Formalization of AWALT and NAWALT

AWALT is the common acronym for “All women are like that.” NAWALT being “not all women are like that.”

This acronym is fairly prevalent in the manosphere, but it would be nice to have a working definition to refer to since it is important to understand especially for Christian marriage minded men. Less so if you’re a player because you can just claim AWALT for anything and behave with no concern for morality.

When we, as Christians (or as part of the Christian manosphere), discuss AWALT we are specifically referring to the nature of women that is universal. Specfically, the nature of women that was created by the Creator. This nature of women extends past all moral and otherwise boundaries because it is innate in women. On the other hand, we are not talking about behavior that can be overcome by women through morality, reason, or self control. Christian or otherwise. Thus:

  • AWALT — the innate nature of women as God created them.
  • NAWALT — common traits in women today that may seem ubiquitous, but there are [few] women who are not like this because of their morality, reason, and/or self control.

So let’s get down to it. I’m going to get this list started but it is by no means comprehesive. If you have ideas, categories, behaviors, or other things to add to this list that I missed then comment and I will add them.

AWALT

  • Attraction — all women are [sexually] attracted to PSALMS — power/personality, status, athleticism, looks, and money.
  • Attraction — all women are not [sexually] attracted to loyalty, good with children, and the majority of fruits of the Spirit like humility, patience, kindness, faithfulness, self control.
  • Attractiveness — Men with perceived lower SMV/MMV than a woman will be relatively invisible to her. Also, see apex fallacy.
  • Apex fallacy — when women talk about men in general only the top percentage of men (who are attractive) are who she is talking about. “Where have all the good men gone?” is “Where have all of the [attractive/alpha] good men gone?”
  • Weakness — all women are turned off by weakness from men. Emotinal displays, sickness, or losing a job may fall into this category if the man purposely admits he is inadequate in some way. Women often have contempt or disgust for men that show weakness. (Exception: maybe his mother or grandmothers).
  • Leadership/headship — if a man is not perceived to be leading/heading a relationship virtually all women will be unhappy, have a desire to nag him, be discontented, and [may] consider leaving him.
  • Respect — respect will make it easier for a woman to submit (but does not guarantee it), while conversely disrespect will make it harder for a woman to submit (but also does not guarantee that she won’t).
  • Shallowness/pickiness — women are as shallow as men when it comes to physical attraction. In fact, women are naturally even more picky and selective.

NAWALT

  • Many or most but not all women believe that their accomplishments, career, personality, or the like make them more attractive to men. This is projection.
  • Many or most but not all women believe that men should be like women: to be emotional, nice, and it will make them more attractive to women.
  • Women have the ability, through the Holy Spirit and self control, to honor commands in the Bible such as to win their husbands without a word if their husbands don’t obey the word (1 Peter 3) albeit it will be very difficult for her.

Questionables

  • Do women have the ability to agape love their husbands? There are no commands for women to agape love their husbands but to philea love them (Titus 2).
  • Do women have full moral agency?
  • Are women able to act as their own agent outside of men: what about the fact that women were under their fathers in the OT, and confirmed through 1 Cor 7 to also be under the authority of their fathers prior to marriage?

Former questionables in the context of Christianity (updated also with input from Donal’s link):

  • On Agape: All [Christian] women have the capacity to agape love, respect, and submit their husbands. However, in the current culture this tends to be very rare.
  • On moral agency: All women have full moral agency. They are responsible for their decisions as much as men are responsible for theirs. However, culture and churchianity tends to infantilize women’s decision making placing the consequence of poor decisions that women make onto men as men’s burden of leadership and responsibility.
  • on authority: women are able to operate out of the bounds of authority of men (their fathers, husbands) although it may or may not be for the best depending on the different situations. This may need to be hashed out further per each scenario it occurs.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Masculinity and women and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to Formalization of AWALT and NAWALT

  1. If we cannot “agape” love our husbands, then all other forms of “love” we show to them are lies. Agape is the foundation of all love because it is the love we must bestow on all mankind. Love is, first and foremost, an act of the will. It is a decision made each day that you will wish the best for that person and that your one goal for that person is his good and the salvation of his soul. If you can’t do this, then forget the rest, because the rest is a sham.
    You must love one another all the time. This does not mean you will always like each other. Loving and liking are not the same thing, and confusing the two is what’s gotten us in this big mess in the first place. “Liking” someone is the emotional stuff, the tinglies, all the stuff that is the icing on the cake. “Loving” someone is the rock solid foundation, the act of the will. You show me any couple who hasn’t had at least one incident in which they really didn’t like each other, and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t exist. Trust me, I know. 🙂

  2. CH says:

    I’m never sure what to do when I see the manosphere (Christian or secular) talk about these sorts of things. I definitely want to prioritize being the best fiance/girlfriend I can be, but when these sorts of things are presented as being in my nature and completely out of my control, I’m not sure what to do.
    I definitely think that women are capable of doing things that are not specifically commanded in the Bible. For example, even though agape is not specifically required of women, without it there is no basis for a marital relationship. If women are only capable of returning “phileo” love, at that point the relationship has been reduced to roommates. I think that if women possess agape love for their husbands, submission naturally follows in a way that it doesn’t with phileo.

  3. Third questionable is wrongly worded – being under authority of someone doesn’t say anything about ability to make own choices or quality of such choices.
    Looking at biblical story of Naomi (and Ruth) we can see that women are obviously able to act as their own agents. (hell, we can even see it with Eve in garden of Eden, even though that it turned bad).
    If anything here should be questionable then it’s whether it’s actually good idea to let women act as free agents (although even then would be questionable if mere act of willful submission isn’t sign of agency in itself)

    First one isn’t questionable either, as Mom in the Shoe pointed – it would be quite absurd to point that own husband should be exception from who are women commanded to love by agape love. Of course there may be discussion if we are innately able to love in agape way, but women wouldn’t be any special case here…

    And the second one – maybe you should try to answer whether humans have full moral agency first ( Romans 9, especially verse 18 are some food for thought here) before trying to single women out (even though I understand that you’re coming from “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord” here)

  4. @ Pilgrim of the East

    Question 3 — this is true. If then the question is restated: “is it a good idea to let women act as free agents?” what is your discussion on this question?

    Let’s take a specific area place such as college. From what I’ve seen in practice this TENDS to be a bad idea statistically. Those who stray from the faith in college and university are a large portion, especially if they aren’t immediately integrated into a Christian community on campus. Men are susceptible to this as well.

    On the other hand, more men leave the faith than women but we know that there are strong confounding factors such as the feminization of Christianity.

    Question 2 — in other words there are two questions:

    1. Do humans, as a whole, have free will versus predestination?
    2. Do men have more agency than women?

    If you were to take say 1 Timothy 2 at face value where Paul gives reasoning as to why women are not allowed into teaching/authority positions in the church — the susceptibility to deception is one of the main ones. How far does this extend? Just to teaching/authority positions in the church or in the group as a whole or what?

    I’ll address the other point as a separate comment.

  5. @ MITS, CH, Pilgrim

    There’s a bunch of questions to bring up then if you believe that women can agape love their husbands.

    In 2 Peter 1, Peter basically explains how many of the attributes all fit together to lead to love. Does this mean that love is atop of the heirarchy of all things? 1 Corinthians 13 would also suggest this.

    However, if this is the case, then if agape love is atop the hierarchy of all things then why does the Scripture not suggest that wives are to agape love their husbands? Instead, it suggests that wives are to: respect/fear their husbands, submit/be obedient to them, win them without a word if they do not believe the Word, etc.

    Obviously, all Christians have the capacity to agape love as we are Christ’s disciples and having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Why is defining the roles and responsibilities in marriage, parenting, masters and slaves, and other authority different?

    Or in other words, why is the husband commanded agape love to the wife, but the wife not command agape love to the husband?

    Does this mean respect and submission are more important than love? Or love tempers respect and submission? If it tempers respect and submission why not just write that wives should love their husbands then? Why did it need to be written as respect and submission without mention of love?

    I’m not on any side of the fence here. I’m quite curious as there seems to be a disconnect in the Scriptures from specific roles and responsibilities of general Christians to specific Christian authority relationships. Basically: how do you logically explain that?

  6. @ CH

    I’m never sure what to do when I see the manosphere (Christian or secular) talk about these sorts of things. I definitely want to prioritize being the best fiance/girlfriend I can be, but when these sorts of things are presented as being in my nature and completely out of my control, I’m not sure what to do.

    If you disagree with some by all means express it. I’m not about quelling dissent as I’m after the Truth (or maybe if the Scriptures are “Truth”, then non-Scriptural “truth” about the nature of men and women).

    The main reason behind this formalization is that it is easy for most Christian men to get confused about this stuff when they read secular blogs because of the lack of morality in women. For example, we know that carousel riders aren’t the only type of women in the world.

    Thus, the goal is to distinguish what “features” of women are innate and what are learned/taught/self controlled behaviors so that it is easier to logically teach Christian men how to be masculine and to understand women. Make sense?

    This is important because there is a dearth of masculine Christian men in the church: “Where have all of the good [Christian] men gone?” I’m pro-Christian marriage as many in the Christian manosphere are AGAINST marriage now in this current climate.

    1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

    However, I wouldn’t suggest that any Christian man get married unless he has a good understanding of the Scriptures on marriage, has a good handle on how to steward himself, and knows about the nature of women. Anything else in this current climate would be quite foolish.

    I also posted a commend about agape love to everyone if you want to check it out.

  7. CH says:

    @Deepstrength – From a lot of the manosphere reading I’ve seen, there is a large fear that beta men will be viewed by their wives/gfs as basically another girl friend. If women are restricted to the “phileo” love, then it seems like the quickest way to create that relationship dynamic. However, I feel like agape combined with phileo makes sense, because it encompases the self-sacrificing love that both spouses need to show to one another. Submission requires absolute self-sacrifice, so I feel that although the word “agape” isn’t commanded of women specifically, there is no way for submission and respect for your husband to follow without it.

    When I said “I don’t know what to do when I read things like this” I just mean that, from a woman’s perspective, I’m not sure how to change my behavior. One of the things that I have really liked about your blog is that it’s one of the few manosphere blogs that I feel had actually been constructive to both Christian men AND Christian women. This post just doesn’t ring that same way. It’s hard to read this and not just wallow in how innately inept that God made me. I know that this is a blog for men, so I probably shouldn’t even be reading it trying to glean that sort of information in the first place. I think I’m just out of place trying to converse here.

  8. @ CH

    It’s hard to read this and not just wallow in how innately inept that God made me.

    Why?

    God made man to be [sexually] attracted to physical appearance. He made women to be [sexually] attracted to things such as PSALMs.

    Why feel inept about it? It is what it is. There’s no shame in understanding human nature; however, there is shame in lying or being deceptive about it which much of churchianity does now. Revealing light and seeing the truth is in fact good.

    Most of the things mentioned above also have their corollaries in men albeit they manifest differently.

  9. jonadabtherechabite says:

    It is a human arrogance to require scripture to conform to our simple bumper sticker culture. While it is true that the exact form “Wives agape your husband” is not found in the cannon of scripture, it would be most egregious to infer that wives are not required to agape their husbands. After all they are required to agape their brothers in the faith (1 Peter 2:17), to love their neighbor (Matt 5:43) and even their enemy (Matt 5:44). It is inconceivable with such commands to agape that the only person to excluded is the husband. Add to that, the church is commanded to love her Lord (1 Peter 1:8) and 1 Peter 2:17 speaks of love in the horizontal relationships and fear in the vertical. In my opnion, Christianity has overemphasized the differences between agape and phileo. It makes a nice sermon about agape but destroys context in order to distinguish synonyms. Bottom line: There is no reading of the whole of scripture where a christian wife is not required to agape her husband and no circumstance where she can stop loving him.

  10. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    Jona has it right about how the husband shouldn’t be excluded from a woman’s requirement to agape love others.

    I’m reminded of when Jesus asked Peter if he loved (agape) Him, to which Peter said he loved (phileo) Him. Jesus repeated the question, trying to get a different answer. If we are supposed to agape Him, then why is a woman not supposed to agape her husband too? Especially considering wife:husband::Church:Jesus.

  11. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    To clarify, I’m not saying a wife isn’t supposed to phileo her husband; we should do all three (agape, phileo, and eros).

  12. Mrs. C says:

    This is a long comment (I apologize) but an important one for this discussion–especially about moral agency and submission in marriage.

    Woman do have full moral agency. It’s foolish to say otherwise. All human beings have been affected by the fall that has weakened our ability to choose that which is good and true as written by God’s Law in our hearts. It’s questions like these in which I am so thankful to be Catholic and to have the clear guidance of the Church. The Church’s position on human nature and how that affects the ability to choose right from wrong can be found here

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

    The Church in the Modern World #16 states

    “Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law which they have not laid upon themselves and which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity rests in observing this law, and by it they will be judged. Their conscience is people’s most secret core, and their sanctuary. There they are alone with God whose voice echoes in their depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one’s neighbor.”

    Having said that, a conscience has to be properly formed in order for one to be able to correctly discern this “law inscribed by God.” If the conscience isn’t formed correctly, humans are prone to make wrong and evil choices. This is the biggest factor in our culture today. Lack of formation of the conscience. It’s why it’s so easy, along with the fact that their autonomous decision-making abilities have hardly been exercised at their young age, that many fall into sexual sin and fall away from the Church when they are first on their own in college and away from parental influence. The young are always prone to these mistakes and it’s part of the maturation process. Of course, if the conscience is properly informed, the student will have a stronger moral force with which to avoid the temptations in this type of environment.

    For a good description on several kinds of conscience, go here

    http://average-catholic.com/2012/07/07/several-kinds-of-conscience/

    Although a woman is called to submit to her husband this is secondary to her as an individual following her conscience before God. A wife’s submission is a free, voluntary and generous act of love towards her husband, not blind obedience. Here are some quotes about the primacy of the conscience as taught by the Church. As the marriage relationship is a symbol of unity of Christ and Church, I think these are helpful in understanding that relationship.

    “I shall drink . . To Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” (Cardinal John Henry Newman)

    “If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church.” (Pope John Paul II)

    “In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests.” (Human Life in Our Day, U.S. Bishops Pastoral)

    “A human being must always follow the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were to deliberately act against it he would condemn himself.” Catechism of the Catholic Church #1790)

    “We follow church leaders only to the extent that they themselves follow Christ. . . Some situations oblige one to obey God and one’s own conscience rather than the leaders of the church. Indeed, one may even be obliged to accept excommunication rather than act against one’s own conscience.” (Cardinal Walter Kasper, Head of Ecumenical Matters at the Vatican.)

    “Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.” Pope Benedict XVI
    ***************************************************************************************************************************

    Wives submitting to husbands is also not because women have some impairment that makes them unsuitable for making decisions or because she is somehow more easily deceived. The above on conscience should show she has a responsibility to make informed decisions about her submission and that it be given freely, not forced. The reason for submission and self-sacrificial loves all comes down to UNITY. There is unity in the Trinity. There is unity between the body and soul. There is unity between Christ and his Church. There is unity in marriage when two become one flesh. Spouses are both called to be self-sacrificial but in different ways. This helps create unity. Christ’s prayer at the Last Supper

    “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” — John 17: 20-23

    How to have a properly formed conscience?

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church #1784-5

    The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

    In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

    ***************************************************************************************************************************
    This is one of the reasons I have a beef with the Christian manosphere or even question whether the manosphere has a place in true Christian thought (or at least Catholic thought since I’m Catholic)

    The CCC teaches
    1607 According to faith the disorder (disruption of harmony between men and women) we notice so painfully DOES NOT STEM FROM THE NATURE OF MAN AND WOMAN, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations;96 their mutual attraction, the Creator’s own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust;97 and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.98

    1608 Nevertheless, the order of creation persists, though seriously disturbed. To heal the wounds of sin, man and woman need the help of the grace that God in his infinite mercy never refuses them.99 Without his help man and woman cannot achieve the union of their lives for which God created them “in the beginning.”

    The answer is not in over emphasizing and over analyzing human nature of males and females, it lies in the grace received through the sacraments and in following Christ.

    #1615 – By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.109 This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.

  13. @DeepStrength:
    is it a good idea to let women act as free agents?
    Honestly, I don’t know, but reading 1. Cor 7:39-40 it seems so.
    Btw, you mentioned [women are] confirmed through 1 Cor 7 to also be under the authority of their fathers prior to marriage – what part did you mean? From some translations I consulted, verse 38 seemed to be about giving daughter to suitor, in others translations it was about marrying her on your own, and I didn’t notice any other verse to apply. (and it’s interesting to compare it to verse 28 – how could she even sin by becoming wife if it’s outside her influence? Why would that Paul even say?)

    Btw, I don’t think that the feminization of church has much effect on men being more likely to leave church (church doesn’t seem to be feminized much here in the Czech republic), my guess would be more in terms of stronger social connections or more need for stability…

    2. Do men have more agency than women?
    If you were to take say 1 Timothy 2 at face value where Paul gives reasoning as to why women are not allowed into teaching/authority positions in the church — the susceptibility to deception is one of the main ones. How far does this extend? Just to teaching/authority positions in the church or in the group as a whole or what?

    If you look at it from such point of view, then it’s similar to question whether people with higher IQ (who are able to better evaluate consequences of their behavior) have more moral agency. But my answer would be that there isn’t much point in discussing this particular topic, because in the end, God will be the one to judge us and my ideas how he should do it aren’t gonna change anything (and I can’t see any hypothetical case where would I be better off with the answer to this particular question)

    concerning agape:
    Or in other words, why is the husband commanded agape love to the wife, but the wife not command agape love to the husband?
    I think that Paul was just practical here and told to each side what should they especially focus on (maybe because it’s likely their Achilles’ heel?) to make the marriage work – why should omitting of repetition of general command mean that it ceases to be valid in this specific case?

    (btw, seeing the length of this comment, there will be inevitably plenty of crimes against proper English here, so sorry for that)

    @CH:
    if it makes you feel better (although as a Christian seeing other being just as deep in a shit as you shouldn’t make you feel any better), here is abridged version of AMALT and NAMALT.

    AMALT:
    attraction: men are attracted to pretty/beautiful/sexy women
    attraction: great personality or cooking skills aren’t gonna give us erection
    attractiveness: ugly women are invisible to us as a potential spouses
    respect: we want to be respected and hate to be disrespected

    NAMALT:
    many but not all men believe that pedestalization of woman will make her love you. That’s not true – love can’t be negotiated.
    many but not all men will be unable to control their sex drive given good enough opportunity to sin. With the help of God we can overcome that temptation.

    When I said “I don’t know what to do when I read things like this” I just mean that, from a woman’s perspective, I’m not sure how to change my behavior.
    just yesterday I stumbled upon this song on the topic of human nature – it gives pretty good answer to your question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6EJjDKzTJg (tl,didn’t listen version: on our own we can’t do anything about it, but Jesus came to save us from our sinful nature)

  14. @ jonadabtherechabite

    Good comment. That’s exactly what I was looking for on that question.

    How do you reconcile a relationship where say there needs to be love and fear?

    Note, that this doesn’t apply to just husband-wife but also say boss-employee, governmental people-Christians, etc.

    Instead of love being tempered by kindness, humility, and the like… respect and submission are tempered by love, kindness, humility, etc.?

  15. jonadabtherechabite says:

    @DS

    “How do you reconcile a relationship where say there needs to be love and fear?”

    Consider the following passages:
    1 Peter 2:17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
    1 John 4:16 – 21 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us. If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

    The commands to love God and to fear Him are plain and not in contradiction. Likewise a wife is to fear her husband and to love him. Not because her husband might beat her of leave her for another, but because he is God’s appointed authority over her. Eph 5:22

    What is often not understood is that there are two objects of fear elicited in theses two passages. In the Peter passage fear is a respect and awe of the power and authority of God. His holiness and judgment calls the sinner to tremble and to run to the cross and cry out in utter desperation to Christ. But in John’s epistle the christian is called to faith and not fear any imperfection of the grace found in Christ. The torment of sin lies not for a son of the living God. So the man of God is called to fear God, but not that grace will prove to be insufficient. These two fears allow him to have boldness in the day of judgement, because the God he loves has first loved him and saved him from sin, death and judgement.

  16. @Deep Strength,

    You posed the question, “Why is the husband commanded agape love to the wife, but the wife not command agape love to the husband?”

    Women love. Real women, that is; I can’t answer for the Brave New Feminazi. But your average decent woman who acts like a woman and has no problem with being a woman — she loves. We cannot help but to love. This is our innate feminine nature. Nobody has to command us to love because it is what we do without measure. Therefore, we have a different command because nobody had to command us to love.

    I liken it to the two reflections of God. God created man in His image and likeness, and he created man in the two sexes to reveal the full of Himself. Women are a reflection of God’s mercy, men are a reflection of God’s justice — which right there tells us why men were commanded to love. Justice, imperfectly represented, as it is imperfectly represented in fallen man, can be, in the nature of a finite sinful creature, prevent the person from loving. Therefore, men were commanded to love.

    I’m pressed for time, and therefore cannot elaborate on this as i would like, because I see that by typing what I just did could open up a huge can of worms and get a lot of men riled up because i have a premonition that you will not like what you read here….my feminine intuition tells me this, I hope I am wrong.

  17. Mrs. C says:

    MinS – Your comments reminded of some quotes by Archbishop Fulton Sheen

    “The difference between the love of a man and the love of a woman is that a man will always give reasons for loving, but a woman gives no reasons for loving.”

    “for a woman, love is its own reason. “I love you because I love you.”

    “A woman never tells you why she loves; she just tells you how she loves.”

  18. Mrs.C,
    Amen to that. We love even when it is very difficult to love.
    Case in point — I know several ladies whose husbands, while they are great guys in all respects (providers, they’re always at Mass, etc.), they are very indifferent to their wives, particularly with all the kids and all the requirements for homeschooling and so forth. They are exhausted and burned out, and their husbands are not very patient about that. But persistently when they go shopping, they see a favorite wine, or the kind of whatever that he likes, and they buy it because they know he’ll like it. Even if they aren’t feeling terribly happy about them at the moment, they still try to make the little effort to give him some comfort, even though they know they won’t be reciprocated.
    If that’s not “agape”, then I don’t know what is.

  19. Irma Lumberjack says:

    Gidday, I’m a kiwi christian bloke who has been happily married (most of the time ) for 32 years. It seems that the debate in the femosphere and manosphere is more complicated than it needs to be.

    God said:
    “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”
    and
    “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
    “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments (Mt 21:37-40). Both of these are acts of will. I said at the top “happily married most of the time” – that’s an act of committment .
    Ritual abuse through hegemony is not Gods best whether perpetrated by males or females. It needs to be dealt with … but the guidelines have already been drawn.

    There’s a reason for courtship – you get to know your intended partner without investing heavily emotionally. Sex muddies the waters at this stage and guys tend to think with their gonads. If a woman (or man) is manipulative and scheming it *will* be evident to you and/or your mates and I suspect Holy Spirit will have input as well. And I’m talking a reasonable length of time – two years of courtship with a 6 month engagement. You cannot hide poor character for that long and you cannot disguise it.

    We are meant to live in a counter-cultural fashion and to be in the world … but not of it. So lets do that – practice courtship only with those you’re interested in a long term relationship with. And once you marry, commit for the rest of your life. Recognise the magnitude of that commitment (courtship will help you do that) without the warm fuzzy endorphins from the first flush of falling in lust.

    If there’s manipulation – walk away before you’ve invested heavily and find it difficult to continue to believe that God has someone out there for you. Love carefully and believe that our God is mighty, sovereign, full of grace and has a *good* plan for each of our lives (man and woman). Faith is not dependent on how you feel. Neither is love.

    Our response to hurt should not be reactionary – take time to heal and forgive those who have hurt you. The power of this is amazing. I’ve been there.

    Coming back to Mt 21:37-40. Do you want all of your male (or female) summed up in an acronym. I don’t. And I don’t want to believe that of my neighbor or intended spouse. It’s degrading and doesn’t recognize the fullness of what an awesome God has placed in me…. and you. What will you be shaped by ?

    The AWALT/NAWALT/MGTOW debates are all side-salad. The main event is who is God to us and who are we to God (Mt 21:37-40). What purpose has He given each of us and how are we outworking that ? What purpose has He given each of us and how are we outworking that ?

  20. Mrs. C says:

    @ Irma Lumberjack

    Very well said. Love it. You speak the truth.

  21. Kiwi Christian bloke,
    Nice to hear the voice of sanity. My Dad is a kiwi. Never been to NZ myself, though, I hear it’s gorgeous. Hope to someday.

  22. Irma Lumberjack says:

    Apologies for typo in second to last paragraph. It should begin: Coming back to Mt 21:37-40. Do you want all of your male (or female) **_ -ness limited to_** an acronym. The bit between the **_ and _** is how it should read. Thanks.

  23. seeing the new comments I am beginning to understand, why Cane Caldo decided to ban female commenters…

    @Mom in the Shoe:

    Nobody has to command us to love because it is what we do without measure.

    If women are so innately loving, why is 2/3 of divorces initiated by them? And don’t start with “real women” – that’s the same stuff as when the feminists claim “real feminists don’t hate men and love equality” – nice thing to say but observably not true (unless “real woman” is unicorn-level rare creature). You may also be interested in googling “the Scotsman fallacy”.

    @Mrs. C:

    “The difference between the love of a man and the love of a woman is that a man will always give reasons for loving, but a woman gives no reasons for loving.”

    “for a woman, love is its own reason. “I love you because I love you.”

    “A woman never tells you why she loves; she just tells you how she loves.”

    well, that quite matches with what the manosphere says – woman usually aren’t able to be rational when it comes to defining what is attractive for them – e.g. saying they want their man to be loyal, emotive, kind, etc and then falling in love with total asshole and say that they can’t help it but to love him

    @Irma Lumberjack:
    you seem to be a fan of courtship. Are you aware that it’s an invention of the last 200 years? There was nothing like a courtship in the biblical times…

    Do you want all of your male(or female)-ness limited to an acronym. I don’t. And I don’t want to believe that of my neighbor or intended spouse. It’s degrading and doesn’t recognize the fullness of what an awesome God has placed in me…. and you. What will you be shaped by ?

    Ok, what part of AWALT DeepStrength listed do you disagree with? Also, why do you think that it limits the femaleness somehow? If I say that all humans have a head does it mean that I somehow limit the humans or degrade them?

    The AWALT/NAWALT/MGTOW debates are all side-salad. The main event is who is God to us and who are we to God (Mt 21:37-40). What purpose has He given each of us and how are we outworking that ? What purpose has He given each of us and how are we outworking that ?

    It’s Mt 22 actually and it doesn’t really seem too relevant to who is God to us and who are we to God. Anyway, did you consider idea that God’s purpose for DeepStrength may be teaching christian men how to understand women better, choose spouse wisely and be good husbands?

  24. Pingback: Random Musings and Links- #7 | Donal Graeme

  25. Irma Lumberjack says:

    @Pilgrim of the East
    #1: Yup – it should be Matt 22:37-40. Thanks for picking that up.

    #2: You criticise the concept of courtship without appreciating the message. Are you also saying we should disregard the OT on the basis that it’s old ? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    #3 Please read my response carefully – I didn’t say I disagreed with DeepStrength, To expand – the NAWALT / AWALT / MGTOW labels are caricatures of the people we were meant to be in God. Lets choose to live in the fullness of what God has for us rather than being limited by labels.

    #4: Our primary relationship should be with God – that’s why it was written first in Dt 6:5. Our second relationship is with each other (the “Love our neighbour” bit). Hence the “who are we to God – do we love the Lord our God with all our hearts etc or is He just a genie whose bottle we rub when we want something. That’s not my God. Secondly, who are we to Him – that’s about the covenants and promises God has made to us. And they are **good**….. We have been given amazing grace that can overflow from us so that we can love our neighbour as ourself.
    Love is a choice. Woman was given to man as a helper not a slave – there are no property rights here.

    Men (and women) need to recognise our fallibility. Expecting that a partner or spouse will be perfect is foolish and childish. We need God and fortunately He has grace for us and given us abundant grace so that we may choose to love our neighbour/spouse as ourselves.

    I repeat earlier comments: use “courtship-and engagement” to get to know your spouse and their family and avoid pitfalls. Recognise that they are made by God but are also fallible. Apply grace in liberal amounts. Avoid labels. We are individuals and fearfully and wonderfully made. Getting to know someone you’re interested in a long term relationship involves adventure, faith and choosing to love.

  26. @Pilgrim of the East,

    As I said previously, I cannot speak for the Brave New Feminazi. I can only speak for your normal decent woman. We love. What do you want me to say? I can’t help that most divorces are started by women these days; those kinds of women wouldn’t be reading a blog like this anyway, or even remotely taking it seriously, or, if they comment, you’ll know who they are because they will be venomous. I can only speak for myself and others of like mind. I married the man I married, warts and all, until death do us part, and nothing is going to change that. I’m in for keeps (and he’s drop-dead gorgeous to boot; I’m not about to let him get away 🙂 As for my own parents, who are divorced, that divorce was initiated by my father.

  27. Irma Lumberjack says:

    Mrs C said it well earlier near the end of her long post “This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life”. See that ….”grace”. It’s what Christ bought for us. Are we determined to bring new laws after Christ has freed us from The Law? (Gal 5:1,11-15)? Please, please, please … live in the grace that Christ has purchased.

    The title of the blog is “Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere :understanding godly masculinity”. Great. This part of the blog is titled “Formalization of AWALT and NAWALT” attempts to draw the distinction between “innate nature” and “behaviour that women can change in themselves” by a number of means. My observations of other guys has been that guys have difficulties recognizing this in ourselves as well so why not apply these tests to us as well. How would we do ?

    The Myers-Briggs test divides people up into 16 types and has a fairly high chance of placing someone in the right box from a series of about 120 questions. But even then, that only accounts for about 5% of who we are. After 32 years of marriage I can safely say that my wife is still a mystery to me – I know her likes and dislikes and can probably predict some behaviours but I’m a long way short of saying i can do that all the time. It’s an adventure.

    Two of the best books I’ve read (recommended to me by my unmarried son and several couples who have been married for about as long as we have) are:

    Shaunti & Jeff Feldhahn (2013). “For women only: what you need to know about the inner lives of men”. Published by WaterBrook Multnpmah, a division of Random House Inc, NY, 210 pp.
    ISBN 978-1-60142-571-3 (softcover)
    ISBN 978-1-60142-210-1 (electronic)

    Shaunti Feldhahn (2013). “For men only: a straightforward guide to the inner lives of women”. Published by WaterBrook Multnpmah, a division of Random House Inc, NY, 191pp.
    ISBN 978-1-60142-445-7 (softcover)
    ISBN 978-1-60142-209-5 (electronic)

    They are biblical, practical, insightful, and full of relevant scientific and psychological studies with one on one interviews with a huge range of people (with humour even). They’re the best books ever for understanding your spouse … and no, i don’t get a commission. They’re simply a great resource for singles and marrieds. Te books are helpful.

    “This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life”
    It’s an adventure. Strap in and enjoy the ride. Note: Categories not included. Have faith that God has a good plan for you and love carefully.

  28. @Irma Lumberjack:
    #2: If you reread my post, I actually didn’t criticize the concept of courtship in any way, I just pointed that it isn’t biblical. It just seemed interesting to me.

    #3: If you don’t disagree with it, then you necessarily have to agree with it – therefore by saying that it’s caricature you say that it’s in fact correct caricature but somehow limits us. But you don’t say how does it limits anybody. Is description of how God created women (like attracted to strong and courageous men) limiting them somehow? That’s AWALT. NAWALT can’t limit any woman by definition and you obviously don’t know what MGTOW means, because it’s self-appointed label for description of unplugging from broken cultural norms of today – Men Going Their Own Way – does going your own way limit you somehow?

    #4:I don’t want to get into discussion on “I understand Scripture better than thou” but imho it speaks mainly about what we are supposed to do, not who we are, for that you could choose far better passages (like wayward son parable)…

    It’s interesting that you say

    Love is a choice. Woman was given to man as a helper not a slave – there are no property rights here.

    Men (and women) need to recognise our fallibility. Expecting that a partner or spouse will be perfect is foolish and childish. We need God and fortunately He has grace for us and given us abundant grace so that we may choose to love our neighbour/spouse as ourselves.

    – and I can definitely agree with it (provided you mean agape and not eros or storge). Maybe there could be interesting discussion between you and Mom in the Shoe who claims

    your average decent woman who acts like a woman and has no problem with being a woman — she loves. We cannot help but to love. This is our innate feminine nature

    The title of the blog is “Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere :understanding godly masculinity”. Great. This part of the blog is titled “Formalization of AWALT and NAWALT” attempts to draw the distinction between “innate nature” and “behaviour that women can change in themselves” by a number of means. My observations of other guys has been that guys have difficulties recognizing this in ourselves as well so why not apply these tests to us as well. How would we do ?
    Welcome to concept of feminine imperative one of the ways it manifests itself is a belief that “when we have to criticize women, we should definitely criticize men too”. That said, I wrote abridged version of AMALT and NAMALT in one of previous comments here and I’m reasonably sure that whole manosphere/red pill sphere would agree with that (except second NAMALT, which is kind of christian specific) without any need to discuss it – which is observably(e.g. women speaking about their innate loving feminine nature) not the case with (N)AWALT .

    @Mom in the Shoe:
    What is percentage of that your normal decent woman species in population? How can they(/you) be identified from the rest of women? Also, are you sure that you wouldn’t ever leave your husband and still loved him because you couldn’t help it, if he hypothetically (e.g. as a result for example of brain damage) stopped to work, started to physically abuse you and sexually abuse your children? Unless you are sure that your answer is really yes (which means that you would be willing to have your children sexually abused), please stop talking about “innately – can’t help it – loving real women™”.

  29. eh, I seem to have omitted(or written them in some other wrong way) blockquote tags around “The title of the blog … How would we do ?” . I hope it’s understandable anyway…

  30. @Pilgrim of the East,

    Obviously when I’m talking about love here, I am talking about charity, which is love of God above all else, and love of one’s neighbor as oneself. Charity translates in to caritas in Latin, agape in Greek. This is the highest form of love because it transcends our other responses to a situation (love your enemy does not mean you are googly-eyed over him, it means you want his good as opposed to revenge upon him.) It is love of men for the sake of God.

    Now, common sense and correct justice properly administered demands that if a vulnerable person is in harm’s way as a result of an INAPPROPRIATE and INORDINATE love, the good of that person trumps all efforts to preserve the relationship that has resulted in inappropriate and inordinate love. Would I leave my husband if he was molesting my children? Of course. That is a demand of justice and absolute necessity. You know exactly what I meant by “I’m not going anywhere” and so forth. You know that I am talking about frivolity and if you don’t, then you need to learn to draw conclusions, unless of course you are on the hunt for an axe to grind.

    If he were to suffer brain damage as a result of an injury and began molesting his children, divorce would not be the answer, but rather prompt reporting to law enforcement followed by permanent commitment to a facility where he could receive the necessary services and not have contact with his children. I would still be married to him. Same scenario if he was to NOT be brain damaged, but simply decided to make the decision (God forbid) to molest his children, then I wouldn’t hesitate to report him to law enforcement, testify against him and do all in my power to see that he gets a sentence long enough to ensure that he doesn’t get out of the slammer until the youngest child is an adult. My obligations as a mother demand such action. But I’m still married to him until one of us dies. That’s the blunt truth. He would still be my husband. We would not be living as husband and wife, of course. Common sense and justice demand we not for the good of those who are dependent upon us. He would have forfeited that right. I don’t think anyone in the manosphere would contest that statement. But the marriage still stands, and if I were to seek to dissolve the marriage by civil law it would be contrary to the dictates of my conscience and of my religious faith.

    “Love because we can’t help it” is an erroneous statement. That is an implication that we are some love-addicted absurd little creatures who haven’t a brain in our heads or even one cell that is working. “We cannot help but to love” is because the feminine nature is such that we seek to love and are more readily moved to compassion (I believe, but could be wrong; I feel I could be stepping on some sensitive toes here). This has also been my own personal experience. A woman who clings to a very bad relationship to the detriment of those who depend on her is a love addict. She is loving for purely selfish reasons, because it fills an emotional need in her that was broken somewhere in the past. A mature, normal, decent woman — and let me hasten to say there are not many out there, for the sake of the naysayers — loves because it is God’s Will and because she loves charitably. She has her priorities straight. God comes first, husband next, children third, everyone else fourth.

  31. Please take note even in the really bad scenario that was presented, I would not be the one leaving — he would be the one leaving, because the police would be taking him away from the home. And I would never pursue the route of divorce. Legal separation may be an appropriate route in some cases, as it protects the innocent spouse legally and financially, but if the husband (or wife) is behind bars, it shouldn’t be necessary.

    I have known a few cases in which the innocent party in a marriage was advised to civilly divorce in the case in which the other spouse has already left, filed and decided he wanted to pursue another relationship. Civil divorce may be the only way to protect yourself legally and financially. But the marriage is still intact in the eyes of God, hence why my own mother never remarried after my father divorced her.

  32. @ all

    I’m quite busy this week so I don’t have time to comment in a long manner.

    From a really quick (1 minute) read through I would generally agree with what Pilgrim is saying.

    The reason why AWALT and NAWALT need formalization in the first place is because it will help Christian men better understand women so that they can follow out Biblical commands. AWALT and NAWALT — as long as they don’t disagree with Scriptures — are truths that can be applied in how men approach women.

    Like Pilgrim said: the Bible does not say that women are attracted to strong and courageous men (as well as leadership, confidence, charisma, etc.). However, that’s something we can observe that occurs for ALL women (hence AWALT). Is there something wrong with pointing out this non-Scriptural truth?

    In my own relationships when interacting with women I need to know that what is going to keep them attracted is my leadership/headship, my confidence, and the like and I gear my leadership/headship/confidence toward Biblical truths. That’s the whole point of mentoring men to be men.

  33. thedeti says:

    “As I said previously, I cannot speak for the Brave New Feminazi. I can only speak for your normal decent woman. We love. What do you want me to say?”

    Translation: IANLT (I am not like that).
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Women love children. Women respect husbands (or at least they should). Women don’t love husbands. In my experience, women respect husbands. And respect is the attitude most men want from their wives.

    Love flows down, respect/obedience flow up.

    God loves man, man loves woman and children, woman loves children.

    Children respect/obey woman; woman respects/obeys man, man respects/obeys God.

  34. thedeti says:

    And women experience their respect for their husbands as love. in other words, in a healthy, properly functioning marriage, he treats her with kindness and sacrificial love. She treats him with utmost respect, deference, and submission in response to his kindness and sacrificial love. A woman views her own respect, deference and submission as “love”, when it isn’t. It’s respect.

  35. thedeti says:

    With respect to claims that “women love” and that “normal, decent women” are Not Like THat:

    I have seen the most devout, kindest, most deferential women treat their husbands with abject cruelty. Is that “love”?

    I saw one Christian woman married to her husband for 25 years divorce him when the last kid was grown because of his struggles with depression. Is that “love”?

    I have known Christian women deprive their husbands of sex because they “don’t feel like it”. Is that “love”?

    As above, more than 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women. Is this “love”?

    Christian “ministries” exhort women who for whatever reason are divorcing their husbands to take those men to the cleaners. Is this “love”?

  36. Mrs. C says:

    @DS – What do you think is the purpose of the husband’s calling to leadership in the home? I guess what confuses me the most is the overemphasis on sexual attraction. I don’t mean to say it’s not important in the marriage relationship but that it seems to be the summit and goal of male leadership/headship when it’s spoken about in the Christian manosphere. There seems to be a belief that if sexual attraction of the wife to the husband can be maintained at it’s peak at all times then the husband can almost guarantee that he won’t suffer the effects of no-fault divorce.

    While women do appreciate Godly confidence and leadership and it ties into sexual attraction, there are many other more important factors that play a part in women staying in their marriages. It seems that leading your wife by giving her ample opportunity to fully develop her life in Christ and to discern God’s will do more to protect the marriage from divorce than hanging it all on maintaining peak sexual attraction. Frankly, and I’m obviously not a man, but it sounds like a burden on husbands that is heavier and more exhaustive than it was meant to be.

    If the ultimate end of each human person is union with God through Christ and in growing more in imitation of Him, then the leadership of the husband would seems to tend to be one that builds up the body of Christ in his very own home. This building up would be to look for and recognize the specific strengths, talents, spiritual gifts etc of each individual member and to encourage each one of them in the use of these God-given gifts for God by building up the kingdom not only in the family but in the world.

    Yes, men are called to be head as Christ is head of the Church, but they need to take care to still recognize that they are ultimately creatures and have both gifts and deficiencies as individuals and as AMALT. Women know this. Women appreciate good Godly leadership but it does tend to annoy the heck out of us that in an attempt to maintain some exaggerated dominate frame, men try to hide or deny any weakness. The good Archbishop Sheen that I quoted above also said

    “A woman gets angry when a man denies his faults, because she knew them all along. His lying mocks her affection; it is the deceit that angers her more than the faults.”

    While it’s good for men to mentor men and I back that up 100%, what we need men to know is that wise leadership that builds up the body of Christ is the ultimate call for the man. Wise leadership that can recognize strength and weakness in himself and the members and knows how to delegate responsibilities which will showcase talents of the members and looks for ways to develop weakness into strength for the good of the whole family.

    Over focus on sexual attraction as the mainstay for keeping a woman from leaving the marriage and abandoning the family seems to be an exploitation of her natural attraction to man’s strength and operating from fallen nature without consideration of the grace of Christ. Men are called to use their strengths to build up and preserve the kingdom, not exploit it. Worrying about a wife’s constant peak sexual attraction, while it may hep to maintain the marriage in the sense of keeping her “addicted to love,” it does nothing for her own growth and development in Christ which is the husband’s responsibility to provide opportunity for it and to encourage her in it. Just as it would be sinful for a woman to use her sensuality to entice her husband to sin or to attempt to distort his discernment on a certain matter, it would be sinful for a man to use her attraction to his strength as a stronghold over her. Better that Christ is the stronghold in keeping the marriage intact.

  37. That’s why I said — I can’t speak for the Brave New Feminazi. Also, you say they treat their husbands with utmost cruelty. As in what? I have known that several men have claimed their wives have treated them badly, when the lady in question was exhausted and drained, and after fulfilling the requirements he had laid out for the day (lots of homeschooled kids, he wants a good dinner on the table promptly at six pm) and she was absolutely drained. She couldn’t respond to him the way he wanted, she needed some reciprocation, it wasn’t forthcoming, so she couldn’t respond to him with gushing enthusiasm (she had to fake it, therefore she “hated” him). There are two sides to everything. There is a lot of mud-slinging going on, to what purpose? The difficulty, I think, with the manosphere blogs is that you are taking the majority of women in the brave new world, applying that label to pretty much all women, and not taking into account that the women married to the “red pill” men are not like that at all (apparently your wife is the exception, as you readily expostulate). Most of them have VERY different lives than the women frequently described. As a result, you end up placing undue burdens on a lot of people who are already overwhelmed and confused.

    All those things you mentioned? Of course they are not love. You know that. You also know that the women I am describing do not do those things. And, just as an aside — it’s high time somebody said this — there are men who refuse marital relations as well, constantly, because their wives have fallen short on raising Phi Beta Kappa children.

  38. mdavid says:

    Irma Lumberjack, I agree with some of what you say, but the extended courtship part? That ship has sailed when the Christian family collapsed. Now, it’s more of a “war-bride” enviornment. The marriage “adventure”? For most men in the US today, this “adventure” is so trecherous it’s hardly an adventure but more like a war zone, with death and risk at every turn (unless he can marry into a Christian traditional family where the woman has strong family connections; less than 5% of Western women). Full disclosure: I’ve been happily married for nearly 20 years, and find people of your generation (in the US) to be utterly untrustworthy rearding marriage advice. Different era.

    Rather than relying on courtship, I’m more inclined to ask: 1) does the man and women know marriage probably will suck but still are willing to give ti a go with deep fear and trembling, and b) do they have good moral values and agree divorce is out forever and family/children are the focus of the marriage, and c) will they have the ability to support children? If so, they are ready to rock, and all the courtship in the world won’t help otherwise, in fact it will probably harm. You will never get to know somebody well in courtship, so relying upon it is seriously dangerous. I can figure out if a woman is worth the risk of marrying in 3 days, and I’ve met less than a half-dozen in my life. My own mother wasn’t worth marrying, nor was any of my sisters. But over half of my brothers are awesome spouses. This is the effect of Christian female liberation in our era; most Christian women today are terrible spouses and mothers.

    Shoe, that’s some good commentary. I’ve disagreed with a lot of your views of things in the past, but your comments here are very good.

  39. @mDavid,
    Thank you.

  40. @Mom in the Shoe:
    Well, you evaded answer whether you would still love your husband given that scenario. You only said that you wouldn’t divorce him, which just means that you love God too much to broke his commandment but doesn’t really say anything about that “cannot help but love”.

    I’m not the native speaker and I can’t really see any difference whatsoever between “Love because we can’t help it” and “We cannot help but to love”, but I’ll take your word on that. And while I don’t disagree with you about women being probably more compassionate/empathetic in general, I never observed (or read in Bible), that women are innately loving. Affectionate? Maybe, but not loving. And so far you definitely didn’t manage to persuade me otherwise.

    A mature, normal, decent woman — and let me hasten to say there are not many out there, for the sake of the naysayers — loves because it is God’s Will and because she loves charitably. She has her priorities straight. God comes first, husband next, children third, everyone else fourth.

    If there is not many of them/you out there, they can’t be normal, they are special by definition. Also if they/you love because it’s God’s will(I’m skipping the other “because” here because it’s a tautology) then it can’t be innate, because people are broken and don’t seek God’s will naturally.
    ———————————–

    The difficulty, I think, with the manosphere blogs is that you are taking the majority of women in the brave new world, applying that label to pretty much all women, and not taking into account that the women married to the “red pill” men are not like that at all (apparently your wife is the exception, as you readily expostulate). Most of them have VERY different lives than the women frequently described. As a result, you end up placing undue burdens on a lot of people who are already overwhelmed and confused.

    If red pill didn’t take into account these women, there would be no NAWALT but just AWALT. What burden did this DeepStrength’s article place onto you? If you feel bad about being a woman because of manosphere writing, let me assure you that red pill didn’t make me particularly happy about being a man either, but if I wanted just to be happy I would probably try drugs instead of reading…

  41. thedeti says:

    “I guess what confuses me the most is the overemphasis on sexual attraction. I don’t mean to say it’s not important in the marriage relationship but that it seems to be the summit and goal of male leadership/headship when it’s spoken about in the Christian manosphere. There seems to be a belief that if sexual attraction of the wife to the husband can be maintained at it’s peak at all times then the husband can almost guarantee that he won’t suffer the effects of no-fault divorce.”

    It is not an “overemphasis” on sexual attraction. It is a healthy emphasis. You need to remember that most of the men who comment in and around here were trained specifically that sexu al attraction is NOT important AT ALL and that a man is a brute and a pig and a jerk for even wanting sex from his wife. We put sexual attraction in its proper place.

    Peak sexual attraction will not guarantee a no- fault divorce; but it will sharply reduce the risks. This is so particularly where her sexual attraction to him is the only thing keeping her in the marriage. Christian women divorce all the time, and these are women who are held up to us men as paragons of virtue, obedience and Christian love. Yet, they will toss aside a husband just as easily as a nonChristian woman, in my experience.

  42. thedeti says:

    “While women do appreciate Godly confidence and leadership and it ties into sexual attraction, there are many other more important factors that play a part in women staying in their marriages. It seems that leading your wife by giving her ample opportunity to fully develop her life in Christ and to discern God’s will do more to protect the marriage from divorce than hanging it all on maintaining peak sexual attraction. Frankly, and I’m obviously not a man, but it sounds like a burden on husbands that is heavier and more exhaustive than it was meant to be. ”

    Ha. I’ve known plenty of good Christian men who did all those things — led devotions, did Bible studies, encouraged her in Christian ministries — and their “good Christian wives” with their own ministries still left them and divorced them. Know why? “He just didn’t turn me on.” “He wouldn’t work hard enough.” “He doesn’t make enough money.” “He just won’t stand up for me.”

  43. thedeti says:

    “While it’s good for men to mentor men and I back that up 100%, what we need men to know is that wise leadership that builds up the body of Christ is the ultimate call for the man. Wise leadership that can recognize strength and weakness in himself and the members and knows how to delegate responsibilities which will showcase talents of the members and looks for ways to develop weakness into strength for the good of the whole family. ”

    Again: I’ve known plenty of men who did and tried to do these things for their wives and families. Those men are divorced now, because their wives just weren’t sexually interested in them. Those men are estranged from their children now. Their former churches blame those men. “They obviously drove their wives to divorce them. Those men didn’t love their wives enough, or love them in the right way.” Sorry. Not convinced.

  44. thedeti says:

    “there are men who refuse marital relations as well, constantly, because their wives have fallen short on raising Phi Beta Kappa children.”

    Perhaps there are a few men who refuse sex to their wives, but I very much doubt that the women’s mothering has anything to do with it. In my experience there are only two reasons a man won’t have sex with his wife on a regular basis:

    1. She is cruel, mean and bitchy to him.
    2. She’s let herself go physically and has become very physically unattractive.

  45. thedeti says:

    “All those things you mentioned? Of course they are not love. You know that. You also know that the women I am describing do not do those things.”

    Where are these women who “do not do those things”? Where can a man find them? I always ask this question of women who make this claim and I never get an answer.

    I’m constantly told by Christians that there are legions on regiments on divisions of young, pretty, chaste, kind, good hearted, and devout women who are just dying dying dying to meet earnest, good, hardworking Christian men. I’m constantly told that these women are somehow “different” from secular nonChristian women, and that they only want to be wives and mothers.

    I have to tell everyone here that every single Christian woman I’ve ever met, Catholic and Protestant, is not anything like what you are all describing. They are just as fickle, just as carnal, just as picky, just as nasty, just as snobby, as any nonChristian woman I’ve ever met.

    So I ask again — WHERE??? WHERE are these women that everyone keeps talking about?

  46. @Pilgrim,
    Yes, I would still love my husband. Love is a verb, not an adjective. It is a decision made by the will on a daily basis to will that which is best for the beloved. I would desire that my husband save his soul and experience eternal beatitude. I love him. I believe that the problem here is that one group says love is the gloopy gloppy tinglies and the other group says that love is a decision of the will.
    A case in point of loving when it is difficult to love — I live in the parish where Fr. Kenneth Walker, FSSP was murdered last June in an attempted burglary of the rectory. The accused murderer has become quite the object of the parish’s charity in the form of prayers and sacrifices (most notably of small children giving up their Sunday doughnut, a much longed-for treat) for his conversion. This is an act of love. By the same token, a husband who has taken the path of criminal behavior also should be the object of the same love, which by its true nature is sacrificial. Without sacrifice, there is no love.
    This depends, of course, on which form of love you are thinking of. This is where the English language is at a disadvantage. We “love” ice cream, we “love” Grand Teton National Park, we “love” the dog, we “love” Grandma, we “love” God. It’s a problem.
    I misspoke when I used the term “innate”, and I would wish to withdraw that term at this time, because I see where that was a mistake. It isn’t innate, but rather an act of obedience to God.
    Obviously, a man who chooses to forsake his moral code and has the misfortune to deserve time behind bars has no access to eros and should not under any circumstances.
    Another issue is that no woman can truly love her husband unless she loves God first and above all things. So God has to come first and you have to place His law above all else.
    On burdens that DeepStrength’s article may have placed upon me, the particular article itself did not. Any burdens are private issues, and I do not choose to discuss them. But I do not feel the least bad about being a woman. I’m comfortable in my own skin and the nature the Lord chose to bestow upon me.

  47. Sorry, Pilgrim, I forgot to address this point:

    “WHERE??? WHERE are these women that everyone keeps talking about?”

    We have some lovely young ladies of marriageable age right in our parish who would like very much to marry and raise a fine family. You are welcome at any time.

  48. Ooops, sorry, realized this was Deti asking this….please accept my apologies. But for those of you still not married — well, you know one place where you can look.

  49. thedeti says:

    I see a “no true Scotsman” fallacious argument developing here.

    “Well, if those women were doing those awful things, then they weren’t really Christians! After all, if she were a true Christian, she wouldn’t do those things. Because… NO TRUE CHRISTIAN WOMAN does those things.”

    Sorry, ladies. Christian women are Christians, but they’re still women, and they’re still sinners, and they still have fallen human natures just like their nonChristian counterparts. There’s nothing special or different about Christian women, particularly in this society.

  50. thedeti says:

    “We have some lovely young ladies of marriageable age right in our parish who would like very much to marry and raise a fine family.”

    Then show up the good, hardworking Christian men who present themselves to said lovely young ladies.

    “Ewww! We don’t want them. Christian men are boring, not fun. I want to have FUN!”

    “Mom, Dad, these guys are really nice, but… gee, I dunno…. They’re just so…. BORING.”

    “I don’t want to date you. I’m not interested in you.”

    Christian women are the same as their nonChristian counterparts.

  51. OK, fine, whatever you say. But I happen to know the girls, and for reasons that are beyond my control, the general population of the young men of marriageable age at our parish are heading to the seminary, for your information. Therefore, they have taken themselves out of the marriage market.

    I stopped having an argument with you once before, and I am disengaging from this conversation now. It is pointless.

  52. thedeti says:

    MitS:

    You can go ahead and ignore my comments. But I can tell you that my experience is not at all unique. There are hundreds upon thousands of men who have had the same experiences as I have, in churches all across the country, and in marriages, both continuing and failed.

    Ignore them at your– and your children’s — peril.

  53. Mrs. C says:

    Deti, the problem with your vehement insistence that Christian women are not capable of rising above fallen nature is that you seem to be saying that women are immune to the grace of Christ which was won for all. While it is true that there is a lack of faith and seeking of spiritual growth among men and women in the Church today and this leads to lukewarm Christians and a lot of backsliding, that shouldn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that women are somehow beyond the ability of responding to grace and growing in virtue and holiness. The secular culture today has infected men and women both in society and the church and this leads them to fall. It’s not a problem with the nature of women, it’s a problem of secular influences infecting men and women in the Church.

  54. thedeti says:

    “Deti, the problem with your vehement insistence that Christian women are not capable of rising above fallen nature is that you seem to be saying that women are immune to the grace of Christ which was won for all.”

    I didn’t say that. What I am saying, and what the evidence all around me clearly shows, is that most Christian women don’t rise above their fallen natures, because they choose not to. The only way for one to have Christ’s grace is to receive it and then have it manifest through the fruits of the Spirit. The evidence all around me shows me that most Christian women choose not to allow those Fruits to manifest toward their husbands.

    “It’s not a problem with the nature of women, it’s a problem of secular influences infecting men and women in the Church.”

    I don’t know. Every time I interact with you and MitS I’m regaled with stories about how some Catholic husbands are cruel and mean and unfeeling toward their wives–expecting meals on the table by 6 pm after a long day of homeschooling, and how insensitive and cold these men are. Or men who enjoy a drink or three of whiskey now and again, and overdo it, and how cruel and uncaring this is. Sounds like complaining about the “nature of men” to me.

    Don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like the message.

  55. Mrs. C says:

    I don’t recall regaling you with stories of cruel husbands as I haven’t been privy to seeing any up close and personal. I am fortunate to have a large extended family in which the vast majority of marriages are intact and strong and the men are good men. I’m happily married and my husband is the best. I couldn’t ask for better. I do recall you trying to deny MinS’s experiences of things she’s seen husbands do in marriages that she’s privy to just because you don’t see it much in your own life and accusing her of exaggeration, if I remember correctly. Just because it’s not your experience, doesn’t mean her experiences aren’t valid.

  56. thedeti says:

    “Just because it’s not your experience, doesn’t mean her experiences aren’t valid.”

    And just because you and MitS have apparently never seen a Christian wife acting cruelly and insensitively to her husband doesn’t mean my experiences, and the experiences of countless men here, aren’t valid.

  57. Mrs. C says:

    I don’t deny your experiences but I do observe that you seem to extrapolate that to mean there are no good women to be found anywhere and that all men are good men.

  58. thedeti says:

    Mrs. C:

    Stop putting words in my mouth. I have never once, anywhere, said that all men are good and all women are bad. All people are evil. Some people’s CONDUCT is good despite their evil nature. I’ve acknowledged all over the place that some men are bad and some women are “decent”.

  59. Mrs. C says:

    Deti – I’ve observed time and time again that if I, MitS or any number of women speak of women who do love their husbands, who are loyal or who really do strive to live an authentically Christian life, you start with your “That can’t be because I see Christian women behaving badly” argument or “WHERE ARE THEY?” You jumped into this conversation just to argue that women don’t love their husbands and that “Love flows down/respect flows up” garbage. Love and respect aren’t mutually exclusive. “All people are evil” is garbage too. Neither one of those statements is Christian.

    People have a fallen nature, not an evil one. God created and pronounced it very good. Because of sin, it’s more difficult for us to love as we ought but through cooperation with grace in Christ, we are enabled to overcome sinful tendencies. I know not many cooperate in that grace right now. “Not many” doesn’t translate into “no one” so you don’t need to pounce on anyone who is making an argument that some do. Their argument doesn’t cancel out the “not many” reality.

    If love doesn’t flow up then why the “two commandments on which depend all the law?” Why be commanded to love God if it can’t flow up? Also, love doesn’t just flow down one way on a continuum. God is both Transcendent and Immanent. He is above His creation but also abides in it as well. Love is given, received and for the Christian should be returned to the giver. Even if it’s not, we give anyway.

    “And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

    “In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No man has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because he first loved us. ”

    I will have to stop the conversation on my end at this point. I stand by what I said and there’s no use in arguing it further.

  60. Irma Lumberjack says:

    Hi all,

    Caveat: this is pointed but I want to separate out practical from academic and wisdom from knowledge. I am not claiming to have an abundance of either knowledge or wisdom (applied knowledge) us would like to discern where people are coming from.

    The recent contributors have been:
    –thedeti ?
    –Pilgrim of the East ?
    –mdavid ?
    –jonadabtherechabite ?
    –Feminine But Not Feminist ?
    –CH
    –MrsC.
    –MomInTheShoe
    — me (Irma Lumberjack)

    How many of these contributors have been married or are married? Of those who have been married, how many have been married for longer than seven years (I choose that because IMHO it takes about seven years to become complacent with spouse and not value her the way I used to; hence :the seven year itch” truism). I’d be interested to know.

    This is a debate and a discussion – reflections with different viewpoints not dogma. Lets do that, shall we ?

  61. I changed the main posts conclusion on these questionables:

    1. On Agape: All [Christian] women have the capacity to agape love, respect, and submit their husbands. However, in the current culture this tends to be very rare.

    2. On moral agency: All women have full moral agency. They are responsible for their decisions as much as men are responsible for theirs. However, culture and churchianity tends to infantilize women’s decision making placing the consequence of poor decisions that women make onto men as men’s burden of leadership and responsibility.

    3. On authority: women are able to operate out of the bounds of authority of men (their fathers, husbands) although it may or may not be for the best depending on the different situations. This may need to be hashed out further per each scenario it occurs.

    ——————————

    TBH, I’m not as familiar with the Catholic communities. From what Donal and Chad has told me things are looking pretty grim as a single Catholic man. If their experiences are to be believed there is substantial generational gap between Mrs C and MitS comments that I would take with a grain of salt if I was commenting to the single men who read this blog.

    However, there is some merit to their thing about husbands being as they are saying as one of my friends who grew up in Texas saw much of this in his Prot communities there. So it could be more geographically oriented than even on Catholic/Protestant lines. The south tends to still be more conservative and traditionally based than the north. Additionally, when you’re located around large cities and urban and suburban culture the liberalized feminist atmosphere permeates the thoughts and feelings of the vast majority of Christians. I would suspect that more rural communities are also a bit insulated against the cultural drift.

    As far as the Protestant communities go, Deti’s analysis is pretty spot on from my experience with the vast majority of churches and the single and married women I’ve interacted with. Don’t get me wrong though. The vast majority of men and women want to love God, and they want to love other Christian men and women. However… they’re sold a sack of crap advertently or inadvertently on the nature of men and women and attraction in general… you can’t always tell whether it’s on purpose or on accident. It’s quite painfully obvious: women who are supposed to be “attracted” to these nice Christian men are instead attracted to bad boys. It’s because women have a nature that was created by God to be sexually attracted to masculinity which the bad boys have BUT Christian men aren’t being taught to be masculine but rather emasculated by niceness and pedastalization of women. Women that love God and love their husbands will divorce them because they get unhappy and don’t know why they’re not attracted to their husbands.

    Sexual attraction is serious business and it should get the weight it deserves BECAUSE sexual attraction is a by product of masculinity in general and a woman’s responsiveness to it. It’s important to recognize that things being “easier” isn’t always better or good. However, in the case of sexual attraction it helps grease multiple things within a marriage such as sexual intimacy, respect, submission, and a willing response to headship. Sexual attraction obviously should not be the only thing selected for such as godly traits and relationship with God. However, it is definitely one of the ones that should be a priority along with the others. As Paul in 1 Cor 7 says (paraphrased): there’s no real reason to get married unless you burn with passion. That’s the only reason in the NT given for marriage I believe.

  62. Looking Glass says:

    No one would give a child a fully loaded gun, unless they’re well educated in its use, danger and utility. But we’ve taken the “we’re not like everyone else, we’ll give our kids half-loaded guns!” approach to the topic. It’s also one of those “repeat a lie long enough and everyone believes it”. Though the problem within the Church stems from a much larger, more general issue: the rejection of the Spirit, thus Truth & Wisdom went out the door for “Logic”.

    Body, Money and Sex. In the Western Cultures, a Christian *needs* to be in control of all 3 of those aspects of their life. Each is a nuclear bomb against the Soul. And we don’t treat it as such.

  63. mdavid says:

    IL, How many…have been married or are married? How many…for longer than seven years.
    17 yrs, 9 hatched. But I don’t let my personal experiences interfere with my objective analysis.

  64. Irma Lumberjack says:

    Hi again,

    @DS
    Interesting discussion. I am particularly interested in your comment:

    “If their experiences are to be believed there is substantial generational gap between Mrs C and MitS comments that I would take with a grain of salt if I was commenting to the single men who read this blog. ”

    I’ve learnt that wisdom can come from men and women that are both younger and older me, particularly if it is Holy Spirit enabled. Are you being age-ist (another form of identity politics) or making a comment about different expectations between different segments of the population about how the long-term relationships should work ?

    I am sorry that you have found advice from people of “my generation” (no category there) unreliable — I too have found unreliable advice from people younger than me, notably a lack of depth and thought in terms of practical application of the advice they gave me. Different generation. If we are to love one another as our neighbour and span generational and gender gaps towards the unity that Christ desires “so that the world may believe”, this requires grace.

    I am familiar with the feminine imperative – I am also familiar with the grace of a loving God poured out for me.

    Much has been made of the role of male leadership in marriage. There has also been much made of womens roles. Sound’s suspiciously like Wayne Grudens “Systematic Theology” often used by Reformed and Bretheren communities. I cannot fault that they know their Word really well, though sometimes as an academic text rather than the living Word of God (Is 55:11, Is 40:9; Heb 4:12-13). But my observation has been that (mostly) their marrriages lack life and joy – they follow rules and get worn down by them sometimes resulting in the separation of Godly people. Gal 5:1 says it is for freedom that we have been set free (and uses circumcision as an allegory which is later broadened).

    Live in the freedom of the grace that God has provided. Practice forgiveness and heal. Love carefully.

    This post will be my last.

    I don’t disgree with your goals but please be careful about how you say what you say.

    Stupendous God – your majesty and power is spread throughout the heavens for us all to see. By your will you caused it to be and by your word you contain the power of a billion, billion suns. Almighty Father, thank you for your sovereign power and authority over all of your creation. Thank you that your only Son Jesus Christ came willingly to the cross to sacrifice himself for us that we might live in freedom. Thank you Jesus that you sent Holy Spirit as Counsellor and to renew God’s relationship with us. Holy God, relationships between men and women are tricky – help us. Please give us wisdom in how we deal with one another so that we can live in unity with all of the Fruits of the Spirit manifest in us. Let us be a testamony of your grace and mercy towards us so that marriages will blossom and flourish so that the world will be jealous for what they see. Help us to be in the world but not of it. Lastly God, I pray for this site and for the contributors and seekers who come here, that they might find Godly widsom and find their life and purpose in You. God bless us all and especially strengthen our marriages (Ecc 4:12) and bring Godly encouragement to us individually and together. For those who have been hurt by members of the opposite sex, minister to them, bring your healing and protect their hearts and minds from anything that is not of you. Give them Your grace to forgive and move on. For all of the contributors who haven’t yet found a spouse , I ask for your grace for each of them and for recognition of that event by both parties when it happens. Thank you for hearing this prayer. Thank you that in faith we can believe Your promises to us even though circumstances might try to tell us something different. For those who don’t yet know you, please prove to them that You are the God you say you are. Thank you that there is no shadow of turning in You, Lord..
    In Jesus Name,

  65. thedeti says:

    Will be married 19 years this June. So I’m not exactly a neophyte or a novice to these issues.

  66. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Irma Lumberjack

    Never been married myself, though I’ve been trying to get there for ages.

  67. thedeti says:

    “women who are supposed to be “attracted” to these nice Christian men are instead attracted to bad boys. It’s because women have a nature that was created by God to be sexually attracted to masculinity which the bad boys have BUT Christian men aren’t being taught to be masculine but rather emasculated by niceness and pedastalization of women. Women that love God and love their husbands will divorce them because they get unhappy and don’t know why they’re not attracted to their husbands.”

    Nailed it.

    Which is why I’m tired of hearing from people how there are “so many” young, pretty, Christian women who only want to be wives and moms, and who are just dying to meet, marry, have sex with, and start families with, good, hardworking, earnest, sincere Christian men. It’s BS.

    What people should be saying is that there are a few young, devout Christian woman who want to meet, marry, and start families with earnest, well-off, established, extremely good looking nominally Christian men who lift and are in good physical shape.

  68. @ Irma

    I’ve learnt that wisdom can come from men and women that are both younger and older me, particularly if it is Holy Spirit enabled. Are you being age-ist (another form of identity politics) or making a comment about different expectations between different segments of the population about how the long-term relationships should work ?

    I am sorry that you have found advice from people of “my generation” (no category there) unreliable — I too have found unreliable advice from people younger than me, notably a lack of depth and thought in terms of practical application of the advice they gave me. Different generation. If we are to love one another as our neighbour and span generational and gender gaps towards the unity that Christ desires “so that the world may believe”, this requires grace.

    It’s the expectations and response to expectations. There are two factors at play there:

    1. The generational gap between the values of the previous generation is immense. Feminism, as you know, has infested the vast majority of minds, even Christians, since the 1960s and 1970s. I live in a suburban area and people don’t even like talking about male headship because it makes them uncomfortable. Most churches don’t even address it at all. If they’re uncomfortable with headship that means they never talk about submission. How can you address the marriage relationship without talking about the roles and responsibilities that come with it? And that’s the generation above the young people who are pastoring churches. It’s bad.

    From what I can tell talking to friends it’s like this in most urban and suburban parts of the country at least in the not-south (west, northwest, north, east, northeast,).

    2. I definitely believe there is a lot of useful advice from the older generation. And the Scriptures tell us to submit to our elders (1 Peter 5). The hard part, from my experience, is discerning what is applicable advice and what is not applicable advice given the generational gap.

    For example, the most common advice that Christian friends and family and even pastors give about relationships and marriage is to wait until after you both have graduated, have a job, are established in your careers, are financial stable, and then get married.

    The main problem with this is that it’s (1) not distinguished as Scriptural versus life advice, and (2) the consequences aren’t explained either. For women who wait until their late 20s and 30s to consider marriage they are at a distinct disadvantage compared to the younger and usually more attractive women. This does not include things like fertility which get much worse especially in the early/mid 30s. I likewise bought into this advice and didn’t begin a search until later. While this did not affect me significantly as a man as we get more attractive the older we get, it did potentially prevent me from many years of being with “the wife of my youth.”

    Many of these “life scripts” are made without consideration with the goals of the young people involved. What if their #1 goal aside from God is to get married? Marriage is indeed ministry in itself. Although getting married younger can be more difficult and the consequences should be discussed, they should also be discussing as such with getting married later.

    Lastly, What can single people do to prepare for relationships? I outline that here. If you have any comments on improving this I would be most welcome.

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/my-5-step-process-to-maturity-in-relationships/

  69. “How many of these contributors have been married or are married?”

    I am.

    “Of those who have been married, how many have been married for longer than seven years?”

    Thirteen years in June.

  70. Pardon me once more, but this could not be allowed to lie. It’s something that I believe everybody would just brush under the rug unless it is more forcefully brought to light.
    In a lively exchange with Deti, he presented the following question:
    “I have known Christian women deprive their husbands of sex because they “don’t feel like it”. Is that “love”?”
    This is a common complaint and one that is very serious, I will readily admit. In Catholic teaching, a woman who does this commits a mortal sin. However, it is mentioned quite frequently, and I thought it should be pointed out that the reverse can also happen, as when I said the following:
    “And, just as an aside — it’s high time somebody said this — there are men who refuse marital relations as well, constantly, because their wives have fallen short on raising Phi Beta Kappa children.”
    To this, Deti replied the following:
    “Perhaps there are a few men who refuse sex to their wives, but I very much doubt that the women’s mothering has anything to do with it. In my experience there are only two reasons a man won’t have sex with his wife on a regular basis:
    1. She is cruel, mean and bitchy to him.
    2. She’s let herself go physically and has become very physically unattractive.”

    All right….here goes. I am about to explode, but I shall do so as politely as I can possibly muster.

    Are you aware of the toll a number of close-together pregnancies takes on a woman’s body? If you are open to life and God’s Divine Will in planning your family for you, the chances are highly likely your wife will present you (taking variables of age and such into account, of course; these are generalities) with many blessings from God in the form of sons and daughters, and possibly they may come quite close together. In our parish, seven to ten children per family are a norm.

    One after another, they come. Mama nurses them all herself and loses sleep, lives on coffee and leftovers, and eventually the sweets cravings come along because they provide the “false energy” (we all know about that). Here comes another pregnancy, complete with its “morning” sickness (more like all day long). She goes on the high carb diet because it alleviates the nausea, but it does promote weight gain. Let’s toss in a C-section for good measure, and the recovery from that, which negates a lot of exercise right away, so it takes a little longer to recover and she doesn’t lose the weight — and bingo, here comes another blessing from God and more weight gain. Oldest child is ready for school now. We start homeschooling in full swing. Another pregnancy down the road, but let’s say now that the oldest child isn’t quite reading yet and he’s approaching age seven (let’s also toss in preparing for First Communion for good measure).

    Dad is not happy. First of all, his wife is getting cross and is tired all the time. Meals aren’t that nice anymore; a lot of Crock-Pot things and sometimes she forgets what’s on the stove because she was changing a diaper and drilling someone on multiplication tables at the same time. And the oldest isn’t reading as fast as Dad wants. He wants to know what’s wrong. Mom assures him all children develop at different levels, they are plugging away, the child is making progress albeit very slow, please just be patient. Guess what? Dad wants excellence from the firstborn (especially if it’s a boy), he isn’t happy and wants the results NOW.

    A solution presents itself — obviously his wife is overwhelmed. She can’t handle kids! Of course! She can’t provide the education they need. He wants trophy children so he can show it off to the rest of his family that homeschooling is great and their home life is great and he also wants his wife to magically revert back to age twenty-three in her looks — they have all disappointed him.

    What creates all the little blessings? You already know the answer to that one. So he cuts her off. Obvious solution. He may also be a little more spiritual-minded, so he compensates for his decision by a rigorous program of spiritual reading, prayer, etc. His wife is now the distraction from his spiritual growth. He is going to get holy and help his kids to get holy in spite of her.

    What do you think of that one? I suggest you contemplate that a little bit before you continue complaining about your life. It has been known to happen. It is not funny and it is unjust. But it has happened.

    Are there things the wife can do? ABSOLUTELY. I am not letting her off the hook. But it does take two to make things work out, and this is a case in which everything has come to a head. A wife who finally stands up and says “NO MORE” would probably be sharply rebuked by the husband in question as being unsubmissive and worldly; perhaps even some manosphere frequenters.

    A wife who finally throws in the towel and states that she will no longer homeschool no matter how much her husband commands her would be considered unsubmissive, but I’ve known a couple who finally did. The kids were enrolled in a local charter school known for its high level of academics. They required tutors from the beginning because their home education experience had not been enough to prepare them for this school. At first the husband was just like he had been — you were such a pathetic instructor, look at them, etc., etc. — but after several months and the kids came home with “attitudes”, he slowly began to see the light. They finished out the school year, and the husband begged his wife to reconsider. He acknowledged how wrong he had been, that it didn’t matter if they had an elite prep school education, he just wanted her to teach them again so they wouldn’t bring home the attitudes. But by then it was too late. She was done. She did relent and homeschool the ones that were still little and hadn’t yet begun school, but only under the condition that he never again criticize in the way he had previously.

  71. As Donal said on his blog, I probably overreacted and have said something while very hot under the collar. Please forgive the bluntness. However, I don’t apologize for bringing the subject to light, only for the tone and delivery I employed in doing so.

  72. By the way, I didn’t mention other variables, such as a child with ADHD (grossly overdiagnosed, but it does exist), an autistic child, a pregnancy that goes toxemic and other factors too numerous to mention. A wife open to life can expect to lose herself completely, as she must give of herself completely — and this means her body is now at the service of the Creator in cooperating with His Divine Plan. All of her is dedicated 100% to the service of her husband and children. When people complain about a wife “letting herself go”, I can wax quite violent over what they are complaining of — the demands on her, physically, mentally and emotionally, are HUGE. If her husband wants a hot breakfast each day, she may get up an hour earlier than usual to see to it that she can make it, taking into account that the baby must be nursed beforehand. But he gets the hot breakfast. Then there is school to do, all the other chores to take care of, the school subjects covered and accounted for (which can be more or less involved depending upon the state in which one lives), and a well-balanced dinner on the table sharp at six. This works out for a while. She makes sure she’s up early to get all the kiddies ready so that they are at Mass plenty early. She goes “all-out” for the holidays and prepares lovely traditional recipes….and this lasts for a while…until.

    Because this is a recipe for burnout. However, nobody can say she isn’t being sweet and submissive. But undoubtedly her figure and weight aren’t what they might otherwise be, and her disposition isn’t going to stay sweet for long. She’s going to crash and burn. It may take only one year, it may take five years, but eventually the volcano is going to blow up and it won’t be pretty. I’ve seen it happen in several instances, and it takes many forms. Sometimes it comes in the form of major depression, sometimes it comes in the form of violence (wife and mom striking out, not husband and dad here, ok?) Sometimes it comes in the form of her just getting in the car and driving one evening after everybody is all set for the night, no place in particular, and nobody knows where she is until she finally calls from someplace in a sodden heap of tears. Sometimes it comes in the form of a written ultimatum because spoken ones were ineffective.

    Are we having fun yet? Methinks not. Anyway I’m finished and I just think it ought to be considered carefully. You aren’t dealing with the feminazis. And for heaven’s sake, if you’re a single guy looking for a great wife, there are places to look. They do exist, Deti’s protestations notwithstanding. There’s one location in the Midwest, one area in northern Idaho and several other pockets throughout the country where you should find a good variety of young ladies from which you could make a selection. It would help if you were Catholic, though.

  73. @ MitS

    I appreciate the viewpoints and know you can get riled up because you see these women struggling. However,

    1. These just show me that wives and potential wives need to communicate better with their husbands prior to marriage and during marriage. Expectations need to be discussed in conjunction with everything else that goes into having a family.

    2. This is not exactly useful information to single unmarried Christian men who are looking to get married.

    While husbands should try to anticipate these problems (as I would in any relationship that I have), men can’t mind read women. It’s on the wives to bring things up in discussion if they’re being overwhelmed or overburdened or have too many expectations placed on them.

    3. You can only deal with things that you know are issues. Men tend to assume that nothing is wrong if no one is talking about. Christian women and wives need to take this into account. You can’t “wish” men would assume different unless you have actually talked to them about it. Wishing is not reality.

    4. If there aren’t open lines of communication then that’s a whole other problem that needs to be addressed. For example, Cane Caldo addresses one such problem here (for the men who haven’t seen):

    https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/do-not-serve-cold/

    I may come off like I’m some heartless man in this post but really the only person you can control is yourself. Brushing things under the rug is never a good idea because they tend to come back to bite you or overwhelm you. I will personally decline to do things for family, friends, and other people if it’s too much or overwhelming (after prayer if I should take more things on), and I would expect my potential wife to do the same if she is being overburdened.

    People need to learn how to be a good steward of themselves and their abilities.

  74. Wannabe PolyHistor says:

    There were some comments that crossed in the mail, so my apologies – this is my “probable” last email. Thanks you for your responses in relation to marriage status and duration -imuch appreciated.

    Okey-doke …. please bear with me as there is a point to this. The major point is this – this blog dives in at the detail level without supplying a larger picture. It was only after I read Scott’s email and your recent post (DS) that this penny began to drop.

    @DS
    My Christian identity and the identity of others can be presented using a visualisation tool called the Johari Window. Imagine a square with 4 quadrants (Q1 through Q4) characterised as follows abbreviations defined after this table (Table 1)

    TABLE 1: JOHARI WINDOW
    Q1: KG-KM-KO
    Q2: KG-KM-UO
    Q3: KG-UM-KO
    Q4: KG-UM-UO

    where::
    KG = known by God (he is all-knowing, all powerful; nothing is hidden from him)
    KM = known to me as part of my identity;
    KO = known to others about me
    UM = known to others but not to me;
    UO = unknown to others

    Q1 is my public persona – what I choose to reveal to others and; possibly project a portion of this as an internet identity
    Q2 is what is known to me but not to others; it contains my dark secrets or other information I don’t want revealed.
    Q3 is what others know about me demonstrated most often by my actions and attitudes that I’m not even aware of or possibly secret information known to them (e.g. the person works in the same company and knows I’m up for promotion but I don’t)
    Q4 is what is known to God (basically everything); this has the following application to non-believers who say “I don’t believe in God”. “well tough, my God believes in you”. God is God. He knows my strengths and weaknesses and still loves me.

    Note that only 50% of the information available to God is known to me (Q1 & Q2) at best (depends on level of self awareness). The same is true of others and this is why grace needs to be applied – relationships are complicated and we need Gods help. People behave in manners that they don’t necessarily understand on the basis of previous hurt. The current discussion is only occurring in Q1. and there hasn’t touched on aspects of environmental conditioning or poor teaching or even just a desire to establish an abusive relationship to get what they want (application to makle and female) (I understand these aims now but they were never explicitly stated – note that the Johari Window is true for everyone). Maintaining a discussion solely in Q1 limits the opportunities for God to work in more transparent fashion amongst us.

    Also the relationships under discussion are not healthy ones. My experience (no, I won’t discuss this in further detail) has been that a reasonable response to hegemony will be to use that response to actively seek more power through a process of belittling, attempted public humiliation, intimidation, domination, control and physical force (the woman was 120 kg 1.8 m tall and stronger than me).. In some cases these people are fully aware of what they are doing, in other cases they are not – it’s reactionary to a perceived injustice). To my knowledge in this blog, no one has explicitly stated similar experiences – only that they’re “bad”. Note that these characteristics are not confined to women.

    So if the relationship is unhealthy (some of you have supplied scripture to support this), normal standards do not apply. Yup Matt22:37-40 still applies but there is a plethora of info in the old and new testaments about how God deals with the unrighteous. Hegemony isn’t healthy. Love carefully instead and walk away if you need to. They are still God’s creation but don’t suffer abuse.

    The issues of agency hinge on who God is to us and our obedience to Him – God opens doors, supplies grace and favour and supernaturally enables sometimes (e.g. Esther, Ruth, Gideon, David etc). Confining a woman or a man to a box because “that’s what the definition says they should be” ignores the notion of free will and the sovereignty of God. God will do what God will do. Guidelines are useful but that’s what they should remain; if people see wisdom in what is presented and desire more, then by all means teach (a stronger imperative than guideline).

    Key Points.
    1. We only know 50% of who we are at best and less about other people (e,g wives)
    2. If we don’t know them well, we can only base our thoughts on what we see (actions, words)
    3. God knows us in our entirety and still chooses to love us despite our flaws.
    4. This blog confines it’s discussion to Q1 (only 25% of identity)
    5. God desires unity that the world may believe
    6. God applied grace to us.
    7. We should apply grace where we can (particularly with peers seeking help or contributing).
    8. Practice grace and forgiveness as appropriate – otherwise walk away.
    9. We are still called to obey the laws of our country

    Lastly, without a context it is difficult to make sense of the information. I assumed (wrongfully) that the conversations and discussions were about healthy relationships and Godly masculinity. Therefore some of the responses seemed over-the-top in terms of vehemence. I failed to note that hurt was driving that vehemence in some instances. Thank you DS for your measured response.

    Thank you all for your varied contributions and for enlightening me about varied aspects of Christian life in big cities in different parts of the US.

    Shalome.

  75. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    I’m gonna attempt to speak up for MitS (hopefully that’s okay with her; if not then I apologize). From her comments (that I’ve seen anyways) left here and there over the past several however-many months that she’s been around these parts, I’ve gotten a very strong impression that a lot of the husbands in her circle aren’t even open to communication from their wives. It follows that the wives are left between a rock and a hard place because they’re trying so hard to do the things that are expected of them (some things that the husbands are actually supposed to be involved in, such as educating the kids, rather than leaving it 100% in the wife’s hands), but it’s more than they can handle on their own… and the husbands just.don’t.want.to.hear.it… Period. So it’s important (critical, even) to communicate before the marriage about expectations, yes. But for those already married to men that refuse to communicate effectively, it is redundant to tell them to just communicate with their husbands, because it sounds like they’ve already tried that without success. It takes two to communicate, and if one refuses… then what is the other one supposed to do?

  76. @ FBNF

    And while I understand that 99.99% of the men coming to this blog are Christian husbands and single men who have the opposite problem, T

    hey are too nice, listen to their woman too much to the detriment of their headship, and are generally unattractive because they pedastalize her and everything she says and does. They need to be taught how to be strong, confident, leaders who are decisive in their actions, have their identity rooted in Christ and know what their mission for God is, and be able to direct and correct their wives or future wives on the path of righteousness. They need to understand that communication is good, but ultimately the decision is up to them not what their woman is saying, and how to temper as treating wives as co-heirs in Christ. Right now they are too scared to act as leaders.

    Giving MitS’ advice to these men is only going to make them idolize women more. Trust me. I was there a couple years ago as were most of the Christian manosphere bloggers.

    In other words, it’s good and useful information about dysfunctional relationships. It’s just the wrong crowd altogether to be discussing it with. The types of men I talk to are dysfunction in the exact opposite way.

  77. @ Wannabe PolyHistor

    Yep, good clarifications.

    It’s important to realize that most of the comments are talking about the two spectrums of dysfunctional relationships:

    1. weak headship and rebellious wife
    2. overbearing/controlling headship and doormat wife

    What we want is:

    3. Christ-like loving headship, and submission, respectful wife.

  78. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ DS

    Fair enough. However, your response to MitS gives the impression that you think that the women she is referring to need to communicate with their husbands better, and that that would solve the problem, as if the men she is referring to only expect too much because the wives haven’t communicated that it is too much for them to handle on their own. And so, I pointed out to you that MitS’s comments have made it clear that the men won’t even consider what their wives have to say about anything when they try to communicate with them about these things. End of story – no need to draw anything else from my comment because that’s all there was there. Your comment to me has nothing to do with what I said or with what you last said to MitS, so I don’t even know why you’re saying it to me specifically.

  79. @ FBNF

    The answer is to communicate.

    However — like I said — if communication lines are not open there needs to be other measures. That’s why I liked Cane’s post on how one such situation may be addressed.

    Your comment to me has nothing to do with what I said or with what you last said to MitS, so I don’t even know why you’re saying it to me specifically.

    I’m clarifying to the audience why I take the stance I do on this blog.

  80. FBNF:
    You nailed it. Communication is pointless with many of these people. We are told “communicate” and yet to what point? I know several women who would laugh hysterically at that one, and then bawl their eyes out because it is futile.
    Same goes for the commenter on Cane’s post who said that the wife should go to counseling to get her sexual hangup fixed — not the couple go together to repair their marriage. Well, fine, but let’s be honest here: a wife whose husband is refusing her is pretty much stuck. She can go to counseling to work on solutions for keeping her sanity, but the advice is completely useless to a woman whose husband refuses her intimacy and refuses to see that she has any valid viewpoints that differ from his own.
    We all like to stick with that which makes us comfortable. Just as it’s hard for women to hear about their sins, so it is hard for men to be confronted with theirs.

  81. Incidentally, Cane’s post can be summed up in the following: obey, be quiet and have sex with him.
    If he refuses to have sex with her even when she shows interest, the latter will be very difficult to do.
    She may already do the first two, much to her detriment. Especially the “be quiet” part. To the point that finally no words are passed between them at all, and she drifts into a half-alive sea of daydreams, writing down all that she would wish to say to him, and burning the notebooks as they fill up.

  82. @ MitS

    We all like to stick with that which makes us comfortable. Just as it’s hard for women to hear about their sins, so it is hard for men to be confronted with theirs.

    That’s not it. None of the men commenting here have the sins suggested.

    Perhaps none of the women either, but I don’t run in those circles so I don’t know.

    Incidentally, Cane’s post can be summed up in the following: obey, be quiet and have sex with him.

    What’s the point of bringing up these types of scenarios to us in this post and/or things like Cane’s post where we apparently “don’t have a clue” then?

    How is 1 Peter 3:1-6 to be interpreted then? Or Eph 5:33b? Respect is a necessary and core part of said actions.

  83. I was generalizing in this case — we prefer to deal with the things that involve pointing fingers at others rather than looking deeply into ourselves. It’s a normal human trait to do so. So, I would think my reference to sins should be interpreted as that.

    And on the others — well, some do have a clue, I wasn’t trying to say that, but the fact is that there are a lot of glaring omissions that sometimes take place, and when all verbal communication is at a standstill, there’s very little one can do in any department.

    I completely agree with you that respect is a core part of all the actions, however, when communication basically consists of the wife obeying orders, including the order to remain quiet, what do you do then? There is not much one can do, and the wife learns to keep everything to herself. And slowly the wall builds, until it is so thick the force of an atomic bomb couldn’t break it down, and once their children are gone, there is nothing left that they share at all. I would dare say that even by that time, the husbands do realize at last that they have grown old and lonely alone, and begin to regret many of the actions they took in previous years, especially when they are finally in their eighties and realize the wife of their youth is not only a total stranger, but doesn’t even care to really be around them.

    These are simply thoughts from someone who has seen — plenty. I’ve seen good and bad, and sometimes heartwrenching bad. Please accept this in the spirit in which it is written because it is meant kindly.

  84. Looking Glass says:

    I read Cane’s post (and the comments) after they were linked and was thinking about it, before I saw the responses here.

    I think we the part we miss with Respect is that the actual, practical functions of it runs headlong into Sin & Solipsism for Women. Which means it’s always a War to fight off those impulses. But we can see what happens when Respect is lost: Honor, Dignity and Love (all forms) disappear.

    This is why the first issue is never the Husband or the Wife: it’s the person’s relationship with the God of Creation. We have this little, slightly important thing called the “Spirit of the Lord” that dwells within us. You know, that voice that challenges your Sin, gives you advice and leads you in God’s Will? That thing that’s missed, I just realized, in every single version of this discussion. When you’re missing one third of the Living God, that’s the place where things start to go wrong.

    If resolution doesn’t start in the Spirit, you’re just trying to find passages to hang onto as some perfect guide, while ignoring the Voice of the Lord that is speaking to you. (Try reading passages out loud for a while, you’ll start to know what that means, eventually.) It’s the exact same form of Childishness, just applied to reading the text. I’ve only ever met a few people that speaking to them respectfully can’t at least address a problem. And in those cases, you know what the biggest issue is? Emotionally holding onto perceived injury.

    But I find it fitting that I’m typing about this on Palm Sunday. Christ rode into Jerusalem with everyone else expecting him to become the new King. Yet the Lord knew that in less than a week, he would be dead. He was being honored, praised and respected by the people. Look how long that lasted. Even his best friends would abandon him. We all, when pushed, will want to reject God and hold onto things that matter little. Yet that is where the War inside every person begins. How you handle that War is going to dictate how you handle everything else.

  85. thedeti says:

    MitS, Mar 27, 7:50 PM

    Honestly, are the men in your church unmitigated tyrants? Why do you women put up with it?

    I find stories like this very difficult to believe. In today’s America, any married man who acted like that would be divorced, imprisoned, or both.

  86. thedeti says:

    “and the husbands just.don’t.want.to.hear.it… Period.”

    This is not a manosphere problem. This is not a problem with men who come to the manosphere with imploding or failed marriages. This is not a problem with men who come to the manosphere to learn how to have relationships with women.

    DS touched on this. The problem with the vast, vast majority of men in today’s America is not that they are overbearing, cruel or demanding. The problem is that they are not demanding ENOUGH of the women in their lives. The problem is that they listen and respond TOO MUCH to the women in their lives. The problem is that they have so little self respect and are so thirsty they will tolerate cruel, mean and abusive behavior from their WOMEN. It is mostly WOMEN who are abusing MEN, not the other way around.

    Most men who have imploding or failed marriages have them because they do not expect ENOUGH from their wives. Most men with imploding or failing marriages have them because they are not standing up for themselves ENOUGH. Most men who fail in relationships with women do so because they don’t have ENOUGH backbone and self-respect.

    I suppose tyrannical husbands and overworked wives is a thing in places. It’s just not a problem we in the manosphere deal with. We have enough to deal with, what with most men’s complete inability to lead even themselves, much less a wife and children. In my view, this is a far worse and more widespread problem than the occasional overbearing husband.

  87. Deti,

    I am sorry you are in so much suffering. However, never did I accuse the individuals I mentioned of any crime — while they may be sins, they are not crimes in the eyes of the law, so to claim that such individuals would be imprisoned is very erroneous. Also, the women in question would never for a moment consider such a thing as divorce. I have said this before, and it is pointless to say it again. We are beating a dead horse and it is going around, around, around, with nothing being accomplished. If the purpose of this exchange is a meeting of the minds, then it is pointless, because you continue to rehash the same things over and over (granted, I have done the same) with no conviction that any other viewpoint or experience has validity.

    I can offer you only prayer and the hope that the Holy Spirit will grant you His consolations, as He surely will do for all who suffer in righteousness. Through the eyes of faith we know that our sufferings on earth are never overlooked by the Almighty, and that is an encouraging thought. And, since this is Holy Week, and we have the opportunity to contemplate the Ultimate Act of Love on the Cross, we all have the chance to unite our own sufferings to those of Our Lord, with the hope in participating in His glorious Resurrection at the end of time.

    Since this is a topic that seems rife with so much dissension and ruffled feathers, I’d like to offer this thought: http://momintheshoe.blogspot.com/2015/03/holy-week-reflection-on-unity-and.html — and wish all of you a blessed Holy Week.

  88. thedeti says:

    MItS:

    I too am sorry you are in so much pain as well. It’s clear you’re writing from a place of personal suffering. I offer you my sincere prayers as well.

  89. Looking Glass says:

    Respect requires Humility. It finally dawned on me that is the entire AWALT problem, wrapped into one “big idea”. Humility and Vanity are opposites, which is where it all starts from.

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