I have been meaning to highlight some insightful comments from The Spearhead that I have read recently.
If anyone wonders why social conservatives are assumed to be nothing more than anti-abortion feminists, try reading this comment from Anonymous Age 68:
In 1984, I began no-fee counseling of divorced fathers from my home after work. By the time I tired of donating much time to wimps who asked for help, then attacked me for doing it wrong, I had contact with an estimated 1,600+ men and a few non-custodial women.
A few months after I started, I got a call from a devout Christian. He discovered his wife was having an affair, and assumed the correct thing to do was talk to his pastor.
The pastor immediately screamed insults at him, telling him it was his fault.
I could not believe what I was hearing. I was reading the Bible before either of them was born, and it never says a husband is responsible for sins of a wife who is not totally submissive. And, few are.
I learned as the years passed that a large percentage of Christian males believe the same thing. Their egos, akin to that of a two year old baby boy, assume their fantastic and dynamic personality is why their wives are submissive.
My tub of lard son-in-law is just like that. Yet, my daughter rules the roost at his house. When she walks into church, she exudes submission, but that is the only time. You can hear her screams of rage half a block away, but he thinks he is the leader. Hee, hee.
It took me a long time to understand their stupidity.
The Bible says the man is to be the leader. These jackasses assume a man becomes leader by leading, because they ignore Genesis, which explains in great detail how women really are, and root around in Ephesians. The Bible says no such thing.
How do we form an Army? Do we appoint a five-star general, who goes out into a field, and shouts, “FALL IN!!!!” And, people scurry this way and that, making uniforms and obtaining weapons and frantically building barracks, then run out and in a couple minutes fall into formation?
Don’t be silly. An Army is built from the bottom up, and when it becomes big enough to need a 5-star general, they have a 5-star general who falls into the niche created for him. A leader can exist only when there are disciplined followers.
The Bible does indeed state that men are to be leaders, but there is no direct commandment to be a leader.
The Bible tells women to submit to their husbands. That is a direct commandment. No man can be a leader without voluntary submission by his wife. Period. And, the nature of men is such that when a woman submits, a man cannot help being the leader, just as a new mother cannot help being a mommy and caring for her new baby as best she can.
And, the Bible says no one is righteous, no, not even one. They ignore this and assume wives are without sin, but husbands aren’t. S-T-U-P-I-D!!!
You know word association? You say black, I think white. You say up, I think down. If you say Christian male, I think, pompous arrogant, conceited jackass. That pretty much tells you what is happening in Christian churches today.
Let’s not forget what Anonymous Age 68 was talking about happened back in the 80s. Things are worse now.
If you believe you actually found a woman that is “innocent”, “inexperienced”, or “virginal” read this comment by il128 to get you back to the real world:
I have access to the email and computers of co-workers. Long story short.
Attractive women have sex with a lot of men. A lot of strangers. At the gym, girls night out, shopping at Walmart… The shit they tell each other in emails and but especially the diaries and calendars they keep on their lap tops. Shocking revelations. That wet time of the month? Lock her up somewhere. Seriously, they are out of control.
When you deal with women they will engage in projection a lot. I can name some recent examples. Herbal Essence explains it well:
It’s more projection. Women want to enslave men for their resources, therefore “Men want to keep us as slaves in the kitchen.” Women conspire against men in the workplace, therefore “Men conspire against us in the workplace.” Women are cunfaithful (or want to be) in relationships, therefore “Men are always unfaithful.” Women know that they can get laid anytime they want, therefore “Men sleep with anything with a pulse.” Women are shallow and don’t care about men as human beings, therefore “Men are shallow and don’t care about us as human beings.”
Most of them have a very solipsistic view of the world, and whatever negative compulsion they have running around in their head, they rationalize it by projecting on men.
Anonymous Reader gives a history of social conservative failure to fight feminism and defend men:
Social conservative Ronald Reagan signed into law as Governor of California the first unilateral divorce law in 1969 if I remember correctly. Over 10 years later he became President, and never lifted a finger to undo what he had done, even though the damage was obvious by then. In 1986, he signed the Bradley Amendment into law, passed by a Congress with the aid of social conservatives. Because who would not want “deadbeat dads” to pay their fair share — or unfair share, if need be — of child support? Since that time, a man can be divorced by his wife for no reason at all, other than she’s “not in love anymore”, deprived of access to his children, forced into Family Court where he won’t get to even confront his accuser in some cases, ordered to pay — and if he loses his job, through no fault of his own, either he continues to pay into poverty, or he can be thrown in jail.
When social conservatives talk about defending marriage, they almost always are discussing the issue of homosexual marriage. Very rarely will there be any discussion of divorce, and its effects. If there is discussion, it is always in terms of the effects on women and children, never the effects upon men. Social conservatives clearly do not care about what divorce does to men. Go look at Maggie Gallagher’s site, or any of the articles regarding divorce at such social conservative sites as National Review, Commentary, American Spectator and the like. They show no interest in what divorce does to men. Want to surprise a socon? Tell them that 2/3 of divorces are filed by women. It takes them aback every single time. Socons seem to live in the 1960′s, where divorce is what nasty old men do to their dutiful wives in order to get a hot young thing, not something that 30-something women do to their dutiful husband in order to keep access to his money while denying him access to his children.
Only men’s rights sites, such as this one, even broach the subject of the effects of divorce upon men.
In 1994, as part of an omnibus “crime” act, the liberal Clinton administration passed the “Violence Against Women Act”, which fully funds feminist-run “shelters” where women are counseled to divorce their husbands. VAWA defines “domestic violence” as including such dastardly actions as “shouting” or “requiring her to ask for money”. Thanks to VAWA, any woman in the US can be rid of her husband by simply picking up the phone, dialing the police (9-1-1) and saying “I’m afraid. My husband scares me”. The police are required to come. In many states they arerequired to arrest him. The abuses of the law under VAWA are many, wide and varied. The results of federal funding of feminism goes deep into society. VAWA came up for renewal in 2000, and it was signed into law again. In 2006, the social-conservative Republican party rubberstamped the bill again, and social-conservative darling G.W. Bush signed the law without a murmur.
Try to get a socon to discuss VAWA, it is useless. “Why are you in favor of violence against women?” is the usual response. Pointing out the one-sided nature of the law, the lack of any support for those men physically attacked by their wives, the one – sided nature of family court, the Federal funding for feminism — all useless, because in my experience socons can not, will not look beyond the superficial — “why are you in favor of violence against women?” is the sum total of any discussion.
You can always find social conservatives willing to thrash men for using porn. But good luck finding one who will even admit that women are over 1/3 of the users. And forget about any discussion why a “happily married” man might prefer looking at pictures of women engaged in sex with men to spending another frustrating evening with a shrew that never fails to point out his many faults. Just forget that entirely, because in socon land, any fault in marriage lies on the head of the husband. The tendency of social conservative men and women to put women on a pedestal is so common it really is hardly worth discussing.
Consider the ongoing maltreatment of boys and young men in schools. It’s rare to get a socon to even admit something is wrong, and when you can get over that hurdle the only response is handwringing, not any support for a solution. Young men are actively discriminated against in higher education, go look at any socon publication and see if it is even mentioned. If it is, at best there’s a parrot-like “we don’t understand! We dont’ understand!” quality to any commentary.
One-sided divorce, one sided family court, one-sided “domestic violence”, false rape charges, explicit discrimination in schools, universities and on the job — all of these and more occurred either with no resistance by social conservatives or with their active assistance.
I know, I know — all we have to do is “just man up” and all these things will go away.
Hestia points out how churches pile on the responsibilities for men but never talk about female responsibilities:
Alongside this blame there is very little expectations placed on women and precious little talk of responsibilities of a wife to her husband. I recall many sermons in my youth and young adulthood going on and on and on about responsibilities of men including keeping their wives at home with the children. There was not too much said about what wives who were at home full time ought to be doing to support their husbands and how they could add value to their families thanks to their position at home. This reality doesn’t differ too much from the focus on rights sans responsibility that is feminism in society at large.
Many people think Islam will save us. Ms_Fu shows us that will not be the case in a comment where she responds to Hestia’s comment that I quoted above:
These types of sermons are common in many “moderate” and “liberal” mosques. I personally haven’t heard of a sermon in several years about a wife’s responsibility to her husband from any Muslim cleric and I attend services almost every week.