The HIP way to hell

Hell. Do I mean that literally or figuratively? Most likely figuratively. Everyday I see pictures of this figurative hell. It’s the smiling face of the grey and balding father, bent down sharing a totally planned and choreographed “joy filled” moment with his progeny. Selfies….with little Colyn. The two hours at the park were blocked out on Google calendar. They made the most of them.

This table from the Atlantic article How to Save Marriage in America set me thinking on this. The HIP marriage. High Investment Parenting. It is everything it shouldn’t be.

Three MarriagesIn the pages of the another periodical, linked from the Atlantic article you find an article about how those in egalitarian marriages are happier but have lower frequency sex lives. And why.

In the same periodical, interestingly, I found this article eschewing The Overprotected Kid.

Finally, a quick Google will get you all you need to know about the only actual bonafide statistical connection between anything causal, and the incidence of autism. The ages of the mother and/or father at conception¹. Today, go to a park near your home and see how many people heeded those warnings.

Life now depends on cognitive dissonance. This may be simply because we have too stinkin’ much information.

The point of the piece on saving marriage was that these HIP style unions were lasting longer. Christians have jumped headfirst into this as much as anyone. The evidence is all across the blogosphere, even the manosphere.

People don’t change much. We’ve been handed, for a generation, the keys to our societies. And nothing ever seems good enough. A little bit of something being good means full bore sold out must be better. I heard a study spoken of on radio the other day showing a new empirical link between running more than 25 miles per week and likelihood of early death. A little jogging is good. Therefore running 10 miles a day Monday – Friday and 50 miles on weekends, better. Not so much.

So much more so with parenting. In The Over Protected Kid the writer cites some statistics that show no marked increase in various risks to children from doing things that, today, could result in having your child taken away. It also shows that, for example, the rubberization of play grounds has resulted in no decrease in frequency or severity of playground injuries. Try selling these facts to millennial moms and dads at the next elementary school function. Eyes will look like glazed donuts.

My version of this figurative hell has people stuck in ever escalating efforts to perfect things that are not perfectible. The difference is, in this figurative hell they KNOW they cannot perfect the things yet are compelled to keep trying. They live an exercise in futility. You know the expression “hell on earth”. Looks like we found a HIP way to get there.

“Empath, you don’t have any answers. You just sit and take pot shots at people trying to do the best they can with the information they have available.”

Exactly correct. I do not have any answers. I manage my ignorance*. I manage it by not wearing myself out asking questions, the answers to which would force me to accept contradictions by rote in an effort to make me feel that I am expending an appropriate amount of effort seeking them.

There is no saving of marriage in tables and lists. There is no true protection of children in padding and rules and activities.

*Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ

2 Cor 10:5

¹Now they are even running with blaming men for the age correlation to autism. No surpirse that a Scandinavian study disputes its mom’s fault, its actually old dads causing the problem.

How do I rationalize divorce? How do I discourage cohabitation?

May I count the ways.

In terms of rationalizing divorce, the following scripture comes to mind. I hear and read women using various paraphrases of it as part of their divorce narrative. The thing about this scripture is that uniquely the church and the secular world align perfectly in supporting the poor dears as they finally discover this truth. How often can we say that some scriptural truth is so widely adopted? Not very.

As you read this, imagine the strength indwelling you that you didn’t know you had. Imagine the self-esteem issues you have manufactured in your own mind becoming distant memories. Hold your head high, breath a deep cleansing breath, and cling to these words:

“Sometimes walking away has nothing do with weakness, and everything to do with strength. We walk away not because we want others to realize our worth and value, but because we finally realize our own.”

You will find this in the book of Robert Tew. What? Not scripture? Your bible omits that book? Maybe its just a quote from some guy. What do I know? It ought to be there. in some book. 

Would it not be better to avoid divorce altogether? I know, that’s a tough question but try to weigh it objectively. How would you go about lowering the rate of divorce?

You could list off all the statistics about how bad it is for kids and adults alike, social pathologies, suicides, poverty, to mention a few things that increase with more frequent divorces. Not compelling? You are probably right.

Maybe take a look at some causes for divorce? Then advise against doing these things? Take for example cohabitation. Recently a study was released that claims to show how cohabitation is not linked to higher divorce likelihood. Evangelicals have invested lots of resources into the idea that cohabitation is a huge divorce predictor. Why would they do that? Because it gives them a way to seem to be against divorce and to even be taking a stand on something that they claim causes divorce, without really acknowledging the Jabba the Hut in the room.

Family Life didn’t wait long to react to the mainstream medias celebration of a study claiming that cohabitation is hunky dory. In todays email they get their own expert,Scott Stanley, a research professor at the University of Denver  to write a rebuttal which includes the following list:

  • Serial cohabitation is associated with greater risk for divorce. In this context, serial cohabitation means living with more than one partner before marrying. Cohabitating with more than just the person you end up marrying is associated with poorer outcomes in marriage.
  • Cohabitating unions are less likely to end in marriage.
  • Cohabitatingwith your eventual mate before marriage or before having clear, mutual plans for marriage is associated with lower marital satisfaction in marriage and higher risk for divorce.
  • Cohabitating before having a mutual and clear intention to marry is on the rise.
  • The rate of unplanned pregnancies is much greater among unmarried, cohabitating women than it is among married women.
  • The transition into living together is associated with sharply increasing constrains of the sort that make it harder to break up, yet the kind of commitment (dedication) that is most strongly associated with happy, strong relationships levels off.
  • Having sex earlier in a relationship is associated with lower marital quality, partly because moving quickly to sex is associated with moving quickly to cohabitating.That is, for some couples, sex too soon leads to cohabitating too soon, which can lead to a poorer foundation for a marriage.

It’s interesting that they do the same thing here that they will not even do on divorce in general. They list out some human consequences for the behavior, in this case cohabitation. The problem is twofold:

One, none of these things really refute the study that diminishes the the point about cohabitation being linked to divorce. These bullets talk all around the matter, but avoid challenging the core assertion.

Two. Why Empath are you trying to argue in favor of cohabitation? Glad you asked. I’m not. Thats your feminised reading that whiplashes you to the extreme when you read anything that challenges something you’ve heard from the pulpit since you were a toddler.  The argument is a distraction anyway. Im simply saying that the reason cohabitation is bad is not that it leads to or doesnt lead to divorce. Its bad because its wrong because it is a sin. Outta be sufficient.

Same with divorce. The mealy mouthed approach to these things is an abject failure. What drives mealy-mouth-ism? Simple fear of the church attending partcipants in the thing being addressed. Once the fear of divorced people kept “divorce is sin” from passing pastor’s lips. Fear of divorced parents precludes pastor saying that kids are statistically less likely to thrive after divorce. Now, add fear of cohabitating couples and the fear of saying cohabitation is wrong.

Its an over all reluctance to just call it as it is. With biblical authority, which seems to be an authority rarely tapped into these days. The way to get your favorite sin off the church radar is to get lots of members doing it!

In this case, its better get a professor to write a list of true statements that have no bearing on the core argument. Once you accept the invitation to dance the dance of competing experts, you should expect to always be the follower in that dance. The only alternative dance, and one where you can lead the dance unequivocally, is the appeal to the authority of scripture.

But that is risky these days. Besides it would rob precious time and resources from all the advocacy efforts and boycotts of things that have to do with abortion, homosexuality, and Ashley Madison. These, the church and its compliment of multi divorced cohabitators can unite upon! Nothing assuages sin guilt like repentence and foregiveness highlighting bigger sins that are less common in the church body.


Goodness, it’s hole-some

Thanks to Patriactionary because I’m merely piggybacking on his post.

(Oh gosh, now I CANT SAY ANYTHING!!!! lest the imp of entendre rise up)

Nabisco. I’d like to make a red pill comment but so many self described red pill men are humanists (ahem, cough, AVFM, cough) that I cannot sort that way. But Nabisco is doing some sorting. Customer sorting.

The money quote is :

“No matter how things change, what makes us wholesome never will,” the voiceover states. “Honey Maid: Everyday wholesome snacks for every wholesome family. This is wholesome.”

I’m not a big boycott guy, mainly because I am a bit of an obsessive purist which to me would preclude my buying anything from anyone. (One of the reasons I don’t follow the GFOFHAVV herds) It would drive me bat crap nutty.


God is not be dead, and neither are harpies

Last night we went to see the movie “God’s Not Dead”.

Yes it is B+ quality. It is predictable. It is cliche. The debate scenes were not sophomoric, nor were they spectacularly nuanced or overtly clever. There were some gotcha lines that even though you could see them coming were effective and drew some applause in the theatre. In some cases it is over acted. It is pop culture churchianity friendly. But doggonit it was not half bad. In fact, it was pretty darn good in my opinion.

One could spend time showcasing spiritual knowledge superioritry, poking holes in the plot line or the acting, or if you are like me, lamenting two things in particular….the goofy appearance of one of the Duck Dynasty guys,  and the call at the end of the movie for everyone to, like one of those email chain letters, text “God’s not dead” to everyone in their address book. And I wanted to. I wanted to lump it with Kendrick Bros movies and blast it. But I can’t. Just because something is simple doesnt make it another Fireproof.

In fact the movie has some raw gender truth in it. The protagonist, a young male college freshman, must choose between an easy A, for declaring God is dead in his philosophy class, or, ultimately because of the ire of the professor, risk not getting into law school. His girlfriend, a relationship formed by “the collision of their youth groups” declares that every decision he makes is about THEM, and his playing with fire about law school acceptance (which she will attend along with him) is not to be risked with the folly of him debating a philosophy professor. She demands he sign the God is dead paper and move on.

He doesn’t sign it. She moves on. I liked the way they portrayed it. Well, I liked THAT they portrayed it period.

There were some episodic outbreaks of excellent acting. When one of the secondary but main-ish characters is alone digesting her cancer diagnosis her acting, in anguish, was exceptional. Not an easy scene to pull off. However, the other acting  bookend was Dean Dain, who is ubiquitous on the Christian cable stations low budget productions. I cannot believe he once played Superman in a relatively popular series take on that character.

I found no ingredients in the movie that would be contra-indicated with red pill medicating. For what it’s worth, aside from the pop Christian culture stuff, which wasn’t overwhelming, it was a good movie for Christians. I doubt it changes the world. But it was a pretty solid feel good movie, safe, clean and inoffensive.



Legalism and Game.

I grew up in a legalistic Church. Think Amish with cars. The rulebook for how to operate in this “fellowship” wordwise was somewhere in the vicinity of Atlas Shrugged. The elders had met over the years and decided upon the propriety of everything from bicycles to how to best hold up your pants and whether photography was “the debil”. Higher education was frowned upon and there was no doubt when the wifely submission verses came up they were NOT glossed over. I’ve really put a lot of my life into realizing what was wrong with all of this. While the rules would always be justified and many made a lot of sense they are reactionary. Worship songs were sung at Alvin and the Chipmunks recording speed in a capella because over 100 years prior people had danced to their singing. Plain was the watchword. They needed a preformatted answer to EVERY situation and the “right” answer could very easily be right because it was the opposite of what everyone else was doing. In short, they reacted to EVERYTHING. (I never joined that church to the dismay of many parents whose sons and daughters looked up to me).

It dawns on me that strict adherence to Game can be very similar. I’ve been reading Dalrock for a couple of years now and seen the pro and anti game arguments and have had something like a pragmatic ambivalence. I’ve been chided for making game-like or even white knight type correlations between a husbands good behavior and a positive outcome on the marriage front and I am better seeing why that is happening. My faith can easily be regarded as determinism, that if you follow the rules that nothing bad will happen. I know better. Tight game AND/OR epic feats of white knightery do not automatically result in a good marriage (quite the contrary); as I have stated even perfect obedience to God is often insufficient to keep a relationship together (Jesus and Judas). Here is the rub as I see it, having an understanding of hypergamy and the basic understanding of human nature is a useful tool as is having all of the verses which tell us to love our wives as Christ loves the Church memorized. The application of those tools is a field where many problems arise.

I suggest that game and white knightery are two sides of the same reactionary coin. They are both the feeble efforts of men trying to take control of an uncontrollable situation. The white knight supposes that he has a Godly blueprint for success with the opposite gender and that all he needs to do is more zealously apply himself to make the system work, following the rules and pressing harder will surely reap success. The gamer supposes that he understands the flesh nature of women and goes about trying to work it to his advantage and like the cocaine addicted monkey he thinks that as long as he keeps pressing the “right” button he will be assured game success. Both of these positions are in an orbit around women, not as it should be centering on God. We seek a rulebook like those plain folks of my youth to evade the facts, we don’t want to hear from God and we want to pretend we can handle it in bite size rules.

Turning to a rulebook to guide us in human relations is a mistake just as turning to God with a rulebook is. Yes, there are rules, but if they define the entirety of our interaction then we have NO relationship. Never fail a fitness test. Display higher value. Utilize preselection. Those can be rules that replace relationship, I’ve even seen this advocated (Don’t share your day to day struggles with your wife). This type of legalism can feel like it has all the answers, a solution for every problem, in our wives the appropriate reaction to every display of fitness testing, in the case of God a way to measure up in our own strength:

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(Mat 15:8-9)


Rules don’t replace relationship. That was one of the biggest lessons the plain folks taught me. Does my wife have a sin nature, exhibit hypergamy, test my fitness? Of course and it’s good for me to see that dynamic. Do I want to systematize my interactions with her? To turn my responses into a static “defense”? Absolutely not. I want to relate with her and that is the interaction that is under attack by Satan and his minions in the feminist movement.

If we are not careful we will be pushed into two reactionary tracks in response to this attack. I reiterate, game and man-up. The third way is God, who understands the sinful nature that we are fighting in ourselves and in our wives better than we do, He knows the plans and schemes of feminists and He knows how to beat them before they even show up. God is neither reactionary nor static.

I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
(Php 4:12-14)


Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(2Co 3:5-7)


Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
(Mat 11:28-30)


It’s all about relationship. We turn to Jesus, and that life under His yoke becomes an organic way of dealing with feminism, our wives and each other (without pulling out a volume that rivals “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” for verbosity.) It’s no guarantee of marital success, but in my estimation it is far superior to the rulebook.

I have an analogy that I go to when discussing relationship. Jesus described Himself as “the way”, so I cannot claim originality with this picture.  I have a road map and a set of rules for operating my car, I can use them to envision a trip to Anchorage. For some people this seems like enough, they have the directions, the rules. I want to drive to Anchorage (rarely, but you get the point). I want to go there and interact (buy stuff). I want to enjoy the mountains on the drive. I have to get in the car and apply myself, understand the directions yes, but the trip is always about more than the directions in practice while not in theory. One is rules, the other about experience.

It’s all about relationship.

In Favour of Divorce

I was trying to get myself geared up to write about Ephesians 5, but I have not been inspired about it. I saw yet another argument about sex within marriage about the Corinthians verses

This is what one version of the Bible says on the matter:

Now I will answer the questions that you asked in your letter. You asked, “Is it best for people not to marry?”[a] Well, having your own husband or wife should keep you from doing something immoral. Husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex. A wife belongs to her husband instead of to herself, and a husband belongs to his wife instead of to himself. So don’t refuse sex to each other, unless you agree not to have sex for a little while, in order to spend time in prayer. Then Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control. In my opinion that is what should be done, though I don’t know of anything the Lord said about this matter. I wish that all of you were like me, but God has given different gifts to each of us.


This strikes me as being a simple set of verses, talking about how sex in marriage is about cooperation, and one party simply saying “I have a low libido” is not really good enough. You’d still have to work out some kind of compromise, some kind of understanding. But typically the default CF position was “why can’t the high libido person defer to the low libido person?”

Personally, this may sound shocking in the face of what the rest of that chapter says, but I honestly think that one of the things I would consider in future–whether I would do it or not is another thing but I would certainly wonder if it would be a good idea–would be to divorce a woman who takes up the position that a couple’s sex life is predicated on her moods and feelings, not on what the couple comes to agreement about.

I am in favour of divorce as a contingency. Just as I am in favour of war as a contingency. I think that Christians who talk of marriage dislike having this contingency, but it exists, and I think that men today need to be prepared for it rather than hoping it won’t happen. Women in our culture as far as we can tell divorce when they feel unhappy in their marriages, so it would be foolish to not be ready for that. Trying to make preparations so it won’t happen–the odds are that it WILL happen, and that we men lack information about why it will on a case by case basis. Women seem to have a tendency, in our culture, to marry for reasons outside of will driven choice. They marry because it is expected, because their mood at the time told them to, or whatever the case might be, they expected that their husband would become the man of their fantasies by magic–well disillusionment arrives and they divorce.

So men should be ready for it. We should be ready for it like the Apostles were ready to be rejected as Christ was–and ready to dust off their sandals and move on. I think that that readiness might also make men a bit more thoughtful about who they marry, and might make them more ready to confront bad behaviour from women early.

Her demon, and your prayers

I cannot let go of this topic. I realized this evening that my forays into that subject prior to the filler “Random” post (here and here) were not complete. I didn’t come to this realization on my own. Rather, like so many daily red pill awakenings, I was nudged into another aspect of the topic by a Family Life Moments with You called “With Friends like That”.

Dennis Rainey recounts a story his colleague Bob Lepine shared.

As Bob Lepine, my cohost on FamilyLife Today, was leaving for work one morning, he put his arm around his wife and prayed, “Lord, I ask that You would stretch Mary Ann today, that You would challenge her spiritually and cause her to grow in the image of Christ.”

And when he “amen”-ed his way to a close, Mary Ann looked back at him and said, “Would you mind just praying that I’d have a nice day and that the kids would behave?”

This is one that requires some explaining because the issue is just not obvious. Is there anything wrong with what Mrs. Lepine did? Nope. Is it fine to ask someone to pray specifically for you? Nope. Then whats the problem Empath?

The problem is not with the exchange. To their credit the article goes on to state that we must pray hard prayers over our spouses and loved ones even if those hard prayers are not FOR something the person is wanting or thinking they need.

The problem is revealed here:

Even though I can certainly sympathize with Mary Ann, I also recognize how important it is to pray for my wife to grow spiritually — even if it requires asking for a little “stretching” to occur. The key is to know her and to be tuned in to her truest, deepest needs.

Regardless the differences spherians have about the term Feminine Imperative, I’m going to invoke it here. Do you see how the bold part (my emphasis) plays into it?

On balance I like the tone Rainey takes in this article in that he presses ahead stating the as husbands we should be praying for the needs she needs instead of the needs she wants. This little get-out-the-door prayer is not where the rubber meets the road on this though.

The problem is, what about the constant insistence that husbands and wives pray together? Is the woman not evaluating those prayers and wondering why the man is not praying for the same things she is regarding herself? The woman is also thinking “bucko, YOU need to be praying for ____________ after that incident last week” Insert “patience” or some other character trait she wishes he had more of.

Its not just in sharing our day that we men find land mines. Its when we pray with our wives. Its when we need to pray for strength and resolve in the face of male temptation, to choose an easy example, that we may TRULY need to pour out our deepest thoughts. Whats the demon say then?

Even in everyday things, is the demon not going to want to ridicule the man’s prayers? Is the wife not sometimes going to give in to that and speak it? And when she does, would that not be an appropriate space for some serious spiritual warfare rebuking the Jezebel? Anyone care to g’head and try all this and report back the results? If so, maybe we can get some advice from Family Life on how to handle the problems that arise.

Or, like most men actually do, is it not safer to pray mundane things when praying together and save the real stuff for your alone quiet time? Is that the right thing to do?

Random Stuff

In August of 2012 Cane Caldo exploded into the manosphere with what was, as far as I know, the first guest post at Dalrock. I had been seeing evidence of Cane’s presence for a few months prior to his guest post in various comboxes. he may have been around for ten years before August of 2012. I just didn’t know it.

One thing about Cane is you can’t ignore him. He is known to be where he is…know what i mean? Not important, this isn’t a psychoanalysis of anyone.

I think Ive mentioned seeing a Dalrock post back when he first started, liking it, but being unable to recall his blog’s name. It was two or three years later when I started consistently reading and commenting there. Dalrock’s even temperament doesn’t normally coexist in someone who can make an analysis with specificity, detail, rigor and yet always readable.  Those things do not often coexist in the same person. But this is not an analysis of Dalrock either.

Over the last couple of days I opened Cane’s and Dalrock’s blogs, respectively, during separate internet sessions, and found that both of them are away, both have disabled comments, and both will be back soon.

I can’t hold back my revelation any longer. Folks………………………………………

Cane and Dalrock are the same person!


Do you ever notice strange things about some song lyrics decades after the song was popular in your youth or early adulthood. Have you noticed, too, that things you found profound 30 years ago are pedestrian now? Finally things that we may have missed back then are clear now.

True randomness….I was getting something from a shelf in my closet. A CD jewel box fell from the very top and landed on the floor. It was a John Cougar Mellencamp CD. More randomness, did he get his name hyphenated? I know a man who hyphenated his name along with his wife. So he was John Smith Jones, and she was Jane Jones Smith. Ground breakers….that was in the 80′s.

On the CD that fell there is a fairly well known song called “Jackie Brown”. In it Cougar sings:

What ugly truths freedom brings
And it hasn’t been very kind to you.

Is this a reference to race? I doubt an Indiana white boy is singing about slavery, but if he is a liberal , liberals cannot get enough attention trying to make slavery their issue. Lets peal off into more randomness… This is why you hear movie stars blathering on and on that they “advocate” for Africa. What does that even MEAN anyway? Advocate is a word with real utility in a few cases. Lawyers,a  medical ethicist, perhaps a lobbyist …but these are paid advocates. Apparently even I can be an advocate. I can even advocate for Africa. Now….is it not absurd to say one is an advocate foe an entire continent? Can something tangible be accomplished? Of course not. But only meanies are not advocates for Africa. I’m a meany. Back the lyrics.

If its not white guilt manifested, the more likely meaning is more disturbing and frankly stupid. Its a bleeding heart cry that under “freedom” some people don’t do as well as others. So we animate “freedom” and make it unkind. Its not hard to figure what would be kind then is it?

Last random thing. Its a wonder women are not robbed or accosted more often. Bless their precious hearts, they have almost no spacial awareness. Do this. Take a cart and walk the aisles of a grocer. Come across a woman furrowing at a can of soup. Her vision can be as little as 45 degrees to your line of approach. Well inside her range of vision, not her peripheral, rather her direct vision. When your cart is 1 inch from her hips she MAY look very surprised and move. More likely you will still have to ask. How do they make it through a day like that? Simple. men do what we are supposed to. We graciously accommodate and we protect. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

Its a stretch to call this a post. But I’m advocating exactly that.









A Reblog and A rant (not about GFOFHAVV)

Rookie writer was one of the gang at CF back in the day. He has been pretty open about issues in his relationship and subsequent marriage over 4 years or so, if I recall correctly.

I made my last comment after my prior post just before reading the post linked below. The specifics are going to differ, but most men will relate to this at one point or another in their marriages.

After Years of disrespect its hard to believe you are going to change

One thing he said stood out to me:

To make a long story short, I am not as open as I was at the beginning of the marriage because I don’t trust her with my heart.

Funny isn’t it that while they berate men about her need for security, I wager that more men walk on eggshells than women.

Its a different kind of example, but I have one in particular from my own life. My wife has always been a bit opinionated about medications. I’m not referring to narcotic medications here, by the way. I am referring to pretty much any medication that is beyond a general antibiotic. The grilling I, or now my young adult kids take if they bring home a prescription for almost anything is not something anyone really wants to hear. This is not a situation where she prefers natural remedies, that would be a niche complaint. It comes from some deep suspicion or something that I cannot really figure out. Maybe it should have been obvious when I first encountered the extended family over 20 years ago how freely they assigned the label “addict” or “alcoholic” to people, who once I got to know them were anything but. Just a theory.

I recall eventually just deciding not to tell her, even if I’d visited a physician. I’d place medications where all the medications are, not hidden, and wait for the day when first an innocent question would come coupled with “why didn’t you tell me?”. She would be very non-judgemental for a couple of weeks then start nagging about it. She needed to speak to the Dr. She thinks its unnecessary. She feels the dosage is wrong. Whatever. And again, we are not talking about narcotics.

Eventually it led me and my older adult aged kids to just avoid the matter by not keeping medicines in the open. It happened recently. Between the time she innocently discovered a medication had been prescribed, and the time the lecturing set in, a couple of months passed. But it always happens. Again, to be clear, this is not my favorite issue about natural remedies. Has nothing to do with this. It is something else entirely. Besides, I’m using this as an example only, not to start a topic about medication. Its an example of the nature of a problem that I wager men will almost all relate to on some level. That being facing a decision about “what she doesn’t know will not hurt her” on certain things.

On the one hand she (generic she) wants to feel secure telling you anything and you’d dang well not be judgmental, in fact you best not have much at all to say except platitudes like “I understand why you feel that way”. She also expects you are going to tell her every detail of every day, according to Jimmy Evans. But she is not only not constrained in how she responds, she is ENCOURAGED by these ministries to be the holy spirit of the house (whatever that needs to mean at the moment) and set some guardrails for you. Its simple but never stated plainly. they want you to tell her everything because they want her to approve or disapprove everything. Only then can we know that it is good, that we have made a good decision. This is true servant leadership in this twisted evangelical feminist world of modern Christian marriage.

This is what men ought to be able to discuss with each other in church men’s gatherings. And the men should not have to endure a lecture about more sacrifice and more service and how that will sort this out.

What will sort this out is when the irresistible force of a woman’s will meets the immovable object of God’s conviction. Short of that, no, do not expect men to share every single detail of every day because frankly, she is ill equipped to handle the information.

Journey to the far side of the sun

The movie Doppelgänger, was released in 1969 in the U.S. with the title “Journey to the far side of the sun”.

In the film, a joint European-NASA mission to investigate a planet in a position parallel to Earth, behind the Sun, ends in disaster with the death of one of the astronauts (Hendry). His colleague (Thinnes) discovers that the planet is a mirror image of Earth.

Every time I get one of these marriage emails I wonder if what I see in the mirror is view into a world somewhere else that is exactly backwards of ours. I’m back on Jimmy Evans again, to start a new week. Today’s message is “A wife’s most important needs” (the link is to their home page).

The needs are:


Women feel most secure in an environment where they are married to a sacrificial, sensitive man who loves her like Christ loved the church (see Ephesians 5).

Ive looked at Ephesians 5 a few times….I cannot even play one of those scrambled letter games and come up with “sensitive”. I know where they come up with “sacrificial”. Simply, Jesus. Of course. So, how does Evans say Jesus modeled behavior for husbands?

secure wives have husbands who say “You come before me, and you’ll never have to nag. You’ll never have to beg. Tell me once, and you’ll get it.” He sacrifices to meet her needs the same way Jesus sacrificed himself for us. [emphasis mine]

Would it be OK then if the overwhelmed husband told everyone to leave him alone while he went away out in the back yard and screamed,  “please take this cup-cake away from me!”?

Seriously. She needn’t ask again, she gets it the first time? Is it just me or is this escalating?

a husband who refuses to make her nag or beg—especially when it comes to romance. Being romantic by sending flowers or cards tells her that she is on your heart.

Flowers and cards. I’m starting to think frankincense and myrrh were picked up and Yigal’s Hallmark on the way into town, as much as these ministries seem to think they grease the skids of romance like nothing else. Most men seem to agree with me that if I started carding and flowering my wife as instructed it would get a reaction alright. “You realize you are gonna have to get all this to the curb on Wednesday right?”

Non-sexual touch

I had to learn to be affectionate with Karen…without groping or pinching. It didn’t come natural to me, but I finally understood affection was tremendously important to her. I had to change. When I changed, it changed our marriage.

Jimmy, not sure what to tell ya. If you were pinching and groping, well, yea, discontinuance is a marriage changer. It would also be advisable to stop poking, snapping her bra strap, giving her wedgies, tickling her, licking your finger and sticking it in her ears, pulling her hair, and loosening the salt shaker lid for a fit of maniacal laughter when she ruins another ear of corn.

Open and Honest Communication

After work, when she asks her husband about his day, she doesn’t want headlines. She doesn’t want grunts or groans. She wants details.

Peaceful Wife has an old post called “My Demon”, written by a guest. If most women were self aware and honest enough to admit it, what the writer describes there is what the wife is after with these demands for daily details. She explains that she was compelled to find issues with her husband, that she was compelled to reinforce her spiritual superiority and his fallibleness compared to hers. She was compelled to condemn and to nag…ultimately to fix him.

A quick poll of friends open enough to share confirmed for her that this demon seems to be camped out in married women. Keep that in mind when you read about this craving for open communication and then see the following…

This one is tricky. This pastor openly communicated to his wife that he’d had an affair in the past and sought her forgiveness. The media grabbed the story and reported it as him dying after willfully confessing to his flock. A few outlets got the story correct. he had confessed it to his wife. SHE, while he was not present, told the congregation herself, then when the pastor walked in she told him in front of them, “tell them what you told me”. his son punched him, his daughter berated him, his congregation yelled they forgave him, and he dropped dead on the spot.

Peaceful Wife’s husband “Respected Husband” wrote “The voice in his head” as a sort of bookend to her demon post. A quick poll of men found that we agree with what he said about the nature of thoughts flying through our heads and why we DO NOT want to lay it all out there daily.

Do you see bad synergy? Does the craving for communication, while certainly not always for nefarious reasons, take on a different flavor? Can you see how these main marriage ministries and the slant they operate with actually ministers to both men and women in a manner opposite of how the genders respectively need to be ministered to?

Lastly, Leadership

This doesn’t mean she wants to be dominated. She wants to be treated as an equal, but she also want her husband to be the loving initiator of the home when it comes to the children, romance, finances, and spiritual matters.              [ emphasis mine]

Look back at the first one. Security.

“Tell me once, and you’ll get it.”

Yessir, that’s leadership.

And if you don’t get this right ….

you’ll be sitting in a parked car on your old cul de sac, listening to the clinking of the cooling engine in the pickup truck that just parked in front of your old house, watching as your kids are tucked in one by one, and the ground floor lights switched off, leaving only the lamp in the master suite casting silhouettes, your fingers idly thumping the stack of Christian man-up books your pastor just gave you… you sing along with Sting…

That this is indifference
Was my invention
When everything I did
Sought your attention

You were my compass star
You were my measure
You were a pirate’s map
Of buried treasure

If this was all correct
The last thing I’d expect
The prosecution rests
It’s time that I confessed
I must have loved you

Man if that doesn’t piss you you are cold.