Recently I was asked (paraphrasing):
“why do you spend so much time shooting down Christian Patriarchy and defending women when you hate feminism so much?”
At first glance this does seem to be a contradiction. In fact, it sure looks like “white knighting.” But it isn’t.
The answer is rather simple. Christian Patriarchy and feminism are both false philosophies and they are not opposites. That they twist the truth in different ways doesn’t mean one must be true. They can, and are, both wrong. Both give view women in an unhealthy—albeit different—way.
It is true that feminism is much more damaging to society, but the manosphere—a niche of a niche—is supposed to help men suffering from the effects of feminism. It cannot do so if what it continues to offer them is a lie. They don’t need another lie, they need truth, which is a hard pill to swallow because most people put belief over truth.
This is why I spend so much time talking about the topics that people outside the manosphere would just laugh at and not give it a moment’s thought. And they do mock and deride the manosphere. Just do a search on Twitter for “manosphere” and read the comments. It is enlightening. These topics I discuss often have limited scope, although perhaps not as limited as the articles posted on blogs within the manosphere itself.
I have little doubt that for most people in the modern world, evil is defined in terms of inflicting suffering upon other people. [..] Christians – or at least, strongly self-identified Christians – have often felt the same way; despite whatever contrary lip-service they pay to Christ’s Kingdom being “Not of this world”.
— Bruce Charlton, “Is misunderstanding the nature of evil the greatest of errors?“
Overturning feminism—really, eliminating suffering at all—is something only God can do. I am not political nor an activist, but overturning feminism more-or-less requires both of these things. The fallen world we live in is not our domain. Ours is heavenly-oriented. Since much of the manosphere is Christian, there is room, however small, for useful work to be done there. Perhaps not, but it isn’t a completely waste of time.
Lastly, as always, I write about what interests me at any given time, and writing about Christian Patriarchy lets me write about the Bible, read the Bible, read commentaries, read the patriarchs, and do research on Christian topics. These are all interesting to me. I’m okay with it being a niche of a niche of a niche. Thanks for joining me.
the question really means:
“Why don’t you agree with me because I am right”
To be fair, this is a good point. I’ve been accused of making own-goals —fighting the wrong battles—by various people over the years, and no doubt this is what that question meant. But, this time the question was a genuine one from someone close to me.
”the question really means:
“Why don’t you agree with me because I am right””
i or anyone else who knows the ‘sphere (or really life-in-general especially since the ’90s when even most liberitarians started sounding dictatorial also )
can tell you were first at Dalrock years ago, on this post ”Conservatives ask: Who is John Galt?”
Posted on June 29, 2013 by Dalrock
”lastmod says: {you know i fixed the name yes?}
July 22, 2013 at 4:47 pm
I was “on strike” back in the early 1990’s, and still am today. It wasn’t by “choice” in those now long gone days of the early 1990’s when I was young, cocksure, and a full-time college student.
It is now.
I went to a very private, very, very liberal-arts college, and in that incubator I saw first hand what I didn’t want in a woman. Many of my fellow “college aged guys” back then thought I was “stupid” and dumb because I wasn’t putting up with that behavior from women. Thought I was missing out on sex, on all these cool things because these women WOULD sleep with you with little or no effort.
I viewed it at that time as “anyone can behave like a trained monkey” to get a “master” to reward them….
Flash forward to well over twenty years later almost all of what I saw there is just about commonplace now. So many men will do anything for a girl to drop her panties for him.
Really sad actually.
I have read “Men On Strike” and it’s a good read, sadly, the men who do need to read it won’t.”
i remember you not remembering when you first showed up at dalrock a while back,so i thought i’d refressh your memory, mod.
i still never got why that ”gamer” tfh/anon guy (especially,among others there) later thought it was his job=duty to harass you so much at Dalrock (even at boxers site later also)
Thanks for the referesh.
After all these years, I still dont know what to do, or I am still somehow, someway……..wrong
As for “Anon” and few others, I personally believe it was another poster posting under this name. I still am astounded that no one corrected him on many of his takes at Dal’s page, making me beieve my above assumptions are correct. Doesnt really matter now. If it ever did.
We have way too many out there saying that Dalrocks work will be “connonized” one day, and will admit yes, he had a way of making this stuff make sense but this guy was hardly a saint, or his words were “god inspired”
According to him and others, christianity was “cucked” back 1015 or whatever….except Orthodoxy…..and every man has been doomed until 2009 or thereabouts when he and a few others reclaimed it. Sadly, a gazillion men are in hell right right now from over the centuries because they didnt know better. They should have just been him.
Whatever. I was reading a year or so ago in Christianity Today, and marriage is still way down. Even my church lamented in 2018 or so that “we have not had a wedding here in ten years” (Fresno location, and the 5th largest city in California).
We just have to move to some eastern European country like Ukraine where all the women are saitnly virgins until marriage, or go to some church where a few posters live and everyone marries at 19 and has lots of kids. Everyman has a great job and every woman is beautiful and “just wants to be a wife”
You as a man want this? Sorry……you didnt act fast enough / you didnt listen to god when you were four for your life mission / you made a mistake and didnt repent quick enough / you didnt read Rollo / you didnt follow Roosh’s instructions to the letter / you are too blue pilled…….but dont worry, there is “no marriage in heaven, just serve god and we’ll shame you for being a cuck / simp / blue pilled and make you feel like less of a man and not marrying”
Such a welcoming place for men……church that is. I would hate to stumble into a real “red pilled” church, I would probably have to kill myself.
Are we talking about the same anon that told everyone that they had a complete lack of genuine faith? Dalrock commenters never got corrected for bad behavior. They beat up on you, and to a much, much lesser extent, to me (I really wasn’t there very long, and Dalrock had me in a shadowban from the beginning).
The real life meatspace churches that are full of marriages and babies look nothing like the Red Pill. It’s like Liz says below, Red Pill is just like communism: it never works because it’s never really been tried. I think it is fairly safe to say that you will never encounter a real red-pilled church.
The Mennonite church that my parents attend has at least one baby born every month. If they ever read the stuff that the manosphere publishes, they’d probably be horrified.
The very same, among others. I was reading some stuff from way back then………he said some outrageous stuff and never once “shadow banned” nor the other commenters who were supposedly “feeling from evil daily and following God’s word to the letter / loving Jesus more than anything”never once corrected him.
Furthers my idea that he was indeed a “popular” commenter trolling “the lesser of us”
Who knows? I am sure today “Anon” is doing well, and is fine.
As for “red pill churches” every church is “cucked” by women and spineless blue-pilled men…………except for their church, according to them.
Its jr high school, in the end these same men who chest thump the loudest tend to be the that “schoolyard bully” and they can have it. In some cases their non stop talk about women, bedding them, them “liking” them, them giving IOI’s daily to them says a bit to me about their insecurity more than mine. They can have it, and you would not even be welcome if indeed you showed up. Ielft Jr high in 1983
Did some of Dal’s post help? Actually yes! Did he behave like a “blue pilled cuck” which he bemoaned? Yes! Look at the hairsplitting between him and some church folks on some podacst. Hairsplitting “he said, and the I said” stuff. Like a ABC after school special teen-movie where the bad kids “learn their lesson” and the good kids look even better.
Whatever. I still wasnt welcome as a believer at the time.
Jesus said at the end of John to Peter when he posed “what about him?!” to Jesus (referring to John). Peter had been gently and lovingly restored by Jesus, and Peter still had to get a dig at John “Yes Lord, I was wrong……but what about him? You held me to account! The rest fled you too! Why did you make me accountable and not them?”
Jesus didnt care or gave a “what of it” remark as I recall, meaning “I am talking about you. Not him.” and Jesus expected more from Peter because he was a leader of the twelve, and with leadership and authority……more IS expected in behavior, standards and expectations.
Everyone wants to be the “leader” and deems themself one, but the ‘sphere LOVES to duck and cover and blame countless men like me for its failures or shortcomings.
Hence why in the end, it wont go anywhere. Its just an echo chamber, something Jesus never wanted in his church or kingdom.
A couple weeks ago, I told Sharkly the same thing:
This is, in my opinion, indistinguishable from the leftist bureaucratic mindset: the CDC only recommends, the state health department only follows the CDC recommendations, and the school districts are just doing what they are told.
It’s all about enforcement, and never about leading.
“… Red Pill is just like communism: it never works because it’s never really been tried.”
LOL Maybe we disagree on what the Red Pill is, but it seems to me to be closer to God’s holy patriarchy than your somewhat egalitarian view. History has often been a cycle where God’s holy patriarchy and strict adherence to the precepts of patriarchy bring prosperity, and then people, in their luxury, forget God and His precepts and worship and honor the created things (including women) above honoring their Creator and Father, and God turns them over to their ungodly foolishness.
Hosea 4:12 My people consult with their wooden idol, and answer to a stick of wood. Indeed the spirit of prostitution has led them astray, and they have been unfaithful to their God.
God’s holy order of Patriarchy (1 Corinthians 11:3) leads to societal ascendence. Then men indulge their wives and children, which eventually leads them back to ruin. Today “tree huggers” sway our nations policy towards us being ruled by our “carbon footprint”, we’re effectively worshipping the carbon-based wood of trees and sticks again. And I blame that insanity to a large degree on men letting women vote and thereby letting women rule over men leading us towards ruin.
Rome arose built on paterfamilias, and cum manu style marriages. Later wives and women were emancipated and given legal independence from their husband’s control. And eventually Rome fell. The religious ideological shifts eventually lead to cultural shifts which eventually result in legal and political changes that became unsustainable.
Even a “Christian” empire that claims to worship “Buddy Christ” won’t long survive outlawing husbands’ control over their wives. God said, “He shall rule over you”, and God is not mocked forever, especially not for long by people who claim to be doing their lawlessness in the name of the Father and the Son and their masculine uniting Spirit.
I say that God’s patriarchal order for the family is all that has ever enabled people to rise out of the matriarchal squalor that societies inevitably descend into. There has never been an Amazonian paradise, just women usurping over what men have built and eventually running it back into the dirt, until the men repent and reestablish a patriarchy.
I must cry “foul!” on that claim. The opposite is true.
The emancipation of women in Rome began in the 5th century BC with female inheritence, picking up steam in the 2nd century BC, and the economic independence was more-or-less established by 40BC. Further gains were made in the 1st century AD to establish full juridical independence (e.g. Claudius, 41AD-54AD), around the time that much of the New Testament was written.* Female independence ended abruptly in the late 4th century AD with the arrival of Roman Catholicism.
Now compare this to God’s perspective: the timeline looks a bit different.
The Iron Legs period of the Roman Empire began and only lasted from Julius Caesar 44BC to Galba in 69AD. The book of Daniel transitions to the weaker Iron & Clay Feet period (69AD to 296AD), and do you know what it attributes it to? It wasn’t the women’s rights, but the genetic mixing of the Roman Emperors with foreigners…
…which lasted from 69AD to 296AD. Then the decline changed in the Iron & Clay toes period (296AD to 395AD), out of which arose the fifth kingdom —Roman Catholicism—that consumes the remains.
Most of the legwork for the economic independence of women in Rome happened before the Bible even acknowledges the rise of Rome, and most of the juridical independence of women in Rome happened before the Bible says the decline of Rome even began. Rome didn’t rise prior to women’s rights, nor did it fall because of those rights.** Rome rose in conjunction with those rights and was consumed by the rise of the antichrist.
The fact is, the two greatest civilizations in history…
…arose in conjunction with women’s rights. The cause and effect here is not so easily stated as you have done. All civilizations rise and fall and the vast majority of all civilizations have been patriarchal, but the two greatest ones are the only ones to actually emancipate women. The evidence couldn’t be any stronger against your claim.
Roman Catholicism is the entity responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. It is also the entity that restored the patriarchy that the Roman Empire worked to established during its rise. It is curious, then, that you attribute the fall of the Roman Empire to the emancipation of women. It seems that the opposite is true.
—————————————————
* Which is likely why Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11 (written at the end of Claudius’ reign), had to deal with unveiled wives, and why Peter—a few years later—addressed the situation of women withhigher status than their husbands or slaves. Given their independence, Paul wrote that hair was sufficient covering and Peter wrote that the lesser should submit to the preeminent, regardless of whether they were man or woman.
** This is what comes of following secular historians (or the meme)
Some fringe portion of the sphere (which is becoming much of what is left of it) has become the cult of “luck”.
It’s not one’s belief system or habits of choices made.
It’s all just luck.
Tear down one’s own house with one’s own hands (Proverbs 14-16), then blame it all on bad luck.
Reminds me of communism. “Gee sure is bad luck that system failed. Nothing wrong with the system….”
Pingback: Patriarchy