Bird Watching

This page is to share random quotes (tweets) and any thoughts from observing any feminist birds, traditionalist birds or angry birds. Comments flow from newest at the top to the oldest. A bit awkward to read that way but save tons of page scrolls to the most recent discussions.

Advertisements

2,419 thoughts on “Bird Watching

  1. This is a very cute little Anon bird talking about housework at Dalrock’s:

    “Remember that all the hatred about housework is because successful societies knew that women have lesser competence and are skilled at avoiding accountability. Low-risk tasks like cooking, cleaning, laundry, and watching children are assigned to women simply because that is where a screwup carries little true cost.”

    Like

  2. “Low-risk tasks like cooking, cleaning, laundry, and watching children are assigned to women simply because that is where a screwup carries little true cost.”

    Again, OH MY GOODNESS.

    Dead or maimed children–no biggie!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Somewhat related, I was having a nightmare last night where my 3-year-old got loose in a parking lot, there was a truck turning and I woke up around the time I was looking and looking for the 3-year-old assuming she’d gotten crushed by the truck.

    A week or two ago, I was having a nightmare where she was running barefoot through a department store and I was chasing her. In my dream, she got onto an escalator barefoot and was just about to get to the top of the escalator when I woke up.

    Like

  4. Oh for heaven’s sake. I came across this blog today. The manospherians would love it.

    https://theladycompanionblog.com/category/the-lady-companion-guidebook/

    What is The Lady Companion? The Lady Companion is a domestic role, whereby various duties are performed in service to the household and to the monarch of the family. It is a position of privilege and status.

    Duty ~ Your primary duty is to honor and serve the monarch. Your various responsibilities include housekeeping, cooking and baking, managing the household finances, gardening and landscaping, errands and appointments, caring for the family pets, and providing companionship to the monarch. You are required to accompany the monarch, in loyalty, on vacations and companion outings.

    Code of Conduct ~ Remember, you are here to serve. You are to speak when spoken to, in direct corrolation to the topic which was spoken to you. You may offer opinions or ideas, but only in cases of necessity. You may make decisions in your area of responsibility, without conferring to the monarch. Only engage the monarch in conversation if you face a situation of substantial monetary consideration. You are not to confide in or speak to the monarch on a personal level. You must never exhibit contempt or rebellion in the presence of the monarch. You must have a pleasing disposition and a tolerance in the face of conflict. However, you are not abliged to endure abuse of any kind and are free to remove yourself from any uncomfortable or volatile experience without notice.

    Like

  5. Nah, if she’s free to remove herself from any uncomfortable or volatile experience, that’s “rebellious”. It’s a weird little curiosity of a blog. It appears to be about dealing with a sub-optimal marriage in an inventive way.

    Like

  6. Well, that blogger has a blasphemous post title among her recent posts despite claiming to be such a Godly Christian woman that she’s just “naturally” given authority over other women IRL.

    I generally feel a great sense of pity for her, if her backstory of abuse and general codependency is real, she probably shouldn’t be caught up in red pill nonsense, but it seems like it attracts some people with unresolved traumas.

    Like

  7. Thoughts about rape culture.

    Doesn’t it seem like things swing on a pendulum to control illicit sex? It used to that women were the gatekeepers. Women were encouraged to keep chaste lest they be labeled loose, slut, a bad girl, someone a boy wouldn’t respect or marry…..all the while the “ladies man” had a sort of status among men and some women. The morals loosened in this regard and we’ve arrived at hook up culture. However, that is bringing the problem of rape culture and now it’s the men warning other men to “keep it in their pants” to avoid false accusations.

    Neguy says:
    June 29, 2016 at 1:01 pm
    Whatever we may think of this, the true lesson is to obey God’s law. While the left is busy trying to extend this yes means yes stuff into marriage, the fact is that if you only ever have sex with your wife whom you married in part because she also believed in and practiced God’s law, your risk of being victimized by this sort of thing will plummet to very low levels

    michael savell says:
    June 29, 2016 at 1:31 pm
    If men cannot live,at least for a while,without glorifying women to the point where they face a lifetime in pokey,then perhaps they deserve everything they get.God knows,they are warned
    enough times.Sex is a weakness,not a strength.

    Daily Llama says:
    June 29, 2016 at 3:04 pm
    Sex outside a socially sanctioned relationship is always ALWAYS risky. Be the opposite of Nike. Just DON’T do it!

    Peter Blood says:
    June 29, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    Keep it in your pants, and let syphilis and zika do the rest.

    Jim says:
    June 29, 2016 at 9:09 pm
    And people keep asking me why I’m a MGTOW?

    Kaehu says:
    June 29, 2016 at 9:44 pm
    The way things are going, fornication laws will be back and it will again be illegal to have sex outside of marriage.

    Like

  8. Rollo Tomassi

    InsanityBytes needs to go argue with God about His “designing” men to be neurologically hardwired to see women as sex objects. For a God who doesn’t want us to see one another as commodities He’s got a lot of explaining to do for litterally wiring it into us:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-our-brains-turn-women-into-objects/

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090216-bikinis-women-men-objects.html

    IB, accept it, and be glad you have such low requirements for intimate desirability. I find it telling you attack pretty young sex objects like LeeLee or Dragonfly, perhaps Liz with such venom and regularity.
    0

    Like

  9. I betcha none of the mentioned married christian women, oh sorry, I mean pretty young sex objects, will speak up against that. They love it too much.

    Like

  10. I’ve never really read Lee Lee but I was intrigued by TPC comments. I found her blog and read a little.

    In her most recent post she says ” life had taught me from the moment my body began to develop that I existed to please men, that I deserved to be humiliated and degraded, that I was only useful when I was making myself sexually available.”

    What she doesn’t seem to see is that she hasn’t dropped this pattern of pleasing men. It’s just repackaged differently as a Christo Red Pill groupie. She may be married and not sleeping around anymore but the urge to please men in general seems to be as strong as ever.

    TPC is right. ” [The red pill] seems like it attracts some people with unresolved traumas.”

    Like

  11. Mrs. H, great comment. The need to please all men, not just husband is strong. I guess Rollo calling her a “preety young sex object” is not degrading. See, they still seek it out. Like you say, maybe she isn’t whoring it up physically anymore, but online for attention…..

    Like

  12. Lori says this today: “A woman left this comment on yesterday’s post about women being preachers and leaders in the Church. {I didn’t publish it since I don’t publish posts that are completely contrary to what I am teaching.”

    Flat out lie. She had the comment up for a few hours yesterday and rather changed her mind to make a post. It’s not that she didn’t publish it.

    Like

  13. TPC:

    “Well, that blogger has a blasphemous post title among her recent posts despite claiming to be such a Godly Christian woman that she’s just “naturally” given authority over other women IRL.”

    I just found the post title you were talking about. I was thinking, how bad could it be?

    Pretty darn awful. I’d hate to explain THAT one to my pastor, or to any live human being, as a matter of fact.

    “I generally feel a great sense of pity for her, if her backstory of abuse and general codependency is real, she probably shouldn’t be caught up in red pill nonsense, but it seems like it attracts some people with unresolved traumas.”

    Yeah.

    Like

  14. RT said:

    “IB, accept it, and be glad you have such low requirements for intimate desirability. I find it telling you attack pretty young sex objects like LeeLee or Dragonfly, perhaps Liz with such venom and regularity.”

    So much for Proverbs 31: “Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
    but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
    Give her of the fruit of her hands,
    and let her works praise her in the gates.”

    Like

  15. Mrs. H said,

    “What she doesn’t seem to see is that she hasn’t dropped this pattern of pleasing men. It’s just repackaged differently as a Christo Red Pill groupie. She may be married and not sleeping around anymore but the urge to please men in general seems to be as strong as ever.”

    Yes.

    Like

  16. Just imagine if the Proverbs 31 woman acted like a Red Pill Woman. It would be kind of like mashup of Proverbs 7 and Proverbs 31. She’d be lurking about dressed as a harlot, enticing simple youths and bragging about her sex life with her husband, her domestic achievements, and her submissiveness.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. RT says “InsanityBytes needs to go argue with God about His “designing” men to be neurologically hardwired to see women as sex objects. For a God who doesn’t want us to see one another as commodities He’s got a lot of explaining to do for litterally wiring it into us:”

    Oh, how nice to blame God. “We can’t help it. HE literally wired us this way!” Sounds eerily familiar. ““The woman YOU gave to be with me…..” (Gn 3:12) Could it be that men seeing women as objects is not part of the original design but a susceptibility brought about by our fallen nature? Could it be that instead of saying “Sorry babe, God wired me to see you as a tool for my use.” a man should say “My cooperation with God’s grace will help me to not see women this way but instead as someone made in the image of God like myself?”

    In Genesis, it’s interesting to note that Adam was with Eve and listening to the conversation between them. ” When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” If Adam was with her and listening to this conversation, could it be he was just as intrigued and deceived by the serpent’s words as Eve was? Could it be that his curiosity about whether it was true that they would die was so piqued that he chose to watch Eve take the bite of fruit to see what would happen? Could it be that when he saw that she seemed fine, he also eagerly ate when she gave it to him as well? He certainly didn’t seem to need any encouragement. He just simply ate what she gave him. Could it be that Adam used Eve as the “tool” with which to test the serpent’s words to see if she would really die if she ate the apple first?

    Like

  18. Ken Alexander is STILL trying to talk sense and reason with Dalrock’s crew. They won’t give him an inch. He is wrong and he will always be wrong because he had the audacity to hint that husbands should help their wives with housework.

    Like

  19. I guess Ken doesn’t agree that debating in comments is fruitless….based on his activity at Dalrock.
    Lori Alexander
    · 1 hour ago
    Thank you, Cheryl. I have tried debating with people in the comment section and then I realize how fruitless it is and usually delete the comment. I greatly dislike debating others in things that are so clearly biblical

    Like

  20. Here’s something from Lelee that jumped out at me:

    “Remember that the heart of femininity is being “for men”, and there is much flexibility in this.”

    http://www.leeleeinbabylon.com/why-we-applaud-masculine-women/

    Is this true, though? One of the central images of femininity in Western culture (arguably THE central image) is the Madonna, and she isn’t really “for men” at all–or at least no more than she is for Baby Jesus or everybody.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(art)

    In Western art, it’s very much a dyad of Madonna and child–she only has eyes for her baby.

    I think there’s a much better case to be made that the heart of femininity is being “for others.” But at the same time, there’s a popular phrase (from the Jesuits?) saying that their ideal is to be “a man for others.” Obviously, a woman for others and a man for others are going to look very different in practice, but they are both “for others”.

    I think Lelee is a smart cookie (and an original thinker), but there’s something a little “off” about her views, even when she is being insightful.

    Like

  21. Andreas says: “It all comes down to Christ and Him crucified, which will either make perfect sense or it will end up becoming a stumbling-block for you. A wife bowing before her husband is therefor offensive to the religious and foolishness to the humanists/gentiles, much in same manner that the cross is.

    Revelation 3:9
    Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews[Christians], and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship[!] before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.”

    Is he actually saying that anybody who doesn’t endorse a wife bowing to her husband isn’t a Christian? Or am I misreading?

    Like

  22. Eavan asks “Is he actually saying that anybody who doesn’t endorse a wife bowing to her husband isn’t a Christian? Or am I misreading?”

    I believe he is saying that a husband who thinks it’s idolatrous for his wife to kneel before him, doesn’t really believe that Christ is in him and therefore, that he is one with the Father. If Christ is in the husband, then the wife kneeling to her husband is really kneeling to Christ in him and the Father with whom he is one. “Per this first paragraph of his comment, “How could it possible be idolatry, if you are truly one with your heavenly Father through Christ in you? To suggest that is, shows a lack of understanding/faith. And this is really the issue that the Firstborn Himself was accused over.”

    He says “A wife bowing before her husband is therefor offensive to the religious and foolishness to the humanists/gentiles, much in same manner that the cross is.” meaning if Christ crucified is offensive to you then so will a wife kneeling before her husband be offensive. It shouldn’t be offensive for a wife to humble herself this way because Christ was humble in taking His cross.

    The verse from revelation indicates that if you call yourself Christian but think it offensive for a wife to kneel before Christ in her husband then God will “make them of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews[Christians], and are not,”

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Also want to add that custom has a big part in this too. If it were a customary practice of a denomination (whatever that may be) to show reverence to Christ by the wife kneeling before her husband, then what Andreas is saying would have more force. A person refusing what is known and understood as customary to show reverence to Christ in this way, would be indicating a refusal to show such reverence.

    Because it’s not a common practice or nor does it have a common cultural understanding, then the practice itself stands out as odd because the reason for it would not be apparent on first glance. It would leave a lot of questions as to its meaning. (Idolatry of husband, sin of pride in husband, sexual implications etc)

    Liked by 1 person

  24. One last thought, in Islam wives are forbidden to prostrate themselves before their husbands and all people are forbidden to bow, kneel, prostrate before other people because that is reserved for Allah alone. Wonder what Caldo and his mano-followers make of that in light of their musings about Christian wives kneeling?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Mrs. H. I don’t disagree with Caldo that kneeling is the gold standard of submission because it has been throughout history in the sense of kneeling to a ruler/king/gods/God. But Christian Western culture has never (to my knowledge – I’m open to correction) put a wife in that position to her husband and his assertion that older women are rebellious when we don’t teach younger women to kneel to husbands is to say older women are wrong to not know what nobody in our culture has ever known. In other words, we are supposed to pull this knowledge from nowhere.

    I saw a bronze sculpture once of a woman kneeling with her head thrown back and her arms wide open. It was called Surrender and carried so much meaning and beauty that I’ve never forgotten it. But this type of thing is not what Caldo seems to be advocating. The way he puts it seems like a slave to an owner, not like a surrender to one’s love.

    Plus, when the men, who are the leaders, set the example of kneeling to their president, their senators, representatives, mayor, bosses, pastors and fathers, then they can start talking about the older women teaching kneeling as the gold standard of submission. When a man has a stiff neck, his wife is quite likely to follow suit. My own husband sets the standard in our home every day in the way he submits to God and the people in authority over him. I’ve never had trouble understanding submission because I see my leader living it.

    Like

  26. Oh the hypocrisy on the supposedly Christian Dalrock site,

    seventiesjason explains that he once pursued a single mother in his church but she politely turned him down. She then, yesterday, called him to see if he could fix her computer if she brought it by his place. He turned her down by saying he doesn’t allow single women into his home alone with him and instead recommended a repair shop.

    greyghost praises him, “I’m proud of you seventiesjason she was going to just use you as a tool. And you said no. Outstanding”

    Anon advises him “Now, if you really wanted to be a skilled player, you can use this first woman as a ‘pivot’, which is to string her along while using her to meet other women. This takes skill, but is otherwise a productive use of such a woman to create an amplifier effect on your broader game. ”

    IOW, don’t allow a woman to use you as a tool but it’s perfectly fine for a Christian guy to make “productive use” of a woman in order to score other women.

    Like

  27. Mrs. H said:

    “I believe he is saying that a husband who thinks it’s idolatrous for his wife to kneel before him, doesn’t really believe that Christ is in him and therefore, that he is one with the Father. If Christ is in the husband, then the wife kneeling to her husband is really kneeling to Christ in him and the Father with whom he is one.”

    I haven’t caught up with the thread yet, but WOW!

    Just when you thought things couldn’t get any weirder.

    Like

  28. Mrs. H said:

    “Because it’s not a common practice or nor does it have a common cultural understanding, then the practice itself stands out as odd because the reason for it would not be apparent on first glance. It would leave a lot of questions as to its meaning. (Idolatry of husband, sin of pride in husband, sexual implications etc)”

    Right.

    Also (I don’t want to give them any more bad ideas), but why aren’t the kids kneeling to dad?

    Like

  29. Eavan said ” I don’t disagree with Caldo that kneeling is the gold standard of submission because it has been throughout history in the sense of kneeling to a ruler/king/gods/God.

    Actually, I do disagree that kneeling is the gold standard of submission. The gold standard is obedience. St. Ignatius said ”There are three sorts of obedience;

    -the first, obedience when a strict obligation is imposed upon us, and this is good;
    – the second when the simple word of the superior, without any strict command, suffices for us, and this is better;
    -the third, when a thing is done without waiting for an express command, from a knowledge that it will be pleasing to the superior, and this is the best of all.”

    So the best kind of obedience is that you have such an intimate relationship that you don’t even have to wait for them to tell you to do something or make their wishes known, you already know what they are and seek to please them. You will and their will are united. For Christian couples, husband and wife are united under God and seek to know and do His will. A wife does not, however obey as a servant but as a companion. The “ruling” and “deference” of marriage are more like that of those who share the deepest of friendships, not a strict hierarchy.

    Kneeling is a symbolic gesture of reverence for the office one holds and deference to the office but that’s all it is. It’s a symbol of the attitude of the heart but it can also be an empty gesture if the heart isn’t in it.

    Eavan said “But Christian Western culture has never (to my knowledge – I’m open to correction) put a wife in that position to her husband and his assertion that older women are rebellious when we don’t teach younger women to kneel to husbands is to say older women are wrong to not know what nobody in our culture has ever known. In other words, we are supposed to pull this knowledge from nowhere.”

    You are right. It has never been a part of Christian practice or culture for marriage and therefore, why would older women teach younger wives to do it? This is why Cane couldn’t find much info on it when he did a Google search. Of course, it didn’t occur to him that the lack of info is because it was never customary. At most, maybe in aristocratic circles it would be a formality for husbands to bow and wives to curtsy when greeting each other. Caldo even admits that he felt that there would be something wrong with his wife showing submission in this way but decided his feelings about it were wrong. I think St. Bernard’s words are apt in this case ““He who is his own master is a scholar under a fool.” The same applies to all the manosphere guys and their “red pill truths.”

    Eavan said “Plus, when the men, who are the leaders, set the example of kneeling to their president, their senators, representatives, mayor, bosses, pastors and fathers, then they can start talking about the older women teaching kneeling as the gold standard of submission. ”

    Yes, I’ll share yet another quote. “No man commands safely unless he has learned well how to obey.”
    –Imitation of Christ

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Eavan:

    “Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Mrs. H. I don’t disagree with Caldo that kneeling is the gold standard of submission because it has been throughout history in the sense of kneeling to a ruler/king/gods/God.”

    There’s actually one more step.

    During Catholic ordination ceremonies, the men who are being ordained actually lie flat on the floor.

    http://www.jeffgeerling.com/photos/2010/1836

    “Within the ordination rite the man being ordained lies prostrate during the Litany of Saints and the prayer that follows it. It symbolizes his unworthiness for the office to be assumed and his dependence upon God and the prayers of the entire Christian community to be successful in his new ministry.”

    http://thinkingofpriesthood.org/faq/ordination/58-why-does-the-man-becoming-a-priest-lie-prostrate-on-the-floor-during-the-ordination-58-58

    I think in this context that that makes a lot of sense, because the man being ordained is going to be taking on a lot of authority in future, and it makes sense to remind him that he should be humble.

    In the Bible, you often see examples of people prostrating themselves–almost always to God, angels, the Ark of the Covenant, or in life and death circumstances (Abigail meeting David).

    http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Prostration

    Liked by 2 people

  31. “Actually, I do disagree that kneeling is the gold standard of submission. The gold standard is obedience.”

    Thank you for this. In reflecting on this statement I realize that kneeling could definitely be an empty gesture while holding a rebellious heart. Christ’s parable of the obedient-claiming son and actually-obedient son comes to mind. How many men have knelt to a king that they then attempted to overthrow?

    I’m so grateful that Catholics comment on these sites.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. “The man being ordained is going to be taking on a lot of authority…”

    and

    “No man commands safely unless he has learned well how to obey.”

    The more authority a man has, the more submission to authority and humility is required of him to do it well. So a man who demands others kneel to his authority and refuses to kneel (or prostrate himself) to any authority will never lead well and shouldn’t be surprised if his subordinates rebel. I’ve seen this dynamic up close. It leaves the subordinates spiritually in tatters.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Not to overpost, but a few more thoughts:

    Eavan said:

    “But Christian Western culture has never (to my knowledge – I’m open to correction) put a wife in that position to her husband and his assertion that older women are rebellious when we don’t teach younger women to kneel to husbands is to say older women are wrong to not know what nobody in our culture has ever known. In other words, we are supposed to pull this knowledge from nowhere.”

    Right. It just comes totally out of the blue.

    “Plus, when the men, who are the leaders, set the example of kneeling to their president, their senators, representatives, mayor, bosses, pastors and fathers, then they can start talking about the older women teaching kneeling as the gold standard of submission.”

    Right.

    Mrs. H said:

    “IOW, don’t allow a woman to use you as a tool but it’s perfectly fine for a Christian guy to make “productive use” of a woman in order to score other women.”

    Wow.

    Mrs. H said:

    “So the best kind of obedience is that you have such an intimate relationship that you don’t even have to wait for them to tell you to do something or make their wishes known, you already know what they are and seek to please them. You will and their will are united.”

    That’s very good.

    There’s a workplace analogy that comes to mind. A bad retail employee will just stand around until explicitly told to do something, but a good employee knows what they ought to be doing (or will at least ask).

    “Kneeling is a symbolic gesture of reverence for the office one holds and deference to the office but that’s all it is. It’s a symbol of the attitude of the heart but it can also be an empty gesture if the heart isn’t in it.”

    Right.

    “Of course, it didn’t occur to him that the lack of info is because it was never customary.”

    Yep.

    I can imagine that traditionally, an adulterous spouse might kneel to beg forgiveness, but we would have to be talking major sinning/negligence.

    Hopefully, major sin and major negligence will not be an everyday part of our marriages…

    Like

  34. I can’t get over the Lori hypocrisy, how she tells women not to do so many things, but it doesn’t apply to her of course since she is wealthy.

    Today she is on again like this…”Live in a smaller home. Fix food from scratch. Make your own cleaning products. Hang your laundry. Don’t eat out {you have no idea what they are putting in your food any ways}. Vacation at home. Color your own hair and do your own nails, if you do this. Buy used clothing and wear it until it is used up. Buy furniture on Craigslist. Live simply and godly.”

    On eating out recently she said this in another post:
    Every Saturday, Ken and I walk along the beach and then eat at our favorite breakfast place with my parents.
    http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2016/05/causing-men-to-lust.html

    She talks about vacationing at home, but Ken recently mentioned at Dalrock about going to Paris and I recall she has mentioned before about their vacations (not from home).

    She talks about being frugal, buying furniture off craiglist, but does a post of all her worldly favorite expensive things
    http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2016/03/some-of-my-favorite-things.html

    Like

  35. AmyP asks “Also (I don’t want to give them any more bad ideas), but why aren’t the kids kneeling to dad?”

    Exactly. Why exclude the kids if you reason that this is some “gold standard” of submission? Do they not owe submission to mom and dad? The weirdness of teaching kids to kneel to their parents highlights the absurdity of the wife kneeling to her husband. Heh, my husband would probably ask me if there was something terribly wrong with my legs if I were to start kneeling to him.

    Like

  36. Mrs. H,

    About the kneeling thing–call me crazy, but wouldn’t that look really bad in a divorce/custody case?

    Stone,

    I hesitate to pick on Lori because she’s had a brain tumor and a lot of health issues, but on the other hand, she does so much harm so publicly, so…

    LA’s schtick is here’s-how-you-do-what-I-never-did-when-I-was-at-your-stage-in-life.

    A lot of times, it’s not possible to catch older bloggers doing this, but LA has such a long track record that it’s very easy to collect the discrepancies (and some people have devoted a lot of time to doing so). On the one hand, she’s lived a life of very unusual material comfort (doctor’s daughter and SAHM with a LOT of household help), but on the other hand she’s guilting women with a fraction of her resources into living a lifestyle very different from the one she has actually lived.

    So, yeah, that deserves calling out.

    This is maybe a little unfair to Lori, but I feel this is analogous to the Red Pill Women who have filled THEIR fraternity row punchcard or have committed other peccadilloes (divorced and remarrried, etc.), but are now self-appointed experts on chastity…(TPC has talked about this issue.)

    Or come to think of it, it’s also analogous to bitter divorced guys that are experts on marriage.

    Like

  37. AmyP “About the kneeling thing–call me crazy, but wouldn’t that look really bad in a divorce/custody case?”

    I would assume so, yes. It would seem like some kind of cult behavior.

    Like

  38. I’m starting to wonder how many Red Pill tough guys are actually just indulging in Mittyesque flights of fancy where they stand up to the little woman…

    That would be a much less disturbing theory than assuming that they’re actually doing everything they say they are.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. “.. but on the other hand she’s guilting women with a fraction of her resources into living a lifestyle very different from the one she has actually lived…”
    Yeah, its not godly to eat out (to fill your body with who knows what), but I do it every Saturday by the beach no less. I’ve also noticed the images she uses in her posts calling women to come back home are always big, fancy houses. Today’s post with the grand front door. Often its gourmet kitchens. Yeah, because the average sahm has all that. And hey if she did have a house like that and a nanny and housekeeper, who wouldn’t come back home!

    Like

  40. The other thing is if you point out these inconsistencies you are evil, Satan. Disagree with godly women and clearly evil is in your heart.

    Like

  41. AmyP said “I’m starting to wonder how many Red Pill tough guys are actually just indulging in Mittyesque flights of fancy where they stand up to the little woman…”

    It seems to me that it’s a lot of posturing and peacocking for the sake of one-uping each other than anything really actionable that happens IRL.

    Like

  42. Stone said “I can’t get over the Lori hypocrisy, how she tells women not to do so many things, but it doesn’t apply to her of course since she is wealthy.

    Today she is on again like this…”Live in a smaller home. Fix food from scratch. Make your own cleaning products. Hang your laundry. Don’t eat out {you have no idea what they are putting in your food any ways}. Vacation at home. Color your own hair and do your own nails, if you do this. Buy used clothing and wear it until it is used up. Buy furniture on Craigslist. Live simply and godly.”

    This issue of “working outside the home vs working at home only” is not an issue that can be painted with one broad brush for everyone. If a family is just getting by already on two incomes and it’s not because they are funding luxuries, then the kind of advice she is handing out just causes guilt and resentment for the woman who maybe would like to be home but saving pennies on laundry detergent and cooking from scratch isn’t going to put a dent in the income lost if she quits her job.

    OTOH, if they are living in a 7 bedroom house with 5 bathrooms, a basement with a mini kitchen and full bath that could serve as an apartment, two cars whose value is close to $100,00 and they only have three children,(real couple I know) then perhaps they could take a look at what their priorities are, decide that maybe a 4-5 bedroom house with two baths and two cars with maybe a total value of $50,000 would be plenty adequate if the wife quit her job.

    Then there are those of us, myself included, who decide to stay home and like following the frugal advice and the challenge of stretching a dollar and don’t mind giving up luxuries. I like simpler living and not getting caught up in consumer culture. It’s a lifestyle choice not a moral one. I enjoy finding second hand treasures, cooking from scratch (but I do stock premade for days when it’s not feasible), and driving older vehicles rather than new every 5 years. For others, they would hate that and feel too restricted and that’s ok too. I’m also realistic that I also know the standard that I’m not willing to live below and if I have to work to keep the simple standard that my husband and myself prefer, then so be it. I’m not willing to live in the ghetto for the sake of being a SAHM or having to buy cheap processed food as a rule because we can’t afford to stock up on healthier foods.

    Like

Comments are closed.