The Destruction of Modern Women

[Blade Runner]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the posters that have been sympathetic to egalitarianism, or not convinced that males and females are not equal or have different roles and biology, which impacts their behavior, are protestant. I've noticed much emotionalism and sentimentality, also brought up as a point by other people on the forum, with these types. Have you noticed that this is the same difficulty such types have with "judgment", which does not mean saying anything about, or implying, the state of salvation or ultimate destiny of any given human person? The emotionalism of the modern day is a feminine paradigm, which doesn't discern behavior, work, quality, value, etc. Rather, it looks as all people as children of a mother (notice, not as a Father, like God our Father) who loves her kids in a way that is unconditional, but also stifles their growth because it excuses bad behavior or smothers them. For example, denying that particular people of a society, or particular percentages of people have qualities that are befitting of a different place in that society, does not mean that you consider those that don't have these qualities to be without humanity or a certain type of dignity. But they also can't just "decide" that they can be whatever they want to be - they have to put the work in. The doctor has to go through the training, the engineer the studies and hard jobs, the lawyer the trials, and the architect the drawings and building alongside the contractor. Likewise, people must understand their place and value, the work they've put in, and their station in this order. If you are fat, lazy, or not as blessed with physical beauty, of course the odds are going to be against your incorporation into a marriage. Or, you must downregulate and expectations. That's just life.

At the last place, I was well known for asking the question (which didn't help the disagreement since it proved the point) about why all of the older men (including our fearless leader), or Christians who suggested that by just praying or being more ascetic (I never said this wasn't a good thing) - who assuredly had older women cross their paths, out of shape or overweight women cross their paths - why weren't they getting married? Were those women not sent by God? Yet all of those men didn't marry/wife up the hambeasts. I wonder why.

If marriage is a form in this life, and it is, just like monasticism, and a calling ... that doesn't make it a calling that is devoid of a proper approach. Last I checked, the idea is for us to have certain ideals that would make marriage best. The summary would be, then, that there are all sorts of deviations from this, that don't necessarily negate or disallow marriage, but they do make it less likely once your are so far from the ideal that it makes it almost a meaningless institution. Pay attention, because this is the point: we have arrived at a stage where women are a far cry from approaching what is desirable for a man to marry them, and thus we see the first fruits of that. Purity, youth, fertility, femininity, cooperation, nurturing, etc these are all very rare characteristics to find any longer in the west - and they are why she wears that white dress when "given away". This is undeniable. As a result, there isn't much interest in men to enter into this form any longer, because the actions of most of the women they encounter do not show seriousness of mind or behavior in being wives or mothers. Period.

 

[TrainedLogosmotion]

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.

So many women get gaslit by woke/democrat stuff constantly and generally need a man to wake them up with the Socratic method for a reality check. I'm not talking about outliers here. Left to their own devices, they end up in lala land. Most women need a male feedback loop in their life. This is why women with strong fathers and husbands with their head on their shoulders have a lot less issues.

 

[Blade Runner]

Left to their own devices, they end up in lala land. Most women need a male feedback loop in their life. This is why women with strong fathers and husbands with their head on their shoulders have a lot less issues.

This is precisely my point when I say "We've done the experiment, we know what happens."

Yet we're still debating some similarities, equal footing, egalitarian nonsense? Where do they get this stuff from?

You can say that there has been a significant increase in the number of less than ideal males over the years. You're living in that same la la land if you don't think there aren't scores more men that are well put together, christian, and high value than women in the west. Even if both are still a minority, which I'll admit. By the way, even if there were equivalent numbers of men and women of similar quality, the biological reality of women having a shorter window of high value would make it that there are far more men by definition. That's just how things are. I don't know why we have to lament or lie about it.

 

[dgbrown]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the posters that have been sympathetic to egalitarianism, or not convinced that males and females are not equal or have different roles and biology, which impacts their behavior, are protestant.

I do not know which posters you refer to, except for the fact I know you know it’s not me.

But you are correct in a general sense. “Lutherans” in Scandinavia and the US perverted their faiths first, with the German “Lutherans” being more respectable, albeit with vastly diminished numbers now.

The Episcopalians in the US destroyed Anglicanism first, followed by half or more of the clergy and many of the laity of the Anglican Church in England and Wales.

Still, for whatever reason this forum seems to lack many Southern Baptists and Evangelicals, probably because rural Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky or Texas, or large parts of Utah, for example, are healthy enough on a local spiritual and social level for them to not need our forum/s.

On a tangential note, @Blade Runner, do you recall a man you or someone else had a more or less polite debate with on RVF regarding prenups?

I remember him saying prenups were bad because it showed no “faith” in marriage. Maybe in the 2000s as a teenager I would have agreed, but these days I would do nothing but get a prenup, given the environment.

 

[Christos_NIKA]

with the German “Lutherans” being more respectable, albeit with vastly diminished numbers now.

The Lutheran Church in Germany is today barely more than a branch of the Green Party. They stand for basically nothing, theologically. Same can be said for most of the state-run Lutheran churches in Scandinavia.

I was raised LCMS Lutheran and left, after decades of grating against the liberalisation there. When people would ask me what denomination I was, I'd say LCMS (which they didn't understand), so I'd have to explain that I'm Lutheran, but not THAT kind or THAT other kind, but this one small sliver of a group. Once it was clear the Lutherans practice little of what Martin Luther taught, and became just another generic protestant group, I was on my way out the door. I wanted the world to know EXACTLY where I stand spiritually, theologically, ecclesiastically, and morally, and WHY.

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." - 1Peter 2:9

 

[Northern Pilgrim]

Protestant is a pretty broad term, and is a bit of a catch-all in regards to this forum and the previous one.
The different strains are teaching things as diverse as their membership, which really makes it quite difficult to tell what one believes simply by the identifier 'Protestant'.

Off the top of my head I can think of the following different "flavors":
- Evangelical/Evangelical Free
- Baptist/Southern Baptist
- Word of Faith/New Apostolic Reformation
- Reformed
- Charismatic/Pentecostal
- Mennonite/Mennonite Brethren
- Lutheran
- Anglican
- Presbyterian

From my experience, @Blade Runner is correct in pointing out how Protestants (in general) are seeking to affirm women and support TheCurrentThing™. Some draw the line at issues like abortion or transformers, but it seems that the majority are promoting gender and race equality, support for Israel, etc. Even if they disagree, many refuse to speak out due to fear of being canceled, being labeled bigots, and so forth. Some of the churches I have attended are vary female dominated because the men have checked out or are just too busy trying to provide for their families.

 

[Blade Runner]

I do not know which posters you refer to, except for the fact I know you know it’s not me.

But you are correct in a general sense. “Lutherans” in Scandinavia and the US perverted their faiths first, with the German “Lutherans” being more respectable, albeit with vastly diminished numbers now.

The Episcopalians in the US destroyed Anglicanism first, followed by half or more of the clergy and many of the laity of the Anglican Church in England and Wales.

Still, for whatever reason this forum seems to lack many Southern Baptists and Evangelicals, probably because rural Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky or Texas, or large parts of Utah, for example, are healthy enough on a local spiritual and social level for them to not need our forum/s.

On a tangential note, @Blade Runner, do you recall a man you or someone else had a more or less polite debate with on RVF regarding prenups?

I remember him saying prenups were bad because it showed no “faith” in marriage. Maybe in the 2000s as a teenager I would have agreed, but these days I would do nothing but get a prenup, given the environment.

It wasn't you, of course. I had an exchange that I didn't find even believable, to be honest, in the last few pages. The positions were frankly just weird in equivocation on the differences between men and women. Something that made me think why would even bother posting, since the basis of the discussion (argument?) was something that is taken for granted in general on a forum such as this, not a presupposition to be considered all over again.

One of my guesses as to why we are "past" the "be fruitful and multiply" stage of things, and why it seems like we cycle between booms and busts in all things, but very much in population, is that it just seems at this point with so many people in the world, the cyclicality of things just balances and takes over. That is, we just have waxing and waning civilizations, and no matter which way we look at it, the ultimate survival of humanity (good or bad quality, who knows) isn't in doubt until the actual chronological end. I believe, and pretty much always have, that the world is in fact quite random in its essence, and certainly from a human consciousness point of view, which we are aware of on some level with high level physics and quantum mechanics. What's more, this model of thinking about the world actually makes more sense than some egotistical or human driven idea of what is "planned" for us in particular. I often say that it's quite clear that the way we see things as being important in the world isn't important from God's point of view. The reason is because we are just passing through this age, and we have to deal with the randomness (cancer, hit by a truck, rationalizing why bad happens to good people, vice versa, etc) and absurdity that comes with it, which is the built in suffering that the world has - and that Christ ultimately conquers. If our focus and trust isn't on the Lord, of course none of it makes sense in the end.

What I've come to realize is that the average person isn't thoughtful, secure, or on average faithful enough to understand this approach in a way that wouldn't scandalize him - so we stay away from talking about it in this very in depth way. But as a smart physicist said, I can give you a simple but imprecise answer, or a detailed and precise answer.

I just did all that philosophical waxing because I think population, spouse, kids, family - all good things - are so seemingly the meaning or part of the meaning of a fuller, richer life that when they don't happen they are pretty scandalizing in and of themselves. One could call it a rationalization but it does fit my description of what's going on in the world when we consider the absurdity of the way that society has set itself up, and the way that women claim to desire things and then act in totally different ways than the ones that would accomplish those goals. If they have agency, then it seems to me that we have even bigger problems than we realized. At least for now.

 

[Blade Runner]

but it seems that the majority are promoting gender and race equality, support for Israel, etc. Even if they disagree, many refuse to speak out due to fear of being canceled, being labeled bigots, and so forth. Some of the churches I have attended are vary female dominated because the men have checked out or are just too busy trying to provide for their families.

This would fit the model that most are trying to attract members or have leadership through cults of personality, and thus if you don't have something in common with what is "known" in the current culture, you will have a lot harder time. Ironically, the current culture is so batsh-t crazy the traditional faiths are picking up more people, but it is all about what and who is seeking at the moment. Over time, I think we all see that we will be at another point of real concern even for us traditional orthodox, as the world and secularism, along with all its materialism and propaganda, seems quite hard for the average person to overcome or see as the matrix it really is.

 

[Northern Pilgrim]

This would fit the model that most are trying to attract members or have leadership through cults of personality, and thus if you don't have something in common with what is "known" in the current culture, you will have a lot harder time. Ironically, the current culture is so batsh-t crazy the traditional faiths are picking up more people, but it is all about what and who is seeking at the moment. Over time, I think we all see that we will be at another point of real concern even for us traditional orthodox, as the world and secularism, along with all its materialism and propaganda, seems quite hard for the average person to overcome or see as the matrix it really is.

The watering down of truth and lukewarmness in the mainstream American church is ironically what has drawn me towards Orthodoxy. No matter the strain or flavor, the men, especially those in corporate leadership, tend towards weakness and abdicating leadership to women. They are calling themselves "conservatives" but are only staying 10-15 years behind society, not truly conserving anything except their cushy positions and 401k.

 

[Astronomer]

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.

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.

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).

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.

Precisely.

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.

I'll be honest with you: I have no clue how you arrived at the interpretation of my post to mean what you think it means. I'm having a hard time understanding how you've made the connection between my positions (that choice is required for there to be relationship and for humans to thrive, and that women do not lack the same intrinsic qualities that men do, nor is it needed to justify a wife under the headship of her husband), and that I somehow deny the hardships that men face today, that men and women aren't biologically equal, or any other of your conclusions. I do not.

Unfortunately, I cannot follow your line of reasoning any longer, especially when you do not provide citations that support any of your assertions, so we can fold our discussion here. Any man that values Scripture and the scientific method, and truly understands either, knows how important it is to provide these; so if you do, I recommend that you take the time to do this for any future discussions you participate in.

Blade Runner said:
I don't think it's a coincidence that the posters that have been sympathetic to egalitarianism, or not convinced that males and females are not equal or have different roles and biology, which impacts their behavior, are protestant.

Also, I would not make this about Orthodoxy vs Protestantism. That's quite a bold claim to make based upon a conversation that was never fully understood be either party. I would like to think that jumping to such a conclusion is beneath you.

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.

If it interests you, we can relocate this conversation to PMs, too.

 

[KulturedKaveman]

The modern woman is being destroyed because the modern man is being destroyed. If men ceased accepting the behaviour, the phenomena of women sleeping around, drinking their faces off, and being "sarcastic and sassy" would end overnight.

Well the electric Jew and the Boomer teachers and bosses said you’re not a real man if you can’t handle the “sarcastic and sassy.”

 

[Aboulia]

Scripturally or scientifically, that women are any different from men in their capacity for reason, empathy, or integrity

I would somewhat agree with you because you used the word "capacity", but if one was to build a case against it, they would undoubtably use Ecclesiastes 7:28, 1 Timothy 2:14-15.

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'm not going to argue anything, because I want you to more thoroughly express your position so you and @Blade Runner can stop talking past each other. Why do you believe that women are to be under headship of a husband?

 

[Blade Runner]

Any man that values Scripture and the scientific method, and truly understands either, knows how important it is to provide these; so if you do, I recommend that you take the time to do this for any future discussions you participate in.

Our whole forum experience is about explaining the issues of the modern day in light of the differences between men and women and what works in relationships. We've been doing this for years. The Bible talks about these and I've referenced them. You're asking me to support basic red pill realities? Let me refer you to the forum for the last decade. Why would I rehash basic principles?

Evolutionary biology is based also on the scientific method, and does not conflict with anything that we have said. Posters that came after me also recognized that you are trying to say that men and women are equal in various ways, and pointed out how that seemed out of left field.

I have observed that protestantism is often associated with emotionalism. It is undeniable also that various protestant sects adapt themselves to feminine ways of thinking and fitting in, which is not what the christian church was ever about. There is no "versus."

 

[Samseau]

Unfortunately, I cannot follow your line of reasoning any longer, especially when you do not provide citations that support any of your assertions, so we can fold our discussion here. Any man that values Scripture and the scientific method, and truly understands either, knows how important it is to provide these; so if you do, I recommend that you take the time to do this for any future discussions you participate in.

Well, scripture is 100% against the world females live in today, and the scientific method says nothing in favor of female empowerment.

I'd say the burden of proof is on you. What scripture supports women being able to sleep around till they run out of eggs, or that women are as capable leaders as men? Or 'science' for that matter? There is literally zero science in favor of women, but every country that gives women the right to vote has gone down hill. There are many such historical examples of female empowerment leading to destruction of a nation, from Sparta to the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Samseau]

The destruction of women today has nothing to do with women, and has everything to do with us men.

While yes, technically this is true, you are missing the point. If men do not believe there is a problem with women, then why would they ever act to change it? So at least the very most basic starting point is making sure all men are on the same page, i.e. women are out of control, have destroyed themselves and society with their vote, and men think it's okay as long as they can get laid.

The problem with men is that they don't care about other men, they don't love each other as Neighbors. Men believe that as long as they are an alpha: well then they are good, those other weak men just need to learn to man up and stop being beta.

This zero sum mentality is completely devoid of love, which is why I downvoted you. The idea that everyone just needs to be an alpha is laughable. By definition alphas will never make up more than 10-20% of the male population. If the world isn't fit for betas, then it's not fit for survival and God will discard it.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

For every woman selling her bath water, there are 20 men willing to buy it. Women have taken advantage of the opportunities that men have allowed them to. Hold your fellow man accountable.

 

[Lawrence87]

The notion that women are equally capable of leadership is refuted just by looking at the world we live in.

Women are very good at being empathetic and compassionate, this makes them good mothers. Being considerate of the needs of others and so forth. You don't even need to be theist to accept this reality.

The problem is, women are not meant to be dealing with huge numbers of people in this way. What you end up with is women going "okay everyone, you're saying that men and women are real, but can you stop saying those things because you're upsetting Sharon here who is confused about her gender." You give women any kind of voice in positions of power, and insist on men having to listen to it you get all the LGBT nonsense that we see today. Everyone has to watch what they do or say in case they make a sodomite cry. It's insane. You cannot look at the world and say that it works to put women in positions of leadership.

It works if you put a woman in a room full of kids. They can stop a child being picked on, make them feel included in things etc. But it doesn't work in leadership. You need men to say "okay we actually need to do stuff, so we should stop wasting time and energy trying to make everyone included."

 

[Blade Runner]

The problem with men is that they don't care about other men, they don't love each other as Neighbors. Men believe that as long as they are an alpha: well then they are good, those other weak men just need to learn to man up and stop being beta.

Yes, this is the rebellion of men, and it's a hyper-competitiveness that is also revealed in the competitive nature of women, ironically (the only thing they are competitive about in life is getting or not getting other men). It's feminine to have this type of competitiveness, not a cohesive world view and a leadership role that rightly sees where all the pieces need to be in order to create a proper structure to society. Unfortunately, when the godless got control of the society, they were able to pick the winners and losers that fit this mold (money printing and monopoly of force), and few were willing to challenge them over time for various reasons.

The problem is, women are not meant to be dealing with huge numbers of people in this way.

This was my first point, which I think was ignored because I made it clear. It also proves that there is a structural and emotional aspect to the way that men and women think. Even female saints of the church weren't running the show/empire/etc. I wonder why.

 

[Lawrence87]

This was my first point, which I think was ignored because I made it clear. It also proves that there is a structural and emotional aspect to the way that men and women think. Even female saints of the church weren't running the show/empire/etc. I wonder why.

People probably could point to examples of Byzantine Empresses or something. But in general these are the exception that proves the rule. You can find examples of women with masculine traits. It doesn't alter the fact that by far most of the renowned and competent rulers throughout history were men.

Its like that whole thing with men being stronger than women. You could probably find a woman (an actual woman mind you) that is freakishly strong and could lift more than a lot of men, but that doesn't prove anything, the strongest man will always be stronger than the strongest woman.

 

[Blade Runner]

People probably could point to examples of Byzantine Empresses or something. But in general these are the exception that proves the rule. You can find examples of women with masculine traits. It doesn't alter the fact that by far most of the renowned and competent rulers throughout history were men.

Its like that whole thing with men being stronger than women. You could probably find a woman (an actual woman mind you) that is freakishly strong and could lift more than a lot of men, but that doesn't prove anything, the strongest man will always be stronger than the strongest woman.

Yes, this is leftist/emotional thinking instead of the reality of the world and practical thinking, which accounts for 99% of examples.

"Hey look, I can point out this one exception!"

As we know, these prove the rule, not the other way around.