The Destruction of Modern Women

[Blade Runner]

Could you please elaborate on why a decline in religion in the U.S. is connected to, and contrary of, the Scriptural and scientific evidence that having options is necessary for humans to be satisfied with their own lives and their relationships with each other and God?

My complete position on things of this nature is more refined, and it is true that you might not know it since I don't recognize your name at all or interacting with you before. But we can keep it at the level of the USA having more options than at any time in the history of man, for example, and people are not satisfied - and women much less satisfied - compared to previous years (with social restriction, at a minimum).

In addition, because of the report that I previously shared that found men have more to gain from marriage than women, I am concerned for the presence of bias in the statement that they intrinsically do not have the ability to understand action-and-consequence, and by inference, men do.

I didn't see that, and I don't jump to conclusions, but your responses indicate a much higher likelihood that you are a woman.

I'll keep it short as an explanation, which is that I don't believe you understand the pitfalls of hypergamy. We've literally done the experiment, and it turns out to be a polygamist society akin to much more uncivilized societies, but at the other end of the spectrum. If you are arguing that women do understand all of this, and in fact also understand christianity en masse, then why do we see in the real life experiment we've just done, that they do not demonstrate it? I'm unsure why you aren't admitting what is currently going on, which is what made me suspicious. There are all sorts of things at a population level that lead to the destruction of civilizations and societies that women approve of, which should show you something. Have you follow politics for the last 100 years? This is why I'm suspicious you're LARPing. These are basic concepts for this forum, and even are included in Christianity (teachers, leaders, submission, etc).

for humans to be satisfied with their own lives

by the way, this is not a teaching of Christianity nor its goal

 

[JR5]

The most devastating takedown of women I've read is not about modern women but the perennial nature of women as articulated in Schopenhauer's essay On Women, available here. Two select quotes:

“Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them. But this fundamental defect which I have stated, with all that it entails, gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on. Perjury in a court of justice is more often committed by women than by men. It may, indeed, be generally questioned whether women ought to be sworn in at all. From time to time one finds repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, taking things from shop-counters when no one is looking, and making off with them."

And:

"The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of mans reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husbands lifetime, but at any rate after his death.”

 

[Astronomer]

My complete position on things of this nature is more refined, and it is true that you might not know it since I don't recognize your name at all or interacting with you before. But we can keep it at the level of the USA having more options than at any time in the history of man, for example, and people are not satisfied - and women much less satisfied - compared to previous years (with social restriction, at a minimum).

I didn't see that, and I don't jump to conclusions, but your responses indicate a much higher likelihood that you are a woman.

I'll keep it short as an explanation, which is that I don't believe you understand the pitfalls of hypergamy. We've literally done the experiment, and it turns out to be a polygamist society akin to much more uncivilized societies, but at the other end of the spectrum. If you are arguing that women do understand all of this, and in fact also understand christianity en masse, then why do we see in the real life experiment we've just done, that they do not demonstrate it? I'm unsure why you aren't admitting what is currently going on, which is what made me suspicious. There are all sorts of things at a population level that lead to the destruction of civilizations and societies that women approve of, which should show you something. Have you follow politics for the last 100 years? This is why I'm suspicious you're LARPing. These are basic concepts for this forum, and even are included in Christianity (teachers, leaders, submission, etc).

I find that rather disrespectful that you think I am a woman simply because we disagree, and my participation in this forum does not mean that I assume everyone thinks alike, hence why I ask. Moreover, I cannot accept an argument that is not presented with some kind of Scriptural or scientific evidence, even if I do agree with you that in the time that I have been alive, I have witnessed a gradual decline towards moral relativism being accepted by broader society. But again, that is only my experience, and my experience is not the whole of reality (hence the need for other evidences). I find it unproductive to argue individual experiences.

If you do not wish to discuss, that is fine. Take care.

 

[Astronomer]

The most devastating takedown of women I've read is not about modern women but the perennial nature of women as articulated in Schopenhauer's essay On Women, available here. Two select quotes:

“Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them. But this fundamental defect which I have stated, with all that it entails, gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on. Perjury in a court of justice is more often committed by women than by men. It may, indeed, be generally questioned whether women ought to be sworn in at all. From time to time one finds repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, taking things from shop-counters when no one is looking, and making off with them."

And:

"The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of mans reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husbands lifetime, but at any rate after his death.”

Thank you very much for this. I will read this, as well as look into Schopenhauer and the rest of his essay.

 

[Blade Runner]

I find that rather disrespectful that you think I am a woman simply because we disagree, and my participation in this forum does not mean that I assume everyone thinks alike, hence why I ask.

It wasn't meant as a slight. I have no problem with arguments, but I see no argument that you are putting forth to counter my points. Women are talked about in proverbs, they are told in Ephesians to submit to their husbands, in Timothy they are told that they are not to be teachers. In Orthodoxy of course they can't be priests for many reasons, most of which you should know and are obvious. I gave you secular examples and empirical evidence from our recent history, which is in stark comparison to world history. It's like you are a newcomer to the forum who isn't aware of any of this. I have told you over several posts now, so what do you dispute? Do you deny that they are democrat, anti-christian supporters en masse? How many more examples do you need to be made aware of, that when left to their own devices (what you call satisfaction) it turns out bad for everyone? We literally just did the experiment and now see the results.

 

[holgerdanske]

The most devastating takedown of women I've read is not about modern women but the perennial nature of women as articulated in Schopenhauer's essay On Women, available here. Two select quotes:

“Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them. But this fundamental defect which I have stated, with all that it entails, gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on. Perjury in a court of justice is more often committed by women than by men. It may, indeed, be generally questioned whether women ought to be sworn in at all. From time to time one finds repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, taking things from shop-counters when no one is looking, and making off with them."

And:

"The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of mans reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husbands lifetime, but at any rate after his death.”

Sorry mate but Schopenhauer really didn’t like women, most likely he was an old virgin, or maybe he was in the closet. Not sure where his seething dislike of women came from, but he would be a leading figure in today’s incel community.

The destruction of women today has nothing to do with women, and has everything to do with us men. Take responsibility, brothers. I am happily married but there’s a stable of quality women waiting in the wings secretly hoping for an opportunity to become part of my life.

Women will follow strength and will despise weakness. If men create a culture of loyalty, responsibility and clear-cut cultural values then women are guaranteed to follow. Give all that up for a life of laissez faire but then don’t be surprised about the consequences.

FYI:

Immanuel Kant – Never married.
Friedrich Nietzsche – Never married.
René Descartes – Never married. Illegitimate daughter.
David Hume – Never married.
John Locke – Never married.
Thomas Aquinas – Never married.
Gottfried Leibniz – Never married.
Baruch Spinoza – Never married.
Jean-Paul Sartre – Never married.
Arthur Schopenhauer – Never married. “Marrying means, to grasp blindfold into a sack hoping to find out an eel out of an assembly of snakes.” (charming)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau – Never married. Illegitimate children.

Stick with Hegel, Mill, or Bacon.

 

[Astronomer]

It wasn't meant as a slight. I have no problem with arguments, but I see no argument that you are putting forth to counter my points. Women are talked about in proverbs, they are told in Ephesians to submit to their husbands, in Timothy they are told that they are not to be teachers. In Orthodoxy of course they can't be priests for many reasons, most of which you should know and are obvious. I gave you secular examples and empirical evidence from our recent history, which is in stark comparison to world history. It's like you are a newcomer to the forum who isn't aware of any of this. I have told you over several posts now, so what do you dispute? Do you deny that they are democrat, anti-christian supporters en masse? How many more examples do you need to be made aware of, that when left to their own devices (what you call satisfaction) it turns out bad for everyone? We literally just did the experiment and now see the results.

There must be some misunderstanding. I do not disagree with anything contained within those books, nor do I disagree about the current, social state of affairs in the US. I haven't denied any of your concerns that you've brought up. I have only shared the Scriptural and scientific evidence for the importance of having options.

As far as I'm concerned (unless you or anyone else wants to refer me to evidence that points to otherwise), women are not children. They should not be treated like children. Just because a wife should be under the headship of her husband, does not mean she is devoid of very basic, very intrinsic human qualities simply due to her sex. If she lacks in her ability to reason, that is an individual characteristic, just as it would be a man's.

I have been a lurker since 2013, before Roosh converted. I finally made an account last year on his old forum, but I never posted, only read. There are many members that I try to evenly distribute my reading between.

 

[Blade Runner]

I am happily married

Why does this always happen in posts like this?

If it's men, it's not or wasn't the fault of marriage aged men, so there's no point in telling that to marriage aged men. I don't know why this is difficult to understand but comes back up, not so infrequently.

Men looking for a suitable wife didn't tell her to follow a career, get addicted to a smartphone, or act in manners that aren't all that appealing to men who are considering marriage. It doesn't do any good to blame well meaning men, to be certain.

 

[Blade Runner]

Just because a wife should be under the headship of her husband, does not mean she is devoid of very basic, very intrinsic human qualities simply due to her sex. If she lacks in her ability to reason, that is an individual characteristic, just as it would be a man's.

Women have different priorities and strategies. None of these are civilizational. This is where you are making the glaring mistakes in your analysis. What we are discussing are population level realities. You'd have to define your "basic, intrinsic human qualities" since quite obviously women are humans.

If women overwhelmingly vote Democrat, that's a lot of individuals getting it wrong, not using reason, or not caring to because that's not their priority. If they change their viewpoint in life overwhelmingly when married, that also goes against pretty much everything you've posted so far, and confirms what I've been saying.

 

[Astronomer]

Women have different priorities and strategies. None of these are civilizational. This is where you are making the glaring mistakes in your analysis. What we are discussing are population level realities. You'd have to define your "basic, intrinsic human qualities" since quite obviously women are humans.

If women overwhelmingly vote Democrat, that's a lot of individuals getting it wrong, not using reason, or not caring to because that's not their priority. If they change their viewpoint in life overwhelmingly when married, that also goes against pretty much everything you've posted so far, and confirms what I've been saying.

Men do, too. Men wage wars and they are the majority of murderers and rapists (whether those crimes are against women or other men). Overall, men are more prone to anti-social behavior than women (Burt et al., 2018), and that is just as destructive as women who wish to abort the lives of human beings in their wombs, or who promote policies that allow them freedoms at the expense of others (however, I would like to note that just because someone is a registered Democrat/Republican/etc. does not mean that they support every policy stereotypically in that camp; those are boxes that Americans are forced to put themselves into because that is how the U.S. election system is structured). Does that mean that men need their freedoms restricted or revoked simply because the aforementioned is true? Absolutely not. The same applies to women.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence, Scripturally or scientifically, that women are any different from men in their capacity for reason, empathy, or integrity, nor is it needed to justify her role in a family unit, under the headship of her husband. Just because a woman appears to adopt the general stance of whatever her husband believes does not mean she had not considered his position before meeting him, and she was attracted to him on that basis, or that perhaps she is more collaborative than her husband and only wishes to bring up the things that they agree on, etc. There are a number of hypothetical reasons for this that might explain this phenomenon (if we accept this as truth, since no citations were provided) beyond that she's simply lukewarm in her beliefs, and that is why controlled, experimental studies are so important and should always be referenced when making connections between observed or measured behavior and the "why" for it.

We all need Christ. No one is solely to blame for the degradation of a society. It takes a lot of moving parts, over a long period of time. It's as they say, "Rome did not fall in a day." Our ancestors are all equally to blame for the same societal sins that plagued generations before us, we are all equally responsible for them now, and our children will all be equally responsible for those in the future.

 

[PurpleUrkel]

@Astronomer

You're late to the party. This feminine "men need women more than women need men" white knighting thing ain't gonna fly around here.

Women need men to repair, build, design, and manufacture their cars and houses. When was the last time a woman rebuilt the transmission in your car or put a new roof on your house? Correct answer: Never.

Men invented electricity, airplanes, cars, telephones, computers, and built every road and bridge you've ever driven on. Sure, women are now contributing a little bit to the modern world in terms of innovation and invention, but even a monkey can be trained to fly a space craft (though it is men who did all the real world dying getting experimental aircraft off the ground and into utilitarian production).

Men do all the killing because people need to be killed and women are too mentally and physically weak to do the job. Only a woman could fantasize about a world without war. And it is because of the wars that men have won for you that you are able to sit up in your Only Fans ivory tower, covered in thigh tats, spewing disrespect toward the very men that make every aspect of your modern life possible.

 

[Astronomer]

@Astronomer

You're late to the party. This feminine "men need women more than women need men" white knighting thing ain't gonna fly around here.

Women need men to repair, build, design, and manufacture their cars and houses. When was the last time a woman rebuilt the transmission in your car or put a new roof on your house? Correct answer: Never.

Men invented electricity, airplanes, cars, telephones, computers, and built every road and bridge you've ever driven on. Sure, women are now contributing a little bit to the modern world in terms of innovation and invention, but even a monkey can be trained to fly a space craft (though it is men who did all the real world dying getting experimental aircraft off the ground and into utilitarian production).

Men do all the killing because people need to be killed and women are too mentally and physically weak to do the job. Only a woman could fantasize about a world without war. And it is because of the wars that men have won for you that you are able to sit up in your Only Fans ivory tower, covered in thigh tats, spewing disrespect toward the very men that make every aspect of your modern life possible.

I was going to refer you to the sources I cited and clarify my position that you clearly misunderstand, but the needless disrespect and the "people need to be killed" take, regardless of the true realities of the world where there will, indeed, always be war because there is sin, tells me that we are not going to have a productive discussion. And I say this as a U.S. military veteran that has made a lot of mistakes. Blessings.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The needs have changed, but the wants are another matter entirely. The answer is not the removal of all rights and liberties, because not only is that ethically questionable according to both Scripture and science, but it is not feasible nor legal in the U.S. Rather, the answer is the heart. In fact, it arguably always has been (Matthew 6:1-2, 5-6, 16-17).

I agree with your presuppositions and believe that you are approaching this from a full-orbed Biblical worldview. My question is where does the rubber meet the road for you? Are you saying that it is up to Christian parents to raise their daughters up in the way that they should go and that there's no other way to curtail the societal changes?

 

[Astronomer]

I agree with your presuppositions and believe that you are approaching this from a full-orbed Biblical worldview. My question is where does the rubber meet the road for you? Are you saying that it is up to Christian parents to raise their daughters up in the way that they should go and that there's no other way to curtail the societal changes?

Personally, I think so. I think that parents should raise a child up with a heart for wanting the Lord, and the rest will naturally follow, regardless of the external forces of the world (Proverbs 22:6). The way that I see it is that when it comes to societal acceptance of nonrelative morality, we're so far beyond a "point of collective return" that that seems to be the most practical solution. I do not have a better illustration than this, but I equate it to the consequences of the U.S. becoming politically entwined with other countries, post-WWII. If we returned to isolationism, I think most might agree that a sudden change like that would be financially catastrophic for everyone involved. We are forced onward with what we have.

What do you think?

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

Sorry mate but Schopenhauer really didn’t like women, most likely he was an old virgin, or maybe he was in the closet. Not sure where his seething dislike of women came from, but he would be a leading figure in today’s incel community.

If I am not mistaken, you are older than me and also married, so I do not mean any disrespect, sir, but I really don't think it's appropriate to use emasculating insults like these against any fellow man, alive or dead.

Things like randomly accusing someone of being a homosexual because you disagree with them, or using the word "virgin" as if it were some kind of insult (???), should be left to insufferable Twitter keyboard warriors. When I visit this forum, I am certainly hoping to see a higher level of discussion than that.

I do not think anything Schopenhauer said in those quotes was wrong, honestly.

The destruction of women today has nothing to do with women, and has everything to do with us men. Take responsibility, brothers. I am happily married but there’s a stable of quality women waiting in the wings secretly hoping for an opportunity to become part of my life.

It very much has to do with them. Women are not beasts. They are human, and they have moral agency.

99% of them believe in every psyop that exists, because they choose to. Not out of genuine conviction, but because it feels good. I know it feels good. A couple years ago, I was a literal "feminist ally" redditor with 6 digit karma, and even somewhat of a zionist. I did that because it was easy. It made me feel safe to agree with most of society and all of its institutions, and I even got a girlfriend out of it, but at no point did my conscience stop gnawing at the back of my mind, telling me that I was full of it.

God's law is written in the hearts of all humans. Women too. They see through this, just like I did back then. They just don't care, just like I didn't back then.

FYI:

Immanuel Kant – Never married.
Friedrich Nietzsche – Never married.
René Descartes – Never married. Illegitimate daughter.
David Hume – Never married.
John Locke – Never married.
Thomas Aquinas – Never married.
Gottfried Leibniz – Never married.
Baruch Spinoza – Never married.
Jean-Paul Sartre – Never married.
Arthur Schopenhauer – Never married. “Marrying means, to grasp blindfold into a sack hoping to find out an eel out of an assembly of snakes.” (charming)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau – Never married. Illegitimate children.

Stick with Hegel, Mill, or Bacon.

Is this meant to be an argument against celibacy? Wouldn't have expected that from a tradcath. Lots of saints died unmarried, and the bible quite clearly promotes celibacy.

That aside, what's wrong with Thomas Aquinas? And wasn't Bacon some kind of occultist?

 

[Lawrence87]

I feel like the whole state of men and women in the West these days is just wrecked. We are not in a position to really stop the bus going off the cliff, rather we are watching the bus smashing and rolling down the side of the rocks.

We can't walk it back, at least not without some catastrophe of enormous proportions. Women are not going to let you tell them to embrace motherhood now that they have been allowed access to sterile sex for fun and to pursue money and pleasure indefinitely, they are not going to let men kick them out of the work place, or repeal their right to vote.

The only glint of hope is that women wake up by themselves (as we ought not hope for catastrophe), but women aren't exactly built for rationally analysing their behaviour and it's impact on society at large. So whilst a few arrive at the conclusion, most of them do so in a post-modern sense, by which I mean they decide out of the plethora of options available to them, in their enlightened female empowered choice, to be a tradwife. Many of whom are still basically feminist beneath the surface, and only wish to submit to a man when its agreeable. It's like that Pearl what's-her-face, who makes Tik-Tok videos about who women are stupid and shouldn't vote etc. She's making money off conservo-simps, by telling them what they want to hear, there is nothing un-feminist or traditional about that. If she wants to be traditional, she should shut up, stop thinking her opinions matter and need to be heard, and start serving her husband and family.

The bus is bouncing and crumpling and shattering on the rocks. Maybe on an individual level we will get lucky, by the grace of God and find a woman that suits us. But on a societal level the bus has already gone off the cliff.

 

[holgerdanske]

Why does this always happen in posts like this?

Because my sentence was followed by the insinuation that I know women other than my wife who expressed interest in being with me. That doesn't mean I would follow that temptation (and yes, it's very tempting at times). But at the same time I recognize my own value as a man, which in turn serves to define the conditions and state of my marriage.

The worst thing that can happen to a married man is that he stops being attractive and desirable. Not only will his own wife despise and then abandon him, but he'll also find himself without options after the fact.

If it's men, it's not or wasn't the fault of marriage aged men, so there's no point in telling that to marriage aged men. I don't know why this is difficult to understand but comes back up, not so infrequently.

Men looking for a suitable wife didn't tell her to follow a career, get addicted to a smartphone, or act in manners that aren't all that appealing to men who are considering marriage. It doesn't do any good to blame well meaning men, to be certain.

It seems you may not see the forest for all the trees. What you describe are just the symptoms of an overarching globalist and feminist culture that has completely corrupted modern women and greatly disadvantaged men. It is up to us men to change that culture.

The path to doing that is to focus on ourselves, create indisputable value, and slowly shift the dynamics of society in the desired direction. In fact it's already happening, but unfortunately it will all take time. A complete system reset may accelerate the trend, which may be painful at first but pay off greatly over the long term.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Personally, I think so. I think that parents should raise a child up with a heart for wanting the Lord, and the rest will naturally follow, regardless of the external forces of the world (Proverbs 22:6). The way that I see it is that when it comes to societal acceptance of nonrelative morality, we're so far beyond a "point of collective return" that that seems to be the most practical solution. I do not have a better illustration than this, but I equate it to the consequences of the U.S. becoming politically entwined with other countries, post-WWII. If we returned to isolationism, I think most might agree that a sudden change like that would be financially catastrophic for everyone involved. We are forced onward with what we have.

What do you think?

People don't like the idea that the Gospel has to change men, and society by extension, from within. It doesn't come across as tangible and practical. But looking at the world, I do know that repentance won't come from without.

 

[Blade Runner]

Does that mean that men need their freedoms restricted or revoked simply because the aforementioned is true? Absolutely not. The same applies to women.

Yes. You miss another huge point, which is why there is such a chasm here. Men do in fact have their freedoms restricted, everywhere and at all times. Ever hear of jail? Divorce court? Discrimination by law at this point? What world are you living in? None of those apply to women in any meaningful sense. There are absolutely no restrictions any longer. The women kill their own babies, an example you brought up, and what happens? Nothing. It's birth control, Astronomer. They are so accountable for all of those actions aren't they. Now you see why I thought you were a LARPer. This is relatively preposterous.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence, Scripturally or scientifically, that women are any different from men in their capacity for reason, empathy, or integrity, nor is it needed to justify her role in a family unit, under the headship of her husband.

So we are the same or equal? Again, why are you even on this forum? You deny the basic realities of the world and then act like there aren't scientific or scriptural claims or even obvious facts about the world that you encounter every day. Women aren't different from men in their capacity for reason? What planet are you living on? We wouldn't even have comedians if this world of yours actually existed.

99% of them believe in every psyop that exists, because they choose to.

Your subsequent statement to this also puts into question if they have the ability, since 99% choose feels good over what is true or logical. That sounds like an animal, not a human, to be honest (instinct overcomes everything else, no thought).

The only glint of hope is that women wake up by themselves (as we ought not hope for catastrophe), but women aren't exactly built for rationally analysing their behaviour and it's impact on society at large.

That was my original point. By the way, if you understand that you have less value after age 30, for example, but you deny that just because you don't like the way it feels, are you worth anything as an evaluator of a situation? Of course not. Because your denial means not changing behavior, which is all that matters as to the outcome of the situation.

Many of whom are still basically feminist beneath the surface, and only wish to submit to a man when its agreeable.

Precisely.

If she wants to be traditional, she should shut up, stop thinking her opinions matter and need to be heard, and start serving her husband and family.

Bingo again.

By the way, I didn't come to all these conclusions because I wanted to. That would make me emotional and illogical, irrational and a bad analyst. I came to them because they fit what we see in life (scientific method) and they can't be denied by anyone who actually sets a hypothesis and then sees something that conforms to it over and over again. Which is the point.

 

[Steady Hands]

On the broader topic, the general state of Western women and women in the West is clearly atrocious to any man who has been paying attention since social media and dating apps came out.

^ many of us do.

There is Hope for Men on a Mission

Nonetheless, the general state of the dating market doesn't mean things are hopeless for individual men. What it does mean for each man, especially those with a goal of a Christ-inspired relationship and family, is a greater need for fine tuned discernment; determination, grit and resilience; and a very clear plan of action.

I know how harsh it can be out there. So I wrote up a plan here to help readers that may have an interest in the challenging task of leveraging modern means for traditional goals: 'Navigating Online Dating for Christian Men'

https://christisking.cc/threads/are-dating-apps-in-any-way-good-for-christians.119/page-3#post-2832

Otherwise waiting for women to take initiative... may take a while

---

By the way, for anyone who claims something like "I've been reading RVF since 2013 and don't believe women should be constrained or have different cognitive abilities, motives, or ethics than men"... I would say:

Alternatively I could be a bit of a dinasour. Modern women, with all their higher education, are surely enlightened and rational when it comes to understanding the impact of choice overload, unrestrained pleasure seeking, rejection of God, and the relationship between their biological clock, fertility, and the dating market.

---

The Rise of the Modern Self

On a less flippant point, for readers with an interest in the historical, philosophical underpinnings of modern-day hedonism and the rejection of a broader authority over one's sexual-moral conduct, I highly recommend this book by Carl S Trueman, "The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution".

The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self

Carl Trueman traces the historical roots of many hot-button issues such as transgenderism and homosexuality, offering thoughtful biblical analysis as he uncovers the profound impact of the sexual revolution on modern human identity.

www.crossway.org

Modern culture is obsessed with identity. Since the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision in 2015, sexual identity has dominated both public discourse and cultural trends—yet no historical phenomenon is its own cause. From Augustine to Marx, various views and perspectives have contributed to the modern understanding of the self.

In this timely book, Carl Trueman analyzes the development of the sexual revolution as a symptom—rather than the cause—of the human search for identity. Trueman surveys the past, brings clarity to the present, and gives guidance for the future as Christians navigate the culture in humanity’s ever-changing quest for identity.

Rod Dreher, from the Foreword:

Carl Trueman explains modernity to the church, with depth, clarity, and force. The significance of The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self . . . is hard to overstate.

Example review:

Review: ‘The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self’ by Carl Trueman

Carl Trueman has written one of the most incisive and sophisticated works of cultural criticism by a Protestant.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

This book was recommended to me by one of my pastors. I found it to be vague at times in its language and it seems largely oriented towards academically-minded scholars with a strong knowledge of philosophical terminology. That said, the book is written from a Christian perspective and excels in its depth of analysis, narrative structure, and historical insight. It was of great interest to me.

Trueman was briefly featured in Matt Walsh's 'What is a Woman?' flick, and is interviewed by Collin Hansen here:

The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self - The Gospel Coalition

Carl Trueman discusses the sexual revolution, gender identity, and questions sent in by Gospelbound listeners. Trueman’s new book is Collin Hansen’s pick for “the most important book published in 2020.”

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Video description: "In this special extended episode of Gospelbound, Collin Hansen and Carl Trueman discuss the sexual revolution, gender identity, and answer insightful questions sent in by Gospelbound listeners. This episode is sponsored by Crossway."



[Please Note. I have no affiliation with Crossway or Trueman. I just hope interested CIK members can find value in his work.]