Categories
a woman is always to blame evil old ladies evil sexy ladies evil women marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed white men patriarchy playing the victim reactionary bullshit

Dalrock on why men should avoid women who’ve wasted “a lot of courtship” and “used up their most attractive/fertile years.”

Woman with surplus courtship
Woman with surplus courtship

Dalrock, a manosphere traditionalist with a great love of charts and statistics and other accoutrements of SCIENCE, has managed to figure out a way to stretch “don’t be so picky, ladies, or you’ll get old and ugly and no man will ever want you” out to 1500 words.

Here are a few of them:

Men foot the searching costs in the marriage and sexual marketplace (MMP & SMP).  This means bearing most of the risk of rejection and expending the bulk of the resources to facilitate the process of meeting and getting to know one another.

Oh dear. We’re off to a very unpromising start here.

As the ones who bear the costs of courtship, men have a strong incentive to minimize the number of women they court and the overall duration of time spent in the process.  However, as the consumers of courtship, women have an incentive to draw the process out as long as possible and to receive courtship from as many men as possible.

Here’s some surveillance footage of an average American woman being courted by several men.

But now — get this — the ladies are waiting longer to marry!

Just think about what this does to the dude navigating the marriage market hoping to “maximize his Pareto efficiency,” if you know what I mean and I think you do.

He needs to manage risk vs reward.  When courting, there are two fundamental risks.  These are the risk of wasting resources on the wrong women, and the risk of rejection harming the man’s reputation/MMV.

So watch out, ladies, because if you wait too long, guys are going to decide you’re not much of a bargain!

For a man who is managing the risks of courtship outlined above, the age of a woman is very important.  The older a woman is, the more likely it is that she is very picky and/or not seriously looking for a husband.

Exactly! Because women never change their mind because they’re, you know, in a different stage of their life or anything.

Older women also are less attractive from a courtship perspective because they have used up more of their most attractive/fertile years, and while their attractiveness for marriage has declined their expectations for courtship have only increased.

This reminds me of that famous joke, you know, where that woman approaches Winston Churchill at a party and says, “Sir, you are drunk.”

And he replies: “And you, Bessie, have used up your most attractive/fertile years. But I shall be sober in the morning, and you will still have used up your most attractive/fertile years.”

That Churchill, what a card!

Consider the 25% of current early thirties White women who still haven’t married;  unless they are terminally unattractive an awful lot of courtship has almost certainly been wasted on them.

Are there really a lot of guys who look back on the women they dated in their twenties and think, “boy, I wasted a lot of courtship on those gals! I mean, I wasted nearly 14 courtship on Jessa alone!” (Also, who knew that the women are always the ones to blame when heterosexual couples in their twenties break up?)

They aren’t just bad bets for courtship today, but (in retrospect) they clearly were bad bets for courtship for the last 15 years. …

Put simply, the extended delay of marriage by women has placed marriage minded men in a dilemma;  older women are (generally speaking) known bad bets for courtship, but half of early twenties women are also poor bets for courtship.

Well, you could always marry a dude.

There are only two logical ways men can respond to women’s extension of courtship.

Wait, really? Please, please, please, let one of the ways be “marry a dude.”

The first logical choice is to recognize that these women are debasing marriage, and decide to “court” for sex and not marriage.

Damn. Anyway, sexual relationships are fine, but you are aware that there are other kinds of relationships — sorry, “courting” — besides sex and marriage, right?

Ok, we still have one more. Marry a dude. Marry a dude. Marry a dude.

But while “courting” for sex is a logical choice, it is not a moral choice, and we still do see men courting for marriage.  For these men, having a fairly low age cutoff makes a great deal of sense.

That’s your, er, “solution?” Marry a teenager? Or a woman at most in her early twenties?

As Dalrock knows, but doesn’t want to believe, those who marry when they’re very young are much more likely to divorce than those who marry when they’re older. For evidence, see this chart, which I found elsewhere on Dalrock’s own blog:

fig_19_series_23_no_22_p_27

But hope springs eternal for modern misogynistic manospherian marriage market minded men (MMMMMMM).

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1596 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

@paradoxical

… yep, that makes just as much sense as anything bystander said. Which is to say none at all.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

@Paradoxical Intention

What…how does that…abortions? How does gay marriage cause abortions? This is so confusing.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

The Conservative motion in the United States seems to go something like this: If we don’t like something, then it must also cause another thing we don’t like and our constituency is deathly afraid of! Because the devil!

contrapangloss
5 years ago

I see the word ‘scholars’ is now getting thrown around very… loosely.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

900,000 abortions is so specific, too. Where the hell did they get that number?

brooked
brooked
5 years ago

Let me spin this around a bit, how many of you read any of that 50 Shades of Grey nonsense? How many of you watched that movie? Disclaimer, I did not watch the movie. But I know what its about.

Men have been forced (by government authority) to give feminism a chance for the last 40 years and it has been an epic disaster, everyone is miserable. Can we please dispose of something so harmful to society?

Your approach to 50 Shades of Grey and the subject of History is pretty much the same, but you probably know about the former since you’ve been absolutely butchering the latter this entire thread.

Bonus red pill question from the MRA for the feminists here who simply can’t. Get. Past. Submitting. A father gives away his daughter to the son-in-law in marriage, he physcially hands her over to the young man and walks away. What is that all about and why do so many girls dream about this very moment, such a patriarical rite of passage?

As Jeremy Irons said, if you accept the premise that a man could marry another man then he should be able to marry his son. Those were his words, google it, find the discussion on youtube its right there. And his point is a valid one, he would marry his son so that his son could inherit his entire estate. This is where we wind up through the looking glass.

I always get a kick out of how much MRAs love their completely ineffectual “Checkmate, feminist” talking point. Jeremy Irons. Heh.

sparky
sparky
5 years ago

Banana Cake Jackie: I’m thinking he got those statistics from a study conducted by the Institute of His Ass

Here’s a synopsis of his “argument,” from a Washington Post Op-Ed.

To wit: Legalizing same-sex marriage devalues marriage and causes fewer heterosexual couples to marry, which leads to a larger number of unmarried women, who have abortions at higher rates than married women. As a result, Schaerr wrote, “nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying. This is equal to the entire population of the cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined.”

So yeah. Basically talking out his ass.

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

@Sparky

So there’s 900,000 women who would have sex out of marriage and decide to abort spontaneously if the men and women who never wanted to screw people of the opposite sex decide to marry? So millions of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, whoever would come out of the closet to marry someone they love that happen to have the same genital configuration instead of marrying a beard when same sex marriage is legalized?

Okay then.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Schaerr needs to leave my hometown outta their bullshit. : /

fromafar2013
5 years ago

Just out of curiosity, I did some research into the actual marriage and divorce rates in the US and found this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&_r=5&abt=0002&abg=0

In the 1950s and 1960s, marriage was about a breadwinner husband and a homemaker wife, who both needed the other’s contributions to the household but didn’t necessarily spend much time together. In the 1970s, all that changed.

Women entered the work force, many of their chores in the home became automated and they gained reproductive rights, as the economist Betsey Stevenson and Mr. Wolfers have argued in their academic work. As a result, marriage has evolved to its modern-day form, based on love and shared passions, and often two incomes and shared housekeeping duties.

The people who married soon before the feminist movement were caught in the upheaval. They had married someone who was a good match for the postwar culture but the wrong partner after times changed. Modern marriage is more stable because people are again marrying people suitable to the world in which we live.

“It’s just love now,” Mr. Wolfers said. “We marry to find our soul mate, rather than a good homemaker or a good earner.”

MARRYING FOR LOVE. THE HORROR.

According to the CDC, the rates of divorce are in fact dropping. So are the rates of marriage (though they’ve stabilized since 2009), mostly because people are waiting longer and not marrying just for survival.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

Granted, there are other factors at play, like socioeconomic status (tied closely to educational level also), but the overall trend looks good, not apocalyptic.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
5 years ago

Women instinctively submit to men. It is instanct, something God gave to each of us. To go out of your way and NOT do this (for whatever reason), can create a very frustrated, angry person is not happy and is looking for a way to BE happy.

It’s telling how fixated you are on the idea that women must be perpetually happy, and if they aren’t, they should just suffer quietly while acting outwardly cheerful and pleasing. Feminists pointing out injustice, sometimes in an angry way, clearly bothers you. You see this as a grave threat to society, because it threatens your own well-being. You don’t want to have to feel uncomfortable about subjugating another human being. No, much better to fool yourself with a bunch of self-serving misconceptions about “what women really want”. You’d rather live under the illusion that women are happy waiting on men hand and foot, sexing men multiple times a day no matter how tired or sad or sick they feel, having no say in where they live or whether their parents are cared for, being utterly dependent on the man’s whim for their very survival.

That isn’t a marriage, it’s slavery, and you’re heaping insult on injury by asking women to go along with you and cheerfully place their happiness and self-esteem on the back burner so you can be king, guilt free.

Furthermore, if women “instinctively submit to men”, then why did women stop doing that as soon as they were no longer forced to by law and custom? Why did we even need those laws and customs in the first place?

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

You know, there’s over 300 million people in the USA and around 75 million of those are under the age of 18 so 900,000 is definitely not a generation’s worth. That’s not even 5%. That’s 1.33%. These people don’t math.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

If he didn’t have this authority with his wife (and you feminists are claiming he doesn’t because you don’t like it) then of course, he should NOT marry her. Why should he marry her, what is in it for him? What does he gain? And don’t say love because for men love basically is just s-x. That is love.

You. Are. A. Terrible. Person. That is an awful thing to say about kind and loving men.

Divorce. My husband and I have been together for almost 40 years and married for most of those. Both of us were previously married. Obviously those marriages were unhappy, in my case because of abuse. Which raises an interesting statistic.

No fault divorce, what’s the interesting side effect of that? There’s one startling statistic. Once women were able to freely leave unhappy marriages, there was a steep decline in the rate of women killing their husbands. It turns out they weren’t evil people who wanted to murder men, they were desperate people who saw no other way out of their terrible situations. Once the law opened the door, most of them left rather than take the extreme option. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for men murdering their wives and partners. That rate has also declined, but only at the same steady rate as other violent crime has declined in the last 4 decades.

Money. When we married, my husband was the one with an irregular income and masses of debts and obligations. I was the one with the well paying permanent job and the house (but with an increased mortgage from having to pay half the value to my previous husband despite the fact that he was a profligate drunkard who’d contributed far less than half – but that’s the way marriage and divorce work).

And we’ve managed just fine. Most of the time we’ve both earned reasonable to good money. Sometimes one or other of us had little to no income, but we managed. We raised two wonderful children who are now responsible adults with partner/ spouse and jobs of their own. None of this would have happened if we’d been unable to divorce our way out of our previous marriages.

Love. Almost 40 years and we’re still deeply in love. Nobody obeys anybody. Sex is wonderful and always has been. Strangely enough, neither my husband nor I insist on sex when the other is not interested. Sometimes it’s timing – when one of us simply suggests waiting until morning or evening or whatever. There are other times when it’s just not on – after a birth or a miscarriage for example, or when one of us is unwell or distressed about something. Illness or death of a parent or friend, or worries at work, or any of the hundred other things that detract from libido or lust – but not from love. We’ve had to “work around” my permanent pain issues ever since my pregnancies having had a disastrous, permanent effect on my joints. When you love someone rather than merely insisting on having sex with them, you can manage to both have sex and take loving care of your partner’s physical pain/problems.

Sharing housework, childcare, cooking and everything else isn’t difficult when both people want it to work for everyone. One thing I’d suggest if you really love someone, learn CPR. I only know one other person who’s had to revive a dead-at-my-feet partner, but love and adrenaline are wonderful things when they combine with knowing what to do. Getting your partner back afterwards is a marvelous thing.

tl:dr Marriage isn’t about one or another person winning anything except when both of you win deeper mutual love and affection.

One thing you’ve never mentioned in your depiction of marriage. Fun! I see no sign of fun or playfulness or intellectual stimulation, let alone a mutual admiration society, in your ideas about marriage. Fun, silliness, arguments about books and music and politics. Where are they in your grey little world of duties, obligations, sex on demand and other forms of obedience?

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

I once met a lesbian minister. I bet that would blow Irritable bowel boy’s little mind.

epitome of incomprehensibility

I’m a little late to the party, but there’s a nice little Bible story in Acts 5 that throws doubt on the whole “it’s Christian for wives to submit to their husbands ALL THE TIME” thing:

This man named Ananias sold a piece of property and gave some money to the disciple Peter, pretending it was all the money from the land, while really he kept some back for himself. Peter called him out for having “lied to God” and Ananias dropped dead.

Then Ananias’ wife Sapphira came along, not knowing what had happened, and Peter asked her too whether the money was the whole price they’d gotten. (Side note: it’s almost as if he was treating her like a person with her own agency!) Anyway, she lied too, so Peter said she’d drop dead too, and she did.

While it’s not exactly the most comforting reading, you could say that Sapphira was submitting to her husband by agreeing to cover for him. And presumably God smote her dead.

But what do I know? Since it was a money thing, it was probably all her idea, because all women want is money, unless they’re busy submitting to men. Right? Makes sense?

Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
Banana Jackie Cake, the Best Jackie and Cake! Yum! (^v^)
5 years ago

Thank you David. We still love you.

epitome of incomprehensibility

Oh, and what’s if I interpret “submission” like submitting a book proposal? Like, “Here, dear, I offer you my snotty Kleenex for your consideration?”

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

I’d like to throw this out there wrt wives submitting to their husbands:

https://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/complementarianism-and-the-genesis-fall/

KathleenB
KathleenB
5 years ago

My father didn’t give me away at my wedding. My husband didn’t ask for dad’s permission to propose to me or get married. Hell, our parents had nothing to do with our meeting or dating. We’ve managed fourteen years, the deaths of three parents, and a serious illness that ended up requiring a radical hysterectomy for me. I don’t obey him, he doesn’t obey me, and we’ve been poor as hell for most of our marriage.

My sister got pregnant by accident (despite being at least as paranoid about bc as I was). She and the father got married just last year. My nephew was the ring bearer.

My parents were married for seven years before they had me. If cancer hadn’t taken dad, they would have more than forty years together. So: three examples of happily married couples that look nothing like Troolboy says marriage should look like. Could it be that he’s full of shit?

katz
5 years ago

I once met a lesbian minister.

That sounds like the beginning of a limerick.

I once met a lesbian minister
Whose existence was awfully sinister.
Of the times she’s a sign
So you’d best toe the line
Or you’ll end up with cats as a spin(i)ster.

Catalpa
Catalpa
5 years ago

Praise be to Dark Lord David! That asshole was really stinking up the place.

What I don’t get is why it matters so damn much to these people. Like, okay, more people are getting divorced now than before. If your marriage is so perfect and happy, WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT OTHER COUPLES DO? What difference does it make? If the vile heathens ruin their lives with their sinful ways, how does that affect YOU?

Well, actually, I know the reason why; these guys are scared shitless that they won’t get the obedient sex slave/maid that had always been promised to their forefathers. Because they’re scared that women who have more of a choice than sex slave or starvation will never lower themselves to being involved with these sacks of shit. That their sex slave might get uppity ideas from other, free women and escape with these easy divorce laws that are on the books now.

KathleenB
KathleenB
5 years ago

Also, illegitimacy has nothing to do with Detroit’s decline. Here are some real things that did:

– The decline of Michigan as the auto manufacturing capitol of the US
– Predatory lending practices that led to massive numbers of foreclosures when the housing market collapsed.
– Generational corruption and indifference in the city government.
– State officials ignoring the crisis potential.

And yes, I live in Michigan, on the opposite side of the state.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

It’s cool David, you do you. :3 We need you healthy and well-rested if you are to spread the word of The Almighty Furrinati!

lordpabu
lordpabu
5 years ago

I’m frustrated that he’s gone before he even addressed most of the awesome critiques of his worldview that so many regulars took the time to write. That’s just a crime.

…but I know he was intentionally choosing not to address those points. It just irritates me is all. Such a cheap cop out.

I did enjoy reading the responses of everyone who isn’t the troll, for what it’s worth. It’s nice to have generous doses of intellect and comedy to soothe the rage. <3

Jarnsaxa
Jarnsaxa
5 years ago

Interesting. To me what’s interesting here is that the commenter is apparently Catholic, because in Protestantism, marriage is not, in fact, a sacrament.

So right there, you actually have said something many Christians do not ascribe to. Are protestants ruining society too, or is it just feminists?

katz
5 years ago

Interesting. To me what’s interesting here is that the commenter is apparently Catholic, because in Protestantism, marriage is not, in fact, a sacrament.

So right there, you actually have said something many Christians do not ascribe to. Are protestants ruining society too, or is it just feminists?

I’d bet my boots he’s an evangelical. He talks like one and repeats a lot of their favorite talking points. Marriage isn’t a sacrament to evangelicals (obviously, because they don’t have sacraments), but to complementarians, marriage is really important. More important than it is to Catholics in some ways, because they don’t recognize celibacy as an acceptable alternative lifestyle (except for gays, maybe). I think it’s because, once you’ve defined the whole natural order of the world as revolving around a man dominating a woman, you have no place in it unless you have a woman to dominate, or a man to be dominated by.

Jarnsaxa
Jarnsaxa
5 years ago

Could be. My point was mainly that chuckles the bonehead couldn’t theologize his way out of a damp paper bag, and doesn’t seem to even understand the words he uses, much less any theology more advanced than what you’d get from a third-grader who went to Sunday school one time.

Actually, the third-grader would probably know more.

WORDS MEAN THINGS, chuckles.

katz
5 years ago

My point was mainly that chuckles the bonehead couldn’t theologize his way out of a damp paper bag, and doesn’t seem to even understand the words he uses, much less any theology more advanced than what you’d get from a third-grader who went to Sunday school one time.

Oh, for sure. His theology consists of half a dozen canned arguments, and he ignores or discounts anything that doesn’t fit them.

Spindrift
Spindrift
5 years ago

Good call, David. That guy was insufferable.

Kootiepatra
5 years ago

I’ll refrain from commenting too much on the WTFery that happened while I was asleep, seeing as others have already handily deconstructed it, and the flounce has become mandatorily stuck to.

But I do have to say that I literally laughed out loud when he literally reverted to a human incarnation of the sea lion comic (“I have been nothing but polite…”)

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
5 years ago

If someone slaps you on the right cheek, sealion them.

Flying Mouse
Flying Mouse
5 years ago

Everybody on this thread who is not IBB is awesome.

So right there, you actually have said something many Christians do not ascribe to. Are protestants ruining society too, or is it just feminists?

According to my very Roman Catholic MIL, yes. 🙂 But she loves us all anyway.

Flying Mouse
Flying Mouse
5 years ago

Also, I can’t get over the moment when IBB tried to divide and conquer the thread by playing favorites and telling everyone that Kirby deserved special treatment because she (snort) was being so polite. He really did think everybody was either going to throw a tantrum or fall all over themselves to win his favor, didn’t he?

Must be nice to live in his world. When it’s not rage-inducing, disappointing, and hollow, that is.

Fibinachi
5 years ago

(paraphrase): marital rape? Impossible if the wife submits to the husband at all times

The kindest possible thing to say to that is that it’s logically valid.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Reflecting on this thread, I think no fault divorce is so horrifying for him because he knows how awful he is and he’s afraid that when his wife realizes she can do better, there will be nothing he can do legally to force her to stay.

I just hope he doesn’t use violence.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@Flying Mouse:

Also, I can’t get over the moment when IBB tried to divide and conquer the thread by playing favorites and telling everyone that Kirby deserved special treatment because she (snort) was being so polite.

The best part for me was two-fold. One, how condescending he was when he declared that I was getting “special treatment,” as if civil conversation were a pat on the head and a piece of candy given to a child. Two, that his “special treatment” was him putting my name as the address and quoting my comments while still just repeating himself over and over.

Really makes a boy feel special, that.

dhag85
5 years ago

Aww I somehow missed all this when it happened. It was a fun and infuriating read though. I can never quite understand how some people can think they’re being perfectly polite while literally demanding for others to be slaves.

Maea
Maea
5 years ago

Dalrock is actually NOT a Christian. He doesn’t attend church regularly (or at all, from what he’s said). He likes to quote the Bible, without living out its teachings in his life. He concerns himself with what other women say and do without concerning himself on what he can do to help others be better.

He has a habit of fisking women who write something online he does not agree with, or they have criticism over the manosphere. He has gone after women from Sheila Gregoire to a SAHM/housewife who likes to blog about religion and gives away rosaries. He clearly has nothing better to do. No…he doesn’t like the idea of women having their own opinions, no matter who they are. For men who tout “male traditionalism,” they sure spend a lot of time on the internet blogging about how men feel and it’s like…don’t you people have jobs?

As a Christian, I find all of this “traditionalist” “manosphere” stuff to be a load of crap sky-high stinking up outer space. I have wasted enough time reading Dalrock to know he’s not really aligned with Christianity. Has anyone noticed something about his entourage? They’re all a bunch of single and bitter men who clearly are angry about the “one who got away” with a guy who had it. By “it” I mean an iota of self-confidence no amount of “Game” can teach anyone.

Michael (Australia)
Michael (Australia)
5 years ago

@ Maea

Dalrock IS a Christian. God commands a woman to SUBMIT, not rebel. It is YOU who is NOT a Christian. Obey or stray (narrow path)

sparky
sparky
5 years ago

Mikey, is that you? How are things DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH?

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Today in trolldom I have learned that following one ‘command’ that is only loosely supported by three verses in the entire bible makes you a shining example of Christianity, even if you ignore about 80% of the other things about how to live life.

Wow.

That’s like, awesome! I’m so glad we got to do away with all that hippy ‘love thy neighbor’, gather in worship, and doing things in remembrance stuff. Super cool, that.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Warning, last post contained ‘sarcasm’.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Michael,
The lineage of Jesus as described in the Bible is full of scheming whores and rebellious women without whom there could not have been an anointed savior for mankind. For a God who was so supposedly consumed by the idea of female submission, he sure did make sure the women entrusted with creating the bread, the light, the word and the way were a bunch of uppity women.

Read your Bible. Then remember this: A creator god could have spun himself a demigod son out of dust or a puddle. Instead, the Bible god chose a woman. He could have hatched him from an egg or the head of a prophet, but instead the only human being the Bible describes Jesus as ever being physically intimate with besides a whore (who he he seems to have lived with) was his mother. Peter never gets down on his knees and massages Christ’s feet. Paul never even actually meets a physical Jesus. In fact, the woman at the well was more of an apostle than Paul. Jesus instructed that “fallen” woman to go forth and spread the gospel. Paul just had a heat stroke and a guilty conscience. He’s also a large part of why there is so much misogyny in the New Testament.

It is also men who betray Jesus and women who stay with him to the bitter end. The most vulnerable moments in the life of a god were entrusted to women, according to the Bible. Women who defied authority and lived unconventionally were closer to your god than any man ever was.

Yes, the Bible contains heavy doses of misogyny. Yes, Christianity is a patriarchal religion. But it well might not have been had men not worked so hard to make it so. The first Christian nurses were deaconesses who made house calls. They were women who visited the homes of the ill and the old to care for the flock as Christ had done. Today you won’t hear of many female deacons, but at one time, they were integral to the Christian community. To this day churches survive on women’s unpaid labor. When the women walk, you church falls. So, you might show some fucking respect before you have to answer to your lord for driving them away.

I’m atheist, but I can read. Can you?

Maea
Maea
5 years ago

@Michael

I am a Christian. If Dalrock was such a Christian, why isn’t he more theologically sound? Why is he a huge supporter of “game” and why does he back the agenda of MRA/manospherians more than that of Christianity? Why doesn’t he use Christian tradition or scriptural references to support his reasoning?

If you knew anything about the word “submit,” it means to be “under mission.” This “under mission” was directed to wives for their husbands, not for every woman to follow every man’s whim (and hope there was no conflict as a result). Wives were designated to be a “helper suitable” for a husband, and what Dalrock has been preaching is not consistent with Christian teaching.

I don’t entirely agree with Lea, but the response is a lot smarter and more well-reasoned than yours.

Necroking48
Necroking48
3 years ago

@ Maea

I completely agree with you. …….Dalrock may call himself a Christian, but he definitely is not. His extreme misogyny, hatred of women, and his endorsement of “game” shows me where his heart is
I stumbled upon his blog at WordPress, read a few of his garbage, and never returned….by the way Dalrock blocks and deletes ALL comments that doesn’t endorse “game”, or the patriarchal viewpoint he espouses, which in my opinion makes him a hypocrite of the highest order.
On the one hand he condemns all SJW’s, and Feminists, yet he is intolerant of any criticism at all!

Dalrock’s opinions are definitely NOT biblical, they are poisonous and divides the sexes even further

1 30 31 32