Thursday, July 29, 2010

Answer to Matt

I have mostly Christian friends. Two of my male friends are married. Their wives happen to be my friends, too. The thing is, having heard all of the stories on MRA/MGTOW sites, I have a sense of negativity about their marriages. What I mean is, I have a nagging feeling that just because it didn't go so well for some other men out there, that my friends' marriages might not go well, either. Do you have any advice on how to deal with that? I hope that my friends' marriages will last and they won't get divorced, but the statistics on divorce that I read about are just so bad. Especially the statistics that indicate Christian divorce rates are higher than secular divorce rates.

I've been married all of 18 months. I'm not old and wise. I'm not above reproach. I haven't even made it through the "7-year-itch" yet.

However, there were things that I understood about marriage before I ever said yes to the proposal.

I knew I wouldn't always feel in love with my husband - that the "feeling" is just that - a feeling. And feelings are as flighty as a feather in a tornado. Just because I don't feel all gooey inside and my knees don't knock when I gaze deep in his eyes doesn't mean I don't love him. I was once in a relationship where I broke up with the guy everytime I was PMSing (my first boyfriend) and that's when I instituted my rule of no major decisions for 1.5 weeks out of the month.

I learned at an early age that you love even when you don't feel like it. My mom taught me that quite effectively while dealing with my siblings. Its probably not a big help that not many people teach that. Yes, occassionally my face gets all warm and a flood of happiness washes over me that will have me wiping away tears - but that happens maybe once in a blue moon and usually when I take the time to stop and look back and realize how happy and lucky I am.

But I'm different from a lot of women out there - I didn't date much. In fact, a total of 2 failed relationships taught me all I needed to know about starting a healthy relationship (success!) I didn't date much - though I always wanted to fall in love, get married, and have babies. So actually finding a man that loved me and that I loved back - who didn't resort to shaming tactics to gain my undying devotion - was something I wasn't willing to let go. I'm not taking this for granted.

Something else I practice in my personal life is that "divorce" is not a part of my dictionary. And so far, so good. Yeah, there are rough moments - the first year really is not that easy - and I've wanted to run home to mom and dad. But I know I can't because I made a promise - and so I stay and we work it out - and a wonderfully blessed quality of my husband is that he lets go of my transgressions rather easily and quickly. I think he's still mad at me and I'll be sitting there stewing over something and he'll open his mouth and say something that's completely without malice and has absolutely nothing to do with our argument - its like nothing ever happened.

What I have to say to you is that your friends' marriages are sacred in God's eyes and blessed by God. They will not always like eachother, you may see a nagging side to the wives, you may hear horror stories of marriage from the husbands - but as long as they are proactively seeking God and eachother, then they can work it out and they will build a happy and long marriage.

If your friends and their wives are anything like you and what I've seen on your blog, then the divorce statistics are not likely to apply. Those statistics among Christians with divorce are more than likely those that call themselves so and aren't actively practicing and seeking God. If they are and they have good mentoring relationships with other couples in a church, they are much less likely to end up in divorce (and there are statistics proving that, as well).

I hope that helped - there are some huge problems we face thanks to sin in the world but marriage was created with those things in mind. Its not impossible to succeed at it. It is hard though. But then, very few things worth doing are all that easy.

Friday, July 16, 2010


I'm going to try not to use my husband's shortcomings (no matter how amusing or how innocently I portray them) in anymore posts.

It will be hard because I tend to be on the anecdotal side when writing and it will be challenging to present some of my ideas (like the completion of husband and wife) without it, but I will try to do that.

However, men in general are not safe.

Excuse me because I think my son finally did what I have been expecting him to do since he could crawl - eating the cat food. My sister and I were doing that so much earlier than him!

(The challenge came from Blooming Grace)

My Vision

For some reason, especially after the criticism that I got from some "Anonymous", I've been feeling the need to clarify what I'm trying to do here on my blog.

I am not a Female MRA/MGTOW groupie. If you are coming here to find all censure of women and all praise of men, than go to an MRA blog. I am not going to be one of those women who cow-tow to prejudiced male opinion because I feel some kind of "Female Guilt".

I am not a Feminist. I will and have spoken to great length of my adverse opinion of Feminism. I do not do this because I think they have done some horrendous offense to men - I started this blog before I even knew what MRA/MGTOW was, before I knew how much fathers struggled in custody cases, and before I had any sympathy for single men who blew me off because I wasn't good enough for them.

I am a Christian. I write against Feminism because I believe it is against the word of God. And holding such a view, I will write and focus what I write against feminism towards that regard. Anti-Biblical.

Because I try to base my criticisms of Feminism biblically, I will also be highly critical of men - because they suffer from the same epidemic of humanity that women suffer from - SIN.

I will not be nice to men because they are so brutally treated by women. I will be nice to them out of their own right and because they are human - but I am not going to sit here and pretend that they are incapable of injustice, wrong-doing, abuse, greed, and pride.

I will, as an attempt to witness to any woman who stumbles across this blog, to provide a balanced background - which includes acknowledging struggles that women of history may have faced - but to always bring my readers to the point that God put in place a certain order for the world and how that can bring women peace and happiness in following it.

I have not always done a good job on this, I am not always focused on this, but that was my vision when I started this blog.

So any man that comes here and thinks I'm being too harsh on men because men are the victims here, I'll tell you to go and read your blogs on what you have to say about "White Guilt" and Black Victimization and take a real critical look at how you view yourself.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

The Root of Feminism

So lets take everything we've ever thought about Feminism and turn it on its head.

Origins: Eve

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.
Genesis 3:16 (NIV)

I've heard this curse translated two ways. This way was intensely helpful in my dealing with my singleness and my lack of desire to be single. I wanted a husband - I desired a husband. The pain that this desire caused while God continued to refuse to fulfill it was unbearable. With all the stuff out there in the church saying "God is all you need" and "Be happy in your singleness", I thought there was something wrong with me for feeling this way.

Turns out there was, but it wasn't unique to was an epidemic of sin in the hearts of all women.

The other way I've heard this translated was this:

Then he said to the woman,

“I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
and in pain you will give birth.
And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you.
Genesis 3:16 (NLT)

This one would definitely prove that "Feminism" is a result of our original sin and it IS something we have to deal with. And this is where modern day feminism separates women into two groups:

Those who fight against their innate sin and humanity to be obedient to God and those who don't recognize this desire as sin.

Sure, probably most don't, but I think that showing mercy on those who do strive to fight against it, even if they fail in some (or many) areas is what God has called all men (and women) to do.

"Forgive me as I forgive those who sin against me"

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Right or Wrong?

As a retaliatory post to some of the anti-Woman stuff I've been reading, I decided to take a look at a rather unsavory woman and analyze her actions.

I'm not opposed to anti-feminist. I'm opposed to anti-woman. And yes, they are different. Contrary to what these men say, not every woman alive buys the Feminist stuff hook, line, and sinker. Yeah, the majority of women may have bought into some bad habits, but women in general were not, are not, and will never be the outright evil that some of these sites seem to perpetuate. I'm tired of all the hate-filled speech. I get enough of it listening to the news and keeping up with current affairs to put up with the hate towards the opposite gender from men (and women) who call themselves Christians.

So here's a story. I'm going to keep her name a secret for now because it tends to bias people and excuse her actions.

Essentially, this woman dressed as a prostitute, deceived and seduced a man, got pregnant, and claimed that man should support her and her offspring.

Wow. All this after she'd been labeled a Black Widow.

So unsavory a character - there's absolutely no excuse for her actions - NONE. How appalling...she is what gives all woman a bad name. She got away with it?!?! The BITCH! The outrage! She should be hanged! The deceitful witch and poor poor man - he shouldn't have to put up with her shit.

Yeah - that's the general direction any man would go in after hearing that story put up like that.

But here's a little more details into her story.

Her first husband, by no reason mentioned except he was a bad (very bad) man, ended up dead. No details about his death, no details as to who he was or what he did - he was just a very bad man. "Says who," you ask? Some liberal, pro-feminist journalist?

Her second husband was selfish and didn't want any children (well he did, just not with her). That wasn't ok, so he ended up dead. "She killed him and you still think that's ok?" It certainly would appear that she did kill him. And still I'm sticking up for her.

No man wanted to marry her after that - but it was intensely critical that she have a child - intensely critical. So she seduced a man and got pregnant with his child. Wow.

Still not much to condone here is it. These details just made her sound even worse. She's manipulative so she can have a baby because no one will marry her and give her kids? What kind of a woman is this?

Ok...throw in some more details.

Location: Canaan
Time Period: Post-Jacob-ish

Culture: When the husband of a woman dies without producing any heirs, she is then married to the eldest brother of the late husband to conceive and bear an heir for the first brother.

Ok. So this woman married a man who died without producing an heir (he was a very bad man). So she was married to his brother who didn't want HIS offspring to belong to his brother. So he ignored this tradition and refused to beget any child by his brother's wife. So he died.

Still no heir. And now she's been essentially labeled a "Black Widow" and her father-in-law refuses to let his youngest marry her because he might end up dead, too.

So what's a woman to do? Well, suck it up and deal you say. Well, normally they would. But for some bizarre reason this woman felt it was critical for her to have a child.

So she seduced her father-in-law by dressing as a prostitute and conceived a child by him.

The whore. Still no excuse.

Ok - one more detail. It had already been prophesied that the Messiah would come from the line of Judah. Who is the father-in-law in this story but the most esteemed Judah, son of Jacob, who from his seed comes the Lion of Judah.

Already prophesied*. Which means if Judah's line perishes, there can be no messiah. I don't know if this woman knew of this prophesy, but Judah certainly did. He was there when his father laid hands on him and made that prophesy.
Judah, your brothers will praise you;
your hand will be on the neck of your enemies;
your father's sons will bow down to you.

You are a lion's cub, O Judah;
you return from the prey, my son.
Like a lion he crouches and lies down,
like a lioness—who dares to rouse him?

The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his.

He will tether his donkey to a vine,
his colt to the choicest branch;
he will wash his garments in wine,
his robes in the blood of grapes.

His eyes will be darker than wine,
his teeth whiter than milk.

~ Genesis 49:8-12

So this woman, who I'm sure you've guessed is Tamar, seduces her father-in-law because she does believe that it is her singular responsibility as a member of the covenant to produce an heir for her husband's family.

And an heir she does indeed produce. For she is one of the only woman (of five) to be listed in the lineage of Christ. No small feat, that, in a patriarchal society where the mother is not that big a deal to have your name forever etched in history as part of the Messiah's pedigree.

Of all the horrid and despicable things she did, her saving grace was obedience to the God of Abraham and Jacob.

Perhaps there's more saving grace out there for some more women.

This story is found in Genesis 38

*Note: The prophesy takes place in Chapter 49 while Tamar's story is in Chapter 38. I know there are some chronological issues with Genesis so I remain unclear if the prophesy took place before or after Tamar. However, I believe that the refusal to continue the lineage by Judah's second son was so heinous to God to deserve him struck dead was because of this Prophesy - not necessarily because God is against the use of Birth Control.

What do I hate most?

As much as I like to rant against Feminism and what it has done for the relations between men and women, I often think about what Feminism was retaliating against.

Do I think they were right in retaliating? No. Do I think the actions perpetuated prior to the feminist movement were ok? No. But I strongly believe two wrongs (or three wrongs or four wrongs) do NOT make a right.

I often hear men from the MRA side bemoaning the loss of the 1950's era. "Those good old days" when fathers were looked up to as the backbone of the family, strong and respected. Mr. Cleaver vs Homer (the differences in address was done on purpose). One deserves respect while the other, our ridicule. Men were seen as strong and upstanding citizens, hard workers, and disciplined fathers and husbands.

Women? They were respectful, modest, demure, wonderful cooks and housekeepers, good mothers, and lovely wives.

They were also belittled (politics is too complex for your brain) or convinced that what they do at home all day is absolutely nothing. You remember that 1950's article on a good wife? You know the one that says to have dinner ready when he walks in the door (commendable), be napped (I like this), and refresh yourself with powdering your nose so you look well rested and fresh when he comes home (nice, though a bit unrealistic)? Yeah - the article also says to give him space, let him relax, and take a load off because he's been working all day. And she hasn't? So she doesn't deserve to take a load off?

No wonder women became so angry. But instead of standing up for what they do, they believed that housework and raising children is a lazy and useless job - so they all fought for the right to leave the home and enter the workforce. They did in the 30's and they helped get us out of the depression and supplied many goods to our men fighting in Europe and the Pacific. It was valuable then, so why not now? So they fought and they won and now rarely does a woman stay home and cook, clean, look after children, and make herself presentable and refreshed for her husband - besides, it was useless work anyway.

And now men lament that they don't do that anymore. But still, they are harsh in their criticism of the work done at home. They belittle the value of that work - and in so doing, belittle the value of the woman doing that work.

To these men, women still appear to be worth nothing. They still think that the place for a woman is in the home and that that position is worthless. Nevermind that they miss it and see a need for it (rendering it worthwhile) but they would never admit to this.

They are just as wrong.

Better to live in the wilderness than with an angry and contentious woman.

Try and find one that isn't either of these.

So in conclusion, what do I hate most? I hate the sin that entered this world and made us so angry with eachother to the point that we are unable to look to God for answers and obey his laws even when those around us do not.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Oh Inventiveness

I was flipping through channels during naptime one day and came across the opening sequence for the show "Yes, Dear" on TBS (I think...)

One of the snippets had me cracking up because it was indicative of a scenario that I have actually been in.

The smart dad in the show (the one with an accounting job) is in a public restroom stall with his 8-12 month old son hanging from the bathroom stall's coat peg by his hoodie jacket.

I can just see it now - the dad was shopping, suddenly needed to go (like GO), found himself in the stall with a baby in his arms and had no clue what to do with him. So he looks around dumbfounded and confused thinking "what do I do now???" and discovers the peg.

Honestly, I can relate because I've been there. With seats in shopping carts, I don't always take a stroller. Suddenly needing to go presents you with a very interesting and awkward situation...

Well, I was looking for the picture from the show to post here and instead, I found this:

I'm apparently not the only parent who has found themselves in such a situation...

Friday, July 09, 2010


This word has me thinking a LOT.

Its such an interesting word because its literal meaning and its use are totally different - and yet totally the same.

Think about it - the word's base is the same as the following:
  • "I feel so liberated without those tight jeans on!"
  • "Be liberal with the peanut butter - I love it."
  • "With Liberty and Justice for all."

So how does this word that literally translates into freedom somehow be viewed dy conservatives as being the exact opposite?

This question has had me thinking a lot about the word and I started differentiating between Social Liberalism and Political Liberalism.

They ARE very different - Social Liberalism cares about the freedoms of the individual. Free to dress the way I want, Free to sleep with whoever I want, Free to sleep with however many peopole I want, Free to have an abortion if I want. It screams I am free to be me without ANY boundaries whatsoever.

As a Christian, I believe in freedom of self - but to an extent. To me, my limits on my freedom are supplied by my faith. And that is a choice I am free to make. I strongly question just how liberal we all should be, which defines the debate between social liberals and conservatives.

On the other hand, you have Political Liberalism. It is the exact opposite of Social Liberalism which makes me so surprised that the two so frequently go hand in hand. Political Liberalism believes in the Freedom of Government. It is free to be as big, as powerful, and oppressive as it wants. The more freedom you give the government, the more freedom you give them to do whatever they want to we the people.

I heard this old Ronald Reagan speech last night on Socialized Health Care from 1961. He opened up the speech with a quote from the leading Socialist Party Candidate for President, Farrell Dobbs. Essentially, he said that as long as the Socialist Party was called the Socialist Party, its support would be minimal. But if it were to be called the Liberal Party, it would gain the support to take power.

And how true he was - because that word has been so associated with Freedom and the object of that Freedom is so obfuscated in that title. But Socialist is not. Socialism is Freedom of Government. Socialism is not freedom for the "We the People".