“The fear of man bringeth a snare: But whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe” (Prov. 29:25).
This is of course true—being Scripture as it is. But it also needs to be pointed out that in another sense the fear of woman bringeth two or three snares. I am writing on this topic because I have been blocked from seeing Rachel Held Evans’ twitter feed, and I wanted to make sure she never forgets why she did that.
I do not mean to say that every form of “fear of the feminine” is wrong. Some expressions of it should be considered healthy. I mean, Jael the wife of Heber wielded a mean tent peg. And Abimelech should have been far more wary of that millstone lady on the top of the tower. So be reasonable.
A godly woman who takes her role as the oikodespotes seriously (1 Tim. 5:14) can be quite formidable if you put paper plates into the dishwasher. And a son is carefully taught to remember the law of his mother (Prov. 1:8).
And we cannot leave out a woman’s erotic glory. “Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, And terrible as an army with banners?” (Song of Solomon 6:10).
These are truths that the human race has known for millennia, and just because our generation has gotten itself into a snarled knot of gender confusion does not undo any of these settled truths. There are multiple ways in which every sensible man may have a healthy fear of the feminine.
So What Then?
I am addressing a problem that has arisen—in both church and home—as a result of the unrelenting and very fierce campaign being waged by the feminists. By “feminists” I mean both the crazy ones and the respectable mainstreamed ones. And by respectable mainstreamed ones, I am including the form of feminism that takes up the left wing of complementarianism. Thus far it has been a most successful campaign. The upshot of the campaign is that a woman, considered as such, cannot really be admonished in any way by a man. He doesn’t really know. He hasn’t checked his privilege. His thoughts are always suspect, and he is very much part of the problem.
So you, if you are a privileged male living in your little hetero-normative hellhole, and you somehow expect that women will want to live in there with you, are a central part of the problem. The dogma I am addressing is the one that says that in the “give and take” between the sexes, the man should simply concentrate on taking and not giving at all.
A Little Bachelor Party Illustration
We are accustomed to thinking of the feminists “out there,” and we are the conservative Bible-believing evangelicals “in here.” We fail to recognize what deep inroads all the public dogmas have made into our circles.
So imagine—as Nate recently did in a conversation—a bachelor party where a bunch of evangelical Christian men get together to fellowship, have a beer, and give some advice to the soon-to-be husband. Suppose further one of the men, when it came his turn, gave some advice like this:
“When you are wrong, when you have sinned, no one should be more ready to admit fault and to confess sin than you are. It goes without saying that you should conduct yourself in all humility and grace. When you are in the wrong, you are to own it, promptly and sincerely, all the way to the ground. But if you are not wrong, and believe it or not, there will be times when you are not wrong, do not ever apologize. You may not—in the name of Christ you may not—apologize simply for the sake of making peace or patching things up. You may not admit fault when you do not believe you were at fault. The reason you may not do this is because it is a sin to lie to your wife.”
Sort of takes the breath away, doesn’t it? Does a small throng of yes, buts rush to your mouth? Must such advice, already soundly qualified, need a host of additional qualifications? To ask the question is to answer it. Not only so, but the chances are pretty good that the man who gave the, um, robust advice will himself be privately admonished, and probably by more than one sincerely offended brother.
And all the effeminate brethren who are aghast at this bachelor party misbehavior are agreed in this one thing. It is our Christian duty to lie to our wives. We must do so all the time. We must make lying a central part of our pajama-boy worldview. We must do it seventy times seven, just like Jesus taught.
Cowardice in the Pulpit
And the reason we have such cowardice in our homes is because the example has already been set in our pulpits.
When Scripture comes to the point of ethical exhortation, it delivers those exhortations with sex differences in mind. Men—sons, husbands, and fathers—will be tempted in certain predictable ways. Those temptations are addressed, and those temptations have to do with a man’s frame, his responsibilities, and his weaknesses. Do not be harsh (Col. 3:19). Do not exasperate (Eph. 6:4). Do not abuse your strength (1 Pet. 3:7). Do not treat your wife like a hooker (1 Thess. 4:4).
We see the same thing with wome . . . aaaaa! Greco-Roman milieu! First century expectations! Culturally conditioned! You probably believe in head coverings! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!
But, for example, young wives are told to be domestic (Tit. 2:4). Younger widows are cautioned against idleness, going from house to house, or from Facebook page to Facebook page (1 Tim. 5:13). And women are encouraged not to be fearful, given over to anxiety (1 Pet. 3:6). They should fight their fear and anxiety through reverent submission to their husbands, imitating Sara who called her husband lord (1 Pet. 3:6). Ah, but what few people recognize is that the Greek word rendered lord here by some of our more traditional translations is actually talking about the kind of servant leadership you might expect to find in a soaked paper table napkin.
A Simple Question
One of the things I try to do in sermon preparation is this. If over the course of a few months of pastoral counseling, say, I encounter three instances of husbands and fathers getting angry in the home, you can expect that problem to start showing up in sermons—either in sermons on anger, or passing illustrations about anger in sermons on something else. My assumption is that the instances I have found out about are the tip of the iceberg.
Now suppose—just suppose—the presenting problem in three marriages I am trying to help is the problem of lazy and idle housewives. Is there any practical way, without becoming a Pariah for the Ages, to preach on “Lazy Housewives”? I could get myself into a fit of the giggles just thinking about it.
Anything said along these lines will be immediately translated into an “attack on all women.” The violent response will insist that what you said about a small subset of women is to be understood by the entire world as an attack on all women, and the violent response will be led by women who also insist that they are every bit as rational as men, and should therefore be trusted to preach and teach and handle the text of Scripture, and they will do this when they have just finished parsing a statement that some mammals are marsupials into the clownish doctrine that all mammals are marsupials, and how dare The reason for this reaction is that Satan hates women, and does not want them to have any pastoral care.you say that all mammals have pouches? Whales don’t have pouches, you maroon.
The reason for this reaction is that Satan hates women, and does not want them to have any pastoral care. He does not want them to have husbands who protect them. He wants them to be surrounded by feckless cowards, who refuse to tell them the truth.
He wants them to have men in their lives who would rather lie than lead.
This is so true! young complementarians including men- spend more time teaching men home economics etc so they can be good servant leaders…. ( including cbmw, 9 marks has articles basically implying that a man who does not do the dishes is sinning….) expecting wives to run the home is now seen as sinful and selfish- men who dare disagree are quickly called sinful and they also feel so guilty that their wives have to support them, they basically run the home as well while their Godly wives sit on facebook…. or the latest trend in our circles where the… Read more »
Do you think the division of labor should always be gender-based, or should it take into account the respective individuals’ talents? Should it take into account whether the wife’s job outside the home is voluntary or demanded by her husband? For example, in my household, division of labor was pretty clear because I was a stay-at-home wife and mother. Nonetheless, my husband relied on my assistance in both his jobs as teacher and partner in a family business. I did not resent being asked to grade papers, prepare mailings, or soothe angry customers. I did not expect my husband to… Read more »
no one keeps tabs
but if your husband has to play homemaker so you can do whatever you want don’t claim to be following scripture…
not one man in the bible is praised for his domesticity yet comple whatevers continually do so…
satan has castrated men
working outside- men
even if the man is the best chef in the world- he aint mr homemaker
Way to go, gents! You just allowed jillybean to misdirect you from the main point with pointless details.
finished tryingon the dress?!
keep enslaving yourselves
I suppose men are just as subject to being tricked and deceived as women, eh? Ah…what a lot we are, us human beings. Oh for the day when gender wars cease! I’m thankful that at least in my little neck of the woods called home there is no such thing! :-)
By women? Yes. Thus Adam and Eve, and the subject of this article. Another good reason to adhere to the Biblical injunction against female preachers.
So, if men are easily deceived by women, then wouldn’t that make them prone to being easily deceived? Now, I’m not saying this is so. Merely just taking what you said to its logical conclusions.
Far less so than women, who are prone to being deceived by other women, men, talking snakes, their own lame attempts at logic…
Who are these men who had to “learn” home economics?
When I was a kid I was forced by my parents to do chores, and then after that I lived with other guys for a while away from home before I got married…completely at a loss to understand what there was left that I needed to be “taught”.
I sympathise, you must constantly feel guilt for not being domestic enough
IF a man has enough time and energy to pretend he is the wife , he is obviously not working hard enough or spending time training his kids
enjoy your gender fluid pseudo homosexual marriage
Where do you get the idea that I feel guilty or inadequate about my marriage role, which I haven’t even described to you? I’m not the one expending a great deal of energy here trying to prove something to everyone.
i don’t have to prove, you are just living like the culture, 6000 years, no issue with men not having to play housewife, now it is Godly…..
you imply it, come home and if you did not do 50% OF THE CHORES YOU WERE NOT loving enough…. how sad
No, I didn’t say anything like that. Literally the only thing that I said was that every adult should know how to do housework, because every adult has lived in a house, and even as a child that should be a basic responsibility. I didn’t say a word about 50% or anything else.
sigh can’t read his own comments- typical supposed Christian male- mouth pieces for feminist crap…
I really do not see why men should master how they should run a home
only modern men do this
men of the past did not, neither did men in the bible
you are just trying to mix feminism with Christianity
“only modern men do this” There have been single, hardworking men who have known to clean up after themselves as long as there have been humans. A wife who does all the housework is not something any man is promised in life. Some men never marry, some marry women who develop health problems, some are widowed. This attitude that you’re exempt from knowing how to take care of yourself because there will always be some woman to do it for you is worse than a caricature of the idea that women have the primary responsibility to care for the home.… Read more »
No For most of Christianity, men and women understood there were different and had different duties, only now do you advocate for gender flexible nonsense.. Jacob did housework so Rachael could flourish in her gifts!!! right only modern men comply with feminists and can’t stand having an actual helpmeet… take diapering for example, now it iss pretty much 50/50 that is a modern development… now you Christians claim that men who don’t change diapers are selfish sinners…. yes, a man should expect to have a wife that runs the home… you comple whatevers are basically homosexuals, no difference between men… Read more »
“For most of Christianity, men and women understood there were different and had different duties, only now do you advocate for gender flexible nonsense..” Show me where I defend that. “Jacob did housework so Rachael could flourish in her gifts!!! right” If you were familiar with the reference, you’d know that this was while he was still living in Isaac’s home, before he married. Also, deflecting to my (incorrectly) presumed motive for bringing up the example doesn’t make the example that wrecks your assertion go away. “take diapering for example, now it iss pretty much 50/50 that is a modern… Read more »
by insisting men need to fulfill their burdens as well as their wives… you comple whatevers just pretend that men have it easy, when actually looking after the home is easier and protected…
study sociology and history…
Me thinks BDash protesteth too much.
not our problem you chose a selfish wife who can’t do half as much as wives of the past even with modern tech….
you live with what you chose
just don’t try and play martyr ( dish washing is servanthood- very challenging work- right…) to justify your bad choice
What did you think my comment had to do with my wife?
can’t say no?!
You aren’t making any sense.
go home and do the dishes mate…
Sorry jumping off-topic, but Rachel H-E is firsthand evidence that Leithart’s ecumenical project is misguided. Church discipline (or lack thereof) is a pretty weak link.
> We must make lying a central part of our pajama-boy worldview.
Haha. This is gold.
I don’t think anyone, in any position, should knowingly issue a false apology. The bachelor party advice should apply to everyone if apologizing is taken to mean accepting blame for something one has not done, even to keep the peace. On the other hand,there are numerous ways to express a conciliatory and loving spirit without admitting false guilt. “I can see why you are so angry if you believe I was playing post office with the letter carrier. But I wasn’t. Can you tell me why you think I was?” Alternatively, “I can’t be sorry for reminding you not to… Read more »
In fact, Pastor Wilson used that level of “apology” in his debate with Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile. And I do believe that he was sincerely sorry on some level that Pastor Anyabwile was upset.
that explains it
your women have put all canadian men in chastity belts 10 years ago….
That’s the second comment of mine you’ve misread.
BDash appears to be a rather surly fellow. Perhaps he needs a vacation to relieve some stress.
I cannot believe that Jesus ever said “I am sorry you are upset.”
Whenever you hear “you’re right” you should understand that what your interlocutor really means is “shut up.” You might have won the argument but you haven’t changed anyone’s mind. More here.
Which is why we don’t want to shut up when we hear an insincere “You’re right.” It makes me want to keep pressing my point because I don’t want to be told I am right; I want to be told that my point of view makes sense to my hearer, even if he or she disagrees.
That’s right. :)
Edit: I should add that according to the book I linked above “you’re right” and “that’s right” mean pretty much the opposite. “That’s right” is what you should shoot for in any conflict. It means “you heard me understand me and now have permission to try to persuade me.”
Dang, beat me to it! ; – )
I understand what’s behind this, but it seems like it’s creating its own kind of difficulty. I DO say “You’re right” to my husband when I realize I need to concede that he is, in fact, right. What else am I supposed to do?
I think that the proper, honest “You’re right” often is accompanied by other statements, such as “I hadn’t thought of that before” or “I wasn’t taking XYZ into consideration when I said that.”
The wrong kind is equivalent to a teenager’s “Whatever.”
Gotcha — it’s not the statement itself, it’s how it’s used as a throwaway line?
I can hear myself do that, though thankfully it’s not a habit I’m in: “Okay, sure, you’re right.” (Very tense, edgy voice, just wanting to shut down the whole discussion.)
Absolutely. I think we all do it sometimes, and it is one of the most infuriating weapons in the marital arsenal of WMDs. It being a kind of shorthand for, “Well, OF COURSE you’re right because you’re always right, aren’t you? I mean, heaven knows why I even bother expressing an opinion, despite my economics degree from Harvard and that Nobel I won a couple of years ago, because I could never know even one scintilla of what you know, isn’t that right, sweetheart? Let alone what your mother knows, and she’s the one who told us to invest in… Read more »
I don’t know about this, “You’re right” business. I’ve said on various occasions when I’ve discovered that my husband was incorrect about something – and usually about very trite issues – an emphatic: “Wrong!” Now it is a running joke between the two of us. When I’m wrong about something, he’ll retort: “Wrong!” And I break out laughing.
“Fine then” is also not a conflict ender I would personally recommend!
I find this very hard to believe
Pastor Wilson – The Beth Moore/Rachel Evans conversation on Twitter is really not that interesting, but you will be happy to note that they both like the bible.
RHE likes the Bible alright, except when it comes to its teachings on sodomy, the necessity of male priests/pastors and myriad other issues.
I’m no consistent user, and will not be engaging the comments that will inevitably follow this one, but I don’t sense much charity or patience coming from this post. Especially the vindictive and rude bit about Rachel Held Evans (“… I wanted to make sure she never forgets why she did that.”). This post satirizes its opponents, but is not overly substantive. I assume when Wilson writes somewhat inflammatorily that he’s not actually trying to convince others, but only bolster his own camp (which is unfortunate, because I recall Paul telling us to only speak graceful words that build others… Read more »
Yeah, tell me about it. The menz around these parts tend to get all confused about the difference between domination and destruction. Something about how grace and mercy is always weak and unmanly. Totally bizarre.
Memi, some of us are not all that confused! ; – ) per 2 Cor. 10. One thing you might consider, is that your favorable posts on submission, are something of a corrallary to Wilson’s post here. As I understand it, your submission is to God first, and others as apropriate, which sounds right to me! 2 Corinthians 10 10 By the humility and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” toward you when away! 2 I beg you that when I come I may not have to… Read more »
Hmm. Wicked, wicked Elijah for “mocking” (NKJV) the priests of Baal at Mt Carmel, then. Clearly satire, mockery, and sarcasm are all always inappropriate for a servant of God to use against opponents.
Or, of course, we could simply recognize that Pastor Wilson is not attempting to convince or convert RHE, but to make the situation clearer to bystanders, exactly as in the case of Elijah, who couldn’t care less about the priests of Baal, but had a great deal of interest in the resulting attitudes of the Israelites looking on.
Well………, here is one thing the Apostle Paul actually said! ; – ) 2 Corinthians 10 10 By the humility and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” toward you when away! 2 I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we… Read more »
G’, I’ll take your word for it on RHE land. They sound like the young turks or CNN. Fortunately, what God says about His Word, is greater than what RHErrors say about Gods’ word! Isaiah 55 “Invitation to the Thirsty” 10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will… Read more »
I’d say confirmation bias exists among Christians of all stripes and denominations. We see what we want to see because it somehow bolsters our point of view.
“He wants them to have men in their lives who would rather lie than lead.” And once again I must emphatically insist that to say you are sorry is not the same thing as admitting fault or lying. This is what lurks at the heart of the dispute. Satan is not leading men to lie, Satan is leading men to believe empathy is evil, that hard hearts and pride are somehow masculine. A man who cannot apologize, “express regret and sorrow,” for the suffering of another is a weak kneed, yellow bellied coward. And a man who can say sorry?… Read more »
I understand the distinction between saying you’re sorry and admitting guilt, but you are the first person I have ever seen use the word “apologize” to mean expressing regret with absolutely no admission of guilt. So I think you are dragging a different argument into this context that doesn’t at all apply to what is actually being said here.
I have been pursuing this theme for a number of months now in these very comment threads, so I do believe it very much applies to what is being said here, and it is not a different argument at all.
My point is that you’re shoehorning “this theme” in where it’s not at issue.
Apologizing means admitting fault to 99.9999% of readers, and almost certainly to the author of this piece. Therefore, this discussion is about admitting fault, not about showing concern.
“Apologizing means admitting fault to 99.9999% of readers.”
Than I suggest they get themselves right with Jesus Christ and stop walking around in perpetual fear of the shame of “fault.”
From upthread, your own words: “And once again I must emphatically insist that to say you are sorry is not the same thing as admitting fault or lying.”
Admitting fault when you are not at fault is, in fact, lying. Avoiding lying is not something that should be stigmatized with phrases like “perpetual fear of the shame”, and earlier you said that there was a way to apologize without deceitfully admitting fault that does not belong. Why are you going back on that?
Dunsworth said, “Apologizing means admitting fault to 99.9999% of readers.”
I declare that to be a wrong definition and a false way of perceiving what it means to apologize. I can apologize for accidentally stepping on your foot, but I am certainly not going to repent of it, nor hang myself in sack cloth and ashes. It is not even particularly my fault, especially if your big feet were sticking out somewhere they shouldn’t be. But apologize? Yes easily.
I think that too much is made of some kinds of gender differences, but I do think that this is really one of them. Men view apologizing differently than many women do. They see it as accepting responsibility and blame; we generally don’t. I think it is a much bigger deal for them than it is for us–what woman would fight a duel rather than “give satisfaction” by issuing a demanded apology? I thought your example of telling your husband you’re sorry he had a horrible commute is a good one. I could say that without meaning anything more than… Read more »
Perhaps that is true, perhaps there are some gender differences I am not seeing.
If that is true, unfortunately it just makes me feel even more annoyed with Wilson, because he should be helping men to understand the relationship between empathy and apology, not validating their unwillingness to do so, as if that kind of pride is now some sort of manly virtue.
Memi: a·pol·o·gize: gerund or present participle: apologizing express regret for something that one has done wrong. If Wilson accidentally stepped on your petite and olive colored feet, I am certain he would “apologize”, for the accident, although he might not conceed “intention”, if indeed there was no intention. I think you will agree that we should not let others, asign us motives that we do not have. On your own blog, you speak out against the “wrong” sort of feminism. Wilson also, is speaking, in a similar fashion, to the “wrong” sort of Feminism. RHE, is certainly a 2 Tim… Read more »
You’re right A-dad, I should probably give Wilson the benefit of the doubt. He probably needs some encouragement. I hear him when he says, “The reason for this reaction is that Satan hates women, and does not want them to have any pastoral care.”
But, if “pastoral care” ever started to resemble anything like what goes on in his own comment section, heck, I’d cheerfully tear the place down myself and sweep the ashes out the door.
Memi, this comment section, and even yours, are bleating “sheep”, ewes and rams, telling their respective stories.
There is some benefit in hearing:
“The good, the bad and the ugly.” and we do got “ugly”!
(mostly the good though!)
; – )
The point is not shame, it is honesty.
If a wife accuses a husband of X, and he is not guilty of X, he must not admit to X, or he is lying.
If he is committing Y at the same time, of course he should admit to Y. And nobody here said otherwise.
I shot the sheriff,
But I did not shoot the deputy.
Dunsworth, if a woman is not “feeling it,” is she lying and being dishonest if she has sex with her husband? Of course not, her feelings may change in the course of the evening, or perhaps she is simply engaging in some sacrificial love. She is not “lying.” Regardless, these kinds of “truth” are very subjective. So a man saying, “I’m sorry this thing in our life has caused you distress, I take complete responsibility for it,” is not lying, he is not being dishonest, he is providing her with emotional cover and stepping up to the plate as a… Read more »
Having sex is not a statement of fact. It’s a total myth that acting against your feelings is equivalent to making a statement that is not wholly true. Saying you were wrong about something when you are clearly convinced that you are not, is lying. You keep finding situations where the man bears some responsibility for the situation and Wilson is talking about situations where he is certain that he is not wrong. “I understand that this is important to you and why you feel we should do that” is a useful thing to say during the discussion, but it… Read more »
“Having sex is not a statement of fact” Well, all in good fun here, but speak for yourself. I can’t think of a stronger statement of fact. “Saying you were wrong about something when you are clearly convinced that you are not, is lying.” Not necessarily. We are told not to lean into our own understanding, but conversely the heart is wicked above all things,who can know it? So we can be “clearly convinced we are right” and yet be totally deceived, wrong. I can’t think of a more unpleasant marriage then one that insists it must always be right,… Read more »
“I can’t think of a more unpleasant marriage then one that insists it
must always be right, one that cannot be sorry at least in empathy, and
one that constantly accuses the other of lying.”
Neither can I. The fact that you think this has anything to do with anything I’ve said is once again a reminder that I should not have needed that trying to discuss things with you is pointless.
“The fact that you think this has anything to do with anything…” It has everything to do with the subject at hand! What is the cause and effect going on here? Is marriage going to be helped by telling men to never apologize because that’s the same thing as lying? The bible flat out says, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it..” It does not say, never apologize, vehemently refuse to do the dishes, insist you are always right, and lament the fact that women are nothing more than confused marsupials… Read more »
Would this be more palatable to you if we rephrased it a little? What about: Nobody should take blame for something he or she did not do. Nobody should plead guilty to a crime he or she did not commit. Would you agree that we owe that much to truth? But this doesn’t mean that a husband should not express empathy, sympathy, and love when his wife is distressed (and vice versa). But I think there is an important distinction between “I am sorry you’re having a horrible day–what can I do to help?” and “I am sorry for being… Read more »
“Nobody should take blame for something he or she did not do.”
Too bad that wasn’t the point of Wilson’s article. But yeah, I agree with you, Jilly.
I’m really sorry Jilly, but no, it would not be okay. There is a lot more going on beneath the surface then you understand. It would not be okay because I know who is reading Wilson’s posts and how they will subjectively receive his words. However, I don’t wish to simply snap at people and get into endless arguments, so maybe I’ll just write him a letter and pray it doesn’t fall on deaf ears.
“Nobody should take blame for something he or she did not do.”
I agree. If only this is what Wilson’s point was. Instead, a lot of wordsmithing was used to remind women of their place. Yes, that place where we are to be seen and seldom heard, except to say, “Yes, dear,” even when we don’t mean it. Unlike the fella in Wilson’s article who is reminded to be forthright and honest with his wife.
I truly didn’t get that from what he was saying. I think men (and women) apologize to keep the peace, and I think it has a corrosive effect–more so on men, perhaps, who seem to me to take the whole idea of apologizing more seriously than we do. I am a natural apologizer, and even I can become resentful if, over time, I am offering apologies when it would be more reasonable for me to be demanding them. And it can affect our sense of our own integrity if we are are offering apologies for offenses we did not commit.… Read more »
Well, one thing that I think would be quite popular here on D.W.’s blog is that it is a rule of thumb that the wife should always apologize, even is she’s right. Because that would be winsome, coy and oh-so demure. I think any woman even bearing the resemblance of a Jael (to whom Wilson gave an honorable mention) – would actually be tarred and feathered in these parts.
You’re conflating some of Wilson’s weirder commenters with Wilson. I think jilly’s take on what he’s saying is exactly right.
I suspect some of these “weird commenters” are trolls or Wilson haters. The “vox day” who posted is definitely a Vox imposter, and not a very good one.
I think there is a variety of ways in which a person can say, “I’m sorry” that clearly indicate that an individual is not assuming fault for actions that are not fault-worthy in the midst of relational conflict. For example: I’m sorry that you did not like my decision… I’m sorry that you chose to be offended by what I did… The primary danger that ones faces with such statements is the danger of misunderstanding. However, if what follows “I’m sorry” is worded in such a way as to eliminate this misunderstanding, then it often fails to provide the desired… Read more »
“Apologizing comes with unclear expectations and/or connotations (is the person assuming guilt or responsibility for my reaction?)”
In a marital situation,we do bear responsibility for one another’s reaction. And one cannot “forgive,” if one is not willing to express sorrow. To forgive is to let go of an offense, to be sorry is to empathize.
Flat out, you hurt my feelings and feel absolutely no sorrow that I am grieved, well I just call that divorced. Studies tend to back that up.
Can you demonstrate from the Bible any verse which would indicate that in a marriage situation we bear responsibility for our spouse’s reaction? If such a verse existed, I would agree that asking forgiveness would be appropriate whenever your spouse feels offense. As such, I think this is more of a discussion about issues of moral responsibility and culpability than it is a discussion of manliness.
I never said you should ask forgiveness every time your spouse is upset, I said you should express sorrow.
We bear responsibility for our spouses reaction because of the whole concept of one flesh and because you are giving honor unto the wife, because men do not dishonor their own flesh. To feel no sorrow because her reaction is not my problem, is to dishonor and disrespect someone.
I think you are proving the point that apologizing is unclear. If I am “responsible” for my wife’s reactions, then I should ask forgiveness, but I am not “responsible” for her reaction, then it is appropriate to express sorrow for her reaction, without assuming responsibility.
Do you mean to suggest that a one flesh relationship means that a husband should assume responsibity for his wife’s feelings?
Yes, you should assume some responsibility for your wife’s feelings. I don’t care about how she feels is just flat out pig headed. What if a wife were to say, your sexual needs aren’t my problem?
When you say reponsibe do you mean: 1) moral cause; or 2) morally responsible to care for?
The phrase “you hurt my feelings” lends itself to 1).
Biblically, the source of our feelings is our “heart,” not the actions of others.
All I am really saying is that 2) can be done without doing 1), so long as it is clear that you are not doing 1), but often 2) doesn’t feel comforting because what people want is 1) and not 2).
“Assuming responsibility” for feelings is tricky. Feelings in both men and women are not always rational. Nor should every feeling be indulged and encouraged, especially if it is irrational. I would rather say that a one-flesh relationship means caring about a spouse’s feelings and helping (with the utmost tact) him/her bring feelings into harmony with reason.
You can’t make your wife happy. Your wife can’t make you happy. But you can make each other feel cared about and understood.
I disagree ME. Christ rather routinely offended people by simply telling them the truth and there is not a single instance anywhere in scripture that “I’m sorry you feel that way” is to be standard operating procedure in such instances. This assumption that every time a feeling gets hurt is cause for empathy or apology is really a form of supplication that I cannot see modeled anywhere in Christ’s example. We are to speak the truth in love but not necessarily to routinely assume responsibility for how truth is perceived by the hearer and the feelings it might engender. I… Read more »
ME, yours are sensible words.
“You may not admit fault when you do not believe you were at fault. The reason you may not do this is because it is a sin to lie to your wife.” There have been many, many times when I did not believe I was at fault when I most certainly was. There were also times when I was not at fault, but some liar had been whispering in her ear what a jerk I was. The most important skill any man can possess in a marriage relationship is the ability to shut up. This is closely followed by the… Read more »
Amen! Now there’s something sensible, from the man in the funny animal hat no less. This really is the key to marriage, “crucify your selfish, arrogant PRIDE and consider the possibility that you could be wrong while you calmly and carefully LISTEN to her point of view with the objective of healing any and all wounds as you would strive to heal your own flesh–because she is.” It’s also precisely the same thing that leads women to submit. Surrender pride, listen to the man, there’s always a chance he is correct…or not, but either way you’re in it together and… Read more »
However, I think the point here is to realize you are at fault and THEN admit it. You don’t claim fault when there actually is none (and that CAN happen) just to make her happy.
My wife has an uncanny, even supernatural, ability to see inside my head and she is by no means stupid. A flippant, insincere apology is an insult to her intelligence and will inspire greater wrath even than leaving the toilet seat in the vertical position.
“You may not—in the name of Christ you may not—apologize simply for the sake of making peace or patching things up. ”
I’m sorry you had a bad day. I’m sorry traffic was so awful. I’m sorry you skipped lunch today. I’m sorry you must work so hard to take care of your family. Tell you what, let me make you a steak and than we can go patch things up with some hot and steamy sex. You can even call it my fault….
I’ll try that and let you know how it works out! ; – )
(Although the Mrs. is not a big fan of steak!)
Is that the sort of talk that gets you in the mood? TMI.
Ashv, I take note of the fact that sex in the context of happy, contented, heterosexual marriage, caused a TMI on your part. Assorted perverse comments in this thread about what some red pill yahoo wants to do to a variety of 19 yr old Asian women, we can just completely ignore.
I say this simply because it really demonstrates how our culture has gone all awry. We accept perversion as normal, but sex within Christian marriage, eww, TMI, don’t go there.
Ahem. I was not objecting to discussion of the topic. I was reacting to your rather aberrant view of it. (Let us say that my wife and I have had the opposite experience with conversations that have begun in the fashion you describe.)
The “qualification”… I would add… Wasn’t there a quote some where on this blog about being right, but being shrill? What about the husband who is right, but has a problem with his temper? Just because one is right about an issue, doesn’t mean there may not be a reason to apologize. I think there are enough authoritarian patriarchs reading this blog to note that.
Doug’s book For a Glory and a Covering addresses that audience.
Oh yeah, I think I’ll run out and buy that right now. Gotta keep reading the latest books the Reformed crowd puts out there or I just won’t know how to make decisions in my life.
I did not suggest you buy it, my comment means that Doug has actually written about those things. He covers ditches on both sides of the road that men can fall into.
This post is not about empathy, men need to empathise with their wives, possibly more than they do. It is about not admitting guilt such that your wife thinks you believe you are to blame, when you don’t think you are to blame but you are only trying to appease her.
Perhaps. So tell me, what are the odds of a man ever believing he has done anything wrong in the face of a woman so foolish and crazy that, “when they have just finished parsing a statement that some mammals are marsupials into the clownish doctrine that all mammals are marsupials, and how dare you say that all mammals have pouches? Whales don’t have pouches, you maroon.”
Would you ever apologize to such a creature? Give honor unto her? Treat her as your own flesh? Respect her?
I don’t see why you would not love her and treat her as your own flesh. She may not be as helpful at giving advice compared to other wives though.
LOL! Seriously? That’s kind of sweet, Bethyada.
I think Wilson’s comment about marsupials and mammals really highlights some differences about how men and women communicate. So when men cannot translate what is being said, they often simply make an assumption that she is either crazy or not too bright. Wilson declares this is why women don’t teach scripture, and you decide she’s probably not qualified to give advice. So how we perceive one another really does influence how we are going to treat them.
Plenty of men have wives that are crazy and not too bright. This in no way lessens their duty as husbands to love, provide for, and lead their wives, and to live with them in an understanding way.
So it seems! That’s very charming and much appreciated. However, you’re never going to respect such a woman, you’re going to be hesitant about handing her the car keys, you’re not going to listen to her words of advice,and probably like Wilson, you will dismiss her and use her as an example of why women should not teach scripture.
So, declaring a husband still has a duty to his mammal/marsupial nit wit wife, does nothing to dispute my point.
Or, alternatively, if men find that sort of thing irritating, they could try to avoid marrying a nit wit.
Okay, but let’s place this back in context. Wilson, while lamenting how you will be accused of addressing ALL women, laments that ALL women should not be handling the text of scripture. “The violent response will insist that what you said about a small subset of women is to be understood by the entire world as an attack on all women, and the violent response will be led by women who also insist that they are every bit as rational as men, and should therefore be trusted to preach and teach and handle the text of Scripture, and they will… Read more »
You are responding to what nobody said. Read the paragraph you quoted – the leaders of the hypothesized violent response are called irrational, not all women.
And you are being obtuse because I have outlined it clearly in half of dozen comments. It is one thing to simplify things, it is another to completely refuse to hear what someone is saying to you because you are already invested in declaring them wrong.
So the question actually becomes, do you want to provide good pastoral care to women or do you simply wish to be seen as being “right” about everything?
Neither: I want to read Wilson accurately, or at least not absurdly, and wish you felt the same way.
Problem is, often people don’t show that their nit wits until AFTER they’re married. That goes for men as well as wimmen. (misspelling intentional)
Ah…those darned car keys. That Biblical Gender Roles guy would say: Take those car keys from that harridan wife of yours until she is ready to jump at your every beck and call. Especially when it comes to your kinky, sexual desires. And I’m sure I can hear resounding “Amens” in the Manosphere.
I hear you. I’ve tried explaining why BGR just might be a bit perverse in his scriptural interpretations, but apparently I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I figured BGR would be held in high esteem around these parts. Just when you think his site might be a parody, you read the comment section. Yikes! Poe’s Law takes on new meaning.
How did you come to that conclusion? I’ve never heard of the guy. Of course, this is typical of the evidence I see on Complementarian-Lite, “Paul didn’t really mean all that”/always-side-with-the-woman blogs.
Husbands are commanded to love their wives, not respect them.
And my first response to such a witless comment is: LOLOL! And my second response: Then wives aren’t expected to love their husbands. Yeah, see how that one goes over in a marriage.
Doug was using an obvious parallel: mammals; to illustrate what some feminists do with his admonishments against sinful wives otherwise. He was giving an analogy that they would get to help them understand what they are otherwise doing. Doug does think that readers (men and women) understand the mammal example. That they don’t understand what they are doing here is the issue. Further, while Doug thinks that women should not teach Scripture publicly for other reasons, he is merely noting the irony that many women who wish to teach Bible publicly can’t reason the clear statement: “women should not sin… Read more »
So, is it a popular past time around here for guys and gals to point the finger at how the other one is always messing up? Or, is it generally just the Fundamentalist Christian equivalent to a Left-Wing feminist blog always harping about how men are the reason for the ills in our society? You know, two extremist sides of the same coin.
If a large number of Christian women take on an anti-Christian secular worldview and that is detrimental to their lives, and their husbands and families, why would you not offer a corrective?
Oh, I’ll offer a corrective, to both women AND men. See the slight of hand there?
Let me ask a question here. That thingy there about expecting someone to admit guilt even when they aren’t to blame. Is that relegated to a specific gender or is it a *human* problem? Is it only wives who are prone to commit such manipulations, or are husbands guilty of the same thing? Cuz I’ve known plenty of men that are quite good at playing the manipulative con game. See where I’m going here? I get the message, loud and clear. There’s so many poor men out there who are being played by their wives. Problem is, the noise around… Read more »
I think it is reasonable to assume that, on a conservative Christian board, one is likely to encounter a general belief that feminism has not been good for the family or society. I think it is charitable to assume that this belief is held sincerely and not for the purpose of being cruel to women. Wilson has written quite a few posts on ways in which men are not good to their wives. He is assuming, in this post, that his regular readers already understand that Christian men are not to abuse their authority, be manipulative, or be unloving. I… Read more »
“But Darlene, I understand that this type of marriage probably sounds horrible to you. You don’t have to have it.” Well, let’s just say there is Complementarian, and then there is bat-crap, CRAZY Patriarchy – like the Biblical Gender Roles dude. Ask me which category I think the majority around these parts comprise. ;-) “Nobody is going to sell you to a Christian fundamentalist in exchange for a couple of goats and a camel.” Aw, shucks. You mean I can’t experience what life was actually like back in Abraham’s and Moses’ Day? As an aside, while on our vacation in… Read more »
As previously mentioned, Doug does address men a lot. I have read a lot more from him telling men to man up: to stop being hard on their wives and children and soft with confronting attacks on his family; rather than soft on them and hard for them. The fact is that men have had a lot of advice and many of them have taken it, even the detrimental advice from well meaning but clueless men (and women). But, in our post feminist age, many women have set themselves up as untouchable, and take advice from toxic friends. And the… Read more »
“So why do women complain when a site addresses feminine temptations?” I’m an Equal Opportunity criticizer. Women, as well as men, fall prey to sin. As far as “feminine temptations” go, I’m quite familiar with a certain kind of Christian rhetoric. In my former Christian cult, the leader had a teaching with which he’d clobber the females. In order to remind women of what he perceived to be their sinful tendencies, he came up with a term: *Eve Spirit.* Eve Spirit was used to silence females and keep them in their place. It worked quite well. One day, however, I… Read more »
I also have friends and family that have escaped cults. Though the ladies don’t all have the same aversion to being told that they need to reject sins that women may be more susceptible to. The fact that a cult leader may misuse a doctrine (and his position) for a power play does not negate the doctrine. It seems that secularism have said a lot of things to women that contradict biblical teaching. Any many women (and men) in the church have paid too much attention. Is it not better that Doug offers a right corrective to feminist lies, than… Read more »
“Though the ladies don’t all have the same aversion to being told that they need to reject sins that women may be more susceptible to.” Wait a minute….I thought Doug wasn’t speaking generally. For example, when he talks about those lazy housewives, the feminists get in an uproar because they think Doug is talking about ALL women. Now here you are putting women as a whole into that category of unique feminine sins. So which is it? “It seems that secularism have said a lot of things to women that contradict biblical teaching.” So the tendency among the Far Right… Read more »
الجامعة المعترف بها في الامارات
This kind of talk on this thread is foreign to me, except from what I read at certain Christian sites. The focus is on alienating the sexes – driving that wedge by emphasizing *roles.* The people I know, both men and women, work outside the home, or they have businesses that operate from their home. They have jobs/professions, where responsibilities are required of them. When they come home (if that is the case), both husband and wife, male and female, share in the work that must be done at home. Sometimes the man cooks dinner, other times the wife cooks… Read more »
“The people I know” is why you just don’t get it. You don’t know everybody. I am glad you specified ” both husband and wife, male and female” because we can’t take that for granted anymore, can we? Can we connect dots?
Well, if the majority of people I don’t know are obsessed with perpetuating the gender wars, and taking offense because that isn’t my *role* – I’m glad I “don’t know everybody.” And by the way, when I say I don’t *get* it, I mean: It doesn’t make sense to me. But objectively, I can give a number of any reasons why people play these gender role games. I happen to think it’s immature and petty.
so the people you know are homoesexuals….
I think that you have so much potential as a thinker. However, what keeps you from being truly great like Chesterton, Lewis, and Sayers is your tendency to reduce the scope and texture of truth just enough to produce a cavalier zing. I suppose this sophistry builds platform in a world in which the primary commodity is a “the social media like,” but it also reduces your voice to writing that is not likely to endure past a single generation. I wish that would would be brave enough to challenge yourself to take your work to the next level. I… Read more »
Not to distract from your main point, but I have to marvel at people who think Trump is extreme. Politically, he’s a 90s centrist.
I agree with this analysis. Though I’d put him a bit left of center on most issues.
Have you read very much Chesterton? I love him to death, but the man talked plain nonsense not infrequently; I could almost suspect he viewed truth as an aesthetic category.
Sure, this is the social clime of the home, but if both husband and wife see differently concerning roles of men and women, I do not believe it will be counted sin against me to comply to her view while retaining my belief on it all. If that means I do housework, what a small price! I have confessed to her recently though that I apologize too quickly to defuse situations, even if I am not in the wrong, or worse, I haven’t taken the time to process it fully. This is not honoring to her, and she knows she… Read more »
it is sin if you are too scared to challenge her satanic feminism…
Missed in this whole conversation is the point…. Marriage should not be a battle of the sexes but a covenant relationship where both understand their roles but both seek to help, encourage and support the other as much as possible. That may mean that sometimes the man will need to do household chores and sometimes the woman may need to work outside the home to help provide. But the roles and responsibilities are defined by scripture and that should always be understood. And the main point of the article is that post-modern feminist attitudes have crept unnoticed in the church… Read more »
No, it doesn’t mean women need to work outside the home.
so a genderless pseudo homosexual marriage then
Just eschew marriage altogether. Sooooo much less stress. Oh my, what a weight off the shoulders. This constant nagging is enough to drive you to the corner on the roof of your house, better to keep the house and eschew the nagger.
This cannot work society wide. Marriage, children, and the integrity of the family are essentials to any society and culture.
As this attitude and practice becomes more widespread, the more inherently unstable a society becomes. This is why secularism is inherently unstable, it degrades and dis-incentivizes one of the most necessary elements of a society. This is why this approach will of necessity be an outlier in any society.
Yes, everyone is aware of that, doh! That’s the whole point. Marriage is dying, society is sick, divorce laws are uncompromising and destructive. Not sacrificing myself on the altar of marriage when laws are stacked against me, better to live without the headache and nagging. More people are choosing this option. Less people in the world is a good thing.
God told Adam exactly the opposite.
Plenty of low grade ‘tards being produced.
Your comments have put this fact in the foreground.
Lol, is that the best you have? Insulting but rather pitiful at that. Marriage is a bad deal for men, your plan is to shame them into it. Not going to work, sunshine. Once again, insult me all you want, it won’t change anything.
You know what else is a bad deal for men? Not having descendants. Yes, traditional marriage is technically illegal, but plenty of us have wives that will conspire with us to keep it going.
Illegal? What planet are you living on? Now slappin’ around the Missus is illegal. Or, threatening hubby with a gun. But I’m certain you’re against such violence, being a Christian and all.
Illegal? What planet are you living on? Now slappin’ around the Missus, or threatening hubby’s life with a gun is illegal. But I’m certain you are against violence being a Christian and all.
He’s kidding. Feminist theory brings it out in him, and he can’t help it. I would not personally want to be the man whom ashv caught actually beating up on a woman. In fact, I would feel safer to have him or Barnabas as my defender than someone like Alan Alda. Not that I have any objection to Alan Alda. But while he might be really good at helping me process my feelings, I think that ashv and Barnabas and their ilk would be a whole lot better at stopping the assault and preventing any recurrence.
There’s a good argument that binding marriage is illegal because there is no longer any standard of evidence that has to be met to dissolve it.
If that’s what ashv means, he’s not wrong.
Oh, bless your heart.
There’s another thing to consider. My sister, in her early seventies, and many of her friends who married slightly older men, are now nursing their husbands through a lot of nasty illnesses. Reading to them during chemo sessions. Trying to make salt-free food taste good. Pushing wheelchairs. Keeping track of impossibly complex medication regimens. And doing it all with tenderness and love. Not saying, “These were our golden years, damnit, and now you got sick and wrecked them.”
Who will be doing that for Femghazi?
Good for you, truly. I hope you keep it going but I’ve seen too much and do not wish to step into a minefield. You were, perhaps, able to dodge the mines around you, I’m not willing to try and prefer to navigate my way around the minefield.
It’s funny. Doug comes to instill some fear into women, they come and shove it back right in his face proving that they are seriously bad deals for marriage. And all you can do is cover for them and shame men. You’re hilarious… you cannot do God’s work. You’re stuck in a rut because you cannot tell women, ‘no’.
I don’t know if you have wandered over from one of the alt-right sites (your name makes me think that perhaps you have), but I think perhaps you have not understood Doug’s purpose here. It is not “to instill some fear into women” as if that were a good thing in itself, and it is not to make women less “seriously bad deals” for marriage. Doug believes that God Himself has ordained how marriage is to be, and that the leadership given to men is, if anything, a burden. It is not an entitlement. It is certainly not an entitlement… Read more »
“I think perhaps you have not understood Doug’s purpose here. It is not “to instill some fear into women” as if that were a good thing in itself…” Jilly, regardless of Wilson’s point or purpose, that is exactly what he does. Femghazi did not just “wander over” from a red pill site. Wilson’s words are posted in those places as validation and justification for exploiting,abusing, and instilling fear in women. I like to believe Wilson is unaware of this and does not condone it, but I’m afraid the evidence is not in his favor. You’re quite right about the rest… Read more »
Why would anyone be afraid of Doug Wilson’s words? Now, when I was a kid, my Dad’s and Mom’s words could instill quite a bit of fear into me – that healthy kind of fear. Such as getting caught in a lie, or stealing money. But Wilson’s words? Nah.
My mother could do it with one slightly raised eyebrow.
Having read some of their comments, I wonder what made guys like Femghazi end up that way. Did they have neglectful, self-absorbed mothers who didn’t model attachment? Or did they have doormat mothers who took abuse from their kids and never taught them to respect either women or themselves? Do you have a take on that?
I really don’t know,Jilly. I think ultimately we’re all responsible for our own choices, so while abuse, neglect, is atrocious and does a whole lot of damage, it still doesn’t tell the whole story. Most people dealing with damage, even mental health issues, tend to hurt their own selves and not others.
Maybe a girlfriend or an ex-wife gave them the shaft. Now they look at all women through that particular lens.
You misread me, the fear being instilled by Doug is one of fear of God, not your husband. God calls for wives to submit to their husbands, no ifs of buts.
Are you writing from a specifically Christian worldview?
Several of the commenters here seem like bad deals for marriage, women and men alike. Plenty of them seem to do OK though.
God doesn’t take “it’s too hard and the world makes it even harder” as an excuse for disobedience, FWIW.
Hilarious. Don’t you find it funny that all these laws giving women power over men are destroying the family and that the only men willing to produce with these power hungry maniacs called women today are deadbeat losers?
You would think that if you knew the problem, you would embrace the solution. Alas, you will double down, I take joy in that, I’ve seen the light, just pray to God that more men will see that light and reject the feminist women of today and tell them to take a hike.
Yes, the laws are terrible.
So are the laws that forbade people from worshiping Christ exclusively. Still no excuse for doing the right thing.
Aw…stop whining. Aren’t you man enough to handle a woman? LoL!
Yep. No marriage for me.
I was just surveying the comments as a whole and it occurred to me that there are men here who say they would willingly die for their wives–but would not do the dishes.
‘Wonder if they would wash anyone’s feet? ????????????
I’m not sure anyone in a comfortable setting is in a position to say what they would or wouldn’t do if it came down to sacrificing their life in such a way. I’d like to say that if an ISIS terrorist were holding a knife at my throat and giving me the option to deny Christ and live, that I’d choose martyrdom. Right now in my comfy, cozy abode I wanna say I wouldn’t dare fall for such a temporary, earthly comfort. All I can say is: Lord have mercy on me and strengthen me should such a day ever… Read more »
I agree, stupidity. Just let her die, doing the dishes is far less effort.
using your logic
there are many men here who would willingly die for their wives but refuse to be house husbands to support their career….
BDash: For someone who has an affinity on this thread to point the finger at women “whining” all the time, it seems to me you’re doing a pretty good job of whining yourself. Perhaps you ought to put a mirror up to yourself, before casting aspersions on others. Like that lovely adage: People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
read or listen to any Christian woman…
Man….you’ve got a One Track Mind. Boiled down it goes something like this: All Christian women are Jezebels! They’re evil, I tell ya. To quote from Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin: “The soul of a woman was created BELOW!”
Yes, except it’s all women, not just Christian women.
I’d suggest you get some serious counseling, but no doubt you’ll think that’s wimpy and tie it into a Feminist plot. If you’e the real deal (being that this is the Internet there’s a chance this is not the case), then perhaps I need to show some pity. No doubt, that is offensive to you as well. If you actually believe your diatribes, then anything any woman does or says is offensive to you. What a sad, lonely man you must be.
Counseling? I’m happy being single. I love life the way it is. Knowing women, as they are, not as we wish them to be, is freeing. Nothing women say to me is offensive, nothing you’ve said here is offensive to me. It’s funny but I’m truly glad you are saying it. Men who read it, get a glimpse into how life would be with a woman. It’s good to know this.
no just the comple whatever ones
celebrating women trying to become and usurping men…
Calling all in the Manosphere (and yes, that includes you, Biblical Gender Roles guy) to hearken to Doug Wilson’s blog! Make sure you give the appropriate High Fives to all your fellow male sojourners who must bemoan the Feminist Coup.
This is exactly the kind of comment I’m talking about. Sad state of affairs we’re in.
I agree, sad state of affairs. However, I’d wager that you and I differ as to the what and why.
Who the heck cares. This is the mess your generations left to us to fix. All these ‘real men’ in the house bemoaning the fact that no one wants to get married anymore or that men and women can’t stand each other anymore.. why should they? No one said ‘no’ to women during their 100 year belly ache, everyone gave them exactly what they asked for, which came at the direct expense of men. Now the problem is coming to a head. You’re just not worth the effort.
Some folks just don’t like it that they can’t CONTROL the narrative anymore. Ah….but you still have the Manoshere!
Thank God for the Manosphere! Saved me from a life filled with naggers.
Surprise, surprise….Not. Your Manosphere scent preceded you. And just like the Femanazi’s that bash all men for being Misogynist Ogres, you can bash all the women for being the deceptive, soul-destroying Jezebels that they are.
You are doing the exact same, don’t pretend otherwise. I’ve stated above that men and women can’t stand each other anymore. This was started by feminists, it will end with us. Women are deceptive, they are soul destroying. Look around you, you’re surrounded with man hating zeal. I just state what they do and what the laws allow them to do. It points directly to women being deceptive and soul destroying, to the point that we have a fifty percent divorce rate, no fault divorce, high male suicide and a crumbling society. I don’t condone killing them or hurting them,… Read more »
Furthermore, I don’t hide who I am. I truly actually give thanks to God for the Manosphere, each and every day. If you think marking me as such is some sort of ‘gotcha’ moment. You’re wrong.
“You are doing the exact same, don’t pretend otherwise.” Says the fella who can only perceive women’s words as soul destroying. Because of your hatred – strong word I know, but it applies – of women, you are only able to interpret women through your narrow lens. Even with some of the kindly, winsome ladies on this blog, all you can manage to do is be belligerent and repugnant. “I truly give thanks to God for the Manosphere, each and every day.” No doubt you do. It bolsters your malice toward women, and allows you to justify festering in your… Read more »
I don’t care about women, I don’t have ‘malice’ towards them. You’ve accused me of everything in the book, making up accusations, that’s all you can do. It’s the reason I leave you well alone. I don’t care what you think.
What motivation, other than ‘malice,’ provoked the following reflections, and characterizations of women, from your Disqus page? “Lol! Don’t get married, don’t co-habitate, just don’t get involved longer than it takes to release your load. After which time, you take the condom, douse it in gasoline, put Tabasco source in it and put in in the bin and then burn it. The perfect man doesn’t want an over the wall beast with huge debt from college, home purchases and having to freeze her eggs because she spent the better part of her youth sucking the d2icks of the bad boys… Read more »
Only spoken to feminists, and they are not kindly at all.
I’m not surprised about the dozens of comments spewing from the InanitySmites and Not-So-Spiritual Sounding Board corners of the interwebz. But no Christian should get upset about this.
I think Christians should indeed get upset about this. When beautiful words of the gospel start getting twisted and used as validation and justification for the male right to bang hot Asian chicks and abuse your wife in new and inventive ways, we got a problem.
Where did Wilson say that? That’s like me saying your position is multi-partner, bi-sexual-anything-goes feminism.
He said nothing to detract from the Gospel. Rather, your position (identity politics, faux victimization, etc.) completely undermines the Bible’s clear teaching on sin, responsibility and male/female roles. It would be wise to read more Paul and Peter, and fewer “You Go Girl!” pseudo-Christian blogs.
I never said anything at all about Wilson! I speak specifically of those red pills who sometimes show up here. Since a couple of people in this very thread are tossing around nick names like “InanitySmites” it’s kind of obvious where they are all coming from and that they know me.
Nothing would make me happier than to have the entire manosphere show up, sit down, and listen to what Wilson has to say.
Actually, I retract that part about nothing making me happier. Those guys are grim, depressing, and horrific, but still it would be a good thing.
My original comment was that no one should get upset about Wilson’s post. You either tried to change the subject or made a pretty serious reading comp error.
“My original comment was that no one should get upset about Wilson’s post”
And my comment demonstrates that there is clearly sound reason to get upset about Wilson’s post.
No, your comment demonstrates that you either (a) don’t understand the art of conversation (what does “reply” mean?) or (2) you’re extremely solipsistic and disregard the rules of conversation. It’s all about pushing your agenda. I suspect the latter.
“It’s all about pushing your agenda. I suspect the latter.”
Absolutely I have an agenda. I wish people to know Christ.
Christ has nothing to do with your warped view of sin, responsibility and roles of men/women. Throwing around Evangelical catch phrases like that doesn’t help your case. To paraphrase something Demo D just said to someone else: “You should probably work on your persecution complex.While you are at it, you might want to learn to read what others say before spamming your tired clichés.”
“Christ has nothing to do with your warped view of sin, responsibility and roles of men/women.”
God has been quite good to me, I’m rather pleased with having been blessed with a 30 yr marriage, children, grandchildren, to be having a second honeymoon in this season of life, even. I am blessed. I don’t feel persecuted at all, I feel sad for those who suffer, for those who don’t know the gospel, for those who have not yet fallen madly in love with Jesus Christ.
Isn’t just about anything that degrades women game around here? I’ve never seen so much denunciation toward women on a Christian blog as I do in these parts. It’s seems to me that Doug Wilson has spawned a blog that is the male equivalent of hyper-feminist blogs which ridicule and blame men for all the trouble in our society.
Pretty much, yes. But is Wilson doing it deliberately or are his words simply being subjectively perceived and bent into a perversion by certain men, that justifies and validates their desire to mistreat women?
Deliberately is something that requires proof through evidence. But, if we look at a person’s patterns and repeated behavior, then we can have a pretty good idea of what a person’s agenda is. Further, I think quite a few people over the years have attempted to call Mr. Wilson out on the carpet on the very issue that I’ve raised, only for him to criticize and obfuscate the accusations.
As opposed to the laws that allow women to mistreat men.
Woman cannot afford her child = welfare
Man cannot afford his child = jail
Thanks but no thanks.
I really don’t see where Wilson comes in for the blame on this. Mostly the anti-woman types show up to demonstrate why Wilson isn’t masculinist enough for their tastes.
Are you sure you’re reading the same comments I am? I see quite a few pro-Wilsonites that love to bash women as being THE problem in the church and society today. Women just aren’t submissive enough anymore. Women aren’t willing to get married and have children. Women only care about having professional careers. Women this and women that. The second runner-up is all those effeminate guys who are the enablers to all those uppity, feminist women. And the material Wilson puts out there generates these kind of discussions because Wilson has a way of (albeit cloaked in riddles and flowery… Read more »
White men have held the power for decades. Now that the playing field is being leveled there are some men who just can’t take it. Not all men, but enough. It makes me wonder why they feel they can’t compete unless all the balls are in their court. (Pun intended)
Uh, no. Some of us have had to perform much higher than our affirmative action counterparts for decades just to compete. And we just went through 8 years of an administration that sided with practically every non-white thug…and gave us two very anti-white AGs.
What’s 8 years compared to a few centuries of one class having all the power? It wasn’t that long ago that white thugs were protected by the powers-that-be who condoned genocide and the subjugation and brutal treatment of an entire race of people. White thugs that committed genocide (Trail of Tears anyone?). White thugs that lynched Blacks out of sheer hatred.
Yeah, racism is just another code word. It means nothing. Protecting your own is the right thing to do, always has been. Only now, with the chorus of whining, are white men supposed to think differently whilst every other race continues as if nothing happened.
You would not be here to moan if it were not for the white man.
Femghazi: Telling the truth about the brutal treatment of Blacks and Native Americans is not moaning. Your view would be like the Holocaust deniers. Are you one of them too? I heard that kind of rhetoric growing up from my grandmother. Classic denial.
Another thing, I find it odd that you use that word “moan,” since all your comments boil down to whining about how mistreated and misunderstood you are as a white male.
Protecting your own is right and just. That is all.
Don’t even argue with them, let them have equality, they are going to moan regardless, it is all they do. White men have given them everything and then some, it is never enough. Let them sink or swim but don’t, ever, bail them out. Let them have their ‘trail of tears’.
Oh, here come the feminists. I’m glad you’re here. Welcome, keep telling it like it is. Fewer men care to care anymore. I’m happy that feminists have let the cat out of the bag. Fewer marriages is a good thing, fewer men sacrificing for women is a good thing.
Equality is the right way, no more doing anything for women, let them do it all themselves.
I’m glad to hear that you aren’t married. You’re miserable enough for at least two people.
Good God. Your nagging is enough to make jumping into a volcano and good hobby.
Why don’t you marry a rich, successful woman who is out all day arguing cases in front of a judge? She won’t be around the house to bother you with her nagging, you won’t have to sacrifice for her, and when she dumps you, she as the higher wage earner will have to financially support you. I have been around the courts a lot lately, and some of these women are very pretty indeed. Unless you believe that it would be undignified to marry someone brighter and more successful than you, why wouldn’t this be a lovely marriage for you?… Read more »
I proudly admit to being a feminist. I also have a Godly husband, 6 grown children , 19 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren. Your idea of feminism is definitely different than mine.
Well, look what you have wrought.. nothing good about being a feminist. You might have your marriage but you’ve destroyed plenty of others. Do you still think ‘no fault’ divorce was a good idea? You still want the vote but won’t sign up for the draft? You still want equal pay but won’t earn it.. You still want the right to choose but refuse to give the same to men. It’s all the same. At the end of the day, feminism has destroyed the Church.
I suppose by your standards God is anti woman as well
In order to suppose that, you’d have to know what my standards are. You like to make surmises based on whether people agree with you, without having a clue what people actually believe or do.
For the record, of course not. I have a very traditional conception of biblical teaching on men and women, it just doesn’t line up with your unbelieving “women are always wrong and men never are” position.
What’s wrong with banging hot asian chicks. At least they are having nothing to do with you, right? That’s what you want.. right? You don’t want men giving you the time of day and now they’re not, good. You got what you wanted. Now stop moaning.
Doug definitely likes to stir the pot. For conversation on extra biblical issues or for attention?
If the wife does not voluntarily render submission to the husband, all other good advice is a waste of time.
Translated: The problems in marriage boil down to: It’s the woman’s fault because she doesn’t submit enough.
No woman would ever be able to submit enough to you. I’d wager that if you commanded her to lick her own vomit off the floor and she refused, you’d feel justified in beating her into submission. You, Femghazi are a twisted soul, a demented human being.
I won’t get married, have no fear.
Not correctly translated. Correct translation: the problems in marriage may have many sources but will never be solved if at least one of the parties refuses to do at least one of the things that is necessary to any marriage.
The statement “If a husband has no desire to exercise godly leadership, all other good advice is a waste of time” is equally true, and having known Steve for nearly 20 years, I can attest that he is just as likely to make this statement, if it’s the more relevant statement in the context.
Here’s another aspect: women aren’t attracted to men who just blow smoke up their backsides and do a face down “yes, dear” in every argument. So the next time you think that it makes you a good man to “compromise” by humoring your wife when you know she’s wrong, understand that not only are you sinning, but you’re making yourself into a total wimp (or a certain “p word” if you prefer) in her eyes and those of every other woman observing you. Congratulations, my friend, you’ve at least hit (if not killed) two birds with one stone: your salvation… Read more »
Bravely spoken, DCMonkey. You can stand with this until a rebellions wife says to see it her way or else get served with divorce papers. What then?
And don’t kid yourself, bruh: This stuff happens every day, and “Christian” women are doing it.
The “never-submit-no-compromise” brand of feminism is like road salt in your fenders: It never stops corroding the metal until there’s nothing left.
Why any man wants anything to do with these nutjobs is beyond me. You are just a walking wallet to them. Just live free.
modern feminist women love wimps
Absolutely, and they use the courts to enforce their preferences.
Aw…are the manly-men whining again? Wait….don’t you fellas consider whining an effeminate trait? Better watch out. You might become the very thing that you despise: a wimpy guy.
You present near-perfect example of the kind of thing the article addresses. A problem is presented. You take it personally. You respond by ridiculing the manhood of people who make the observation. You give no thought to whether any of it is true. To launch the arrow at a venture, I’m guessing your manly-man husband spends a good portion of his time making deceitful apologies, and I’m guessing you’re unaware of that, and I’m guessing there’s no way in hades he would ever come clean with you about it.
Feminism is a standing ad hominem against men in general.
Says the guy, who is only able to interpret everything though his anti-woman grid. Lousy psychologizing there. Better stick to your day job.
Then Patriarchy is a standing ad hominem against women in general.
What about the wimpy, fearful women who say “Yes, dear,” just to appease their husbands? I’d say congratulations, fella, you’ve just got yourself a Stepford Wife! Whoa!
That’s a good choice for wives in many (of course, not all) situations. 1 Peter 3:1 would be a starting point for that discussion.
Translated: Me likes a Stepford Wife who is always willing to go along to get along. “Yes, dear.” You’re right, dear.” Blow the money on gambling…”You’re right, dear.” Have a honey on the side. “I’m so sorry dear that I caused you to stray. I know I was wrong. I’ll try to do better.” Slap her across the face. “Oh, honey. I’m so sorry that I messed up. I promise to do better the next time.”
Me thinks when you use this word,you don’t understand the meaning of psychological projection. By your use of the term, I’d have to be a Stepford wife. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I could sure do a good imitation of one. But in real life, Fat Chance.
You’ve chosen to take a discussion of the appropriate roles of husbands and wives and psychologize it, claiming to know my preferences and desires.
What’s a better word for that?
“What’s a better word for that?”
Reading comprehension. ;-)
“What’s a better word for that?”
Reading comprehension. ;-)
You should try playing a bit of Poker. It’s quite fun.
If you truly believe what you wrote above, you would join the Manosphere in chorus and denounce marriage. It’s for your protection after all. Join us and let’s banish marriage to the depths of hell where it belongs. Do your part today!
Why would I want to do that? I think the institution of marriage is great. At least it is in my case. I love my man! And he works hard, hunts with rifle and bow, is able to troubleshoot mechanical problems in our vehicles – an all around manly guy. I’ll leave you to whine with your fellow Manospherists about how hard the guys have it due to the evils of Feminism.
You think it’s great, you have a great marriage but spend all your time kvetching about it on a forum. Something tells me you’re not entirely honest.
Where has Darlene kvetched about her marriage? I don’t agree with a lot of what she’s saying but that’s pure fantasy.
She hasn’t but she certainly has kvetched about marriage and men.
Kvetching? I say I like the institution of marriage and you call that complaining? Are you mentally ill? Because that implies some serious problems with your thinking skills.
No, it makes perfect sense. If you had Femghazi’s idea of a healthy marriage, you wouldn’t be saying you like it. You would be miserable and oppressed. Obviously, your husband isn’t brutal enough for Femghazi.
You’re the one moaning all the time. Get it checked out.
Unfortunately, DDG and ME shy away from clear Biblical teaching…often in favor of pious grandstanding (“what really matters is the love of Christ…[defined by me]”)
mkt: And so that would mean it’s okay for a wife to say “Yes, dear,” ( give ascent, agree to, etc.) to her husband, even when she’s lying through her teeth, because….”Biblical teaching.” Or, do I misunderstand you? Or, I’ll throw this out to you, just hoping that I might be wrong. A. Husband comes home from foolishly blowing all the money in the saving’s account while gambling. Wife says nothing out of being submissive and prays (alone of course) that God will make a way for them to pay their mortgage so they don’t lose their home. When they… Read more »
But again, what does any of this have to do with Wilson’s post? His point is that in the minds of many, no man is ever supposed to correct his (ostensibly smarter and less sinful) wife. They want it both ways. Men are supposed to be strong, courageous, sacrificing leaders, but should always give in to “the better half” in any conflict.
The reading comprehension problem is on your end, m’am.
A bit of deflection there. Maybe I didn’t give you enough choices. ;-)
Watch out or you just might end up becoming a whiner. And that might just put you in the effeminate category.
A running joke in church years ago was that on Mother’s Day she was endlessly lauded and on Father’s Day he was told to ‘worship’ the mother of his children:)
There is a website I stumbled upon last week which mocks the modern churchianity – Babylon Bee – check it out – http://babylonbee.com/
– and this one really hits home – http://babylonbee.com/news/woman-unsure-needs-jesus-preacher-spends-30-minutes-telling-amazing/
Yep. And they also mock quite a bit that goes on in Calvinist circles too. Equal opportunity mockers.
The author makes the assumption that Christian men are cowards in their homes, that they neglect to “stand up” to their women folk because holy men in their Sunday speeches preach other than the messages of the Good Book when it comes to male-female roles. The fact of the matter is that each man through their relationship with Christ and their clergy is able to carry out their own internal business with their wife through the auspices of the Bible. Entire congregations need not be virtue signaled and shamed by alleged men of the cloth.
I seriously doubt this is Vox. He actually liked the article (his criticism is sarcastic):
It doesn’t sound like his writing style either.
Not surprising. I’m sure the Manosphere holds Doug in high esteem.
Near as I can tell, the Manosphere think he’s a squishy moderate.
On the rare occasions that they think of him at all.
So your surety is unfounded.
“So your surety is unfounded.”
No, it is not. They quote him so frequently that is how I found my way here. I thought, surely there can be no Pastor who loves Christ actually lending credence to the kind of hatred you often encounter in the manosphere.
I was wrong.
I’m not sure I understand. You started out on manosphere sites, and quotations from Wilson led you to come to the source? How did you hear of the manosphere originally? I had never heard of it until a year or so ago. I have certainly been enlightened reading the disqus comment pages of a couple of our new arrivals. I don’t think anyone, including those at the far reaches of patriarchy, would confuse them with Christians. Their language and their sexual ethics (or lack of them) disqualify them. Let alone the general nastiness of spirit–the “I’m here for myself and… Read more »
This standard of “they selectively quote him for their own purposes so he must be one of them” is odd. By that standard, the Bible really does support race-based chattel slavery — just ask the 19th century apologists.
Is Wilson lending or are they stealing?
Edit: Successful lies contain enough truth to act as bait. What could be more attractive than forbidden truths?
I liked your Bedouin story. I always thought it might be nice to live in a yurt in Mongolia and ride horses all day. This is purely fantasy, as horses are large animals that make me very uneasy. But it would nice to be Wild and Free sometimes. I don’t think the Manosphere would hold Doug in very high esteem. He educated his daughters. They went to college. His wife sounds eminently capable of expressing contrary opinions. He eviscerated “Fifty Shades” from here to eternity. His family all appear to like one another. None of this is consistent with the… Read more »
You totally missed the point again…this isn’t really Vox. It’s more likely someone of your ilk.
Huh? I really don’t know much about Vox and made no comment about him. You’ve confused me with someone else.
Most comments seem to take it personally – the author says this is a cultural problem in the church and every institution is now corrupted by it – and that is true in spades.
I cover this and related issues at – http://www.crushlimbraw.com – too long for posting here.
Just wanted to say welcome to some of our recent commenters. I appreciate you being here, so I can be the voice of moderation for once.
You are starting to look better and better.