I originally intended this post to be part of my regular “Saturday Misadventures” feature. It was even scheduled for a future Saturday. That was all well and good….until I was mentioned in a directly applicable conversation at Spawny’s Space. But, before we get into that, let’s read the original post. It’s not very long.
Here is another bit of absurd irony by a feminist.
I will use one friend as an example. She went to Harvard, has worked in strategy and VC for years, is a sweet and normal girl who wants to start a family. She tries to date guys, but all of the ones she has tried to be serious with have wasted her time, so she’s trying to optimize for guys that don’t do that now.
She’s driven, smart, talented, funny, kind, and beautiful. She deserves to be one half of a power couple.
Men don’t want that, and they don’t want to be scolded for wanting something else.
The feminist clearly has no self-awareness.
Now, let’s talk about those comments. It all started with a comment by a former, but highly respected, commenter to this blog, Surfdumb. While I tend to avoid the commentary made by others, Surfdumb has earned the right to be respected and to have his comments taken seriously.
Here is the series of comments:
Yep. That’s not even said out of bitterness. Anger, yes, anger at the loss that comes from women denying reality and the destruction of God’s gifts of families and a peaceful society, but not bitterness.
It’s probably strange for the women’s auxiliary or maybe Derek, to read, Fee’s response. I can see them saying:
Derek would say there’s no point in addressing women at all.
The former women’s auxiliary would take it personally and then launch into
–not all women are like that
–i’m not like that
–the women I know/went to school with/church with/talk to aren’t like that
–you’re just bitter/angry
–who hurt you/I’m going to pray for you
etc.
My point about the women’s auxiliary and Derek is that (if they are) dismissing it misses out on an opportunity for wisdom. The fee post can sound bitter, but society is draining, and it’s a god short description of current reality. Wisdom to know the season and then using our ability and armor to stand in the face of it. What armor is needed in saying, they are bitter?” Bitterness isn’t godly and in some situations it’s wisdom to see it and call it out.
First, let’s get something out of the way. The Women’s Auxiliary has been permanently disbanded and isn’t coming back. There will never be another “launch” into anything. Anything more imaginary things said about them will just be shouting into the wind. Congrats, boys, at a job poorly done.
Second, the Commenter is exactly correct about what my response would be. I would say that there is no point in addressing women at all. If you pay close attention to my opening comment, you’ll see I did exactly that:
Men don’t want that, and they don’t want to be scolded for wanting something else.
This is about men, not women.
Society got the way it was because of the decisions of men and if it is ever going to change it will be because of the decisions of men. If there is one thing I’m consistent on, its that I don’t blame women for the bad things that happen in marriages. Men have all the tools required to fix what is broken. That’s what real patriarchy is: men having the agency to do what needs to be done and exercising that agency by doing it without making excuses.
Third, Surfdumb is also right about what my response would be. A majority of men are still doing it right. The problem is there is insufficient critical mass. Not enough men are doing it right. I’m not sure I’d say “The market only needs a few tweaks” as the problems are pretty monumental and numerous after a generation or two of corruption, but they do mostly involve men getting better. It would be nice if women would get better on their own too, but it’s not a requirement in order for men to act.
What’s that the Bible says about heaping coals on the top of heads? Seems to apply here.
Fourth, as my comment above affirms, Feeriker is also quite correct:
This is what is called “mainlining copium.” It might also be referred to as “self-delusion.”
The truth is that these excuses are all secondary, maybe tertiary explanations as to why older women are being ignored by men. In reality, women of ALL ages are being ignored by more and more men. The reason is much simpler and more fundamentally prosaic than those offered above.
The reason men are avoiding you women is that we’ve had ENOUGH of you. Like a child who has been gorging on hamburgers made from bad meat, we’re sick of you. Our tolerance threshold has been exceeded. For sixty years we’ve watched you turn from first pleasant, then gradually to disagreeable, then to ugly (in demeanor, not looks), and now finally to intolerable. Seething with envy, hatred, and resentment, only superficially toward us, but really towards yourselves for the stupid, self-destructive decisions you’ve made for yourselves in your younger years. We now have neither the stomach nor the lifetime remaining to waste dealing with it or with you.
We don’t care anymore. You didn’t need or want us, so we adapted. We now no longer want or need you. In fact, seeing and listening to you is at best irritating, at worst nausea-inducing. To give you the time of day would make us the proverbial dog returning to its own vomit. There’s no remotely conceivable benefit in it for us. You didn’t want us in your prime, so we’re not going to support or save you in your decline.
Enjoy the fruits of your bicycle-free lifestyles:
<picture of boxed wine>
<picture of a herd of cats>
<picture of antidepressents>
The fact is, what feminism has done is turn alter the priorties of men and women such that women no longer offer men what they want. Every day it is harder and harder for men and women to assortatively pair effectively. I mean, sure, all men want the physical side of things, but they don’t have to give women anything they want in order to get it. The bottom line is that when it comes to marriage, men don’t want what it is offered. No amount of scolding can improve that, but it can certainly make things worse.
If women don’t need men like fish don’t need bicycles, then, as Feeriker says, “enjoy the fruits of your bicycle-free lifestyles.” Men just want something else.
Fifth, Matt Walsh gets it right too:
Is the “resist not evil”, “turn the other cheek”, pacifist, who doesn’t vote, “because it’s stupid”, now claiming that other men should have stood up and somehow fought against the evils of Feminism every step of the way?
Did you go to fool-school to learn how to take a brilliant mind like yours and end up a useless scold?
Seriously! Your do-nothing Christian dogma is exactly how a Christian-majority nation got to where our nation is exporting abortion, Feminism, gay pride, transgenderism, and the sexualization of children, all around the globe and forcing those evils upon nations led by other religions.
“Resist not evil” was a dose of Jesus sarcasm. The Pharisees followed the law, “an eye for an eye”. And they considered themselves keepers of the whole law and blameless before the law. But Jesus was saying that merely following the law still doesn’t make you equal to the Father in heaven and worthy to dwell with Him. Because the Father is greater than mere law keepers. God doesn’t resist all evil or else there would be none, and the Father doesn’t need to resist evil, because he is indestructible and not able to be defiled by it. Jesus’ point was that (unlike God) they did have to resist evil, or it would destroy them. And since they couldn’t reign above all evil like God Himself, they were going to need a redeemer to cover their shortcoming. And that was why Jesus came. That was Jesus’ Gospel, that He had come to redeem all who fall short of the glory of God, including those who had faithfully kept the letter of the law as best as they could.
If you don’t ever resist evil, that puts evil in charge without opposition, no matter how weak and tiny a minority it once started as, you’ve doomed yourself to succumb to its triumph. You didn’t get the joke. “Resist not evil” and “turn the other cheek” were statements of sarcasm pointing out the impossibility of the Pharisees behaving in the manner of God and not becoming dominated by evil.
You teach pacifist impotence to the point where Satan doesn’t even need to bind you, because you bind yourself from resisting his evil. The devil’s cosmic joke is spoiling your goods that were entrusted to you by God without even needing to bind you. Satan is making sport, of your seemingly autistic inability to grasp Jesus’ joke, before a great cloud of heavenly witnesses, and you’re too willfully dense to recognize it.
For an Anabaptist—and a Mennonite in particular—you are surprisingly uninformed about Anabaptist beliefs.
Nope. This is incorrect, and shows that you don’t understand Anabaptist theology, both as it is taught and as it is actually practiced, even after it was explained to you. You probably don’t (or can’t) understand why I once said that Mennonites were the first SJWs long before there were SJWs as such.
I practice true patriarchy while mocking and deriding the practices of that pathetically weak form of “patriarchy” that you and others in the Dalrockian Manosphere advocate. Weak patriarchy is a cosmic joke.
I’ll say this over and over again: you’ve done far more damage to the cause of patriarchy than you could ever hope to do good. All those errors that you ascribe to me are just you describing your own reflection.
No, it wasn’t. I spent multiple articles explaining why you (and the source you cited) don’t understand figures-of-speech, none of which you’ve bothered to respond to. The best you’ve been able to do is repeat more of the same thing here that you already said in the past and that I had already responded to. You’ve been completely unable and/or unwilling to provide a substantive response (not that one exists…).
Heh! The joke is that you don’t recognize the figure-of-speech.
It has been shown to me by your past performance that arguing with you about most things is a waste of my time. A substantive response to you is a waste of my time. Your post about the phrase “great cloud of witnesses” was just you sperging out that you don’t believe what the Bible literally says, and you falsely strawmanning my quotation into a belief in ghosts. You weren’t attacking any of my beliefs, only a strawman you constructed to battle with. And it wasn’t my words that you were saying didn’t mean what they say, it was God and the author of “Hebrews” words.
You and I see different parts of the Bible as literal and nonliteral. You see God commanding you to literally “resist not evil” and I see that as clear hyperbole/sarcasm directed at the Pharisees who thought following the letter of the law was equal to behaving like God. That’s why your religion has allowed the USA, which was once over 90% professing Christians, to become the global leader in pushing wickedness and godlessness on the rest of the world. That is the fruit of not resisting evil, you moron. If you refuse to see it, that’s not my problem. It is Satan who wants to bind you and keep you from resisting his evils.
James tells us to “resist the devil”. According to hermeneutics, one of those two contradictory commands must not literally mean what it seems. And to me it is pretty obvious that God wants us to resist temptation, resist sin, resist evil, and Etc.
And don’t interpret my response here as an indication that I want to argue with a stubborn liar, nor will I necessarily even waste my time reading all of your screeds in response. You just twist the definitions of words and terms and then claim you “proved” this and that.
When I post historical evidence, you ignorantly call it “survivorship bias”, but when you post similar historical quotes, you say you “proved” me wrong. You’re like arguing with a stubborn autistic child.
You claim “I believe X” is an example of circular reasoning. How can I take you seriously after that? There is no point to conversing with such an intractable fool.
My comments are mainly for others who might read here, who can check things out for themselves. Most people don’t need their head held down and their nose jammed in their own folly a thousand times, all they need is to be pointed in the right direction, and then they can discern the truth, because they have some discernment ability and not a pathological predilection towards the cognitive distortion of dichotomous thinking.
You literally seem to have to claim to find a “logical fallacy” in everything or else believe it to its furthest extent. That’s nuts! And that compulsion for binary thinking often turns you into a liar against the truth. Because if you cannot accept the wildest possible (mis)applications of a concept you reflexively declare it false, and not just hesitantly, you go “all in” on your Black-or-White thinking. And that’s not my problem either. I can’t fix that about you. Only you can work on that.
Why did Jesus say to sell the cloak and buy a sword? I reckon it was so that folks could resist evil, not try to use the sword as a dildo. Your pacifism is as wrongheaded as communism. They are both based upon foolish misconceptions.
Jesus explained why in the very next verse.
The reason I haven’t studied Pacifism is the same reason I haven’t studied Marxism. They are both foolishness predicated on misconceptions, which are apparent almost at first glance. And I don’t really care to train myself to argue with fools.
Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”. Marxism requires other people’s money to prop it up and keep the masses from being impoverished and eventually starving. Likewise, pacifism is only a system you can live and thrive under as long as you have other people willing to expend their lives to uphold good laws and to fight your battles to defend you and your dependents from marauders.
They are both parasitic. One relies on some other host class’s economic wealth to support their economic foolishness, and the other relies on their host’s virtue to defend them from their own vice of refusing to appropriately defend themselves, and their young, and the most basic moral laws required for people to thrive.
Derek once wrote, “The covid lockdowns showed that my church was apostate, when it yielded to the government demands to shut down and refused to repent.”
I know I might trigger an autistic semantics storm by asking this after you’ve claimed that “resist not evil” is a literal command of God, but if they weren’t supposed to yield to that evil, were you expecting them to resist that evil?
I’m already laughing at your dorky reply in advance. LOL
Wake up, oh sleeper! Your apostate church taught you foolishness.
You’ve accused me of “pacifism” and being a “pacifist” more than a dozen times. This is a figment of your imagination. I have never once claimed to be a pacifist here. I went through the entirety of this blog’s comment and article history just to be sure.
But, in addition to my articles on the subject, three times I have told you that your understanding of the subject is wrong. You continued in intentional, willful ignorance in the past, and you continue to do so now. Consequently, it is impossible to reason with you.
You asked:
And I responded:
And this just flowed off you as if nothing happened. Your ears are shut.
It reminds me of last month here and here.
Well, you can call your pacifism, “nonresistance”, or whatever, but I really don’t care to split hairs over what you call your foolish belief that you should not resist evil. You are satanically teaching men that your moral impotence (in their relation to society) is a virtue, and that moral activism/defense/resistance is a sin. (as Satan also teaches via the apocryphal Pericope Adulterae)
“And this just flowed off you as if nothing happened.”
Right. You saying stuff doesn’t make it true, and you write way too much for me to correct every bit of foolishness that you publish, or to even read all of your stubborn ignorance couched in nerdy language to guise how nonsensical it is. Furthermore, you don’t answer all of my questions.
Again: Were you expecting your church to resist that evil? Answer that.
Just because I’m already laughing at your asininely dissonant situational modification of your “resist not evil” core belief, in how it applies when you want something resisted, does not mean I wouldn’t like you to answer it and show others the cognitive dissonance inherent in your dogmatic belief that we should never take up a whip like Jesus (our example) did, to drive out wicked practices from our religion and from our society. Jesus didn’t cleanse His Father’s temple of grifters in a way we cannot, by a miracle; He jealously cleansed that which should have been dedicated to God’s reverence using violence.
If your religion believes in not resisting evil, it is only a matter of time before evil overruns your religion’s resultant society. (like happened in the formerly Christian USA) Like a fool father who doesn’t believe in disciplining his kids. The kids will act undisciplined as a result of his vice of refusing to enforce good moral conduct upon them during their formative years.
Proverbs 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
How is it that such love (love enacted through appropriate discipline, or whatever opposition can lawfully be waged) isn’t ever to be applied to any others? Don’t you also love them? And how could you even apply discipline to your own son without it being an act intended as resistance towards his evil?
“Resist not evil” if taken literally, is advocating personal irresponsibility for any correction of evil and enforcement of God’s laws against evil. It literally makes you the abettor and ally of evil, evil’s “useful idiot”, and has even turned you into a satanic scold of God’s servants who wisely do resist evil.
Right. You saying stuff doesn’t make it true, and you write way too much for me to correct every bit of foolishness that you publish, or to even read all of your stubborn ignorance couched in nerdy language to guise how nonsensical it is. Furthermore, you don’t answer all of my questions.
Oh, please. You asked me “Why did Jesus say to sell the cloak and buy a sword?” and I responded with “Jesus explained why in the very next verse” followed by “And this just flowed off you as if nothing happened” when you neglected to respond.
This goes far beyond “saying stuff doesn’t make it true” into the realm of you being so blinded, stubborn, and foolish that you can’t even read and respond to what Jesus plainly said in the very context in which he said it, immediately after asking me to explain it as if it were some kind of difficult question to answer. After all, when someone says “sell your cloak and buy a sword” and then immediately explains why, perhaps you should accept the explanation that was given.
But, perhaps you really do think that “Jesus explained why in the very next verse” is nerdy, nonsensical language. Absurd (and irrational), but you are entitled to belief in the absurd (and irrational).
Your ears are shut, but your mouth is overflowing.
Yeah, right. You can’t even finish a back-and-forth discussion that started with a question you raised. That makes you a sealion.
What you call “splitting hairs” is a cavernous difference between truth and fiction. But you can’t seem to be bothered to informing yourself on a subject on which you are painfully and willfully ignorant.
[Redacted],
Your passionate argument makes it clear that you see resistance to evil—particularly in the form of forceful correction or even violence—as not just permissible but necessary. But your critique misses the core of what Christian nonresistance actually is. It’s not a denial of moral responsibility or a refusal to call out evil; rather, it is a principled stance rooted in Jesus’ own teachings and life. When Christ told his followers to “resist not evil” (Matthew 5:39), he was not advocating moral passivity but offering a radically different way of confronting evil—through suffering, witness, and transformation rather than retaliation. To say this is “satanic” is to label Christ’s own example with that name, a deeply serious charge that demands sober reconsideration.
You bring up the cleansing of the temple, as many do, but that singular moment must be balanced against the rest of Jesus’ ministry. He never struck a man, called for revolution, or advocated violent reform. He could have summoned legions of angels but chose the cross instead. The whip of cords in the temple was directed at property, not persons, and was an exception, not a model for public policy. And Proverbs about disciplining children—true in their context—do not authorize us to wield power coercively over society as a whole. The discipline Christ taught is first of ourselves. To reject violence is not to abandon moral responsibility—it is to take it up in a way that trusts God, not the sword, to judge rightly in the end.
With respect and hope for honest dialogue,
ChatGPT
Prompt: “Respond to this comment in 2 or 3 paragraphs”
Yes, the use of force is sometimes necessary. And it isn’t only rebellious children who need to be physically disciplined. God didn’t give only kings sole authority to wield a sword. All men have inherited divine dominion to rule in the image of God. Jesus’ use of a whip and violence to cleanse the temple was not some exception to good morals, but an example for us of violence being used as it should be. You speculate that “He never struck a man, called for revolution, or advocated violent reform.”
Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.
That sounds pretty revolutionary to me.
Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
That sure sounds like backing violent reform to me. Do not all men inherit patriarchal dominion over this earth, were not all men made ruler over their wives by God? Are we not all to be ministers of God punishing those who do evil within our domain? I think we are, and that to be negligent in that regard is unloving and willfully permissive of evil.
“Proverbs about disciplining children—true in their context—do not authorize us to wield power coercively over society as a whole.”
They’re not just true in their context, they remain true when extended into many other contexts as well. We are all to do justice to adults too, not just to children.
Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
the word for Justice there is Strong’s Hebrew 4941 literally meaning “execution of Judgement”.
Y’all speak as if all male dominion has been outlawed somewhere in Scripture (besides the apocryphal Pericope Adulterae) and that we men should never resist evil and only wring our hands as the wicked do wickedness in our presence. I say that is Satan’s desire for men to abdicate their responsibility to maintain an upright society, including by the use of force and violence when necessary, and that y’all lack the discernment to instruct men to be anything other than the permissive enablers of lawlessness.
The “women’s auxiliary” I knew was Ame, Elspeth and Liz. I don’t think this:
“The market only needs a few tweaks, mostly involving men getting better.”
…is at all an accurate guess at what they’d say. Ame was very sympathetic to men, Liz said “women mostly suck” and Elspeth blamed women for LOTS of the problems between the sexes.
Nor would I guess that Ame, Elspeth and Liz would say this:
“–the women I know/went to school with/church with/talk to aren’t like that
–you’re just bitter/angry
–who hurt you/I’m going to pray for you”
Just my opinion.
“The market only needs a few tweaks, mostly involving men getting better.”
…is at all an accurate guess at what they’d say. Ame was very sympathetic to men, Liz said “women mostly suck” and Elspeth blamed women for LOTS of the problems between the sexes.
Nor would I guess that Ame, Elspeth and Liz would say this:
“–the women I know/went to school with/church with/talk to aren’t like that
–you’re just bitter/angry
–who hurt you/I’m going to pray for you”
Just my opinion.
Deti was just being hyperbolic and sarcastic as he often is( in his own deti-esque way).
The bullets were a standard set of deti talking points used frequently in his comments to describe actual, real-life female responses, I just don’t think the three ladies would use them. He did leave out some of the more insulting (to men I mean) female responses which the three women DEFINITELY would not use.