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.

1,645 thoughts on “Bird Watching

  1. Another reason why I don’t comment anywhere. A lot of people put in a lot of time writing long comments on that post all for nothing. Much better to keep your own blog and don’t have to worry about time spent being trashed.

    Like

  2. Stone said: “What is the point in discussing these things and people offering advice if its all just going to be chucked.”

    Indeed. And then the surviving post isn’t even on topic…

    I have never seen anybody go through blogs that fast.

    Not a psychologist, but ADHD and bipolar are worth looking into.

    TPC said: “So one must keep in mind that you have to be prepared for that if you’re going to post a lot online, even if you nuke it all, if you keep coming back, you’ll have the same tics and patterns, no matter how the name changes.”

    Ain’t that the truth.

    Like

  3. In the long long ago of internet time, there was a guy named Fravia. He wrote about anonymity on the internet, among many other things (he wrote mostly about effective search tricks back when search engines really were crummy, before the Google era, and also some hacker stuff). And one of his key points about anonymity, which has remained true, is that you can’t hide yourself without far more effort than most people can keep up. It’s easier to stay off the internet entirely, or nearly entirely if you are afraid someone will connect one of your anon accounts to your real life identity.

    So one must keep in mind that you have to be prepared for that if you’re going to post a lot online, even if you nuke it all, if you keep coming back, you’ll have the same tics and patterns, no matter how the name changes.

    Like

  4. 4. Put sex on the weekly schedule. We go to bed together, on nights we have planned to have sex we go to bed a half hour earlier to allow time for sex.

    Only weekly? How boring. Aim big. Try for daily.

    Like

  5. In DS’s marriage advice free-for-all, Caspar Reyes says:

    “Find another man, preferably your age, with whom you can discuss in detail your sex life as well as difficulties in the marriage.”

    Yuck. Let’s apply the Golden Rule here–do you want your wife discussing the inadequacies of your sex life with her best friend that you have to see every week?

    “Honor her “as the weaker vessel, as a co-heir of the grace of life”: i.e., as a sinner like you, yet also unlike you, in that she doesn’t see her behavior as sin.”

    I’m not sure how you get that i.e. out of that verse.

    “Example: long ago my wife used to complain about my advances with “you only touch me when you want sex”. Thinking her idea of sex and marriage more virtuous than mine, she undermined the basis of the marriage itself. Rather than simply responding and building trust, she chipped away at the trust that would have paid off both ways with loyalty in the long run. Of course, in my ignorance I tried to adjust to her expectations with doubleplusungood results.”

    Uh oh–more hugging and kissing without sexual followup will destroy your marriage!

    “Eye-rolls and scowls count as tantrums and deserve severe reproof.”

    This guy sounds like a lot of fun.

    By the way–where is the “catch them being good?” in this guy’s advice? There’s literally no positive reinforcement being offered here–it’s 100% punishment.

    “NEVER use a third party counselor. If she needs counsel, she may come to you. That’s direct from Scripture. Don’t let her one-up you with the pastor.”

    See Matthew 18: “15“If your brother or sister sins,go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

    Like

  6. Red Pills And the Subjugation of Women

    Loved the last line of the post

    “… once again, Dalrock and his disciples make fools of themselves, because any of the stereotypical nuns with a twelve-inch ruler understand women’s roles in the Church far better than any of the Gamers do. ”

    http://nightwind777.blogspot.com/2017/06/red-pills-and-subjugation-of-women.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNightWind+%28The+Night+Wind%29

    Like

  7. Good comment at Donal’s re: The Misery of Too Much Comfort post

    “One is that you made several statements that I feel could be applied equally to both men and women, but you applied them only to women. I’m sure you would agree that both boys and girls are overly coddled these days, that true suffering and sacrifice are generally alien to both, and that both men and women act crazy in the west today…
    The second is that I think it’s going too far, to posit that since most women want babies in spite of the pain involved in giving birth to them and raising them, that women must subconsciously *like* that pain/suffering… Isn’t it possible that women simply appreciate the whole package of suffering+good that often comes together? If there’s a difference between men and women, I can see it in how much importance and value they tend to place on childrearing, but I don’t see a gender difference in drug use and other such self-destructive behaviors (which, if I understood you correctly, you seem to be theorizing might be caused by an itch for suffering, caused in turn by an unnatural absence of suffering in the person’s life). I can go along with that theory as far as saying maybe people have an itch for healthy discipline that they try to scratch by testing how far they can go without experiencing negative consequences…but I do think that applies equally to both men and women (well, adolescents anyway).
    Why does it matter you might ask? Why bother making this comment? Well, my fear is that some readers might misuse the sound bite “healthy women like suffering”, even with all the qualifications you mentioned about this not meaning abuse, to excuse mildly selfish behavior as long as they don’t think it constitutes abuse…because if women expect more suffering than men do, then an imbalance in actual suffering experienced doesn’t seem so bad, right? That’s what I’m concerned some people might take away from the post.”

    I remember the premis of that post bothering me too at the time. It seemed like it would give certain men a go-ahead to judge whether the woman in his life was in need of a little suffering due to too much comfort and then to take it upon himself to inflict some “for her own good.”

    Like

  8. Two Cent Woman said:

    “The problem with the manos is that they make all these rules about “roles” with very little insight into the fact that details matter in personal relationships. Sometimes it IS the right thing to do to put someone else’s needs above your own and sometimes it’s not. For Christinans, love often means sacrifice but there may be times that you are at your physcial, emotional or mental limit and you have nothing to give until you take care of yourself.”

    Right.

    “They are afraid of the vulnerability that stems from love so they try to pigeon hole themselves and women into “roles’ they can understand and attempt to predict the most likely outcome. The roles, however, become tyrannical and do more harm to the relationship than good.”

    Right.

    For example, if you never have the urge to put the other person first, I would question whether there’s enough love to marry that person at all.

    ““Don’t put her needs above yours.” is nothing but a rule that reflects the insecurity and belief that women will take, and take and take and never give so you have to take care of yourself. Nice try at attempting to give it credibility from Scripture. There are some men and women who are selfish takers and other’s who are not. Manos can’t distinguish between good and bad people.”

    And in fact, it may contribute to them winding up with a bad woman if they believe all women are bad.

    Like

  9. The problem with the manos is that they make all these rules about “roles” with very little insight into the fact that details matter in personal relationships. Sometimes it IS the right thing to do to put someone else’s needs above your own and sometimes it’s not. For Christinans, love often means sacrifice but there may be times that you are at your physcial, emotional or mental limit and you have nothing to give until you take care of yourself.

    DS does point out protecting your wife in a dangerous situation may require putting this rule aside but let’s be honest, how often will this happen in a lifetime for most of us. There are many and various situations other than those on the rare and extreme end of the spectrum in which we are called to love sacrificially. Ask any SAHM. Rules are needed for order but inflexible rules that no longer serve the person in certain situations become tyranny. Most manos seem to speak and write as they do from deep seated insecurities that cause them to desire to make rules that put everything into neat little boxes and keep things orderly so that they feel like they have some semblance of control in never having to face or experience their deepest fears. They are afraid of the vulnerability that stems from love so they try to pigeon hole themselves and women into “roles’ they can understand and attempt to predict the most likely outcome. The roles, however, become tyrannical and do more harm to the relationship than good.

    “Don’t put her needs above yours.” is nothing but a rule that reflects the insecurity and belief that women will take, and take and take and never give so you have to take care of yourself. Nice try at attempting to give it credibility from Scripture. There are some men and women who are selfish takers and other’s who are not. Manos can’t distinguish between good and bad people. Because they kept company with the wrong women and got burned all women are bad, all the time and you must protect yourselves at all costs. They are the male version of feminists who were burned by a man therefore all men are all bad, all the time.

    Like

  10. DS post this morning:
    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/dont-put-her-needs-above-yours/

    Interesting, does that work the other way too? Our wives suppose to put their needs above their husbands? I don’t think so.

    “A person who does not take care of their own needs but is focused on the needs of another is codependent. Ever see someone run themselves ragged over prioritizing someone else without taking care of themselves? Yeah, me too. It’s pretty ugly and never ends well.”

    Gee have we ever seen someone like that? LOL every sahm!

    Like

  11. Two-Cent Woman said:

    “It seems to me that the higher you go up the economic ladder the more time people had to focus on adhereing to strict gender roles and customs. The lower you go on the ladder the more it becomes necessary to do what must be done to the best of ones ability in any given situation. In many situations it goes against common sense to worry about whether a certain task fits into your “role” or not.”

    Basically.

    It’s still possible to be finicky about gender roles lower down the economic ladder, but it’s a very dysfunctional way to operate.

    Like

  12. It seems to me that the higher you go up the economic ladder the more time people had to focus on adhereing to strict gender roles and customs. The lower you go on the ladder the more it becomes necessary to do what must be done to the best of ones ability in any given situation. In many situations it goes against common sense to worry about whether a certain task fits into your “role” or not.

    Like

  13. TPC said:

    “People still drill holes to remove stumps despite modern equipment. It worked for granpa, I guess, so why change up.”

    My family looooved the dynamite.

    Like

  14. I’d also like to point out that it’s the practically inevitable effect of

    a) living on a homestead out in the woods

    and

    b) having a whole bunch of daughters

    to make homesteaders be a lot less finicky about gender roles.

    My dad, for example, had three children (two girls and a boy). I am the oldest girl and my only brother was born when I was almost 9. Had my dad chosen to be very finicky about “girl jobs” and “boy jobs,” he wouldn’t have had any kid help at all around the farm until baby brother was 5 or so–it would have been nearly two decades until baby brother could be much help. That’s a darned long time to wait.

    Hence, the frontier lifestyle (especially in cases with a lot of girls in the family) exerted a lot of pressure against traditional gender norms.

    Like

  15. Here’s the link:

    http://www.historylink.org/File/7480

    There’s a video here:

    The pace is somewhat leisurely, but if you click at 3:30 you get the story of Mrs. Huelsdonk’s arrival on the homestead and around 3:50 some photos of their girls. The girls caught baby elk to sell–which could not have been for the faint of heart.

    Like

  16. This is interesting
    http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.gen.040

    Thousands of women took advantage of the Homestead Act (1862) that offered free land in the American Great Plains. Women who were single, widowed, divorced, or deserted were eligible to acquire 160 acres of federal land in their own name.

    Homesteading provided widows with an economic opportunity often denied them elsewhere. Many had children to support. Tyra Schanke, when widowed, was left with three children, ages three, four, and five. Kari Skredsvig brought up her seven children on a homestead near Bowbells, North Dakota. Even the elderly women took part in this venture. Anna Hensel was sixty-seven when she immigrated to the United States from Bessarabia in southern Russia. A year later, in 1903, she declared her intent to become a citizen and applied for a homestead in Hettinger County, North Dakota. Women from almost all ethnic groups took advantage of homesteading opportunities.

    Clearly if it was promoted to single, divorced, widowed women they didn’t have their great protector husband and had to fend for themselves.

    A closer look at the lives of women who homesteaded does not reaffirm the old descriptions that characterized them as secondary “helpmates” or reluctant pioneers. Rather, they, along with men, were main characters in the settlement drama.

    Like we have said. Just today Lori is pining for the days of old again when all women did was care for their children and all men did was provide. Yup, it was just like that.

    Like

  17. Amy, do you have any links for all that?
    The men lurk here and without links I imagine we are just a bunch of silly duddies making this all up.

    Like

  18. The historical record says that that homesteader’s wife spent 17 years on the homestead without leaving it after she was brought there as a bride. She very rarely left.

    Like

  19. Here are some of the off-the-homestead jobs that a notable homesteader from my area did:

    –logging at a camp far away from the homestead
    –hauling equipment for others (he could carry as much as two men and got paid twice as much)
    –trapping fur animals
    –killing predators for the bounty (cougars, bobcats, bears and wolves–he killed hundreds of them)

    The family lived on the homestead 30 years before there was an actual road that went anywhere near them. Any materials had to be brought by horse, canoe or carried. It was the late 1920s before the road arrived.

    Needless to say, Ma was not popping into town whenever Pa went on one of his expeditions.

    Like

  20. For a laugh, Lori is celebrating today for her one year anniversary of her post that went viral. She just can’t keep talking about that viral post. To use godly speak, its so sad that is an accomplishment to her. This is why women need to stay home…to make sure their post go viral and to monitor their facebook 24/7 with the delete key on the ready.

    Like

  21. TPC said:

    “Little House on the Freakin’ Prairie (pardon the language) is a reasonably accurate historical account across several books and Ma was certainly not “staying in a trusted community” when Pa was gone, sometimes for months.”

    Riiiight.

    For one, wouldn’t that jeopardize their homestead rights if they left?

    “It’s very revealing that they would rather tell each other stories (“I choose to believe x about frontier women”) instead of looking to the very near and obvious historical sources that immediately reveal that, yes, women were in fact totally expected to do a lot on their own on the frontier.”

    Indeed.

    One of the factors here was the need for non-farm cash income.

    That’s, come to think of it, an early example of double incomes in US families–to keep things afloat, you often needed both farm and non-farm income.

    Like

  22. Little House on the Freakin’ Prairie (pardon the language) is a reasonably accurate historical account across several books and Ma was certainly not “staying in a trusted community” when Pa was gone, sometimes for months.

    It’s very revealing that they would rather tell each other stories (“I choose to believe x about frontier women”) instead of looking to the very near and obvious historical sources that immediately reveal that, yes, women were in fact totally expected to do a lot on their own on the frontier. This is a typical conservative thing, though not limited to them. Telling a story because history doesn’t have the bias they wish it did. And then claiming they represent “traditional values and living”. And then being surprised people disagree with them on that point.

    Like

  23. Some thoughts on the frontier/farm woman:

    1. First off, manosphere guys and conservative guys can be pretty weird on the subject of “protecting” the womenfolk. I have often noted that they view the physical protection of the womenfolk as one of their basic functions–without noticing that SAHMs are unattended for 10+ hours 5+ days a week–even without dad doing any business travel.

    And even on-the-farm isn’t all that close. When I was a kid on the ranch (this was pre cell phone days), my dad could be technically on the ranch, but not be anywhere within shouting distance of my mom. In fact, given the size of the ranch and the likelihood of my dad doing something loud (using an axe, chain saw, brush cutting with a tractor, etc.), in case of emergency my mom was effectively on her own.

    2. When I was a kid, my dad was rarely away overnight, but it did happen from time to time (work or school board trip). Now, why wouldn’t we go stay in town with grandma and grandpa? Because (aside from the inconvenience of moving four people in with grandma and grandpa) my mom needed to feed the cattle every day while my dad was away (at least during the winter).

    The same issue of needing to care for domestic animals no doubt applied to frontier women and probably to a greater degree, given a larger variety of farm critters.

    3. Now, a few words on contemporary ranch security. Here are some features that I’ve seen:

    –a quarter mile of gravel road with a couple of gates that you have to get out of the car and open
    –the house is at the top of a hill and there’s excellent visibility from the house down the quarter mile of gravel road. Anybody can be seen from the moment they start fumbling with the first gate and any approach is necessarily pretty slow because of the gravel and gates.
    –BEWARE OF DOG sign on one of the gates
    –DOG (when I was a kid, we were scared of my parents’ dog)–usually gets to roam freely around the property
    –another gate near the house
    –TACTICAL ATTACK GEESE (my great grandma had them–aggressive and very loud!)

    You’ll notice that we haven’t even reached the front door yet, and yet we’ve had many opportunities to wonder (in the words of the great Dirty Harry) if we feel lucky today.

    Although there is a low-security prison across the river with a lot of “walk-offs” (when I was a kid, we used to get regular phone calls informing us of escapes) and the relatives have had a couple of harrowing events at their businesses on the main road, my relatives have (knock on wood!) never had any trouble at their homes. The thing is, the sort of set-up I just described is not very inviting to intruders.

    4. Our part of the country was relatively tame in frontier days. There wasn’t any Indian fighting that I know of once there was substantial homesteader population and no bandits (there were at least a couple late 18th century Indian massacres of ship landing crews, but things quieted down).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_Island

    However, there were a lot of isolated homesteads in the late 19th/early 20th century. The womenfolk (especially the girls brought up on homesteads) were in fact pretty tough and self-reliant–because they had to be. One of our old friends, who married into one of an old homesteader family, said that the girls in his in-laws’ family “could hunt bears with a stick.”

    There were and are a lot of wild animals. My great-grandparents owned his-and-hers .30-.30s and great-grandma was an excellent shot. Furthermore, as an elderly widow, she moved out of town and spent the last years of her life living mostly alone up one of those long gravel roads.

    Like

  24. Cane Caldo is taking on the “frontier woman.”

    https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2017/06/11/research-request-fighting-frontier-women/

    I have SO many thoughts about this. I can’t speak to TX, but I grew up in an area where the frontier was still within living memory.

    “In Texas, where I live, it is not uncommon for a man to speak of his wife as a crack shot, or even as a hot-headed gunslinger with an itchy trigger finger. Yet I have never detected a sense of obligation and responsibility which was attached to such boastings. What I mean is this: Suppose a man is away on business. While he is gone a burglar invades his home while his wife and children are there. If she hid, fired no shots, and in fact did not even make a peep: He would be fine with that as long as she was unhurt. If she ran, he’d be fine with that, too.

    “Afterwards, when nerves had settled, he or she might crack a joke that the burglars were “lucky” that she didn’t pump them full of lead. But in no way would the husband actually be disappointed in his wife because she fled and hid instead of fought. The reverse is not true.”

    Really? I realize that TX IS DIFFERENT, but in the rest of the US, it isn’t regarded as a marital faux pas for either sex not to kill people. The main priority is keeping the family safe, and if that priority is taken care of, how exactly one goes about doing that is mostly a matter of taste.

    Here’s the rest of his post:

    “Several times now someone has written in comments that frontier women were regularly expected to defend the homefront from Indians, bandits, and wild animals such as bobcats, cougars, and bears. I find the idea preposterous. It seems much more likely to me that frontier husbands either:

    “Left their wives in trusted communities, i.e., near family, friends, or gov’t authorities.
    Expected their wives to flee/escape to safety.
    Foolishly hoped that danger never came.
    So here is my request: Can anyone give me a historical account or source for the widespread notion that frontier men actually expected their wives to actually fight off dangerous marauders?”

    This has gotten long so I’ll continue in another post, but I have lots of thoughts on the subject.

    Like

  25. Stone said:

    “DS is engaged now to that girlfriend.”

    Doesn’t he want a “large family” or am I thinking of the wrong guy?

    Like

  26. “Ever notice that DS (expert on everything marital) never talks about babies or little children?”

    1. He doesn’t have any and since he seems to be dragging things out with his girlfriend (if she really exists), it may be that he’ll never have any. (Maybe he’s thinking twice about how his life will most definitely change even with the most submissive, robotic Stepford wife out there…..if she is a normal human being, she’s going to care for her child and sometimes the child’s needs are going to have to be priority).
    2. While these young wet-behind-the-ears men are obsessed with their sexual rights in marriage (“young” either chronologically or emotionally; I would clarify I have known a number of chronologically young men who are emotionally VERY mature, so I say this with the caveat), they have an appallingly dwarfed notion of the results and responsibilities that come with these sexual rights…..i.e., the babies…..and how that profoundly changes the family circle.
    3. They have bought into the notion that the children should NEVER impact the marriage. Sorry, boys, but they do. Unless you are contracepting, you are going to experience this and it WILL profoundly change your life…..if it doesn’t, then you are probably neglecting your children.

    Like

  27. TPC said:

    “No kids and it was an apartment.”

    !!!!!

    Another data point–in C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength, Jane has a woman “who comes in once a week.” (Jane and Mark are childless newlywed post-war British apartment-dwellers of very moderate means.)

    Related, I believe there’s an Agatha Christie quote that goes something like this: I never thought we’d be so poor as to not be able to afford a maid or so rich that we’d be able to afford a car.

    Like

  28. Ever notice that DS (expert on everything marital) never talks about babies or little children?

    There is a huge divide between parents and non parents. The mask of motherhood book talks about it. The author interviewed a large group of people and separated the parents from non parents. The non parents were convince parenthood doesn’t change anything, especially not who you are as a person. On the other side of the room were the parents and they were all chuckling because they know all too well.

    I have a friend who recently became a mom and she posted on facebook huge apologies for judging parents and not being empathetic. She gets it now and had no idea it changed things that much. Becoming a mom is when I started falling away from the red pill. It changes everything on how you see things. Before it was so easy to spout off about how you think moms or women should do things.

    Like

  29. Stone said:

    “Why not list them out if IT IS A man’s blog? Seems like those are more important to list out than the woman’s side.”

    Yeah.

    I have a nasty suspicion about why they’re not listed out–because DS doesn’t actually want to spell out male responsibilities.

    Like

  30. Stone said:

    “Yes, and often with the baby days its like you have a disability. You really have to learn to do everything with one hand.”

    Indeed. When Baby Girl was a newborn, I finally understood why I was getting so little done–I was doing everything one-handed.

    Ever notice that DS (expert on everything marital) never talks about babies or little children?

    Like

  31. “And of course a woman should only marry a man if she finds a husband that is willing to walk in the roles and responsibilities of marriage. I’m not going to list them all out, as this is a men’s blog, but they are in similar passages as the above verses.”

    Why not list them out if IT IS A man’s blog? Seems like those are more important to list out than the woman’s side.

    Like

  32. It’s quite another thing to be a young mother of 2+ small children, discovering that even the most minor household task (like even moving laundry from the washer to the dryer) becomes nerve-janglingly difficult when the kids have learned to hop baby gates but haven’t yet learned to go up and down the stairs safely.

    Yes, and often with the baby days its like you have a disability. You really have to learn to do everything with one hand.

    Like

  33. “And of course Proverbs 31 which is too long to quote and so on.”

    And yet we found space for all the other quotes. Odd.

    YES, LOL. Length hasn’t stopped him before.

    About the role playing. Yes, that fits nicely with mask wearing. Put on that fake smile mask and carry on. Nothing to see here. Be the stepford wife. They want robots with no feelings.

    Like

  34. More DS!

    “A man should get married if you find a wife who is willing to walk in the roles and responsibilities of a wife as outlined in Scripture.”

    I think there are some problems here:

    1. Scripture doesn’t actually give a very detailed account of the daily responsibilities of a wife. Proverbs 31 is probably the most detailed account of the responsibilities of a well-off woman, but you’ll notice that it isn’t very popular with the manosphere. We have no idea what the daily schedule of middle-income or poor women looked like.

    2. Scripture doesn’t talk a lot about “roles.” An obsession with “roles” is a modern conservative Protestant tic. Roles are play-acting.

    3. Being “willing to walk in the roles and responsibilities of a wife as outlined in Scripture,” is virtually meaningless if the young woman is inexperienced and has no idea what that might actually look like, especially by herself as a young mother.

    It’s one thing to be a newlywed domestic goddess, whipping up complicated dinners, IKEA-ing up a new apartment, and doing housecleaning quarterly (whether the house needs it or not). It’s quite another thing to be a young mother of 2+ small children, discovering that even the most minor household task (like even moving laundry from the washer to the dryer) becomes nerve-janglingly difficult when the kids have learned to hop baby gates but haven’t yet learned to go up and down the stairs safely.

    4. A lot of (in fact probably the vast majority) of the heroines of the Bible had servants and were well-off.

    More DS:

    “And of course Proverbs 31 which is too long to quote and so on.”

    And yet we found space for all the other quotes. Odd.

    He has a big wall o’text of scripture quotes that are supposed to fully supply the modern woman with her marching orders–I have to point out that they are not at all very specific. You could read those all day long and have very little idea what you should be doing today.

    Another thing I’d like to point out about DS’s Bible verses for women is that it’s 100% pure exhortation and at a very high level of abstraction–there are NO examples. This is a very interesting and common shortcoming of the manosphere.

    “And of course a woman should only marry a man if she finds a husband that is willing to walk in the roles and responsibilities of marriage. I’m not going to list them all out, as this is a men’s blog, but they are in similar passages as the above verses.”

    Once again, we’re flying at a very high level of abstraction.

    Like

  35. DS says disapprovingly:

    “The points that people come up with are:

    “Friendship
    Compatible goals
    What you’re looking for
    Character under pressure
    Having God at the center
    These seem pretty common. I think that if you poll random Christians from any random Church you’ll come up with a similar list. There’s will probably also be the awkward chuckling man or woman that says “compromise” is also a key to marriage. The only Scripture thrown out from Christians about marriage in this is Genesis 2.

    “Sadly, that’s the case of what the Church has become. It’s been vague allusions to spirituality without any substance. And you wonder why the Church has upwards of 40-50% divorce rate like the world. No one wants to stand on what God says about marriage.”

    First off, that is not the divorce rate for regular church-attenders.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2014/february/marriage-divorce-and-body-of-christ-what-do-stats-say-and-c.html

    “Furthermore, we’ve all heard that you have a 50% chance of getting divorced, because, you know, 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce.
    “One of the most common statements that I’ve seen is “Christians divorce at the same rate as non-Christians,” undoubtedly giving the world another opportunity to shout “Hypocrite!”
    Yet research found in Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites… and Other Lies You’ve Been Told, shows that couples who are active in their faith are much less likely to divorce. Catholic couples were 31% less likely to divorce; Protestant couples 35% less likely; and Jewish couples 97% less likely, which in itself is quite impressive, I must say.”

    ” A new article by sociologist Charles Stokes in http://www.family-studies.org suggests that the problem here is mainly with nominal conservative Protestants—those who attend rarely or never.”

    And furthermore, the 50% divorce stat is utter hogwash.

    And back to DS, who is talking about Tim Willard, who has committed the awful error of believing in “servant leadership.” Servant leadership is in the Bible, so it’s a bit of a mystery why “Christian” manosphere guys are so negative about it. See Jesus’s words in Matthew 20 when the mother of James and John comes to ask for a high seat for them in his future kingdom: ““You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    DS says: “For example, a husband does not have to help out with the [wifely] chores of the household to lend ‘physical strength’ especially if he is already taking care of [manly] chores of the household like yard work, maintenance, trash, and so on.”

    Some thoughts:

    1. As I’ve pointed out before, those “manly” chores will often be practically non-existent in a newlywed renter household. They only really become much of a thing for homeowners–which is around age 33 these days.

    http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news/55433/zillow-average-first-time-homebuyer-33-years-age

    2. Young childless marrieds are likely to both be working. In the absence of almost any “manly” chores, a guy who won’t lift a finger to do any “wifely” chores is going to wind up looking really bad.

    3. DS is treating the stereotypical 1950/1960 sex division of chores as if it was brought down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets, whereas I assure you that Abraham and Isaac would have been completely unfamiliar with “yard work” and in fact would have thought it really stupid.

    4. Furthermore, what about households that outsource most of or all of the “manly” work? There are a LOT of lawncare companies these days.

    5. Where in all of this are the kids? Is the wife supposed to do 100% of the kid work, no matter how many children there wind up being?

    DS says “Telling a husband he needs to pick up additional work that is tasked to the wife to “serve” her is nothing but slavery and certainly not sanctification.”

    Uh oh. Remember Matthew 20?: “Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave.”

    See also John 13, where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, doing the work that a lowly servant would do. “12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.”

    So, if a husband is to be like Jesus, he may find himself needing to perform humbling duties.

    For all of the talk of the husband being like Christ, DS doesn’t seem very interesting in hearing what Jesus said about what it means to be a leader.

    More in a bit!

    Like

  36. Ross Boone of Boundless:

    “I could see the worry on my friend’s face. He had been dating his girlfriend for six months and didn’t know if he should start planning a proposal or a breakup. It was a ripe time to choose.”

    !!!!

    “I know others who have faced similar situations, so I asked my married friends on Facebook how they knew they should marry their spouse. Here are their answers.”

    That’s actually very sensible.

    “Friendship.”

    Wait–what about the lion-tamer act that manosphere guys believe they need to do with their wives all the time?

    “Compatible goals.”

    The wife gets to have goals! What heresy is this!

    “Having compatible goals doesn’t mean you won’t have to adjust after marriage. Julie explains, “I’ve found that having the same goals and ideals and being willing to change with each other instead of separately has been key.””

    CLAP CLAP CLAP!!!

    “What you’re looking for.”

    I’m a little concerned about people who believe that dating is Build-a-Bear, but I’m not against a really short list.

    “While it’s wise to know what you’re looking for, be prepared to have your assumptions challenged. Casey, who considers herself to be very independent, said she felt like she didn’t need marriage. But when she saw how kind her now-husband was, she realized what she needed. She hadn’t been kind to herself in years. She needed someone who would be an example of God’s kindness to her.”

    I like the bit about being open to making discoveries, but I don’t like the idea of a spouse being so unfamiliar with kindness.

    “Character under pressure. We are all flawed. Julie says some advice from her grandma was a game-changer for her: “They will all drive you crazy!” she said. “You just have to pick the person who annoys you the least.””

    I see that the author is single. Tsk tsk.

    More in a bit if DS has any interesting thoughts.

    Like

  37. From DS’s divorce comment thread.

    Robyn said: “They’re the same, I just choose the word adoration because it works for me.

    “synonyms:
    1) love, devotion, care, fondness; admiration, high regard, awe, idolization, worship, hero worship, adulation – “the girl gazed at him with adoration”
    worship, glory, glorification, praise, thanksgiving, homage, exaltation, veneration, reverence

    “2) worship; veneration.”

    Oh, my my.

    thedeti said:

    “adoration, respect, recognition, affection, whatever.

    “Makes me wonder sometimes why women marry men they don’t feel these things for and show these things to from the very get go.”

    I’m pretty sure I know why brides from poor countries with large needy families to support go for it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s