Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Where have all the good men gone, and why aren’t men marrying?

I read this annoying article by Kay Hymowitz in the Wall Street Journal, which is completely ignorant of the causes of men’s decline in education and work, as well as their refusal to marry as often as they used to.

Captain Capitalism responded to the article here, explaining why men aren’t giving women what they want.

Excerpt from his massive bullet-point list:

  • Did you hear of this “divorce fad” going around? Apparently men get to pay out the majority of the time be it alimony or child support.
  • Did you hear about this “divorce fad” going around? Apparently 65% of the time it’s women who initiate divorce.
  • Kids cost around $500,000 each to raise. given employment prospects we can’t afford that. Much rather buy a boat or frankly work all that much less.
  • Hey, you hear about this federal budget deficit and debt? Apparently we elected this guy “Barack Obama” and a bunch of democrats into office who are now mortgaging the future. This means our expenses in the future will be higher. Well, of course us “foolish, immature, pooping, farting boys” were too “immature” to vote for him like you wise women, but then again we’re too busy flinging poo at each other to ponder the future macro-economic ramifications of a collapsing dollar.
  • Hey, you hear about this social security medicare thing? Apparently enough “smart wise women” disproportionately kept voting for democrats to essentially have those immature 20 something men pay for the livelihood for these aging people. This added expense on our futures make’s it that much harder economically to commit to a wife and children.
  • Hey, you hear about this “welfare state” “medicaid” thing? Apparently enough “smart wise women” disproportionately over the years voted in enough democrats to essentially replace the role of fathers with government programs making fathers not only unnecessary, but an increasingly risky and unrewarding proposition, not to mention, making it easier for women to just up and leave their husbands, because well, “they needed to find themselves” and the government will take care of the kids while they go pursue their EPL fantasy.
  • Hey, did you hear about this “welfare state” thing? Apparently because we’ve now outsourced bringing up children to the government and have to create government jobs for all the “sociology majors” and “education majors”and “communications majors” our tax bill will go through the roof. Oh! Wait!!! No it doesn’t! I forgot! I’m a guy! I can live on very little, work a crappy job, work part time, live in a crappy apartment with my buds and STILL have enough disposable income to play video games and buy booze.

Remember that 77% of young, unmarried women voted for Obama (70% of unmarried women, but 77% of young unmarried women). And research shows that women consistently vote for bigger and bigger government, more wealth redistribution for the “poor”, and more intrusion into the family by the state. Men don’t like paying more in taxes and getting less liberty. It makes it harder for us to justify marriage rationally. We want to get married, but the numbers don’t come out in the black. We can either afford marriage and family or government social programs, but we cannot afford both.

I think the problem of men not wanting to marry is caused by women actually believing feminism – that men and women are identical. Once you believe that, there is no special role that men are supposed to play, and no way to distinguish a man who fills that role from one who doesn’t. According to feminism, which most young women believe, men aren’t meant to be providers, protectors or moral/spiritual leaders. Chastity is out. A boring, good-paying job is out. Morality is out. Sobriety is out. Apologetics and theology are out.

What’s in? Being good-looking, inoffensive, and entertaining. Women are not selecting responsible men because they think that the men can be changed to be responsible, through sex, or maybe through nagging, and eventually through the threat of losing all his money and custody of his children. Men aren’t stupid. They’ve noticed that responsibility and morality are out, and they’re acting like clowns because that’s what women prefer when getting drunk and hooking up, the Duke University student and her report on all the men she slept with – they were graded by physical attractiveness, sexual technique, popularity and athletic ability.

Men do what women expect them to do in order to get sex. Just read the peer-reviewed studies on hooking up. If women don’t select men who can do specific things as husbands and fathers, then men won’t prepare themselves to do specific things. If they are already getting sex for playing the fool, then why should they do more than play the fool? If women obsessed over Paul Ryan and William Lane Craig, then that’s what men would aspire to. They don’t, and so men don’t. Mature men intimidate women with their strong opinions, moral judgments, and exclusive theological claims. Much better to have an immature man who is shallow and politically correct.

There is a way for women to get what they want from men, but they actually have to engage in conversations with men and find out what men want from women. And what men want from a marriage. What they want from children. What they want from government. What they want from schools. What they want from the workplace. What they want from the church. You can’t take away everything men need to marry and then expect them to marry. Nagging, belittling, withholding sex and controlling are not incentives for men to marry. Every time you break a man down, that is one less husband and father candidate. And eventually, the money flow dries up for the sperm-banks and social programs that substitute for men. What will women do then?

For myself, I am NOT on the same track as secular men (video games, alcohol, girlfriends an TV). I’m earning and saving to support Christian scholars and apologetics events in churches and universities. That’s my role right now until women destroy feminism with their own hands. Marriage is only good for me if it is good for God. And I need to be convinced that it will be good for God by whoever is applying for the job. I would like to see the reasons why I should marry in a woman’s moral decisions, her studying of difficult apologetic topics, and her political and economic conservatism. I would like to see that she understands men and marriage and understands how marriage and parenting can serve God, if done in an unselfish, moral and disciplined way. No pursuing happiness. No reducing moral obligations to “legalism”.

Making one woman feel happy with a diamond ring and an expensive wedding is not a good choice for me when I could spend a lot less money sponsoring a stack of debates over my lifetime on Christian topics, in front of hundreds of thousands of university students, or even in churches. There are ways that marriage could be a good deal for God, but I want to see the value proposition for marriage before I sign up. So far, most women seem to resent the idea that marriage should be have to be proven good for God. They resent the question itself. But everything we do is for God, and I have a right to ask what is in it for him? I think a lot of Christian men are asking the same question.

Related posts

Filed under: Commentary, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

53 Responses

  1. Stephen Notman says:

    Whoever Captain Capitalism is, I wish he would run for President, because I would vote for him.

  2. NOW I find it it costs $500K to raise a child! Grumble!

    • I think he is exaggerating, it’s only $250K. And remember there are a LOT of advantages to having children if you have a good wife to raise them. They make you proud, you can have a big influence on them, and they give you gifts, and take care of you when you are old. I am scared of strangers taking care of me when I am old.

  3. Jared says:

    Great post WK. I hear women ask why men are so stupid and I think, “Don’t you want them stupid?” In high school and college, it seemed to me that most girls just wanted a guy that was funny and nothing else.

  4. Mysterious C says:

    I really don’t understand Hymowitz. The WSJ article is based on earlier some earlier ones, one being:
    Love in the Time of Darwinism

    http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_darwinist_dating.html

    She thinks it’s all because of changing dating and mating roles. That is true, but it’s not the whole story. Guys in the previous article tried to give her a hint:

    … meet another of my respondents, Alex: “Maybe we turn to video games not because we are trying to run away from the responsibilities of a ‘grown-up life’ but because they are a better companion than some disease-ridden bar tramp who is only after money and a free ride.” Care for one more? This is from Dean in California: “Men are finally waking up to the ever-present fact that traditional marriage, or a committed relationship, with its accompanying socially imposed requirements of being wallets with legs for women, is an empty and meaningless drudgery.”

    And that’s from her own article. She really makes no attempt to get inside a guy’s head, and figure out why marriage may or may not be a good choice.

    Is it for sex? Well, I know many who can take any women to bed after one date.
    Is it for respect? I think the man’s special place is no longer honored in the family.
    Is it for affection? Only on a gal’s terms.
    For children? I still haven’t met a gal who wants a decent sized family.
    For a pure gal? Not given the above, and that everyone seems to be sleeping around.
    For family life? Not when microwaving counts as gourmet cooking, and everything is tit-for-tat.

    I guess Hymowitz’s solution is just for guys to grow up, take responsibility, and get on with your traditional role. No matter how your partner may not be traditional. Or worthy of such a commitment. It doesn’t seem like a good bargain. Maybe that’s why guys aren’t in any rush. I mean, who wouldn’t want to marry a gal that treasures male qualities and has a high character? But that’s just not how things are, unfortunately.

    • Mysterious C, do you think that some people actually view God this way?

      In the sense that he is basically there to serve us, and that his goals and desires are really nothing for us to be concerned about? When I think of God, I think of the General. I think of being on a battlefield and trying to think of what I can do to please the General. I don’t think of my own needs, because I have a job to do. But I find that this view of God (2 Tim 2:4, etc.) is the polar opposite of what I encounter in the church. There, it seems like God’s forgiveness and compassion are emphasized. So we can do whatever we feel like, whatever we have a “peace” about, in church-parlance, and God’s job is to forgive us and assure us that everything will work out for our happiness now and forever. I think that we are treating God the way that modern women treat men. We expect him to keep doing things for us, but we have no interest at all in what we can do for him.

      Notice how angry many commenters were when I asked the question about what the value proposition was for men to marry. And also noticed how much trouble I got into with some people for insisting that we make a plan to defend God using apologetics, or to raise effective children. I was debating one of Letitia’s friends on Facebook who quoted the Bible to me and lectured me on piously on the reasons why there were no right and wrong ways to pursue romance and relationships, because that was “legalism”. It was “legalism” to be chaste before you marry. It was “legalism” to insist that a man attend church before marrying him. All external constraints on the actions of Christians with respect to God are legalism. They don’t want to know the rules, and they don’t want to follow them. God is just a tool we bring out when we need him, and when we don’t have a need, we put him away and have fun however we want.

      It reminds me very much of the attitude of women today towards men. Give me what I want, no matter how selfishly I act.

      • Mysterious C says:

        In the sense that people are prideful, yes, that way of looking at things will contaminate your character, and thus all your relationships, with God and with men, or women.

        I don’t think there’s anything wrong with noting God’s forgiveness and compassion – that is part of the gospel. It’s when things become so feminized and unbalanced that there are problems. It’s great to tell people they are forgiven, but they also need to be told to man up and follow God’s word, and battle for him. I might also add that Paul does use the metaphor of a soldier when he talks about being strong in Christ, using the sword of the Spirit, the shield of faith, etc. And he also talks about demolishing arguments that are opposed to Christ (2 Cor 10:5).

        The friend you mentioned sounds like a heretical antinomian. Paul wrote Romans 5 and 6 for such people. And Jesus noted that those who obeyed him were those who loved him (John 14, I believe). And obviously, it’s a moral failing and a sin to marry a non-Christian. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to stop many from doing it.

        I would also note that it is an option for women to disregard a man’s leadership, and to not go for the roles discussed in the Bible. I don’t think that this is necessarily sinful, as it is when we use God out of selfish pride. What I would say is that when women do these things, there will always be repercussions. This was the point of the Goldberg article you earlier cited – our biology sets us up to behave in specific ways, and no amount of socialization will make men more nurturing than women, will make non-feminine women attractive to men, etc. There’s only so much leeway before chaos ensues, and men react to the situation. Which is why it is so stupid of Hymowitz to say “man up” when the rules of the game have completely changed.

  5. Dina says:

    The problem started with the rise of the feminist. Feminism is rebellion, and however much it is described as liberating equality for women, it actually has at its core a dislike of men and male leadership.
    Women can dress how they like, to the point where we become totally desensitised to vast amounts of flesh on display. Modesty becomes staid and old fashioned. Is this what men want to marry?
    Women can work and have a family so we raise a generation of latch-key kids who go home to an empty house, microwave dinner and no mother. Or even worse, have a paid stranger bring them up. Is this what men want to marry?
    Feminism has been the most destructive influence on marriage and family life in the last 40 years. Women were somehow taught to view male and female relationships as one of conflict and battle where the enemy is the one you share your life with. I deliberately didn’t say husband. Women didn’t have to marry anymore, makes it easier to dump him when she gets bored or he doesnt live up to her vision of the ever changing goalposts demanded of him. Is this what men want to marry?
    Women are not obliged to respect men anymore, but demand respect from them in return.
    I could go on (and on and on).
    I was at the opticians today picking new glasses, and the man who was helping me choose said to me I would need feminine frames since I had such a ‘traditional feminine look’. I had never considered what I wear in this way, its just what I wear.
    I was created by God to be a woman. I love my God given right to be a woman. There is no oppression in my submission to God’s will regarding the way I look, dress, speak, act and worship. On the contrary, its my delight and the freedom it brings is one of the most liberating things I’ve experienced.
    Until women stop doing themselves this heinous dis-service, and embrace a return to the roles they were created for, the marriage stats will not change, nor will society’s misery.

    • Retha says:

      Erm, Dina, the roles women were created for? What roles will that be? Genesis 1 tells me we, like men were created to have dominion over the earth. And Genesis 2 that we were created as strong helping equals (look up what ezer kenegdo, the term translated helpmeet, mean) on the same height as the man.
      And whatever God could have changed about that at the fall, he would not have placed Adam, the knowing sinner, rights to oversee the misled Eve. (http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2009/12/show-stoppers-genesis-316-he-will-rule.html )

      • Retha says:

        The sentence “he would not have placed Adam, the knowing sinner, rights to oversee the misled Eve” should have been “He would not have given Adam, the knowing sinner, the responsibility/ right to oversee the misled Eve.”

  6. Retha says:

    Wintery, it is wise to want to see the value of marriage. But remember that love and encouragement has value too. And yes, women should consider what men want from marriage.

    But then, don’t you think that men, like women, have some selfish, sinful wants for marriage?

  7. Retha says:

    I think the problem of men not wanting to marry is caused by women actually believing feminism – that men and women are identical. Once you believe that, there is no special role that men are supposed to play, and no way to distinguish a man who fills that role from one who doesn’t. According to feminism, which most young women believe, men aren’t meant to be providers, protectors or moral/spiritual leaders. Chastity is out. A boring, good-paying job is out. Morality is out. Sobriety is out. Apologetics and theology are out.

    Wait a minute. You argue that (1) if the sexes are the same then (2) there is no special roles for men and therefore (3)no way to distinguish between men who fills the roles from those who do not.

    I do not regard the sexes as the same. But this is an answer to your argument.

    The link between 1 and 2: If the sexes are the same, there would still be special roles for men – the same special roles of adulthood given to men and women. In fact, a family is a great place for special roles, as children need both parents. (Parenthood is, by the way, one of the best arguments for the sexes not being the same, but that is not the point here.) There would also still be the special God-given role that God gives each believer with his/ her talents.

    3: Society does distinguish between a man who fullfils his role and a man who does not. You must have heard of people berating a man for not paying child support. (Similarly, they criticize mothers who neglect their part. You know that even people with liberal values in your eyes will berate a woman for leaving her child with the grandmother while she moves in with new boyfriends.) In fact, even by complaining that young men today rather hang out in bars than marry, they are distinghuishing between a man who fullfills his role and a man who does not.

    As for “according to the feminist view, men are not meant to be providers” almost everyone believe men are meant to be providers. Some men want their wife to help with that burden, finding it too big to carry alone. In those families both parents still believe men (and woman) are meant to be providers. Lefties even expand it and say wealthy taxpayers (disproportionally male) should provide for the whole society. They definitely believe men have a providing role.

    Similarly, both parents protect their children, a husband protect his wife physically, a wife protect her husbands health, both protect the good name of the other, and men are still protecters. Spiritually, both parents, if they are mature Christians, lead the family. Either can be involved in ministry work where God use them as leaders, if they are up to spiritual leadership. Those are special roles given to adults, and couples can honor each other for and by fulfilling those roles.

  8. McSpinster says:

    A couple of Biblical instructions come to mind here to quell the disturbance:

    Before you can pluck the speck out of your sister’s (or brother’s) eye, you are first commanded to take the BEAM out of your own eye. If you don’t do this, you are a hypocrite.

    WK, every time you post one of these stories on your blog to get people riled up, you are calling on them to focus on specks and not to handle beams. The mindful ones resist, but plenty can’t. This is how you build an audience in blogland, but let’s call it what it is: stirring up a crowd. And over what? An article in a newspaper.

    Why not stir them up to handle beams? Or to resist evil by offering up the other cheek? Or forgive those who curse and use us? I know you feel these are somehow “female” instructions, and not “male” ones. But you’re wrong. Doing so is central to faith. Keeps us focused on our own spiritual growth. The put downs and self-righteousness over how men are and how women are are all a distraction. Sure, it’s hard to focus on our own beams, but isn’t that what we’re all interested in, anyway: doing our own heavy lifting?

    I’ll choose a man who does his own heavy lifting any day over a man who spends all his time fingerpointing. And I suspect men feel the same way about women. Let’s build on that and not let such distractions keep us going in circles, over the same tired old ground, eh? Let’s be heavy lifters instead of fingerpointers. You can be one, or the other, but you can’t be both.

    • JNorton says:

      Aren’t you fingerpointing now? And over what? A blog post about an article in a newspaper?

      • McSpinster says:

        Yes, in a very small way. But the grand poohbah of fingerpointing is really Wintery. So as much as I’d like to accept your compliments, all accolades for detecting motes in other people’s eyes should really go to him. Oh! And I should also mention, that quote? I didn’t write it. It’s from this great part of the Bible, the Sermon on the Mount. Do you know it?

      • I don’t think she understands what self-refutation is.

    • Mary says:

      @McS: So if WK sees something amiss in society and in attitudes towards marriage he should just shut up and keep quiet because you think it’s a small matter and you don’t like what he has to say about it? Well, if you think it’s a small matter, why bother reading and commenting? If criticism is such an inherently bad thing, why are you criticizing him? If you disagree with something he says and you want to engage in the conversation, why not argue logically, with evidence, to counter it? The tired old liberal whine that “you may not criticize anything because you’re imperfect” is self refuting, as others have rightly pointed out.

      • McSpinster says:

        My comments here are going to deal with one issue and one issue only: Does Wintery focus on the sins of other people to the exclusion of his own, here on this blog?

        According to Jesus, if he does, then he is a hypocrite. Not according to me–according to Jesus. Right. That guy.

        I think it’s very plain from reading this blog (as I have for, oh, say, more than eight months) that Wintery does focus on motes and ignores his own beams, but you’re an evidence kind of gal. So here’s what I’m going to do: a word count on his rantings about the evils/sins of feminism, women in general, liberals and specific Democrats.

        Then I’m going to do a wordcount on his writings about his own failings. And we’ll compare.

        A Christian hypocrisy index, if you will.

        Stay tuned, love.

        • wgbutler777 says:

          McSpinster,

          I disagree with you that Wintery Knight has to give us the details of his own personal flaws in order to be able to expound on the issues of the day that he cares about.

          I find this logic quite bizarre, and an implicit admission that you can’t really deal with the facts that WK raises, so you want something to attack him personally with.

          Personally, I don’t particularly care to hear about WKs sins and flaws. I realize that he is a human being and has personal failings like every other human being on the planet, hence the need for a savior. The purpose of this blog is to discuss the issues of the day, and not the personal failings of any one person in particular.

          • McSpinster says:

            I can see that Wintery’s bashing of women/liberals/other people is very popular with his audience, but your liking or agreeing with it does not confer an exemption from Jesus’ teaching on this particular form of hypocrisy–as much as you would like it to.

          • Retha says:

            Wgbutler, I agree with you that Wintery Knight does not have to speak of himself. But I also think that the beam-speck principle hold. For example; I am a Christian. If I always talk and think about only the flaws of atheists, I would miss my/ our flaws. I am a woman, the same thing if I only talk of men’s faults.
            I do not care about Wintery’s personal faults, but I would want to see evidence that he also notices flaws in the groups he is part of. Conservatives and men certainly have their flaws too.

          • wgbutler777 says:

            McSpinster,

            >>>
            but your liking or agreeing with it does not confer an exemption from Jesus’ teaching on this particular form of hypocrisy–as much as you would like it to.
            >>>

            You have an incorrect definition of hypocrisy.

            According to dictionary.com, hypocrisy is:
            “a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.”

            From everything that I have seen, WK truly believes in what he believes in. He attends Christian apologetics conferences and discusses Christian issues with everyone he encounters.

            If I caught WK secretly attending NOW meetings and giving money to Planned Parenthood, then he would be a gigantic hypocrite, according to the ACTUAL definition of hypocrisy.

            You are simply getting tired of defending indefensible ideas and want something to bash WK with. It’s what liberals usually do when they encounter ideas that they cannot defeat intellectually. For example, when you point out that high taxes are generally bad for the free market economy, that is when they typically start calling you a racist.

          • wgbutler777 says:

            Retha,

            >>
            If I always talk and think about only the flaws of atheists, I would miss my/ our flaws. I am a woman, the same thing if I only talk of men’s faults.
            >>

            I understand the general point you are making, and I agree that men are as equally flawed as women are. They just manifest their sin nature in different ways.

            But the cultural landscape is dominated by anti-man/pro-feminist propaganda so there is really no need for WK to present both sides of the issue.

            When you compare his little blog, Dr. Laura, Focus on the Family, and some of the fathers rights group out there to the vast majority of academic campuses, Hollywood and news media, feminist organizations, and an entire political party dedicated to the destruction of the family, its extremely lopsided in favor of radical feminism.

            What you should instead be doing, as one tiny example, is writing a letter to ABC/NBC/CBS and tell them to stop putting commercials on TV that always show the husband in a family as a clueless buffoon and the wife as the smart person.

          • Jared says:

            wgbutler777: +1

            well said.

          • Mara says:

            And yet, WG, when you look at Focus on the Family and all the knee jerk reactions of CBMW and big name preachers toward evilll feminization, they DO go over board within the borders of “Christianity”.

            And the knee jerk reaction within the body of Christ can be and actually is just as destructive as the evillll feminists outside.
            And in some areas it is MORE destructive to men, women, children, and families because it is forming a cancer within that is more dibilitating and deadly than the toxins without.

            Then those that are within the borders of Christianity, who are being destroyed by the knee jerk overcompensation of destroying the feminine, have had enough. Guess where they run to?
            The feminists and other groups that the Christian right slandered far beyond what they should have done.

            I believe in standing for right.

            But remember, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principatilies and powers and evil forces in the heavenly places.

            When we make arguments, it is best to remember this and to NOT villify the feminine, the feminist, the homosexual, and whatever group you oppose.

            But it is especially important to not villify the feminine and use ‘feminization’ as a negative term because women can only hear that for so long before they’ve had enough and go somewhere else where it isn’t a sin or a deficit or a lesser thing to be born female.

        • wgbutler777 says:

          Mara,

          >>
          when you look at Focus on the Family and all the knee jerk reactions of CBMW and big name preachers toward evilll feminization, they DO go over board within the borders of “Christianity”
          >>

          What exactly is your problem with Focus on the Family? They do great work and really help alot of people out.

          >>
          And in some areas it is MORE destructive to men, women, children, and families because it is forming a cancer within that is more dibilitating and deadly than the toxins without.
          >>

          This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

          >>
          Then those that are within the borders of Christianity, who are being destroyed by the knee jerk overcompensation of destroying the feminine, have had enough. Guess where they run to?
          >>

          Whoever talked about “destroying the feminine”? I VALUE the feminine. Quite frankly, I want to PRESERVE the feminine, as well as the family.

          God tells us the best way to live our lives. He wants women to be cherished, valued, chaste wives and mothers who take care of their families.

          Human secularism wants women to be discardable sexual objects. It wants women to be loose and immoral and tries to make it as easy as possible for girls and women to have sex outside of marriage.

          If these women end up getting pregnant, human secularism wants these women to have abortions. If the women keep their children, human secularism wants to women to raise the children as single mothers. If these women do get married to the father, human secularism wants the women to have as an easy of a time as possible to divorce the fathers. If the women decide to stay married to the father, human secularism wants to undermine the authority and respect of the father as much as possible.

          Everything in God’s word points the exact opposite way of human secularism. And THAT is the side that I support.

          But radical feminism has largely succeeded in accomplishing their goals. Perhaps this is why God says in His word in Malachi 4 that “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse…”

          God knew that Satan would attack the family and alienate the fathers from the children. And that is why restoring this relationship is the central focus of Malachi 4.

          <>

          Regarding homosexuals, I oppose the homosexualization of our culture and gay totalitarianism. It is the gay totalitarians, who label their adversaries as hatemongers and bigots, and chase Christian students from the Universities and legally prosecute Christians who do not affirm their lifestyle, that you should be talking to. You have it exactly backwards.

          I also believe the apostle Paul when he writes in I Corinthians 6

          “Or do you not know that the unrighteousb will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,c 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God…”

          • Mara says:

            >>
            And in some areas it is MORE destructive to men, women, children, and families because it is forming a cancer within that is more dibilitating and deadly than the toxins without.
            >>

            WG:This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

            It only makes no sense to you because you are unaware of how far off so many Christian groups have gone to battle the evillll feminist agenda.

            Here are a few blogs dealing with the cancer from within.

            One hosted by a Christian guy:

            http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/

            One hosted by a former Christian woman who is now considering atheism (if she hasn’t made the transition. Last I heard she still attends a salvation army church even though she doesn’t believe in the Christian God anymore). The present post is by a friend of mine who IS a Christian. Fortunately the Hostess here allows Christians to post as well as (unfortunately) atheists and pagans:

            http://nolongerquivering.com/

            Another Christian one:

            http://www.quiveringdaughters.com/

            I agree with you that secularism and the kind of feminism that promotes hatred of men, discourages families, and promotes loose sex and abortion should be opposed.
            It does cheapen women.

            But I’m seeing that the remedy or medicine against the secular and feminist that many churches offer has too many side affects. And in some (more than you care to know about) cases, it’s worse than the ailment.

            Forcing Christians to follow certain formulas is a reaction against the secular that is causing more problems than it is solving.

            I want the Gospel to be preached and for people to give their lives to Jesus. I want them to heal up, shape up, and live right.
            (also want to see more apologetics in churches everywhere)
            But people are leaving churches in large numbers for a reason.
            And it’s not just because apologetics isn’t being taught.
            It’s because the gospel is being compromised by adding things to it, adding formulas.

            Here’s a post from another survivor of spiritual abuse who can’t go back to church, but fortunately clings to God.

            http://www.elizabethesther.com/2011/02/if-youre-not-attending-church-youre-backsliding.html

            These are only a few of the blogs out there and these that I mention have large followings.

            (Oh, and what do I have against Dobson? I used to listen to him religiously. But his advice to abused women could get them killed. And after years and years of preaching the same thing on his radio show to a large Christian audience, if it really worked, then Christian marrages should be doing better than secular and atheist ones because of his huge influence*. They aren’t. And that isn’t the feminist’s fault. She had no power over Christian women. Something else was and is destroying Christian marriages. The feminist, again, is just an easy target for many Christian men to shoot at because they refuse to face the facts in their own church and personal situations**.)(*His influence has dwindled considerably.)(**I know your situation, WG, is quite different than what I describe and I appreciate your faithfulness in your situation to your children, your grace to your ex, and your present happiness with you wife. But your situation is nothing like the situations so many women are finding themselves in, following the formulas they’ve been spoonfed from childhood, many of those formulas inspired by Dobson and taken much further by others.)

          • desmognathus says:

            wg said: “God [...] wants women to be cherished, valued, chaste wives and mothers who take care of their families. Human secularism wants women to be discardable sexual objects. It wants women to be loose and immoral [...] If these women do get married to the father, human secularism wants the women to have as an easy of a time as possible to divorce the fathers…”

            I think it’s a little funny that all of these statements are equally true if we reverse the gender roles in them. :) I’m pretty sure guys are supposed to be chaste, too, and that our culture encourages them to be “loose and immoral.” I think part of what a lot of people find annoying about gender-based critiques of culture is that they usually seem to leave out half of the equation. That is a situation that lends itself to one group feeling either left out or attacked, depending on the tone of the critique. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t discuss gender; we should realize that it’s easy to shoot ourselves in the foot by not being terribly clear about our care for both groups.

          • wgbutler777 says:

            Mara,

            You seem weirdly fixated on people who have been victimized by other people with supposedly conservative views, as though no one with a liberal, feminist, pro-gay viewpoint ever abused anyone.

            BTW, have you ever read the book, “Out From Under” by Dawn Stefanowicz? It’s an auto-biography about how her childhood was a living hell because she lived with an actively homosexual father. SAYYY… do you ever go to liberal blogs and complain about all the people who have been abused by feminists and homosexuals, or is your outrage selective?

            In a strange kind of way, talking to you is liking talking to an atheist. “God really does exist”, I say. “God made the Universe! Look at physics and how amazingly fine-tuned the Universe is!”, I say.

            “But..but..but….what about the CRUSADES….what about the INQUISITION!!!!” they reply, as though that has anything to do with the price of tea in China. It’s not logical and it makes no sense to me whatsoever. All it does is highlight their rebellion to the will of God.

            I deal in ideas and facts. What Joe Schmoe does down the street is irrelevant to truth.

            >>
            Oh, and what do I have against Dobson? I used to listen to him religiously. But his advice to abused women could get them killed.
            >>

            And what advice is that, prey tell?

            >>
            And after years and years of preaching the same thing on his radio show to a large Christian audience, if it really worked, then Christian marrages should be doing better than secular and atheist ones because of his huge influence*. They aren’t.
            >>

            They are. A study last year found that couples who share religious practices tend to be happier than couples who don’t:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081101961.html

            The whole “Christianity has no effect on divorce rates” diatribe is a myth. Studies have found that COMMITTED Christians who attend church regularly have much lower divorce rates than nominal Christians or the population at large:

            http://thinkingonthemargin.blogspot.com/2011/02/religion-romance-divorce-rates-vs.html

            http://www.crosswalk.com/marriage/11646360/

            >>
            *I know your situation, WG, is quite different than what I describe and I appreciate your faithfulness in your situation to your children, your grace to your ex, and your present happiness with you wife
            >>

            Thank you for the kind words. But IMHO things really are pretty simple. Divorce and single parent homes are much more common now than they were in the past because these things are tolerated, even celebrated by society and supported by the tax payers. And child support and alimony laws make it extremely easy for a woman to file for a divorce because she can take much of the man’s assets and income with her. Any suggestion of feeling threatened creates a “guilty until proven innocent” environment for the man, and it is now par for the course that virtually every divorce case involves an accusation of violence or threat in order to give the woman the upper hand.

            It may well be true that in the past women had to put up with a lot of horrible things because they had no other real choices, but the solution to those problems have been much worse than the original problems. Now we have generations of fatherless children who are growing up to be criminals and huge burdens on society, to say nothing of the broken hearts and psychological damage to everyone involved. It looks like God really did know what He was talking about after all.

          • I turned my reply to you into a post for March 2nd, 6 PM.

  9. Mary says:

    An interesting post. I think we need to distinguish between two broad categories of men:

    1) The adultescent louts (the ones Hymowitz discusses)
    These are the beer-swilling, TV-addicted irresponsible types. These ones aren’t interested in marriage in the first place other than if they are denied sex outside of marriage. Easier access to sex nowadays makes them even less likely to marry. Few of them are likely to be bothered about fiscal policy or divorce laws in the first place. But sensible women aren’t interested in them as potential husbands anyway. They make lousy husbands.

    2) Good, decent, marriageable men (the ones Captain Capitalism is talking about)
    These ones are responsible. These ones actually want marriage. These are the ones who are put off by poor fiscal policy and unfair divorce laws.

    So different types of men have different reasons for not marrying.

    I think Hymnowitz is spending too much time moaning about type 1 men, instead of examining why type 2 men might find the prospect of marriage unappealing and why there are so many type 1 men in the first place.

    Moreover, there are some type 1 men who might be transformed into type 2 men if women would just stop giving them the time of day when it comes to dating them as type 1 men.

    I think a lot of men too easily slot into being type 1 men because nobody challenges them to be more. And a lot of women accept type 1 men as the best they can do because nobody challenges them to expect more from men.

    I think that high standards have gotten a bad rap. We are told that we can’t encourage chastity in schools because it’s just not realistic and we must promote “safe sex” instead. Gee, how to set someone up for failure… It’s like telling them they can’t do well at academics, so we won’t even suggest it, we’ll just try to get them to scrape through. Any wonder that young people are now barely living up to the low expectations we set them?

    Hymnowitz does make some good points along these lines:
    “Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.”

    “But these rational choices on the part of women only serve to legitimize men’s attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There’s nothing they have to do.”

    And there you have it. If we are embarrassed about the best qualities that responsible men bring to marriage (fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity), then we shouldn’t be surprised if the average man feels discouraged when it comes to being a responsible man. If we keep calling these traditional qualities “paternalistic” or “chauvinistic” and elevate the feminine over the masculine instead of seeing them as complementary, then we will get enfeebled, feminized men. Can’t have it both ways…

  10. desmognathus says:

    Mara, I love the last three sentences in your post.

    That helps me clarify in my mind something that makes me uncomfortable about a lot of these conversations. As you said, we wrestle not against flesh and blood… In fact, the “flesh and blood” involved is people whom our Saviour loves enough to die for, and that we should be leading to Him. It is important to recognize these destructive trends in our culture and combat them while praying and loving people caught up in them, and not making it sound as though we hold those people in contempt. People who spread the falsehoods are victims of those falsehoods, too. And weren’t we all “slaves to sin” at one point?

    Instead of sliding toward “Feminists want to destroy the universe!” or “Women slap puppies for fun! Oops, just most women, not you specifically!” or “Democrats want to take your lunch money and make you cry!”, Christians need to be more careful to frame these discussions in terms of the ideas and sins that we oppose. We can talk about the dangers of those ideas without making people who are stuck in them the focus of our attacks. After all, “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Now THAT is our example – and we were much worse sinners against God than any of those groups could be against us.

    If we leave personal-sounding attacks to the “other side,” the people that they alienate may come to God. If we thoughtlessly alienate people, they will run from us, and from our God.

    • wgbutler777 says:

      desmognathus,

      While I agree that it is generally a good idea to treat all people with respect and dignity, that should in no way inhibit us from speaking the truth of the Gospel. If someone gets offended by the truth, that is their problem.

      Jesus called the Pharisees around Him a “generation of vipers” and “white washed sepulchers”. I don’t think He was terribly concerned about hurting their feelings. Many of the prophets and apostles were put to death for their rather blunt preaching.

      Notice how Stephen addressed the people in Acts 7:

      “51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

      54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
      57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him…”

      Earlier in Acts 6 the Bible describes Stephen as “…Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people…” so he was obviously doing things, including speaking to non-believers, according to the will of God.

      Furthermore, know this: these constraining standards you wish to impose on the people of God will NEVER be adhered to by the secular humanists. They will always be at complete liberty to be as ugly and disrespectful as they wish to be.

      I’m not saying that we should be the same way as they are, but we should never be so afraid of offending people that we cease to speak the truth with firm conviction and courage. I know that I will never allow myself to be cowed by the “don’t offend anyone and be nice” crowd to refrain from speaking the truth.

    • Mara says:

      Thanks, Desmognathus.
      The third wave feminist’s agenda truly is evil and bad for women, men, and children. I want it to lose power and steam.
      I want Christians to stop fueling that power through knee jerk reactions.
      I also want Christian leadership to stop placing bondages on Christian women because of their anger toward the thirdwaver. They need to stop taking out their frustration on all women for the sins of the thirdwaver. She does not represent all women.

  11. McSpinster says:

    Dude, if you have a problem interpreting the Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus’s words on hypocrisy, then don’t take it up with me. I didn’t write it. Take it up with your clergyman (or woman). Better yet, pray about it. And try and get the self-justification out of the way. It tends to skew the results.

    • Jared says:

      McSpinster, do you think the Christian is supposed to be silent in regard to political issues and/or any other social issues?

      • McSpinster says:

        And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
        4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
        5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

        I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

        • wgbutler777 says:

          I think that verse has nothing to do with his question, which, by the way, the answer is a firm NO.

          Christians are not to be silent on the issues of the day. God has commanded us to be the salt and the light of the world.

          Hiding in a corner and keeping our mouths shut so we don’t offend anyone is a violation of that command.

          • McSpinster says:

            WG, Jared: It’s possible to address all kinds of delicate and weighty moral issues without devolving into an “us” vs. “them” kind of discussion. People do it every day: it is the cornerstone of civilized discourse, but more than that, it heeds Christ’s teaching about beams and motes. Furthermore, being obedient to it should be a joyful activity, not a chore or occasion for complaint. If anything, it should make you more aware, more thoughtful in your analysis of the issues of the day, and more likely to find a solution that helps others –instead of only taking sides in an argument.

          • Jared says:

            According to your response, lay apologists like WK and professional apologists are doing what you deem non-hypocritical, i.e., “…to find a solution that helps others.” Correct me if I’m wrong; if you are more aware and more thoughtful in your analysis of the issues of the day, would you not end up taking sides in an argument? In order to find a solution, you have to be in opposition to something, wouldn’t you agree? If a person is not on one side of a problem, then he is double-minded and thus, unbalanced.

            Also, do you really hold to what you are saying in your reply? From what I can understand you interpret the speck and the plank passage to mean that Christians are to be silent when issues arise in discussion. Following your formula, then Christians could not find a solution that helps others because even in civil discourse (you mention civil discourse is OK), one is making a judgment/truth claim and standing for something, which is not being silent. I understand not having yelling and screaming fits in a discussion, that is not a discussion. We agree on that. However, civil discussion involves taking a stand for something and making a case for that something.

        • Jared says:

          I’m a little confused McSpinster, could you help me out? I don’t understand how the verses you mentioned tell Christians to be silent on political and social issues. What I mean by political issues is; the issues that affect our country and by social issues I mean the issues that we come into contact with on a daily basis, i.e., our discussions with people and such.

    • wgbutler777 says:

      McSpinster,

      I have no problem with Jesus sermon on the mount.

      I’m just saying that your previous assertion that Wintery Knight is a “hypocrite” for refusing to disclose the secret sins in his life, and that this somehow disqualifies him from speaking out on the evils of feminism and liberalism, is completely wrong.

  12. McSpinster says:

    A Point of Clarification:

    I never said anywhere that “Wintery Knight is a ‘hypocrite’ for refusing to disclose secret sins.” (your words, not mine). What I said was that the vast extent of Wintery’s writings on the evils of other people/groups (motes) compared to the scant number of his writings on his own (beams) demonstrated exactly the form of hypocrisy that Jesus identified in Matthew 7:3-5. And then I offered to count them up for fun.

    I can only gather from your comments that you believe that Wintery’s comments pointing out evils in others is somehow an exception to what Jesus was talking about, either because you’re in sympathy with it, or because a lot of people agree with him politically, or he’s into Christian Apologetics or he’s popular as a blogger or whatever

    But there is no whatever here. There’s no exception in the Sermon on the Mount making that OK. Not for me, for you, or for WK or for anyone else.

  13. McSpinster says:

    Jared, like all of Jesus’ teachings, they always make more sense when you conform your way of doing things to the principle laid forth (in this case, Matthew 7:3-5) instead of the other way around. Try it and see!

  14. Retha says:

    Mara said: And in some areas it is MORE destructive to men, women, children, and families because it is forming a cancer within that is more dibilitating and deadly than the toxins without.

    Wgbutler777 said: This statement makes no sense whatsoever

    Wgbutler, Perhaps this will help you understand. The teaching “women are not made in the image of God, only men are” is something believed and propagated from some churches. It was even commented on this blog recently. Can you see how that cancer within the church is more to the dishonor of God than many evils outside? Does this anti-Biblical lie bother you at all?

  15. antoinette says:

    After reading so many responses my head spins. We’re in moral degeneracy and decline. Men and women are responsible, not just because of feminism, but because of a lack of spiritual growth on homo sapiens part. Marriage is about respect and loving. For the man its giving as Christ gave for the Church, for the woman it’s about respecting and following, that doesn’t mean she can’t have her say or that she’s a doormat but that she respect her husband.

    I come from a different generation. I believe in the individual and the individual’s responsibility and personal relationship with God. As a Christian that means constant growth, constant testing and much falling short, but knowing that even in falling He is with me.

    I’ve gone through a divorce and would love to remarry, but even at that I don’t want to lower my standards and so far so many of the people I’ve met don’t have a clue about what a vow or commitment means. I kept up my end in my marriage, but it still failed as it seems so many marriages fail today, but the problem isn’t always with women, but men who aren’t Godly and who look to self gratification instead of following the Word.

    I see young women today and I look at men, yes everyone it seems thinks the way to happiness is through the bedroom. Even in my age bracket and it’s disturbing because without respect there can be no true love and that goes for Christian and non-Christian alike…

    We as Americans have lost respect for ourselves, our Country and the core values that gave us so much. I firmly believe the hardest test a nation will have to pass is the test of prosperity because we now all feel entitled and deserving and don’t understand the meaning of what it means to “wait patiently on the Lord”, every has to be for instant gratification.

    Feminism is a choice. To act like a man or not to act like a man is a choice. If we take our cues from each other then we have not put much thought into who we really are and as I said previously truly have little respect for ourselves or the Lord.

  16. Ida T. Hall says:

    I met my husband at work and discovered he went to the same church. Maybe if you girls cleaned up your acts, you’d find the guy of your choice — he’s not in the bars!!!

  17. Mark says:

    excuse me, it is more like the women don’t want to get married anymore. there are many of us good straight men looking for a love life again, especially after our wife cheated on us. i myself was married for almost 15 years, and i was a very caring and loving husband that was very much committed to her as well. it is very hard nowadays connecting with a good woman again, since many of them now have such a very bad attitude problem and are so very difficult to start a normal conversation with. can’t blame myself at all for this, since many women have certainly changed today.

  18. Jason says:

    Single, dateless, child-free guy here in his forties.

    When I was in the secular world:

    -I was too nice
    -I wasn’t hot by societal standards
    -I wasn’t funny, or used my humor to put other people down
    -I didn’t brag about how awesome I was 24 / 7

    This is what women in the 1990’s in the crazy days of the Dot-com boom were evidently looking for.

    In the Christian world:

    -Every woman “seems” to only want a guy with a “good job” to re-daddy her kids that she made with the live-in boyfriend or husband who is now a “deadbeat,” evidently the humor didn’t pan-out when he had to step-up to the plate and be a FATHER and HUSBAND.

    -She’s not a feminist now….BUT she will dictate what she wants, and expects in man. It’s a LONG list. The only words she sees about men in the Bible are: Men are providers
    The rest of the Bible to her is “optional”

    -We’re all getting older, but when women tell me that all the men in church are no good they tend to mean “balding” or the “spare tire” without looking in the proverbial mirror at their own age, and shortcomings in physical appearance.

    -Many men in church or of God are in good shape (like me), have a decent job, and want a Christian woman…but the problem is church itself. If a man wants to be of God, and hold himself in the proper manner and ask a woman out…..and let’s say “she says no”

    That now makes her friends off-limits…let’s be real here, church environments (even the Holiest ones!) tend to have gossip. A real man of God doesn’t want the “reputation” of being a “creep” or “the guy who asks women out” in church. Many men, like myself and many, many others REALLY want to serve Christ. It makes it hard to even talk to a woman in church because of these standards. Especially a man like me who is more of the shy type.

    Add to this the fact that too many Christian women think: “Men pursue us. We sit here and wait. He has to be a real man and do it.”

    Too many men in Faith just don’t want the”what if” baggage on that, and decide to just use church as the place to worship God. And that’s it.

    It’s not being “cowardly” it’s just unfortunate. There are a few women (my age) I would love to have a date or coffee with BUT at this point in my life…..Christ comes first, and I feel safe and welcome in my church. I cannot jeopardize my community of faith for a reputation of what if she says “no” or we date a few times, and it doesn’t work out, and I then have to “pursue” another one.

    If The Savior deems a wife for me, it will be made known to me.

    • TheAbsoluteTruth says:

      you are so right on the button with your comment, and many of us straight guys can just see how women have changed over the years. there are so many women nowadays that have a very serious attitude problem and are playing very hard to get. i was married myself, and my wife cheated on me like i have mentioned with my last comment. i was very content with my life at the time thinking that i was finally settled down, and going to have a family too. and with so many cheating women out there nowadays, meeting a good honest one is very hard now. i hate going out as it is, and it is like a game that these women seem to be playing too. i am in my late fifties, and it is without a doubt much harder for me to meet a good one now as you can see. and there are certainly much more gay women out there now adding to the problem, since many of them like making out on the dance floor at the clubs lately.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,511,230 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,156 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,156 other followers

%d bloggers like this: