Understanding the world and the mission

To truly understand what is happening in both secular society, the church, and the manosphere I’ve decided on visual representations.

To illustrate this we need to see the dichotomy of:

  1. The Masculine versus the Feminine
  2. The Spirit versus the flesh

Here is a graphical representation:

graphofmasculinityandfemininity

On this sample chart, I threw out some names of who may be “representative” of particular maximizations of each. Obviously, Jesus and David are excellent examples of men who walked with God and were masculine, while Satan is the devil and the tempter. On the other hand, we have femininity of women of the Bible who were commended by God such as Sarah and Mary, and on the other hand you have Jezebel and feminism which are intimately tied together.

Now, feminism isn’t exactly clear cut because we know that it pushes women to be more masculine and men to be more feminine. So feminism could potentially be androgynous where the evil/dark triad words are. But that’s for another debate.

This next chart depicts what is happening in society:

first illustration

We know that as feminism pushes women to become more career oriented, independent and aggressive, and it pushes them to obey their feelings and have casual sex. They are pushed towards the lusts of the flesh (to the left) and to be more masculine (to the top).

The PUAs/players figured out that they needed to be more masculine than the “masculine hedonistic women” to be attractive to them. Through field reports they codified different methods of counteracting the B-shield masculinity of women to pass shit / fitness tests. Thus, PUAs and players indulged their hedonistic tendencies (to the left) and were able to become more masculine (to the top).

Since the masculine attracts the feminine and vice versa, the higher you are towards masculinity the more easily you will attract the feminine below you. This is one of the examples of why effeminate men look up to PUAs and players. They see them as above themselves in the hierarchy and assume it is because they are jerks and assholes as opposed to the masculine behavior. They don’t know they can act masculine but not have the jerk and asshole connected to it. Both feminine and masculine women look up to them as well.

Feminism seeks to masculinze women (to the top) and feminize men (to the bottom) to create a more androgynous society. I would even say that 3rd wave feminism may indeed seek to make women into men and men into women taking it to to the extreme.

Now let’s discuss what is happening in the church.

christians

Although JoJ is “pro-game” and Donal, Chad, FN, and I are “anti-game” we have the same goal. In reality, we may even just be caught up in semantics on what “game” is and what constitutes a “toolbox.”

Our main goal is this — to build Christian (to the right) masculine (to the top) men that are walking to what God has called them to do including a wife if that’s in his mission.

Unfortunately, the church has taken cues from society and pushes women into careers and away from marriage — don’t marry too early, get a career before marrying, wear casual clothes instead of feminine clothes, etc. — but is still “trying” to push them towards God. This results in women following the red arrow path where they become more masculine (to the top) but also seeking towards God (to the right).

However, the church also feminizes men telling them to be nice, to lead without power, to practice servant leadership (aka serve the wife), cater to women, put women on pedestals, men bad/woman good, and all other sorts of lies. This results in men become more effeminate (to the bottom) yet still seeking after God (to the right).

Unfortunately, when men become more feminine than women, the women are not attracted to them at all. The more effeminate and nice a man is and the bigger disparity between them, the more likely a man is to get a nuclear rejection if he asks a woman out.

On the other hand, the only examples of masculinity that these Christian women see that are attractive to them are PUAs and players. These Christian women see that is going to lead them in a wrong direction (to the left), but they may go along with it anyway since  attraction! There aren’t enough masculine Christian men, and/or they are too masculine themselves.

Now, here’s where we’re headed with vector plot representation:

Goals

The red component represents becoming more masculine. This is composed of two variables:

  1. Unlearning feminine behaviors and mindsets (this drops off the negative component).
  2. Learning masculine behaviors and mindsets (this adds a positive component).

Game knowledge and implementation is excellent for learning what not to do as a man (e.g. unlearning feminine behaviors and mindsets). Some examples would be don’t treat her as an equal, don’t take her too seriously, don’t put her on a pedestal, don’t seek validation or be needy, etc.

Game as knowledge and implementation is both excellent and poor for learning what to do as a man (e.g. learning masculine behaviors and mindsets). This is because some behaviors and mindsets such as thinking only of yourself and how to get what you want from women using any type of coarse language and sexual temptation are not of God. However, there is some utility in learning some behaviors and mindsets that do indeed line up with the Scriptures such as becoming a more effective communicator, working out, eating right, etc. that I discussed in Self improvement versus God improvement.

While PUAs and players may filter their world view through the GREEN which is of the lusts of the flesh and self satisfaction/happiness, Christians must instead filter their world view through the BLUE which is Scriptures, prayer, meditation, fasting, agapao love, and the fruits of the Spirit.

The main thing that Donal, Chad, and I have been harping on in the past month or so is the importance of developing the BLUE component over the RED component. Without first the pursuit of righteousness, any other thing is worthless.

This isn’t to say that the pursuit of righteousness is attractive because it’s not, but the things you may do to pursue righteousness such as leading a small group may be attractive because of the leadership and status components.

I know that JoJ agrees with this particular sentiment because when we talked he specifically said to me that you need to be spending as much time on the Scriptures, prayer, etc and more devoted to God than you do on women. Likewise, a man must first develop a heart that seeks after God then after on development on the attributes of masculinity. We are on the same page even if we are on the opposite sides of the “game debate.”

The main reason why it is important to understand that the godly component comes first is because actions are never neutral (either up, down, right, or left). Actions are always on a diagonal. This is because we do not operate in a moral vacuum.

actionsarentneutral

As a player, all your actions from your heart are self seeking — How can I be happier (even at the expense of others though it may be nice if others benefit)?

But as a Christian, all your actions from your heart need to be selfless — How can I act that brings both myself and others closer to God?

Update: see role reversal for how masculinity ties into respect, and femininity ties into love:

christians part2

Conclusions

I really hate arguing the game debates because they are fruitless. We are on the same page as long as you:

  1. Have a heart for God and the things He desires, and
  2. Walk towards being an Christian masculine man

The fact that God created masculinity to be attracted to femininity and vice versa is something that we all need to recognize. The PUAs and players do not have a stranglehold on what it means to be masculine. It is the masculinity in evil actions to which women are tempted, but if you can act masculine in good actions then that is also attractive to women. Leadership in teaching a Bible study, or in the worship band, or preaching are all good examples.

The point now is how do we cultivate a masculinity in men that is worthy of who God has called us to be. That is the main purpose of this blog.

Game knowledge and analysis is one good way to do that, but it must fit in a framework of what is good. If that is a “toolbox” to some then so be it.

The Scriptures are obviously another. The Bible is rife with examples of how not to act as men interacting with women. There are also really good examples of how to act masculine  from Jesus, the patriarchs, and the prophets.

We are called to be in the world but not of the world. It is possible to be a Christian masculine man of God and to find a wife through it, and I look forward to walking this journey with any that are willing.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Mission Framework and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Understanding the world and the mission

  1. Welp, someone finally broke out the graph paper!

    We all knew this day would finally come. 🙂

    Great post and good visuals, even if I’m razzing a bit.

  2. Jacob Ian Stalk says:

    DS, I’m walking with you on this journey. God’s wisdom is evident in your words. He seems to have given you the clarity, direction and depth the Manosphere desperately needs at a time when too many Christian bloggers and commenters are telling men they can fly a broken plane over Sheol by looking at the view and learning how to use a parachute. I read each post with interest, as ought any serious Christian ‘spherian.

    There’s an anointing going on here. By His hand, not mine.

  3. @ Jacob

    Glad to know there is good fruit from God’s work on this blog.

    After coming back from the missions trip a couple weeks ago, the writing has just been flowing through me. So give thanks to God for it.

  4. The graphics were a great idea – thanks for the post!

  5. donalgraeme says:

    @ Looking Glass

    Not to belittle Deep Strength’s work here, but I have used graphs like that before as well. They can be quite handy for plotting certain measures. In fact, in one of my early posts I made a graphic model very similar to the one that Deep Strength used in this post:

    Models like that for getting across points that might otherwise take a lot of words to describe.

  6. donalgraeme says:

    The main thing that Donal, Chad, and I have been harping on in the past month or so is the importance of developing the BLUE component over the RED component. Without first the pursuit of righteousness, any other thing is worthless.

    Yes to the first sentence. No to the second. Or rather, I would say that it is dangerous rather than worthless. With that masculinity comes power, and without a moral core to guide a man, he is apt to engage in evil. As you point out DS, one can only move diagonally on the graph.

  7. @ Donal

    Hmmm. Knowing what I know now about masculinity I’m not so sure I would agree with the alpha vs beta attributes graph anymore.

  8. @ Donal

    Yes to the first sentence. No to the second. Or rather, I would say that it is dangerous rather than worthless. With that masculinity comes power, and without a moral core to guide a man, he is apt to engage in evil. As you point out DS, one can only move diagonally on the graph.

    From an overview or perhaps outside perspective, I would agree that dangerous is the better word.

    From a Christian perspective, I would say the statement stands. Anything else is worthless aside from Jesus first.

  9. donalgraeme says:

    The actual blog post treats them somewhat better. Masculinity is certainly a better descriptor for one axis, and you can replace the “Beta” axis with one centered around Heart instead and it gets you similar results, although not the same. In my defense it was an early effort.

  10. @ Donal

    Yeah, no ill intent on that. I just see it interesting as how my perspective on it has changed in less than a year. Though my take is just straight forward combining it into one axis — rather than see nice guys as “beta” and alpha” traits (two perspective) it’s more femininity vs masculinity (as one line) IMO.

  11. donalgraeme says:

    Well, I do think you can still separate out what women find attractive and what women find desirable in a man. “Alpha” and “Beta” work to describe that. However, for the purposes we have dedicated ourselves to, they aren’t as helpful. At least, not in a positive, aim towards this manner. I do think that the graphic has value in showing men where society gets it wrong though.

  12. @ Donal

    I think the of the Spirit vs. of the Flesh portion of the current graphics I have adequately depict that. That is if we term desirable traits to be those espoused by the fruits of the Spirit and Virtues and the actions that would represent them. Something to think about.

  13. donalgraeme says:

    Its slightly different though. Mine is sanitized and secular, and in many ways inferior to yours. The Alpha/Beta graphic is only really useful to explain to guys that the two aren’t the same. After that, your graphic provides far more opportunity for learning and growth.

  14. @ Donal

    That’s true it’s secular and sanitized. Good call.

  15. donalgraeme says:

    @ DS

    My blog was far more secular in nature back then, at least, compared to how it is now. That is just one example, most of my earlier works were along the same lines. Fascinating to look back and to see how you have changed…

  16. @donal:

    I know DS and what he normally does, outside of this blog, so I was actually commenting on him finally getting out the graph paper. He had the info-graphics already, so it was just a matter of time.

    And, yes, looking back at previous work is always illuminating. Sometimes scary.

  17. tacomaster2 says:

    Came here from Sunshine Mary’s blog. Where did you hear the term “servant leadership” at? I heard it last year at a marriage conference my church held and thought it was very odd and unbiblical—extremely pop psychology sounding. About 90% of the two day conference was geared towards what men need to do and the last hour of the two day “presentation” was what women can do to help the marriage. The presenter was Jimmy Evans.

  18. Looking Glass says:

    @tacomaster:

    http://biblehub.com/matthew/20-28.htm
    http://biblehub.com/mark/10-45.htm

    Note the VERY big difference between “serve” and “minister” in modern English. Further, like all things Churchian, it utterly ignores the context of the passages, what James & John were up to (jockeying for position in Heaven… no joke) and the contrasted Power Structure of political control of Empires.

    http://biblehub.com/greek/1247.htm You can scroll down to the way its used in the NASB. It has both a “servant” context (as someone that does tasks) and government ministerial duties context. I imagine, if someone knew where Pastors find all of the historical studies, that “slaves” in 30s AD Palestine were the ones that “broke bad news” to a Master. Know the saying “don’t kill the messenger”? There’s a very old, traditional reason for that: delivering bad messages to a Lord could get you killed for performing the task.

    The idea also can’t be separated from when Jesus instructed Peter to “feed My sheep”. There is a reason “service”, “faith” and “love” go together. There is little that’s “Happy” about what the work entails or results in the people the work is done upon, but it’s the better context. This most definitely includes “thinking about what they *need*, not what they *want*”. And thus sends Churchian Hamsters into apoplexy.

  19. @ Taco

    LG answered it pretty well.

    It’s pretty much the catchphrase of evangelical churchianity. They want the husband to serve the wife, but they don’t like headship and giving the husband power.

    Essentially the emphasis is to “serve” the wife without any of the headship authority.

    Most of evangelical Christianity is steeped in feminism, which is why the divorce rate of that group is up near the general population.

  20. ballista74 says:

    @Taco
    Basically, “servant leadership” is a down is up, up is down kind of thing. Those who subjugate themselves into being a “servant” are really “leading”. It’s a concept that comes out of the liberal/communist “community as authority and power” idealism, which has come out of the adoption of Marxist/feminist thought in the church.

  21. tacomaster2 says:

    Thanks guys for breaking it down for me and including links. I guess I assumed that term was something the speaker I heard had coined himself. Was there a meeting somewhere that said “from this point on we are using servant leadership” ? I would love to find some pre-feminist sermons and see how certain scriptures were handled compared to today especially in regards to leadership and headship

  22. These types of problems go back a long ways. JoJ would point to the production of the Revised Edition of the English Bible in the 1880s and 1890s.

    For the specific term, my thinking would be to look to the rise of Health & Wealth Doctrine in the 1950s & 60s. Sounds a lot like something they’d screw up badly.

  23. ballista74 says:

    @tacomaster2
    The blog author here makes a good suggestion on that: https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/hebrew-and-greek-resources/ Download a good collection of the associated commentaries and you’ll get a good idea of how about any of the Scriptures were handled previously. There’s also a good conversation here (http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/bd-3-when-youre-crowned-king-nothing/) in the comments about the concept which I think brings the fallacy of the “servant leader” out wonderfully.

  24. Pingback: Men are logical and women are emotional | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  25. Bee says:

    @tacom,

    “I would love to find some pre-feminist sermons and see how certain scriptures were handled compared to today especially in regards to leadership and headship…”

    This article traces the change in wording of the English Bible translations regarding divorce and remarriage:

    http://www.danielrjennings.org/arebibletranslationsprogressivelysoftening.pdf

    I don’t know if the discovery of new Hebrew and Greek manuscripts validates these changes or not.

  26. Pingback: Clarity of purpose | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  27. Pingback: Role reversal | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  28. Pingback: alpha beta misunderstandings | Christianity and the manosphere

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