely, we expect that persons who are more religiously or politically conservative in nonconservative states would feel less constrained by societal stigma on overt sexuality and would thus be less likely to consume pornography as a substitute.
Method
Data
Individual Level
Data for individual-level characteristics are taken from the 2014 Relationships in America (RIA) Survey, a nationally representative probability sample of 15,738 adults between the ages of 18 and 60 residing in the United States. Commissioned and developed by the Austin Institute (see Litchi et al. 2014), the 2014 RIA data were collected by the research firm GfK using their nationally representative panel of adults. Members of the GfK panel are randomly recruited through address-based sampling methods, and each household is provided Internet access and hardware, if necessary. The completion rate for the main survey was 62 percent.3 Survey weights were assigned on the basis of each case’s probability of being selected and the overall sampling design to ensure that the overall sample is representative of all American adults ages 18 to 60 (for more details about the 2014 RIA Survey, see Litchi et al. 2014; Perry 2019, 2020). These sample weights are applied in all analyses. The final n for the multivariate analyses includes 14,355 participants who provide valid information on all variables included in the analysis.
State Level
Data for state-level characteristics are taken from multiple sources, including the 2010 Religious Congregations and Membership Study, the 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey conducted by Pew, and the 2008–2012 American Community Surveys. We describe the measures taken from each data set below.
Now see why these ”headship strapon” enthusiasts and connoisseurs like Sparkly., Jack & bgr=Biblicalgenderroles=larry solomon=matt perkins came into the manosphere to appease their fellow ”headship strapon” enthusiasts and connoisseurs in ”red states” and make $$$ off of the anti-American and anti-puritan ”headship strapon” gay porn to tear down ALL that Satanic feminism hasn’t yet, got the connection now?
You already knew in May 2021 that i knew all about bgr=Biblicalgenderroles=larry solomon=matt perkins being a gay porn troll in the manosphere-even before LexetLaw said it at https://fullmetalpatriarchy.wordpress.com/ on the post that ”mysteriously ”got deleted.
i told you i found that https://web.archive.org/web/20151030221738/https://unsettledchristianity.com/a-word-of-caution-on-biblical-gender-roles/ site page in September 2020(before i even contacted Derek to show how long ago that was now) –
And then in September 2021 Jack is setting up a deal with Mike Davis to promote their own brand of ”headship strapon” LGBTQ GOP gay porn that destroyed ALL the success that Jack had been bestowed from on high(God) by way of MOSES, JESUS & GBFM who when they got back together with old friends from Dalrock made magic(higher than ever pageviews and amount of comments and commenters too than ever before per post-100-150 comments on average per post see if Jack will ever match that-let alone exceed it) happen at SF that got obliterated after Jack returned to his vomit like a dog does (Proverbs 26:11) by his love of ”headship strapon” LGBTQ GOP gay porn.
Pingback: Genesis 3:16 Revisted 3.0 - Derek L. Ramsey
Gosh. What’s particularly infuriating is this tendency to treat people as objects to be manipulated, implying they’re mere variables in a formula, predictable and programmable. If you do X, they’ll respond with Y. But people cannot be “gamed” like that. Humans aren’t variables. The core flaw in much of the Red Pill (and adjacent manosphere) ideology is that for their theories to hold, they must reduce people, humanity as a whole, to simplistic labels, effectively dehumanizing them. Ironically, in crafting these systems to explain human behavior, they’ve dehumanized themselves too. Consider the standards they set for themselves: rigid, mechanical, and nearly devoid of vitality. Rather than working to cultivate their own growth (striving to become better, more noble men, radiant with character and purpose) they settle for a stunted version of masculinity. By clinging to such a small, lifeless framework, they sabotage their potential, trading the opportunity for a truly remarkable manhood for something far less dynamic and inspiring.
Here’s the thing: true strength, especially for a man, comes from trusting in the Lord to overcome any trial, no matter how deceptive or tempestuous it may be. Instead of teaching men to control relationships like a game, why not encourage them to be strong in faith? That way, they can face any storm.
If Solomon, one of the wisest men to ever live, admitted that the way of a man with a maid was beyond his understanding (Proverbs 30:19), how can the average Red Pill theorist hope to dissect something so beautiful and mysterious? There’s a pertinent saying: we kill what we dissect. Humans don’t operate like computers, but we do mirror how we’re treated. If you reduce someone to a label, don’t be surprised when they return the favor. Maybe the better approach is simpler: treat others as you’d want to be treated.
(I’m sorry if I sound too harsh. It just saddens me to see people act this way. I suspect if we sat down to talk, they’d be decent folks at heart. Bitterness has a cruel knack for isolating a person.)
E,
…
(I’m sorry if I sound too harsh. It just saddens me to see people act this way. I suspect if we sat down to talk, they’d be decent folks at heart. Bitterness has a cruel knack for isolating a person.)
I don’t know what you mean by being too harsh. To what are you referring when you talk about the tendency to treat people as objects?
Here is what comes to my mind:
I started objectifying my wife more, and treating her more like a possession. [..] The results were as expected more attraction from my wife.
Is it this to which you refer?
Peace,
DR
“I don’t know what you mean by being too harsh.”
When I said I’m sorry if I sound too harsh, I meant I don’t want to come across as cruel or dismissive. It saddens me to see people approach relationships this way (like Dalrock’s comment about objectifying his wife to get more attraction) and I worry my words might cut too deep. A well-adjusted person, raised with care and love, doesn’t naturally gravitate toward this kind of calculated detachment. It’s not normal to hyper-focus on tweaking a relationship like it’s a machine, chasing some idealized outcome where your partner plays to your tune. I suspect there’s hurt behind it, maybe from their past, that’s driving this cold, calculated way of connecting. I’m trying to keep that in mind and not just judge them outright, because bitterness can twist anyone into a lonelier version of themselves. Still, from where I’m standing, it looks so hollow, like they’re missing the real heart of what a relationship can be.
“To what are you referring when you talk about the tendency to treat people as objects?”
It’s this: when you boil a relationship down to a formula, do X and get Y, you’ve turned a person into a thing. Dalrock’s post is a glaring case. Objectify her, treat her like a possession, and boom, attraction spikes. Success! Swap her out for anyone else who delivers the same reaction, and the playbook still works. There’s no room here for her as an individual, her fears, her quirks, or the way her past shapes her present. Why does she tick the way she does? What’s the story behind her hesitations or her warmth? Maybe she lisps when she’s nervous because someone once mocked her, or maybe she’s shy with affection because she was taught it’s weakness. These men, caught up in this redpill neurosis, don’t seem to care. They’re not interested in the grunt work of truly knowing someone. They want minimum input for maximum output, like it’s a game to win, not a bond to build.
That’s what makes it so lifeless. Love isn’t a sterile transaction. When you love someone, you crave the details, their odd little habits, their quiet worries, and the joys they carry like secrets. You don’t just tolerate their frustrations; you share them. You delight in adding to their happiness, not because it “works,” but because it’s them. This objectification stuff is a shadow of that. It’s a system so cold it can’t even pretend to touch the real thing.
I had more-or-less the same reaction you had when I first started reading the ‘sphere, and that feeling has never evaporated.
I thought the same thing with “Dave from Hawaii” (aka Keoni Galt) in my comment a few weeks ago.
The Professor has mentioned, on many occasions, that they don’t really like women, in the way that we do. We can talk to them and spend time with them and simply find enjoyment in being with them as they are and for who they are. We don’t view them as threats or objects.
i,MOD,Derek,Liz and Elspeth know for a fact pseudonym commenter Deti is a decent at heart guy he just got too caught up in the redpill echochamber, like too many others have and then heavily turned even against Liz and Elspeth after that ”lessons-on-life-and-marriage-from-matthew-10” post that failed even with redpill MEN that was at that SF blog i mentioned before further up in September 2021 and where he then started saying ”MEN can’t even watch porn anymore without women’s disturbing them or something!”at another site/blog run by a English agnostic/athiest guy i had known about at the Dalrock blog since around early 2014.
Anyway it is similar to what is said here:
Dealing with people captured by ideology
Seeking Stoic Advice
Had a long convo with an old friend. He told me he has this super nice and Christian Neighboor but “I know my views are super different than his so I haven’t spent time hanging out with him”… who cares! If someone’s nice it shouldn’t matter. I tried telling him that but he thinks it does cuz he’s had some bad experiences with some old bully type conservative people I guess. I am tired of living in a world where people judge others so harshly based off political views, where you’d can see the good and someone and like them but not hangout because of some hypothetical viewpoint you have about what they may or may not think. I now recognize that if i grew up in someone else’s environment and had their experiences i would probably think the same way, so maybe I need to not judge, as I do not think he should judge people that also have different views. I am being no better than he is right now. As Marcus said “it is not their fault, it is their ignorance of what is good and evil” Note- haven’t been close with this dude for a couple years now, for more reasons than just because of this attitude.
&
These images trigger the amygdala when the photos are of people of a different race. It doesn’t matter what the race of the subject is, anyone who is of a different race is registered very quickly as a potential threat by the amygdala. This is a very, very ancient behavior which, interestingly, we can override rather easily. The next part of this test is to show the same images, but this time the people in the photos are wearing caps with the logo of their local team or a rival team. This time the amygdala fires up when the caps of the rival team are worn, regardless of the race of the person wearing it. I don’t know, but I find that absolutely fascinating. And a little optimistic.
So your friend is deferring to an ancient part of his brain that says, “this guy here is one of ‘those’ and not one of ‘us,’ so be weary.” Maybe your friend has a negative stereotype of Christians, or maybe he just isn’t interested in reaching out to someone he suspects is not likely to be one of the “us-es” for him, and why not use that cognitive energy to support already existing relationships that are desired?
Perhaps you can think of some “them” groups, the individual members of which you would not wish to socialize. Say, overtly racist, sexist (misogynist or androgynist), arsonists, pedophiles – even if you know they never act on their attractions. Is there really no group in society you would think would not be worth your time to foster a relationship with? I have friends like this, so I know they exist, but they’re a rare breed. As much as I’d like to say I would support a friendship with someone whose views I find unethical or problematic, I don’t think I would. Not because the world is so divisive today (it always was, we just hear it differently today), but because I wouldn’t budget my time to include someone I don’t believe would be beneficial in my life. That said, I would, like your friend probably, be genuinely friendly.
So why deepen a relationship with someone you have reason to believe won’t fit in with your values? Marcus Aurelius was right in that people do not do bad things willingly, but consider also how Epictetus advises choosing your friends wisely for your own virtuous gains. Regarding old friends, he says,
You must choose whether to be loved by these friends and remain the same person, or to become a better person at the cost of those friends . . . if you try to have it both ways you will neither make progress nor keep what you once had.
So the idea of budgeting relationships has merit. Not only is it biologically necessary, it’s advantageous when we do it well. We all respond to the “them” in our lives differently. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong way to feel about someone, though there is a more or less reasonable way, though I don’t mean to suggest which way is more reasonable here. I’m just throwing this idea out as food for thought
Hi, this speaks directly to me. Where is it from exactly?
Edit: Found it
“…is a decent at heart guy he just got too caught up in the redpill echochamber…”
That makes sense. I originally commented that many of their observations and addendums to these theories seem like a reach for meaningful connection, but I edited that out. Still, it does feel true, and maybe you’re hinting at that too. When you build a friend group around a single talking point, you’re sort of stuck feeding it. And if that crowd was questionable or toxic from the start, it’s no shock that someone’s morals could get so warped.
I used to lurk on that blog (σ’s) around 2020, so many of the names are familiar. I’m on the younger side (< ’99), and back then, those posts were mentally rough to wade through. Plus, there was a lot of unnecessary filth mixed in, so I I buried that corner of my thoughts and moved on. The other day, I searched to see if anyone, literally anyone, could set the record straight on "hypergamy," stumbled across this blog, and then noticed it linked back to that old one. Strange coincidence.
The Professor and I take a lot of flak for criticizing other people that we kind of actually like. We don’t “pick on them” just to pick on them. We have legitimate concerns and we care.
I think only former commenter ,Surfdumb, understood this. Most other people take it like it is a personal attack. Oh, well….
Yeah, I can see that even in the way theories are debunked so as to bring someone around not to alienate them. In a way that’s more honorable than anything because it’s easier for someone to just say you’re wrong, but to patiently show why, aiming to enlighten, is rarer and reflects genuine respect for the person.